[Peace-discuss] Raimondo more credible than flacks for the Democrats

[Stuart Levy]

On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 06:05:14PM -0500, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> Bob can't attack Raimondo's exposure of the "liberals rally[ing] 'round 
> Obama's war," because Raimondo is obviously correct.  So he has to claim 
> that Raimondo is not a "real journalist."  --CGE


Bob pointed out that Raimundo was making an incorrect, easily checkable,
disparaging comment about a significant peace group who are
taking substantive action on exactly the issue where Raimundo argues
that action is needed -- opposing US pursuit of war in Afghanistan.

This doesn't mean that Bob thinks that no action is needed.
I think he is pointing out that Raimundo needs to get his facts right,
if he claims to be describing the deficiencies of the US peace movement.


> Morton K. Brussel wrote:
>> I think it unfortunate and unjust to say that Naiman is "swallowing …the 
>> liberal pro-war camel". What is the evidence?
>> There is little doubt that Iraq antiwar groups/organizations have been 
>> split on the AfPac invasions/occupations. Peace-Action and UFPJ have been 
>> pretty consistently against the moves by the Obama administration on that 
>> issue, among others. Even /The Nation/.
>> For some reason, some perversely are prone to condemn the whole "antiwar 
>> movement " for reasons not clear to me, except perhaps because of 
>> frustration for being unable to stop, or even slow, the course of war and 
>> empire. Due to conspiracy? Lack of militancy? Fatigue? Lack of money and 
>> organization? It is difficult to know what the originally anti-war public 
>> is thinking now, despite all the mainstream fear-mongering about Al 
>> Quaeda. The polls seem ambiguous. I would guess that outfits like Move-On 
>> and other fellow travelers for more military action in 
>> Afghanistan/Pakistan are losing adherents, and are worried; hence the 
>> effort of the administration's friends to roll out new propaganda 
>> campaigns.  It is also understandable, if deplorable, that so many are 
>> hesitant to criticize Obama, given their support for him in the election, 
>> and their relief that the Bush regime is, in many respects,  over. --mkb
>> On Apr 10, 2009, at 4:30 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>>> You're purposely straining at the Peace Action gnat to cover your 
>>> swallowing of
>>> the liberal pro-war camel.  Peace Action's behavior was a small sidelight 
>>> to
>>> what Raimondo was writing about: you choose to ignore his point, for 
>>> obvious reasons.
>>>
>>> Discussing "antiwar groups [who] are not toeing the 
>>> Afghanistan-is-a-war-of-necessity line," he mentions first Peace Action, 
>>> and says (accurately) that they are "not making a whole lot of noise 
>>> about this." That's true: not even many readers of this list knew what 
>>> Peace Action's position was.
>>>
>>> It's a sign of desperation to try to charge Raimondo with not doing "any 
>>> investigation before he writes" -- because, of course, you can't refute 
>>> what he says about CAP, etc.  As anyone who reads his frequent columns 
>>> knows, his accounts are consistently more trustworthy than those of 
>>> liberal war-supporters who cry up the administration's "encouraging 
>>> signals ... with respect to Afghanistan and Pakistan."  Right.
>>>
>>> I don't in fact share an ideological position with Raimondo, as you well 
>>> know
>>> (not that it matters).  But his account is more accurate than that of, 
>>> say, those who supported the Democrats' war-funding bills.  We used to 
>>> speak of "labor-fakers," who claimed to support labor and didn't. Now I 
>>> suppose we should speak of "peace-fakers."  --CGE
>>>
>>>
>>> Robert Naiman wrote:
>>>> You wrote:
>>>>> Peace Action does seem to be an honorable exception to the sordid 
>>>>> record
>>>>> that Raimondo describes.  But his comment on Peace Action seems 
>>>>> strictly
>>>>> accurate, if not fulsome.  It's quite true that "Peace Action is not
>>>>> making a whole lot of noise about this, in spite of the issue’s 
>>>>> relative
>>>>> importance. They are confining their opposition to an online petition."
>>>>> Some "accusation."
>>>> But Peace Action is not "confining their opposition to an online 
>>>> petition,"
>>>> and anyone that bothered to talk to any of the national organizations 
>>>> working
>>>> on Afghanistan would know that. That's my point - you can't trust what
>>>> Raimondo writes, because he clearly doesn't do any investigation before 
>>>> he
>>>> writes. You seem to judge him according to whether what he says conforms 
>>>> with
>>>> your ideological predispositions, not according to whether what he 
>>>> writes is
>>>> true.
>>>> On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 12:58 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu 
>>>> <mailto:galliher at illinois.edu>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> I suppose Raimondo is here denied the title "real journalist" because 
>>>>> of
>>>>> his inability to find those oh-so-hard-to-see "encouraging signals" 
>>>>> from
>>>>> the administration "with respect to Afghanistan and Pakistan."  He sees
>>>>> instead what is the case -- Obama's policy is "more aggressive and 
>>>>> violent
>>>>> than Bush's," as Chomsky points out.
>>>>> As a principled rather than merely "pragmatic" opponent of the war,
>>>>> Raimondo is certainly right to say, "I am truly at a loss to describe, 
>>>>> in
>>>>> suitably pungent terms, the contempt in which I hold the 'progressive' 
>>>>> wing
>>>>> of the War Party, which is now enjoying its moment in the sun. These 
>>>>> people
>>>>> have no principles: it's all about power at the court of King Obama, 
>>>>> and
>>>>> these court policy wonks are good for nothing but apologias for the 
>>>>> king's
>>>>> wars."
>>>>> Propagandists for power like MoveOn and outright fakes like the 
>>>>> well-funded
>>>>> Astroturf campaign "Americans Against Escalation in Iraq" have been 
>>>>> around
>>>>> for a while.  The craven failure of "real journalists" to expose the
>>>>> nature of these front groups has been a great help in the Democrats' 
>>>>> (and
>>>>> Obama's) co-option of the anti-war movement -- while they remain in 
>>>>> fact
>>>>> quite pro-war.  Honest journalists might have pointed out what was
>>>>> happening -- as Raimondo did.
>>>>> Peace Action does seem to be an honorable exception to the sordid 
>>>>> record that Raimondo describes.  But his comment on Peace Action seems 
>>>>> strictly accurate, if not fulsome.  It's quite true that "Peace Action 
>>>>> is not making
>>>>> a whole lot of noise about this, in spite of the issue’s relative 
>>>>> importance. They are confining their opposition to an online petition."
>>>>> Some "accusation."
>>>>> It's also true but perhaps irrelevant to Raimondo's critique that Peace 
>>>>> Action proposes "ending the Iraq and Afghanistan occupations, 
>>>>> preventing a war on Iran, abolishing nuclear weapons and reducing the 
>>>>> military budget." His target is the soi-disant liberal groups who don't 
>>>>> hold those positions.
>>>>> Springing to the defense of "Peace Action," which was not condemned, is 
>>>>> perhaps a way of avoiding the accuracy of Raimondo's expose of the 
>>>>> liberal groups -- which so many "real journalists" continue to do.
>>>>> Chomsky says that when he wrote bout math, mathematicians wanted to 
>>>>> know if
>>>>> he got the right answer; when he wrote about history, historians wanted 
>>>>> to
>>>>> know where he got his degree. Similarly, when you write about
>>>>> 'progressive' warmongers, you're told you're not a "real journalist"...
>>>>> --CGE
>>>>> Robert Naiman wrote:
>>>>>> PKM is too nice to point out that a real journalist would have 
>>>>>> investigated before making this accusation against Peace Action.
>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: paul kawika martin 
>>>>>> [Peace Action] Date: Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 11:37 AM Subject: 
>>>>>> ‘Progressive’ Warmongers
>>>>>> I appreciate Mr. Raimondo writing about the left's response to 
>>>>>> Afghanistan. He states "Peace Action is not making a whole lot of 
>>>>>> noise
>>>>>> about this, in spite of the issue’s relative importance. They are
>>>>>> confining their opposition to an online petition."  I can see why one
>>>>>> might say that with a cursory look at our website.  We don't 
>>>>>> necessarily
>>>>>> publicize all of our work for various reasons.  For over 50 years 
>>>>>> Peace
>>>>>> Action has been opposing U.S. imperialism at nearly every turn despite
>>>>>> that the abolition of nuclear weapons was our founding issue.  While 
>>>>>> we
>>>>>> are not necessarily a pacifist organization, historically we have 
>>>>>> opposed
>>>>>> military action in places where others were silent such as Vietnam and
>>>>>> the Balkans.  Peace Action was one of the few organizations to
>>>>>> vociferously oppose invading Afghanistan in the first place. Since 
>>>>>> then,
>>>>>> we have continued to raise our voice on the issue, perhaps not as much 
>>>>>> as
>>>>>> we would have liked, as working to stop and end the occupation of 
>>>>>> Iraq,
>>>>>> prevent a war on Iran, thwart new nuclear weapons and reacting to a 
>>>>>> plethora of insane Bush policies has consumed scarce resources.  Some 
>>>>>> of our activists and colleagues have been to Afghanistan, have offices 
>>>>>> on
>>>>>> the ground and plan to go again to talk about the plight of Afghans 
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> to push for nonmilitary solutions. Being in the heart of the beast in
>>>>>> Washington, DC, this year Peace Action's national office has, with 
>>>>>> help
>>>>>> from other organizations, put together a list of nearly 60 leaders, 
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> held a meeting with 33 of them, to share resources and strategize the
>>>>>> best ways to change Afghanistan policy.  We have reached out to
>>>>>> conservative groups that agree with us like The CATO Institute.  We
>>>>>> organized 20 organizations to send a letter to congress asking them to
>>>>>> sign former presidential candidate, Rep. Ron Paul's (D-TX), letter to
>>>>>> President Obama asking him to reconsider escalation in Afghanistan.  
>>>>>> 15
>>>>>> Representatives signed the letter. We have been pressuring congress to
>>>>>> oppose the occupation; to go to Afghanistan and talk to diverse Afghan
>>>>>> voices and NGOs other than those pushed by the administration, the
>>>>>> Pentagon, the Dept. of State and the Afghan government; to ask the 
>>>>>> right
>>>>>> questions in hearings with the right witnesses; to stop or investigate
>>>>>> Air and Predator drone strikes and night raids that tend to kill and
>>>>>> traumatize innocent civilians; and provide more funding for Afghan-led 
>>>>>> humanitarian and development aid and for demining of the United 
>>>>>> States' and others' land mines and cluster munitions. Our affiliates 
>>>>>> and other
>>>>>> local groups have been pressuring congress too.  Additionally, they 
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> been protesting, holding vigils and educating the public on 
>>>>>> Afghanistan.
>>>>>> Our largest and most powerful affiliate, Peace Action West, has been
>>>>>> working with Robert Greenwald of Brave New Films, who recently 
>>>>>> returned
>>>>>> from Afghanistan, to speak out against escalation, pressure congress 
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> serious public hearings with progressive voices, publicize segments of
>>>>>> his upcoming documentary -- Rethink Afghanistan -- and organizing
>>>>>> grassroots groups in the west. Last Saturday, on the anniversary of 
>>>>>> MLK's
>>>>>> Riverside church speech against the Vietnam war and his assassination,
>>>>>> United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ) organized a 10,000 person --
>>>>>> including Peace Action members and affiliates -- march against the war 
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> Afghanistan and for more money at as well as other issues that 
>>>>>> surrounded
>>>>>> the NY stock exchange. As I write, Peace Action affiliates and 
>>>>>> chapters
>>>>>> and members of UFPJ are meeting with Members of Congress in their
>>>>>> district, during this congressional break, to demand an end to the
>>>>>> Afghanistan war and other issues.  This is part of coordinated days of
>>>>>> actions going on now from the 6th to the 9th.  A good web search will 
>>>>>> find that Peace Action, our affiliates and colleagues have been in 
>>>>>> numerous newspapers, on radio and TV shows, speaking out against
>>>>>> occupation and escalation, including countless mentions in The Nation.
>>>>>> And yes, we also have a petition, which you can find here: 
>>>>>> http://www.Peace-Action.org.  Raimondo is right the petition is not a
>>>>>> whole lot of noise, but perhaps the above rises above a whisper.  I
>>>>>> certainly know many progressives who have been or have become against 
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> occupation of Afghanistan.  I think as public opinion continues to 
>>>>>> sway
>>>>>> on the issue, we will see other groups follow our lead.  We welcome 
>>>>>> other
>>>>>> organizations to join us as we are up against great resources.  My 
>>>>>> guess
>>>>>> is that the budget of all the military bands dwarfs that of the peace
>>>>>> movement an perhaps other progressive movements.  I look  forward to
>>>>>> working with others on Peace Action's main priorities for this year:
>>>>>> ending the Iraq and Afghanistan occupations, preventing a war on Iran,
>>>>>> abolishing nuclear weapons and reducing the military budget.
>>>>>> [responding to:]
>>>>>> http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2009/04/07/progressive-warmongers/
>>>>>> ‘Progressive’ Warmongers
>>>>>> Liberals rally 'round Obama's war
>>>>>> by Justin Raimondo, April 08, 2009 Email This | Print This | Share 
>>>>>> This |
>>>>>> Comment
>>>>>> As President Barack Obama launches a military effort that promises to 
>>>>>> dwarf the Bush administration’s Iraqi adventure in scope and 
>>>>>> intensity,
>>>>>> the "progressive" community is rallying around their commander in 
>>>>>> chief
>>>>>> as obediently and reflexively as the neocon-dominated GOP did when we
>>>>>> invaded Iraq. As John Stauber points out over at the Center for Media 
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> Democracy Web site, the takeover of the antiwar movement by the
>>>>>> Obamaites is nearly complete. He cites MoveOn.org as a prime but not 
>>>>>> sole
>>>>>> example:
>>>>>> "MoveOn built its list by organizing vigils and ads for peace and by 
>>>>>> then
>>>>>> supporting Obama for president; today it operates as a full-time 
>>>>>> cheerleader supporting Obama’s policy agenda. Some of us saw this
>>>>>> unfolding years ago. Others are probably shocked watching their peace
>>>>>> candidate escalating a war and sounding so much like the previous
>>>>>> administration in his rationale for doing so."
>>>>>> Picking up on this in The Nation, John Nichols avers that several 
>>>>>> antiwar
>>>>>> groups arenot toeing the Afghanistan-is-a-war-of-necessity line,
>>>>>> including Peace Action, United for Peace and Justice, and the American
>>>>>> Friends Service Committee, yet there is less to this than meets the 
>>>>>> eye.
>>>>>> Naturally, the Friends, being pacifists, are going to oppose the 
>>>>>> Afghan
>>>>>> "surge" and the provocative incursions into Pakistan: no surprise 
>>>>>> there.
>>>>>> Peace Action is not making a whole lot of noise about this, in spite 
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> the issue’s relative importance. They are confining their opposition 
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> an online petition. As for UFPJ, their alleged opposition to Obama’s 
>>>>>> war
>>>>>> is couched in all kinds of contingencies and ambiguous formulations.
>>>>>> Their most recent public pronouncement, calling for local actions 
>>>>>> against
>>>>>> the Af-Pak offensive, praises Obama for "good statements on increasing
>>>>>> diplomacy and economic aid to Afghanistan and Pakistan." Really? So 
>>>>>> far,
>>>>>> this "diplomacy" consists of unsuccessfully finagling the Europeans 
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> Canada toincrease their "contributions" to the Afghan front – and 
>>>>>> selling
>>>>>> the American people on an escalation of the conflict.
>>>>>> Although energized and given a local presence nationwide by a 
>>>>>> significant
>>>>>> pacifist and youth contingent, UFPJ is organizationally dominated by 
>>>>>> current and former members of the Communist Party, USA, and allied
>>>>>> organizations, and you have toremember that Afghanistan is a bit of a
>>>>>> sore spot for them. That’s because the Kremlinpreceded us in our 
>>>>>> folly of
>>>>>> attempting to tame the wild warrior tribes of the Hindu Kush and was
>>>>>> soundly defeated.
>>>>>> The Soviet Union did its level best in trying to accomplish what a 
>>>>>> number
>>>>>> of liberal think-tanks with ambitious agendas are today busily
>>>>>> concerning themselves with solving the problem of constructing a 
>>>>>> working
>>>>>> central government, centered in Kabul, which would improve the lot of 
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> average Afghan, liberate women from their legally and socially
>>>>>> subordinate role, eliminate the drug trade, and provide a minimal 
>>>>>> amount
>>>>>> of security outside the confines of Kabul – in short, the very same
>>>>>> goalsenunciated by the Bush administration and now the Obama
>>>>>> administration. The Kremlin failed miserably in achieving its 
>>>>>> objectives,
>>>>>> and there is little reason to believe the Americans will have better
>>>>>> luck.
>>>>>> In retrospect, the Soviet decision to invade and create a puppet 
>>>>>> government propped up by the Red Army was arguably a fatal error, one
>>>>>> that delivered the final crushing blow to a system already moribund 
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> brittle enough to break. The domestic consequences inside the Soviet
>>>>>> Union – the blowback, if you will – sounded the death knell of the
>>>>>> Communist system and revealed the Kremlin’s ramshackle empire in all 
>>>>>> its
>>>>>> military and moral bankruptcy.
>>>>>> What is to prevent the U.S. from courting a similar fate, at a time 
>>>>>> when our economy is melting down and the domestic crisis makes such 
>>>>>> grandiose "nation-building" schemes seem like bubble-think at its most 
>>>>>> hubristic?
>>>>>> That’s where the pro-war progressive think-tanks come in: their role 
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> to forge a new pro-war consensus, one that commits us to a long-range 
>>>>>> "nation-building" strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. These are the 
>>>>>> Center for a New American Security, explicitly set up as home base for
>>>>>> the "national security Democrats" who make up the party’s hawkish
>>>>>> faction; Brookings; and, last but not least, the Center for American
>>>>>> Progress, which was an oasis of skepticism when Team Bush was
>>>>>> "liberating" Iraq, and a major critic of the occupation. Now the
>>>>>> leadership of CAP is making joint appearances with the neocons over at
>>>>>> the newly christened Foreign Policy Initiative and issuing lengthy 
>>>>>> white
>>>>>> papers outlining their Ten Year Plan [.pdf] for the military 
>>>>>> occupation
>>>>>> of Afghanistan.
>>>>>> Not only that, but they are moving to the front lines in a battle 
>>>>>> against
>>>>>> Obama’s antiwar opponents, with the Nichols piece – which merely
>>>>>> reported growing opposition to Obama’s war on the Left – eliciting 
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> testy response from CAP honchoLawrence Korb and one of his 
>>>>>> apparatchiks.
>>>>>> In it, the CAPsters aver, wearily, that none of this is new – the
>>>>>> "schism" within the "progressive community" over Afghanistan is
>>>>>> "long-standing" – and they remind their audience that the release of
>>>>>> CAP’s latest apologia for occupying Afghanistan is hardly
>>>>>> precedent-setting. After all, their two previous reports supported
>>>>>> precisely the same position, which was taken upby Obama during the 
>>>>>> 2008
>>>>>> campaign: Iraq was the wrong war, Afghanistan is the "right" war, and 
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> Bush administration diverted vital resources away from the latter to
>>>>>> fight the former. Now that Obama is doing what he said he’d do all 
>>>>>> along
>>>>>> – escalating and extending the Long War on the Afghan front – CAP 
>>>>>> is supporting him. It’s as simple as that.
>>>>>> Still, it’s perhaps perplexing to those who followed the debate over 
>>>>>> the Iraq war to see CAP in the vanguard of the War Party. Or, as Korb 
>>>>>> & Co.
>>>>>> put it:
>>>>>> "Given our organization’s (and our personal) long-standing assertion 
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> a U.S. military withdrawal from the war in Iraq was and is a necessary 
>>>>>> precondition for Iraq’s competing parties to find a stable 
>>>>>> power-sharing equilibrium, perhaps it comes as a surprise to some that 
>>>>>> we would ‘now’ call for such a renewed U.S. military, economic, 
>>>>>> and political commitment
>>>>>> to the war in Afghanistan."
>>>>>> Well, yes, now that you mention it, this cheerleading for Obama’s 
>>>>>> war is
>>>>>> a bit of a turnaround for CAP and the Washington "progressive" 
>>>>>> community.
>>>>>> Their Stalinesque about-face – which recalls the disciplined 
>>>>>> hypocrisy
>>>>>> of Communist cadre who were just as fervently antiwar in the moments
>>>>>> before Hitler invaded Russia as they were pro-war every moment since 
>>>>>> –
>>>>>> requires some explanation. Korb, however, is not very forthcoming. He
>>>>>> does little to refute objections to the occupation of Afghanistan, 
>>>>>> which
>>>>>> would seem to reflect the very same critique leveled at Bush’s 
>>>>>> conquest
>>>>>> of Iraq. Yet we get relatively little out of him, except the bland
>>>>>> assertion that "Afghanistan is not Iraq." Not convinced yet? Well 
>>>>>> then,
>>>>>> listen to this: "Unlike the war in Iraq, which was always a war of
>>>>>> choice, Afghanistan was and still is a war of necessity."
>>>>>> There, that ought to quiet any qualms about embarking on a 10-year or
>>>>>> more military occupation and a hideously expensive "nation-building"
>>>>>> effort in a country that has defied would-be occupiers for most of its
>>>>>> history.
>>>>>> One searches in vain for a reasoned rationale for the Afghan 
>>>>>> escalation, or even a halfway plausible justification for lurching 
>>>>>> into Pakistan,
>>>>>> either in Korb’s brief and dismissive piece for The Nation or in 
>>>>>> CAP’s
>>>>>> latest [pdf.] 40-plus page defense of the administration’s war 
>>>>>> plans. The
>>>>>> latter is long on sober assessments of how difficult it will be to
>>>>>> double-talk the American people into supporting another futile crusade 
>>>>>> on
>>>>>> the Asian landmass, and it has plenty of colorful graphics, including 
>>>>>> one
>>>>>> showing how much they want the U.S. troop presence to increase over 
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> next few years. Yet this "war of necessity" concept is never explained
>>>>>> beyond mere reiteration, although there are a few subtle hints. At one
>>>>>> point, the CAP document, "Sustainable Security in Afghanistan," 
>>>>>> declares:
>>>>>> "Al-Qaeda poses a clear and present danger to American interests and 
>>>>>> its allies throughout the world and must be dealt with by using all 
>>>>>> the instruments in our national security arsenal in an integrated 
>>>>>> manner. The
>>>>>> terrorist organization’s deep historical roots in Afghanistan and 
>>>>>> its neighbor Pakistan place it at the center of an ‘arc of 
>>>>>> instability’ through South and Central Asia and the greater Middle 
>>>>>> East that requires
>>>>>> a sustained international response."
>>>>>> If al-Qaeda has "deep historical roots" in Afghanistan and Pakistan, 
>>>>>> then
>>>>>> they run far deeper in, say, Saudi Arabia – where most of the 9/11 
>>>>>> hijackers were from. If we go by Korbian logic, that merits a U.S.
>>>>>> invasion and decade-long military occupation of the Kingdom.
>>>>>> Is it something in the water in Washington, or is it just the
>>>>>> water-cooler in CAP’s D.C. offices?
>>>>>> Yes, by all means, let us examine the "deep historical roots" of
>>>>>> al-Qaeda, which originated in what Korb obliquely refers to as "the
>>>>>> anti-Soviet campaign." Thiscampaign was conducted by the U.S. 
>>>>>> government,
>>>>>> which armed, aided, and gave open political support to the Afghan
>>>>>> "mujahedin," who were feted at the Reagan White House. Supplied with
>>>>>> Stinger missiles and other weaponry, which enabled them to drive the 
>>>>>> Red
>>>>>> Army out, al-Qaeda developed as an international jihadist network in 
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> course of this struggle, which later turned on its principal sponsor 
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> enabler. None of this, of course, is mentioned by the authors of the 
>>>>>> CAP
>>>>>> report.
>>>>>> Shorn of sanctimony and partisan rhetoric, what the advocates of 
>>>>>> Obama’s war are saying is that Afghanistan and Pakistan are Osama 
>>>>>> bin Laden’s
>>>>>> home turf, and the 9/11 terrorist attacks give us the right to 
>>>>>> militarily
>>>>>> occupy the country, in perpetuity if necessary, in order to prevent a
>>>>>> repeat.
>>>>>> This argument lacks all proportion and belies the Obamaites’ appeals 
>>>>>> to "pragmatism" and "realism" as the alleged hallmarks of the new 
>>>>>> administration. Beneath the unemotional language of faux-expertise – 
>>>>>> the technical analyses of troop strength and abstruse discussions of 
>>>>>> counterinsurgency doctrine – a dark undercurrent of primordialism 
>>>>>> flows through the "progressive" case for a 10-year war in the wilds of 
>>>>>> Central Asia. The unspoken but painfully obvious motive for Obama’s 
>>>>>> war is simply
>>>>>> satisfying the desire of the American people for revenge.
>>>>>> It is certainly not about preventing another 9/11. The biggest and 
>>>>>> deadliest terrorist attack in our history was for the most part 
>>>>>> plotted
>>>>>> and carried out here in the U.S., right under the noses of the FBI, 
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> CIA, and all the "anti-terrorist" agencies and initiatives that had 
>>>>>> been
>>>>>> created during the Clinton years. Earlier, it was plotted inHamburg,
>>>>>> Germany, and Malaysia, and the plot advanced further still in a small
>>>>>> town in south Florida.
>>>>>> Having concluded that another terrorist attack on U.S. soil is for all 
>>>>>> intents and purposes practically inevitable, the U.S. government 
>>>>>> during
>>>>>> the Bush era decided to take up an offensive strategy, to go after the 
>>>>>> terrorist leadership in their "safe havens." The Obamaites, likewise
>>>>>> disdaining a defensive strategy, have continued this policy, albeit 
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> a simple switch in locations and the application of greater resources.
>>>>>> They have furthermore determined – without making public any 
>>>>>> supporting
>>>>>> evidence – that these alleged terrorist sanctuaries are located in
>>>>>> Afghanistan and Pakistan. The president has even broadly hinted that
>>>>>> Osama bin Laden himself is in Pakistan’s tribal area. One presumes 
>>>>>> we are
>>>>>> supposed to take this on faith: after all, the U.S. government would
>>>>>> never lie to us, or exaggerate the known facts – would they?
>>>>>> The CAP report is mostly a rehash of liberal interventionist bromides, 
>>>>>> paeans to multilateralism (which ring particularly hollow in view of
>>>>>> Obama’s recent failure to get more than a measly 5,000 European 
>>>>>> troops
>>>>>> out of NATO), and pious pledges to build clinics, schools, and walk
>>>>>> little old ladies across crowded streets even as our soulless armies 
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> drones wreak death and devastation.
>>>>>> This use of robots to do our dirty work recalls the bombing of the 
>>>>>> former
>>>>>> Yugoslavia, during which American pilots dropped their deadly payloads 
>>>>>> from a height of 20,000 feet. Sure, it made for somewhat dicey 
>>>>>> accuracy,
>>>>>> but better Serbian "collateral damage" than American casualties. The 
>>>>>> same
>>>>>> lesson applies to the Af-Pak war: better a lot of dead Pakistanis than 
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> few downed American pilots. The U.S. death toll is already rising 
>>>>>> rapidly
>>>>>> enough, and the shooting down of an American pilot over Pakistani
>>>>>> territory would surely draw unwelcome attention on the home front, as
>>>>>> well as cause an international incident. We can’t have that.
>>>>>> I am truly at a loss to describe, in suitably pungent terms, the 
>>>>>> contempt
>>>>>> in which I hold the "progressive" wing of the War Party, which is now 
>>>>>> enjoying its moment in the sun. These people have no principles: 
>>>>>> it’s all
>>>>>> about power at the court of King Obama, and these court policy wonks 
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> good for nothing but apologias for the king’s wars.
>>>>>> They are, however, good for an occasional laugh. I had to guffaw when 
>>>>>> I read the phrase "arc of instability." This is supposed to be a 
>>>>>> reason –
>>>>>> nay, the reason – for a military and political campaign scheduled to
>>>>>> continue for at least the next 10 years. Well, then, let’s take a 
>>>>>> good
>>>>>> look at this "arc," which, we are told, extends "through South and
>>>>>> Central Asia and the greater Middle East." From the shores of Lebanon 
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> the mountain ranges of Afghanistan, and most places in between, that 
>>>>>> "arc
>>>>>> of instability" defines the geographical extent of U.S. intervention 
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> the region from the end of World War II to the present. If any single
>>>>>> factor contributed to the instability permeating this arc, then it is 
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> one constant factor in the equation, which has been the U.S. presence 
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> efforts to dominate the region.
>>>>>> What is Korb’s – and CAP’s – solution to the problem of 
>>>>>> regional instability? Why, more of the same. This will lead, as it has 
>>>>>> in the
>>>>>> past, to more blowback and an increase in the support and capabilities 
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> the worldwide Islamist insurgency we are pledged to defeat.
>>>>>> ...
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net 
>>> <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss