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

[C. G. Estabrook]

Raimondo condemns pro-war liberal groups.  Instead of joining in the 
condemnation, Bob sought to discredit Raimondo's opinion -- not directly, 
because he can't -- but on the grounds that Raimondo wasn't a "true journalist," 
because he didn't list the good work that Peace Action claims to be doing.

Raimondo's article wasn't about Peace Action, except incidentally.


Stuart Levy wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss