[Peace-discuss] A Hundred Cities Against Escalation As the President Announces It

[Robert Naiman]

A Hundred Cities Against Escalation As the President Announces It

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/a-hundred-cities-against_b_355247.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/11/12/10255/310
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/node/401

Recent press speculation suggests at least even odds that sometime in
November, President Obama will give a speech announcing that he intends to
send tens of thousands of more U.S. troops to Afghanistan in 2010. Not a
temporary "surge," but a permanent escalation. While certainly it's good
news - at least temporarily - that *AP* is
reporting<http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091112/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_us_afghanistan>
that
President Obama "won't accept any of the Afghanistan war options before him
without changes," and that the *Washington Post* is reporting that U.S.
Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry is lobbying strongly sending more
troops<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/11/AR2009111118432.html>,
note that *AP* goes on to
say<http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091112/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_us_afghanistan>
:

Obama is still expected to send in more troops to bolster a deteriorating
war effort.

He remains close to announcing his revamped war strategy - troops are just
one component - and probably will do so shortly after he returns from a trip
to Asia that ends Nov. 19.

 I wouldn't for a moment suggest that anyone concede the inevitability of *
AP*'s prediction. Clearly, there is considerable friction and chaos in the
system right now; each day that passes without Obama announcing more troops
is an opportunity for new developments, such as the leak of Ambassador
Eikenberry's dissent. Each day that passes is an opportunity for Members of
Congress like Eric Massa <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJqnWIQ3o1c> and Alan
Grayson <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVLJUUgIOv4> and anti-war
Afghanistan vets like Rick Reyes and Brock
McIntosh<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Axkw-_lMJ8U> to
speak out against the war, for Americans across the country to call Members
of Congress and urge them to speak out now <http://noescalation.org/>,
before the President announces his decision.

But, in addition to continuing to call on Americans to pressure Washington
now, we also need to plan for the contingency that these current efforts
will fail, which means starting to mobilize people against the war
supplemental to pay for the planned escalation; and if making and
publicizing future plans could affect the present debate, we should do it.

If people in a hundred cities and towns across America announced in advance
that *on the day of the President's speech*, they will organize a local
demonstration at their Representative's office or some other convenient
location, and that they will reach out to local news media to communicate
that, in order to try to get reports of their local demonstration into local
media *into the same news cycle as the President's speech*, might that make
a difference to the President's decision?

I think it might. I think it's doable, and that the President's decision
will likely have such lasting consequences that I think it's worth trying.

Note that the strategy of asking 100 cities to announce demonstrations now
on the same day as the President's speech isn't about trying to reach the
big national media, which will continue to ignore or ridicule anti-war
protests, as is their wont. It's about trying to move Members of Congress by
getting into local media reports of the President's speech, and it's about
undermining the ability of the White House to try to sell escalation to the
American people - already an extremely difficult task, as the White House
acknowledges. A large part of the American population watches local TV news,
reads a local newspaper, or listens to local radio news, and especially in
smaller cities, local TV and newspapers and radio are often very willing to
cover local protests that are tied to a major national political event.
Imagine that many Americans are watching their local TV news, and the top
story is the President's speech, and the next story is "but local protesters
say that escalation is not the answer." Might that deter the White House? I
think it might.

Unfortunately, the peace movement in the United States as it exists at this
exact historical moment does not have the infrastructure and ability to call
demonstrations in 100 cities. But, to paraphrase a notorious American, "you
oppose war with the peace movement you have, not the peace movement you wish
you had or might like to have in the future." If we're going to have 100
demonstrations and vigils in 100 cities on the day of the President's
speech, there will have to be a significant contribution from what a German
philosopher once called "the spontaneous self-activity of the masses." Local
groups and local individuals will have to step into the breach. People who
have never organized a demonstration may have to organize a demonstration.
But organizing a demonstration is easy. All it takes is a few phone calls
and emails, a few signs, and a press release. The circumstances demand it.
If we don't want another 10 years of war, we have to act now.
-- 
Robert Naiman
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20091112/e667215b/attachment-0001.htm