[Peace-discuss] Re: The War Stampede

Thu Nov 12 11:34:30 CST 2009

The War Stampede
by Norman Solomon
Disputes are raging within the Obama administration over how to  
continue the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan. A new leak tells us that  
Washington's ambassador in Kabul, former four-star general Karl  
Eikenberry, has cautioned against adding more troops while President  
Hamid Karzai keeps disappointing American policymakers. This is the  
extent of the current debate within the warfare state.

During a top-level meeting Wednesday afternoon in the White House, the  
Washington Post reports, President Obama "was given a series of  
options laid out by military planners with differing numbers of new  
U.S. deployments, ranging from 10,000 to 40,000 troops. None of the  
scenarios calls for scaling back the U.S. presence in Afghanistan or  
delaying the dispatch of additional troops."

No doubt there are real tactical differences between Eikenberry and  
the U.S./NATO commander in Afghanistan, Stanley McChrystal, the ultra- 
spun brainy spartan who wants to boost the current U.S. troop level of  
68,000 to well over 100,000 in the war-afflicted country. But those  
policy disputes exist well within the context of a permanent war  
psychology.

What's desperately needed is a clear breakaway from that psychology,  
which routinely offers "kinder, gentler" forms of endless and horrific  
war. But predictably, in the days and weeks ahead, some progressives  
-- from the grassroots to Capitol Hill -- will gravitate toward  
Eikenberry's stance.

Fine-tuning the U.S. war in Afghanistan is no substitute for  
acknowledging -- with words and with policy -- that there will be no  
military solution. Adjusting the dose and mix of military intervention  
is a prescription to do more harm on a massive scale.

A recent spate of media stories has focused on soldiers, veterans and  
family members struggling with PTSD and other heartbreaking  
consequences of deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. One of the key  
messages is that the government must do a better job of caring for  
battle-scarred veterans.

To the great extent that such stories don't question continuation of  
the warfare, they're part of the stampede. As long as the only options  
put forward have to do with finding better ways to cope with ongoing  
war, the men and women in the military are framed as people who are  
most admirable as participants in their own suffering (and,  
implicitly, as people who are willing to inflict suffering on others).

The suffering of Afghan people, meanwhile, gets short shrift in the  
USA's media and political discourse. While we hear -- though not  
enough -- about traumas that continue to plague Americans many months  
or years after being in war zones, we hear almost nothing about the  
traumas that the U.S. military visits upon people living in the  
occupied country.

After 30 years of war, Afghans do not need more ingenious war efforts  
by the latest batch of best and brightest in Washington.

Thundering along Pennsylvania Avenue, the stampede for war is hard to  
resist. It's a stampede that few members of Congress have been willing  
to directly challenge. So, the "serious" policy arguments, from the  
White House to Capitol Hill, have remained bullish on war -- and eager  
to find better ways to wage it.

The November 12 edition of the Post reported that Ambassador  
Eikenberry "has expressed frustration with the relative paucity of  
funds set aside for spending on development and reconstruction this  
year in Afghanistan, a country wrecked by three decades of war." The  
newspaper added: "Earlier this summer, he asked for $2.5 billion in  
nonmilitary spending for 2010, a 60 percent increase over what Obama  
had requested from Congress, but the request has languished even as  
the administration has debated spending billions of dollars on new  
troops."

The Obama administration is spending upwards of 90 percent of all U.S.  
funds in Afghanistan on military operations -- and what Eikenberry is  
seeking would add up to mere drops in the bucket compared to what  
Afghanistan really needs for "development and reconstruction." Nor is  
the U.S. government in any moral or logistical position to effectively  
supply such aid.

Right now, the paltry aid from Washington is largely disbursed in  
Afghanistan as an adjunct to the Pentagon's military operations -- and  
it is widely recognized as such. That's why the resulting projects are  
so often blown up or burned down by insurgents.

In war-ravaged Afghanistan, one of the poorest countries in the world,  
effective aid is possible. While woefully underfunded, the National  
Solidarity Program and the Aga Khan Foundation are prime examples of  
successes -- if the goals are genuine humanitarian aid and development  
rather than providing "hearts and minds" photo-ops and leverage for  
the occupiers' military campaigns.

The current dispute over how to continue the war in Afghanistan should  
not be mistaken for an argument over basic assumptions. And what's  
wrong with U.S. intervention in Afghanistan is fundamental.

Norman Solomon is a journalist, historian, and progressive activist.  
His book "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us  
to Death" has been adapted into a documentary film of the same name.  
His most recent book is "Made Love, Got War." He is a national co- 
chair of the Healthcare NOT Warfare campaign. In California, he is co- 
chair of the Commission on a Green New Deal for the North  
Bay;www.GreenNewDeal.info.

On Nov 12, 2009, at 10:01 AM, Robert Naiman wrote:

> 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 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, note that AP  
> goes on to say:
>
> 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 and Alan Grayson and anti-war Afghanistan vets like Rick  
> Reyes and Brock McIntosh to speak out against the war, for Americans  
> across the country to call Members of Congress and urge them to  
> speak out now, 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20091112/28dd7eac/attachment-0001.html