[Peace-discuss] Mr. Estabrook's criticism

[David Gill]

     Mr. Estabrook paints with a very broad and misleading brush in stating that I have "...embraced the mendacious Democratic party account that we're killing people in AfPak to 'stop terrorism.'"

     My views have nothing to do with those of the Democratic Party-- I have no connection to the National Democratic Party.  My view is shaped by the work of Rory Stewart, a former British soldier and diplomat who now directs a Human Rights policy center at Harvard.  He was featured in late September of this year on PBS' "Bill Moyers Journal."  Mr. Stewart walked from one end of Afghanistan to the other, stopping and spending time in 500 villages;  he wrote a book about his journey--  "The Places In Between."

     I believe that no one in the Western world understands Afghanistan and the diverse Afghani people as well as Mr. Stewart, and I follow his lead in advocating for a very slimmed-down American force in the region.  My position is dramatically different from those being considered at the White House.  
 
     And to describe Mr. Johnson, my opponent, as "anti-war" completely ignores the factual world.  Mr. Johnson voted for and championed our involvement in Iraq, a move I've spoken against publicly since I began my first campaign, back in December 2002.  His decison helped to create some overwhelmingly negative consequences.  He also stood by quietly for nearly 8 years while the mission in Afghanistan became very muddied and expanded;  there was no objection from him as the original mission became a foolhardy attempt at nation-building, with a complete lack of understanding of the Taliban. To now refer to him as "anti-war" demonstrates an utter disregard for the facts, and only validates his thinly veiled political gamesmanship at this late stage of our involvement in Afghanistan.
 
David Gill, M.D.