[Peace-discuss] Mr. Estabrook's criticism

[C. G. Estabrook]

David--

Here are two positions on the US war in AfPak (obviously others are possible):

      Position 1 OPPOSES "a total withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan 
[and] favors keeping 10,000 to 20,000 special operations forces in [Afghanistan] 
to prevent any further expansion of al-Qaida."

      Position 2 FAVORS "the immediate withdrawal of American troops from 
Afghanistan."

The first is your announced position; the second is Tim Johnson's.  I think a 
neutral observer would call the former pro-war and the later anti-war.

You say it's "misleading" to say that you support the administration's position 
that it's "stopping terrorism" by war in AfPak.  What, then, is the purpose of 
the war, withdrawal from which you oppose?  What is the mission of those "10,000 
to 20,000 special operations forces"?  "Prevent[ing] any further expansion of 
al-Qaida" sounds like stopping terrorism.

The US military asserts that al-Qaida is in Pakistan, not Afghanistan, so your 
position apparently includes further hostilities against Pakistan (which the 
current administration has expanded, as they said they would, much beyond what 
the last administration did).

Tim Johnson may be lying, and he did support the invasion and occupation of 
Iraq, which I condemned him for when I ran against him in 2002 and afterwards. 
Or he may have learnt something -- e.g., the criminal nature of the war, or just 
the US public's declining support for it.

A principal task of the anti-war movement over the last eight years has been to 
convince Congressional representatives to change their views, but very few have. 
  Some, like the president, have pretended that they oppose the war while 
supporting it.

But Tim has set forth a way to test to test his sincerity: he has said that he 
is "working with a bipartisan group, including Reps. Ron Paul, R-Texas, Jim 
McGovern, D-Mass., and Jerry Costello, D-Belleville, on the Afghanistan 
withdrawal legislation."  We'll await the appearance of that legislation. 
(Would you oppose it?)

Meanwhile, do you know what "special operations forces" do?  Their line of work 
is assassination and death squads.  That's why Obama appointed their leader, 
McChrystal, to run the killing in Afghanistan.  You shouldn't support it.

Regards, Carl


David Gill wrote:
> 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.