[Peace-discuss] AWARE
Morton K. Brussel
brussel at illinois.edu
Wed Sep 2 21:52:18 CDT 2009
This from the Peace-Action website: It would appear that their list of
tallking points to be made firmly puts them on board for an American
military sithdrawal from Afghanistan. This kind of negativism by Carl
and Raimondo seems to confirm what Stuart is concerned with, and is
destructive in trying to form an anti-war, anti-occupation coalition.
--mkb
Take Action In Your Community April 6th - 9th
Sign our Petition
President Obama announced his 10 year plan for Afghanistan. It
includes an additional 21,000 U.S. military forces deployed in Iraq
and diplomatic engagement of Pakistan. He is still trying to force
political and social change through the Pentagon.
We have a better plan: focus on diplomatic cooperation and
humanitarian aid, mitigate civilian causalities by scaling back
military force. The United Nations, U.S. and British generals, peace
groups, and 19 members of Congress agree: the war in Afghanistan
cannot be won militarily and success is only possible through
political means including dialogue between all relevant parties.
Download our paper petition.
Write a Letter to the Editor
Peace Action reaches out to the media to educate the public and change
the conversation on critical issues like the troop surge in
Afghanistan. You can help. We need to build public support for
diplomatic solutions in Afghanistan. Join our media campaign by
writing a letter to the editor. You can use any of our pre written
letters by clicking here.
In-District Visits
Congress is at home the weekend of April 4th through the 6th. Welcome
them back with an in-district lobby visit. Peace Action has a better
plan for Afghanistan (read below). You can use our fact sheets to help
drive your point home. To make an appointment look up your
Congressperson online here.
Here are your Talking Points:
1. De-escalate troop levels in Afghanistan and to reject the idea that
there is a military solution to the region's problems;
2. Immediately stop military activities that indiscriminately impact
civilians such as air and drone strikes;
3. Rapidly withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan;
4. Commit to negotiated diplomatic talks involving all major regional
players, including major international peace-keeping bodies; and,
5. Address the real needs of Afghans, which include health-care, clean
water, education, and security.
On Sep 2, 2009, at 9:32 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> Stuart--
>
> I'll try to say some more about this, but one quick point:
>
> As I argued at the time, I think Raimundo's reference to Peace
> Action was correct, and I think their position is a sign of the
> continuing disarray of liberal opposition to the war. Such
> opposition now comes primarily not from liberals but from the Left
> and the old Right.
>
> Go look at their website now. Their opposition to the war in AfPak
> is certainly restrained. There's no call for withdrawal from
> Afghanistan. Only within their list of talking points can one find
> anything that suggests that.
>
> Their position is in short somewhat to the right of George Will's.
> That's a bad sign. --CGE
>
>
> Stuart Levy wrote:
>> Joy, Ricky, Carl,
>> Thanks for pushing the question of how & what AWARE discusses and
>> what we do.
>> I'd like to respond more when I get a little more time.
>> But some comments, for now:
>> Any anarchical organization, such as AWARE intends to be,
>> relies on freedom balanced primarily by self-restraint,
>> since formal organizational restraints are generally not there.
>> Within a group like this one, it's especially worth raising
>> the question of just what on earth we're trying to do,
>> and how to structure ourselves to go there.
>> So I'm glad we're talking about this now.
>> I too have been frustrated at the distribution of types of
>> peace-discuss messages. Pragmatically, when I feel involved with
>> AWARE
>> but find that I can only afford to read a small fraction of what
>> crosses its main mailing list, that's a bad sign.
>> I've been disappointed too at what a small fraction of our discussion
>> messages are devoted to, or even oriented so as to lead toward,
>> possible actions, alliances, etc.
>> As a matter of rhetoric, I also find it frustrating to see
>> so much of our communication taken up with identifying enemies.
>> A common pattern in public speech, especially during the
>> Bush Administration, was to *identify the enemy* (Yassir Arafat,
>> Saddam Hussein, Al Qaeda, islamofascism, "illegal immigrants"...),
>> followed perhaps by an expression of relentless opposition to
>> that enemy. Problem addressed. Trust us.
>> A few months ago on this list, we argued over an article from
>> Justin Raimondo which excoriated the ineffective Left for not
>> pursuing the Afghanistan war as a serious issue. I'm *not*
>> suggesting
>> that no such criticism is warranted. But in making this type of
>> enemy-pointing argument, Raimundo carelessly and specifically
>> included groups like Peace Action, who have long made
>> Afghanistan an active focus of their work.
>> What's the effect? If we were action-oriented, this could mean that
>> making parallel efforts with a group like Peace Action would be
>> a good thing for us to pursue. But swallowing them up in a the-
>> Left-are-no-damn-good sweep just seems aimed at making
>> rhetorical points. It's no help in guiding us to do or be anything
>> except helpless.
>> While we argued over abstractions, SJP brought
>> Norman Finkelstein and Ali Abunimah to UIUC!
>> Likewise if we complain that the Democrats are not supporting
>> an effective US government role in health care, and are caving
>> in to the insurance, pharma, etc. interests. The Dem. leadership,
>> including the Obama adminstration, seems to be doing just that.
>> But *sixty* House Democrats (including Keith Ellison, who'd have been
>> my Rep. if I still lived in Minneapolis) are refusing to follow the
>> party line,
>> and standing ready to force the Administration to finally compromise
>> to the Left, instead of (as Cornell West said recently) having
>> its ears open only to the Right. They represent a piece of the
>> kind of protest movement that Obama needs to be getting pressure
>> from.
>> As Glenn Greenwald points out,
>> http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/08/19/obama/index.html
>> their kind of wedge is really important -- and not only for the
>> health care
>> issue, but as a way of changing the whole political game.
>> If we as relatively powerless agents (whether AWARE or the
>> peace movement in general) are going to take political action,
>> we need to be political opportunists, ready to spot cracks and
>> prepared to widen them. If we focus on generalities,
>> even well-founded ones, we'll lose sight of those very cracks.
>> One practical suggestion: We could let the discussion stream
>> fission. There is even a currently-unused
>> mailing list, "peace-action at lists.chambana.net" (and maybe @anti-
>> war.net too).
>> We could leave peace-discuss for free-wheeling discussions, some of
>> which
>> would prove fruitful and some just fruity, and encourage sifting
>> AWARE-related action-oriented discussions and articles and what not
>> to this new old peace-action forum -- presumably busier and less
>> cut-and-dried
>> than "peace", but more focused than "peace-discuss".
>> Now I have to get back to work...
>> Stuart
>> On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 03:13:13PM +0000, jgeo61 at comcast.net wrote:
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: jgeo61 at comcast.net To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2009 8:56:36 AM GMT -06:00 US/
>>> Canada Central Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] AWARE
>>>
>>> I would like to open today's conversation with the following
>>> questions:
>>> What would it take for you to become an active AWARE member?
>>> What specific issues, in your opinion, would need to be adopted by
>>> the group to ensure your participation?
>>> Let the discussion begin,
>>> Joy George
>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: jgeo61 at comcast.net To: "C. G.
>>> Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu> Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2009 8:10:40 AM GMT -06:00 US/
>>> Canada Central Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] AWARE
>>>
>>> This is quite an accusation. You make it sound as if we are
>>> pouting, taking our toys home, since we didn't get our way on the
>>> playground. My concern is that this discussion group does not
>>> reflect the goals or needs of the entire group and in fact the
>>> current behavior has driven away existing/potential members.
>>> If we want to "make a difference" in the peace effort, we must
>>> stick together to be a unified force, otherwise we appear only to
>>> be squabbling chickens. I strongly believe that if those who want
>>> to have the ongoing debate discussions find their own regular
>>> venue and talk until the cows come home. There is work to be done
>>> and there is no time like the present to get back to it.
>>> Joy
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu
>>> > To: "Matt Reichel" <mattreichel at hotmail.com> Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2009 9:50:28 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada
>>> Central Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] AWARE
>>> As I suggested, the functional definition of "unpleasantness" here
>>> seems to be "the expression of an opinion that departs from the
>>> liberal consensus" (e.g., "Obama is not anti-war").
>>> It would seem that the purpose of the peace-discuss list would be
>>> by discussion to discover (a) the source and nature of America's
>>> war and (b) effective strategies to work against it. And I think
>>> (b) depends upon (a). In the absence of an accurate analysis, the
>>> best will in the world can do the right thing only by accident.
>>> The largest anti-war demonstrations in human history occurred just
>>> before the US invasion of Iraq, in the US and around the world,
>>> but the American antiwar movement in the intervening years largely
>>> ceased to exist. (It obviously still exists from Palestine to
>>> Pakistan as resistance to US invasion and occupation.)
>>> John Walsh wrote last week <http://www.counterpunch.org/walsh08262009.html
>>> >,
>>> "A funny thing has happened on Cindy Sheehan’s long road from
>>> Crawford, Texas, to Martha’s Vineyard. Many of those who claim to
>>> lead the peace movement and who so volubly praised her actions in
>>> Crawford, TX, are not to be seen. Nor heard ... Where are the
>>> email appeals to join Cindy from The Nation or from AFSC or Peace
>>> Action or 'Progressive' Democrats of America (PDA) or even Code
>>> Pink? Or United for Peace and Justice. (No wonder UFPJ is
>>> essentially closing shop, bereft of most of their contributions
>>> and shriveling up following the thinly veiled protest behind the
>>> 'retirement of Leslie Cagan.) And what about MoveOn although it
>>> was long ago thoroughly discredited as principled opponents of war
>>> or principled in any way shape or form except slavish loyalty to
>>> the 'other' War Party. And of course sundry 'socialist'
>>> organizations are also missing in action since their particular
>>> dogma will not be front and center. These worthies and many others
>>> have vanished into the fog of Obama’s wars."
>>> It seems to me that there will be more unpleasantness before an
>>> effective anti-war movement is reconstituted in the country. --CGE
>>>
>>> Matt Reichel wrote:
>>>> Jenifer -
>>>> It appears that this list has descended into absolute silliness
>>>> ie juvenile intellectual masturbation from the 3-4 primary posters.
>>>> AWARE was initially founded as an answer to the PRC, which used
>>>> to dominate progressive politics in Champaign-Urbana with its
>>>> authoritarian, overly-bureaucratic organizing style. On the
>>>> student end of things, I founded Student Peace Action for those
>>>> students who had too much self-respect to sit through a PRC
>>>> meeting. For a few years there, this model of having three
>>>> organizations, one for students, one for community members and
>>>> one for people who were able to withstand PRC's inane
>>>> bureaucracy, was incredibly effective: on the day the war in Iraq
>>>> began, we had over 1,000 people marching through the streets of
>>>> Chambana.
>>>> It looks as if most of the original organizers of AWARE are long
>>>> gone, and the group has become the wrong it originally sought to
>>>> correct, i.e. a top-down group dominated by a few unpleasant
>>>> personalities.
>>>> Best, Matt
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date
>>>> : Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:29:50 -0700 From: jencart13 at yahoo.com To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>>> Subject: [Peace-discuss] AWARE
>>>> Yet more issues today that take time and energy away from peace
>>>> and justice work...
>>>> I think about all the good people who have left AWARE because of
>>>> the unpleasantness, and so I'm hanging on and trying not to
>>>> become another casualty. But right now I feel so downhearted
>>>> about all the ugliness that I really don't want to be part of
>>>> this anymore.
>>>> I will say that it is the good people remaining who give me hope
>>>> that there are better days ahead for AWARE, as well as for our
>>>> nation and the world. --Jenifer
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ With
>>>> Windows Live, you can organize, edit, and share your photos.
>>>> Click here. <http://www.windowslive.com/Desktop/PhotoGallery>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> _______________________________________________ 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
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
Skipped content of type multipart/related
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list