[Peace-discuss] Why Should the Senate Fund "Enduring" U.S. Military Bases in Afghanistan?

[E. Wayne Johnson]

And the people still give their consent, and continue to provide the 
material support
for this activity.   The people of the United States cannot be held 
guiltless for
the acts of their government.  The people have repeated given their 
consent for
the acts of the US government, and they have been more than willing to
accept the benefits of American Hegemony.

"Paybacks are Hell."

On 8/26/2010 9:23 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>  But they still built the bases, and Congress continues to fund them.
>
> It was a quite limited victory, if a victory at all.
>
> On 8/26/10 7:52 AM, Robert Naiman wrote:
>> You missed something, or you're eliding it.
>>
>> In 2008, Congress rejected a Pentagon request for military
>> construction in Iraq, not because the Pentagon *called* it "long
>> term," but because it seemed to Congress that it *was* "long term."
>> They rejected it not because of what it was called, but because of
>> what it was. They did not insist on a name change. They refused to
>> fund the project.
>>
>> Congress has not made a similar move with respect to military
>> construction in Afghanistan.
>>
>> You can claim that such a move would not be sufficiently meaningful to
>> care about for your personal taste, but you cannot claim that such a
>> move would not be theoretically possible, because there is a
>> precedent.
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 7:39 AM, C. G. 
>> Estabrook<galliher at illinois.edu>  wrote:
>>>   But the US bases in Iraq continue to be funded and built (even if the
>>> offending phrase is avoided), and the US remains in Iraq in a 
>>> fashion that
>>> is clearly long-term.
>>>
>>> The US launched the Iraq war with two goals: (1) military bases in 
>>> the midst
>>> of the world's greatest energy-producing region, and (2) control of the
>>> country with the world's second-largest oil reserves.  It's achieved 
>>> both.
>>>
>>> But the policy is regional, including AfPak and Yemen.  The Obama
>>> administration is pursuing it vigorously, and avoiding the terms 
>>> "long-term"
>>> or "enduring" won't change the policy.  Only de-funding it will do 
>>> that.
>>>
>>> On 8/26/10 7:15 AM, Robert Naiman wrote:
>>>> The documentary record shows that Congress actually rejected funding
>>>> for Pentagon projects in Iraq that "seemed long-term."
>>>>
>>>> It has not done so in the case of Afghanistan.
>>>>
>>>> Therefore, there is a difference that is not merely rhetorical. That
>>>> is an objective fact.
>>>>
>>>> As a matter of personal taste, you may not care about this difference.
>>>> "It's a free country," as we used to say in grade school.
>>>>
>>>> But to say that the difference does not exist, or is merely
>>>> rhetorical, is simply not accurate.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 6:55 AM, C. G. 
>>>> Estabrook<galliher at illinois.edu>
>>>>   wrote:
>>>>> What possible good does it do to say that the bases are 
>>>>> non-enduring if
>>>>> the
>>>>> money is voted for them?!
>>>>>
>>>>> We need to pressure Congress to vote against funding the war, not 
>>>>> to find
>>>>> ways to put lipstick on this murderous pig (to borrow an Obama 
>>>>> phrase).
>>>>>
>>>>> Does anyone really believe that that US military construction in 
>>>>> Iraq was
>>>>> not "long-term," in spite of pious phrases from the Congress?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 8/25/10 2:30 PM, Robert Naiman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Walter Pincus reports in the Washington Post that the Pentagon is
>>>>> planning to build military bases in Afghanistan for years of U.S.
>>>>> combat. But the Senate could reject or restrict the money for such
>>>>> construction; a step Congress took in 2008, when it rejected a
>>>>> Pentagon request for military construction in Iraq that "seemed
>>>>> long-term."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/why-should-the-senate-fun_b_694437.html 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/8/25/15145/7039
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/node/689
>>>>>
>>>>> Action link for writing to the Senate:
>>>>> http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/afghanistanbases
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Robert Naiman
>>>>> Policy Director
>>>>> Just Foreign Policy
>>>>> www.justforeignpolicy.org
>>>>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
>>>>>
>>>>> Urge Congress to Support a Timetable for Military Withdrawal from
>>>>> Afghanistan
>>>>> http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/feingold-mcgovern
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>>>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>