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

[C. G. Estabrook]

  The anti-war movement has few enough victories to celebrate, it's true, but it 
shouldn't make them up.

Both Bush and Kerry opposed "permanent" bases in Iraq in the 2004 campaign - 
perhaps realizing that there is nothing permanent in the sublunary world.

But inventing fake victories - like timelines - can allow some members of 
Congress to say they opposed some aspect of the war while continuing to fund it.

Congress' rejection of that 2008 Pentagon request certainly put a crimp in the 
war effort, didn't it?


On 8/26/10 8:34 AM, Robert Naiman wrote:
> As I acknowledged from the beginning, you are free to say that
> according to your individual, personal taste, it was not a meaningful
> move.
>
> But that Congress took a concrete, non-rhetorical, refusal-to-fund
> step to limit "enduring" bases in Iraq that it has not taken with
> respect to Afghanistan cannot be reasonably disputed.
>
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 8:23 AM, C. G. Estabrook<galliher at illinois.edu>  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
>>>>>>
>>>
>
>