[Peace-discuss] Limits of allowable debate at NYT

[C. G. Estabrook]

Today's article presents a largely fantasized history of the politics of the war 
- altho' it is possible to discern that the Democrats were given control of the 
Congress in 2006 to end the war, which they obviously never intended to do.

But the interesting point is how the NYT sees the alternatives:

"From the right, some ... may argue for staying the course in Afghanistan, and 
for holding off on withdrawing American troops.

"Meanwhile, from the left, some ... may push the opposite way, arguing that the 
United States should abandon its troop-heavy counterinsurgency strategy in 
Afghanistan /that seeks to protect the population /[sic], and move instead to a 
counter-terrorism strategy that /focuses on pounding Al Qaeda/ and other 
insurgents... [emphasis added]"

If those are the "left" and "right" positions, US war-makers have little to fear 
- except that two-thirds of the US populace don't agree with the alternatives.

So the task is to lull them to sleep - and not admit that AfPak is part of the 
long-term US strategy for the control of energy.  --CGE

       In 2010 Campaign, War Is Rarely Mentioned
       By HELENE COOPER
       Published: October 28, 2010

WASHINGTON --- The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have dominated American foreign 
policy for the past nine years, but debate about them is all but absent from 
this year's midterm election campaigns...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/us/politics/29war.html?_r=1&nl=us&emc=politicsemailema1



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20101028/ce4ded52/attachment.html>