[Peace-discuss] Limits of allowable debate at NYT
C. G. Estabrook
galliher at illinois.edu
Thu Oct 28 16:20:47 CDT 2010
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>
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list