[Peace-discuss] A new left/right antiwar movement?

[C. G. Estabrook]

Blue Dog Democrat Heath Shuler Votes For Speedy Afghanistan Withdrawal
First Posted: 03/22/11

WASHINGTON -- When it comes to congressional alliances, progressive Rep. Dennis 
Kucinich (D-Ohio) and Blue Dog Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) aren't usually 
mentioned in the same breath. But last week, Shuler was among the 93 House 
lawmakers who voted for Kucinich's ill-fated resolution calling for the speedy 
withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, one of the only conservative 
Democrats to do so.

Kucinich's measure, H. Con. Res. 28, would have invoked the War Powers 
Resolution and directed President Barack Obama to remove troops from Afghanistan 
"by no later than the end of the period of 30 days beginning on the day on which 
this concurrent resolution is adopted," or by no later than Dec. 31 if that 
proved impossible.

The Ohio Democrat introduced a similar resolution last year, when the House was 
under Democratic control, but garnered just 65 votes in support, including five 
Republicans. This year, his measure's 93 supporters included eight Republicans.

For critics of the president's strategy, the vote from Shuler -- who last fall 
challenged former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in her bid for the position of 
minority leader -- was among the most surprising and encouraging shows of new 
support.

"It would be a great service to our country if someone like Rep. Shuler, a 
centrist or Blue Dog Democrat, would take a greater role in providing the 
President with other options for our country in Afghanistan," said Afghanistan 
Study Group director Matthew Hoh, who resigned from his post as a Foreign 
Service officer in Afghanistan in 2009 after concluding that the United States 
could not achieve its objectives there.

Hoh, a former Marine captain, added: "If Shuler, who has proven himself already 
to be a leader within the Democratic Party, takes a bigger role or steps forward 
on this issue, he could bring along other centrist Democrats (and possibly 
Republicans) who understand that our current policy in Afghanistan costs far 
more than it benefits this nation."

Shuler could not be reached for comment for this report, but said in a statement 
on his website that his vote was motivated by concerns about the costs of the 
war and the use of U.S. national security resources.

"They [U.S. troops] have also worked tirelessly to develop a stable and 
responsive democratic government there," Shuler said in the statement. "That 
task, however, cannot be completed by American military action. It can only be 
accomplished by the Afghan people. Our nation is mired in debt and programs 
vital to the health and safety of American communities are on the budget 
chopping block. With more than $454 billion already spent on operations in 
Afghanistan and another $113 billion requested for the next fiscal year, the 
time has come for our troops to come home and for the Afghan people to stand up 
for their nation."

In July, Shuler also voted for a defeated amendment that would have required 
President Obama to develop a plan and timetable to withdraw troops from 
Afghanistan, although it did not specify a deadline or pace.

A large number of the new votes for Kucinich's resolution this year came from 
progressive Democrats such as Reps. John Conyers (Mich.), Mike Honda (Calif.) 
and Diana DeGette (Colo.) -- members who might have been expected to back a 
rapid withdrawal last year, as well. A staffer for one Democratic lawmaker who 
opposed the measure last year but now supports it said in an email, "Back then 
there were more options for progressives. Now, fewer options and we're closer to 
July date. Progressives getting fed-up, less tolerant."

The three new Republican votes came from Reps. Jason Chaffetz (Utah), Howard 
Coble (N.C.) and Dana Rohrabacher (Calif.), all of whom have been outspoken in 
their criticism of the war's direction.

Notably, both Coble and Shuler are from North Carolina, a state with a heavy 
military presence, including eight bases. Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.), who 
represents the district encompassing Camp Lejeune, has become one of the leaders 
of the effort on the Republican side to convince more lawmakers to explore 
alternative courses of action in Afghanistan.

"I was disappointed that not more Republicans voted for it," Jones said 
regarding Kucinich's resolution. "I hope more and more Republicans out in the 
country will contact their members of Congress and ask them to join in bringing 
our troops home. Yes, we did get more votes from the year before, but I'm very 
disappointed we didn't get 15, 20 Republicans."

Jones said he was particularly troubled by comments from Defense Secretary 
Robert Gates and Gen. David Petraeus indicating that U.S. forces will remain in 
Afghanistan even beyond 2014.

"I don't know how any member of Congress -- particularly Republicans -- who are 
so concerned about the financial shape of our country want to spend $7 or 8 
billion a month to prop up a corrupt government," he said, referring to Afghan 
President Hamid Karzai's regime. "It just doesn't make any sense to me. More 
important than that is the kids that will be killed and lose their arms and legs."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/22/heath-shuler-afghanistan-withdrawal_n_838646.html?ref=fb&src=sp#sb=56150,b=facebook

On 3/22/11 11:02 AM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> "[Rep. Ron Paul] said his opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan give
> him an edge over other Republicans and could help him defeat President Barack
> Obama in a national election. At CPAC, Paul drew thunderous applause for bashing
> the Patriot Act, US aid to foreign nations, and US military bases overseas
> during his speech. The conservative group Young Americans for Freedom (YAF)
> later announced that he would be expelled from the group's National Advisory
> Board because of his 'delusional and disturbing alliance with the fringe
> Anti-War movement.'"
>
>     Rep. Ron Paul wins another Republican presidential straw poll
>     By Eric W. Dolan
>     March 21, 2011 @ 8:14 pm
>
> Texas Congressman Ron Paul beat out top Republican presidential hopefuls Mitt
> Romney and Newt Gingrich in a straw poll for the second time this year.
>
> Nearly 18 percent of Republicans voted for Rep. Paul in the straw poll conducted
> at a GOP Convention in Sacramento on Saturday.
>
> He was followed by former governor Mitt Romney, who received 10.9 percent of the
> vote and 2010 president candidate Sarah Palin, who received 7.9 percent of the
> vote. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich came in fourth place, with 6.9 percent
> of the vote.
>
> The informal survey was conducted by the libertarian-leaning Republican Liberty
> Caucus of California [1] (RLCCA).
>
> "Given that Congressman Paul and the RLC share a common commitment to individual
> rights, limited government, free enterprise and constitutional principles we are
> happy with the results," RLCCA Chairman John Dennis said. "In these times of big
> government and even bigger deficits, it is exciting to see increased
> conservative interest in candidates such as Paul."
>
> The results of the RLCCA poll reflect another presidential straw poll conducted
> at the Conservative Political Action Conference [2] (CPAC) in February, where
> Paul took 30 percent of the vote, followed by Mitt Romney with 23 percent.
>
> Paul describes himself as a libertarian and is hardly the party's typical
> standard bearer.
>
> He has said his opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan [3] give him an
> edge over other Republicans and could help him defeat President Barack Obama in
> a national election.
>
> At CPAC, Paul drew thunderous applause for bashing the Patriot Act, US aid to
> foreign nations, and US military bases overseas during his speech. The
> conservative group Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) later announced that he
> would be expelled from the group's National Advisory Board because of his
> "delusional and disturbing alliance with the fringe Anti-War movement."
>
> URL to article:
> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/21/rep-ron-paul-wins-another-republican-presidential-straw-poll/
>
> URLs in this post:
>
> [1] Republican Liberty Caucus of California:
> http://www.rlc.org/2011/03/21/ca-gop-convention/
> [2] straw poll conducted at the Conservative Political Action Conference:
> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/12/ron-paul-wins-cpac-presidential-straw-poll/
> [3] said his opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan:
> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/14/congressman-ron-paul-slams-obama-hes-a-warmonger/
>
>
> On 3/22/11 10:16 AM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>> The so-called Tea Party is as we know a mood rather than a movement, much less
>> a party, and is even more various than the anti-war movement.  Unlike the
>> antiwar movement, it has moneyed interests (such as the Koch brothers) and
>> traditional political groups that re trying to co-opt it.
>>
>> But we can't simply ignore the anti-war currents within the TP/Libertarians, e.g.
>>
>> ~ the Ron Paul movement: Paul won the straw poll for president at both recent
>> CPACs; he's been consistently anti-war, anti-intervention, anti-Pentagon.
>>
>> ~ <antiwar.com>, one of the best sites on the web, is a Libertarian site.
>>
>> ~ paleo-conservative elements, such as the journal American Conservative, have
>> been against the neo-con wars in principle from the beginning; Pat Buchanan
>> has attacked the Libyan adventure as unconstitutional (which it is).
>>
>> For the anti-war movement itself, the co-option has already taken place, by
>> the Democrats and Obama. We forget that the Democrats were given control of
>> Congress in 2006 specifically to end the war, as they recognized.  The firing
>> of Rumsfeld after the election was the administration's recognition of the
>> fact. But the Democrats quite consciously and cynically pissed it way - e.g.,
>> with "timelines" - when they could have de-funded the wars (which required
>> only 41 votes in the Senate) in the SE Asia and LA were finally defunded.
>> Then the coup-de-grace was provided by Obama's smiling lies and the foolish
>> trust that so many people who should have known better put in him.
>>
>> Remember that the antiwar movement of the 1960s grew up in opposition to both
>> business parties.  There were attempts to co-opt it, notably by Robert Kennedy
>> and Richard Nixon.  Nixon (whom Obama much resembles in this regard) was
>> elected in 1968 as the "peace candidate" because in part it was widely
>> believed that he had "a secret plan for ending the war."
>>
>> Events of this week have shown once again how much a new antiwar movement of
>> that sort is required.  The percent of the population opposed to the
>> administration's wars is now about where  it was in 1968.
>>
>> Regards, Carl
>>
>> On 3/22/11 9:13 AM, Corey Mattson wrote:
>>> I support what Iraq Veterans Against the War did in Madison on March 12 ---
>>> bring the anti-war cause to our natural allies, workers and students
>>> /fighting/ the Tea Party. When I was in Madison February 19th, there were
>>> about 1,000 Tea Party counter-demonstrators to our 80,000. Those 1,000 Tea
>>> Party activists were way more than any of their number ever protesting the war.
>>>
>>> An anti-war Tea Party movement? Where is it? Fledgling right-wing libertarian
>>> groups clearly haven't been that successful in bringing them to the anti-war
>>> cause. It's not worth diluting the substance of our opposition to the war to
>>> attract a handful of libertarians who are opposed to the war for the wrong
>>> reasons and are our enemy on practically every other issue. In the proposed
>>> movement to "Stop the War, Stop the Spending," what are left-wingers supposed
>>> to say when their right-wing partners attack the poor, bust our unions, and
>>> make U.S. capitalism even more savage and inhumane?
>>>
>>> By the way, in the piece below, David Boaz gets the timeline wrong as to when
>>> the anti-war movement weakened, and I believe he does it purposefully for
>>> political points. The anti-war movement was already seriously weakened by
>>> 2006, maybe as early as 2005, as demoralization set in. Surely hopes in a
>>> electoral victory played a role, but there was no sudden death of the
>>> movement upon Obama's election. If Boaz is going to blame the Democrats for
>>> the movement's demise, he should at least get it right. I suspect that he
>>> wasn't involved in the anti-war movement back then and wouldn't know what
>>> happened.
>>>
>>> --- Corey
>>> Bloomington-Normal Citizens for Peace and Justice
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 11:29 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu
>>> <mailto:galliher at illinois.edu>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     [From a director of the 'libertarian' Cato Institute.]
>>>
>>>     "...the $64,000 question — though these days it would have to be at least
>>>     a $64 billion question — could a new antiwar movement hook up with the
>>>     Tea Party movement in a Stop the War, Stop the Spending revolt?"
>>>
>>>     What Ever Happened to the Antiwar Movement?
>>>     David Boaz - March 21, 2011
>>>
>>>     About 100 antiwar protesters, including Daniel Ellsberg of Pentagon
>>>     Papers fame, were arrested Saturday outside the White House in
>>>     demonstrations marking the eighth anniversary of the U.S.-led war in
>>>     Iraq. It’s a far cry from the Bush years, when hundreds of thousands or
>>>     millions marched against the war, and the New York Times declared “world
>>>     public opinion” against the war a second superpower. Will President
>>>     Obama‘s military incursion in a third Muslim country revive the antiwar
>>>     movement?
>>>
>>>     On a street corner in Washington, D.C., outside the Cato Institute,
>>>     there’s a metal box that controls traffic signals. During the Bush years
>>>     there was hardly a day that it didn’t sport a poster advertising an
>>>     antiwar march or simply denouncing President George W. Bush and the war
>>>     in Iraq. But the marches and the posters seemed to stop on election day 2008.
>>>
>>>     Maybe antiwar organizers assumed that they had elected the man who would
>>>     stop the war. After all, Barack Obama rose to power on the basis of his
>>>     early opposition to the Iraq war and his promise to end it. But after two
>>>     years in the White House he has made both of George Bush’s wars his wars.
>>>
>>>     In October 2007, Obama proclaimed, “I will promise you this, that if we
>>>     have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the
>>>     first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end
>>>     to this war. You can take that to the bank.” Speaking of Iraq in February
>>>     2008, candidate Barack Obama said, “I opposed this war in 2002. I will
>>>     bring this war to an end in 2009. It is time to bring our troops home.”
>>>     The following month, under fire from Hillary Clinton, he reiterated, “I
>>>     was opposed to this war in 2002….I have been against it in 2002, 2003,
>>>     2004, 5, 6, 7, 8 and I will bring this war to an end in 2009. So don’t be
>>>     confused.”
>>>
>>>     Indeed, in his famous “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to
>>>     slow” speech on the night he clinched the Democratic nomination, he also
>>>     proclaimed, “I am absolutely certain that generations from now we will be
>>>     able to look back and tell our children that . . . this was the moment
>>>     when we ended a war.”
>>>
>>>     Today, however, he has tripled President Bush’s troop levels in
>>>     Afghanistan, and we have been fighting there for more than nine years.
>>>     The Pentagon has declared “the official end to Operation Iraqi Freedom
>>>     and combat operations by United States forces in Iraq,” but we still have
>>>     50,000 troops there, hardly what Senator Obama promised.
>>>
>>>     And now Libya. In various recent polls more than two-thirds of Americans
>>>     have opposed military intervention in Libya. No doubt many of them voted
>>>     for President Obama.
>>>
>>>     There’s another issue with the Libyan intervention: the president’s
>>>     authority to take the country to war without congressional authorization.
>>>     As many bloggers noted over the weekend, in 2007 Barack Obama told
>>>     Charlie Savage of the Boston Globe,
>>>
>>>     The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally
>>>     authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping
>>>     an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
>>>
>>>     Candidate Hillary Clinton spoke similarly:
>>>
>>>     If the country is under truly imminent threat of attack, of course the
>>>     President must take appropriate action to defend us. At the same time,
>>>     the Constitution requires Congress to authorize war. I do not believe
>>>     that the President can take military action – including any kind of
>>>     strategic bombing – against Iran without congressional authorization.
>>>
>>>     And candidate Joe Biden:
>>>
>>>     The Constitution is clear: except in response to an attack or the
>>>     imminent threat of attack, only Congress may authorize war and the use of
>>>     force.
>>>
>>>     Fine words indeed. Will their supporters call them on their apparent
>>>     reversal?
>>>
>>>     It’s hard to escape the conclusion that antiwar activity in the United
>>>     States and around the world was driven as much by antipathy to George W.
>>>     Bush as by actual opposition to war and intervention. Indeed, a
>>>     University of Michigan study of antiwar protesters found that Democrats
>>>     tended to withdraw from antiwar activity as Obama found increasing
>>>     political success and then took office. Independents and members of third
>>>     parties came to make up a larger share of a smaller movement. Reason.tv
>>>     looked at the dwindling antiwar movement two months ago.
>>>
>>>     With his launch of a third military action, President Obama seems to have
>>>     forgotten a point made by Temple University professor Jan C. Ting: “Wars
>>>     are easy to begin, but hard to end.” Americans haven’t forgotten, though.
>>>
>>>     Nearly two-thirds of Americans now say that the war in Afghanistan hasn’t
>>>     been worth fighting, a number that has soared since early 2010. Where are
>>>     their leaders? Where are the senators pushing for withdrawal? Where are
>>>     the organizations? Could a new, non-Democratic antiwar movement do to
>>>     Obama what the mid-2000s movement did to Bush? And the $64,000 question —
>>>     though these days it would have to be at least a $64 billion question —
>>>     could a new antiwar movement hook up with the Tea Party movement in a
>>>     Stop the War, Stop the Spending revolt?
>>>
>>>     http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2011/03/happened-antiwar-movement/
>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>     Peace-discuss mailing list
>>>     Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net <mailto: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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss