<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<STYLE>.hmmessage P {
PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
BODY.hmmessage {
FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; FONT-SIZE: 10pt
}
</STYLE>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18876"></HEAD>
<BODY class=hmmessage bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Maybe you meant to say....</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>"...all sense of personal responsibility for the current
foreign policy disasters by the Obama administration is lost in the confused
minds of his supporters. "</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>I have no sympathy for those who voted for McCain.
Surely he would have been worse if one can imagine it.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Maybe Americans enjoy being duped?</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=crazyhawk22@hotmail.com href="mailto:crazyhawk22@hotmail.com">Ed
Mandel</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net
href="mailto:peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, January 25, 2010 1:45
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Peace-discuss] Pleonastic
Anti-War Peace Movement?</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>My suggestion to the effort to re-new the peace movement is
that they begin calling the current middle east conflagrations "Obama's
Wars". Every time George W Bush is blamed, all sense of personal
responsibility for the current foreign policy disaster's by the Obama
administration is lost & confused in the minds of his supporters.
<BR><BR>**********************************************<BR><BR><BR>> Date:
Mon, 25 Jan 2010 11:36:21 -0600<BR>> From: galliher@illinois.edu<BR>>
To: peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net<BR>> Subject: [Peace-discuss]
Pleonastic Anti-War Peace Movement?<BR>> <BR>> January 25 2010<BR>>
The Anti-War Peace Movement Needs a Re-Start<BR>> <BR>> America Needs a
Patriotic, Broad-Based and Politically Independent Opposition to <BR>> War.
By Kevin Zeese<BR>> <BR>> In his first year President Obama broke
several war-making records of President <BR>> George W. Bush. He passed the
largest military budget in U.S. history, the <BR>> largest one-year war
supplementals and fired the most drone attacks on the most <BR>> countries.
He began 2010 asking for another $30 billion war supplemental and <BR>>
with the White House indicating that the next military budget will be $708
<BR>> billion, breaking Obama’s previous record.<BR>> <BR>> While
some commentators on MSNBC hailed Obama as the peace candidate, he has
<BR>> done more for war in a shorter time than many other
commanders-in-chief. U.S. <BR>> attacks on other countries are not
challenged in any serious way even if they <BR>> result in consistent loss
of innocent civilian life. It is not healthy for <BR>> American democracy
to allow unquestioned militarism and put war budgets on a <BR>> path of
automatic growth despite the U.S. spending as much as the rest of the <BR>>
world combined on weapons and war.<BR>> <BR>> Anti-war opposition has
failed and needs to begin anew. The peace movement which <BR>> atrophied
during the election year now must re-make itself.<BR>> <BR>> What would
successful anti-war peace advocacy look like?<BR>> <BR>> The vast
majority of Americans widely opposes war and wants the U.S. to focus <BR>>
its resources at home. Their initial reaction to wars and escalations, before
<BR>> the corporate media spin propagandizes them in a different direction,
is to <BR>> oppose war. But, these views are not reflected in the body
politic and certainly <BR>> not in the DC discourse on war. Rather than
anti-war opposition being <BR>> broad-based, it has been a narrow. It is a
leftish movement that does not <BR>> include Middle America or
conservatives who also see the tremendous waste of the <BR>> bloated
military budget and the militarism of U.S. foreign policy.<BR>> <BR>>
Being opposed to war is not considered mainsteam in American politics.
<BR>> Opposition to war and support for peace needs to become a perspective
that is <BR>> included in political debate on the media and in the
Congress. It is currently <BR>> excluded. Successful anti-war advocacy
needs to be credible and well organized <BR>> so it cannot be ignored. This
begins by recognizing the broad, legitimate <BR>> opposition to war and the
long-term anti-war views of Americans across the <BR>> political
spectrum.<BR>> <BR>> There is a long history of opposition to war among
traditional conservatives. <BR>> Their philosophy goes back to President
Washington’s Farewell Address where he <BR>> urged America to avoid
“foreign entanglements.” It has showed itself throughout <BR>> American
history. The Anti-Imperialist League opposed the colonialism of the <BR>>
Philippines in the 1890s. The largest anti-war movement in history, the
America <BR>> First Committee, opposed World War II and had a strong middle
America <BR>> conservative foundation in its make-up. The strongest speech
of an American <BR>> president against militarism was President
Eisenhower’s 1961 final speech from <BR>> the White House warning America
against the growing military-industrial complex.<BR>> <BR>> In recent
years the militarist neo-conservative movement has become dominate of <BR>>
conservatism in the United States. Perhaps none decry this more than
traditional <BR>> conservatives who oppose massive military budgets,
militarism and the American <BR>> empire. Anti-war conservatives continue
to exist, speak out and organize. Much <BR>> of their thinking can be seen
in the American Conservative magazine which has <BR>> been steadfastly
anti-war since its founding in 2002 where their first cover <BR>> story was
entitled “Iraq Folly.”<BR>> <BR>> Of course, the left also has a long
history of opposition to war from the Civil <BR>> War to early imperialism
in the Philippines, World Wars I and II through <BR>> Vietnam, Iraq and
Afghanistan. It includes socialists, Quakers, social justice <BR>>
Catholics and progressives. Indeed, the opposition to entry into World War I
was <BR>> led by the left including socialists, trade unionists, pacifists
including <BR>> people like union leader and presidential candidate Eugene
Debs, Nobel Peace <BR>> Prize winner Jane Addams and author and political
activist Helen Keller. This <BR>> movement was so strong that Woodrow
Wilson ran a campaign to keep the U.S. out <BR>> of the Great War (but
ended up getting the U.S. into the war despite his <BR>> campaign
promises). Opposition to Vietnam brought together peace advocates with
<BR>> the civil rights movement, highlighted by Dr. Martin Luther King,
Jr.’s <BR>> outspoken opposition to the war.<BR>> <BR>> Uniting
anti-war opposition is an urgent initial step to developing strong <BR>>
anti-war, peace advocacy. The cost of U.S. militarism in lives and dollars has
<BR>> become so great that Americans who oppose U.S. militarism need to
join together <BR>> to create an effective opposition to the military
industrial complex that <BR>> profits from war. Yes, there will be
disagreements on other issues but when it <BR>> comes to war and American
empire there is broad agreement that needs to be built on.<BR>> <BR>> A
successful anti-war peace movement cannot give up the flag of patriotism. It
<BR>> needs to grab hold of America’s patriotic impulses and show the
United States <BR>> can be the nation many imagine us to be – leading by
positive example, helping <BR>> in crisis, being a force for good, rather
than propagating military dominance <BR>> and hegemony. A successful
anti-war movement needs to be a place where veterans, <BR>> from grunts to
generals, can openly participate, share their stories and explain <BR>> the
lessons they learned from American militarism. While the left has been able
<BR>> to include the lower level grunts and officers, it has not been a
safe haven for <BR>> generals and admirals who have become opposed to
extreme militarism. A safe <BR>> place, a patriotic, broad-based anti-war
movement, will allow more former <BR>> military to speak out in a cohesive
and effective manner.<BR>> <BR>> And, a patriotic anti-war peace
movement will also be able to attract the <BR>> support of business leaders
who recognize that war undermines the American <BR>> economy as well as
hurting national security, undermining national and <BR>> international law
and weakening the U.S. economy. When the United States is <BR>> spending
one million dollars per soldier in Afghanistan it is evident to anyone
<BR>> focused on the bottom line that a teetering U.S. economy cannot
afford the cost <BR>> of war.<BR>> <BR>> Indeed, a well organized
anti-war movement will have committees not only <BR>> reaching out to
military and business, but to academics, students, clergy, <BR>> labor,
nurses, doctors, teachers and a host of others. Outreach and organization
<BR>> needs to be an ongoing priority. And, organization must be designed
around <BR>> congressional districts so it can have a political impact.
This demonstrates one <BR>> reason for the need for a right left coalition;
the anti-war movement cannot <BR>> allow “red” states or districts to go
unorganized.<BR>> <BR>> Successful anti-war advocacy will also need new
tactics. The government and <BR>> media have adjusted to 1960s tactics.
Mass marches and disruption of Congress <BR>> reached all time highs during
the build up and fighting of the Iraq war but with <BR>> little effect. The
government has learned how to handle these tactics and avoid <BR>> media
attention. There certainly will continue to be roles for these tactics but
<BR>> they cannot be central and more is needed.<BR>> <BR>> Anti-war
advocates need to use voter initiatives and referenda to raise issues <BR>>
that legislators will not confront. This strategy is a way to break though the
<BR>> power of the military industrial complex and bring issues to the
people. It <BR>> forces a public debate and pushes voters to confront how
extreme militarism <BR>> affects their lives. The U.S. has already spent a
trillion dollars in Iraq and <BR>> Afghanistan when care for the wounded
and lost productivity is included the cost <BR>> is more than doubled. In a
decades long “Long War” military expenditures will <BR>> cripple the U.S.
economy. Effective opposition to war will show how the cost of <BR>> war
affects every American’s life.<BR>> <BR>> Around the world other tactics
have been successfully deployed on issues that <BR>> U.S. advocates are not
well organized enough to deploy. These include general <BR>> strikes where
people take off work for hours or days to send a message that the <BR>>
people are organized in opposition to government policy. Similarly slow downs
in <BR>> the nation’s capitol that bring the business of government to a
halt demonstrate <BR>> that the people will not let the business as usual
go on without interruption. <BR>> We can see the beginnings of such efforts
in the U.S. peace movement in Cindy <BR>> Sheehan’s “Peace of the Action”
that recently protested drones at the CIA and <BR>> seeks to block the
business of Empire in the nation’s capitol in 2010.<BR>> <BR>> Finally,
and of critical importance, is for the anti-war peace movement to be <BR>>
truly non-partisan and politically independent. Recently peace activists have
<BR>> been drawn into silence when John “Anybody but Bush” Kerry ran a
campaign where <BR>> he called for escalation of the Iraq War and expansion
of the military. And, <BR>> when candidate Obama promised to escalate the
Afghanistan war, attack Pakistan, <BR>> only partially withdraw from Iraq
and expand the U.S. military – many in the <BR>> peace movement remained
silent or criticized his policies but promised to <BR>> support him anyway.
The peace movement needs to protest candidates from any <BR>> party who
call for more militarism, larger military budgets and more U.S. troops
<BR>> and demand real anti-war positions for their votes.<BR>> <BR>>
Movements cannot stop and start for elections, nor allow party loyalty to
divide <BR>> them. They must continue to build through the election.
Indeed, elections can be <BR>> prime opportunities to build the movement
and push candidates toward the <BR>> anti-war peace perspective. Peace
voters must be clear in their demands: end to <BR>> the current wars, no
more wars of aggression and dramatic reductions in the <BR>> military
budget so that it is really a defense budget not a war budget. This <BR>>
does not mean leaving the U.S. weak and unable to defend itself, but it should
<BR>> not be a budget that allows aggressive misuse of the U.S. military as
the <BR>> primary tool of foreign policy.<BR>> <BR>> Developing an
effective anti-war peace movement is a big task that will take <BR>> years.
U.S. Empire can be traced back to the late 1800s and President Eisenhower
<BR>> warned America of the military industrial complex fifty years ago.
The U.S. is <BR>> currently engaged in a “Long War” supported by neocons,
neo-liberals and <BR>> corporatist politicians. The pro-militarist
establishment has deep roots in both <BR>> major parties and undoing the
military machine will take many years of work. <BR>> Advocacy against war
and militarism needs to be persistent; constantly educating <BR>> the
American public that war undermines national security, weakens the rule of
<BR>> law and contributes to the collapsing economy. We need to show how
investment in <BR>> militarism rather than civil society undermines
livability of American <BR>> communities, weakens the economy and puts
basic necessities like education and <BR>> health care financially out of
reach.<BR>> <BR>> The facts are on the side of the anti-war peace
advocates, now we must build <BR>> organizations that represent the
patriotic, anti-militarist impulses of the <BR>> American people.<BR>>
<BR>> Kevin Zeese is executive director of Voters for Peace
(www.VoterForPeace.US).<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> -- <BR>> This message has been scanned for viruses
and<BR>> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is<BR>> believed to be
clean.<BR>> <BR>>
_______________________________________________<BR>> Peace-discuss mailing
list<BR>> Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net<BR>>
https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss<BR><BR>
<HR>
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. <A
href="http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390707/direct/01/" target=_new>Sign up
now.</A><BR>-- <BR>This message has been scanned for viruses and <BR>dangerous
content by <A href="http://www.mailscanner.info/"><B>MailScanner</B></A>, and
is <BR>believed to be clean.
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>Peace-discuss
mailing
list<BR>Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net<BR>https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><br />--
<br />This message has been scanned for viruses and
<br />dangerous content by
<a href="http://www.mailscanner.info/"><b>MailScanner</b></a>, and is
<br />believed to be clean.
</BODY></HTML>