From divisek at yahoo.com Sat Oct 1 01:44:12 2016 From: divisek at yahoo.com (Dianna Visek) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2016 01:44:12 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace] Local Cops Have Access to Mind-Boggling Array of Spy Gear References: <1518364243.3546303.1475286252025.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1518364243.3546303.1475286252025@mail.yahoo.com> Local Cops Have Access to Mind-Boggling Array of Spy Gear | | | | | | | | | | | Local Cops Have Access to Mind-Boggling Array of Spy Gear Local police departments have access to a mind-boggling array of spy-gear that would send Big Brother into convu... | | | | -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From divisek at yahoo.com Sat Oct 1 01:55:32 2016 From: divisek at yahoo.com (Dianna Visek) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2016 01:55:32 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace] What Obama Doesn't want you to Know About Uzbekistan References: <925976779.3462534.1475286932331.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <925976779.3462534.1475286932331@mail.yahoo.com> What Obama Doesn't want you to Know About Uzbekistan | | | | | | | | | | | What Obama Doesn't want you to Know About Uzbekistan By Rasmussen Reports Death is usually a sad event. The passing of a world leader, particularly one who brought stability to a tense p... | | | | -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Oct 1 02:05:12 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2016 02:05:12 +0000 Subject: [Peace] AWARE Demonstration tomorrow. Message-ID: AWARE (Anti-war, anti-racism) effort of Champaign, Illinois, will hold our first Saturday of the month demonstration, downtown at the corner of Neil & Church Sts. 2:00pm - 4:00pm. Oct. 1, 2016 We have signs and posters available for anyone interested in joining us. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kmedina67 at gmail.com Sat Oct 1 16:06:18 2016 From: kmedina67 at gmail.com (Karen Medina) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2016 11:06:18 -0500 Subject: [Peace] now that it is October, mark your calendar / College of Law campaigning for Clinton Message-ID: By inviting Harold Koh to speak just _11_ days before the 2016 election, the U of I College of Law is campaigning for Hillary Clinton. This is against the Illinois Constitution and the Ethics Act. October 28, 2016, join us to demonstrate against this. -- "The First 200 Days: Foreign Policy Law Challenges for the Next Administration” lecture by Harold Koh (Yale University) Friday, October 28, 2016 Max L. Rowe Auditorium, Law Building 12:00 PM–1:00 PM "As the presidential campaign rages, the foreign policy and international law challenges have been pushed to the background. But after early November they will take center stage. What key foreign policy issues must the next Administration quickly address and what domestic and international legal challenges do they raise?" Harold Hongju Koh returned to Yale Law School in January 2013 after serving for nearly four years as the Legal Adviser of the U.S. Department of State when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. Koh and Clinton have been friends for a very long time. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Oct 1 16:42:15 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2016 16:42:15 +0000 Subject: [Peace] Demonstration Oct. 28th Message-ID: Please join us: Harold Hongju Koh, Hillary Clinton's former legal advisor at the State Department has been invited as an 'endowed speaker' at the U.I. College of Law, twelve days prior to the November election, in violation of Illinois statutes. Koh, currently a Yale Law School professor and former Dean, he provided legal advice for Hillary during the 2009 coup in Honduras, the 2011 US/NATO attack on Libya, and Obama's ongoing drone assassinations - as well as damage-control in her email controversy. An avid advocate of the targeted killing program, "Killer Koh" supports the legality of what he terms "extrajudicial killing" in Pakistan, Yemen and other Middle Eastern countries in the US "war on terror. The Nuremberg Military Tribunal in 1947 stated unequivocally that the crimes of the ten civilian Nazi defendants who were convicted of murder and other atrocities, conspiracy to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity of civilians and nationals of occupied territories, were liable to severe penalty whether or not they had engaged in military action. The Nuremberg judgment still stands in international law. A reception to protest Professor Koh's appearance is planned at the north courtyard of the College of Law, U of I, Champaign, Il. 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave., Peabody Dr. before the lecture at 11:30am October 28. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kmedina67 at gmail.com Sat Oct 1 16:54:26 2016 From: kmedina67 at gmail.com (Karen Medina) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2016 11:54:26 -0500 Subject: [Peace] let peace reign / October 1st demonstration at 2pm / be there Message-ID: Dear Peace, Today (October 1) is the first Saturday of October 2016 and the United States is still killing people in other countries. Join us today from 2pm to 4pm for a "Let Peace Reign" demonstration in downtown Champaign / the corners of Main St. and Neil St. The flyer today is about whistleblower Edward Snowden. On the verso, how the U of I College of Law is campaigning for Hillary Clinton by inviting Harold Koh as a paid speaker less than 2 weeks before the election. Be there rain or shine, -- karen medina (My apologies for not being there today, I am scheduled to work) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stuartnlevy at gmail.com Sat Oct 1 17:12:10 2016 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (Stuart Levy) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2016 12:12:10 -0500 Subject: [Peace] 5:30pm Sat, 4:00pm Sun: Kathy Bergen to speak about justice in Palestine at First Mennonite Church In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <282adb42-aa08-9461-c28a-b0af65067174@gmail.com> Kathy Bergen - peace activist, Mennonite, who has spent sixteen of the last 32 years in Palestine - speaking this afternoon and tomorrow: First Mennonite Church, 902 W Springfield *5:30pm-6:45pm Sat Oct 1st* (today!) "Jerusalem: A city of conflict, a city of peace" *9:15am Sun Oct 2nd* Guest preacher at First Mennonite Church "Singing the Lord's Song Together - What does it mean?" *4:00pm-5:30pm Sun Oct 2nd* "What is happening in Palestine/Israel and what can I do about it?" Katherine Crosby will also share her reflections about her recent experience with a CPT delegation in Palestine. (Dannie Otto writes: ...) I am sending this out to folks who may be interested in several public talks in Urbana this weekend by Kathy Bergen who will be visiting Barbara and me this weekend. I am attaching her bio and a flier with her schedule. I had hoped to arrange for her to speak on campus, but couldn't get it done. Both talks will be at First Mennonite Church at Springfield and Lincoln. Kathy is one of our oldest friends. We knew her before she was transformed by her first visit to Jerusalem in 1982. She has lived in Palestine since then except for several periods of time when she was working for international NGOs on Palestinian issues based in Geneva, Switzerland and in Philadelphia. Two years ago she retired and returned to Canada, but she is unflagging in continuing her work to inform people about the situation in Palestine. We would be pleased if you could attend her two public talks and even more pleased if you could distribute this to any email list you might have for people who are or should be interested in justice for Palestinians. Please pass this on to friends, etc. Kathy will be in town through Tuesday. If you or someone you know would like to meet her for coffee/tea and additional conversation, that would be possible on Monday or Tuesday. If you have any questions, just contact me. Dannie Otto 217 254-9876 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Kathy Bergen bio March, 2016 (1) (1).doc Type: application/msword Size: 38912 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: kathybergen2016.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 797100 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jbw292002 at gmail.com Sat Oct 1 20:07:56 2016 From: jbw292002 at gmail.com (John W.) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2016 15:07:56 -0500 Subject: [Peace] now that it is October, mark your calendar / College of Law campaigning for Clinton In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: While "Killer" Koh may be buddies with Hillary, his topic and its description sounds quite neutral, and I doubt that he will be doing any overt campaigning for Hillary at the UIUC College of Law. Presumably a President Trump (God forbid!) would have to address the same foreign policy challenges. John Wason On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Karen Medina via Peace < peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: By inviting Harold Koh to speak just _11_ days before the 2016 election, > the U of I College of Law is campaigning for Hillary Clinton. This is > against the Illinois Constitution and the Ethics Act. > > October 28, 2016, join us to demonstrate against this. > -- > > "The First 200 Days: Foreign Policy Law Challenges for the Next > Administration” lecture by Harold Koh (Yale University) > > > > Friday, October 28, 2016 > > Max L. Rowe Auditorium, Law Building > > 12:00 PM–1:00 PM > > "As the presidential campaign rages, the foreign policy and international > law challenges have been pushed to the background. But after early November > they will take center stage. What key foreign policy issues must the next > Administration quickly address and what domestic and international legal > challenges do they raise?" > > > > Harold Hongju Koh returned to Yale Law School in January 2013 after > serving for nearly four years as the Legal Adviser of the U.S. Department > of State when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. Koh and Clinton have > been friends for a very long time. > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Oct 1 23:51:36 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2016 23:51:36 +0000 Subject: [Peace] now that it is October, mark your calendar / College of Law campaigning for Clinton In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I wouldn’t count on that John, I attended a UIUC COL lecture a couple weeks ago, for which they brought in Yale law Professor Anil Amar to discuss “Freedom of Speech” All he did, was, after the first fifteen minutes of Poli Sci. 101, and promoting his book on the “Constitution”, was campaign for Hillary and the democrats. It may not have been overt to some but it was obvious to me, especially when he referred to Tammy Duckworth as a worthy candidate. Needless to say I called him on it, and he replied that "we were exercising our freedom of speech.” So I wouldn’t trust the title or lecture description at all. On Oct 1, 2016, at 13:07, John W. via Peace > wrote: While "Killer" Koh may be buddies with Hillary, his topic and its description sounds quite neutral, and I doubt that he will be doing any overt campaigning for Hillary at the UIUC College of Law. Presumably a President Trump (God forbid!) would have to address the same foreign policy challenges. John Wason On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Karen Medina via Peace > wrote: By inviting Harold Koh to speak just _11_ days before the 2016 election, the U of I College of Law is campaigning for Hillary Clinton. This is against the Illinois Constitution and the Ethics Act. October 28, 2016, join us to demonstrate against this. -- "The First 200 Days: Foreign Policy Law Challenges for the Next Administration” lecture by Harold Koh (Yale University) Friday, October 28, 2016 Max L. Rowe Auditorium, Law Building 12:00 PM–1:00 PM "As the presidential campaign rages, the foreign policy and international law challenges have been pushed to the background. But after early November they will take center stage. What key foreign policy issues must the next Administration quickly address and what domestic and international legal challenges do they raise?" Harold Hongju Koh returned to Yale Law School in January 2013 after serving for nearly four years as the Legal Adviser of the U.S. Department of State when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. Koh and Clinton have been friends for a very long time. _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Oct 3 12:56:16 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 12:56:16 +0000 Subject: [Peace] now that it is October, mark your calendar / College of Law campaigning for Clinton In-Reply-To: <1981740710.623749.1475489023039@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1981740710.623749.1475489023039@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hardly obscure law professors, neither one. And, consider many of the “students” at the U of I, are voters in other states. Anyway, its really about promoting “warfare” especially drone warfare to future voters, as the norm now. Anyone not seeing this is likely very young, or very into “rose colored glasses” believing the lies of the corporate/military owned USG. On Oct 3, 2016, at 03:03, Gregg Gordon > wrote: Frankly, anyone who thinks a speech by an obscure law professor in a non-battleground state is a "campaign event" needs a basic tutorial in electoral politics. Protest him -- fine -- but not for that reason. ________________________________ From: Karen Aram via Peace > To: John W. > Cc: Peace List >; Karen Medina > Sent: Saturday, October 1, 2016 6:51 PM Subject: Re: [Peace] now that it is October, mark your calendar / College of Law campaigning for Clinton I wouldn’t count on that John, I attended a UIUC COL lecture a couple weeks ago, for which they brought in Yale law Professor Anil Amar to discuss “Freedom of Speech” All he did, was, after the first fifteen minutes of Poli Sci. 101, and promoting his book on the “Constitution”, was campaign for Hillary and the democrats. It may not have been overt to some but it was obvious to me, especially when he referred to Tammy Duckworth as a worthy candidate. Needless to say I called him on it, and he replied that "we were exercising our freedom of speech.” So I wouldn’t trust the title or lecture description at all. On Oct 1, 2016, at 13:07, John W. via Peace > wrote: While "Killer" Koh may be buddies with Hillary, his topic and its description sounds quite neutral, and I doubt that he will be doing any overt campaigning for Hillary at the UIUC College of Law. Presumably a President Trump (God forbid!) would have to address the same foreign policy challenges. John Wason On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Karen Medina via Peace > wrote: By inviting Harold Koh to speak just _11_ days before the 2016 election, the U of I College of Law is campaigning for Hillary Clinton. This is against the Illinois Constitution and the Ethics Act. October 28, 2016, join us to demonstrate against this. -- "The First 200 Days: Foreign Policy Law Challenges for the Next Administration” lecture by Harold Koh (Yale University) Friday, October 28, 2016 Max L. Rowe Auditorium, Law Building 12:00 PM–1:00 PM "As the presidential campaign rages, the foreign policy and international law challenges have been pushed to the background. But after early November they will take center stage. What key foreign policy issues must the next Administration quickly address and what domestic and international legal challenges do they raise?" Harold Hongju Koh returned to Yale Law School in January 2013 after serving for nearly four years as the Legal Adviser of the U.S. Department of State when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. Koh and Clinton have been friends for a very long time. ______________________________ _________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/ mailman/listinfo/peace _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Oct 3 15:04:20 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 15:04:20 +0000 Subject: [Peace] now that it is October, mark your calendar / College of Law campaigning for Clinton In-Reply-To: <1675709238.1113975.1475505571308@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1981740710.623749.1475489023039@mail.yahoo.com> <1675709238.1113975.1475505571308@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Greg It is campaigning, when I challenged Prof. Amar on the fact that he was supposed to speak on “Freedom of Speech”, a couple weeks ago, because all he was doing was campaigning for Hillary and Democrats, he responded with a defense of Hillary and her actions, which I had also challenged. He replied that “only five Americans died in Libya”, holding up five fingers and emphasizing a second time, “only five Americans”. Thus not only diminishing those American lives lost, but totally ignoring and diminishing the thousands upon thousands of Libyans, and other nationals in the "Middle East and North Africa whose lives were lost, and lands destroyed. Look behind the looking glass, its campaigning for Hillary, Harold Koh, and all cohorts, and the continuing wars they are perpetuating. Last year the COL held a talk, on the “Legitimacy of Targeted Killing” and then avoided any discussion of its relationship to the law. The very title, was placing a stamp of approval on targeted killing. These people are very smart, they use subtle tactics to accomplish their goals. The very act of bringing Harold Killer Koh to the University to speak, within ten days of the election, someone who should be viewed as a "war criminal” along with Hillary, Obama, Bush, Cheney and so many others lends a facade of credibility to their actions.This should not be tolerated. Only Prof. Boyle of the COL U of I, has has the courage to speak out against the schools actions. He deserves our support. On Oct 3, 2016, at 07:39, Gregg Gordon > wrote: If that's what it's really about, then say that's what it's really about. That's my point. And I still maintain that the University of Illinois Law School is a strange place to go seeking votes in Florida and Ohio. I suspect there will be more protesters there than students anyway, especially since they know nothing he says will be on the test. ________________________________ From: Karen Aram > To: Gregg Gordon > Cc: John W. >; Peace List >; Karen Medina > Sent: Monday, October 3, 2016 7:56 AM Subject: Re: [Peace] now that it is October, mark your calendar / College of Law campaigning for Clinton Hardly obscure law professors, neither one. And, consider many of the “students” at the U of I, are voters in other states. Anyway, its really about promoting “warfare” especially drone warfare to future voters, as the norm now. Anyone not seeing this is likely very young, or very into “rose colored glasses” believing the lies of the corporate/military owned USG. On Oct 3, 2016, at 03:03, Gregg Gordon > wrote: Frankly, anyone who thinks a speech by an obscure law professor in a non-battleground state is a "campaign event" needs a basic tutorial in electoral politics. Protest him -- fine -- but not for that reason. ________________________________ From: Karen Aram via Peace > To: John W. > Cc: Peace List >; Karen Medina > Sent: Saturday, October 1, 2016 6:51 PM Subject: Re: [Peace] now that it is October, mark your calendar / College of Law campaigning for Clinton I wouldn’t count on that John, I attended a UIUC COL lecture a couple weeks ago, for which they brought in Yale law Professor Anil Amar to discuss “Freedom of Speech” All he did, was, after the first fifteen minutes of Poli Sci. 101, and promoting his book on the “Constitution”, was campaign for Hillary and the democrats. It may not have been overt to some but it was obvious to me, especially when he referred to Tammy Duckworth as a worthy candidate. Needless to say I called him on it, and he replied that "we were exercising our freedom of speech.” So I wouldn’t trust the title or lecture description at all. On Oct 1, 2016, at 13:07, John W. via Peace > wrote: While "Killer" Koh may be buddies with Hillary, his topic and its description sounds quite neutral, and I doubt that he will be doing any overt campaigning for Hillary at the UIUC College of Law. Presumably a President Trump (God forbid!) would have to address the same foreign policy challenges. John Wason On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Karen Medina via Peace > wrote: By inviting Harold Koh to speak just _11_ days before the 2016 election, the U of I College of Law is campaigning for Hillary Clinton. This is against the Illinois Constitution and the Ethics Act. October 28, 2016, join us to demonstrate against this. -- "The First 200 Days: Foreign Policy Law Challenges for the Next Administration” lecture by Harold Koh (Yale University) Friday, October 28, 2016 Max L. Rowe Auditorium, Law Building 12:00 PM–1:00 PM "As the presidential campaign rages, the foreign policy and international law challenges have been pushed to the background. But after early November they will take center stage. What key foreign policy issues must the next Administration quickly address and what domestic and international legal challenges do they raise?" Harold Hongju Koh returned to Yale Law School in January 2013 after serving for nearly four years as the Legal Adviser of the U.S. Department of State when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. Koh and Clinton have been friends for a very long time. ______________________________ _________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/ mailman/listinfo/peace _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Oct 3 15:07:58 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 15:07:58 +0000 Subject: [Peace] Harold Killer Koh Message-ID: The article below taken from the Public I, gives a deeper look into the character of the guest speaker being brought to the COL U of I Oct. 28th. October Surprise: Harold “Killer” Koh to Lecture at UI Law School in Election Week Posted on September 2016 by Midge O'Brien [th] Harold Hongju Koh Harold Hongju Koh, Hillary Clinton’s former legal advisor at the State Department has been invited as an ‘endowed speaker’ at the U.I. College of Law, twelve days prior to the November election. Koh, currently a Yale Law School professor and former Dean, is a close friend of Yale Law School graduates Bill and Hillary Clinton. He was appointed by President Bill Clinton as Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor; and by President Obama, as senior legal advisor to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: he provided legal advice to her during the 2009 coup in Honduras, the 2011 US/NATO attack on Libya, and Obama’s ongoing drone assassinations – as well as damage-control in her email controversy. He won’t say what that advice was, claiming “attorney-client privilege” – despite the Supreme Court ruling against attorney-client confidences between government lawyers and government officials. An avid advocate of the targeted killing program, “Killer Koh” supports the legality of what he terms “extrajudicial killing” in Pakistan, Yemen and other Middle Eastern countries in the US “war on terror,” saying it complies “with all applicable law, including the laws of war,” and citing the ‘principle of proportionality’ in “taking great care in planning and execution to ensure that only ‘legitimate’ objectives are targeted and that collateral damage is kept to a minimum.” In a feeble attempt at transparency, the Obama administration recently released a modest admission that some “116 civilians” may have been victims of U. S. drone attacks – a figure that is not reconcilable with the accounts of eyewitnesses, journalists and human rights researchers, who have documented many thousands of casualties. President Obama said – in a revealing moment of self-reflection – “Turns out I’m really good at killing people … Didn’t know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine” (from Mark Halperin & John Heilemann, “Double Down: Game Change 2012”). If Hillary Clinton is elected president, with the advice of Tim Kaine and Killer Koh, she may be even more eager to mass-murder than her predecessor: the number of casualties would likely exceed that of Obama’s kill list, just as his toll today greatly outnumbers G. W. Bush’s. Late on Friday 5 August, the White House grudgingly complied with an Federal Court order (from an ACLU suit) and released a redacted “President’s Policy Guidance” (PPG) on Obama’s program of targeted killings. The PPG stipulates that “nothing in this PPG shall be construed to prevent the President from exercising his Constitutional authority … to authorize lethal force against an individual who poses a continuing, imminent threat to another country’s persons.” (Killing US citizens requires specific approval by the President). Death lists are drawn up weekly by the ‘nominating committee’ and are reviewed by lawyers of the nominating agencies (CIA, Pentagon, NSC, officials of the State Department and “deputies and principals of the nominating committee”). Of the seven Middle Eastern countries where drone assassinations take place, “active war zones” – Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan (it’s not clear if Libya is included) – do not require prior approval. With this protocol in place, the White House and the National Security Council are insulated from outside scrutiny, even by Congress. It assumes that the Commander in Chief can do anything s/he wants; it would provide a President Clinton #2, with the approval of hawks Tim Kaine and Harold Koh, immense power and license to kill. Koh as the (former) State Department lawyer has publicly defended extrajudicial killing as “due process under the Constitution in the age of moral and political degeneration.” In a speech at the Oxford Political Union in 2013 he said, “This Administration has not done enough to be transparent about the legal standards and decision making process … fostering a growing perception that the program [extrajudicial killing] is not lawful and necessary…,” adding that this lack of transparency is counterproductive and has led to the “negative public image” of targeted killing. Does Prof. Koh think the recent exposure of the (heavily redacted) PPG ordered by the Court provides the “transparency” to satisfy critics of the legality of targeted killing? Although Koh has been described as a prominent advocate of human and civil rights (apparently exclusively of US citizens), he has been an “equal opportunist” as a legal advisor to Reagan, Clinton and Obama administrations – all of whom have violated the human rights of foreign nationals. He hardly represented human and civil rights as a member of the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel to the President in the Reagan administration, when that office justified violations of international law, the Charter of United Nations and the US Constitution, in grievous violation of human rights and attempts to destabilize the countries of Grenada, El Salvador, Nicaragua (attempting to withdraw from the International Court of Justice, which denounced the US for bombing Nicaraguan harbors), Guatemala, Libya, Angola and elsewhere in southern Africa; and when it supported the South African apartheid government against its black population, supported Israel’s invasion and massacres of Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon, and supported illegal Israeli settlements in the Palestinian Occupied Territories – for which the US exercised its veto in the U.N. Security Council, in opposition to sanctions against US. In addition, the Reagan administration and its legal advisors refused to support nuclear test ban treaties, instead proliferating first-strike nuclear weapons, SDI (“star wars”) and MX missiles. Not a record to be proud of for someone serving as legal counsel to the president. The opportunity extended Harold Koh to lecture potential scholars of political and international law poses the question, Is the University of Illinois College of Law – with its record of sanctions – qualified to educate future lawyers, when it sponsors a person of Harold H. Koh’s character in these politically charged times? The Nuremberg Military Tribunal in 1947 stated unequivocally that the crimes of the ten civilian Nazi defendants who were convicted of murder and other atrocities, conspiracy to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity of civilians and nationals of occupied territories, were liable to severe penalty whether or not they had engaged in military action. The Nuremberg judgment still stands in international law. A reception to protest Professor Koh’s appearance is planned at the north courtyard of the College of Law before the lecture on the afternoon of October 28. (Midge O’Brien was an academic professional in U. of I. life science laborotories over twenty years and secretary in the Union of Professional Employees; was an election judge twelve years; a member of Nuclear Freeze, and Prairie Alliance against nuclear power; and an anti-war activist since 1965. She is a member of the Green Party.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kmedina67 at gmail.com Mon Oct 3 18:03:25 2016 From: kmedina67 at gmail.com (Karen Medina) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 13:03:25 -0500 Subject: [Peace] also Tuesday, October 4; 5pm / Rejecting Globalization: The Rise of Populism and Xenophobia in 2016 Message-ID: Rejecting Globalization: The Rise of Populism and Xenophobia in 2016 “Join us for a discussion that explores the ideological, political, and economic connections between increasingly strong populist and anti-globalization movements worldwide.” - The Center for Global Studies, a public event. Tuesday, October 4, 2016; 5pm-7pm; Gregory Hall Room 100; / 810 South Wright Street, Urbana, IL. “Many of these political and social movements share characteristics such as a rejection of globalization, disengagement from global systems, anti-immigration fervor, and tendencies toward nationalistic rhetoric. The discussion features the following scholars who will discuss these trends and offer some insights based on their expertise: Moderator: Edward A. Kolodziej, PhD, is Emeritus Research Professor of Political Science and former Director of the Center for Global Studies and the Program in Arms Control, Disarmament, and International Security at UIUC. Presenters: Hadi Salehi Esfahani, PhD, is a Professor of Economics and Business Administration at the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at UIUC. His theoretical and empirical research is in the field of political economy of development. His work focuses on the role of politics and governance in fiscal, trade, labor, and regulatory policies. Kostas Kourtikakis, PhD, is a Teaching Associate Professor of Political Science at UIUC. His research interests lie in comparative politics, international relations, Western European politics, the European Union and education. Maxime H. A. Larivé, PhD, is Associate Director and Director of Graduate Studies at the European Union Center at UIUC. His main areas of research include European security and defense, transatlantic relations, energy security and trade relations between the EU and the US. Parthiban Muniandy, PhD, is a lecturer in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. His research interests lie in critical and global ethnography, transnational sociology, labor migration, and postcolonial theory. -- Map, accessibility, and parking: http://ada.fs.illinois.edu/0043.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Mon Oct 3 19:42:35 2016 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 14:42:35 -0500 Subject: [Peace] also Tuesday, October 4; 5pm / Rejecting Globalization: The Rise of Populism and Xenophobia in 2016 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <63D04065-E874-47ED-BDBC-82EF129F7A5A@illinois.edu> Kolodziej is a thoroughly conventional neoliberal and neocon. If he’s chosen the panel there’s little to expect but propagandna. But then I doubt that many people on campus or off will be paying attention. Those of us who support the "increasingly strong populist and anti-globalization movements worldwide” - and hence oppose the Obama administration’s wars and trade pacts - would probably be more effective in other forums (including our public demonstrations). —CGE > On Oct 3, 2016, at 1:03 PM, Karen Medina via Peace wrote: > > Rejecting Globalization: The Rise of Populism and Xenophobia in 2016 > > “Join us for a discussion that explores the ideological, political, and economic connections between increasingly strong populist and anti-globalization movements worldwide.” - The Center for Global Studies, a public event. > > Tuesday, October 4, 2016; 5pm-7pm; Gregory Hall Room 100; / 810 South Wright Street, Urbana, IL. > > > “Many of these political and social movements share characteristics such as a rejection of globalization, disengagement from global systems, anti-immigration fervor, and tendencies toward nationalistic rhetoric. The discussion features the following scholars who will discuss these trends and offer some insights based on their expertise: > > > Moderator: > > > Edward A. Kolodziej, PhD, is Emeritus Research Professor of Political Science and former Director of the Center for Global Studies and the Program in Arms Control, Disarmament, and International Security at UIUC. > > > Presenters: > > > Hadi Salehi Esfahani, PhD, is a Professor of Economics and Business Administration at the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at UIUC. His theoretical and empirical research is in the field of political economy of development. His work focuses on the role of politics and governance in fiscal, trade, labor, and regulatory policies. > > > Kostas Kourtikakis, PhD, is a Teaching Associate Professor of Political Science at UIUC. His research interests lie in comparative politics, international relations, Western European politics, the European Union and education. > > > Maxime H. A. Larivé, PhD, is Associate Director and Director of Graduate Studies at the European Union Center at UIUC. His main areas of research include European security and defense, transatlantic relations, energy security and trade relations between the EU and the US. > > > Parthiban Muniandy, PhD, is a lecturer in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. His research interests lie in critical and global ethnography, transnational sociology, labor migration, and postcolonial theory. > > -- > > Map, accessibility, and parking: http://ada.fs.illinois.edu/0043.html _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From susanroseparenti at gmail.com Mon Oct 3 21:01:05 2016 From: susanroseparenti at gmail.com (Susan Parenti) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 16:01:05 -0500 Subject: [Peace] small house organ for free---do you want it? Message-ID: Hi friends----Would anyone like a small electric organ in perfect shape? I have one, I would love for it to go to a good home (organs say their prayers at night, don't swear or drink hard liquor). You'd need to pick it up---it's not really so heavy (probably around 60 pounds) and comes with a bench and organ music. Here's some pictures of it:[image: Inline image 1][image: Inline image 2] -- *Susan Parenti* *Educational Coordinator * *The School for Designing a Society *www.designingasociety.net *Like us on Facebook !* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IMG_0705.jpeg Type: image/jpeg Size: 24585 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IMG_0706.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2002485 bytes Desc: not available URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Oct 3 22:33:53 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 22:33:53 +0000 Subject: [Peace] =?utf-8?q?=28no_subject=29?= In-Reply-To: <57f2a27b43985_1f0c5fe69466367@worker3.nbuild.prd.atl.3dna.io.mail> References: <57f2a27b43985_1f0c5fe69466367@worker3.nbuild.prd.atl.3dna.io.mail> Message-ID: On Oct 3, 2016, at 11:24, Jill Stein > wrote: [Jill 2016] STEIN/BARAKA HEADQUARTERS URGENT: 2016 VP DEBATES ALERT! LET’S SUPPORT AJAMU TODAY! First we took Facebook - Now we’ll take the White House! Jill won the debate last Monday night at Hofstra because of YOU!! [Screen_Shot_2016-10-03_at_8.59.20_AM.png] She was trending on Facebook by a factor of ten compared to the celebrity runner-up. Our reach was over 15 million people. What does it mean when Jill Stein is trending over Rosie O’Donnell and other celebs? In some national polls including Real Clear Politics, Jill went up a whole point to 4% after the debate. That’s an increase of almost one million more people saying they will vote for Jill and Ajamu. We are so grateful for your support, for your generosity, and your commitment in helping us achieve these goals. And NOW - our campaign is committed to even more. We’re committed to achieving these same kind of results for Ajamu Baraka tomorrow night at Longwood University. YES! I want to support Ajamu in the debates! And we’re going to DEFEAT the establishment again! How? By again taking it to the “people’s airwaves”, social media. Try as they might, the Democrats, Republicans, and the sham Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) can't keep us out of the Vice Presidential Debate tomorrow! Democracy Now! (the premier source of non-corporately filtered news, information and analysis) is going to insert Ajamu Baraka directly into the [Ajamu_close_up.png] debate! He’ll be able to take on Kaine and Pence in real-time! Plus this will broadcast over Free Speech TV, Link TV, as well as live streaming available directly on our website. We will freeze the feed to give Ajamu time to answer the same questions posed to the two corporate party candidates during the actual debate. I want to donate and support Ajamu in the VP debate right now! For every question asked of the establishment candidates by moderator Elaine Quijano of CBS News, Ajamu will provide the Stein-Baraka Green Party solution - he will be allowed the time to answer fully and in-depth. However, this is going to be expensive - well over $35,000 between the technology, travel costs, the website, and all the infrastructure. But you know what? It will all be worth it. Because instead of trading insults and trying to create “gotcha” moments and personal assassination, Ajamu will provide bold new answers to the nation's biggest challenges. You can be sure that Ajamu is ready to answer whatever is asked from a progressive, forward-thinking Green perspective! What can you do? The main thing you can do to make our Vice Presidential online debate a success is give generously to help us pay for the more than $35,000 cost.Ajamu is going to participate in this debate but it’s going to take a full crew. None of this is cheap, but it is necessary—and EFFECTIVE! Again, Jill's polling numbers went up a full point to 4% after our livestream of her during the Presidential Debates. That translates to almost a million people. The “people's media” - social media - provides platforms that the corporate media can't shut us out of. And with your help, we can continue to present the “out-of-the-box” solutions that have already received mainstream support. Voters are so disillusioned with the two major candidates and their running mates. A recent poll revealed that 74% of Americans wanted the Green Party in the debates. The corporate media is conspiring to shut us out. But thanks to you, we are forcing our way in! This is a critical opportunity. It’s critical time, with only 35 days left before the election, for us to put forth our common sense ideas and our message of change, of hope, and integrity, and increase Jill and Ajamu’s polling numbers even further. Please give generously today and don't forget to log into Facebook and watch Democracy Now! tomorrow night to see Ajamu debate live. Keep reading below for all the details on when the debate will be broadcast from Virginia! As Ajamu and Jill say, “We can build this new world. It's not in our hopes. It’s not in our dreams. It's in our hands.” Gloria Mattera Campaign Chair P.S. The Vice Presidential Debate will be broadcast live starting at 9PM Eastern tomorrow, Tuesday night October 4th. Log onto Democracy Now!’s Facebook page at to watch Ajamu's responses to debate moderator Elaine Quijano's questions. And please give generously to support Ajamu. P.P.S. During the debate, Ajamu will talk about the Green New Deal and 20 million good jobs to combat climate change, abolishing student debt, an end to police violence, support for Black Lives Matter and an end to institutional racism, putting an end to American military imperialism and so much more! Help us support Ajamu in the debates today. [donate-button-17.png] Gloria Mattera http://www.jill2016.com/ [Jill 2016] [Facebook] [Twitter] [YouTube] [Instagram] This email was sent to karenaram at hotmail.com. Click here to Unsubscribe. PAID FOR BY JILL STEIN FOR PRESIDENT PO BOX 260197, MADISON, WI 53726 Created with NationBuilder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Oct 3 23:13:09 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 23:13:09 +0000 Subject: [Peace] Our future Message-ID: The “major and deadly” wars to come By Andre Daman 3 October 2016 The Atlantic Council, a leading US geopolitical strategy think tank, published a report on September 20 titled The Future of the Army. The document outlines the far-reaching preparations that are underway for the United States, in the report’s own words, to fight “major and deadly” wars between “great powers,” which will entail “heavy casualties” and “high levels of death and destruction.” The report confirms the warnings made by the World Socialist Web Site and the candidates of the Socialist Equality Party in the 2016 US elections that the world stands closer to war than at any time since 1939. The document was co-authored by Lt. General David Barno, who commanded the US-led force in Afghanistan from 2003 to 2005, having previously taken part in the US invasions of Grenada in 1983 and Panama in 1989. It was published by the Atlantic Council’s Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security, named after a leading military adviser to the Ford, Nixon, George H. W. Bush and Obama administrations. It presents a picture of the near future (2020-2025) as a horrifying dystopia, characterized by spiraling inequality, economic insecurity and perpetual war. “Today’s world of haves and have-nots will be greatly magnified,” it states, “with those fortunate enough to have employment and access to stunning technology living in stark contrast to the hundreds of millions struggling to survive in disrupted environments.” This world “will be marked by the breakdown of order, widespread violent extremism and aggressive large states.” The world situation will be driven by “unpredicted and unpredictable events,” including the possibility of “a nuclear exchange.” Noting that “urban operations will increasingly dominate land warfare,” the Atlantic Council predicts that armies will operate “in densely packed metropolitan areas where civilian populations are a part of the battlefield.” Speaking of the present situation, the report declares that “the United States has entered an era of perpetual war.” It notes, “After fifteen years, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are still continuing.” There is, additionally, “an increasing number of conflicts in the gray zone, whose primary characteristic is ambiguity—about their objectives, participants, and even outcomes, since they clearly lack defined end points.” But, as the document cautions, “The Army cannot focus solely on these types of conflicts.” It must prepare for what “we’ve called ‘the next big war’—involving very capable adversaries, high levels of death and destruction, and perhaps hundreds of thousands of US troops.” The Atlantic Council roots the likelihood of such a war in what it calls “Russia’s resurgence,” which requires NATO to “seriously prepare for the possibility of a Russian attack on one or more of its members for the first time since the end of the Cold War.” China, likewise, has “become increasingly aggressive.” Noting that 5,366 US soldiers died during the Iraq war, the report declares that “the next big war” will see levels of violence and death far beyond what has been seen in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. It bemoans the fact that Army “personnel have not been psychologically hardened by personal experience for the grim task of fighting through heavy losses to battlefield victory.” It warns that “current Army leaders have little if any experience with the extreme battlefield stresses caused by overrun units and heavy casualties,” adding, “These stresses were common during past US conflicts and could likely be so again during a future big war.” “A future major war against a great power competitor might,” according to the report, “require the Army to grow by several orders of magnitude in order to prevail.” To make this possible, the Army must begin making plans for a “mass mobilization.” As the Atlantic Council explains, “The growing threats in today’s world” mean that the Army “must once again build a mobilization plan to rapidly grow the size of the Army to meet a national crisis of existential danger.” In other words, it must prepare to institute a draft. Finally, there must be active preparations for an intervention—or even takeover—by the military in the event of what the report calls a “breakdown of civil order”—a euphemism for the emergence of a political challenge from below to the domination of the ruling class. The Atlantic Council notes that “the large-scale disruption of civil order…would almost certainly engage much of the Army in providing extensive support to civil authorities throughout the country.” Totally left out of this analysis, except as the object of military repression, are the American people. It never occurs to those engaged in the preparation of these policies to consult the population. It is taken for granted that it must acquiesce to a course of action that will result in death and destruction on a horrific scale. None of this is being discussed or even hinted at in the US elections. The media and the establishment candidates are seeking to bury the real issues at stake. The questions of life and death are deliberated away from the cameras. They are the purview of the “deep state”—the Pentagon, the intelligence agencies and their associated think tanks. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Oct 3 23:18:31 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 23:18:31 +0000 Subject: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] Our future In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Oct 3, 2016, at 16:13, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: The “major and deadly” wars to come By Andre Damon 3 October 2016 The Atlantic Council, a leading US geopolitical strategy think tank, published a report on September 20 titled The Future of the Army. The document outlines the far-reaching preparations that are underway for the United States, in the report’s own words, to fight “major and deadly” wars between “great powers,” which will entail “heavy casualties” and “high levels of death and destruction.” The report confirms the warnings made by the World Socialist Web Site and the candidates of the Socialist Equality Party in the 2016 US elections that the world stands closer to war than at any time since 1939. The document was co-authored by Lt. General David Barno, who commanded the US-led force in Afghanistan from 2003 to 2005, having previously taken part in the US invasions of Grenada in 1983 and Panama in 1989. It was published by the Atlantic Council’s Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security, named after a leading military adviser to the Ford, Nixon, George H. W. Bush and Obama administrations. It presents a picture of the near future (2020-2025) as a horrifying dystopia, characterized by spiraling inequality, economic insecurity and perpetual war. “Today’s world of haves and have-nots will be greatly magnified,” it states, “with those fortunate enough to have employment and access to stunning technology living in stark contrast to the hundreds of millions struggling to survive in disrupted environments.” This world “will be marked by the breakdown of order, widespread violent extremism and aggressive large states.” The world situation will be driven by “unpredicted and unpredictable events,” including the possibility of “a nuclear exchange.” Noting that “urban operations will increasingly dominate land warfare,” the Atlantic Council predicts that armies will operate “in densely packed metropolitan areas where civilian populations are a part of the battlefield.” Speaking of the present situation, the report declares that “the United States has entered an era of perpetual war.” It notes, “After fifteen years, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are still continuing.” There is, additionally, “an increasing number of conflicts in the gray zone, whose primary characteristic is ambiguity—about their objectives, participants, and even outcomes, since they clearly lack defined end points.” But, as the document cautions, “The Army cannot focus solely on these types of conflicts.” It must prepare for what “we’ve called ‘the next big war’—involving very capable adversaries, high levels of death and destruction, and perhaps hundreds of thousands of US troops.” The Atlantic Council roots the likelihood of such a war in what it calls “Russia’s resurgence,” which requires NATO to “seriously prepare for the possibility of a Russian attack on one or more of its members for the first time since the end of the Cold War.” China, likewise, has “become increasingly aggressive.” Noting that 5,366 US soldiers died during the Iraq war, the report declares that “the next big war” will see levels of violence and death far beyond what has been seen in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. It bemoans the fact that Army “personnel have not been psychologically hardened by personal experience for the grim task of fighting through heavy losses to battlefield victory.” It warns that “current Army leaders have little if any experience with the extreme battlefield stresses caused by overrun units and heavy casualties,” adding, “These stresses were common during past US conflicts and could likely be so again during a future big war.” “A future major war against a great power competitor might,” according to the report, “require the Army to grow by several orders of magnitude in order to prevail.” To make this possible, the Army must begin making plans for a “mass mobilization.” As the Atlantic Council explains, “The growing threats in today’s world” mean that the Army “must once again build a mobilization plan to rapidly grow the size of the Army to meet a national crisis of existential danger.” In other words, it must prepare to institute a draft. Finally, there must be active preparations for an intervention—or even takeover—by the military in the event of what the report calls a “breakdown of civil order”—a euphemism for the emergence of a political challenge from below to the domination of the ruling class. The Atlantic Council notes that “the large-scale disruption of civil order…would almost certainly engage much of the Army in providing extensive support to civil authorities throughout the country.” Totally left out of this analysis, except as the object of military repression, are the American people. It never occurs to those engaged in the preparation of these policies to consult the population. It is taken for granted that it must acquiesce to a course of action that will result in death and destruction on a horrific scale. None of this is being discussed or even hinted at in the US elections. The media and the establishment candidates are seeking to bury the real issues at stake. The questions of life and death are deliberated away from the cameras. They are the purview of the “deep state”—the Pentagon, the intelligence agencies and their associated think tanks. _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Oct 4 17:14:17 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 17:14:17 +0000 Subject: [Peace] [ufpj-activist] National Interest: Why U.S. Should Exercise Restraint Before Launching New War in Syria In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5480DE1A-1F05-4D31-9DFD-AF4C1C70859B@hotmail.com> "The US should exercise restraint before launching a new war in Syria”? We’ve been at war in Syria for some time, utilizing proxy’s, known as ISIL and never exercised restraint. Yes, our so called moderate rebels formerly known as Al Nusra, now rebranded as Fatah al-Sham admitting they depend on US and our allies for support, are intent on fighting the Syrian government on our behalf, but this was never really a civil war. This has always been a US intervention. Reference to the democratically elected government of Syria as the “regime of Syria” rather telling, especially since that is the US goal, " regime change". A "no-fly zone", referred to as a “safe zone”, an oxymoron at best. A no-fly zone means bombing the airports and all infrastructure in the vicinity. A lot of people get killed. Then what happens when other than the US enters the no-fly zone, yes likely war with Russia. Most egregious is the statement that the US is concerned with legalities, then saying the Russians don't. The US has invaded and is currently at war with 8 nations just since 9/11. Russia was invited in to Syria by the Syrian government. Assad may not be a "nice", we may not like him but he is a problem for the Syrian people who are being killed and displaced by the thousands as a result, of the US invasion. On Oct 4, 2016, at 07:42, Robert Naiman wrote: http://nationalinterest.org/feature/why-the-united-states-should-exercise-restraint-before-17919 [http://nationalinterest.org/files/main_images/1200px-sergey_lavrov_vladimir_putin_and_john_kerry.jpg] Why the United States Should Exercise Restraint Before Launching A New War in Syria nationalinterest.org The Russians might not be willing to back down in a confrontation with American forces. Why the United States Should Exercise Restraint Before Launching A New War in Syria The Russians might not be willing to back down in a confrontation with American forces. Dave Majumdar October 3, 2016 Tensions between Russia and the United States are coming to a head over the civil war in Syria. Washington has suspended bilateral talks with Russia to end the five-year old war. Moscow has suspended an agreement to destroy 34 tons of weapons-grade plutonium that was reached during the year 2000, using especially harsh rhetoric. Meanwhile, Syrian regime forces—with the backing of Russian airpower—are continuing to mount a fierce attack on the partially rebel-held city of Aleppo with Washington seemingly powerless to influence events on the ground. As a result of the recent collapse of a ceasefire negotiated by Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and the subsequent Syrian regime offensive, there are many in Washington clamoring for firmer U.S. action—a so-called Plan B. However, President Obama and his National Security Council staff are faced with limited options. Among the four optionsthat may be under consideration are a no-fly-zone, safe zones, attacking the Syrian air force and arming the Syrian rebels with additional weaponry. But each option carries with it significant risk of escalation or blowback. While the United States has the capability to defeat Russian and Syrian regime air forces and air defenses, which is necessary to establish a no-fly zone or safe-zone, or to destroy the regime’s airpower, there are several risks from a legal and military standpoint. The legal problem comes from the fact that the United States is not technically at war with the Syria, nor is there a UN resolution authorizing American forces to operate inside that nation. Even ongoing U.S. military operations inside Syria are acts of war—and are technically illegal. The Obama Administration is aware of this technically as Secretary Kerry noted during conversations with Syrian rebel activists. “The problem is the Russians don’t care about international law, and we do,” Kerry told the rebels in a recording published by the New York Times. “We don’t have a basis—our lawyers tell us—unless we have a U.N. Security Council resolution—which the Russians can veto or the Chinese—or unless we are under attack from folks there or unless we are invited in. Russia is invited in by the legitimate regime.” A no-fly zone or safe zone would require U.S. combat aircraft to intercept and possibly shoot down Russian and Syrian warplanes entering into the area designated by Washington and its allies. U.S. policymakers would have to make the gamble that Moscow—which is likely eager to avoid war with the United States—would back down and acquiesce to the American imposed no-fly zone. However, Washington is equally averse to fighting a war with the Russia, which, despite possessing only a fraction of the military might of its Soviet forbearer, remains the only power on Earth that can reduce the United States to charred radioactive cinders. It is highly unlikely that any U.S. President would be willing to risk war against a nuclear-armed power with only four months left in office in a conflict with few—if any—vital American interests at stake. The Russians know that and might not be willing to back down in the event of an air-to-air confrontation with American forces because too much national prestige—and even Mr. Putin’s personal prestige—would be on the line. Thus, such an encounter could escalate in unpredictable ways. One only needs to look to history to demonstrate the unforeseen consequences stemming from relatively localized events—no one could have predicted that the assignation of Archduke Franz Ferdinand would have precipitated the events leading to the First World War in 1914. Indeed, no less an authority than the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on September 22 that a no-fly zone—such as the one being proposed—would lead to war with Russia and Syria. “Right now, Senator, for us to control all of the airspace in Syria it would require us to go to war against Syria and Russia,” Dunford told the Committee. “That’s a pretty fundamental decision that certainly I’m not going to make.” A worse option still would be for the U.S. military to attack the Syrian air force and its bases directly since it would an overt act of war against Syria—even more so than a no-fly or safe zone. As Secretary Kerry pointed out, without a U.N. Security Council resolution, the United States does not have legal grounds to go to war. But moreover, the military difficulties with directly attacking Syrian forces are more problematic. The United States Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps could easily annihilate Syrian and even Russian air defenses—and airpower—inside Syria. Moscow—even with the fearsome capabilities of its S-400 air and missile defense system—is not able to defeat the U.S. Air Force’s fleet of stealthy Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptors, which are able to fly inside zones protected by those system and defeat them. In fact, defeating advanced air defenses is one of the Raptor’s primary missions. Nor would Russian Su-30SM or Su-35S Flankers survive long against the Raptor, which was specifically designed to counter advanced next-generation Soviet fighters that ultimately never materialized. The problem is that the United States cannot know for certain if Moscow will idly stand by while American forces attack Syrian forces. Moreover, it is unclear how many Russian military advisors are embedded with Syrian forces and where those instructors are located. Some Russian advisors are present and operating within the ranks of the Syrian military, and if Washington launches a strike, those forces could be caught in the crossfire. However, Russian rhetoric suggests that Moscow won’t simply allow Bashar al-Assad’s forces to be destroyed. Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova was quoted by the Russian media saying that U.S. interventionagainst Assad “will lead to terrible, tectonic consequences not only on the territory of this country but also in the region on the whole.” If the U.S. military does intervene in Syria, and Russian and Syrian forces fight back, American F-22s would likely be able to quickly eliminate the Russian S-400, Pantsir-S1 as well as Russia’s Su-30, Su-35s and Su-34s with relative ease. Conventional U.S. fourth-generation fighters such as the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 would have to wait until the Russian-built air defenses—which, given the S-400’s nearly 250 mile coverage radius, encompass nearly the entire Syrian landmass—were cleared by stealth aircraft such as the Raptor and the Northrop Grumman B-2 Sprit strategic bomber. It is not clear if the long-range 40N6 is operational, but regardless, actions can have unintended consequences. Russia might not limit its retaliation to just American and NATO forces in Syria. Given Moscow’s arsenal of Kaliber-NK cruise missiles and long-range bombers and submarines, the Kremlin has options to strike back across a huge geographic range. It is not outside realm of the possible that Russia would hit back at U.S. bases in Qatar, United Arab Emirates or Turkey using long-range precision-guided cruise missiles. The Russian Black Sea fleet and the Caspian Sea flotilla can easily hit such targets. Then there is Moscow’s formidable bomber fleet which can target the continental United States itself. Thus, while it is easy to start a conflict with Russia and Syria, a shooting war could easily escalate out of control. It might be prudent to exercise restraint before launching a new war—against a nuclear-armed power—that the American people don’t necessarily want to fight. That’s especially true in a conflict where the lines are blurry and there are no clear-cut good guys—where even so-called “moderate” rebels backed by the U.S. government are beheading children. Under such circumstances, the best policy for the United States might simply be to leave well enough alone—there is simply no need to stick our fingers into yet another hornet’s nest. Dave Majumdar is the defense editor of The National Interest. You can follow him on Twitter @DaveMajumdar. === Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 _______________________________________________ ufpj-activist mailing list Post: ufpj-activist at lists.mayfirst.org List info: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/ufpj-activist To Unsubscribe Send email to: ufpj-activist-unsubscribe at lists.mayfirst.org Or visit: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/ufpj-activist/karenaram%40hotmail.com You are subscribed as: karenaram at hotmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Tue Oct 4 21:52:14 2016 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 16:52:14 -0500 Subject: [Peace] Some Resolutions and Statements against the Dakota Access Pipeline Message-ID: Here is a list of statements and resolutions that we know about. If you know about others that might be relevant to this list, please let me know. http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/node/1702 *Some Resolutions and Statements against DAPL* *Cities:* Minneapolis Seattle Cleveland Urbana, IL Portland *Labor Unions and bodies*: Statement by the CWA Committee on Human Rights in Support of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe ATU condemns attacks on Standing Rock Sioux and Opposes Dakota Access Pipeline Nurses Applaud Federal Move to Halt Dakota Pipeline, Call for Permanent End to Project AFL-CIO Constituency Groups Stand with Native Americans to Stop the Dakota Access Pipeline UE SEIU Statement on Standing Rock Sioux and Dakota Access Pipeline *Congress:* McCollum Letter Urges Greater Army Corps Consultation with Standing Rock Sioux on Dakota Access Pipeline *Administration*: Joint Statement from the Department of Justice, the Department of the Army and the Department of the Interior Regarding Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers === Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Wed Oct 5 02:06:21 2016 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 21:06:21 -0500 Subject: [Peace] Recent editions of AWARE on the Air In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Tuesday 4 October 2016 - AWARE On The Air - Episode #383: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DE1QRvDSEKk Tuesday 27 September 2016 - AWARE on the Air - Episode #382: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMBgwx3fhCA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Oct 5 02:51:55 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 02:51:55 +0000 Subject: [Peace] Protest on Oct. 28th Message-ID: [https://scontent.ford1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-1/p50x50/12227216_10153162304916680_8023559880900945669_n.jpg?oh=d50c845283ee9c04e3c18ae149c5f862&oe=5878FD28] Jay Becker shared Chicago World Can't Wait's event. 7 hrs · Chicago AWARE and World Can't Wait Chicago invite you to join us in NOT welcoming Harold Koh to U of I Law! Koh is the former top legal advisor to Sec. of State Hillary Clinton who belongs before a tribunal for war crimes and crimes against humanity, not speaking about international law to law students! Read just a few examples of his crimes at this link, "join" our FB event, share and come out on Oct. 28!https://www.facebook.com/events/333776623637727/ [https://scontent.ford1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/c0.90.800.421/s480x480/14484974_1310260002331570_7925935786028807530_n.jpg?oh=0c8250b827932f66910369310d1cc321&oe=585F4710] OCT28 Interested Harold Koh, war criminal, not welcome! Fri 11:30 AM in CDT · 504 E Pennsylvania Ave, Champaign, IL 61820-6909, United States 5 people interested · 3 people going -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Wed Oct 5 04:12:22 2016 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 23:12:22 -0500 Subject: [Peace] AWARE on the Air for 4 Oct. 2016 In-Reply-To: <5489C839-553A-4E34-B30A-E11DC2FC15FA@newsfromneptune.com> References: <745FA348-0FE6-4122-86C3-7F01FC157753@newsfromneptune.com> <5489C839-553A-4E34-B30A-E11DC2FC15FA@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: War news commentary from the 'Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort' of Champaign-Urbana IL, 4 October 2016: AWARE on the Air - Episode #383: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DE1QRvDSEKk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Oct 5 14:13:37 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 14:13:37 +0000 Subject: [Peace] Recent editions of AWARE on the Air In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: #382 has guests David Johnson, and Gus Woods, very worthwhile watch. #383 has important information and worthwhile, once one gets through the first 13 minutes of Ron’s attempts to trivialize everything Carl has to say, and shock us all with his anti-political correctness, the "he said, and isn’t that awful, that mean person”, you know so junior high. On Oct 4, 2016, at 19:06, C. G. Estabrook > wrote: Tuesday 4 October 2016 - AWARE On The Air - Episode #383: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DE1QRvDSEKk Tuesday 27 September 2016 - AWARE on the Air - Episode #382: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMBgwx3fhCA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Wed Oct 5 15:53:29 2016 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 10:53:29 -0500 Subject: [Peace] Recent editions of AWARE on the Air In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [For the record, here’s my introduction to AOTA #383, to which (I think) Brother Szoke takes exception.] [1] Good evening and welcome to AWARE on the Air, a unrehearsed panel discussion of the US government’s wars and the racism they inspire. We are recording this at noon on Tuesday October 4 in the studios of Urbana Public Television, Urbana, Illinois. Our program is presented by members and friends of AWARE, a local peace group. The name AWARE stands for “anti-war anti-racism effort.” I’m Carl Estabrook. [2] AWARE was established 15 years ago - just after the attacks of 9-11-2001 - by citizens of Champaign-Urbana who saw that the US government - instead of going after the people responsible for the 9-11 attacks - would use those crimes as an excuse to continue making war in the Middle East, in order to ensure US military control of the energy resources of the region. [3] The Mideast has been a particular concern of all recent presidential administrations because of its vast stock of oil and natural gas. The US doesn’t need oil from the Mideast, but Mideast gas and oil are needed by America’s economic competitors in Europe and Asia - so control over them gives the US a choke-hold over China, Germany, and other countries. But that control benefits only the American economic elite - the one percent - and not Americans in general, who’ve seen wealth concentrate in fewer and fewer hands at an accelerating rate throughout the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations. [4] AWARE’s purpose, like that of many other local anti-war groups across the country, is to stop the vicious war-making over which the current US president presides. Like all American presidents for more than a generation, President Obama is making war around the world. [5] Since World War II, US presidents have killed more than 20 million people in 37 nations - to “maintain the disparity” as American planners said 60 years ago, in that “we have about 50% of the world’s wealth but only 6.3% of its population.” But “controlling all that we do makes others envious and resentful. But we shouldn’t let that deter us. Rather we should figure out how to maintain the disparity, chiefly with force ... and stop talking nonsense about human rights and democracy.” To do so, the US remains during the Obama administration what Martin Luther King called it long ago: “...the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.” [6] When the new president is inaugurated next January, Barack Obama will have become the first US president - ever - to have been at war throughout two presidential terms. He has attacked eight countries (two more than George Bush), and he is today conducting what has been called “the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times” - his drone assassinations. He has killed thousands of civilians with drones, including US citizens and hundreds of children. The New York Times says he chooses the targets himself, from lists prepared by the CIA. [7] Obama was elected twice because the generally anti-war US public understood him to say that he would end George Bush’s wars. But he was lying. In office, Obama moved massively to expand Bush’s war in Afghanistan, and as he leaves office he promises 10 thousand US troops will stay there - along with mercenaries and ‘coalition forces’ (NATO). And US subversion of other countries in MENA - the Mideast and North Africa - continues apace. [8] In a book on the last presidential campaign, he is quoted as follows: "'Turns out I'm really good at killing people,' Obama said quietly. 'Didn't know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine.'" However ironically he meant it, the quote has not been denied by the White House, and it turns out to be true. [9] In addition to conducting wars throughout the Mideast, the Obama administration is acting with belligerence toward China and promoting an ongoing proxy war against Russia in Ukraine; that war has already killed more people than Israel killed (with US permission) in Gaza in 2014. The president is risking war with both Russia and China, even nuclear war. He also commands a 70,000-member private army, the Special Operations Command, active in 130 of the 192 countries of the world. Their activities include kidnapping ("rendition"), murder, and torture. The US is plaguing the world with nothing less than death-squads, for the economic hegemony of our one percent! [10] And not only is the Obama administration risking nuclear war, they’re preparing for it: President Obama has launched a 1o-year trillion dollar program to update nuclear weapons - and make them more usable! [11] The Obama administration is also responsible for the vicious civil war in Syria, which has killed thousands and flooded Europe with refugees. Hillary Clinton - responsible for horrors in Honduras, Libya, Syria and elsewhere - as president would only continue and intensify the warmongering of the Bush and Obama administrations, the blowback from which is now producing terrorist attacks in Europe and America. [12] Clinton is the candidate of the ‘defense’ industries and Wall Street. Every indication is that these crimes will continue in the new administration, unless Americans demand that they cease, because Clinton is both a neoliberal (which means more inequality) and a neoconservative (which means more war). But - interestingly enough - Donald Trump isn’t. [13] Not only do the leading neoliberals support Clinton, but also the leading neoconservatives have fled the Republicans to support her. With Clinton as president, we're certain to get more war, in the tradition of the last 25 years. With Donald Trump as president, we might not. How can that be a difficult choice? [14] But the CIA has demanded that Trump not be elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he not be elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless smears of Russian president Putin - demands that he not be elected ... These promoters of ‘perpetual war’ are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China's Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world's great power talking peace - however unlikely - would be farcical, were the issues not so dire. [15] But there is in fact a presidential candidate talking peace - and a reversal of Obama’s war policies - even more than Trump, and that’s Jill Stein of the Green party. I and some other members of AWARE will vote for Jill Stein & Ajamu Baraka - the Green party’s nominees for president and vice-president - in 2016. [16] We support the Green party’s demand to “ ~ (1) establish a foreign policy based on diplomacy, international law, and human rights; ~ (2) end the wars [in the Mideast and elsewhere] and stop the drone attacks; ~ (3) cut military spending by at least 50% and close the more than 700 foreign military bases [neither Russia nor China has more than twelve]; ~ (4) stop US support and arms sales to human rights abusers [notably Israel]; and ~ (5) lead on global nuclear disarmament.” [17] That’s a call for a reversal of the Obama administration’s foreign and military policy. The positions of the Green party’s presidential candidate, Jill Stein, on both foreign and domestic policy - to say nothing of climate catastrophe - are far better than those of the major party candidates. And we shouldn’t be dissuaded from voting for Stein by the argument that voting for a third party helps Trump - because even his positions on war and the economy are substantially better than Clinton's. [18] There’s a lot of news about US government war-making this week, but you won’t hear much about it in the American media. We’ll mention some of it tonight, beginning with Ron Szoke - but first I’ll ask him about his animal companion, a stuffed alligator… > On Oct 5, 2016, at 9:13 AM, Karen Aram wrote: > > #382 has guests David Johnson, and Gus Woods, very worthwhile watch. > > #383 has important information and worthwhile, once one gets through the first 13 minutes of Ron’s attempts to trivialize everything Carl has to say, and shock us all with his anti-political correctness, the "he said, and isn’t that awful, that mean person”, you know so junior high. > > >> On Oct 4, 2016, at 19:06, C. G. Estabrook > wrote: >> >> Tuesday 4 October 2016 - AWARE On The Air - Episode #383: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DE1QRvDSEKk >> >> Tuesday 27 September 2016 - AWARE on the Air - Episode #382: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMBgwx3fhCA >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Oct 5 18:18:13 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 18:18:13 +0000 Subject: [Peace] Recent editions of AWARE on the Air In-Reply-To: <1308025316.1627768.1475685441913@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1308025316.1627768.1475685441913@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Greg You can’t read? On Oct 5, 2016, at 09:37, Gregg Gordon > wrote: So apparently all the Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort is saying, Is give ultra-nationalist xenophobia a chance. That's a twist I didn't expect. ________________________________ From: C. G. Estabrook via Peace > To: Karen Aram > Cc: peace > Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2016 10:53 AM Subject: Re: [Peace] Recent editions of AWARE on the Air [For the record, here’s my introduction to AOTA #383, to which (I think) Brother Szoke takes exception.] [1] Good evening and welcome to AWARE on the Air, a unrehearsed panel discussion of the US government’s wars and the racism they inspire. We are recording this at noon on Tuesday October 4 in the studios of Urbana Public Television, Urbana, Illinois. Our program is presented by members and friends of AWARE, a local peace group. The name AWARE stands for “anti-war anti-racism effort.” I’m Carl Estabrook. [2] AWARE was established 15 years ago - just after the attacks of 9-11-2001 - by citizens of Champaign-Urbana who saw that the US government - instead of going after the people responsible for the 9-11 attacks - would use those crimes as an excuse to continue making war in the Middle East, in order to ensure US military control of the energy resources of the region. [3] The Mideast has been a particular concern of all recent presidential administrations because of its vast stock of oil and natural gas. The US doesn’t need oil from the Mideast, but Mideast gas and oil are needed by America’s economic competitors in Europe and Asia - so control over them gives the US a choke-hold over China, Germany, and other countries. But that control benefits only the American economic elite - the one percent - and not Americans in general, who’ve seen wealth concentrate in fewer and fewer hands at an accelerating rate throughout the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations. [4] AWARE’s purpose, like that of many other local anti-war groups across the country, is to stop the vicious war-making over which the current US president presides. Like all American presidents for more than a generation, President Obama is making war around the world. [5] Since World War II, US presidents have killed more than 20 million people in 37 nations - to “maintain the disparity” as American planners said 60 years ago, in that “we have about 50% of the world’s wealth but only 6.3% of its population.” But “controlling all that we do makes others envious and resentful. But we shouldn’t let that deter us. Rather we should figure out how to maintain the disparity, chiefly with force ... and stop talking nonsense about human rights and democracy.” To do so, the US remains during the Obama administration what Martin Luther King called it long ago: “...the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.” [6] When the new president is inaugurated next January, Barack Obama will have become the first US president - ever - to have been at war throughout two presidential terms. He has attacked eight countries (two more than George Bush), and he is today conducting what has been called “the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times” - his drone assassinations. He has killed thousands of civilians with drones, including US citizens and hundreds of children. The New York Times says he chooses the targets himself, from lists prepared by the CIA. [7] Obama was elected twice because the generally anti-war US public understood him to say that he would end George Bush’s wars. But he was lying. In office, Obama moved massively to expand Bush’s war in Afghanistan, and as he leaves office he promises 10 thousand US troops will stay there - along with mercenaries and ‘coalition forces’ (NATO). And US subversion of other countries in MENA - the Mideast and North Africa - continues apace. [8] In a book on the last presidential campaign, he is quoted as follows: "'Turns out I'm really good at killing people,' Obama said quietly. 'Didn't know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine.'" However ironically he meant it, the quote has not been denied by the White House, and it turns out to be true. [9] In addition to conducting wars throughout the Mideast, the Obama administration is acting with belligerence toward China and promoting an ongoing proxy war against Russia in Ukraine; that war has already killed more people than Israel killed (with US permission) in Gaza in 2014. The president is risking war with both Russia and China, even nuclear war. He also commands a 70,000-member private army, the Special Operations Command, active in 130 of the 192 countries of the world. Their activities include kidnapping ("rendition"), murder, and torture. The US is plaguing the world with nothing less than death-squads, for the economic hegemony of our one percent! [10] And not only is the Obama administration risking nuclear war, they’re preparing for it: President Obama has launched a 1o-year trillion dollar program to update nuclear weapons - and make them more usable! [11] The Obama administration is also responsible for the vicious civil war in Syria, which has killed thousands and flooded Europe with refugees. Hillary Clinton - responsible for horrors in Honduras, Libya, Syria and elsewhere - as president would only continue and intensify the warmongering of the Bush and Obama administrations, the blowback from which is now producing terrorist attacks in Europe and America. [12] Clinton is the candidate of the ‘defense’ industries and Wall Street. Every indication is that these crimes will continue in the new administration, unless Americans demand that they cease, because Clinton is both a neoliberal (which means more inequality) and a neoconservative (which means more war). But - interestingly enough - Donald Trump isn’t. [13] Not only do the leading neoliberals support Clinton, but also the leading neoconservatives have fled the Republicans to support her. With Clinton as president, we're certain to get more war, in the tradition of the last 25 years. With Donald Trump as president, we might not. How can that be a difficult choice? [14] But the CIA has demanded that Trump not be elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he not be elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless smears of Russian president Putin - demands that he not be elected ... These promoters of ‘perpetual war’ are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China's Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world's great power talking peace - however unlikely - would be farcical, were the issues not so dire. [15] But there is in fact a presidential candidate talking peace - and a reversal of Obama’s war policies - even more than Trump, and that’s Jill Stein of the Green party. I and some other members of AWARE will vote for Jill Stein & Ajamu Baraka - the Green party’s nominees for president and vice-president - in 2016. [16] We support the Green party’s demand to “ ~ (1) establish a foreign policy based on diplomacy, international law, and human rights; ~ (2) end the wars [in the Mideast and elsewhere] and stop the drone attacks; ~ (3) cut military spending by at least 50% and close the more than 700 foreign military bases [neither Russia nor China has more than twelve]; ~ (4) stop US support and arms sales to human rights abusers [notably Israel]; and ~ (5) lead on global nuclear disarmament.” [17] That’s a call for a reversal of the Obama administration’s foreign and military policy. The positions of the Green party’s presidential candidate, Jill Stein, on both foreign and domestic policy - to say nothing of climate catastrophe - are far better than those of the major party candidates. And we shouldn’t be dissuaded from voting for Stein by the argument that voting for a third party helps Trump - because even his positions on war and the economy are substantially better than Clinton's. [18] There’s a lot of news about US government war-making this week, but you won’t hear much about it in the American media. We’ll mention some of it tonight, beginning with Ron Szoke - but first I’ll ask him about his animal companion, a stuffed alligator… On Oct 5, 2016, at 9:13 AM, Karen Aram > wrote: #382 has guests David Johnson, and Gus Woods, very worthwhile watch. #383 has important information and worthwhile, once one gets through the first 13 minutes of Ron’s attempts to trivialize everything Carl has to say, and shock us all with his anti-political correctness, the "he said, and isn’t that awful, that mean person”, you know so junior high. On Oct 4, 2016, at 19:06, C. G. Estabrook > wrote: Tuesday 4 October 2016 - AWARE On The Air - Episode #383: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DE1QRvDSEKk Tuesday 27 September 2016 - AWARE on the Air - Episode #382: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMBgwx3fhCA _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Wed Oct 5 19:30:24 2016 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 14:30:24 -0500 Subject: [Peace] Recent editions of AWARE on the Air In-Reply-To: <1308025316.1627768.1475685441913@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1308025316.1627768.1475685441913@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7D74B9AA-8968-435F-916E-F128D139D2B6@newsfromneptune.com> Gregg-- “Ultra-nationalist xenophobia” might describe the neocon foreign policy of the Obama-Clinton administration - imperialist war for control of oil in the Mideast, joined to a refusal to take responsibility for the refugees caused by that war. It might also describe the Obama-Clinton administration’s war provocations of Russia and China in Ukraine, eastern Europe, and the South Chinas sea - joined to the demonization of foreign leaders. (Putin is Hitler, says Clinton.) AWARE opposes those policies, calls for bringing all US troops (and weapons) home, and demands the US government obey international law. We do note that Donald Trump also seems to reject those policies, condemning as he does the Obama-Clinton administration’s policies in the Mideast and insisting that discussion with Putin is necessary. For that reason the neocons (like Robert Kagan) have abandoned their traditional home in the Republican party and fled to Clinton. AWARE encourages Trump to continue his opposition to neocon policies. Regards, CGE > On Oct 5, 2016, at 11:37 AM, Gregg Gordon wrote: > > So apparently all the Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort is saying, > Is give ultra-nationalist xenophobia a chance. > > That's a twist I didn't expect. > > > From: C. G. Estabrook via Peace > To: Karen Aram > Cc: peace > Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2016 10:53 AM > Subject: Re: [Peace] Recent editions of AWARE on the Air > > [For the record, here’s my introduction to AOTA #383, to which (I think) Brother Szoke takes exception.] > > [1] Good evening and welcome to AWARE on the Air, a unrehearsed panel discussion of the US government’s wars and the racism they inspire. We are recording this at noon on Tuesday October 4 in the studios of Urbana Public Television, Urbana, Illinois. Our program is presented by members and friends of AWARE, a local peace group. The name AWARE stands for “anti-war anti-racism effort.” I’m Carl Estabrook. > > [2] AWARE was established 15 years ago - just after the attacks of 9-11-2001 - by citizens of Champaign-Urbana who saw that the US government - instead of going after the people responsible for the 9-11 attacks - would use those crimes as an excuse to continue making war in the Middle East, in order to ensure US military control of the energy resources of the region. > > [3] The Mideast has been a particular concern of all recent presidential administrations because of its vast stock of oil and natural gas. The US doesn’t need oil from the Mideast, but Mideast gas and oil are needed by America’s economic competitors in Europe and Asia - so control over them gives the US a choke-hold over China, Germany, and other countries. But that control benefits only the American economic elite - the one percent - and not Americans in general, who’ve seen wealth concentrate in fewer and fewer hands at an accelerating rate throughout the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations. > > [4] AWARE’s purpose, like that of many other local anti-war groups across the country, is to stop the vicious war-making over which the current US president presides. Like all American presidents for more than a generation, President Obama is making war around the world. > > [5] Since World War II, US presidents have killed more than 20 million people in 37 nations - to “maintain the disparity” as American planners said 60 years ago, in that “we have about 50% of the world’s wealth but only 6.3% of its population.” But “controlling all that we do makes others envious and resentful. But we shouldn’t let that deter us. Rather we should figure out how to maintain the disparity, chiefly with force ... and stop talking nonsense about human rights and democracy.” To do so, the US remains during the Obama administration what Martin Luther King called it long ago: “...the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.” > > [6] When the new president is inaugurated next January, Barack Obama will have become the first US president - ever - to have been at war throughout two presidential terms. He has attacked eight countries (two more than George Bush), and he is today conducting what has been called “the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times” - his drone assassinations. He has killed thousands of civilians with drones, including US citizens and hundreds of children. The New York Times says he chooses the targets himself, from lists prepared by the CIA. > > [7] Obama was elected twice because the generally anti-war US public understood him to say that he would end George Bush’s wars. But he was lying. In office, Obama moved massively to expand Bush’s war in Afghanistan, and as he leaves office he promises 10 thousand US troops will stay there - along with mercenaries and ‘coalition forces’ (NATO). And US subversion of other countries in MENA - the Mideast and North Africa - continues apace. > > [8] In a book on the last presidential campaign, he is quoted as follows: "'Turns out I'm really good at killing people,' Obama said quietly. 'Didn't know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine.'" However ironically he meant it, the quote has not been denied by the White House, and it turns out to be true. > > [9] In addition to conducting wars throughout the Mideast, the Obama administration is acting with belligerence toward China and promoting an ongoing proxy war against Russia in Ukraine; that war has already killed more people than Israel killed (with US permission) in Gaza in 2014. The president is risking war with both Russia and China, even nuclear war. He also commands a 70,000-member private army, the Special Operations Command, active in 130 of the 192 countries of the world. Their activities include kidnapping ("rendition"), murder, and torture. The US is plaguing the world with nothing less than death-squads, for the economic hegemony of our one percent! > > [10] And not only is the Obama administration risking nuclear war, they’re preparing for it: President Obama has launched a 1o-year trillion dollar program to update nuclear weapons - and make them more usable! > > [11] The Obama administration is also responsible for the vicious civil war in Syria, which has killed thousands and flooded Europe with refugees. Hillary Clinton - responsible for horrors in Honduras, Libya, Syria and elsewhere - as president would only continue and intensify the warmongering of the Bush and Obama administrations, the blowback from which is now producing terrorist attacks in Europe and America. > > [12] Clinton is the candidate of the ‘defense’ industries and Wall Street. Every indication is that these crimes will continue in the new administration, unless Americans demand that they cease, because Clinton is both a neoliberal (which means more inequality) and a neoconservative (which means more war). But - interestingly enough - Donald Trump isn’t. > > [13] Not only do the leading neoliberals support Clinton, but also the leading neoconservatives have fled the Republicans to support her. With Clinton as president, we're certain to get more war, in the tradition of the last 25 years. With Donald Trump as president, we might not. How can that be a difficult choice? > > [14] But the CIA has demanded that Trump not be elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he not be elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless smears of Russian president Putin - demands that he not be elected ... These promoters of ‘perpetual war’ are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China's Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world's great power talking peace - however unlikely - would be farcical, were the issues not so dire. > > [15] But there is in fact a presidential candidate talking peace - and a reversal of Obama’s war policies - even more than Trump, and that’s Jill Stein of the Green party. I and some other members of AWARE will vote for Jill Stein & Ajamu Baraka - the Green party’s nominees for president and vice-president - in 2016. > > [16] We support the Green party’s demand to “ > > ~ (1) establish a foreign policy based on diplomacy, international law, and human rights; > ~ (2) end the wars [in the Mideast and elsewhere] and stop the drone attacks; > ~ (3) cut military spending by at least 50% and close the more than 700 foreign military bases [neither Russia nor China has more than twelve]; > ~ (4) stop US support and arms sales to human rights abusers [notably Israel]; and > ~ (5) lead on global nuclear disarmament.” > > [17] That’s a call for a reversal of the Obama administration’s foreign and military policy. The positions of the Green party’s presidential candidate, Jill Stein, on both foreign and domestic policy - to say nothing of climate catastrophe - are far better than those of the major party candidates. And we shouldn’t be dissuaded from voting for Stein by the argument that voting for a third party helps Trump - because even his positions on war and the economy are substantially better than Clinton's. > > [18] There’s a lot of news about US government war-making this week, but you won’t hear much about it in the American media. We’ll mention some of it tonight, beginning with Ron Szoke - but first I’ll ask him about his animal companion, a stuffed alligator… > > >> On Oct 5, 2016, at 9:13 AM, Karen Aram wrote: >> > #382 has guests David Johnson, and Gus Woods, very worthwhile watch. > > #383 has important information and worthwhile, once one gets through the first 13 minutes of Ron’s attempts to trivialize everything Carl has to say, and shock us all with his anti-political correctness, the "he said, and isn’t that awful, that mean person”, you know so junior high. > > >> On Oct 4, 2016, at 19:06, C. G. Estabrook wrote: >> >> Tuesday 4 October 2016 - AWARE On The Air - Episode #383: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DE1QRvDSEKk >> >> Tuesday 27 September 2016 - AWARE on the Air - Episode #382: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMBgwx3fhCA >> >> >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > > From carl at newsfromneptune.com Wed Oct 5 23:20:54 2016 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 18:20:54 -0500 Subject: [Peace] Recent editions of AWARE on the Air In-Reply-To: <1688087574.3539203.1475699144522@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1308025316.1627768.1475685441913@mail.yahoo.com> <7D74B9AA-8968-435F-916E-F128D139D2B6@newsfromneptune.com> <1688087574.3539203.1475699144522@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: He sees correctly that Obama’s mass murder in the Mideast (like Bush’s) was for the control of oil, a point about which both adminstrations continually lied. And the Obama administration is far from fulfilling its responsibilities to the people it’s made refugees. > On Oct 5, 2016, at 3:25 PM, Gregg Gordon wrote: > > Let's see -- Trump has proposed "keeping the oil" and banning all Syrian refugees from entering the country. You don't seem to be paying much attention. > > > From: C. G. Estabrook > To: Gregg Gordon > Cc: Karen Aram ; peace > Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2016 2:30 PM > Subject: Re: [Peace] Recent editions of AWARE on the Air > > Gregg-- > > “Ultra-nationalist xenophobia” might describe the neocon foreign policy of the Obama-Clinton administration - imperialist war for control of oil in the Mideast, joined to a refusal to take responsibility for the refugees caused by that war. > > It might also describe the Obama-Clinton administration’s war provocations of Russia and China in Ukraine, eastern Europe, and the South Chinas sea - joined to the demonization of foreign leaders. (Putin is Hitler, says Clinton.) > > AWARE opposes those policies, calls for bringing all US troops (and weapons) home, and demands the US government obey international law. > > We do note that Donald Trump also seems to reject those policies, condemning as he does the Obama-Clinton administration’s policies in the Mideast and insisting that discussion with Putin is necessary. For that reason the neocons (like Robert Kagan) have abandoned their traditional home in the Republican party and fled to Clinton. > > AWARE encourages Trump to continue his opposition to neocon policies. > > Regards, CGE > > > > On Oct 5, 2016, at 11:37 AM, Gregg Gordon wrote: > > > > So apparently all the Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort is saying, > > Is give ultra-nationalist xenophobia a chance. > > > > That's a twist I didn't expect. > > > > > > From: C. G. Estabrook via Peace > > To: Karen Aram > > Cc: peace > > Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2016 10:53 AM > > Subject: Re: [Peace] Recent editions of AWARE on the Air > > > > [For the record, here’s my introduction to AOTA #383, to which (I think) Brother Szoke takes exception.] > > > > [1] Good evening and welcome to AWARE on the Air, a unrehearsed panel discussion of the US government’s wars and the racism they inspire. We are recording this at noon on Tuesday October 4 in the studios of Urbana Public Television, Urbana, Illinois. Our program is presented by members and friends of AWARE, a local peace group. The name AWARE stands for “anti-war anti-racism effort.” I’m Carl Estabrook. > > > > [2] AWARE was established 15 years ago - just after the attacks of 9-11-2001 - by citizens of Champaign-Urbana who saw that the US government - instead of going after the people responsible for the 9-11 attacks - would use those crimes as an excuse to continue making war in the Middle East, in order to ensure US military control of the energy resources of the region. > > > > [3] The Mideast has been a particular concern of all recent presidential administrations because of its vast stock of oil and natural gas. The US doesn’t need oil from the Mideast, but Mideast gas and oil are needed by America’s economic competitors in Europe and Asia - so control over them gives the US a choke-hold over China, Germany, and other countries. But that control benefits only the American economic elite - the one percent - and not Americans in general, who’ve seen wealth concentrate in fewer and fewer hands at an accelerating rate throughout the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations. > > > > [4] AWARE’s purpose, like that of many other local anti-war groups across the country, is to stop the vicious war-making over which the current US president presides. Like all American presidents for more than a generation, President Obama is making war around the world. > > > > [5] Since World War II, US presidents have killed more than 20 million people in 37 nations - to “maintain the disparity” as American planners said 60 years ago, in that “we have about 50% of the world’s wealth but only 6.3% of its population.” But “controlling all that we do makes others envious and resentful. But we shouldn’t let that deter us. Rather we should figure out how to maintain the disparity, chiefly with force ... and stop talking nonsense about human rights and democracy.” To do so, the US remains during the Obama administration what Martin Luther King called it long ago: “...the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.” > > > > [6] When the new president is inaugurated next January, Barack Obama will have become the first US president - ever - to have been at war throughout two presidential terms. He has attacked eight countries (two more than George Bush), and he is today conducting what has been called “the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times” - his drone assassinations. He has killed thousands of civilians with drones, including US citizens and hundreds of children. The New York Times says he chooses the targets himself, from lists prepared by the CIA. > > > > [7] Obama was elected twice because the generally anti-war US public understood him to say that he would end George Bush’s wars. But he was lying. In office, Obama moved massively to expand Bush’s war in Afghanistan, and as he leaves office he promises 10 thousand US troops will stay there - along with mercenaries and ‘coalition forces’ (NATO). And US subversion of other countries in MENA - the Mideast and North Africa - continues apace. > > > > [8] In a book on the last presidential campaign, he is quoted as follows: "'Turns out I'm really good at killing people,' Obama said quietly. 'Didn't know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine.'" However ironically he meant it, the quote has not been denied by the White House, and it turns out to be true. > > > > [9] In addition to conducting wars throughout the Mideast, the Obama administration is acting with belligerence toward China and promoting an ongoing proxy war against Russia in Ukraine; that war has already killed more people than Israel killed (with US permission) in Gaza in 2014. The president is risking war with both Russia and China, even nuclear war. He also commands a 70,000-member private army, the Special Operations Command, active in 130 of the 192 countries of the world. Their activities include kidnapping ("rendition"), murder, and torture. The US is plaguing the world with nothing less than death-squads, for the economic hegemony of our one percent! > > > > [10] And not only is the Obama administration risking nuclear war, they’re preparing for it: President Obama has launched a 1o-year trillion dollar program to update nuclear weapons - and make them more usable! > > > > [11] The Obama administration is also responsible for the vicious civil war in Syria, which has killed thousands and flooded Europe with refugees. Hillary Clinton - responsible for horrors in Honduras, Libya, Syria and elsewhere - as president would only continue and intensify the warmongering of the Bush and Obama administrations, the blowback from which is now producing terrorist attacks in Europe and America. > > > > [12] Clinton is the candidate of the ‘defense’ industries and Wall Street. Every indication is that these crimes will continue in the new administration, unless Americans demand that they cease, because Clinton is both a neoliberal (which means more inequality) and a neoconservative (which means more war). But - interestingly enough - Donald Trump isn’t. > > > > [13] Not only do the leading neoliberals support Clinton, but also the leading neoconservatives have fled the Republicans to support her. With Clinton as president, we're certain to get more war, in the tradition of the last 25 years. With Donald Trump as president, we might not. How can that be a difficult choice? > > > > [14] But the CIA has demanded that Trump not be elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he not be elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless smears of Russian president Putin - demands that he not be elected ... These promoters of ‘perpetual war’ are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China's Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world's great power talking peace - however unlikely - would be farcical, were the issues not so dire. > > > > [15] But there is in fact a presidential candidate talking peace - and a reversal of Obama’s war policies - even more than Trump, and that’s Jill Stein of the Green party. I and some other members of AWARE will vote for Jill Stein & Ajamu Baraka - the Green party’s nominees for president and vice-president - in 2016. > > > > [16] We support the Green party’s demand to “ > > > > ~ (1) establish a foreign policy based on diplomacy, international law, and human rights; > > ~ (2) end the wars [in the Mideast and elsewhere] and stop the drone attacks; > > ~ (3) cut military spending by at least 50% and close the more than 700 foreign military bases [neither Russia nor China has more than twelve]; > > ~ (4) stop US support and arms sales to human rights abusers [notably Israel]; and > > ~ (5) lead on global nuclear disarmament.” > > > > [17] That’s a call for a reversal of the Obama administration’s foreign and military policy. The positions of the Green party’s presidential candidate, Jill Stein, on both foreign and domestic policy - to say nothing of climate catastrophe - are far better than those of the major party candidates. And we shouldn’t be dissuaded from voting for Stein by the argument that voting for a third party helps Trump - because even his positions on war and the economy are substantially better than Clinton's. > > > > [18] There’s a lot of news about US government war-making this week, but you won’t hear much about it in the American media. We’ll mention some of it tonight, beginning with Ron Szoke - but first I’ll ask him about his animal companion, a stuffed alligator… > > > > > >> On Oct 5, 2016, at 9:13 AM, Karen Aram wrote: > >> > > #382 has guests David Johnson, and Gus Woods, very worthwhile watch. > > > > #383 has important information and worthwhile, once one gets through the first 13 minutes of Ron’s attempts to trivialize everything Carl has to say, and shock us all with his anti-political correctness, the "he said, and isn’t that awful, that mean person”, you know so junior high. > > > > > >> On Oct 4, 2016, at 19:06, C. G. Estabrook wrote: > >> > >> Tuesday 4 October 2016 - AWARE On The Air - Episode #383: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DE1QRvDSEKk > >> > >> Tuesday 27 September 2016 - AWARE on the Air - Episode #382: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMBgwx3fhCA > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Peace mailing list > > Peace at lists.chambana.net > > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > > > > > > From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Oct 7 11:43:59 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 11:43:59 +0000 Subject: [Peace] Netflix and Al-Qaeda working together to promote The White Helmets as hero group [Video] In-Reply-To: <22.9D.14945.71DE6F75@momentum1-mta2> References: <22.9D.14945.71DE6F75@momentum1-mta2> Message-ID: On Oct 6, 2016, at 17:32, Editors The Greanville Post Cyrano's Journal Today > wrote: A PERIODICAL BULLETIN ANTI-IMPERIALIST TOOL ~ Vol. X The Greanville Post THE GREANVILLE POST Always visit our site for the latest posts. Dispatches do not include the most recent articles. [TGP logo Amy] Netflix and Al-Qaeda working together to promote The White Helmets as hero group [Video] 2016-10-04 08:15:55-04 CARRYING OUT THE CRIMINAL AGENDA OF THE 0.00001% ACROSS THE GLOBE FRATERNAL SITE, THE DURAN, HAS JUST FOCUSED ON THIS LATEST OUTRAGE, THAT EVEN NETFLIX HAS BEEN RECRUITED TO JOIN IN THE GLOBAL HYBRID WAR AGAINST RUSSIA, CHINA, SYRIA AND ANTI-IMPERIALIST NATIONS. SHAME ON THIS SCUMMY CORPORATION! BY ALEX CHRISTOFOROU Netflix in bed with Al Qaeda […] read more... Syria Propaganda – The Death Rattle of the Corporate Media 2016-10-04 08:16:06-04 =By= Simon Wood “…a battle is raging within the only remaining global space for freedom of thought and expression: the internet – social media.” The Gatekeepers’, The 99.99998271%, April 7th 2015 [Source] “I listened to my colleague from Russia — and I sort of felt [we’re] in a parallel universe here” – US Secretary of State John […] read more... Lendman on Syria’s war origin and humanity’s need to defeat imperialism 2016-10-04 08:16:15-04 Dispatches from STEPHEN LENDMAN On Thursday, Russia’s Defense Ministry spokesman General Igor Konashenkov blasted State Department spokesman admiral John Kirby’s scurrilous remark, suggesting (US-supported) extremists could launch “attacks against Russian interests, perhaps even Russian cities…(its) troops (sent) home in body bags.” He called his remarks the clearest “confession by the US side (that so-called) civil […] read more... Blum’s Anti-Empire Report #145: Cold War, today, tomorrow, every day till the end of the world. 2016-10-04 08:16:19-04 By William Blum – Published October 2nd, 2016 Cold War, today, tomorrow, every day till the end of the world. “Russia suspected of election scheme. U.S. probes plan to sow voter distrust.” hat’s the Washington Post page-one lead headline of September 6. Think about it. The election that Americans are suffering through, cringing in embarrassment, […] read more... Wages are so stagnant even the Federal Reserve has begun to notice 2016-10-04 08:20:40-04 =BY= Peter Dolack ou are working harder while not making more. It isn’t your imagination. The latest research demonstrating this comes, interestingly, from the St. Louis branch of the United States Federal Reserve. Perhaps the researchers examining the relation between wages and productivity hoped this work wouldn’t be noticed by the public, as it was […] read more... Can Russia Learn From Brazil’s Fate? 2016-10-04 08:31:28-04 THE WEST’S GREAT WAR AGAINST RUSSIA The object is the defeat and destruction of Russia as an independent world power. by PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS – MICHAEL HUDSONPhoto by PSB Nacional 40 | CC BY 2.0 William Engdahl recently explained how Washington used the corrupt Brazilian elite, which answers to Washington, to remove the duly […] read more... US Suspends Nonexistent Cooperation with Russia on Syria 2016-10-04 09:46:31-04 Dispatches from STEPHEN LENDMAN H egemons don’t cooperate. They demand. Throughout months of US/Russia talks on cessation of hostilities as an important conflict resolution step, Washington pretended to cooperate with Moscow. Sergey Lavrov (above) pretended to believe John Kerry negotiated in good faith, knowing America’s sordid history of breaching virtually all agreements with counterparties, […] read more... Syria on brink of final victory in Aleppo 2016-10-04 10:07:33-04 CARRYING OUT THE CRIMINAL AGENDA OF THE 0.00001% ACROSS THE GLOBE ALEXANDER MERCOURIS THE DURAN With Jihadi counter offensives crushed, the Jihadis in eastern Aleppo trapped, and the US out of options, the Syrian government backed by Russia is on the brink of winning ‘the Great Battle of Aleppo’ and restoring its full control over […] read more... Destroying Syria: a Joint Criminal Enterprise 2016-10-04 10:55:39-04 CARRYING OUT THE CRIMINAL AGENDA OF THE 0.00001% ACROSS THE GLOBE By DIANA JOHNSTONE A shell explodes on November 13, 2014 in the Syrian city of Kobane, also known as Ain al-Arab, as seen from the Turkish border village of Mursitpinar, Sanliurfa province. A report issued on November 13 by the Norwegian Refugee Council and […] read more... Bring Back the Cold War 2016-10-04 23:50:04-04 THE WEST’S GREAT WAR AGAINST RUSSIA The object is the defeat and destruction of Russia as an independent world power. by PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS Pundits have declared a “New Cold War.” If only! The Cold War was a time when leaders focused on reducing tensions between nuclear powers. What we have today is much more […] read more... How Do We ‘Package’ Peace? Can We Make It Palatable? 2016-10-05 10:59:31-04 =By= Gary Corseri “Dream of World Peace” by K. Mathew (A review of Peace Plays by Johan Galtung, Vitahl Rajan, and S. P. Udayakumar; Kolofon Press, 2010. 95 pages. Available in bookstores or at www.kolofon.com and at www.transcend.org/tup.) “But where can wisdom be found? And where is the place of understanding?” –The Book of Job […] read more... The Empire Strikes Back 2016-10-05 17:56:38-04 =By= Chris Hedges Corporate colonization proceeding as planned. Editor's NoteIt is critically important that people in the US, and the rest of the advanced capitalist world, pay serious attention to what is happening in South America and Latin America. For peoples who purportedly believe in democracy; believe in individual and state self-determination; believe in “freedom”; […] read more... The Dreadful Chronology of Gaddafi’s Murder 2016-10-05 23:37:10-04 CARRYING OUT THE CRIMINAL AGENDA OF THE 0.00001% ACROSS THE GLOBE by CHRIS WELZENBACH Photo by thierry hermann | CC BY 2.0 Jean-Paul Pougala’s April 14, 2011 piece in Pambazuka News titled “The Lies BehindContinue reading read more... Americans Can Sue Saudis for 9/11 Despite Their Noninvolvement 2016-10-06 02:17:52-04 Dispatches from STEPHEN LENDMAN It’s partnered with Obama’s wars on Syria and Yemen, unaccountable for Nuremberg-level crimes. Its regime had nothing to do with 9/11 – US state-sponsored terrorism, perhaps complicit with Israel, the motherContinue reading read more... The World War to Save Livable Ecology 2016-10-06 09:58:45-04 Paul Street A Strong Left Voice in Middle America Why Climate Change Trumps Nuclear War [dropcap]O[/dropcap]ne of many disturbing moments in the first “presidential” “debate” between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump one week ago atContinue reading read more... Reaping the Whirlwind: Kerry, al-Nusra, Russia and Syria 2016-10-06 10:22:25-04 CARRYING OUT THE CRIMINAL AGENDA OF THE 0.00001% ACROSS THE GLOBE by GARY LEUPP Art by DonkeyHotey | CC BY 2.0 The Libya UNSC Resolution of 2011: Template for the Syria Resolution of 2017? I’veContinue reading read more... OPEDS—The Dangerous Diplomacy of Samantha Power 2016-10-06 10:56:43-04 CARRYING OUT THE CRIMINAL AGENDA OF THE 0.00001% ACROSS THE GLOBE by CONN HALLINAN Photo by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff | CC BY 2.0 The issues at stake are hardly abstract. TheContinue reading read more... Droning Assange: the Clinton Formula 2016-10-06 11:43:34-04 BY BINOY KAMPMARK “We believe in what we are doing… If you are pushed, you push back.” — Julian Assange he mutterings have become furious, and it is clear that the Democratic contender for theContinue reading read more... The Disastrous Failure of Lesser Evilism 2016-10-06 12:11:35-04 {OPEDS } BY TY MOORE – PATRICK AYERS ith the presidential race entering the final lap, panic is setting in as Hillary Clinton fails to pull ahead of Donald Trump in the polls. In a viralContinue reading read more... A Scandal that Reveals More Than It Says: Yahoo Scanned All Users’ Mail for the Government 2016-10-06 12:35:04-04 BY ALFREDO LOPEZ Photo by abhisawa | CC BY 2.0 f you are one of the approximately 280 million people with Yahoo email accounts, your email was scanned for content and possibly turned over to theContinue reading read more... On Assad and Syria: a Reply to a Reader 2016-10-06 12:45:23-04 BY DIANA JOHNSTONE A reader sent me the following short comment on my article about destroying Syria: “Not a word about Assad’s crimes or Russia bombing civilians?” Here is my reply to such objections: Dear …Continue reading read more... What’s Behind Time Magazine’s Putin Demonizing? 2016-10-06 13:14:57-04 BY DAVID SWANSON “Russia Wants to Undermine Faith in the U.S. Election. Don’t Fall For It.” Thus reads the cover ofTime magazine with a photo of Vladimir Putin on the cover staring at me from shelvesContinue reading read more... President Barack Obama’s Crappy Legacy 2016-10-06 13:49:57-04 BY DAVE LINDORFF He did give us, over the last eight years, a lot of change, but not much hope, and most of the change has been negative. Let’s just run through at least some ofContinue reading read more... Legacy: The Gift That Destroys America 2016-10-06 13:58:50-04 BY NORMAN POLLACK Obama is not a causal force, but an easily replaceable object, the summation of a century-plus of societal development of capitalism-driven hegemony in world affairs—and before that, at least a half-century of industrial-financialContinue reading read more... Top US General: Hillary’s No Fly Zone Strategy Would ‘Require’ War With Russia 2016-10-06 15:59:00-04 A DISPATCH FROM SPUTNIK NEWS Photo © REUTERS/ Yuri Gripas Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS) asked about Hillary Clinton’s proposal for a no fly zone in Syria in response to allegations that Russia and Syria have intensified their aerial bombardment of rebel-heldContinue reading read more... Enter Sandman: the Pence-Kaine Sleepwalk 2016-10-06 16:35:51-04 BY JEFFREY ST. CLAIR Something’s wrong, shut the light Heavy thoughts tonight And they aren’t of Snow White Dreams of war, dreams of liars Dreams of dragon’s fire And of things that will bite Exit,Continue reading read more... BREAKING: Russia Will Take Down Any American Airplane or Rocket Targeting Syrian Army (Video) 2016-10-06 17:10:11-04 CARRYING OUT THE CRIMINAL AGENDA OF THE 0.00001% ACROSS THE GLOBE A DISPATCH FROM RT.COM ‘S-300, S-400 air defenses in place’: Russian MoD warns US-led coalition not to strike Syrian army Russia tells Americans goingContinue reading read more... Obama Warned to Defuse Tensions with Russia 2016-10-06 19:13:00-04 Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity Dateline: October 2, 2016 ALERT MEMORANDUM FOR: The President FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity SUBJECT: PREVENTING STILL WORSE IN SYRIA We write to alert you, as we didContinue reading read more... Contact Us P.O. Box 943 Brewster NY 10509 USA AND BY EMAIL AT editor at greanvillepost.com OUR SITES CONTAIN THOUSANDS OF ARTICLES. THIS IS JUST A SAMPLE. VISIT US OFTEN Unsubscribe to this Newsletter Copyright © 1992 ~ 2015 Greanville Publishing LLC. All rights reserved. Unsubscribe | Change Subscriber Options -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rachelstrm at gmail.com Fri Oct 7 22:15:35 2016 From: rachelstrm at gmail.com (Rachel Storm) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 17:15:35 -0500 Subject: [Peace] Peace Jam tomorrow at UCIMC 11am-2pm! Message-ID: You're invited to... *Peace JamSaturday, Oct. 8th, 11am-2pmUrbana-Champaign Independent Media Center (202 S. Broadway Ave. Urbana, IL 61801)*In honor of Domestic Violence Awareness Month, join us for Peace Jam, music for a world without violence! Peace Jam is a kick-off for Domestic Violence Awareness Month featuring live music, performances, art, and a resource fair aimed at speaking out against abuse within relationships and coming together as a community to support survivors and end domestic violence. Join us for as we kick off a month-long series of events and programs aimed at ending abuse within relationships. This event is open to all ages. Featuring live musical performances by: RAINBOW FLAG (Urbana-Champaign, IL) Folk melodies with Rachael Wilson and Holly Monet https://www.facebook.com/rainbowflagurbana/ LOVE HANDLES (Urbana-Champaign, IL) Indie Feminist LGBTQIA Posi / Empowering Covers http://www.facebook.com/lovehandlescu PAUL KOTHEIMER (Urbana-Champaign, IL) Indie Rock & Political Folk Music http://www.handmaderecords.com/ and KAMILA GLOWACKI of NECTAR (Urbana-Champaign, IL) https://nectarnectar.bandcamp.com/ Share this event and RSVP on Facebook here! https://www.facebook.com/events/149593855473671/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PeaceJamPoster.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 188859 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PeaceJamPoster.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 240591 bytes Desc: not available URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Oct 8 01:42:22 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2016 01:42:22 +0000 Subject: [Peace] "National Service" Message-ID: * Print * Leaflet * Feedback * Share » Clinton calls for National Service By Nancy Hanover 7 October 2016 Last Friday, September 30, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton announced a plan to institute a National Service Reserve for the purpose of recruiting five million young people between the ages of 18 and 30 for a minimum of a year of service. This initiative is not a milquetoast “reform” as it is being described in the media, but represents a dangerous shift towards wider wars abroad and a more militarized society at home. While she packaged the idea as a local/national volunteer force, Clinton’s proposed corps are modeled after the Armed Forces Reserves. Volunteers would receive “basic training” and be on-call for natural disaster, public health campaigns or “other projects,” according to the Washington Post . In return, Clinton offers possible college credits, time off from work and/or a “modest” living expense for volunteers, contingent on demonstrated financial need. Significantly, the federal government would not pay even for these limited rations; her plan suggests she will negotiate with corporations to do so. Clinton also called for tripling the size of AmeriCorps from 75,000 to 250,000, increasing its loan forgiveness/stipend allocation to a miserable $23,000 for two years of full-time work plus another year in public service. Finally she advocated for the expansion of the Peace Corps and the enlistment of the over-55 age bracket for volunteer opportunities. She has advertised the Reserve corps as an appeal to the “volunteering spirit” of millennials whose support she needs in November. Posted comments online, however, reacting to media reports indicates that most of the intended audience would prefer student-loan forgiveness and a decently-paying job rather than working for near-free. Even more fundamentally, they are deeply skeptical of the military implications of National Service. Indeed, such proposals—always of a militarist character—have periodically arisen in the US, but are now receiving significant political traction. In fact, National Service fits in with the outlook and aims outlined in the recent Atlantic Council document The Future of the Army. Among other measures, the policy paper calls for an expansion of military personnel, both career and part-time. It suggests the creation of an Army Civilian Volunteer Auxiliary Corps, an idea not dissimilar to the National Service Reserves. With an eye to the “age of perpetual war” and social breakdown at home, The Future of the Army states, “The lines between military and civilian, active and reserves, volunteers and retirees need to become far more blurred.” In other words, policymakers are demanding the militarization of large swathes of American society, with millions of “reservists” on call for military duties. The report also cautions, the Army must “address how to bring large numbers of new recruits into a growing force” and identify “the talents it might want to rapidly access if the Selective Service were to institute a draft.” National Service, even if at first voluntary, would mark a step in this direction. In fact, Clinton’s concept has been developed by General Stanley McChrystal, the career four-star general responsible for five years of war crimes in Afghanistan, together with the high-level American think-tank The Aspen Institute. In the wake of the huge support for Bernie Sanders among young people coupled with a rising combativity within the working class, Clinton’s plans dovetails not only with the interests of the financial elite to prepare for new wars, but especially to enable the promotion of American nationalism and militarism as a battering ram against a rising class consciousness. This becomes clear when examining the statements of advocates for National Service. Some appear in unexpected places. The major K-12 journal, Education Week —which usually concerns itself with issues which directly bear on primary and secondary schooling—ran a commentary in mid-September entitled “The Case for Universal National Service”. It is authored by James H. Stone, a man with serious Wall Street bona fides—a former chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission now running a billion-dollar insurance group. The Education Week article calls for mandatory National Service. It envisions requiring “every young person between 17 and 22 to perform at least one year of service in an approved field”. Stone ranks the options: “1) On the military side, where compensation would almost surely be highest and a two-year enlistment likely required, the need is obvious.” Suggesting “infrastructure” as 2), he states young folks with “basic training” could deal with safe drinking-water and crumbling school facilities. Finally he offers 3) Social Services explaining “there is always more to be done.” Stone concludes that “universal national service offers the only workable answer to the major issues in American education” and is essential as a “healthy wake-up call for a divided nation… Our nation’s pride, compassion, and national unity would all be increased.” Such concerns are made even more emphatically by Gen. McChrystal, who is the leading advocate for National Service. McChrystal cites statistics of growing social inequality, worrying that “social trust” is breaking down, in a 2016 article in theAtlantic. He warns the ruling elite “how Americans restore trust may be an existential question for their country … an increasingly shorn society.” The solution? “Bind[ing] our young people to one another and [to] the nation” via National Service, he says in Politico . Clinton’s adoption of the McChrystal program is not surprising. As secretary of state, she found common cause with the general against Obama on the military policy, including on sending more soldiers to Afghanistan. As one of her aides revealingly observed, “She likes the nail-eaters—McChrystal, Petraeus, Keane. Real military guys, not these retired three-stars who go into civilian jobs,” according to the Atlantic . McChrystal is by no means just speaking for himself. While he founded the Franklin Project at the Aspen Institute to advocate for National Service in 2012, the Institute is a major US think tank of business and military leaders. It includes both leading Democrats and Republicans and includes as board members Madeleine Albright, David H. Koch, and Condoleezza Rice. (It is also relevant to note that in 1988 the Democratic Leadership Council, including Bill Clinton, issued a report “Citizenship and National Service” proposing that federal college student aid be conditioned on such service.) In January 2016, the Franklin Project merged with several other groups to form Service Year Alliance, also chaired by McChrystal. Tae Yoo, a figure at the World Economic Forum and senior vice-president at Cisco, issued a similar warning on behalf of the ruling elite, pointing to the depth of social anger building up in America, making the extraordinary prediction that the crisis was “leading to a weakened civilization”. As reported inHuffington Post, she said, “Young Americans today are facing the crisis of unraveling traditional communities and social structures. In fact, 1 million students drop out of school each year, and 17 percent of youth aged 16 to 24 are out of school and work. This isn’t just a problem about unemployment or a weak future workforce—it escalates to encompass poverty, illiteracy, food insecurity, homelessness and a lack of health care, leading to a weakened civilization.” Doubling down on the point that the crisis of capitalism is bringing American society to the breaking point, McChrystal emphasized, “The danger of inaction should be clear. Tensions and violence in cities across America are reminders of how quickly communities can erupt with an absence of social trust. Dallas, St. Paul, Baton Rouge, and Orlando, following on the heels of Ferguson, Baltimore, and Chicago illustrate a disheartening reality.” McChrystal concluded his July 2016Atlantic article by calling on the presidential candidates to adopt National Service as a policy solution. It appears Clinton answered the call. The militarization of the labor force—“blurring the lines” between civilian and military personnel—and the use of nationalistic propaganda to “bind the nation” are not new concepts. The 20th century and its two world wars have provided us with the tragic outcome of these outlooks. Young people must turn to the working class and fight to unite it internationally as the great oppositional force to put an end to this rapacious system and construct a new socialist society. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Sat Oct 8 13:35:46 2016 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2016 08:35:46 -0500 Subject: [Peace] News from Neptune for Friday 7 October In-Reply-To: References: <745FA348-0FE6-4122-86C3-7F01FC157753@newsfromneptune.com> <5489C839-553A-4E34-B30A-E11DC2FC15FA@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: <99ADC184-CDFB-4E96-80D0-69A6991AC1D2@newsfromneptune.com> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tStfMB4fLSs This "No Net" edition of News From Neptune prompts Carl Estabrook, Karen Aram and David Green to discuss the news of the week and its coverage by the media without any notes or computers. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From susanroseparenti at gmail.com Sat Oct 8 20:23:42 2016 From: susanroseparenti at gmail.com (Susan Parenti) Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2016 15:23:42 -0500 Subject: [Peace] "National Service" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <373B7284-9498-484A-A63B-3E6855744648@gmail.com> thank you! > On Oct 7, 2016, at 8:42 PM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: > > > Print > Leaflet > Feedback > Share » > > Clinton calls for National Service > By Nancy Hanover > 7 October 2016 > Last Friday, September 30, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton announced a plan to institute a National Service Reserve for the purpose of recruiting five million young people between the ages of 18 and 30 for a minimum of a year of service. This initiative is not a milquetoast “reform” as it is being described in the media, but represents a dangerous shift towards wider wars abroad and a more militarized society at home. > While she packaged the idea as a local/national volunteer force, Clinton’s proposed corps are modeled after the Armed Forces Reserves. Volunteers would receive “basic training” and be on-call for natural disaster, public health campaigns or “other projects,” according to the Washington Post . > In return, Clinton offers possible college credits, time off from work and/or a “modest” living expense for volunteers, contingent on demonstrated financial need. Significantly, the federal government would not pay even for these limited rations; her plan suggests she will negotiate with corporations to do so. > Clinton also called for tripling the size of AmeriCorps from 75,000 to 250,000, increasing its loan forgiveness/stipend allocation to a miserable $23,000 for two years of full-time work plus another year in public service. Finally she advocated for the expansion of the Peace Corps and the enlistment of the over-55 age bracket for volunteer opportunities. > She has advertised the Reserve corps as an appeal to the “volunteering spirit” of millennials whose support she needs in November. Posted comments online, however, reacting to media reports indicates that most of the intended audience would prefer student-loan forgiveness and a decently-paying job rather than working for near-free. Even more fundamentally, they are deeply skeptical of the military implications of National Service. > Indeed, such proposals—always of a militarist character—have periodically arisen in the US, but are now receiving significant political traction. In fact, National Service fits in with the outlook and aims outlined in the recent Atlantic Council document The Future of the Army . Among other measures, the policy paper calls for an expansion of military personnel, both career and part-time. It suggests the creation of an Army Civilian Volunteer Auxiliary Corps, an idea not dissimilar to the National Service Reserves. > With an eye to the “age of perpetual war” and social breakdown at home, The Future of the Army states, “The lines between military and civilian, active and reserves, volunteers and retirees need to become far more blurred.” > In other words, policymakers are demanding the militarization of large swathes of American society, with millions of “reservists” on call for military duties. The report also cautions, the Army must “address how to bring large numbers of new recruits into a growing force” and identify “the talents it might want to rapidly access if the Selective Service were to institute a draft.” > National Service, even if at first voluntary, would mark a step in this direction. In fact, Clinton’s concept has been developed by General Stanley McChrystal, the career four-star general responsible for five years of war crimes in Afghanistan, together with the high-level American think-tank The Aspen Institute. > In the wake of the huge support for Bernie Sanders among young people coupled with a rising combativity within the working class, Clinton’s plans dovetails not only with the interests of the financial elite to prepare for new wars, but especially to enable the promotion of American nationalism and militarism as a battering ram against a rising class consciousness. > This becomes clear when examining the statements of advocates for National Service. Some appear in unexpected places. The major K-12 journal, Education Week —which usually concerns itself with issues which directly bear on primary and secondary schooling—ran a commentary in mid-September entitled “The Case for Universal National Service”. It is authored by James H. Stone, a man with serious Wall Street bona fides—a former chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission now running a billion-dollar insurance group. > The Education Week article calls for mandatory National Service. It envisions requiring “every young person between 17 and 22 to perform at least one year of service in an approved field”. Stone ranks the options: “1) On the military side, where compensation would almost surely be highest and a two-year enlistment likely required, the need is obvious.” Suggesting “infrastructure” as 2), he states young folks with “basic training” could deal with safe drinking-water and crumbling school facilities. Finally he offers 3) Social Services explaining “there is always more to be done.” > Stone concludes that “universal national service offers the only workable answer to the major issues in American education” and is essential as a “healthy wake-up call for a divided nation… Our nation’s pride, compassion, and national unity would all be increased.” > Such concerns are made even more emphatically by Gen. McChrystal, who is the leading advocate for National Service. McChrystal cites statistics of growing social inequality, worrying that “social trust” is breaking down, in a 2016 article in theAtlantic. He warns the ruling elite “how Americans restore trust may be an existential question for their country … an increasingly shorn society.” The solution? “Bind[ing] our young people to one another and [to] the nation” via National Service, he says in Politico . > Clinton’s adoption of the McChrystal program is not surprising. As secretary of state, she found common cause with the general against Obama on the military policy, including on sending more soldiers to Afghanistan. As one of her aides revealingly observed, “She likes the nail-eaters—McChrystal, Petraeus, Keane. Real military guys, not these retired three-stars who go into civilian jobs,” according to the Atlantic . > McChrystal is by no means just speaking for himself. While he founded the Franklin Project at the Aspen Institute to advocate for National Service in 2012, the Institute is a major US think tank of business and military leaders. It includes both leading Democrats and Republicans and includes as board members Madeleine Albright, David H. Koch, and Condoleezza Rice. (It is also relevant to note that in 1988 the Democratic Leadership Council, including Bill Clinton, issued a report “Citizenship and National Service” proposing that federal college student aid be conditioned on such service.) In January 2016, the Franklin Project merged with several other groups to form Service Year Alliance, also chaired by McChrystal. > Tae Yoo, a figure at the World Economic Forum and senior vice-president at Cisco, issued a similar warning on behalf of the ruling elite, pointing to the depth of social anger building up in America, making the extraordinary prediction that the crisis was “leading to a weakened civilization”. As reported inHuffington Post, she said, “Young Americans today are facing the crisis of unraveling traditional communities and social structures. In fact, 1 million students drop out of school each year, and 17 percent of youth aged 16 to 24 are out of school and work. This isn’t just a problem about unemployment or a weak future workforce—it escalates to encompass poverty, illiteracy, food insecurity, homelessness and a lack of health care, leading to a weakened civilization.” > Doubling down on the point that the crisis of capitalism is bringing American society to the breaking point, McChrystal emphasized, “The danger of inaction should be clear. Tensions and violence in cities across America are reminders of how quickly communities can erupt with an absence of social trust. Dallas, St. Paul, Baton Rouge, and Orlando, following on the heels of Ferguson, Baltimore, and Chicago illustrate a disheartening reality.” McChrystal concluded his July 2016Atlantic article by calling on the presidential candidates to adopt National Service as a policy solution. It appears Clinton answered the call. > The militarization of the labor force—“blurring the lines” between civilian and military personnel—and the use of nationalistic propaganda to “bind the nation” are not new concepts. The 20th century and its two world wars have provided us with the tragic outcome of these outlooks. Young people must turn to the working class and fight to unite it internationally as the great oppositional force to put an end to this rapacious system and construct a new socialist society. > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Oct 8 21:37:16 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2016 21:37:16 +0000 Subject: [Peace] The Atlantic Council/The Future of the Army & Hillary's plan for "National Service" and USG plan for war, and more war Message-ID: [page1image424] [page1image592] Atlantic Council BRENT SCOWCROFT CENTER ON INTERNATIONAL SECURITY THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY TODAY, TOMORROW, AND THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW David Barno and Nora Bensahel ISBN: 978-1-61977-465-0 THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY TODAY, TOMORROW, AND THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW David Barno and Nora Bensahel Cover photo credit: Army Sta Sgt. Pedro Ortiz of the 1-501 Parachute Infantry Regiment provides security at Malamute Drop Zone, Alaska, August 2016. Department of Defense. This report is written and published in accordance with the Atlantic Council Policy on Intellectual Independence. The authors are solely responsible for its analysis and recommendations. The Atlantic Council and its donors do not determine, nor do they necessarily endorse or advocate for, any of this report’s conclusions. September 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 1 Introduction 3 1. The Army’s World in 2016 4 2. The Army Today: 2016-2020 10 3. The Army of Tomorrow: 2020-2025 24 4. The Army of the Day after Tomorrow: 2025-2040+ 34 About the Authors 45 Appendix: Summary of Recommendations 46 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The US Army today is at a strategic crossroads. After fteen years of intense warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is managing the same type of budget and manpower reductions that occurred after World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the end of the Cold War. Yet, the international environment today is far more dynamic and complex than after each of those con icts, which is placing unprecedented demands on a force that is drawing down. Threats have burgeoned in the last ve years as great power politics have reasserted themselves, global terrorism and extremism is on the rise, and turmoil in the Middle East has replaced the hopes of the Arab Spring. The world has become a much more dangerous place. At the same time as global demands for the Army are on the rise, its budget is deeply constrained by the Budget Control Act of 2011. Yet, the strategic environment is more dangerous today than it was even just a couple of years ago. Today, thousands of Army troops remain at war in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and Army special operations forces (SOF) are busier than ever conducting counterterror operations around the world. Moreover, the Army faces growing requirements to provide forces for deterrence and presence, reassurance to friends and allies, peacekeeping and stability, and security force assistance around the world. The pernicious combination of a shrinking force, declining resources, increasing global commitments, and the renewed possibility of major power con ict present the Army with momentous strategic challenges. It is facing inevitable tradeo s between the need to ght today’s wars while preparing for the possible wars of the future—and the need to pay for both in a declining budgetary environment. Army leaders must approach these challenges with imagination, creative solutions, and unrestrained thinking about both present and future wars. They must forge an Army that is up to all manner of tasks, staying faithful to the core values of their people and the profession of arms. In short, they must build the next US Army—a force that balances today’s demands with those of tomorrow, which could require much more from the force and its people. This report provides a range of recommendations to help Army leaders build the next Army successfully. For analytic reasons, we present recommendations for what the Army will need in three distinct time horizons: today (2016-2020); tomorrow (2020-2025); and the day after tomorrow (2025-2040 and beyond). In practice, though, there are no clear divisions among these time periods, and they will inevitably overlap. However, the Army must start preparing now for all of these time periods. Our report is designed to o er fresh ideas that spark debate, challenge hoary assumptions, and animate the need for change. We have one overriding goal: to ensure that the US Army remains the preeminent ghting force in the world for the remainder of this century. THE ARMY TODAY: 2016-2020 The Army must adapt in ve major ways to be ready for the challenges of the next few years, most of which involve getting more capacity out of the currently planned force. • Adjust force structure to better meet operational requirements. The Army needs more SOF, new heavy cavalry units, and security force assistance brigades to improve its capabilities for deterrence and crisis response. • Fully integrate the Army’s Active and Reserve Components. This involves creating hybrid brigade combat teams (BCTs), sourcing predictable rotational missions from the Reserve Component rst, and increasing the Army’s focus on homeland defense. • Rebuild joint and combined arms war ghting capabilities. This includes increasing the number of armored BCTs (ABCTs) in the Active Component; improving mobility, repower, and protection for infantry BCTs (IBCTs); rebuilding tactical air defense; reconstituting protection against chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear threats; and training to operate in a degraded communications environment. • Transform Army headquarters and slash non- essential processes. The Army should abolish the Army Service Component Commands in their current form; cull non-operational headquarters; eliminate the cultural divide between the institutional and operational Army; and reduce unneeded work and transform sta processes. • Reconstitute capabilities for rapid expansion. This involves practicing standing up new units, reinvigorating the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR), and building an Army mobilization plan. THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY ATLANTIC COUNCIL 1 THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY THE ARMY OF TOMORROW: 2020-2025 Over the next ve to ten years, the Army must remain capable of deterring adversaries and dominating con icts while simultaneously preparing to develop a much di erent force for the world beyond that timeframe. * Organize the total force by deployment timelines. The Army should reorganize its operational forces around the single concept of likely deployment times. It should build a Rapid Response Force that can deploy within the rst three to four months of a future con ict; an Operational Response Force that would deploy within four to ten months; and a Strategic Response Force that would deploy after ten months or longer. * Strengthen Army strategic mobility and presence. Since the Army today is based almost entirely at home, it needs to reinvest in prepositioned overseas combat stocks; prepare to ght for overseas staging areas; improve strategic mobility exercises; and press to station more forces overseas. * Master urban operations. More than half of the world’s population already lives in urban areas, and that percentage will only increase in the coming decades. In order to prepare for this challenging operational environment, the Army should designate units to specialize in urban operations and improve training for large-scale urban combat. * Prepare for the next big war. The Army needs to upgrade, access, and prepare to employ surplus weaponry; plan to control large areas and populations; rebuild resilience in the force; and plan for unit regeneration. * Modernize technology investments. This involves accelerating the development of air mobility with operational reach; building mobile- protected repower and a new infantry combat carrier; developing a mobile-protective umbrella; developing advanced protection systems; and investing in counter-drone systems. • Set the stage for another round of Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC). The Department of Defense (DOD) estimates that a staggering 33 percent of the Army’s base infrastructure is unnecessary. Despite continuing opposition, the Army must continue to press Congress to approve another round of base closings, so it no longer wastes money on bases it does not need. THE ARMY OF THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW: 2025-2040+ The long-term future may well involve far greater threats and challenges than the world today, but their nature, size, and scope cannot possibly be predicted correctly. The Army must therefore build itself around the principle of adaptability, so that it can quickly adjust to whatever types of con icts emerge. Doing so will a ect almost all aspects of the Army as an institution. • • • • Transform Army culture. E ective adaptability will require the Army to accept more risk; reinstitute “power down;” decrease tolerance of bureaucracy; reduce excessive deference to rank and position; reject Army anti-intellectualism; and strengthen ethics and integrity. Redesign the structures of the operational and institutional Army. This involves pursuing modularity at the battalion level and building some independent companies. Expand personnel reforms and de nitions of service. The Army should institutionalize permeability and lifelong service, shorten some active duty enlistments, and create an Army civilian volunteer auxiliary corps. Embrace advanced technologies and experimentation. This includes enabling greater experimentation in operational units; building training around virtual reality and its successors; integrating battle eld robotics and arti cial intelligence into the close ght; building new battle sta processes around arti cial intelligence; and investing in advanced technologies for power and munitions. 2 ATLANTIC COUNCIL INTRODUCTION The US Army today is at a strategic crossroads. After fteen years of intense warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is managing the same type of budget and manpower reductions that occurred after World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the end of the Cold War. Yet, the international environment today is far more dynamic and complex than after each of those con icts, and that is placing unprecedented demands on a force that is drawing down. Thousands of Army troops remain at war in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and Army special operations forces (SOF) are busier than ever conducting counterterror operations around the world. Its operational tempo The pernicious combination of a shrinking force, declining resources, increasing global commitments, and the renewed possibility of major power con ict present the Army with momentous strategic challenges. It is facing inevitable tradeo s between the need to ght today’s wars and preparing for the possible wars of the future—and the need to pay for both in a declining budgetary environment. Army leaders must approach these challenges with imagination, creative solutions, and unrestrained thinking about both present and future wars. They must forge an Army that is up to all manner of tasks, staying also remains strikingly high as it faces growing requirements to provide forces for deterrence and presence, reassurance to friends and allies, peacekeeping and stability, and security force assistance around the world. Today’s world little resembles the world that shaped the 2011 defense budget constraints and the strategic guidance issued by the Department of Defense (DOD) in 2012 and early 2014.1 That world was shaped by cautious optimism surrounding the Arab Spring, the withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq and many from Afghanistan, renewed hopes for broad international cooperation with Russia and China, and the death of Osama bin Laden with the ensuing diminishment of the al-Qaeda terrorist threat. The world of 2016, however, is a very di erent place—one in which strategic threats have returned and great power politics are once more at the fore. The unrestrained aggressiveness of a resurgent Russia and a rising China threaten US allies in both Europe and the Paci c. The emergence of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) as a pressing international terror threat has eclipsed al- Qaeda in danger and lethal e ectiveness. Turbulence in the broader Middle East has replaced hopes for an Arab renewal with an entrenched war in Syria and widespread regional instability. The world has become a much more dangerous place in just four short years. 1 The 2012 defense strategic guidance and 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review are discussed in the next chapter. faithful to the core values of their people and the profession of arms. In short, they must build the next US Army—a force that balances the demands of today’s con icts with those of future wars that could require much more from the force and its people. This report provides a range of recommendations to help today’s Army leaders build the next Army successfully. It is designed to o er fresh ideas that spark debate, challenge hoary assumptions, and animate the need for change. It has but one goal: to ensure that the US Army remains the pre-eminent ghting force in the world for the remainder of this century. For analytic reasons, we present recommendations for what the Army will need in three time horizons: today (2016-2020); tomorrow (2020-2025); and the day after tomorrow (2025- 2040 and beyond). In practice, though, there are no clear divisions among these time periods, and they will inevitably overlap. However, the Army must start preparing now for all of these time periods, even the most distant. The Army simply cannot a ord to wait until the future to prepare for the future, especially since many of the recommended changes will take a long time to fully implement. And given the unpredictable global environment and unprecedented rates of change, many of the challenges that we project for the future may occur well before then. The Army must take action now in order to ensure that it is as prepared as possible for the very demanding challenges to come. The pernicious combination of a shrinking force, declining resources, increasing global commitments, and the renewed possibility of major power con ict present the Army with momentous strategic challenges. THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY ATLANTIC COUNCIL 3 THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY 1. THE ARMY’S WORLD IN 2016 The Army today is navigating an unprecedented mix of complex currents. Its soldiers continue to ght in Iraq and Afghanistan against implacable, irregular adversaries that show few signs of quitting. At the same time, bold and aggressive behavior by resurgent and rising nation states has raised the specter once more of major and deadly conventional wars. Global instability is on the rise, and regional powers such as Iran and North Korea, whose interests are inimical to the United States, continue to demand the attention of the US military. Yet despite these growing threats, defense spending remains relatively at, and Army end strength continues to shrink. Making the right strategic choices to steer the Army through this period of profound uncertainty while preparing for what may come next is a tremendous leadership challenge. THE STRATEGIC AND BUDGETARY CONTEXT The strategic environment in which the Army operates has changed dramatically during the past few years. For years after the 9/11 attacks, US strategic thinking was dominated by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, two of the longest wars in US history. But those wars reached their peak troop strength in 2007 and 2010 respectively;2 by early 2011, the focus had shifted to withdrawing from those wars and preparing for the new security challenges that lay ahead. That shift was re ected in the 2012 defense strategic guidance, which explicitly stated that the US military would not size itself for long-term stability operations and emphasized the importance of rebalancing toward the Asia-Paci c.3 Yet even before that guidance was issued, the August 2011 Budget Control Act (BCA) and its sequestration mechanism limited the resources that would be available to DOD for the following decade. Somewhat ironically, however, the BCA did not result from any serious discussions about what the future strategic environment would require, or how much money the nation should spend on its defense. Instead, it emerged from the completely unrelated dispute about raising the national debt—with a penalty that would be enacted if members of Congress could not reach a broader compromise about government spending and debt reduction.4 That agreement never came. The BCA’s mandated budget caps and sequestration took e ect on January 1, 2013, which required DOD to cut approximately $500 billion from its planned base budget through the next ten years.5 Congress has increased the BCA’s mandated spending caps twice, but the resulting budgets have still fallen short of planned levels.6 At rst glance, these budget caps may not seem like they would pose severe problems for DOD. Defense budgets often shrink after major wars end, and even with the BCA, the current cuts to the defense budget are smaller than they were after Korea, Vietnam, and the Cold War.7 The major problem, however, is that growing internal costs mean that each defense dollar buys far less than it used to. Between 2000 and 2014, for example, DOD’s acquisition costs grew by 2 3 171,000 US troops were deployed to Iraq in October 2007, and approximately 100,000 US troops were deployed to Afghanistan in August 2009 and March-May 2010. Michael E. O’Hanlon and Ian Livingston, “Iraq Index,” The Brookings Institution, January 31, 2012, p. 13, http://www.brookings. edu/~/media/Centers/saban/iraq-index/index20120131.PDF; Ian S. Livingston and Michael O’Hanlon, “Afghanistan Index,” The Brookings Institution, March 31, 2016, p. 4, http://www. brookings.edu/~/media/Programs/foreign-policy/afghanistan- index/index20160330.pdf?la=en. Department of Defense, “Sustaining Global US Leadership: Priorities of 21st Century Defense,” January 2012. 7 4 5 6 For more on the context surrounding the BCA defense spending caps, see Lieutenant General David W. Barno, USA (Ret.), Nora Bensahel, and Travis Sharp, Hard Choices: Responsible Defense in an Age of Austerity, Center for a New American Security, October 2011; David W. Barno, Nora Bensahel, Joel Smith, and Jacob Stokes, Countdown to Sequestration: Why American Leaders Could Jump O the Fiscal Cli , Center for a New American Security, November 2012. For a comparison of the BCA caps compared to planned DOD spending, see Katherine Blakely, Seven Areas to Watch in the FY17 Defense Budget, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, February 2016, p. 2. The Ryan-Murray budget deal of 2013, for example, restored less than half of the planned cuts for the scal year 2014 budget. The budget deal reached in December 2015 raised the spending caps for scal years 2016 and 2017 to levels that were close to the president’s budget request, and then relied on Overseas Contingency Operations funds to make up the di erence. Nora Bensahel, “The Budget Deal: Good, But Not Great, News for DOD,” Center for a New American Security, December 11, 2013, http://www.cnas.org/blog/budget-deal- good-not-great-news-dod#.V08wuZODFHw; Cheryl Pellerin, “DOD Comptroller: Budget Deal O ers Relief, Uncertainty,” DOD News, December 2, 2015, http://www.defense.gov/News- Article-View/Article/632078/dod-comptroller-budget-deal- o ers-relief-uncertainty. The BCA will cut the defense budget by 31 percent, whereas it was cut by 43 percent after Korea, 33 percent after Vietnam, and 36 percent after the Cold War. Clark A. Murdock, Kelley Sayler, and Ryan A. Crotty, “The Defense Budget’s Double Whammy: Drawing Down While Hollowing Out from Within,” Center for Strategic and International Studies, October 18, 2012, https://csis-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/legacy_ les/ les/publication/121018_Murdoch_DefenseBudget_ Commentary.pdf. 4 ATLANTIC COUNCIL 25 percent, operations and maintenance costs grew by 34 percent, and military personnel costs grew by a whopping 46 percent (all in constant dollars).8 The combination of a smaller budget top line and ever-escalating internal costs has put tremendous scal pressure on the Defense Department and the individual military services, forcing di cult constraints and tradeo s. The depth of these scal challenges were emphasized in the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and the subsequent National Defense Panel.9 As the QDR was published, however, the strategic environment was already changing in two important ways. First, Russia and China began aggressively pressuring neighboring states and seeking to extend their regional in uence and power. Russia’s surprise annexation of Crimea in March 2014 and promotion of separatist movements in eastern Ukraine posed an unexpected challenge to the United States and a direct threat to its NATO allies. Russia’s resurgence and blatant aggression meant that the alliance needed to seriously prepare for the possibility of a Russian attack on one or more of its members for the rst time since the end of the Cold War. At the same time, China has become increasingly aggressive in the South China Sea. Its many provocative actions have included landing military jets on newly created arti cial islands and harassing ships with its maritime militia.10 Taken together, these developments in Russia and China seem to mark a return to an era of great power politics. After fteen years of focusing primarily on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States now has to consider signi cant strategic challenges in Europe and Asia as well. Yet, any hopes of disengaging from the Middle East were soon dashed by the second major change: the rise of ISIS. Born as a successor of al-Qaeda in Iraq,11 the group burst into Western consciousness in 1. 8 Congressional Budget O ce, Growth in DOD’s Budget from 2000 to 2014, November 2014, p. 2. See also David Barno, Nora Bensahel, Jacob Stokes, Joel Smith, and Katherine Kidder, The Seven Deadly Sins of Defense Spending, Center for a New American Security, June 2013. 2. 9 Department of Defense, 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review, March 2014; Ensuring a Strong US Defense for the Future: The National Defense Panel Review of the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review, United States Institute of Peace, July 2014. 3. 10 David Barno and Nora Bensahel, “Fortifying the Great Wall of Sand,” War on the Rocks, June 16, 2015, http://warontherocks. com/2015/06/fortifying-the-great-wall-of-sand/; David Barno and Nora Bensahel, “A Guide to Stepping It Up in the South China Sea,” War on the Rocks, June 14, 2016, http:// warontherocks.com/2016/06/a-guide-to-stepping-it-up-in-the- south-china-sea/; Andrew S. Erickson and Conor M. Kennedy, “China’s Maritime Militia,” Center for Naval Analyses, March 2016. 4. 11 Ian Fisher, “In Rise of ISIS, No Single Missed Key but Many Strands of Blame,” New York Times, November 18, 2015. August 2014 when it released an extremely graphic video of the beheading of James Foley, a US citizen whom it was holding hostage.12 By that time, however, ISIS had already gained control of large swaths of territory in Syria and northern Iraq, and the group continued to gain momentum and conduct terrorist attacks throughout the Middle East, Europe, and North Africa.13 In response, the United States has deployed nearly 5,000 troops to Iraq and approximately 300 troops to Syria.14 Those deployments are extraordinary developments that demonstrate the seriousness of this new threat, since one of President Obama’s highest priorities throughout his eight years in o ce has been to end the two wars that he inherited.15 Even if the United States defeats ISIS in Iraq and Syria, it is becoming increasingly clear that the threat posed by radical Islamist ideology will not disappear. The threat may change and adapt as it spreads around the world, but countering the underlying ideology will be a generational struggle.16 The increased globalization of technology and communications means that for the rst time in history, terrorist groups and malevolent individuals can reach the United States from almost any part of the world—as was seen all too clearly on 9/11, and reinforced by the recent terror attacks in Paris, Brussels, San Bernardino, and Orlando. In many ways, the United States has entered an era of perpetual war,17 since it will have to continue addressing the various manifestations of this threat for years and probably decades to come. Demand for SOF will only increase as the United States faces an increasing number of con icts in the gray zone, as discussed below, but conventional forces will also be required to address the complex challenges of perpetual war. 12 Karen De Young and Adam Goldman, “Islamic State Claims It Executed American Photojournalist James Foley,” Washington Post, August 20, 2014. 13 “How Many People Have Been Killed in ISIS Attacks Around the World,” New York Times, updated July 16, 2016, http://www. nytimes.com/interactive/2016/03/25/world/map-isis-attacks- around-the-world.html. 14 The total number may well be higher, since these numbers would not include any classi ed special operations forces. Missy Ryan, “The US Military Has a Lot More People in Iraq Than It Has Been Saying,” Washington Post, March 21, 2016; Gordon Lubold and Adam Entous, “US to Send 250 Additional Military Personnel to Syria,” Wall Street Journal, April 24, 2016. 15 Je rey Goldberg, “The Obama Doctrine,” Atlantic, April 2016; Greg Ja e, “After Vowing to End Two Wars, Obama May Leave Three Behind,” Washington Post, October 21, 2015. 16 President Obama used this phrase in a 2015 speech: “the larger battle for hearts and minds will be a generational struggle.” The White House, “Remarks by the President on Progress in the Fight Against ISIL,” July 6, 2015. 17 David Barno and Nora Bensahel, “The Price of Perpetual War,” War on the Rocks, May 24, 2016, http://warontherocks. com/2016/05/the-price-of-perpetual-war/. THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY ATLANTIC COUNCIL 5 THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY This, then, is the challenging strategic environment that the Army faces today: it is involved in perpetual war in some parts of the world while great power politics returns in others, and its responses are limited by the tough resource constraints imposed by at defense budgets, the threat of sequestration, and rising internal costs. CURRENT CHALLENGES FACING THE ARMY Shrinking End Strength Budget pressures are forcing the Army to shrink while new threats emerge on top of current global commitments. The 2014 QDR directed the Army to cut its temporary wartime end strength by 13.5 percent: from 570,000 to 450,000 troops in the active Army; from 358,000 to 335,000 in the Army National Guard; and from 205,000 to 195,000 in Army Chief of Sta General Mark Milley recently testi ed to Congress that the total Army of 980,000 soldiers is operating at “high military risk,” and that the Army would need around 1.2 million soldiers “in order to reduce to signi cant or moderate risk.”20 But as he noted in the very next sentence of his testimony, the Army simply does not have enough money needed to grow the Army to that size.21 The new administration that will take o ce in January 2017— regardless of which candidate wins the upcoming election—could reevaluate the size and funding of the Army. However, unless the composition of Congress changes dramatically, it seems highly unlikely that both the House and the Senate would reach a deal that would lift the 2011 budget caps and permit greater spending on both defense and domestic programs. And even if it did, the Army would still face huge the Army Reserve. It also warned, however, that deeper cuts would be needed if the full BCA budget cuts took e ect, to 420,000 troops in the active Army, 315,000 in the Army National Guard, and 185,000 in the Army Reserve.18 The two recent budget deals described above seem to have staved o this possibility for now, but those only a ect the budgets for scal years 2016 and 2017. Without additional Congressional relief, the Army might still have to cut additional end strength starting in scal year 2018. The Army, therefore, has little choice but to gure out how to operate more e ciently and e ectively—namely, to get “more Army” out of a force of nearly one million soldiers. modernization and readiness bills while its internal costs continue to escalate. The Army, therefore, has little choice but to gure out how to operate more e ciently and e ectively—namely, to get “more Army” out of a force of nearly one million soldiers. The Legacy of Broken Modernization From 2001 to 2010, the Army canceled nearly every major new weapons system designed to replace aging weaponry from the Reagan defense buildup, losing tens of billions of dollars for no gain. As a result, the Army will continue to operate its 1980s-era M1 tanks, M2/3 Bradley ghting Despite these cuts, the Army is busier than ever. It still must ght the perpetual war described above and prepare for the possibility of major con ict with increasingly assertive regional powers. It must simultaneously maintain its already numerous global commitments, for which 186,000 soldiers are currently deployed in 140 locations around the world.19 These include, but are not limited to, advisory and counterterror missions in Iraq and Afghanistan; deterrence missions in Korea, the Persian Gulf, and Europe; longstanding peacekeeping missions in the Balkans and the Sinai; and a plethora of overseas engagement requirements around the world aimed at strengthening US friends and allies. vehicles, and numerous other aging weapons systems until nearly mid-century. Even with all the upgrades and improvements to these systems over the past decades, they are reaching the end of their e ective service life and are losing their ability to overmatch ever-more capable adversary systems. Without a major change in modernization funding, the Army entering the next decade will gradually but inevitably see its most critical war ghting equipment becoming 18 19 Department of Defense, 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review, op. cit., pp. ix and 29. Jen Judson, “US Army Chief Sounds Alarm: Military at ‘High Risk,’” Defense News, April 8, 2016. 20 21 See the transcript of Milley’s testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee in a hearing called “Posture of the Department of the Army,” April 7, 2016, http://www.armed- services.senate.gov/hearings/16-04-07-posture-of-the- department-of-the-army. Ibid. Milley pointed out that it costs $1 billion to increase the Army by 10,000 personnel. That means it could cost $22 billion to grow the Army from 980,000 to 1.2 million soldiers. 6 ATLANTIC COUNCIL [page10image440] Army Chief of Sta General Mark Milley addresses US Army Reserve senior leaders at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, in April 2016. Photo credit: US Department of Defense. obsolete. In the meantime, potential adversaries are elding highly capable new systems and continuing to improve existing ones.22 Today the Army faces a “triple whammy” in modernization.23 The service’s recent modernization drawdown has been far deeper than previous postwar cuts. Worse yet, it comes atop a decade of failed major Army programs and parallels the sharpest decline in research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) spending in decades. Taken together, these three factors spell a looming disaster for Army modernization. According to a recent report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, without signi cant new resources for modernization—which are highly unlikely in the current constrained budget environment—the Army will be “unsuited to handle the future geostrategic environment.”24 Current Army plans to modernize the force with new weaponry presently lag behind the service’s other top priorities, especially sustaining readiness.25 In e ect, the tight resource environment means that the Army’s intense 1. 22 We discuss Russia’s T-14 Armata tank in chapter four. 2. 23 Rhys McCormick, “The Army Modernization Challenge: A Historical Perspective,” Defense 360, Center for Strategic and International Studies, http://defense360.csis.org/army- modernization-challenge-historical-perspective-2/. 3. 24 Ibid. 4. 25 Michelle Tan, “Readiness for Ground Combat is No. 1 Priority,” Army Times, August 28, 2015. ATLANTIC COUNCIL (if arguably necessary) focus on the very real demands of today is crowding out investments for tomorrow. Integrating the Active and Reserve Components In recent years, relations between the Army’s three components—the active Army, the Army National Guard, and the Army Reserve—can best be described as fratricidal. Even though the three components achieved nearly unprecedented levels of mutual respect and cooperation on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq, old animosities reemerged as deployment requirements declined and the battles for budgetary resources increased. The disputes over proper roles and missions for each component came to a head in 2015, in an ugly dispute about how attack and lift helicopters should be allocated between the active Army and the Army National Guard.26 To help resolve this impasse, Congress directed the formation of a National Commission on the Future of the Army.27 The Commission report, which was issued in January 2016, included sixty-three speci c recommendations. General Milley, who has prioritized improving relations with the Army National Guard since he took o ce in 26 The controversial plan was called the Aviation Restructure Initiative. See National Commission on the Future of the Army, Report to the President and the Congress of the United States, January 28, 2016, pp. 3-4, 81-95. 27 Op. cit., pp. 107-109. THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY [page10image27024] 7 THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY August 2015,28 started implementing most of them right away.29 While the Commission helped resolve many of the immediate points of friction among the Army components, it also pointed out many barriers to integrating them into a true total force. The shrinking end strength pressures described above mean that the Army must nd ways to overcome these barriers and get more combat capability out of the total force by better leveraging all three components. The Army National Guard and the Army Reserve comprise more than half of the Army’s capability and can make even greater contributions than they do today. Yet overcoming these barriers—especially the balkanized cultures across the components—will take years of further e ort. A Force Based at Home For the rst time since World War II, the vast majority of the Army is permanently based at home.30 During most of the Cold War, the Army deployed more than a third of its active duty forces around the world,31 especially in Europe and Asia, in order to deter adversaries, reassure allies, and respond rapidly to crises.32 But that successful long-standing model has been largely dismantled during the past twenty years. Today, only two BCTs are permanently stationed abroad—one based in Germany and the other based in Italy. Even the BCT in Korea is now based rotationally instead of permanently. Additionally, budget constraints mean that fewer dollars are available for expensive training and exercises abroad. The US Army has transitioned 1. 28 David Barno and Nora Bensahel, “Beyond the Army Commission: Unifying the Army’s Components,” War on the Rocks, February 9, 2016, http://warontherocks.com/2016/02/ beyond-the-army-commission-unifying-the-armys- components/. 2. 29 Milley started implementing approximately 50 of the recommendations right away, because they did not involve signi cant additional costs. He rejected one recommendation outright, and planned to examine implementation costs of the remaining recommendations. See the transcript of Milley’s testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee in a hearing called “Posture of the Department of the Army,” op. cit. 3. 30 This section draws heavily on David W. Barno and Nora Bensahel, “New Challenges for the US Army,” in Joseph Da Silva, Hugh Liebert, and Isaiah Wilson III, eds., “American Grand Strategy and the Future of Land Power,” US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute, December 2014, pp. 231-248. 4. 31 The main exceptions were between 1972 and 1979, when the percentage dropped to between 29 and 32 percent. US Department of Defense, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, Statistical Information Analysis Division, “Military Personnel Historical Reports: Active Duty Military Personnel by Regional Area and by Country,” http://web.archive.org/ web/20060302214027/http://www.dior.whs.mil/mmid/military/ history/309hist.htm. 5. 32 Stacie L. Pettyjohn, “US Global Defense Posture, 1783-2011,” MG-1244-AF, RAND Corporation, 2012. from a forward deployed wartime force into a garrison force, where far fewer troops will have the opportunity to train, serve, and live abroad. Being based primarily at home makes it far more challenging for the Army to deter aggression around the world, to engage with US friends and allies, and to rapidly respond to unexpected international crises. It places additional strains on the force, as units become part of an unending cycle of training, deploying, and resetting before getting ready to train and deploy again. In e ect, the Army is out of position for the current strategic environment, and that problem will only increase as global instability grows. Yet in recent years, Congress has insisted on closing bases abroad before even considering closing bases at home33— even though DOD recently estimated that the Army’s excess base capacity is an astounding 33 percent.34 Permanently stationing more Army forces abroad makes a great deal of strategic sense, but given the scope of closures that have already occurred, it seems very unlikely that Congress will authorize or pay for new bases abroad any time soon. Balancing the Wars of Today and Tomorrow Throughout most of the nation’s history, war and peace were binary conditions.35 The United States went to war, in World War II or Korea or even Vietnam, and came home to relative peacetime once those wars reached a clear end. That is no longer true. After fteen years, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are still continuing today (though in di erent forms and with fewer troops). There are also an increasing number of con icts in the gray zone, whose primary characteristic is ambiguity—about their objectives, participants, and even outcomes, since they clearly lack de ned end points.36 Yet, the Army cannot focus solely on these types of con icts. Given the changing strategic environment, the Army must also prepare for the unlikely, but not impossible, scenario that we’ve called “the next big war”—involving very capable 33 34 35 36 John Vandiver, “Congress’ Message to DOD: No BRAC for Now, But Cut More in Europe,” Stars and Stripes, March 31, 2012. US Department of Defense, Department of Defense Infrastructure Capacity, March 2016, http://federalnewsradio. com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/041816_dod_brac_ parametric.pdf. This section draws heavily on Barno and Bensahel, “The Price of Perpetual War.” David Barno and Nora Bensahel, “Fighting and Winning in the Gray Zone,” War on the Rocks, May 19, 2015, http:// warontherocks.com/2015/05/ ghting-and-winning-in-the-gray- zone/. 8 ATLANTIC COUNCIL adversaries, high levels of death and destruction, and perhaps hundreds of thousands of US troops.37 In the past, the periods of relative peace that followed war gave the Army time and space to think deeply about possible future con icts and to develop the doctrine, force structures, technologies, and capabilities to meet them. Even di erent investments and force capabilities that might be needed for tomorrow’s wars. THE WAY AHEAD In looking at its strategic environment in the coming years, the Army faces a serious mismatch among its ends, ways, and means. Save a major strategic shift after the presidential election, the United States will continue to be a global leader with major international security responsibilities. That means that US strategic ends, or objectives, would remain largely unchanged— defending US vital interests around the world and maintaining an open global order. The means, or resources, available to the Army to do so will also remain relatively xed. Unless there is a massive international crisis or a direct attack on the United States, the defense budget will remain capped by the BCA with little prospect for substantial growth, which will continue to press Army end strengths and budgets ever downward. The Army is left with only a single lever to adjust. With xed ends and unchanging means, the Army has no choice but to get more capability out of the force by adjusting the ways—how the Army is organized, equipped, and trained. The rest of this report provides recommendations for how to do so. though the Army often did not predict the next war correctly, that period of time, re ection, and investment helped make it more ready to adapt to the next set of challenges it faced. The Army does not have that luxury today. It must continue to ght in open-ended con icts abroad while simultaneously preparing for future wars that might be extremely di erent, and the inescapable tension between the two will likely continue for years if not decades. Beyond the stresses that this places on Army soldiers and leaders, it will also require the Army to continuously manage the hard tradeo s between readiness and modernization—between investing in what is needed to ght today and the very 37 David Barno and Nora Bensahel, “Preparing for the Next Big War,” War on the Rocks, January 26, 2016, http:// warontherocks.com/2016/01/preparing-for-the-next-big-war/. With xed ends and unchanging means, the Army has no choice but to get more capability out of the force by adjusting the ways—how the Army is organized, equipped, and trained. THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY ATLANTIC COUNCIL 9 THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY 2. THE ARMY TODAY: 2016-2020 Army Chief of Sta General Mark Milley has just completed his rst year in o ce and will likely serve for three more years before stepping down in August 2019. The decisions he makes during his term will not only guide the Army through the turbulent demands of the current world, but will also set the foundation for both the mid-term Army of the 2020s and the far- term Army stretching out to 2040 and beyond. While major changes take time, they must be started now to achieve longer-term e ects. The Army must adapt in ve major ways to both meet current demands while preparing for the next con icts—many of which involve nding innovative ways to get more capability out of a nearly million- soldier force. The Army must creatively adjust force structure to better meet operational requirements; fully integrate the Army’s Active and Reserve Components; rebuild joint and combined arms war ghting capabilities; transform Army headquarters and slash non-essential processes; and reconstitute capabilities for rapid expansion. ADJUST FORCE STRUCTURE TO BETTER MEET OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS The Army needs to alter its current force structure and mix of conventional and special operations forces to provide more e ective deterrence and crisis response capabilities. Realigning active and reserve units, slashing unnecessary headquarters, and restructuring selected infantry BCTs (IBCTs) will help provide the needed billets for these changes. Increase Army Special Operations Forces After fteen years of irregular wars, the nation’s demand for SOF is showing no signs of abating. The continued menace of global terrorism, the ongoing con icts in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan, and the explosion of con icts in the gray zone38 demonstrate that US special operations capabilities will continue to be required across a range of missions and theaters. Between 2001 and 2016, the number of US SOF more than doubled, from 28,620 to 63,150.39 Most of those were Army special operators—especially Special Forces (SF), Rangers, and special operations aviators. Yet, despite continued demand for their skills, recent cutbacks have caused Army Special Forces to reduce and reorganize one SF battalion in each SF Group, and the Army Ranger Regiment had to inactivate one company in each Ranger battalion. As discussed earlier, demands for SOF will only continue to increase in the future. Therefore, reducing SOF—particularly the cutting-edge capabilities of these units—makes no sense. The Army needs to reverse those recent cutbacks and put US Army Special Operations Command (USASOC) on a modest continual growth trajectory once again. Recreate Heavy Cavalry Units The inactivation of the Army’s last heavy armored cavalry regiment (ACR) in November 2011 eliminated one of the most versatile and capable formations from the Army’s force structure.40 ACRs integrated aviation, armor, and mechanized forces down to the company/ troop level and provided both reconnaissance and security to protect larger formations. They conducted ank and forward screening missions to support a division or corps, and fought to gain vital battle eld intelligence about the enemy.41 They also provided security around the edges of the battle eld, providing important protection for other Army units. During the same period, the Army also eliminated all of its division cavalry squadrons. These changes were made for two main reasons: the standardization of combat brigade units into Armored, Infantry, and Stryker42 BCTs across the force, and a perception that the new reconnaissance, surveillance, and target acquisition (RSTA) squadrons in each BCT could perform the heavy cavalry’s traditional tactical missions. The unending demands for counterinsurgency forces in Iraq and Afghanistan also contributed to the decision to eliminate heavy cavalry units. However, these decisions led to signi cant gaps in providing reconnaissance and security that remain 38 39 Barno and Bensahel, “Fighting and Winning in the ‘Gray Zone,’” op. cit. International Institute of Strategic Studies, The Military Balance 2001 (London: Routledge, 2001), p. 25; International Institute of Strategic Studies, The Military Balance 2016 (London: Routledge, 2016), p. 48. 40 41 42 The Third Armored Cavalry Regiment was converted to a Stryker unit. Heather Graham-Ashley, “3rd ACR Transitions to Strykers, Changes Name,” November 30, 2011, https://www. army.mil/article/70060/3rd_ACR_transitions_to_Strykers__ changes_name. Each Army division was assigned an Armored Cavalry Squadron, roughly the size of a battalion, for this mission; each Army corps was assigned an Armored Cavalry Regiment, roughly the size of a brigade. Headquarters, Department of the Army, FM 17-95: Cavalry, April 20, 1981, http://cgsc.contentdm. oclc.org/cdm/page ip/collection/p4013coll9/id/596/type/ compoundobject/show/590/cpdtype/monograph/pftype/pdf. Strykers are eight-wheeled armored vehicles. 10 ATLANTIC COUNCIL [page14image440] An M1 Abrams tank of 1-64 Armor res a round during Exercise Saber Guardian 16, Cincu, Romania, July 2016. Photo credit: US Department of Defense. un lled. Current cavalry squadrons in all three types of BCTs do not have enough of this capability, unable to ght for information and simultaneously conduct mounted and dismounted operations.43 Moreover, there are no dedicated formations at division or corps level to perform these tasks. The Army needs to recreate heavy cavalry units, both to address this gap and to provide high-end war ghting capability to meet demanding battle eld reconnaissance and security missions. Enough of these units should be rebuilt to provide a pool for both divisional and corps reconnaissance and security missions. The recent wars have demonstrated the limits of technological solutions for situational awareness; though they make important contributions, networked and unmanned capabilities can never fully replace the information that can be gained from Army cavalry units operating forward on the battle eld. Furthermore, the changing security environment described in the previous chapter means that the Army must, once again, prepare itself for high-intensity combat operations (as discussed below)—a forte of heavy cavalry formations. 43 “White Paper: Cavalry Squadron Capability Review,” US Army Maneuver Center of Excellence, April 17, 2014, http:// www.benning.army.mil/armor/content/PDF/White%20 Paper_Cavalry%20Squadron%20Capability%20Review%20 171800APR14.pdf. Recreating heavy cavalry units would give division and corps commanders a scalable formation capable of screening and guard missions, as well as a myriad of long-range independent operations in support of other maneuver units. These new units could be built around the model of a World War II Cavalry Group, which were light mechanized units that were noted for their exibility and were able to reorganize into battle groups of all arms tailored to emerging missions.44 A future heavy cavalry formation would also be able to maneuver highly capable forces into position in a future crisis, to help prevent escalation and protect the force with its long-range res, air defense, electronic warfare, and electronic and signals intelligence capabilities. A new heavy cavalry unit would also be the only element of the US Army where aviation and armor are fully and permanently integrated into a combined arms formation at the tactical level. This organization could serve as a pilot to test deeper air- mechanized integration of combat forces and o er more innovative solutions to tactical problems. Accelerate the Development of Security Force Assistance Brigades (SFABs) As discussed in the previous chapter, maintaining readiness amidst budget constraints poses a major challenge for the Army—but its force structure ATLANTIC COUNCIL 11 44 Gordon L. Rottman, World War II US Cavalry Groups: European Theater (Oxford, UK: Osprey Publications, 2012). THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY [page14image27160] THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY sometimes exacerbates that problem in ways that can be xed. For example, the Army faces an ongoing and growing global demand to work with coalition partners and build partner capacity through security force assistance (SFA). These missions often include a wide range of requirements—from running basic training to building logistics systems to advising combat units readying for battle. Like many other smaller-scale missions, however, these e orts do not require the capabilities of a full BCT. Yet, the Army sources them by breaking one or more BCTs into smaller parts to retrain and deploy them in ad hoc packets for these diverse ongoing missions. This has a doubly adverse e ect: it creates temporary makeshift organizations with limited skills for these vital and complex long- term missions, and it destroys the readiness of the entire BCT by breaking it apart, making it unavailable for other combat operations. This problem can be solved by building some new force structure that is uniquely designed for the SFA mission. SFA does not require the usual mix of Army ranks and personnel; it requires mid-grade o cers and equivalent non-commissioned o cers (NCOs) with years of operational experience more than junior o cers or enlisted personnel. New SFABs should be comprised mostly of o cers and NCOs who would serve a tour in such a unit and then rotate back to a conventional force assignment, using a model similar to the 75th Ranger Regiment.45 These new units would professionalize the force performing this mission, seed conventional units with this important experience, and prevent BCTs from being cannibalized for their parts. SFABs would also serve a second, equally important purpose: they would give the Army a substantial cadre of experienced leaders that would enable the force to expand rapidly if necessary (as discussed below). In January 2016, General Milley announced that he was considering forming new Advise-and-Assist Brigades that would serve this function,46 and more recently stated that the rst pilot brigade would be ready in 2018 or 2019.47 That timetable is far too conservative 1. 45 The 75th Ranger Regiment typically draws o cers and NCOs from across the conventional force for one or more Ranger assignments and then returns them with experience that bene ts the entire Army. New SFABs could replicate such a model with similar e ects. 2. 46 We proposed this idea several months earlier, in conversations with senior Army o cials, and one of us discussed it publicly on October 12, 2015, on a panel at the annual meeting of the Association of the United States Army. The video of that panel is available at http://tradocnews.org/ausa-2015- discussion-conventional-force-special-operations-forces- interdependence/. 3. 47 Jen Judson, “Army Chief Taking Hard Look at Building Advise- and-Assist Brigades,” Defense News, January 21, 2016; Jen Judson, “Milley: Advise-and-Assist Brigade Pilot to Take Shape given that these units are needed now, and that they address several challenging problems for the Army at once. The pilot program should be sped up, perhaps by forming two or three di erent SFABs at the same time in order to experiment with di erent organizational forms. FULLY INTEGRATE THE ARMY’S ACTIVE AND RESERVE COMPONENTS The total Army includes 980,000 soldiers in the active Army, the Army Reserve (USAR), and Army National Guard (ARNG), as General Milley has emphasized from his rst days in o ce.48 But the Army is not getting the full capability that these numbers suggest because of structural impediments, resource competition, and cultural barriers across the components. The recommendations issued by the National Commission on the Future of the Army are a good start,49 but the Army needs to do more in order to get more Army out of the Army—to improve the capabilities and capacity of the entire service. Create Hybrid BCTs Units that blend active duty, Reserve, and National Guard units and soldiers can maximize Army capabilities by stretching force structure and improving readiness. Today, despite some small e orts,50 the force remains strictly divided by components with readiness levels kept starkly di erent among active, Guard, and Reserve formations.51 This division reinforces reliance on active duty BCTs for nearly all operational missions, 48 49 50 51 in a Few Years,” Defense News, June 23, 2016. This stands in stark contrast to his predecessor, General Raymond Odierno, who often referred to the size of the Army as 490,000—then the number of active Army soldiers. About a month after taking o ce, Milley clearly emphasized a new direction: “There is only one Army. ... We are not 10 divisions, we are 18 divisions. We’re not 32 brigades; we’re 60 brigades. And we’re not 490,000 Soldiers; we are 980,000 Soldiers. Every time I hear the word ... ‘490,’ I jump through the ceiling. If I hear the words ‘10 divisions,’ I lose my mind. It is one Army, and we’re not small - we’re big.” Sgt. 1st Class Jim Greenhill, “General Milley: ‘There is Only One Army,’” September 22, 2015, https://www.army.mil/article/155850/General_Milley___There_ is_only_one_Army_/. National Commission on the Future of the Army, Report to the President and the Congress of the United States, op. cit. The National Commission on the Future of the Army noted that there are currently thirty-seven multicomponent units, but these remain very limited in size and e ect. It also recommended a new pilot program for multicomponent aviation units, but that would involve fewer than 2,000 soldiers and would not signi cantly a ect BCTs, the Army’s core ghting unit. Op. cit., pp. 67-68 and 92-93; David Barno and Nora Bensahel, “Beyond the Army Commission: Unifying the Army’s Components,” War on the Rocks, op. cit. These include early deploying logistics units from the Army Reserve that are kept at high readiness, and National Guard BCTs at the peak of their readiness cycle (though those are limited in number). 12 ATLANTIC COUNCIL prolongs an unsustainable operational tempo for the active force, and reinforces dysfunctional attitudes of superiority among the components. Relying too heavily on the Active Component also reduces the Army’s ability to respond to unforeseen crises and contingencies. Hybrid BCTs would allow more combat brigades to be kept at higher readiness by mixing active, guard, and reserve units and leaders in one organization. Hybrid BCTs would fully integrate units from all three components into a single combat brigade. As shown in gure 1, a hybrid BCT would include a mix of active and ARNG combat battalions (infantry, armor, cavalry, and eld artillery), USAR combat support companies (intelligence, engineers, and others), and combat service support units from all three components. The headquarters of a hybrid for a state’s governor to employ the brigade. This model would require some legislative changes to the current rules for Dual Status Command and Defense Support to Civil Authorities, which probably would not be a major obstacle if all three Army components support the idea.54 The Army is currently piloting an initiative called Associated Units that seeks to better integrate all three components.55 A National Guard BCT might be “associated” with an active Army division, or an active BCT might have a battalion from the Guard or Reserve as an associated unit. Associated units will train together, exchange some personnel, and would plan to deploy together. Yet, this pilot does not go nearly far enough. The associated units from the Army National Guard and Army Reserve will only receive BCT would be drawn from either current active or ARNG BCTs and would include o cers and non-commissioned o cers from all three components. These leaders would also be distributed throughout the BCT on sta s and in key unit leader positions such as company commanders and rst sergeants. The unit’s chain of command, from brigade commander down to squad leader, would have full rating authority and complete responsibilities for training and readiness of the unit as a whole, thus maintaining unity Hybrid BCTs would allow more combat brigades to be kept at higher readiness by mixing active, guard, and reserve units and leaders in one organization. fteen additional training days per year,56 which is not enough for them to become full partners. Furthermore, unlike the hybrid BCT model above, none of these units will be fully integrated—no active units will be replaced in organizational charts by Guard or Reserve counterparts, nor will a single chain of command exist for all entities regardless of component. In e ect, this replicates the roundup/roundout model employed by the Army in the 1980s and early 1990s that proved less than successful (and Hybrid BCTs would have more resources needed to maintain higher readiness than today’s RC formations, and thus be able to respond to contingencies far more quickly—in weeks rather than months.52 Personnel from the Army Reserve and Army National Guard would have to volunteer to serve in hybrid BCTs, since they would inevitably require more than the standard thirty-nine training days each year,53 but our research suggests that many reservists would be willing to make that commitment. Ideally, these units would be regionally based, and most of their force structure would be located within a single state to make it easier 1. 52 Hybrid BCTs would also be key elements of the Operational Response Force, which we discuss in the next chapter. 2. 53 General Milley has already oated a version of this idea: “maybe I should take some of the Guard and signi cantly increase the number of training days they train in a given year—maybe 60 to 100 days a year to reduce the response time on the back end when they get alerted and mobilized.” Matthew Cox, “Army Plans to Double Training Days for Guard Units, Chief Says,” Military.com, December 14, 2015. of command. highly controversial) during the 1991 Gulf War. No command relationships between associated units exist in this new model: senior leaders from the larger unit will not rate their subordinates or vice versa (if the reserve leader is senior). This lack of a formal chain of command breaks down responsibility for results 54 Under the current law, Dual Status Command authority is granted only during an emergency by the secretary of defense and upon the request of a state governor. It vests a single commander with both state and federal authorities, permitting him or her to command active or reserve forces from any component. Current law would have to be amended to allow commanders in hybrid BCTs to have day-to-day authority over soldiers from all three components separate from that emergency authority. Selected other statutory, regulatory, and policy changes for using Active Component or Army Reserve units for state support might also have to be revised and updated to give governors access to mixed component forces in a hybrid BCT. 55 This pilot will run through 2019 and includes fourteen pairings of twenty-seven units from all three Army components. David Vergun, “Pilot Program Links Reserve Components with Active Units for Training,” March 23, 2016, https://www.army.mil/ article/164792/Pilot_program_links_Reserve_components_ with_active_units_for_training/. 56 Op. cit. THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY ATLANTIC COUNCIL 13 THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY Figure 1. Proposed Model for a Hybrid Armored Brigade Combat Team Mixed Components Army Reserve Active Duty National Guard [page17image3992] [page17image4152] [page17image4312] [page17image4472] Armored Brigade Combat Team (ABCT) Brigade Headquarters & Headquarters Co. KEY [page17image10032] HHC BSB [page17image12648] [page17image13240] [page17image13832] [page17image14424] [page17image14584] [page17image15176] HHC HHC HHC HHT HHB [page17image18976] [page17image19136] [page17image19296] [page17image19456] [page17image20096] [page17image20848] [page17image21008] [page17image21648] [page17image21808] [page17image24000] [page17image24160] [page17image24320] [page17image24480] [page17image25072] FSC HHC [page17image28192] [page17image28352] [page17image28512] FSC FSC FSC FSC [page17image34224] BEB Brigade Engineer Combined Arms Fires Battalion Headquarters & Headquarters Battery Fires Battery (155mm Self Propelled) Fires Battery (155mm Self Propelled) Fires Battery (155mm Self Propelled) Target Acquisition Platoon Forward Support Co. Attached from BSB Combined Arms Battalion Headquarters & Headquarters Co. Ri e Company [page17image44216] Company [page17image44848] Company Cavalry Squadron Headquarters & Headquarters Troop Cavalry Troop Cavalry Troop Cavalry Troop Forward Support Co. Attached from BSB Brigade Support Battalion Headquarters & Headquarters Co. Distribution Company Field Maintenance Company Medical Company [page17image50536] Battalion HHC Headquarters & Headquarters Co. Battalion Headquarters & Headquarters Co. Combined Arms Battalion Headquarters & Headquarters Co. Brigade Signal Co. Ri e Ri e [page17image55488] [page17image55912] [page17image56336] [page17image56760] [page17image57520] [page17image59240] [page17image59664] [page17image60088] [page17image60512] MI Military Intelligence Company [page17image62616] [page17image62616] Company [page17image63248] Company [page17image63880] [page17image63880] Company [page17image64232] Combat Engineer Co. Combat Engineer Co. Forward Support Co. Attached from BSB Ri e Armor Company Armor Company Forward Support Co. Attached from BSB Ri e Armor Company Armor Company Forward Support Co. Attached from BSB Ri e Armor Company Armor Company Forward Support Co. Attached from BSB [page17image72256] [page17image72736] [page17image72896] [page17image73984] [page17image74144] FSC Source: Adapted from Headquarters, Department of the Army, FM 3-96: Brigade Combat Team, October 2015, p. 1-11. and blurs the lines of authority in ways that makes the relationship of very limited value. Although the Associated Units concept is a step in the right direction, it is a very conservative experiment with an excessively long evaluation timeline that risks achieving little. Bolder steps toward a hybrid BCT are needed for the Army to become a truly integrated force where leaders and units of each component nd it perfectly normal to work with each other every day. Until that occurs, shared trust will be absent and separate component cultures of mutual suspicion will continue. Source Predictable Rotational Missions from the Reserve Component First The Army has several ongoing overseas rotational requirements beyond the wartime missions in Afghanistan and Iraq. Army forces provide peacekeepers in the Sinai and Kosovo, ABCTs to buttress regional deterrence in Korea and Kuwait, and recently added additional deterrence forces in Eastern Europe. The combatant commands (COCOMs) also continue to clamor for Army units to provide peacetime engagement with friends and allies across the globe, from Africa to the western Paci c. Active Army BCTs at full readiness have been broken apart into small packets to support many of these COCOM requirements,57 dissolving formations that could otherwise respond quickly to high-intensity con icts. Many of these forward presence commitments are steady-state and predictable deployments, or regularly scheduled exercises. The Army should ll these types of known requirements with units from the Reserve Component that are at full readiness before sourcing them from active units. Guard and Reserve formations that spend years preparing for a ready cycle can meet the same mission demands that active duty units currently ll.58 Using them to source predictable requirements would increase the Army’s available combat power by preserving the high readiness of active units for contingencies that require an immediate response. It would also reinforce the importance and relevance of serving in the Reserve Component, since failing to utilize those units once they have trained up to full 1. 57 For example, the 2nd BCT of the 1st Infantry Division, which was the rst brigade to be regionally aligned with one of the COCOMs, conducted 128 activities in 28 di erent African countries during 2013. Nick Turse, “Why is the US Military Averaging More Than a Mission a Day in Africa?” The Nation, March 27, 2014. 2. 58 Guard BCTs typically have a force generation cycle that involves four years of training, building up to a nine-month ready period when they can be mobilized and deployed. readiness poses real problems for their recruiting, retention, and morale. Additionally, if the mobilization policy for units from the Reserve Component were to change, for example, from one year available to deploy for every ve at home (1:5) to one year available for every four at home (1:4), the number of National Guard units available to deploy would increase by approximately 15 percent. Increase the Army’s Focus on Homeland Defense The US homeland and the American people are arguably more vulnerable to attack today than at any point since the Cold War. Homeland security is not, and should not be, the primary responsibility of the US military; that responsibility is properly vested in federal, state, and local civilian authorities. Yet, the military can and does provide vital support to these authorities. The US Army is especially well positioned for this mission, since its National Guard and Reserve units dot nearly every neighborhood in the United States, and can respond to everything from natural disasters to a debilitating cyberattack to a terrorist use of a nuclear or biological weapon. Yet, the Army needs to move beyond consequence management, and where appropriate, take proactive measures to help assess the risks and vulnerabilities of the civilian population. The Army National Guard may be particularly well- suited to help the United States defend itself against serious cyber threats. National Guard units would be among the rst called to respond to a physical disaster resulting from a massive cyberattack, but they can also help prevent those attacks in those rst place. Unlike active Army forces, the ARNG has authorities and responsibilities that enable it to partner with state and local governments—whose networks are particularly vulnerable to attack because they often do not utilize advanced cybersecurity systems.59 The Army National Guard is already planning to establish eleven Cyber Protection Teams (CPTs) spread across twenty-four states by 2019, which will help prevent and respond to cyber incidents on DOD and government networks.60 1. 59 According to the cybersecurity rm FireEye, almost 90 percent of state o cials believe they are well protected from cyberattack. Yet in 2014, it took an average of 205 days for organizations to discover their systems had been breached, and almost 70 percent of those breached found out about it from an outside source (such as the FBI) rather than from their own cybersecurity protocols. Bret Brasso, “State and Local Governments Misperceive the Risk of Cyber Attacks,” January 26, 2016, https://www. reeye.com/blog/executive- perspective/2016/01/state_and_local_gove.html. 2. 60 Sgt. 1st Class Jon Soucy, “National Guard Set to Activate Additional Cyber Units,” December 9, 2015, https://www. army.mil/article/159759/National_Guard_set_to_activate_ additional_cyber_units. THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY ATLANTIC COUNCIL 15 THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY These important e orts should continue to expand, and their capabilities should also be made available to the private sector (on a voluntary basis). Beyond the cyber realm, the Army should undertake wargames and exercises to validate its ability to both respond to weapons of mass destruction and the breakdown of civil order in the United States for worst- case scenarios. It should also develop contingency plans to provide backup critical capabilities such as air tra c control, power, or water on a large scale in the event of a regional or national disaster. Army forces currently participate in these types of homeland security missions in two di erent ways: through the fty-four Army National Guards of each US state, territory, and the District of Columbia; and through US Army North (ARNORTH), the Army component of US Northern Command (NORTHCOM). However, the scale and scope of a major catastrophe in the United States would rapidly exceed the limited capabilities of the state National Guards and ARNORTH. An extensive breakdown of utilities, the large-scale disruption of civil order, or mass civilian casualties would almost certainly engage much of the Army in providing extensive support to civil authorities throughout the country. REBUILD JOINT AND COMBINED ARMS WARFIGHTING CAPABILITIES Ongoing operations to defeat insurgents in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan will likely engage Army forces for years to come, but the Army must also remain ready to ght and win major conventional or hybrid wars on behalf of the nation. There is no backstop for the nation if the Army cannot successfully ght a major war when such a con ict erupts. In an increasingly dangerous and volatile world, the Army must ensure that it can ght and win on the most demanding high- end battle elds. These recommendations will also help it prepare the Army for the next big war (discussed in the next chapter). Increase the Number of Armored BCTs in the Active Component Today’s Army is dramatically lighter than the Army of 2001, with far fewer armored and mechanized units.61 Yet, those are arguably the service’s most survivable formations, combining mobility, repower, and heavy armored protection. With the return of great power politics and the increasing possibility of a conventional force-on-force con ict, elding nine ABCTs in the Active Component and ve in the Guard simply does not provide enough armored and protected mobile repower. The armored force is about to be stretched by the new requirement for a continuous rotational ABCT presence in Eastern Europe, on top of the current rotational requirements in South Korea and Kuwait.62 That leaves precious little capability available for unexpected contingencies. The Army should address this shortfall by converting at least three active IBCTs to ABCTs. To reduce costs, some or all of these could be newly formed hybrid BCTs, leveraging Army National Guard combat battalions to constitute part of the newly formed ABCTs. Some of the infantry billets from the inactivated IBCTs should also be reinvested in adding more mechanized infantry to existing active ABCTs, which have much less dismounted infantry capability than desirable.63 Since heavy armored combat skills sets are among the most complex in the Army’s inventory, more ABCTs should continue to reside in the Active Component (or convert to new hybrid brigades, as described above) rather than in the Reserve Component. Only a small number of traditional ABCTs should remain in the Army National Guard. These would be both a strategic hedge and a way to keep reservists with armored and mechanized skills in the force without requiring them all to commit to the additional training requirements of hybrid BCTs. Improve Mobility, Firepower, and Protection for Infantry BCTs The Army must accelerate e orts to restore survivability and mobility to its basic infantry formations after having optimized them for a decade and a half of counterinsurgency and stability operations. According to an Army source, IBCTs lack the ability to “defeat enemy prepared positions, destroy enemy armored vehicles, close with the enemy through re and maneuver, and ensure freedom of maneuver and action in close contact with the enemy.”64 These problems are only exacerbated by operations in urban environments—which will inevitably involve battling 61 See International Institute of Strategic Studies, The Military Balance 2001, op. cit., p. 20; International Institute of Strategic Studies, The Military Balance 2016, op. cit., p. 39. 62 63 64 This burden would be eased—though not resolved—by implementing the earlier recommendation to source predictable rotational requirements from the Reserve Component rst. Michelle Tan, “Back-to-back Rotations to Europe Could Stress the Army’s Armored BCTs,” Army Times, February 11, 2016. As an example, combined arms battalions of ABCTs could each add one infantry company to return to a two tank, two infantry company balance that was the standard before the recent consolidation of BCTs. “Information Paper: Mobile Protected Firepower,” US Army Maneuver Center of Excellence, August 21, 2014, http://www. benning.army.mil/mcoe/maneuverconference/ReadAhead/ MRD/MPFinfopaper21Aug14.pdf. 16 ATLANTIC COUNCIL roadside bombs in densely packed urban warrens and nding shadowy enemy combatants nested among civilians. Additionally, today’s IBCTs lack repower and protected mobility to be able to conduct o ensive maneuvers o -road across a wide range of terrain. Their current vehicles are light-skinned transports with limited protection or cross-country mobility. The Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) program will improve this mix somewhat, but it remains a limited solution that will only transport four to six troops and will not have any substantial onboard repower. Without better capabilities, IBCTs will be ill-prepared for the demands of tough conventional ghting in the years ahead. The Army needs to develop a lightweight armored capability to carry infantry that examined holistically and include both lethal and non- lethal capabilities—from counter-missile interceptors to electronic warfare. Defense against air attack must also be restored as a mission essential task for every Army unit and reinstituted in all levels of tactical training (including the combat training centers). The Army also needs to revive its once-strong skills in camou age, dispersion, signature reduction, and in employing all available unit weapons for short-range self-defense against these looming threats.66 Reconstitute CBRN Protection Chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) threats present the most danger—and exploit a major force-wide vulnerability. Defensive measures against all of these capabilities atrophied after the fall of the integrates all available technology to provide advanced repower (both lethal and non-lethal), mobility, and protection optimized for urban settings. IBCTs also need a light armored reconnaissance vehicle for protection as they move toward contact with an unseen enemy, and for additional mobile repower once a battle ensues. Rebuild Tactical Air Defense The Army must accelerate e orts to restore survivability and mobility to its basic infantry formations after having optimized them for a decade and a half of counterinsurgency and stability operations. Soviet Union and were worsened by a decade and a half of irregular warfare. The advent of chemical warfare in ongoing con icts such as Syria, combined with nuclear proliferation and the increased dangers of nuclear use,67 now require the Army to re-emphasize CBRN training and preparedness. All high-intensity training should include operating in a nuclear or chemical contaminated environment and the capability to decontaminate personnel and equipment must be improved.68 These measures would provide far better protection for soldiers in these dangerous environments and would also help deter adversaries from using these weapons against US forces. Train to Operate in a Degraded The overwhelming success of the US Air Force in protecting US troops from air attack since the Korean War has eroded the Army’s tactical or short-range air defense capabilities. Yet, the rapid emergence of adversary anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) capabilities means that the United States may not have unchallenged air superiority in future major wars. Enemy aircraft operating under an advanced air defense umbrella may be able to strike US troops with precision stando weapons. Cruise missiles red from distant naval and air platforms may be employed against friendly troop concentrations, command and control, and logistics nodes—as Russia did against terrorists in Syria in late 2015.65 C4I Environment THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY The Army must reinvigorate its Air Defense branch and improve its abilities to defend against rapidly evolving threats of attack from the air. Air defense must be 65 Christopher P. Cavas, “Is Caspian Sea Fleet a Game-Changer?” Defense News, October 11, 2015; Christopher P. Cavas, “Russian Submarine Hits Targets in Syria,” Defense News, December 9, 2015. The low-technology wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have conditioned Army forces to expect nearly 66 David Barno and Nora Bensahel, “The US Military’s Protection De cit Disorder,” War on the Rocks, July 5, 2016, http:// warontherocks.com/2016/07/the-u-s-militarys-protection- de cit-disorder/. 67 See, for example, William J. Perry, My Journey at the Nuclear Brink (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2015); and David Barno and Nora Bensahel, “The Pink Flamingo on the Subcontinent: Nuclear War Between India and Pakistan,” War on the Rocks, November 3, 2015, http://warontherocks. com/2015/11/the-pink- amingo-on-the-subcontinent-nuclear- war-between-india-and-pakistan/. 68 Barno and Bensahel, “The US Military’s Protection De cit Disorder,” op. cit. ATLANTIC COUNCIL 17 THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY unchallenged C4I capabilities.69 Moreover, the lack of an air threat has permitted the extensive use of friendly surveillance drones, yielding a cornucopia of overhead imagery and full motion video of nearly any enemy engagement. The ability to digitally “see” friendly formations through now ubiquitous devices such as Blue Force Tracking systems, along with Global Positioning System (GPS) navigation and position locating, have rendered traditional forms of unit reporting and navigation obsolete. The Army and the other services now rely almost entirely on space- based position, navigation, and timing (PNT) support for most essential battle eld tasks. The failure of adversaries in Iraq and Afghanistan to degrade any of these capabilities has only reinforced total con dence in and dependence upon digital means of command and control. Any high-end war, however, will almost certainly involve more technologically sophisticated adversaries that will be able to disrupt or disable US C4I systems through computer network attack, electronic warfare, or by disrupting space-based PNT capabilities. Army units at all levels must regularly train to operate e ectively with severely degraded communications, and the service must begin to build redundant capabilities through analog systems of command and control.70 Basic leader courses must continue to emphasize navigating with maps and compasses, communicating by radio, and exercising command and control using pens, map overlays, and even messengers to backstop what could be debilitating technical reliance. The Army should also invest more in developing alternative technologies such as pseudolites that would be able to provide positioning, navigation, and timing information if GPS capabilities were catastrophically disrupted.71 TRANSFORM ARMY HEADQUARTERS AND SLASH NON-ESSENTIAL PROCESSES The Army has too many headquarters that do not perform war ghting functions and contain sta s that 1. 69 C4I stands for command, control, communications, computers, and intelligence. 2. 70 Other services face this problem as well. The US Naval Academy, for example, recently reinstated celestial navigation as a requirement for third-year students after dropping it from the curriculum in 2006. Andrea Peterson, “Why Naval Academy Students Are Learning to Sail by the Stars for the First Time in a Decade,” Washington Post, February 17, 2016. 3. 71 Pseudolites are devices that perform the function of satellites without actually being a satellite. For how they could be used as an alternative to GPS in the civil realm, see Sherman Lo, “Pseudolite Alternatives for Alternate Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (APNT),” https://www.faa.gov/about/o ce_org/ headquarters_o ces/ato/service_units/techops/navservices/ gnss/library/documents/APNT/media/APNT_Pseudolite_ WhitePaper_Final.pdf. are too large and too bureaucratic. This profusion of large non-operational headquarters results in ever- more non-essential work and drains vitally needed manpower away from combat functions. The pressures of constrained budgets and end strength numbers require reassessing the purpose, structure, and sta ng of all Army headquarters and processes, particularly those that do not have a deployable or operational purpose. Abolish the Army Service Component Commands (ASCCs) In Their Current Form The Army, like the other services, currently maintains a component command at each of the nine US combatant commands72 and at US Cyber Command.73 These senior headquarters, which are led by two-, three-, and even four-star commanders, consume a great deal of overhead and high-level manpower without making substantial contributions to war ghting e orts. The Army should eliminate most of the current ASCCs and replace them with dual-hatted operational headquarters that also have war ghting capabilities. In Europe, for example, US Army Europe should be replaced by re-activating V Corps and making it the Army component of US European Command. In the Paci c, I Corps should replace US Army Paci c as the Army component of US Paci c Command, to which it is already assigned as an operational headquarters. These headquarters would need to add some additional sta members to cover these new responsibilities, but far more positions would be eliminated than transferred—thereby freeing up more Army personnel to serve in combat positions. Cull Non-Operational Headquarters Even though the size of the Army is shrinking, the Army continues to waste a great deal of expensive manpower by assigning active-duty personnel to headquarters and sta s with little if any connection to war ghting. These non-deployable organizations also include untold numbers of Army civilians and contractors, making them even more expensive. Today, the Army has thirteen division and corps headquarters devoted to operational war ghting tasks, but as many as sixty non-deployable commands, headquarters, and centers that are led by generals and are designed 72 73 The nine combatant commands are US Africa Command, US Central Command, US European Command, US Northern Command, US Paci c Command, US Southern Command, US Special Operations Command, U.S Strategic Command, and US Transportation Command. This section develops ideas discussed in builds on ideas rst outlined in Lieutenant General David W. Barno, USA (Ret.), Nora Bensahel, Matthew Irvine, and Travis Sharp, “Sustainable Pre-eminence: Reforming the US Military at a Time of Strategic Change,” Center for a New American Security, May 2012, pp. 25-26. 18 ATLANTIC COUNCIL THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY [page22image1032] Rangers from the 2nd Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment prepare to board an MH-47G Chinook at Fort Hunter Liggett, California, January 2014. Photo credit: US Department of Defense. for various institutional support tasks.74 That means that almost 80 percent of Army headquarters do not contribute directly to wartime missions.75 Consolidating or eliminating these headquarters would free up scarce billets and dollars that could be reinvested in preserving combat force structure. Additionally, the Defense Business Board found that in 2010, almost 340,000 active-duty military personnel (from all four services, not just the Army) were performing commercial activities that were not inherently governmental, costing a total of $54 billion a year.76 This trades o far too much potential combat capability at a time when the size of the Army is shrinking and readiness remains a considerable 1. 74 “2015-16 Green Book,” Army Magazine, October 2015, pp. 216-229. 2. 75 A similar pattern is found in the billets for Army general o cers. One recent study found that approximately 60 percent of one-star billets, 80 percent of two-star billets, 82 percent of three-star billets, and 92 percent of four-star billets are non-operational enterprise management positions. David Barno, Nora Bensahel, Katherine Kidder, and Kelley Sayler, “Building Better Generals,” Center for a New American Security, October 2013, p. 11; Michael J. Colarusso and David S. Lyle, “Senior O cer Talent Management: Fostering Institutional Adaptability,” US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute, February 2014, pp. 37-38. 3. 76 Defense Business Board, “Reducing Overhead and Improving Business Operations: Initial Observations,” July 22, 2010, available at http://www.govexec.com/pdfs/072210rb1.pdf. challenge.77 These troops could be re-assigned to operational billets where the Army is struggling to keep deployable units at even 95 percent manning.78 More long-term institutional support missions should be civilianized or contracted to free up both military and civil service manpower. For example, running scores of bases across the United States could be competitively outsourced to private contractors supervised by a small cadre of career civil servants. That would permit the disestablishment of the Army’s sprawling Installation Management Command, with the resultant savings in military and civilian personnel rolled into war ghting functions—or removed entirely to generate cost savings. The Army should also consider ways to de-layer its complicated sta structures. It could eliminate, for example, the Combined Arms Center (CAC) at Fort Leavenworth by drawing its role into the Army’s Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) headquarters. Its functions would then be shared among the TRADOC sta and 77 See, for example, “The Urgent Need to Reform and Reduce DOD’s Overhead and Infrastructure,” statement of Major General Arnold L. Punaro, USMC Ret. Before the Senate Armed Service Committee, November 17, 2015, http://www.ndia.org/ Documents/Punaro_SASC_Written_Statement.pdf. 78 Authors’ discussions at US Army Forces Command, June 2016. ATLANTIC COUNCIL 19 THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY its eight centers of excellence, which would eliminate an unnecessary bureaucratic layer between them. Eliminate the Cultural Divide Between the Institutional and Operational Army The core culture of the Army is and will always be centered on war ghting. The Army has traditionally embraced the attributes of agility, adaptability, and speed in decision making within its operational forces. It rightly devotes a lot of time and e ort to making the war ghting part of the Army not only the nest battle force in the world, but one that embodies the best attributes of leadership and management. Yet partly because of this battle eld focus, the institutional Army—its leadership, The pernicious e ects of this are hard to overstate, though one example proves the point decisively: an average company commander today has 451 days of required training to complete on an annual basis.80 That is a sheer impossibility—and it also has increased more than 50 percent since 2002, which was already an impossible training standard to achieve.81 We have long argued that the Army needs to charter a Creative Destruction Task Force, which would empower service leaders to take on the ever-growing kudzu of growing administrative workload and shear away non-essential or outmoded requirements.82 The Army might build upon a previous US Navy e ort that recognized this problem and created a task force to management, and processes— have been allowed to stultify and become ever more rigid, more bureaucratic, and more outmoded. As a result, the institutional Army has been widely maligned within the service. Serving on the Army Sta or in TRADOC, for example, is often viewed by up and coming leaders as a fate to be avoided at all costs, largely because of the sti ing bureaucratic processes that drive the behaviors of both organizations. Army leaders must change this dynamic by insisting upon the same organizational attributes in high-level sta s that they expect in operational units. Agility, speed, exibility, and organizational adaptability are equally important traits for leaders in the institutional Army as in the operational force. We have long argued that the Army needs to charter a Creative Destruction Task Force, which would empower service leaders to take on the ever-growing kudzu of growing administrative workload and shear away non-essential or outmoded requirements. reduce administrative burdens on the eet in order to focus more on war ghting tasks.83 The Army must nd ways to do so as well. Beyond eliminating unnecessary work, the Army also needs to nd ways to do its needed work more e ciently—which includes making far better use of technology. In many cases, the introduction of information technology into Army processes in the last several decades merely resulted in “automated manual processes” rather than achieving true savings in work and manpower. Many of these functions in the private sector are either fully automated through modern information technology or outsourced.84 To take one example, DA Form 31, which all Army personnel must ll out in order to take leave, has remained virtually unchanged Reduce Unneeded Work and Transform Sta Processes The Army must “uninvent” work in order to both reduce sta overhead and lessen the administrative burdens on the operational force. Nearly all Army sta s are overworked, but they spend much of their time feeding a bloated, outdated, and highly bureaucratic set of sta processes that hinder their work rather than facilitating it. Some of the problems result from legal requirements, but the far greater majority are self- imposed by the Army. There are currently 529 Army Regulations that continue to expand and require sta oversight to monitor compliance across the force.79 79 All of the Army Regulations are available at http://www.apd. 80 81 82 83 84 army.mil/ProductMaps/Administrative/ArmyRegulation.aspx. Internal Army document, September 2015. In 2002, company commanders had 297 mandatory days of training—even though there are only 256 training days in a calendar year. Leonard Wong and Stephen J. Gerras, “Lying to Ourselves: Dishonesty in the Army Profession,” US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute, February 2015, p. 4. David Barno et al., “The Seven Deadly Sins of Defense Spending,” op. cit., p. 17; David Barno and Nora Bensahel, “From Carbon Paper to the Cloud: Fixing the Pentagon’s Back O ce,” War on the Rocks, January 12, 2016, http:// warontherocks.com/2016/01/from-carbon-paper-to-the-cloud- xing-the-pentagons-back-o ce/. Terrina Weatherspoon, “Navy Looks to Relieve Administrative Burdens from Fleet,” June 7, 2013, http://www.navy.mil/submit/ display.asp?story_id=74702. Barno et al., “The Seven Deadly Sins of Defense Spending,” op. cit. 20 ATLANTIC COUNCIL in the past four decades. It can now be lled out online, but it remains the same form—it has not taken advantage of any automated processes. This may seem to be a trivial example, but the amount of manpower, energy, and e ort it takes to manage that single form, multiplied by nearly one million soldiers taking leave one or more times per year, is simply astounding.85 Managing such outdated processes and systems drains scarce resources and organizational energy away from critical war ghting and support functions. RECONSTITUTE CAPABILITIES FOR RAPID EXPANSION The prolonged wars in Iraq and Afghanistan required the Army to expand by just 16.3 percent, from approximately 478,000 troops in 2001 to 571,000 troops in 2012.86 This recent experience makes it hard to imagine that the Army might need to expand rapidly in a future time of war, but these two extended but limited irregular con icts are historical anomalies. To ght much larger wars in the past, the Army had to expand massively and rapidly to deal with threats deemed existential. A future major war against a great power competitor might once again threaten national survival and require the Army to grow by several orders of magnitude in order to prevail. To ght and win the next big war,87 the Army must be able to absorb an enormous in ux of dollars and tens of thousands of conscripted recruits, and rapidly turn them into an e ective ghting force. The Army dedicated substantial intellectual energy to this task in the 1930s, despite having no clearly understood threat nor any likely prospects for a global war.88 It needs to do so again today to hedge against the threats of existential con ict. The Army must take several steps now to prepare for this hopefully unlikely but extremely consequential future contingency. Practice Standing Up New Units Creating a new unit from scratch is among the most di cult tasks required during a wartime expansion, but the Army has substantial experience doing so during past major wars (including the Civil War and both World Wars). It can also draw lessons from other elements of its history. During the 1980s, for example, the Army experimented with creating new COHORT 1. 85 Barno and Bensahel, “From Carbon Paper to the Cloud,” op. cit. 2. 86 International Institute of Strategic Studies, The Military Balance 2001, op. cit., p. 20; International Institute of Strategic Studies, The Military Balance 2012 (London: Routledge, 2012), p. 55. 3. 87 We discuss preparing for the next big war in the next chapter. 4. 88 See, for example, Henry G. Gole, The Road to Rainbow: Army Planning for Global War, 1934-1940 (Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 2002). maneuver companies.89 They were formed by joining a cadre of experienced NCOs and eld grade o cers who had trained together in advance with an arriving cohort of newly trained junior enlisted soldiers who had just completed basic and advanced individual training together. These units stayed together for thirty-six months—personnel were stabilized in the units for the duration and shielded from routine reassignment—and were then inactivated. COHORT units achieved an unprecedented level of unit cohesion and skill retention, since teams remained together for three years. The experiment reached eighty-two battalions at its peak,90 and was widely seen as a success.91 Practicing this same model today would hone the skills and processes required to rapidly expand the Army when needed, and identify what new policies, training, and equipment would be needed to scale such an e ort for a bigger mobilization. The new security force assistance brigades (SFABs) discussed earlier will also provide an important additional capability to rapidly expand the force. If mobilized to do so, the members of these units would change roles to form an already existing unit chain of command as a cadre to join up with newly arriving soldiers and junior o cers. The Army should plan to exercise capabilities for expansion by tasking the battalion cadre from one SFAB each year to implement a twelve-month training program to grow an entirely new infantry battalion. Such an annual exercise would produce a fully trained battalion at the end of each year that could then be integrated into an active duty or hybrid BCT, and would also yield signi cant lessons for future mobilizations. 1. 89 COHORT stood for cohesion, operational readiness, and training. Pat Towell, “Forging the Sword: Unit-Manning in the US Army,” Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, September 2004. 2. 90 “Military Unit Cohesion: The Mechanics and Why Some Programs Evolve and Others Dissolve,” United States Marine Corps Command and Sta College, 1999, p. 26, http://www. dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a524447.pdf. 3. 91 A subsequent experiment organized the 7th Infantry Division (Light) according to COHORT principles, but it largely failed for reasons that are eerily similar to some of the problems mentioned in the previous section. One author summarizes an assessment conducted by the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (WRAIR) as follows: “For the division to have organized successfully on COHORT principles, WRAIR analysts concluded, commanding o cers and NCOs at every level would have had to adopt an empowering, ‘power-down’ collegial style of leadership, as many initially did. But as more and more tasks were piled on the division, too many leaders, under the stress of having to meet impossible demands, reverted to the centralized, top-down, coercive style that was the Army norm.” Towell, “Forging the Sword,” op. cit., p. 57. Emphasis added. THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY ATLANTIC COUNCIL 21 THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY [page25image1040] California Army National Guard soldiers and their Bradley Fighting Vehicles maneuver during Exercise Saber Guardian 16 in Cincu, Romania, July 2016. Photo credit: US Department of Defense. Reinvigorate the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) The Army maintains over 115,000 soldiers in the IRR, consisting principally of troops who have served on active duty and retain a service obligation after nishing their active service tours. These trained and experienced soldiers form a largely untapped pool of talent that can help expand the Army when needed. During the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, the Army and the Marine Corps mobilized almost 30,000 members of the IRR—but the Army still only activated four percent of its IRR members.92 The Marine Corps views its IRR di erently than the other services view theirs, and places great emphasis on maintaining contact with its members. It activated almost 10 percent of its IRR members for the recent wars; regularly holds administrative musters to account for members; and also holds bigger “mega-musters” that provide services to IRR members including career training, medical screenings, and information on entitlements and bene ts provided by the Department of Veterans A airs.93 Any rapid expansion of the Army would logically require lling new units with mobilized members of the IRR—who are all Army veterans—before utilizing newly trained personnel (though both would be required in any major mobilization). To better leverage the trained manpower in the IRR, however, the Army will need to overcome some of the management and access problems that currently plague this largely neglected component of the total force.94 The Army needs to develop a strategy for how best to utilize the IRR in a time of mobilization, which should include periodic virtual and physical musters of IRR members to validate contact information and update personnel rosters; surveys of IRR soldiers to update health, skills, and family information; and building “battle rosters” of individual members leaving active duty, which align their skills with prospective billets in newly forming units.95 The service has recently begun assigning departing active service members shifting into the IRR to speci c reserve units for administrative tracking.96 force. “Report of the Reserve Forces Policy Board on the Need for Improvements in the Individual Ready Reserve,” op. cit. For example, a sta sergeant who left active service as a ri e squad leader in the 10th Mountain Division could be assigned or “battle rostered” to the same role in a newly forming infantry battalion. Andrew Tilghman, “Bringing the Individual Ready Reserve into the ‘Total Force,’” Military Times, October 26, 2015. 92 93 See Information Memo for the Secretary of Defense, “Report of the Reserve Forces Policy Board on the Need for Improvements in the Individual Ready Reserve,” September 30, 2015, http:// rfpb.defense.gov/Portals/67/Documents/Reports/Annual%20 Report/RFPB%20IRR%20REC%2030SEP15_signed.pdf. Ibid. The Marine Corps does face some challenges with its IRR, however, and commissioned a report by the Center for Naval Analyses to examine ways to better manage that part of its 94 95 96 22 ATLANTIC COUNCIL The Army should also consider providing additional participation incentives—such as those provided by the Marines—and encouraging Congress to allow some form of annual compensation97 so IRR soldiers remain engaged and involved. Build an Army Mobilization Plan During the Cold War, DOD and the Army devoted substantial time and energy planning for mobilization in the event of a major war with the Soviet Union. In 1978, for example, DOD held an exercise called Nifty Nugget, which assessed “national capabilities to mobilize and deploy forces in times of crisis.”98 It revealed severe shortfalls that eventually led to far better integrated joint deployment e orts.99 The Army has not had to plan for mass mobilization since 1. 97 IRR members attending physical musters today are only entitled to a per diem payment that covers travel and other subsistence costs. They do not receive other forms of compensation or credit toward retirement pay. “Report of the Reserve Forces Policy Board on the Need for Improvements in the Individual Ready Reserve,” op. cit. 2. 98 William K. Brehm and Ernst Volgeneau, “Evaluation Plan: Exercise Nifty Nugget 1978,” October 23, 1978, http://www.dtic. mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a061772.pdf. 3. 99 Analysts estimated that if the exercise had been a real con ict, there would have been more than 400,000 casualties, and that somewhere between 200,000 and 500,000 troops (and tons of supplies) would not have arrived on time. Participants described the results by saying “This was one war we would have lost,” and “The Army was simply attrited to death.” “Nifty Nugget,” Global Security.org, http://www.globalsecurity.org/ military/ops/nifty-nugget.htm. Quotes from John J. Fialka, “The Grim Lessons of Nifty Nugget,” Army, April 1980, pp. 15 and 17. the end of the Cold War, but the growing threats in today’s world mean that it must once again build a mobilization plan to rapidly grow the size of the Army to meet a national crisis of existential danger. The plan needs to address how to bring large numbers of new recruits into a growing force; energize the defense industrial base; track and improve the readiness levels of surplus materiel; and revitalize mothballed pieces of equipment and return them to service. The Army should also identify what civilian talents and capabilities it might want to rapidly access if the Selective Service were to institute a draft. These might include computer coders, social media gurus, linguists, and nancial experts, in addition to more traditional demands for soldiers to ll infantry, armor, or artillery units.100 The plan should also provide options for building various new types of units and assign responsibilities for overseeing and exercising such an expansion of the force (as noted with SFABs above). Such a visible and substantial Army e ort to plan and prepare the force to execute a major expansion would serve a very important practical purpose, but it would also signal resolve and preparedness to friends and potential adversaries alike. 100 David Barno and Nora Bensahel, “Why We Still Need the Draft,” War on the Rocks, February 23, 2016, http://warontherocks. com/2016/02/why-we-still-need-the-draft/; David Wood, “Uncle Sam Needs Coders. Here’s How the Military Could Draft Them,” Hu ngton Post, May 10, 2016, http://www. hu ngtonpost.com/entry/military-draft-coders-tech-experts_ us_572cddf7e4b0bc9cb046a2f9. THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY ATLANTIC COUNCIL 23 THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY 3. THE ARMY OF TOMORROW: 2020- 2025 While the Army prepares for the challenges of today, it must also start sowing the seeds of the future Army. Despite the many constraints of the current environment, the Army must still invest time, leadership, and resources now in preparing for the challenges of tomorrow—to ensure that it can operate e ectively in a rapidly changing and more unpredictable environment. The world from 2020 to 2025 will have much in common with today’s world. Army forces will still be required to ght irregular wars against terrorists and non-state actors; deter and prepare for large-scale interstate con icts against regional aggressors or resurgent great powers; protect the homeland from ever-growing threats; and remain ready for the unlikely but daunting prospect of a major global war against a highly advanced adversary. Yet, the world of tomorrow will not simply be a linear extension of what we see today. Fast-changing events catalyzed by continuing upheavals in technology will continue to unpredictably shift that landscape. Demographic trends are among the most predictable. The world population will probably reach more than eight billion people by 2025, with most of the growth coming from less developed regions of the world.101 Almost two-thirds of the world population will live in cities, making urban operations more common and even more important than they are today. Today’s world of haves and have nots will be greatly magni ed, with those fortunate enough to have employment and access to stunning technology living in stark contrast to the hundreds of millions struggling to survive in disrupted environments. Basic connectivity through widespread social media access will be common, which will enable organization for both good and ill. Although 80 percent of the world’s population will own a smartphone by 2025,102 the digital divide within and across countries will separate those who can leverage modern technology from those who can only sample it.103 That digital divide today is greater in the Middle 1. 101 United Nations Department of Economic and Social A airs, Population Division, World Population Prospects, The 2015 Revision, pp. 3-35, Volume 1: Comprehensive Tables, ST/ESA/ SER.A/379, pp. 3-7. 2. 102 “Planet of the Phones,” The Economist, February 28, 2015. 3. 103 In 2015, 61 percent of the world’s population was not connected to the internet, and networked readiness was highly correlated with income. World Economic Forum, “The Global Information Technology Report 2015: ICTs for Inclusive Growth,” pp. 3, 7. 24 East, North Africa, and Pakistan than it is anywhere else in the world,104 which will only hasten regional and global challenges resulting from instability, discontent, and radicalization. The impacts of global climate change will accelerate during this time period, in ways both positive and negative. Regions once too cold or too remote for agriculture or settlement will start to open, and Arctic ice melt will open the northernmost part of the planet to commerce and the in ux of settlers—but resource competition in these areas will inevitably follow. Some areas of the world will su er from too much water, as rising sea levels make low-lying areas increasingly uninhabitable. Too little water will plague other parts of the world, as extreme droughts cause the possible collapse of agriculture and economies and create new refugee crises as well. Natural disasters of all kinds, from wild res to oods to deadly heat waves, will only increase. Some future developments can be predicted, but others will be unexpected and unforeseen. “Black swans”—unpredictable events with very serious consequences—will be as inevitable then as they have been in the past.105 In 2000, for example, no analyst could have possibly foreseen all of today’s disparate security challenges—the 9/11 attacks, the rise of al- Qaeda and ISIS, a resurgent Russia annexing Crimea and threatening neighbors with force, and China building arti cial islands in the South China Sea from which to project power, among others. Unpredicted and unpredictable events will indubitably disrupt sober defense planning and could shift US defense priorities in an instant—especially if there were a nuclear exchange overseas or if a weapon of mass destruction were used against the homeland. For the US Army, the world of tomorrow poses some problems and scenarios that are very di erent from the world it has grown accustomed to operating in—and organizing for—since the beginning of this century. It will be marked by the breakdown of order, widespread violent extremism and aggressive large states. The Army must take on substantially new priorities and 104 Op. cit., p. 13. 105 Nassim Nicholas Taleb, The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable (New York: Random House, 2007). ATLANTIC COUNCIL initiatives now in order to be able to operate e ectively in this turbulent new environment, and will need to follow through with rapid, continuous adaptation as the next decade unfolds. The Army must adapt in six signi cant ways to remain capable of deterring adversaries and dominating con icts in this environment, while also setting the stage for the development of a much di erent force for the world of the 2030s and 2040s. It must organize the total force by deployment timelines; strengthen Army strategic mobility and presence; master urban operations; prepare for the next big war; modernize technology investments; and set the stage for another round of base closings. the United States. All units assigned to the RRF would have very high readiness—whether they are from the Active Component or are hybrid or National Guard units at the peak of their readiness cycles—since they would have to be prepared to deploy rapidly with little to no strategic warning. Its exact size would be determined by operations and contingency plans and available strategic lift, but it would certainly require fewer BCTs than are currently part of the Active Component—perhaps only two-thirds or even half of the current number. The Operational Response Force The Operational Response Force (ORF) would be designed to deploy within four to ten months of the start of a future con ict. It would include the remaining active BCTs at lower levels of readiness and most of the hybrid BCTs discussed in the previous chapter. The hybrid units serving in the ORF would be resourced with substantially greater training days per year to maintain the readiness needed to deploy earlier in this time frame. Other National Guard brigades with higher readiness would also be found in the ORF, but would be among the later deployers. All of the National Guard units in the ORF would have substantial connections to active-duty units, including more active duty personnel in key billets, and would train more days a year than they do today. By 2025, the Army might recruit some Reserve Component personnel directly into the ORF, making it mandatory for those personnel to train for somewhere between sixty and one hundred days each year—signi cantly more than the current requirement of thirty-nine annual training days.106 Reservists who did not make a permanent commitment to this increased level of training would still be able to volunteer to serve in ORF units if they agreed to train at those higher levels for the duration of their assignment. Any BCTs assigned to experimental duties107 would also be assigned to the ORF so that they have enough time to retrain before deploying into combat. 1. 106 General Milley has suggested that this amount of training would enable Guard units to deploy more rapidly. Cox, “Army Plans to Double Training Days for Guard Units, Chief Says,” op. cit. 2. 107 We recommend establishing several experimental units later in this chapter and in the next chapter. ORGANIZE THE TOTAL FORCE BY DEPLOYMENT TIMELINES Today’s Army remains starkly divided into three distinct and ever-separate components: the active Army, the Army Reserve, and the Army National Guard. The cultural divisions among them foster rigid thinking and often faulty assumptions about preparedness and abilities, which prevent the Army from getting the most capability out of a fully integrated total force. While the components will undoubtedly remain intact as legal entities, the Army should operationally reorganize itself around a single concept: likely deployment timelines. Not all elements of the active Army will overnight into a future ght—if only because of strategic lift constraints—and so it makes little sense to pay the very high costs of keeping the entire active force at those levels of readiness. The Army should restructure itself around three categories of forces that each fully integrate soldiers from the Active and Reserve Components: the early deployers, the mid- term deployers, and those that would deploy later in a future war. The Rapid Response Force The Rapid Response Force (RRF) would be the portion of the total force designed to rapidly deploy and ght within the rst three to four months of a future con ict. It would draw heavily from the active Army, but would also include individuals and small specialized units from the Army Reserve and National Guard. Forward- stationed or forward-deployed rotational forces would all fall into the RRF, as would some forces based in The Army should operationally reorganize itself around a single concept: likely deployment timelines. be able to deploy THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY ATLANTIC COUNCIL 25 THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY The Strategic Response Force The Strategic Response Force (SRF) would be the strategic land power hedge for the nation. It would both enable the Army to bring all of its remaining forces to full readiness to ght and expand the force dramatically if needed. It would be designed to deploy ten months or more after a future con ict began, because units in the SRF would require signi cant post- mobilization training to achieve top combat readiness levels. It would include the remaining traditional Guard and Reserve units kept at lower levels of readiness. It would also include any newly constituted units built to expand the size of the Army to meet operational needs. As discussed earlier, the rst new units would be structured around the leadership cadre of the security force assistance brigades discussed in the previous chapter, and members of the Individual Ready Reserve would be the rst to start lling out the rank-and- le of the new formations. They would be expected to reach battalion-level combat readiness at twelve months after activation. Building larger units from scratch would take longer, but would proceed more rapidly and smoothly if the recommendations about expansibility in the previous chapter are fully implemented. STRENGTHEN ARMY STRATEGIC MOBILITY AND PRESENCE As discussed in chapter two, the Army today is based almost entirely in the United States. Since only a small number of BCTs are now stationed abroad or serving overseas on rotational presence missions, Army forces responding to a crisis must employ airlift and sealift to rapidly reinforce these limited forward forces (or those of US allies). The Army thus relies far more heavily on strategic mobility today than ever before. As A2/ AD challenges continue to grow, however, threats to strategic mobility are increasing. The Army must take steps to ensure that it can rapidly deploy anywhere in the world to perform its mission despite these increasing challenges. Reinvest in Prepositioned Overseas Combat Stocks The Army needs to forward position more equipment in potential con ict zones and on ships a oat in order to rapidly reinforce US forces and partners overseas in a crisis. After the 1991 Gulf War, the Army developed a robust Army Pre-Positioned Stocks (APS) program.108 It positioned equipment stocks in Europe,109 the Middle 108 Dr. Derek Povah, “What Do You Know About APS-3?” Army Logistician, Vol. 32, No. 4, July-August 2000, pp. 8-11. 109 Mark Stout, “(W)Archives: Prepositioning Combat Equipment in Europe? Been There, Done That,” War on the Rocks, June 19, 2015, http://warontherocks.com/2015/06/warchives- prepositioning-combat-equipment-in-europe-been-there- done-that/. East, and the Paci c, providing unit sets of armored equipment for airlifted troops to marry up with and move forward into combat.110 Army maritime pre- positioned stocks were also located on ships anchored a oat at various points around the world, which could be moved quickly in the event of a crisis. However, many of these stocks were repeatedly drawn down or eliminated to support combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, greatly diminishing this capability. Yet, the value of prepositioning is greater than ever before, given how few Army units are now based overseas. Most Army equipment also resides in the United States today, greatly adding to what must be transported forward in a crisis. These a oat and ashore stockpiles must be reconstituted, but rebuilt in ways that ensure they are fully protected against emerging threats. Land- based stocks near potential con ict areas must be protected with air and missile defenses, guarded by capable security forces to prevent sabotage or seizure by commandos, and have robust nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) protection. They should also be hardened against the e ects of res while ideally placed beyond the range of potential indirect re attacks. Ships carrying prepositioned stocks are particularly vulnerable once they moor to be o oaded, so they require similar protective measures while in port. More of these cargo ships should be constructed with shallow draft keels so they can access ports in less developed theaters as well. Rebuilding and regularly exercising this capability will not only improve the Army’s ability to respond to future crises, but it will also help deter potential aggressors and reassure US friends and allies. Prepare to Fight for Overseas Staging Areas Today’s contested A2/AD environments will also make it much harder for forces deploying by air to link up with prepositioned equipment. In the past, it was assumed that arriving US forces would be able to y into secure air elds outside the range of enemy strikes and marry up with undamaged forward-positioned stocks in well-protected assembly areas before starting to ght. None of those assumptions may hold true in a contested A2/AD setting. Arrival air elds, ports, troop assembly areas, and stockpiles of pre- positioned equipment may all be under attack from swarming drones, chemical weapons, commandos, or long-range precision missiles. Some staging areas may even be dominated by enemy aircraft operating under 110 Prepositioned stocks enable troops to be airlifted into nearby air elds to link up with already based weaponry, vehicles, and ammunition to minimize lift requirements. 26 ATLANTIC COUNCIL THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY [page30image1032] Paratroopers of 25th Infantry Division’s 4th BCT (Airborne) conduct a parachute assault during Exercise Spartan Agoge near Anchorage, Alaska, August 2016. Photo credit: US Department of Defense. an umbrella of hostile long-range air defense missiles, e ectively challenging presumed US air superiority. The potential implications of such a scenario for Army forces are profound. Unlike in the past, Army formations from elsewhere in the region may have to ght their way on land into a strategic ash point, and then seize air elds and even ports in order to permit arrival of reinforcing US and allied forces. Army units may have to conduct ground attacks on long-range enemy air defenses that are denying airspace for strategic airlift and contesting US Air Force operations to establish air superiority. Protecting newly seized staging areas or lodgments from sustained enemy counterattack by air and land will also test Army protection capabilities.111 Army units today are not adequately prepared to ght their way into a staging area. Ensuring that they can do so in the future will require serious preparation and possibly new doctrine and capabilities as well. Improve Strategic Mobility Exercises Because the Army now relies so heavily on strategic mobility to get to the ght, it must continually test and exercise its rapid response capabilities with the other military services. Such exercises have the additional 111 Barno and Bensahel, “The US Military’s Protection De cit Disorder,” op. cit. bene t of helping deter potential adversaries by demonstrating both capability and resolve. But many current exercises, such as NATO’s Trident Juncture, are too cumbersome and require long planning times to demonstrate credible rapid response capabilities. Such deliberately planned exercises remain important, because they help reinforce deterrence. But they now must be augmented with more quick response exercises that test the ability of the strategic mobility system to respond quickly in the face of a potential crisis. The Army needs to be able to regularly exercise its ability to deploy and reinforce allies with various mixes of its light, medium, and heavy forces. Some of these exercises should also test the ability to rapidly move Army forces by sea within theaters to permit surprise operational maneuver—such as landing forces to out ank an enemy from an unexpected direction. Moreover, the Army must improve its ability to move forces ashore in unimproved and shallow draft ports around the world, since A2/AD threats may make it impossible to access established o oad ports and air elds. But the current approach to unimproved landing sites—the massive Joint Logistics Over The Shore (JLOTS) structure112—may 112 Joint Chiefs of Sta , Joint Logistics Over the Shore (JLOTS), Joint Publication 4-01.6, August 5, 2005, http://www.bits.de/ NRANEU/others/jp-doctrine/jp4_01_6(05).pdf. ATLANTIC COUNCIL 27 THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY be too slow to emplace and too vulnerable to attack in contested environments. Exercises should provide opportunities to experiment with new techniques to enable operations in the most challenging simulated A2/AD environments. Press to Station More Forces Overseas As discussed in chapter two, the Army is poorly positioned strategically for the demands of the next decade. Almost all of its forces are now based in the United States, and Congress remains unlikely to approve major changes to the US global force posture any time soon. However, the Army might be able to convince Congress to permanently station an armored BCT in Eastern Europe. This change has already been recommended by the National Commission on the Future of the Army and by General Phillip Breedlove while he served as the commander of US European Command.113 Stationing an armored BCT in Eastern Europe would do much to help MASTER URBAN OPERATIONS By 2030, over 60 percent of the world’s population will live in urban areas,114 and there will be approximately forty-one megacities that have populations that surpass ten million people.115 The Army has traditionally sought to avoid the intense demands of operating in urban areas wherever possible, preferring the less problematic challenges of open terrain, but this demographic reality means that urban operations will increasingly dominate land warfare. The Army must signi cantly improve its capabilities for urban o ense, defense, mobility, and protection, so that it can operate e ectively in densely packed metropolitan areas where civilian populations are a part of the battle eld. Urban operations in the twenty- rst century are not just another type of operation; they will become this century’s signature form of warfare. Little in the Army’s recent operations or its long history of warfare in wooded, jungle, and open terrain has prepared it deter Russian aggression and reassure the eastern NATO allies that the United States remains committed to their defense. More broadly, however, Army leaders must start publicly making the case for why more Army units need to be permanently stationed overseas in places beyond Eastern for the magnitude of this new challenge. Designate Units to Specialize in Urban Operations The Army should begin designating selected BCTs to focus on urban operations and tailor their mission essential task lists and organizational structures accordingly. This should be done as soon as possible, since urban operations are already an important requirement, and operational units currently do not focus much attention on their unique demands. These missions may often resemble the “three block war” that Marine General Charles Krulak famously described,116 where forces may ght, conduct peacekeeping, and provide humanitarian aid on adjacent city blocks—all under the scrutiny of international media, and now among a social-networked populace. These designated units could serve as rst deployers into future urban operations, but they would also spur innovative thinking by identifying new requirements, testing new technologies, and evaluating potential doctrine. Such will become this Europe. Sustained overseas century’s signature presence is the best way to ensure that the United States can respond quickly and e ectively to global challenges given the increasing A2/AD threats to strategic mobility. US promises to reinforce friends and allies in future crises by moving forces forward from the United States may be far less credible in a world of proliferating long-range missiles, terrorists with shoulder- red anti-aircraft missiles, and cheap drones. Building a supportive consensus on Capitol Hill for permanently stationing more Army unitsoverseaswilltakeagreatdealoftimeande ort, but is worth the investment. Educating members of Congress and their sta s about the dangers of the current Army posture might also lay the foundation for rapid posture changes if the domestic political debate changes, or, more likely, if an aggressive act by an adversary requires a substantial Army response. Urban operations in the twenty- rst century are not just another type of operation; they form of warfare. 113 National Commission on the Future of the Army, Report to the President and the Congress of the United States, op. cit., p. 52; Andrew Tilghman, “The Pentagon Starts Planning to Base More Troops in Europe,” Military Times, March 6, 2016. 114 115 116 The United Nations projects that the world population in 2030 will be 8.42 billion, and that 5.06 billion will live in urban areas. United Nations Department of Economic and Social A airs, Population Division, World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision, ST/ESA/SER.A/366, 2015, p. 21. By contrast, there were 10 megacities in 1990, and 28 in 2014. Op. cit., pp. 16, 93. Gen. Charles C. Krulak, “The Strategic Corporal: Leadership in the Three Block War,” Marine Corps Gazette, Vol. 83, No. 1, January 1999, pp. 18-23. 28 ATLANTIC COUNCIL units should develop new concepts by experimenting with di erent mixes of people and equipment—such as combining tanks with light infantry and drones, for example, or operating with special operators, attack helicopters, and Stryker battalions. Their soldiers and leaders should also receive cultural, language, and historical training focused on likely contingencies in major urban areas. Improve Training for Large-Scale Urban Combat Current Army training for urban operations is grossly inadequate, since few virtual or physical training environments replicate the scale and complexity of modern urban warfare. The Army has built small mock cities for tactical training, such as Shughart-Gordon Village at the Joint Readiness Training Center, but these facilities are very limited—often only a few dozen buildings and limited numbers of civilian role players during exercises.117 Replicating even a part of a densely populated urban area would be both prohibitively expensive to build and challenging to populate with large numbers of mock civilians and enemy troops. As a result, the Army has no large-scale urban training sites, which means that Army units cannot realistically train in their most demanding and likely future combat environment. The Army must aggressively seek innovative ways to overcome this major shortfall, such as holding tactical exercises without troops for leaders in large urban areas,118 conducting map exercises overlaid on actual cities, and possibly even conducting full scale exercises in abandoned parts of big cities. The Army must also invest more heavily in technological solutions to this problem, especially in virtual reality gaming that replicates the high stress demands of operating in densely populated areas. It should develop sophisticated urban simulations for full-scale unit training exercises to compensate for the inability to conduct large physical exercises. Arti cial intelligence can also help replicate the behavior of leaders, factions, and the general population of a virtual city in order to better challenge units with the scope and complexity of large-scale urban operations. 1. 117 The largest one is the Muscatatak Urban Training Center, located on 1,000 acres near Butlerville, Indiana and operated by the Indiana National Guard. It includes more than sixty-eight major training structures, but only has one building that is over ve stories tall. See “MUTC Overview,” http://www.atterburymuscatatuck.in.ng.mil/Ranges/ MuscatatuckUrbanTrainingCenter/MUTCOverview.aspx. 2. 118 Tactical exercises without troops (TEWTs) were held in real cities during the Cold War. They helped Army leaders, who were often wearing civilian clothes, think through how large formations would conduct combat operations in such complex terrain. For more on TEWTs, see Headquarters, Department of the Army, Field Manual 25-4: How to Conduct Training Exercises, September 10, 1984, chapter three. PREPARE FOR THE NEXT BIG WAR The US military has not been sized, organized, or postured to ght a large-scale and bloody war since the end of the Cold War.119 Virtually no one serving on active duty today below the rank of colonel or master sergeant has confronted the real possibility of ghting a global war to protect vital US interests or assure the survival of the nation. The two recent wars remained relatively small in scope, despite their challenges. As noted in chapter one, at their peak, US military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan included no more than171,000troopsand100,000troopsrespectively.120 Compare that with the more than 537,000 US troops deployed at the height of the Vietnam War121—which was considered a small-scale, limited con ict at the time. Furthermore, the characteristics of large, prolonged wars di er immensely from extended counterinsurgency campaigns—especially in their scale of operations, their global scope, the degree of destruction, and the potentially large numbers of casualties. The likelihood that the United States will have to ght a really big war—one that requires many hundreds of thousands of troops with high levels of destruction and fatalities—remains low, but the consequences would be enormous. And in the world of tomorrow, which will be increasingly threatened by disorder, violent extremism, and more aggressive large states, those odds may increase. The Army must start preparing for the next big war by rebuilding its high-end war ghting capabilities, as discussed in the previous chapter. Yet, it should also take four additional steps to ensure that it is fully prepared to ght the next big war, no matter how unlikely that prospect may seem today. Upgrade, Access, and Prepare to Employ Surplus Weaponry Expanding the Army to ght a global war would require equipping many entirely new units with large numbers of weapons, vehicles, and aircraft. While new weaponry cannot be produced quickly, the Army owns hundreds of tanks, thousands of other armored vehicles, and scores of aircraft that are mothballed in depots and storage facilities across the United States 119 This section draws on Barno and Bensahel, “Preparing for the Next Big War,” op. cit. 120 Michael E. O’Hanlon and Ian Livingston, “The Iraq Index,” The Brookings Institution, January 31, 2011, p. 13; Ian S. Livingston and Michael E. O’Hanlon, “The Afghanistan Index,” The Brookings Institution, November 30, 2015, p. 4. See footnote 2. 121 Tim Kane, “Global US Troop Deployment, 1950-2003,” Center for Data Analysis Report #04-11, The Heritage Foundation, October 27, 2004. THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY ATLANTIC COUNCIL 29 THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY [page33image1040] A CH-47 Chinook sling loads an M777A2 howitzer into a live re exercise at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, August 2016. Photo credit: US Department of Defense. and around the world. Few of these older weapons systems or vehicles are included in any plans to ght a future major war, either by replacing massive equipment losses or to be utilized by any new units that have to be formed. The Army should build a refurbishment plan that details exactly what retired weapons and equipment it has on hand and how they would be returned to service. Such a plan would help the Army determine what types of newly generated units could be equipped most rapidly and what capabilities shortfalls would remain. The Army should also identify high-payo , quick upgrades that could be applied to these older systems to rapidly increase their capabilities in the event of war, including adding GPS systems, modern digital radios, night vision and thermal weapon sights, and the most current version of C4I systems such as Blue Force Tracker. Plan to Control Large Areas and Populations Army operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have found it extremely challenging to protect populations of 37 million and 32.5 million people respectively, against an insurgent threat numbering in the tens of thousands.122 Neither mission succeeded in controlling relatively modest-size territories; Afghanistan is slightly smaller than Texas, for example, and Iraq is a bit larger than 122 Population estimates as of July 2015. See Central Intelligence Agency, “The World Factbook,” https://www.cia.gov/library/ publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2119rank.html. California.123 Future major wars may require the Army to occupy, control, or keep the peace in substantially larger areas—yet current Army doctrine, force structure, and training does not adequately address this challenge. Controlling large areas, especially with unfriendly populations, requires sizeable numbers of troops. The Army should reexamine its experiences from the World War II era, in order to identify what gaps exist in current doctrine and force planning that mustbeaddressedinordertomeetsuchrequirements in the future. It should also seek to identify some realistic metrics for the number of troops required for such missions. Rebuild Resilience in the Force According to the Department of Defense, 5,366 US military personnel have been killed in action and 52,433 have been wounded in action in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.124 Those numbers, while heart- rending, pale in comparison to the US losses taken just during the Battle of Normandy in World War II. On D-Day alone, 2,499 US military personnel were killed, and there were 125,847 American casualties (both 123 124 Op. cit.; US Census Bureau, “State Area Measurements and Internal Point Coordinates,” https://www.census.gov/geo/ reference/state-area.html. An additional 1,381 US military personnel died in what DOD calls “non-hostile” deaths. Data as of September 14, 2016. See http://www.defense.gov/casualty.pdf. 30 ATLANTIC COUNCIL killed and wounded) during the ensuing three-month battle.125 The Army’s losses in Iraq and Afghanistan also stand in stark contrast to the Army’s bloody experience in Korea and Vietnam. The Army’s remarkable recent success in preserving its troops has a downside, however. Its personnel have not been psychologically hardened by personal experience for the grim task of ghting through heavy losses to battle eld victory. No one would wish that the Army had taken more casualties to counterbalance this problem, of course. But it does mean that current Army leaders have little if any experience with the extreme battle eld stresses caused by overrun units and heavy casualties. These stresses were common during past US con icts and could likely be so again during a future big war. Army combat units must include enough manpower to be able to continue to function after sustaining serious battle eld losses. The Army should also ensure that current units gain experience contending with high levels of simulated losses during their rotations at the combat training centers, emphasizing the requirement to ght on in the face of serious setbacks and casualties. It should also ensure its leaders at all levels learn techniques of personal resilience and tough-minded leadership to prepare them to continue the mission e ectively when losses mount precipitately. Plan for Unit Regeneration The Cold War Army planned for the reconstitution of units after mass casualties of people and equipment— where hundreds or thousands of soldiers were wounded or killed in a single combat action.126 World War II, the Korean War, and Vietnam all produced battles where entire battalions and even regiments were rendered combat ine ective due to heavy casualties.127 Recent American wars have thankfully not produced mass casualties, and not even a platoon-size 1. 125 D-Day Museum and Overlord Embroidery, “D-Day and the Battle of Normandy: Your Questions Answered,” http://www. ddaymuseum.co.uk/d-day/d-day-and-the-battle-of-normandy- your-questions-answered#casualties. 2. 126 For example, see Headquarters, Department of the Army, FM 100-9: Reconstitution, Washington, D.C., January 13, 1993; Mark A. Armstrong, MAJ, USA, “Reconstitution: Implications for a Force Projection Army,” 1993, http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/ fulltext/u2/a272977.pdf. 3. 127 See, for example, the 141st Infantry Regiment, 36th Division in January 1944 crossing the Rapido River in Italy; the 31st Regimental Combat Team in November 1950 at the Chosin Reservoir in Korea; and 2-7 Cavalry in November 1965 near Landing Zone Albany in the Ia Drang Valley, Vietnam. Martin Blumenson, Salerno to Cassino (Washington: O ce of the Chief of Military History, US Army, 1969), pp. 322-351; Matthew J. Seelinger, “Nightmare at the Chosin Reservoir,” https:// armyhistory.org/nightmare-at-the-chosin-reservoir/; Harold Moore and Joseph Galloway, We Were Soldiers Once–and Young (New York: Harper Perennial, 1993), pp. 217-285. US formation was overrun in Afghanistan or Iraq.128 This unprecedented success will probably not be replicated in future con icts, especially ones that involve a heavily armed, high-end adversary. Unpleasant as it is to contemplate, the Army must improve its capacity to sustain large numbers of casualties and keep ghting. This requires not only depth of personnel within units, but also depth in the numbers and types of units to avoid single point failures if key units are wiped out. Its ongoing investments in individual resilience129 must be matched with planning for rapid organizational recovery. Doctrine and training for this chilling eventuality must be revitalized, and leaders must be prepared to regroup and sustain operations and ghting spirit in the face of heavy losses. Training should expose units to mass rocket and artillery res, chemical attacks, and even nuclear attacks in order to simulate the large-scale losses that would require reorganization to continue the mission. Rotations to the combat training centers should include assessments of leaders’ ability to regroup after taking mass casualties and should instill e ective techniques to improve leader and unit performance in the face of heavy battle eld losses. MODERNIZE TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENTS130 The Army’s “Big Five” weapons systems were rst elded during the 1980s defense buildup.131 Upgraded versions of each of those weapons—the M1 tank, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the Apache and Blackhawk helicopters, and the Patriot air defense system—still constitute the core of the Army’s combat capabilities today. And because of the Army’s many modernization failures (discussed in chapter two), no replacements are currently programmed for any of these systems. That means that most or all of them will remain in service through 2030 and beyond. This will be a staggering capabilities gap in an age where technologies are growing and spreading exponentially. The Army desperately needs new systems that 128 The battles that came closest to threatening the loss of platoons over the last fteen years were bitter ghts in Wanat in 2008 (where nine US soldiers were killed in action) and at COP Keating in 2009 (where eight US soldiers were killed in action). The Taliban were repulsed with heavy losses in both ghts. Mark Seavey, “The Battle for COP Keating,” Military.com, May 1, 2013; “The Battle of Wanat,” Washington Post, http://www. washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/world/battle-of-wanat/. 129 See, for example, “US Army Ready and Resilient,” https://www. army.mil/readyandresilient/. 130 Several recommendations in this section are taken from Barno and Bensahel, “The US Military’s Protection De cit Disorder,” op. cit. 131 COL David C. Trybula, USA, “‘Big Five’ Lessons for Today and Tomorrow,” IDA Paper NSP-4889, Institute for Defense Analyses, May 2012. THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY ATLANTIC COUNCIL 31 THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY leverage the latest information technology that can be readily upgraded with new software and improved subcomponents. Doing so will slow the process of obsolescence for systems that will have to last for decades and ensure the Army remains the best-equipped land force moving into the future. US technological advantages are already being eroded as potential adversaries develop more advanced systems than those found in today’s force. By 2025, those advantages will be far smaller and might not even exist at all, as both state and non-state adversaries will increasingly eld advanced technologies like precision weapons, inexpensive micro-drones, and sophisticated long-range air defense missiles. Accelerate the Development of Air Mobility with Operational Reach The next Army troop transport aircraft must be able to operate with the tactical agility of a helicopter, but also must be able to move forces over long distances at high speeds and without needing to refuel frequently. The V-22 Osprey, which is currently operated by the Marine Corps and special operations forces, is the rst generation of this important capability, but it is limited by its cargo space and payload, not to mention its extraordinary expense.132 The next generation of advanced rotorcraft are currently being developed, such as the Bell V-280 Valor and variants of the Boeing-Sikorsky X2,133 but cannot e ectively protect themselves from direct re and advanced missiles. Developing rotorcraft that can protect themselves from growing threats must become a top Army priority, since the Army’s IBCTs and special operations forces rely upon them for much of their tactical mobility, logistics, and re support in combat. Build Mobile-Protected Firepower and a New Infantry Combat Carrier By 2020, the Abrams tank and Bradley ghting vehicle are likely to be overmatched by a range of threats—including advanced anti-tank guided missiles, mass armor-killing cluster munitions, and hostile main battle tanks and infantry carriers—that will be elded by high-end state adversaries and their clients. The Army needs to invest heavily in mobile-protected repower and a new infantry combat carrier in order to restore its technological supremacy and to be 1. 132 In scal year 2015, the unit yaway cost for each MV-22 was $71.92 million, compared to $16.6 million for each UH-60M. Joakim Kasper Oestergaard Balle, “Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey,” Aeroweb, May 18, 2015; Joakim Kasper Oestergaard Balle, “Sikorsky UH-60 Blackhawk,” Aeroweb, March 11, 2015. 2. 133 Dave Majumdar, “US Army Selects Bell and Sikorsky/Boeing to Build Prototypes for Next Generation Helicopter Program,” USNI News, October 3, 2014. able to operate e ectively in all future environments (including urban warfare). One of the Army’s highest acquisition priorities should be providing relatively lightweight, all-terrain mobility and reliable protection for the soldiers in its vulnerable IBCTs. Develop a Mobile-Protective Umbrella US Army troops are deeply vulnerable to incoming artillery, rocket, and missile attacks, which are currently the deadliest conventional threats facing US forces. They need a mobile and dependable system that can detect these threats and then rapidly destroy them. The Israeli Defense Force has employed an early xed-site version of this capability called Iron Dome, which is designed primarily to counter small, unguided rockets launched against Israeli population centers (though a new sea-based version was just successfully tested).134 A di erent type of protective umbrella, called Counter-Rocket, Artillery, Mortar (C-RAM), has also been used by the Army in limited numbers to provide base defense in Iraq and Afghanistan. It employs a land version of the US Navy’s Phalanx 20 mm cannon to destroy incoming projectiles.135 The critical next step is making this type of capability small enough and su ciently mobile to accompany all Army battle formations, to protect troops from the growing proliferation of deadly precision strikes, massed rockets, and other indirect res. Speeding the Army’s development of its new multi-mission launcher looks like a promising possible solution.136 Develop Advanced Protection Systems US armored vehicles and aircraft are highly vulnerable to advanced guided weapons that are now becoming commonplace on the battle eld. On the ground, Russia’s T-14 Armata tank, which was rst displayed in 2015 and is reportedly already in production, can launch onboard rockets to de ect or destroy incoming anti-tank guided missiles or rocket-propelled grenades.137 No US armored vehicle today features 134 135 136 137 Michael Martinez and Josh Levs, “How Iron Dome Blocks Rockets from Gaza, Protects Israelis,” CNN.com, July 9, 2014; Barbara Opall-Rome, “Israel Claims Intercept Success with Sea- Based Iron Dome,” Defense News, May 18, 2016. US Army Acquisition Support Center, “Counter-Rocket, Artillery, Mortar (C-RAM) Intercept Land-Based Phalanx Weapon System (LWPS),” http://asc.army.mil/web/portfolio- item/ms-c-ram_lpws/. Boyd Collins, “Army Fires Mini Hit-To-Kill Missile from New Interceptor Launch Platform,” ECN, https://www.ecnmag.com/ news/2016/04/army- res-mini-hit-kill-missile-new-interceptor- launch-platform. International Institute for Strategic Studies, The Military Balance 2016, op. cit., p. 167; Christian Beekman, “Why Russia’s New Tanks Are a Wake-Up Call for the US,” Task and Purpose, May 22, 2015, http://taskandpurpose.com/why-russias- new-tanks-are-a-wake-up-call-for-the-us/; Dave Majumdar, 32 ATLANTIC COUNCIL similar protection. In the air, the Army will continue to depend on rotorcraft for vertical lift and assaults, logistics resupply, and close air support for troops in contact. These aircraft are immensely vulnerable to a wide range of air defense systems that are increasingly available to both advanced militaries and non-state actors alike.138 The Army needs to develop active protection systems for all of its air and ground combat platforms, which can detect incoming threats and automatically destroy them with either directed energy or kinetic responses.139 Invest in Counter-Drone Systems The Army needs a reliable system that can counter the dangers of lethal swarming drones employed en masse against ground formations.140 The threats posed by these weapons are both real and unprecedented. According to New America, eighty-six countries already have some sort of drone capability, and nineteen of those either already have or are developing armed drones.141 In the future, drones will be utilized not only by highly capable state adversaries but also by much smaller non-state actors that will be able to buy large quantities easily and cheaply. And even unarmed drones can have very deadly e ects, since they can operate as surveillance platforms that cue mass res on collections of troops, logistics, or command posts.142 To counter this growing threat, the Army needs to accelerate the development of various “Surprise: Russia’s Lethal T-14 Armata Tank Is in Production,” The National Interest, March 13, 2016. 1. 138 Joe Pappalardo, “Syrian Rebels Pose with Shoulder-Fired Missiles, and It’s Not Good News,” Popular Mechanics, May 31, 2013. 2. 139 Kevin McCaney, “Army Moves Ahead with Laser-Based Aircraft Defense Missile,” Defense Systems, March 30, 2015; Jen Judson, “Army Testing Foreign Protection Systems for US Combat Vehicles,” Defense News, June 29, 2016. 3. 140 Paul Scharre, “Robotics on the Battle eld Part II: The Coming Swarm,” Center for a New American Security, October 2014; Kelley Sayler, “A World of Proliferated Drones: A Technology Primer,” Center for a New American Security, June 2015. 4. 141 “World of Drones: Military,” New America, http://securitydata. newamerica.net/world-drones.html. 5. 142 Sydney J. Freedburg Jr., “Russian Drone Threat: Army Seeks Ukraine Lessons,” Breaking Defense, October 14, 2015. counter-drone technologies, such as “search and destroy” drones, directed energy defense options, and electronic warfare (EW) countermeasures.143 SET THE STAGE FOR ANOTHER ROUND OF BRAC Although the reasoning may not be obvious, closing unneeded bases is an absolutely essential step in enabling the Army to maximize its combat capabilities. Every dollar spent maintaining unnecessary infrastructure is a dollar that could be far better spent on readiness, new equipment, and possibly even on increasing end strength. According to DOD estimates, a stunning 33 percent of the Army’s base infrastructure is unnecessary.144 DOD has asked Congress several times in recent years to authorize another round of the BRAC process, but Congress has steadfastly refused to do so.145 Closed bases and consolidated facilities mean that voters in those areas will lose jobs, and no member of Congress wants to risk that happening within their district. Nevertheless, the Army (and the other services) needs to keep pressing Congress to approve another BRAC round as quickly as possible. Army senior leaders need to repeatedly and publicly argue that failing to approve another BRAC round directly contributes to a less capable Army. 143 Robert Wall, “Next Step for Drones: Defending Against Them,” Wall Street Journal, July 23, 2015; “Switchblade,” AeroVironment, https://www.avinc.com/uas/view/switchblade; Michael Peck, “High-Energy Laser Weapons Target UAVs,” C4ISRNET, February 19, 2016; Kelsey D. Atherton, “Boeing Unveils its Anti-Drone Laser Weapon,” Popular Science, August 28, 2015; Colin Clark, “New Weapons Spell Death for Drones; The Countermeasure Dance,” Breaking Defense, October 13, 2014. 144 Part of the reason why this gure is so high is that Army end strength has declined signi cantly from its temporary wartime high of 570,000 active personnel, but Army infrastructure has not been reduced since the last BRAC in 2005. Department of Defense, “Department of Defense Infrastructure Capacity,” March 2016, http://defensecommunities.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/2016- 4-Interim-Capacity-Report-for-Printing.pdf. 145 Joe Gould and Aaron Mehta, “Pentagon to Congress: We Need Base Closures,” Defense News, April 15, 2016. THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY ATLANTIC COUNCIL 33 THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY 4. THE ARMY OF THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW: 2025-2040+ The world of 2040 and beyond will little resemble today’s world and will di er substantially from the world of 2025. Making linear projections based on the current environment will be useless at best and dangerous at worst, since the world order may be dominated by major factors whose outlines are only faint glimmers now. US global power will almost certainly decline in relative terms, and perhaps also in absolute terms, as the last bits of the post-World War II Pax Americana recede into history. Yet, the United States will still play an essential role—and possibly an even more important role—in maintaining an open international system, especially given the increasing likelihood of more regional aggressors and spreading global disruption and disorder. Projections for the world of 2040 are not all dark. Many positive trends will improve broad aspects of the human condition in unprecedented ways. Yet for the US military, the gloomier scenarios—which are equally plausible and may occur simultaneously—require planning for a wider range of threats and a world that could be dominated by varying levels of violence, fragmentation, and even chaos. Unpredictable “black swan” events, like those discussed in the previous chapter, could change the international environment instantly and profoundly. Yet even if no such dramatic events occur, the US Army must still prepare for a world characterized by unpredictable threats and as yet unanticipated hostile capabilities. By 2040, the world population will be continuing its inexorable march toward ten billion people.146 Virtually all of that growth will occur in the less developed regions of the world, as shown in gure 2, which will continue to su er from poor economic performance and high unemployment levels. Con ict for resources—including water, arable land, and habitable living space—may impact the world of 2040 in unforeseeable and destabilizing ways. Population movements, refugee ows, and the resulting societal and economic disruptions will be recurrent features of this world. The e ects of global climate change will be profound, prompting refugee ows away from parched 146 The United Nations estimates that the world population will be over 9.1 billion in 2040, and 11.2 billion by 2100. United Nations Department of Economic and Social A airs, Population Division, World Population Prospects, The 2015 Revision, Volume 1: Comprehensive Tables, op. cit., p. 3. regions that are no longer able to support agriculture. Millions of urban dwellers packed in the world’s littorals will be threatened by rising sea levels that will place entire cities below adjacent water levels. All of these developments will have considerable national security implications.147 Wars to prevent mass in uxes of unwanted refugees may erupt, and there will be never-ending global requirements to house untold numbers of those displaced by a growing spectrum of natural and manmade crises. Technology’s role in shaping the world of 2040 and beyond cannot be overstated. The vast explosion of human knowledge and its accessibility to billions will create an environment of unprecedented human cognitive growth whose e ects are simply unfathomable. Products will increasingly be created locally rather than centrally. Advanced additive manufacturing (also known as 3D printing) will be able to make everything from drones to automobiles—which could dramatically alter global trade relationships and the nature of international commerce.148 Crowdsourcing and advanced arti cial intelligence (AI) will combine in powerful ways to solve even the most intractable problems. Yet, these technologies also pose far deeper challenges. There may be far less need for people to work, for example, since many tasks that formerly required a human being may be replaced with the advent of AI-empowered machines, proliferated robotics, and a ubiquitous Internet of Things in many parts of the world. That shift could have profound and problematic implications for advanced societies as well as potentially darker impacts on parts of the world where populations are growing fastest, outpacing both education and employment opportunities. The invisible integration of AI into many aspects of human life will continue to pose ethical challenges and may—in the hands of 147 148 See, for example, The White House, “Findings from Select Federal Reports: The National Security Implications of a Changing Climate,” May 2015, https://www.whitehouse.gov/ sites/default/ les/docs/National_Security_Implications_of_ Changing_Climate_Final_051915.pdf. John Manners-Bell and Ken Lyon, “The Implications of 3D Printing for the Global Logistics Industry,” Supply Chain 24/7, January 23, 2014, http://www.supplychain247.com/article/the_ implications_of_3d_printing_for_the_global_logistics_industry; Chris Dupin, “Press Print; Delete Ship?” American Shipper, August 22, 2015, http://www.americanshipper.com/Main/News/ Press_print_delete_ship_61299.aspx#hide. 34 ATLANTIC COUNCIL Figure 2. World Population, 2015-2100 World population Less developed regions More developed regions THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY [page38image2856] [page38image3176] [page38image3336] [page38image3496] 10 8 6 4 2 0 Source: United Nations Department of Economic and Social A airs, Population Division, World Population Prospects, The 2015 Revision, Volume 1: Comprehensive Tables, pp. 2-3. The list of countries that are categorized as more developed and less developed is available on pp. xiv–xvii. [page38image7048] [page38image7208] [page38image7528] [page38image7688] [page38image7848] [page38image8488] [page38image8648] [page38image8808] malevolent actors—become a highly dangerous threat, rivaling some of the existential dangers posed by nuclear weapons in the late twentieth century. The world order of 2040 may well be deeply disordered, where competing regional blocs and coalitions of states battle for power and in uence. The United States will no longer be a global hegemon, but will likely become a coalition builder and manager of disparate crises that is forced by its own resource constraints to make careful choices about where to commit its power and prestige. The US role in this period may resemble that of Great Britain in the 1930s—exerting in uence from a declining global position amidst the rise of other powerful states.149 China, India, Iran, Brazil, and other regional actors may play outsize roles in their regions, but without any assuming a dominant world leadership role. Nationalism and sectarianism will continue to promote local fragmentation rather than global integration. Illiberal states may grow in number and in uence, while the world’s democracies continue to struggle with the domestic challenges posed by aging, declining, and dissatis ed populations. 149 Mathew Burrows, The Future, Declassi ed (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014), p. 157. For the US military, the world of 2040 will involve far greater threats and challenges than the world of 2016—but their nature, scale, and scope cannot possibly be predicted correctly. The only way that the Army can continue to dominate land warfare in such an uncertain era is build the entire force around the core principle of adaptability, so that it can quickly adjust to whatever types of con icts emerge. Doing so will require building a much di erent Army—one that is far more exible, nimbler, and innovative than it is today. Yet, the Army must also maintain continuity with its past. It must build a future force that remains rooted in its storied history and its deep-rooted foundations that have stood the test of time, such as the Army Values and the warrior ethos of its troops.150 Building the Army around the principle of adaptability and embracing the necessity of continuous change will a ect nearly all aspects of the Army as an institution. The Army will need to transform its culture; redesign the structures of the operational and institutional Army; expand personnel reforms and de nitions of 150 The seven Army Values are loyalty, duty, respect, sel ess service, honor, integrity, and personal courage. The Warrior Ethos states, “I will always place the mission rst. I will never accept defeat. I will never quit. I will never leave a fallen comrade.” See https://www.army.mil/values/ and https://www. army.mil/values/warrior.html. 2015 2040 2100 ATLANTIC COUNCIL 35 In billions THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY service; and deeply embrace advanced technologies and experimentation. TRANSFORM ARMY CULTURE Although there are many strongly positive aspects of the Army culture, other aspects will signi cantly hinder the Army’s embrace of adaptability. Cultural norms that prioritize process over substance, sti e the voices of junior personnel, and denigrate learning and critical thinking must be eliminated and replaced with new norms that prize and reward willingness to innovate and change. Accept More Risk Land warfare is inherently dangerous. Yet, the Army’s laudable goal of managing those risks has devolved into a deep service-wide culture of near total risk aversion. Leaders at all levels are held to impossible standards in a misguided, centralized attempt to limit every imaginable accident or error, whether on duty or o . One need only to review the recent Army messages cautioning soldiers on the dangers of crossing streets while playing Pokémon Go151 or plow through the safety paperwork required to take a weekend pass152 to understand how the service has lost its moorings on the appropriate concerns for risk tolerance and safety. The inability to manage risk prudently while underwriting smart risk-taking by subordinate leaders deeply corrodes the trust that enables mission command153—the Army’s war ghting philosophy built around decentralized command and control. The service’s ever-growing aversion to risk destroys mutual trust, sti es innovation and initiative, and erodes vertical unit cohesion. Left unchecked, the Army’s camou aged form of helicopter parenting will inexorably destroy the initiative and development of judgment by its junior leaders and ultimately debilitate the way the Army ghts. Senior leaders need to seek feedback from their subordinates to identify the worst of these practices and enact common sense approaches that treat soldiers like the professionals that they are. 1. 151 See “Military Base Issues “‘Pokémon GO’ Warning,” Foxnews. com, July 19, 2016, http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/07/19/ military-base-issues-pokemon-go-warning.html; Derek Gean, “Pokémon Go? Keep Safety in Mind,” August 4, 2016, https:// www.army.mil/article/172800. 2. 152 See “TRiPS: Travel Risk Planning System,” https://trips.safety. army.mil/Default.aspx?alias=trips.safety.army.mil/army&. 3. 153 Col. (Ret.) James D. Sharpe Jr. and Lt. Col. (Ret.) Thomas E. Creviston, “Understanding Mission Command,” July 10, 2013, https://www.army.mil/article/106872; David W. Barno, “The Army’s Next Enemy? Peace.” Washington Post, July 10, 2014. Reinstitute “Power Down” The initiative of junior leaders is also being threatened by technology that increasingly enables senior leaders to micromanage even small unit actions, from peacetime gunnery quali cations to combat assaults on enemy compounds. For example, generals who can now watch squad level actions on live video from orbiting drones can choose to direct actions in close combat154—even though doing so further erodes the authority and trust placed in junior leaders. Micromanagement in garrison is also rampant, undermining the very principles of mission command that the Army then expects its soldiers to practice when ghting. A 2014 Army study, for example, found that 41 percent of junior NCOs did not believe that they were empowered to make decisions, and only 59 percent were satis ed with the amount of freedom they had to perform their jobs.155 To right this balance, the Army should reenergize the concept of “power down,” which was pioneered by Lt. Gen. Walter Ulmer in the late 1970s as a reaction to widespread disa ection with micromanagement during and after the Vietnam War.156 Its principles involve decentralized leadership based upon trust in subordinates and greater autonomy of junior leaders in garrison as well as combat. Virtually none of today’s garrison procedures from auto safety checklists157 to high-level directed wear of re ective belts158 are consistent with this philosophy. Expecting audacity among junior leaders in combat while micromanaging them in garrison is a recipe for battle eld failure. This leadership discontinuity must be resolved by Army leaders. Junior leaders will play an even more important role in adapting to future con icts than they do today, especially if C4I networks are degraded as expected on the future battle eld.159 These young men and women may not be able to communicate with higher headquarters and will need to make quick decisions on their own. In order to do so, they must 154 155 156 157 158 159 Peter W. Singer, “Tactical Generals: Leaders, Technology, and the Perils,” The Brookings Institution, July 7, 2009, https://www. brookings.edu/articles/tactical-generals-leaders-technology- and-the-perils/. Dr.LeonardWong,“StrategicInsights:LettingtheMillennialsDrive,” US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute, May 2, 2016. Ulmer did much to institute these concepts as the commander of 3rd Armored Division and later III Corps. The Army’s auto safety checklist is available at http://www. lewis-mcchord.army.mil/safety/Publications/Mcycle/0049- FL_POV_Insp_Checklist.pdf. See the article written under the pseudonym Angry Sta O cer, “The Re ective Belt: An Icon of the Global War on Terror,” Task and Purpose, October 26, 2015, http:// taskandpurpose.com/the-re ective-belt-an-icon-of-the-global- war-on-terror/. Chapter three discusses degraded C4I capabilities in more detail. 36 ATLANTIC COUNCIL be used to thinking and acting independently. The Army must restore its commitment to decentralized leadership and front line authority, and practice what it preaches in garrison as well as during operations. Decrease Tolerance of Bureaucracy Perhaps more than any other service, the US Army operates within a dense thicket of rules, regulations, and processes that collectively cripple innovative ideas, retard creative thought, and slow decision making to a snail-like pace. This proclivity is most pronounced within the institutional Army, where the overwhelming density of processes and layers of review constipate even the most straightforward decisions and then further delay implementation.160 By 2040, and probably far sooner, e ective organizations will need to make decisions almost instantaneously in response to data that ows at the speed of light. The Army simply cannot continue to accept a culture that tolerates such excessive levels of bureaucracy and process as inevitable if it is to have any chance of 160 As noted in chapter two, there are currently 529 Army Regulations, totaling thousands of pages, that govern every aspect of Army life. Some date as far back as the Cold War. Each one has a proponent within the service headquarters that is responsible for reviewing and updating that regulation. All of the Army Regulations are available at http://www.apd.army.mil/ ProductMaps/Administrative/ArmyRegulation.aspx. adapting e ectively in the future. Senior Army leaders must start by implementing the recommendations about headquarters and process reform in chapter three and then move to remove layers of bureaucratic oversight. They must also demand streamlined and truly automated processes to realize the promise of information technology. These e orts must be led from the top, but must also engage junior soldiers and leaders to identify roadblocks to reform and generate solutions. Reduce Excessive Deference to Rank and Position Dissent, disagreement, and even divergent views tend to be deeply discouraged within the Army’s culture, ranging all the way from its smallest units up to the highest levels of the Army sta . Out loud disagreements in meetings, generating “outside the box” options, and unapproved courses of action are rarely encouraged. This culture grows out of the understandable need to limit disagreements in tactical units; no one wants privates or lieutenants to argue with their commanders about how to carry out a night attack, or to debate orders during a re ght. But what makes sense during intense combat situations can become deeply dysfunctional when it extends to the entire Army, especially in its planning and sta processes. It prevents Army leaders at all levels from hearing di erent points of view and being able THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY [page40image24712] Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates addresses students at the US Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania, April 2009. Photo credit: US Department of Defense. ATLANTIC COUNCIL 37 THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY to consider the widest range of options, which are absolutely vital to good decision making in general and adaptability in particular.161 The Army must nd ways to promote open discussions and stress that entertaining legitimate disagreement is a part of good leadership, because quickly adapting to unforeseen circumstances requires a full range of fresh ideas and perspectives. Reject Army Anti-Intellectualism Sustained duty with troops has always been the most coveted and prized duty for Army o cers and NCOs alike. But the general rejection of other assignments as unworthy for warriors has distorted the service’s culture in ways that have greatly diminished the value placed on education, thinking, and re ection. This enduring strain of anti- intellectualism within the Army culture reduces the chances that it will have the bright, educated, and innovative leaders that it will need in the future. Anti- intellectualism in the service is not new,162 but it has grown as an unintended consequence of the recent wars.163 Since 2001, repeated combat deployments to Iraq or Afghanistan became the only valued duty assignment. Spending time earning a civilian graduate degree or teaching at West Point or at a service school, was quietly denigrated as “taking a knee”—and inevitably harmed the career prospects of those who had done so. Not that long ago, the 1. 161 There is a large literature about how diversity of all kinds—in background and experience as well as demographic diversity—promotes better decisions. Former Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner summarizes why this is particularly important for the military: “Make sure you surround yourself with people who will disagree with you. Make sure you have competition in diagnosis around you all the time. Make that an ongoing, relentless e ort...It’s really important to make people feel they can disagree with you. Most people in positions in government or the military exist in very hierarchical institutions. You need to do a huge amount to lean against the forces of excessive deference.” David Wessel, “Timothy Geithner: After the Financial Crisis,” Wall Street Journal, June 4, 2014. 2. 162 Lloyd J. Matthews, “Anti-Intellectualism in the Army Profession,” in Don M. Snider and Lloyd J. Matthews, eds., The Future of the Army Profession, 2nd ed., (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2005), pp. 61-92. 3. 163 Dr. Don M. Snider, “Strategic Insights: Whiskey over Books, Again? Anti-Intellectualism and the Future E ectiveness of Army 2025,” US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute, February 23, 2016. early careers of many senior Army generals included a tour teaching at West Point. But that will not be true in the future, because many of the o cers who chose to do so during the recent wars were almost uniformly rendered uncompetitive for advancement within the combat arms or other operational career elds. That makes it far less likely that the future Army will be led by innovative and creative warrior-scholars like retired General David Petraeus or Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster, who both earned PhDs while serving on active duty. Civilian graduate degrees will be far more valuable than military ones, because they expose members of the military to a far broader range of ideas, perspectives, and critical thinking skills than can possibly come from a classroom where all of the students have essentially the same background. Making the Army more adaptable will require leaders who are well-educated at both civilian and military schools, and who spend time reading and thinking deeply about war and warfare. Civilian graduate degrees will be far more valuable than military ones, because they expose members of the military to a far broader range of ideas, perspectives, and critical thinking skills than can possibly come from a classroom where all of the students have essentially the same background. Yet, the Army has moved in the opposite direction; it has slashed the number of o cers that it fully funds to enroll in civilian graduate school programs from as many as 7,000 each year in the 1980s to only approximately 600 to 700 in 2014.164 Even after accounting for the fact that the Army is much smaller today, the number of opportunities for civilian graduate education has declined by a factor of six. Yet pursuing a civilian graduate degree is often seen as a diversion from the “warrior path.”165 Some junior o cers report that they feel they must choose between attending graduate school and career advancement because the Army culture does not su ciently value civilian education.166 Army senior leaders must reverse this trend by expanding and rewarding civilian graduate school opportunities. This would not necessarily require investing additional resources; most soldiers would 164 Everett S.P. Spain, J.D. Mohundro, and Bernard B. Banks, “Intellectual Capital: A Case for Cultural Change,” Parameters, Vol. 45 No. 2 (Summer 2015), p. 88. 165 Tami Davis Biddle, “Making Sense of the ‘Long Wars’–Advice to the US Army,” Parameters, Vol. 46 No. 1 (Spring 2016), p. 11. 166 Authors’ discussions, spring and summer 2016. 38 ATLANTIC COUNCIL be able to utilize the generous educational bene ts provided by the Post-9/11 GI Bill, which would allow them to pay for much, if not all, of their education.167 However, the Army leadership would have to ensure that soldiers who took advantage of such opportunities remain competitive for promotion and command, especially within the operational career eld. Army leaders should also restore the dual-specialty requirement for o cers that was abolished in the 1990s.168 Before that decision, o cers were required to maintain pro ciency and education in two di erent career elds (such as infantry and comptroller, or eld artillery and personnel). In most cases, this gave the o cer both an operational and an institutional specialty. But since it was abolished, most o cers in the operations career eld—including the battalion and brigade commanders who are most likely to be promoted to general o cer—spend the vast majority of their careers in tactical units. They face strong disincentives to seek out broadening assignments, since those duties take them away from troops and thereby often harm their competitiveness on the command track. As a result, fewer and fewer Army senior leaders—and especially its generals—have either the top tier academic credentials or the diversity of assignments that would help them think creatively about the wide range of challenges facing the Army and contribute e ectively at the strategic level within DOD or the wider interagency arena. The Army should once again require every career o cer to develop skills in two specialties, rather than to focus narrowly on one. This change would provide the service a much-broadened core of o cers who would be educated and then employed e ectively across more than one skill. Army senior leaders also need to mentor the service’s rising stars to invest in and value educational and broadening pursuits—and, even more importantly, ensure that promotion and command boards recognize, incentivize, and reward these choices as vital contributions to the future of the service. Strengthen Ethics and Integrity The cornerstone of the Army as a profession rests upon the uncompromising ethical standards and integrity of its members. Yet, an explosion of bureaucratic 1. 167 See “Post-9/11 GI Bill,” U.S. Department of Veterans A airs, http://www.bene ts.va.gov/gibill/post911_gibill.asp. 2. 168 The dual-specialty requirement was abolished as part of the reforms recommended by the O cer Personnel Management System XXI Task Force in 1997. See “OPMS XXI Final Report,” July 9, 1997, http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/cgsc/carl/docs/ OPMSXXI.pdf. requirements169 combined with the unremitting demands of recent prolonged con icts have eroded the Army’s ethical foundations. Today, Army leaders at all levels are often forced to sacri ce their integrity in order to meet an impossible list of demands. A 2015 study by two highly respected Army War College professors found that it was “literally impossible” for Army o cers to meet all the requirements imposed on them by higher headquarters, yet also found that failing to meet those same requirements was professionally unacceptable.170 The result is a pattern of pervasive dishonesty, false reporting, and widespread rationalization of cheating in order to meet unachievable service requirements. This situation is unacceptable in a professional force that holds itself to the highest standards of conduct and accountability. It shatters trust between seniors and subordinates by condoning an environment of fundamental dishonesty. We have noted above the requirement to reform bureaucratic requirements to align them both with realistic expectations and the actual priorities of senior Army leaders. Beyond that necessary change, the Army’s leadership must take on the more di cult task of recognizing and xing the service’s widespread erosion of standards of truthfulness and integrity. Senior Army leaders must publicly reemphasize both honor and integrity—two of the seven Army Values171—in order to restore trust and accountability across the force. They must actively seek input from their subordinates on systemic demands that promote unethical reporting and decision making across the force, and move aggressively to alter those requirements. Reestablishing an unwavering climate of ethical behavior and integrity is essential so leaders at all levels are held to the highest standards of the profession. REDESIGN THE STRUCTURES OF THE OPERATIONAL AND INSTITUTIONAL ARMY The Army of 2040 will need to redesign the operational and institutional pieces of the force, to make them both more agile and adaptable to a fast- changing world. The operational force must redesign its deployable formations so that they are smaller and can better survive on an increasingly lethal battle eld. The institutional Army needs to utilize fewer active duty personnel in order to maximize the number of 169 Barno, “The Army’s Next Enemy? Peace,” op. cit. 170 Wong and Gerras, Lying to Ourselves, op. cit., p. 2. See also David Barno and Nora Bensahel, “Lying to Ourselves: The Demise of Military Integrity,” War on the Rocks, March 10, 2015, http://warontherocks.com/2015/03/lying-to-ourselves-the- demise-of-military-integrity/. 171 The Army Values are listed in footnote 151. THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY ATLANTIC COUNCIL 39 THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY soldiers in the operational force and to take better advantage of the Army’s highly professional corps of civilians. Pursue Modularity at the Battalion Level Fighting e ectively in the middle of the twenty- rst century will require the Army to entrust even more of its combat and maneuver capability to smaller, more agile units that can mass and disperse rapidly, and can be quickly tailored to the mission at hand. Much like the Army of the early twenty- rst century shifted its primary ghting formation from the division to the BCT, the Army of 2040 will need to devolve from BCTs to battalions. With more than 4,000 soldiers each, today’s BCTs will simply be too cumbersome for many operations and their large footprint will be too di cult to protect. Instead, the Army will need to build smaller formations around tailored battalion-size task forces that may include infantry, special operations, aviation, and mobile protected repower.172 These units will be semi-autonomous and much smaller than today’s BCTs, with perhaps 1,000-1,200 soldiers. BCTs will continue to serve as a “bank” of capabilities and formations from which a range of units and people can be pulled together into battalion task forces. Building such task forces quickly and e ectively will require well-understood doctrine, extensive exercise and practice, and extraordinarily high quality people. Build Some Independent Companies In addition to modular battalions, some number of independent company-size combined arms units will be needed as well. Whereas only battalion task forces possess the mix of capabilities needed to truly operate independently today, smaller formations will need to have these capabilities on the future battle eld. Larger combat formations such as brigades, and possibly even battalions, will be vulnerable to detection and destruction by precision strikes or massed res.173 Smaller units with reduced electronic and physical signatures and that can move rapidly from place to place will be better able to avoid detection and destruction. By 2040, selected Army company-size combat units must be able to operate independently with organic C4I, embedded (and reachback) sta support, tactical mobility, and attached operational lift. These forces could be employed for quick raids 172 In many ways, this structure will resemble today’s Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU), which is built around an augmented infantry battalion, an aviation component, and a modest logistics group. 173 The ever-increasing connectivity o ered by mobile devices, social media, and inexpensive drones will make it immensely more di cult to conceal the location of units of any size on a battle eld than it has been in the past. or strikes. They could also be aggregated together as a battalion or larger force to achieve mass e ects, or disperse into even smaller formations to avoid being targeted and then re-form many miles away. Independent companies with such capabilities will not only require a high degree of mobility and situational awareness, but will need to be led by highly experienced o cers and NCOs capable of acting autonomously under extreme conditions of battle eld stress and uncertainty. EXPAND PERSONNEL REFORMS AND DEFINITIONS OF SERVICE The current stovepiped models of service—active, Guard or Reserve; civilian, military, or contractor— will be far too rigid for the world of 2040. The lines between military and civilian, active and reserves, volunteers and retirees need to become far more blurred. Workplace trends are already emerging that suggest most individuals over the next three decades will hold dozens of jobs and several careers in their lifetime.174 The Army must navigate these changing dynamics by adapting its personnel system to bring in as many talented Americans as possible, and creatively leverage their skills through a lifetime of di erent modes of service. Institutionalize Permeability and Lifelong Service DOD’s ongoing Force of the Future initiative is piloting a number of programs to support greater permeability—continued career-long lateral movement—among jobs in the Active and Reserve Components, the civil service, and even the private sector.175 By 2040, Army personnel should be able to step in and out of the force at di erent times in their careers or personal lives. A computer coder, for example, might choose to serve on active duty for three years after college, revert to the IRR during the next few years while gaining valuable experience among the private sector, and later shift to active drill status to serve as a military cyber-warrior several nights a week while building a new technology startup. Multiple 174 175 In 2014, the median number of years that US workers had been with their employer was 4.6 years, but that number was only 3.0 years for workers aged 25-34. See US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Employee Tenure in 2014,” September 18, 2014, http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ tenure.pdf. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter, “Building the First Link to the Force of the Future,” speech delivered at George Washington University, November 18, 2015, http://www.defense.gov/News/ Speeches/Speech-View/Article/630415/remarks-on-building- the- rst-link-to-the-force-of-the-future-george-washington; Department of Defense, “Fact Sheet: Building the First Link to the Force of the Future,” November 18, 2015, http://www. defense.gov/Portals/1/features/2015/0315_force-of-the-future/ documents/FotF_Fact_Sheet_-_FINAL_11.18.pdf. 40 ATLANTIC COUNCIL combinations of military, government, and private jobs and careers should not only be achievable, but highly sought after as a means to share diverse experience by all the a ected private and public parties. For this to work e ectively, however, mandatory retirement timelines must be adjusted, or even eliminated entirely. In today’s world of longer, healthier lifespans, it no longer makes sense for someone to be forced to retire at a single preset age or calendar date; many of those who are required to leave the Army today are at the peak of their careers and with extraordinarily prized skills and attributes. Increased permeability would help extend Army careers while still supporting greater upward mobility for junior personnel rising into higher ranks. The Army should also nd ways to continue utilizing the skills of willing alumni who have reached whatever will be considered the normal retirement age in 2040 (which will certainly be older than 65), perhaps in volunteer advisory or mentoring roles.176 176 P.W. Singer and August Cole provide one very interesting model in their recent novel, where retired Navy personnel volunteer to serve in Mentor Crew during the next world war. See P.W. Singer and August Cole, Ghost Fleet (Boston: Houghton Mi in Harcourt, 2015). Shorten Some Active Duty Enlistments Most of the people serving in today’s Army enlist for the same standard period of active duty, usually between three and four years. Yet, there is no compelling reason why all members of the Army must continue to share the same enlistment terms. Certain specialties that require long training periods, such as aviation mechanic or explosive ordnance technician, should still require a three- to four-year enlistment period. But for other, hard-to- nd skills, shorter enlistments might enable the Army to draw upon a wider range of talent for the service. Cyber-warriors, media specialists, or space operations technicians might be attracted to a one- or two-year active duty enlistment. They might also be interested in a multicomponent enlistment, spending just weeks or months on active duty and then spending multiple years in the reserves. Infantry soldiers, tankers, and cavalry troopers could also have a range of enlistment options—especially to attract college-educated men and women to these demanding elds. A mix of serving on active duty for two years followed by eight years in the reserves (IRR or troop units) might prove an appealing mix for citizens who want to serve but who will not or cannot make an initial three- or four-year commitment—even though some will undoubtedly choose to reenlist despite their initial reluctance. This would have the additional bene t of improving expansibility, by growing the pool THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY [page44image24784] Sta Sgt. Vanessa Carrillo of the 21st Theater Sustainment Command prepares to call for re at Grafenwöhr, Germany, August 2016. Photo credit: US Department of Defense. ATLANTIC COUNCIL 41 THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY of citizens with some Army experience who could be called upon in times of need. Create an Army Civilian Volunteer Auxiliary Corps Many Americans wish to serve their country in some form, but an increasing number of them cannot meet the military’s entrance requirements. In 2014, only 29 percent of men and women between the ages of 17 and 24 were eligible to serve in the military because they lacked a high school degree or had issues related to health, obesity, mental acuity, drug use, or criminal records.177 Some of the disqualifying characteristics should rightfully preclude military service, such as felony convictions. However, many individuals with some of the other disquali cations might still be able to provide valuable service to the Army in a di erent role. The Army could establish, for example, an Army Civilian Volunteer Auxiliary Corps, rightful focus on people often seems to generate a parallel distrust of advanced technology. Army senior leaders often rail against the siren song of high technology replacing the verities of war,181 and many in the service feel that the emphasis in the late 1990s on rapid decisive operations and Army Transformation led the US military down the wrong track—as the bloody close- ghting wars of Iraq and Afghanistan subsequently proved. Nevertheless, rapidly changing and evolving technology will permeate every aspect of life in the twenty- rst century. The Army must therefore nd new ways of leveraging and investing in advanced technologies—not to replace its people, but to enable its people to perform far more e ectively. Enable Greater Experimentation in Operational Units modeled along the lines of the Civil Air Patrol,178 whose personnel could assist the Army in various enterprise functions, such as information technology, library services, or general administrative support. More skilled (and certi ed) volunteers could assist with child care, health care, or legal services. Volunteers would provide valuable services and would maintain a visible a liation with the Army. Such an e ort could widen the scope of those citizens who are exposed to the US military and could help shrink, even slightly, the ever-growing divide between the US military and the population it serves.179 EMBRACE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES AND EXPERIMENTATION The Army is and always will be about people. As former Chief of Sta of the Army General Creighton Abrams once said, “People aren’t in the Army. People are the Army.”180 While that is undoubtedly true, the Army’s 177 Miriam Jordan, “Recruits’ Ineligibility Tests the Military,” Wall Street Journal, June 27, 2014. 178 Richard Mulanax, “Civil Air Patrol: 75 Years of Service,” CAP National Historic Journal, Vol. 3, No. 1, January- March 2016, http://history.cap.gov/ les/original/ f6a1bb617d7650f767d2043a7dc8f4b2.pdf. 179 David Barno and Nora Bensahel, “When the Yellow Ribbons Fade: Reconnecting Our Soldiers and Citizens,” War on the Rocks, July 14, 2015, http://warontherocks.com/2015/07/ when-the-yellow-ribbons-fade-reconnecting-our-soldiers-and- citizens/. 180 Quoted in Secretary of the Army Pete Geren, speech delivered In the 1980s, the Army designated the 9th Infantry Division as the “High Technology Test Bed” division.182 It served as both an operational division and one that could undertake bold and innovative experiments with all manner of new technologies and innovative tactics. Much of this experimentation was decentralized, enabling junior o cers and NCOs to explore, experiment, and test new ideas. The division’s commanders were chosen for their reputation as innovators and for an ability to be forward thinking. Not all of the experiments worked, of course, but this was accepted as the inevitable price of discovery and eventual progress. This model produced numerous new concepts based on unorthodox tactics, equipment, and organizations that generated extensive discussion and promoted intellectual ferment throughout the force. The Army must therefore nd new ways of leveraging and investing in advanced technologies—not to replace its people, but to enable its people to perform far more e ectively. 181 182 at the Army Management Sta College, January 29, 2009, https://www.army.mil/article/16369/Remarks_by_Secretary_ Pete_Geren_to_Army_Management_Sta _College___ Jan__29__2009. Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster has been particularly outspoken on this point. See “The Pipe Dream of Easy War,” New York Times, July 20, 2013; “Thinking Clearly About War and the Future of Warfare–The US Army Operating Concept,” International Institute for Strategic Studies, Military Balance Blog, October 23, 2014, https://www.iiss.org/en/ militarybalanceblog/blogsections/2014-3bea/october-831b/ thinking-clearly-about-war-and-the-future-of-warfare-6183. “Sixty Years of Reorganizing for Combat: A Historical Trend Analysis,” CSI Report No. 14, Combat Studies Institute, US Army Command and Sta College, December 1999, pp. 45-50, http:// usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/sixty.pdf. 42 ATLANTIC COUNCIL Today, such experimentation rarely occurs in the eld level among operational units. Instead, it is nearly always centrally dictated and often carefully controlled by Training and Doctrine Command, Army Materiel Command, or the Army sta in the Pentagon. The Army should authorize more operational units to conduct decentralized experiments, in order to test the bounds of the possible with rapidly evolving civilian technology and emerging military equipment.183 It should designate up to three BCTs as experimental units, assigned to innovate, experiment, and try out new ideas of ghting in likely future environments—from urban megacities to high-end unrestricted con icts. These units could be either active or hybrid formations, and ideally would include infantry, armored, and Stryker units that could mix and match capabilities and begin to stretch the boundaries of today’s organizational structures. Each of these experimental BCTs should be assigned to the ORF (described above) with later deployment timelines. Centralized testing will still be required to validate new designs and apply scienti c rigor to assess promising technologies, but bright ideas from junior o cers and NCOs must be given space to grow and o er the value of younger minds thinking about technology and its application to tactical problems.184 Since future combat will require innovation and adaptability at the lowest levels, at least some portions of Army peacetime experimentation should follow suit. Build Training Around Virtual Reality and Its Successors The gaming revolution has created a multi-billion- dollar commercial industry, but has hardly a ected the Army at all. Nearly every new soldier arrives in the Army experienced in online gaming, yet the Army uses little of this technology today to train soldiers in the most di cult tasks. Over the next decade and beyond, the Army must overhaul its training so that it occurs primarily through virtual reality (VR). Equipping all soldiers with VR goggles with interactive training programs would enable soldiers to train far more continuously and frequently than they do today. It would also give them the opportunity 1. 183 Elements of the Paci c Pathways program, an initiative of US Army Paci c, are designed to achieve some of these outcomes. See Army Sgt. 1st Class Tyrone C. Marshall Jr., “Paci c Pathways Increases Readiness Through Partnership,” October 15, 2014, http://archive.defense.gov/news/newsarticle. aspx?id=123421. 2. 184 The newly designed Army War ghting Assessments (AWAs) include some of these bottom-up characteristics. However, AWAs remain centrally controlled by Training and Doctrine Command, and they only assess operational concepts approved by that command. AWAs also do not include full- time experimental units that could independently develop and test new and potentially radical ideas. to train in teams while participating in intense and highly realistic simulated battle eld environments (e.g., urban operations)—experiences that may not be available by any other means short of actual combat. The Army should invest in building this technology as the backbone of its individual, unit, and sta training models as soon as practicable, and explore ways to utilize VR capabilities to aid soldiers and leaders during actual operations. Initial procurement costs may be quite high, but such an investment would likely save money over time and thus enable the Army to focus its costly live training on the shrinking set of skills that cannot be learned virtually. It will require some ongoing investments, however. VR technologies and their inevitable successors will undoubtedly evolve rapidly, and the Army must commit to incorporating updated technologies on a continuing basis to provide the best possible immersive training experiences for its soldiers. Integrate Battle eld Robotics and Arti cial Intelligence into the Close Fight The infantry close ght—the “last one hundred yards” of intense face-to-face combat—is arguably the part of today’s battle eld that has been the least transformed by advanced technologies. In the next decade and beyond, however, smart robots empowered by AI will be able to serve as capable partners to soldiers engaged in the dangerous close ght. They could provide robotic re support for infantry squads and crew small, unmanned ghting and reconnaissance vehicles alongside vehicles manned by their human teammates. By 2040, smart robots might also be able to operate independently on the battle eld, supporting soldiers in the close ght by performing high-risk casualty evacuations, providing close-in re support, or perhaps even conducting some assault or breaching tasks in this deadly killing zone to better shield soldiers from harm. Build New Battle Sta Processes Around Arti cial Intelligence AI can also speed battle sta work and leader decision making by supporting commanders and their overworked sta o cers. Entirely new battle sta processes could be designed around AI capabilities, removing people and time from analysis and course of action formulation. These AI capabilities should be able to perform functions like rapid mission analysis, near- instantaneous synthesis of all available battle eld- related data, and—following human decisions—quick dissemination and implementation of new orders throughout the C4I system. AI should also be able to vastly streamline many other Army processes, THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY ATLANTIC COUNCIL 43 THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY to include those clogging the institutional Army, if outmoded processes and layers of sta oversight are eliminated as well. Invest in Advanced Technologies for Power and Munitions New technologies for power and munitions should enable the Army to reduce its massive logistics dependency, which continues to be one of its key vulnerabilities. An armored Brigade Combat Team equipped with gas-guzzling internal combustion engines consumes a staggering amount of fuel each day,185 which requires long and vulnerable supply lines. Since the majority of combat vehicles in today’s ABCT will still remain in the force by 2040, the Army must place a high priority on nding ways to o set or replace their massive fuel consumption. Power and ammunition also require a massive logistics e ort. Sources of electrical power—either generators or batteries—literally weigh down every part of the force from light infantry companies to brigade command 185 An armored BCT today would consume approximately 57,300 gallons of fuel during twenty-four hours of o ensive operations. Endy M. Daehner, “Integrating Operational Energy Implications into System-Level Combat E ects Modeling,” RR- 879-OSD, RAND Corporation, 2015, http://www.rand.org/pubs/ research_reports/RR879.html. posts.186 Improved battery technologies and solar- powered devices could dramatically reduce this burden on combat units and their logistics support. Similarly, resupplying eld artillery and air defense units with ballistic munitions and expensive rockets and missiles during a high-end conventional con ict also creates a staggering logistics tail. Directed energy (DE) weapons, by contrast, would provide a nearly inexhaustible source of ammunition and so would slash resupply requirements. The Army is currently deploying limited numbers of DE weapons to defend against drones and incoming rockets, artillery, and mortars.187 By 2040, however, these weapons could be far more prevalent and used for o ensive as well as defensive purposes.188 186 187 188 For example, in 2011, an average Army soldier carried 70 individual batteries on a typical 72-hour mission in Afghanistan. T’Jae Gibson, “Army Unburdens soldiers through battery innovations,” March 15, 2011, https://www.army.mil/ article/53283/Army_unburdens_Soldiers_through_battery_ innovations/. Barno and Bensahel, “The US Military’s Protection De cit Disorder,” op. cit. Jason D. Ellis, “Directed-Energy Weapons: Promise and Prospects,” 20YY Series, Center for a New American Security, April 2015. 44 ATLANTIC COUNCIL ABOUT THE AUTHORS David Barno is a Distinguished Practitioner-in-Residence at American University’s School of International Service and a Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security at the Atlantic Council. He served thirty years in the US Army, retiring as a Lieutenant General. From 2003 to 2005, he served as overall commander of US and coalition forces in Afghanistan. After leaving active duty, he served as the Director of the Near East South Asia Center for Strategic Studies at the National Defense University and later as a Senior Fellow and co- director of the Responsible Defense program at the Center for a New American Security. Nora Bensahel is a Distinguished Scholar-in-Residence at American University’s School of International Service and a Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security at the Atlantic Council. Before joining American University in 2015, Dr. Bensahel spent four years at the Center for a New American Security as the Deputy Director of Studies and a Senior Fellow, and later as co-director of the Responsible Defense program. Her earlier career included more than ten years at the RAND Corporation as a senior political scientist. She holds a Ph.D. from Stanford University, and has received teaching awards from both Stanford and Georgetown Universities. THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY ATLANTIC COUNCIL 45 THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY APPENDIX: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS The Army Today: 2016-2020 Adjust force structure to better meet operational requirements Increase Army Special Operations Forces Recreate heavy cavalry units Accelerate the development of Security Force Assistance Brigades Fully integrate the Army’s Active and Reserve Components Create hybrid BCTs Source predictable rotational missions from the Reserve Component rst Increase the Army’s focus on homeland defense Rebuild joint and combined arms war ghting capabilities Increase the number of armored BCTs in the Active Component Improve mobility, repower, and protection for infantry BCTs Rebuild tactical air defense Reconstitute CBRN protection Train to operate in a degraded C4I environment Transform Army headquarters and slash non- essential processes Abolish the Army Service Component Commands (ASCCs) in their current form Cull non-operational headquarters Eliminate the cultural divide between the institutional and operational Army Reduce unneeded work and transform sta processes Reconstitute capabilities for rapid expansion Practice standing up new units Reinvigorate the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) Build an Army Mobilization Plan The Army of Tomorrow: 2020-2025 Organize the total force by deployment timelines Designate a Rapid Response Force, an Operational Response Force, and a Strategic Response Force Strengthen Army strategic mobility and presence Reinvest in prepositioned overseas combat stocks Prepare to ght for overseas staging areas Improve strategic mobility exercises Press to station more forces overseas Master urban operations Designate units to specialize in urban operations Improve training for large-scale urban combat Prepare for the next big war Upgrade, access, and prepare to employ surplus weaponry Plan to control large areas and populations Rebuild resilience in the force Plan for unit regeneration Modernize technology investments Accelerate the development of air mobility with operational reach Build mobile-protected repower and a new infantry combat carrier Develop a mobile-protected umbrella Develop advanced protection systems Invest in counter-drone systems Set the stage for another round of BRAC 46 ATLANTIC COUNCIL THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY The Army of the Day After Tomorrow: 2025-2040+ Transform Army culture Accept more risk Reinstitute “power down” Decrease tolerance of bureaucracy Reduce excessive deference to rank and position Reject Army anti-intellectualism Strengthen ethics and integrity Redesign the structures of the operational and institutional Army Pursue modularity at the battalion level Build some independent companies Expand personnel reforms and de nitions of service Institutionalize permeability and lifelong service Shorten some active duty enlistments Create an Army Civilian Volunteer Auxiliary Corps Embrace advanced technologies and experimentation Enable greater experimentation in operational units Build training around virtual reality and its successors Integrate battle eld robotics and arti cial intelligence into the close ght Build new battle sta processes around arti cial intelligence Invest in advanced technologies for power and munitions ATLANTIC COUNCIL 47 CHAIRMAN *Jon M. Huntsman, Jr. CHAIRMAN EMERITUS, INTERNATIONAL ADVISORY BOARD Brent Scowcroft PRESIDENT AND CEO *Frederick Kempe EXECUTIVE VICE CHAIRS *Adrienne Arsht *Stephen J. Hadley VICE CHAIRS *Robert J. Abernethy *Richard Edelman *C. Boyden Gray *George Lund *Virginia A. Mulberger *W. DeVier Pierson *John Studzinski TREASURER *Brian C. McK. Henderson SECRETARY *Walter B. Slocombe DIRECTORS Stéphane Abrial Odeh Aburdene *Peter Ackerman Timothy D. Adams Bertrand-Marc Allen John R. Allen Michael Andersson Michael S. Ansari Richard L. Armitage David D. Aufhauser Elizabeth F. Bagley Peter Bass *Ra c A. Bizri Dennis C. Blair *Thomas L. Blair Philip M. Breedlove Myron Brilliant Esther Brimmer *R. Nicholas Burns William J. Burns *Richard R. Burt Michael Calvey James E. Cartwright John E. Chapoton Ahmed Charai Sandra Charles Melanie Chen George Chopivsky Wesley K. Clark David W. Craig *Ralph D. Crosby, Jr. Nelson W. Cunningham Ivo H. Daalder *Paula J. Dobriansky Christopher J. Dodd Conrado Dornier Thomas J. Egan, Jr. *Stuart E. Eizenstat Thomas R. Eldridge Julie Finley Lawrence P. Fisher, II *Alan H. Fleischmann *Ronald M. Freeman Laurie S. Fulton Courtney Geduldig *Robert S. Gelbard Thomas H. Glocer *Sherri W. Goodman Mikael Hagström Ian Hague Amir A. Handjani John D. Harris, II Frank Haun Michael V. Hayden Annette Heuser Ed Holland *Karl V. Hopkins Robert D. Hormats Miroslav Hornak *Mary L. Howell Wolfgang F. Ischinger Reuben Je ery, III *James L. Jones, Jr. George A. Joulwan Lawrence S. Kanarek Stephen R. Kappes Maria Pica Karp Sean Kevelighan *Zalmay M. Khalilzad Robert M. Kimmitt Henry A. Kissinger Franklin D. Kramer Philip Lader *Richard L. Lawson *Jan M. Lodal Jane Holl Lute William J. Lynn Izzat Majeed Wendy W. Makins Zaza Mamulaishvili Mian M. Mansha Gerardo Mato William E. Mayer T. Allan McArtor John M. McHugh Eric D.K. Melby Franklin C. Miller James N. Miller *Judith A. Miller *Alexander V. Mirtchev Susan Molinari Michael J. Morell Georgette Mosbacher Thomas R. Nides Franco Nuschese Joseph S. Nye Hilda Ochoa-Brillem- bourg Sean C. O’Keefe Ahmet M. Oren *Ana I. Palacio Carlos Pascual Alan Pellegrini David H. Petraeus Thomas R. Pickering Daniel B. Poneman Daniel M. Price Arnold L. Punaro Robert Rangel Thomas J. Ridge Charles O. Rossotti Robert O. Rowland Harry Sachinis John P. Schmitz Brent Scowcroft Rajiv Shah James G. Stavridis Richard J.A. Steele *Paula Stern Robert J. Stevens John S. Tanner *Ellen O. Tauscher Frances M. Townsend Karen Tramontano Clyde C. Tuggle Paul Twomey Melanne Verveer Enzo Viscusi Charles F. Wald Michael F. Walsh Mark R. Warner Maciej Witucki Neal S. Wolin Mary C. Yates Dov S. Zakheim HONORARY DIRECTORS David C. Acheson Madeleine K. Albright James A. Baker, III Harold Brown Frank C. Carlucci, III Robert M. Gates Michael G. Mullen Leon E. Panetta William J. Perry Colin L. Powell Condoleezza Rice Edward L. Rowny George P. Shultz John W. Warner William H. Webster *Executive Committee Members List as of September 13, 2016 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stuartnlevy at gmail.com Sun Oct 9 18:33:29 2016 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (Stuart Levy) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 13:33:29 -0500 Subject: [Peace] upcoming events: "Birth of a Nation" w/panel tonight; "Palestine 101" Thu; SEIU rally Fri; ... 10/28 Harold Koh Not Welcome! Message-ID: <7b7e73ae-fc58-a232-6fca-5fbbd14f8b3a@gmail.com> *Summary: 7pm Sun 10/9 - "Birth of a Nation" film & discussion at Art Theater * ** 6pm Thu 10/13 - "Palestine 101: An Introduction to the Conflict" ***** 4:30pm Fri 10/14 - SEIU Rally for a Fair Contract (in negotiations with U of Illinois)*** **** 1pm-9pm Sat 10/15 - Fundraiser - "CU Stands with Standing Rock" ********* 7pm Thu 10/20 - singer Roy Zimmerman - "This Machine" 11:30am Fri 10/28 - **********Harold Koh: Former Top Legal Advisor to Hillary Clinton & Legal Architect of U.S. Crimes against Humanity - Not Welcome! ****7pm Sun 10/9 *tonight* - "Birth of a Nation" *film at the Art Theater, with panel discussion to follow. (The film is showing at many other times too over the next couple of weeks, but this is the only panel.) Nate Parker's acclaimed film about Nat Turner's slave revolt addresses U.S. history and revolutionary violence, and raises several necessary specters of discussion - on & offscreen. More info: http://www.arttheater.coop/the-birth-of-a-nation/ Post-show panel: Malaika Mckee-Culpepper (Department of African American Studies, UIUC) Charisse Burden-Stelly (Department of African American Studies, UIUC) Robert King (Men Against Rape and Sexual Assault and the Breakfast Club) Lou Turner (Department of African American Studies, UIUC) Moderated by Sundiata Cha-Jua (Department of African-American Studies, UIUC) * 6pm Thu 10/13 - "Palestine 101: An Introduction to the Conflict"* Lincoln Hall room 1027, 702 S Wright St, Champaign Come learn more about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and hear from students activists organizing around the cause of Palestinian liberation! This event is open to all students at UIUC with any level of knowledge of the conflict. Speakers include: Dr. Kenneth Cuno (History): History of the Conflict Dr. Lila Sharif (AAS): Socio-cultural Effects of Apartheid and Settler-Colonialism Stephanie Skora (UIUC alumna and President of the UP Center of Champaign County): Pinkwashing and Jewish Solidarity with Palestine There will be a Q&A session and time for discussion after all three speakers. Hosted by Students for Justice in Palestine UIUC Co-Sponsors: Campus Union for Trans Equality an Support (CUTES), Native American and Indigenous Student Organization (NAISO), Black Students for Revolution (BSFR) *4:30pm Fri 10/14 - SEIU Rally for a Fair Contract (in negotiations with U of Illinois)* Oak & Kirby, Champaign Next picket: Friday October 14 at 4:30pm, corner of Oak and Kirby. Join us! The $5 billion-plus University still insists on offering no raises, only cuts! BSWs and FSWs, many of whom only make $17,000-30,000 a year, stand to lose thousands to health care increases alone, and management wants to raise parking fees, force employees to work more than 8 hours in a day without overtime, and more. This impacts our communities as workers and their families have less disposable income. Join our fight! *1pm-9pm Sat 10/15 - Fundraiser - "CU Stands with Standing Rock"* Alto Vineyards, 4210 N. Duncan Rd, Champaign https://www.facebook.com/events/161627100954548/ The two CU Stands with Standing Rock fundraising events will consist of a mix of local bands playing their music, interspersed with presentations from Native American speakers about the current situation with DAPL, Native American culture, heritage, and history. Donate (in person, or) at: https://www.gofundme.com/cuswsr (The second such fundraiser will be Nov 12th 1pm-10pm at the IMC. ) *7pm Thu 10/20 - singer Roy Zimmerman - "This Machine"* Allen Hall, 1005 W Gregory Dr, Urbana "This Machine" is ninety minutes of Roy Zimmerman's hilarious, rhyme-intensive original songs. The title is a reference to Woody Guthrie and Pete Seeger to be sure, but also an acknowledgement that songwriting does good work in the world. “Sometimes I think satire is the most hopeful and heartfelt form of expression,” says Roy, “because in calling out the world's absurdities and laughing in their face, I'm affirming the real possibility for change.” [I (Stuart) think he's like a modern-day Phil Ochs, but with better music. Come hear him if you can.] ***11:30am-1pm Fri 10/28 - protest former State Dept lawyer Harold Koh* U of I College of Law, 504 E Pennsylvania Ave, Champaign Harold Koh: Former Top Legal Advisor to Hillary Clinton & Legal Architect of U.S. Crimes against Humanity - Not Welcome! Protest Koh’s speech at the University of Illinois Law School! When: 11:30 am, Friday, Oct. 28 Where: North Courtyard, Law Building Complex, 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave, Champaign, IL 61820 We live in a time of state-sanctioned murder of Black, brown, and poor people within the U.S. and beyond. Since Obama’s election in 2008, extra-judicial killings have often been perpetrated and justified by former liberal critics of past President Bush’s open practices of torture, war, and occupation. Top lawyers have played a crucial role in this process. One of the most prominent has been Harold Koh, currently a professor of international law and former Yale Law School dean who served as Hillary Clinton’s top legal advisor while she was Secretary of State (2009 to 2013). In that capacity, Koh has planned, promoted, and justified heinous crimes that have cost thousands of lives and devastated whole regions and countries. Anyone with a conscience should protest his appearance as an honored guest at the University of Illinois Law School on October 28. Here are just a few examples of the many crimes for which he must be held to account: Koh helped to conceive, execute, and publicly defend President Obama’s drone assassination program. He participated, based on questionable CIA intelligence, in deciding who ought to live and who ought to die, all without charges, trial, an opportunity to defend themselves or to surrender. The victims include thousands of innocent people in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and other countries, and at least two U.S. citizens, Anwar al-Awlaki, and a few weeks later, his 16-year-old son, again without any due process. He testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that Obama’s devastating 2011 bombardment of Libya was not a “hostile action" since there was “limited exposure for US troops," so no Congressional approval was needed. His boss, Hillary Clinton, was an outspoken advocate of the savage NATO bombing. Obama sent Koh to testify after lawyers from the Justice and Defense Departments refused to take the Administration’s line, which was both illegal and immoral. Thousands died in that bombardment, the country’s infrastructure was destroyed, and an open field has been created for reactionary jihadists. Koh was part of the State Dept. team that claimed “it was not clear” whether the coup d’etat in Honduras (2009) was really a coup, so the sanctions that would be required against the coup regime were not applied. A cable from the US Embassy in Honduras to the State Dept. that was revealed by Wikileaks exposed his lies. Instead of sanctions, the U.S. worked with the coup government to drive the elected president out of the country and establish a regime more to US liking. Koh participated in the shocking failure of the US State Dept to investigate the Israeli commando murder (2010) on the Mavi Marmara of passengers attempting to bring humanitarian aid to Gaza, including Furkan Dogan, a US citizen. Instead, the US chose to rely on Israel’s investigation of its own murder, not unlike US police investigating their murders. The list could go on. We urge you to join World Can’t Wait Chicago, AWARE, Neighbors for Peace, Central Illinois Prairie Greens, World Labor Hour, and more (list in formation, contact chicago at worldcantwait.org to add your name) at 11:30 am on October 28, North Courtyard, Law Building Complex, 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave., Champaign, Il 61820 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Mon Oct 10 00:57:54 2016 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 19:57:54 -0500 Subject: [Peace] [OccupyCU] upcoming events: "Birth of a Nation" w/panel tonight... In-Reply-To: <7b7e73ae-fc58-a232-6fca-5fbbd14f8b3a@gmail.com> References: <7b7e73ae-fc58-a232-6fca-5fbbd14f8b3a@gmail.com> Message-ID: [A good note on Birth of a Nation from the editor of CounterPunch, Jeffrey St Clair] Styron’s Historic Libel I never took to William Styron’s writing. He aspired to be Virginia’s William Faulkner, but Styron never had the master’s heart or humor. Behind those ornate, fractured, Cubist sentences, Faulkner was a writer who was haunted the barbarities of his own nation’s history and he had a deep feeling for those on the losing end: the blacks, the poor, the dispossessed and, especially, the women, all straining under the cruel shadow of the debased Southern aristocracy. Check out Light in August, a searing testament to Faulkner’s extraordinary empathy. By contrast, William Styron seemed obsessed by the failures of his own mind, which can make for powerful fiction in the hands of Dostoevsky. But Styron was no Dostoevsky, either. Styron’s self-loathing is projected onto his characters, nowhere more morbidly than in his book The Confessions of Nat Turner. Styron’s portrait of the black revolutionary is depraved. His Turner is almost subhuman, a kind of black Caliban driven by animal instincts and wild emotions that overwhelm his intellect and sense of morality. This is white fantasy, since we know very little about the man himself, except for the brutal treatment he received from the Virginia slave masters. Styron’s own family were slaveowners and the most generous reading of the novel is as a kind of psychological exercise to purge those ancestral demons, at the expense of one of the most heroic black figures in American history. My familial roots grow deep into the Virginia piedmont country and I went to school in DC, where I got to know many Virginia writers–novelists, essayists and poets. Few had any respect for Styron; some were embarrassed for him. Styron later blamed the hostile reaction toConfessions from black writers and intellectuals, such as Cecil Brown, for the onset of his crippling episodes of writer’s block, which seems like one more case of blaming the victims. Once Styron was considered one of the three Great White Male Hopes for the American novel, along with Gore Vidal and Norman Mailer. Now Styron is regarded, if at all, for Darkness Visible, his rather austere chronicle of his battles with depression. Perhaps there’s a measure of cold justice in that fate. Alexander Cockburn used to bump into the Styrons, Bill and Rose, when he lived on Cape Cod. He adored Rose and spoke glowingly to me of their dinner conversations. Alex claimed that Bill was usually plastered by 4 pm, babbling incoherencies deep into the evening. Nat Turner’s life and fiery uprising against the slaveowners has been redeemed from Styron’s libels by Nathan Parker’s powerful new film,Birth of a Nation. Don’t let the manufactured outrage about what Parker may or may not have done as a teenager deter you from seeing this liberating film. Watch the movie and judge it on its own merits. I bet that, like me, you’ll leave the theater uplifted with a joyous anger, rather than depressed, which is exactly the way revolutionary art should make you feel. > On Oct 9, 2016, at 1:33 PM, Stuart Levy via OccupyCU wrote: > > 7pm Sun 10/9 *tonight* - "Birth of a Nation" film at the Art Theater, > with panel discussion to follow. (The film is showing at many other times too over the next couple of weeks, but this is the only panel.) > Nate Parker's acclaimed film about Nat Turner's slave revolt addresses U.S. history and revolutionary violence, and raises several necessary specters of discussion - on & offscreen. > > More info: http://www.arttheater.coop/the-birth-of-a-nation/ > > Post-show panel: > Malaika Mckee-Culpepper (Department of African American Studies, UIUC) > Charisse Burden-Stelly (Department of African American Studies, UIUC) > Robert King (Men Against Rape and Sexual Assault and the Breakfast Club) > Lou Turner (Department of African American Studies, UIUC) > Moderated by Sundiata Cha-Jua (Department of African-American Studies, UIUC) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rstorm2 at illinois.edu Mon Oct 10 19:38:17 2016 From: rstorm2 at illinois.edu (Storm, Rachel Lauren) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 19:38:17 +0000 Subject: [Peace] [OccupyCU] upcoming events: "Birth of a Nation" w/panel tonight... In-Reply-To: References: <7b7e73ae-fc58-a232-6fca-5fbbd14f8b3a@gmail.com> Message-ID: <38B5C324C9B0F94C848CD8F0F13FAC0D392458ED@CITESMBX5.ad.uillinois.edu> “Don’t let the manufactured outrage about what Parker may or may not have done as a teenager deter you from seeing this liberating film.” I’m disappointed by this endorsement of a message/an op-ed that dismisses concerns about violence against women as “manufactured outrage” on a listserv allegedly concerned with anti-violence and peace-building. I think we need deeper conversations about gender and race-based violence and a recognition that we can’t separate war and structural violence from interpersonal violence. See the film, sure—but rather than dismiss outrage as “manufactured” and sexual assault allegations as dismissible because of a lapse in time or worse yet, because Parker was a “teenager,” understand that sexual assault survivors are frequently disbelieved, blamed for their own victimization, and failed by the criminal justice system. Parker’s victim, clearly suffering from trauma both from the assault and the aftermath, took her own life after no one was held accountable for the harm she experienced. As people committed to anti-war, anti-violence, and social justice— we must be able to hold our own accountable. From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C. G. Estabrook via Peace Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2016 7:58 PM To: Stuart Levy Cc: Peace Discuss; occupycu; Peace Subject: Re: [Peace] [OccupyCU] upcoming events: "Birth of a Nation" w/panel tonight... [A good note on Birth of a Nation from the editor of CounterPunch, Jeffrey St Clair] Styron’s Historic Libel I never took to William Styron’s writing. He aspired to be Virginia’s William Faulkner, but Styron never had the master’s heart or humor. Behind those ornate, fractured, Cubist sentences, Faulkner was a writer who was haunted the barbarities of his own nation’s history and he had a deep feeling for those on the losing end: the blacks, the poor, the dispossessed and, especially, the women, all straining under the cruel shadow of the debased Southern aristocracy. Check out Light in August, a searing testament to Faulkner’s extraordinary empathy. By contrast, William Styron seemed obsessed by the failures of his own mind, which can make for powerful fiction in the hands of Dostoevsky. But Styron was no Dostoevsky, either. Styron’s self-loathing is projected onto his characters, nowhere more morbidly than in his book The Confessions of Nat Turner. Styron’s portrait of the black revolutionary is depraved. His Turner is almost subhuman, a kind of black Caliban driven by animal instincts and wild emotions that overwhelm his intellect and sense of morality. This is white fantasy, since we know very little about the man himself, except for the brutal treatment he received from the Virginia slave masters. Styron’s own family were slaveowners and the most generous reading of the novel is as a kind of psychological exercise to purge those ancestral demons, at the expense of one of the most heroic black figures in American history. My familial roots grow deep into the Virginia piedmont country and I went to school in DC, where I got to know many Virginia writers–novelists, essayists and poets. Few had any respect for Styron; some were embarrassed for him. Styron later blamed the hostile reaction toConfessions from black writers and intellectuals, such as Cecil Brown, for the onset of his crippling episodes of writer’s block, which seems like one more case of blaming the victims. Once Styron was considered one of the three Great White Male Hopes for the American novel, along with Gore Vidal and Norman Mailer. Now Styron is regarded, if at all, for Darkness Visible, his rather austere chronicle of his battles with depression. Perhaps there’s a measure of cold justice in that fate. Alexander Cockburn used to bump into the Styrons, Bill and Rose, when he lived on Cape Cod. He adored Rose and spoke glowingly to me of their dinner conversations. Alex claimed that Bill was usually plastered by 4 pm, babbling incoherencies deep into the evening. Nat Turner’s life and fiery uprising against the slaveowners has been redeemed from Styron’s libels by Nathan Parker’s powerful new film,Birth of a Nation. Don’t let the manufactured outrage about what Parker may or may not have done as a teenager deter you from seeing this liberating film. Watch the movie and judge it on its own merits. I bet that, like me, you’ll leave the theater uplifted with a joyous anger, rather than depressed, which is exactly the way revolutionary art should make you feel. On Oct 9, 2016, at 1:33 PM, Stuart Levy via OccupyCU > wrote: 7pm Sun 10/9 *tonight* - "Birth of a Nation" film at the Art Theater, with panel discussion to follow. (The film is showing at many other times too over the next couple of weeks, but this is the only panel.) Nate Parker's acclaimed film about Nat Turner's slave revolt addresses U.S. history and revolutionary violence, and raises several necessary specters of discussion - on & offscreen. More info: http://www.arttheater.coop/the-birth-of-a-nation/ Post-show panel: Malaika Mckee-Culpepper (Department of African American Studies, UIUC) Charisse Burden-Stelly (Department of African American Studies, UIUC) Robert King (Men Against Rape and Sexual Assault and the Breakfast Club) Lou Turner (Department of African American Studies, UIUC) Moderated by Sundiata Cha-Jua (Department of African-American Studies, UIUC) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From renny.carney at gmail.com Mon Oct 10 19:44:11 2016 From: renny.carney at gmail.com (Irenka Carney) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 14:44:11 -0500 Subject: [Peace] [OccupyCU] upcoming events: "Birth of a Nation" w/panel tonight... In-Reply-To: <38B5C324C9B0F94C848CD8F0F13FAC0D392458ED@CITESMBX5.ad.uillinois.edu> References: <7b7e73ae-fc58-a232-6fca-5fbbd14f8b3a@gmail.com> <38B5C324C9B0F94C848CD8F0F13FAC0D392458ED@CITESMBX5.ad.uillinois.edu> Message-ID: I couldn't agree more, and that is spectacularly well put, Rachel! On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 2:38 PM, Storm, Rachel Lauren via Peace < peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > *“Don’t let the manufactured outrage about what Parker may or may not have > done as a teenager deter you from seeing this liberating film.”* > > > > I’m disappointed by this endorsement of a message/an op-ed that dismisses > concerns about violence against women as “manufactured outrage” on a > listserv allegedly concerned with anti-violence and peace-building. I think > we need deeper conversations about gender and race-based violence and a > recognition that we can’t separate war and structural violence from > interpersonal violence. > > > > See the film, sure—but rather than dismiss outrage as “manufactured” and > sexual assault allegations as dismissible because of a lapse in time or > worse yet, because Parker was a “teenager,” understand that sexual assault > survivors are frequently disbelieved, blamed for their own victimization, > and failed by the criminal justice system. Parker’s victim, clearly > suffering from trauma both from the assault and the aftermath, took her own > life after no one was held accountable for the harm she experienced. As > people committed to anti-war, anti-violence, and social justice— we must be > able to hold our own accountable. > > > > > > > > *From:* Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] *On Behalf Of *C. > G. Estabrook via Peace > *Sent:* Sunday, October 09, 2016 7:58 PM > *To:* Stuart Levy > *Cc:* Peace Discuss; occupycu; Peace > *Subject:* Re: [Peace] [OccupyCU] upcoming events: "Birth of a Nation" > w/panel tonight... > > > > [A good note on Birth of a Nation from the editor of CounterPunch, Jeffrey > St Clair] > > > > Styron’s Historic Libel > > I never took to William Styron’s writing. He aspired to be > Virginia’s William Faulkner, but Styron never had the master’s heart or > humor. Behind those ornate, fractured, Cubist sentences, Faulkner was > a writer who was haunted the barbarities of his own nation’s history and he > had a deep feeling for those on the losing end: the blacks, the poor, the > dispossessed and, especially, the women, all straining under the cruel > shadow of the debased Southern aristocracy. Check out Light in August, a > searing testament to Faulkner’s extraordinary empathy. > > By contrast, William Styron seemed obsessed by the failures of his own > mind, which can make for powerful fiction in the hands of Dostoevsky. But > Styron was no Dostoevsky, either. Styron’s self-loathing is projected onto > his characters, nowhere more morbidly than in his book The Confessions of > Nat Turner. Styron’s portrait of the black revolutionary is depraved. His > Turner is almost subhuman, a kind of black Caliban driven by animal > instincts and wild emotions that overwhelm his intellect and sense of > morality. This is white fantasy, since we know very little about the man > himself, except for the brutal treatment he received from the Virginia > slave masters. Styron’s own family were slaveowners and the most generous > reading of the novel is as a kind of psychological exercise to purge > those ancestral demons, at the expense of one of the most heroic > black figures in American history. > > My familial roots grow deep into the Virginia piedmont country and I went > to school in DC, where I got to know many Virginia writers–novelists, > essayists and poets. Few had any respect for Styron; some were embarrassed > for him. Styron later blamed the hostile reaction toConfessions from black > writers and intellectuals, such as Cecil Brown, for the onset of his > crippling episodes of writer’s block, which seems like one more case of > blaming the victims. Once Styron was considered one of the three Great > White Male Hopes for the American novel, along with Gore Vidal and Norman > Mailer. Now Styron is regarded, if at all, for Darkness Visible, his rather > austere chronicle of his battles with depression. Perhaps there’s a measure > of cold justice in that fate. > > Alexander Cockburn used to bump into the Styrons, Bill and Rose, when he > lived on Cape Cod. He adored Rose and spoke glowingly to me of their dinner > conversations. Alex claimed that Bill was usually plastered by 4 pm, > babbling incoherencies deep into the evening. > > Nat Turner’s life and fiery uprising against the slaveowners has > been redeemed from Styron’s libels by Nathan Parker’s powerful > new film,Birth of a Nation. Don’t let the manufactured outrage about > what Parker may or may not have done as a teenager deter you from > seeing this liberating film. Watch the movie and judge it on its own > merits. I bet that, like me, you’ll leave the theater uplifted with a > joyous anger, rather than depressed, which is exactly the way revolutionary > art should make you feel. > > > > > > On Oct 9, 2016, at 1:33 PM, Stuart Levy via OccupyCU < > occupycu at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > * 7pm Sun 10/9 *tonight* - "Birth of a Nation" *film at the Art Theater, > with panel discussion to follow. (The film is showing at many other > times too over the next couple of weeks, but this is the only panel.) > > Nate Parker's acclaimed film about Nat Turner's slave revolt addresses > U.S. history and revolutionary violence, and raises several necessary > specters of discussion - on & offscreen. > > More info: http://www.arttheater.coop/the-birth-of-a-nation/ > > > Post-show panel: > Malaika Mckee-Culpepper (Department of African American Studies, UIUC) > Charisse Burden-Stelly (Department of African American Studies, UIUC) > Robert King (Men Against Rape and Sexual Assault and the Breakfast Club) > Lou Turner (Department of African American Studies, UIUC) > Moderated by Sundiata Cha-Jua (Department of African-American Studies, > UIUC) > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > > -- *ɪ'rɛn.**kə* *ɪ*: like in *i*t *rɛn* : like a *wren* *kə*: like in *cu*t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Oct 10 21:08:23 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 21:08:23 +0000 Subject: [Peace] And we just keep on killing....... Message-ID: Thousands protest Saudi bombing that killed and wounded over 700 in Yemen By Bill Van Auken 10 October 2016 Tens of thousands of Yemenis, many of them armed, took to the streets of Sanaa, the country’s war torn capital, Sunday to protest the savage bombing of a packed funeral hall the day before by Saudi warplanes. The airstrike left over 700 civilians dead or wounded, representing the worst in a long series of war crimes carried out with the backing of the US, Britain and France. The demonstrators converged on the United Nations building in Sanaa in an angry denunciation of the world powers for either their direct complicity in the slaughter of the Yemeni people, or their marked indifference to their deepening plight over the course of more than a year and a half of Saudi-led bombardments. Waving rifles and janbiyas, the daggers worn by virtually all Yemeni men, the protesters chanted “America is the Great Satan,” and called for the deaths of Saudi Arabia’s ruling royal family. Fragments of the bombs dropped on the funeral home bore markings identifying them as US-supplied munitions, part of Washington’s multi-billion-dollar arms sales to the Saudi monarchy. Reports from the scene exposed the horrific character of the attack. The Associated Press quoted a rescue worker as describing the shattered remnants of the funeral hall as a “lake of blood.” Body parts, strewn into the streets and even neighboring homes, were collected in sacks. According to local health officials, the death toll in the airstrike has risen to at least 155, with another 525 wounded. Many of the wounded suffered grievous injuries, some with limbs torn off. The number of fatalities was certain to mount with the pulling of more bodies from the rubble and the deaths of those whom Yemen’s vastly over-stressed and under-supplied hospitals prove unable to save. The country’s Health Ministry also reported that efforts were still being made to identify “charred remains.” Video released Sunday of the bombing raid made clear that it was the kind of “double tap” strike that the Saudis have employed repeatedly against civilian targets. After first bombing a target, the warplanes wait a short period to allow other civilians and emergency service personnel to arrive on the scene and then attack it again to wipe out both survivors and those seeking to rescue them. The same vicious tactic has been employed by the US military in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. Saudi government spokesmen initially denied that the attack on the funeral hall was the work of the Saudi-led coalition, which alone has warplanes flying over Yemen. It suggested that the explosions might have had other causes and even intimated that it could have been the result of a falling out between the Houthi rebels who took control of Sanaa in 2014 and military forces loyal to ex-president Ali Abdullah Saleh, with whom they are allied. Saleh was forced out of office by the revolutionary upheavals that rocked Yemen in 2011, to be replaced by his vice president Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi, who was brought to power in a one-candidate election in 2012, which was boycotted by the Houthis. He in turn was forced to resign and then fled the country after the Houthis seized the capital. He has since resided in Saudi Arabia, functioning as a puppet of the House of Saud. Later, Saudi officials issued a statement offering “deepest condolences and support to the families of the victims,” claiming that Saudi forces do not target civilians and stating that the incident would be investigated. There is every reason to believe that the attack was premeditated and carried out with the aim of decapitating the Houthi-led authority in Sanaa. The hall that was hit was hosting a funeral for Sheikh Ali al-Rawishan, the father of Galal al-Rawishan, the interior minister in the rebel-led government. Among those reported killed was the mayor of Sanaa, Abdel Qader Hilal, and Maj. Gen. Abdel-Qader Hilal, the head of the capital’s local council. Al-Rawishan, the interior minister, was reported to have been seriously wounded. Such “targeted assassinations” have been a hallmark of US operations in Yemen. While Saturday’s bombing was the worst atrocity carried out by the Saudis in Yemen, it is by no means unique. Last March, an airstrike on a market in Yemen’s northwestern city of Mastaba killed at least 119 people. The deadliest previous attack was September 2015, when Saudi warplanes attacked a wedding party near the Red Sea port city of Mokha, killing 131 civilians. In July 2015, the bombing of a power plant, also in Mokha, killed at least 120 people. According to the United Nations the number killed since the Saudis launched the war in 2015 has risen to 10,000. Airstrikes by the Saudis and their allies are estimated to have caused two-thirds of the civilian fatalities. Hospitals have been routinely targeted, with Doctors Without Borders (MSF) being forced to abandon the country after four of its facilities were hit. The aid agency stressed that it had given the Saudi military the GPS coordinates of its hospitals. Schools, mosques, refugee camps and residential neighborhoods have also been systematically targeted. The war pits the Saudi monarchy and allied Gulf oil sheikdoms against the poorest country of the Arab world, which has seen its basic infrastructure reduced to rubble, while its population suffers from mass hunger and disease. An estimated three million people have been displaced by the war, while fully half of the population of 14 million is suffering from hunger. Cholera has begun to claim victims under conditions in which hospitals have been starved of basic supplies by a Saudi blockade enforced under the pretext of halting arms shipments into the country. Washington’s reaction to Saturday’s war crime in Sanaa came from National Security Council spokesman Ned Price, who warned that US aid in the Saudi war in Yemen “is not a blank check.” It certainly is not; the figures on the check are well known. Since 2009, the Obama administration has showered $115 billion worth of arms deals and military support upon the Saudi regime. Last year alone saw $20 billion worth of weaponry sent to the country. Washington has continuously resupplied the Saudi military with bombs and missiles to replace those dropped on Yemen. “Even as we assist Saudi Arabia regarding the defense of their territorial integrity, we have and will continue to express our serious concerns about the conflict in Yemen and how it is being waged,” the US spokesman added. This hypocritical statement is meant to cover up the direct US complicity in the criminal war against the Yemeni people. Without US intelligence and logistical support, not to mention arms sales, Saudi Arabia would be incapable of sustaining its bombing campaign. The Pentagon has fed its forces targeting information, deploying US personnel to a joint command center directing the air war. US military planes have provided aerial refueling for Saudi jets, while the US Navy has helped enforce a blockade that is aimed at starving the population into submission. Britain has supplied similar support, while also seeking to secure a sizable share of the Saudi arms market. The muted comments from a junior White House aide over the atrocity in Sanaa stood in stark contrast to the inflammatory rhetoric of US Secretary of State John Kerry late last week describing Russian airstrikes against US-backed and Al Qaeda-linked militias in Syria as “war crimes” meriting an international investigation. Needless to say, Washington would employ all of its power to block any such investigation into the deliberate massacre of civilians in Yemen. Equally noticeable is the scant attention paid by the US corporate media to the atrocities carried out in Yemen and the vast suffering that has been inflicted upon its people. Feigned moral outrage and humanitarian sympathy is forthcoming from these outlets only when it serves the war propaganda needs of US imperialism. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Oct 10 21:14:15 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 21:14:15 +0000 Subject: [Peace] What the two party system is not talking about........ Message-ID: * Print * Leaflet * Feedback * Share » Russia warns US strikes against Syria may lead to war By Alex Lantier 10 October 2016 In a sign that the Syrian conflict risks escalating into war between the world’s major nuclear-armed powers, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned yesterday against NATO air and missile strikes on its forces and allies in Syria, stating that Russia would respond militarily. Lavrov referred to media reports that the United States plans to bomb Syrian or Russian forces inside Syria. “This is a very dangerous game,” he said, “given that Russia, being in Syria at the invitation of the legitimate government of this country and having two bases there, has air defense systems there to protect its assets.” Moscow also sent nuclear-capable Iskander-M missiles to the Russian Baltic city of Kaliningrad late Friday. From Kaliningrad, the missiles can strike targets, including NATO bases, across Poland and the Baltic republics. Russian Defense Ministry officials said the missiles were loaded onto a freighter in the Baltic Sea “right under a US reconnaissance satellite” to monitor its response and make clear to the US military that the missiles were en route to Kaliningrad. Leaks to US papers including the Washington Post last week revealed that US officials are discussing launching an attack on Syrian government forces behind the backs of the American people. While a handful of press reports have emerged on the leaks themselves, a deafening silence prevails in American and European media on the danger and the consequences of such an escalation. On Wednesday, the Post ’s Josh Rogin wrote, “[O]fficials from the State Department, the CIA and the Joint Chiefs of Staff discussed limited military strikes against the [Syrian] regime ... Options under consideration, which remain classified, include bombing Syrian air force runways using cruise missiles and other long-range weapons fired from coalition planes and ships, an administration official who is part of the discussions told me. One proposed way to get around the White House’s long-standing objection to striking the Assad regime without a UN Security Council resolution would be to carry out the strikes covertly and without public acknowledgment, the official said.” In a 2013 speech to Wall Street bankers leaked by WikiLeaks, Hillary Clinton said imposing such a “no-fly zone” would entail mass civilian casualties: “To have a no-fly zone you have to take out all of the air defenses, many of which are located in populated areas. So our missiles, even if they are standoff missiles so we’re not putting our pilots at risk—you’re going to kill a lot of Syrians.” After last month’s US bombing in Deir ez-Zor killed at least 62 Syrian soldiers and wounded 100, it must be assumed that US raids would aim to cause massive Syrian military casualties as well. Even before Lavrov made his remarks, Russian military officials responded to leaks like the Post report by warning US officials that they risked provoking a major war. Russian Defense Ministry spokesman General Igor Konashenkov said his forces would presume US strikes were hostile, and locate and destroy US fighters, including stealth aircraft, over Syria. “Any missile or air strikes on the territory controlled by the Syrian government will create a clear threat to Russian servicemen,” Konashenkov said. “Russian air defense system crews are unlikely to have time to determine in a ‘straight line’ the exact flight paths of missiles and then who the warheads belong to. And all the illusions of amateurs about the existence of ‘invisible’ jets will face a disappointing reality.” Addressing “leaks” such as the Post report, he added, “Of particular concern is information that the initiators of such provocations are representatives of the CIA and the Pentagon, who … today are lobbying for ‘kinetic’ scenarios in Syria.” Konashenkov warned Washington that it should make a “thorough calculation of the possible consequences of such plans.” This remark is chilling. While Konashenkov did not say it, the significance of Moscow’s remarks is clear: implementing US plans signifies a military clash with Russia, and the possible consequences of such a clash include escalation into a full-blown nuclear war that would kill billions of people. The diplomatic arrangements that for a time stabilized relations between NATO and Russia in the period after the Stalinist bureaucracy dissolved the USSR in 1991 have collapsed. As Moscow apparently concludes that it has no other option but to prepare for war if Washington and its NATO allies decide to launch it, working people around the world are emerging as the sole social constituency for opposition to a catastrophic war. The driving force in the war crisis is the aggressive policy of the NATO imperialist powers, led by the US. Russia’s emergence as an obstacle to unrestrained US-NATO wars in the Middle East, opposing a planned NATO war in Syria in 2013, is totally unacceptable to Washington. Now, as NATO’s Al Qaeda-linked Islamist proxies in Syria face defeat around Aleppo, factions of the American state are openly calling for launching a war to save them. Last month, US General Joseph Dunford indicated his support for imposing a “no-fly zone” over Syria to the US Senate, adding that this “would require us to go to war with Syria and Russia.” Last week, US Army Chief of Staff General Mark Milley mentioned Russia and China as enemies, and directly addressed them, declaring, “I want to be clear to those who wish to do us harm … the United States military—despite all of our challenges, despite our [operational] tempo, despite everything we have been doing—we will stop you and we will beat you harder than you have ever been beaten before. Make no mistake about that.” While the NATO powers bear central responsibility for the crisis in Syria, the response of Russia’s post-Soviet capitalist oligarchy is also reckless and reactionary. Incapable of and hostile to appealing to international opposition to war in the working class, it aimed to use its military strength to deter US-NATO escalation in Syria and to negotiate a deal with the imperialist powers. This policy has utterly failed. Instead, the Kremlin’s oscillations between begging Washington for a deal and escalating military action inside Syria have drawn it into a deepening confrontation with NATO that now threatens to unleash a major military conflict. Russia’s missile deployment to Kaliningrad is a signal to Washington and its European allies that Moscow not only believes that war is a very real possibility, but anticipates that such a war would rapidly spread from Syria to Europe. NATO has deployed tens of thousands of troops near Russia’s borders in Eastern Europe since backing a fascist-led putsch that toppled a pro-Russian regime in Ukraine in 2014. Lavrov said this posed an intolerable threat to Russian national security. “We have witnessed a fundamental change of circumstances [in] the aggressive Russophobia that now lies at the heart of US policy toward Russia,” he said. “It’s not rhetorical Russophobia, but aggressive steps which really concern our national interests and endanger our security. NATO enlargement, [deployments of] NATO military infrastructure next to our borders … and the deployment of a missile defense system—these are all a display of unfriendly, hostile actions.” Moscow was outraged in particular by US State Department spokesman John Kirby’s threat that if Russia did not obey US orders to retreat from Syria, Islamist groups could “expand their operations, which could include attacks against Russian interests, perhaps even Russian cities. Russia will continue to send troops home in body bags and will continue to lose resources, perhaps even aircraft.” In this context, Kirby’s subsequent observation that Washington can influence “some” opposition militias in Syria had the character of a threat. As CIA weapons reach armories of the Al Qaeda-linked Al Nusra front in Aleppo, it is clear that if Moscow simply let the Syrian regime fall to the Islamist opposition, Russia could soon find itself targeted for the type of Islamist operations NATO is currently aiming at Syria. This has apparently persuaded Moscow, at least for now, to risk an all-out confrontation with the US in a desperate attempt to deter NATO military action against Syria and Russia. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kcapel at sbcglobal.net Mon Oct 10 21:56:31 2016 From: kcapel at sbcglobal.net (Karen Capel) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 16:56:31 -0500 Subject: [Peace] Fwd: [Peace-discuss] And we just keep on killing....... & Russia warns US strikes against Syria In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3b309258-2ace-7fa2-0b3e-6ca22fdeca1e@sbcglobal.net> Pardon my probable crankiness, but are there sources for these articles? A URL? Anything about where they come from? Or are we, lazy readers that we are, supposed to google titles and authors and find the sources ourselves? I'd like to know sources before I expend precious time reading. Karen Capel -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [Peace-discuss] And we just keep on killing....... & Russia warns US strikes against Syria Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 21:08:23 +0000 From: Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Reply-To: Karen Aram To: peace , Peace Discuss *Thousands protest Saudi bombing that killed and wounded over 700 in Yemen* By Bill Van Auken 10 October 2016 Tens of thousands of Yemenis, many of them armed, took to the streets of Sanaa, the country’s war torn capital, Sunday to protest the savage bombing of a packed funeral hall the day before by Saudi warplanes.... ............. *Russia warns US strikes against Syria may lead to war* By Alex Lantier 10 October 2016 In a sign that the Syrian conflict risks escalating into war between the world’s major nuclear-armed powers, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned yesterday against NATO air and missile strikes on its forces and allies in Syria, stating that Russia would respond militarily.... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Oct 10 22:01:13 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 22:01:13 +0000 Subject: [Peace] From the Intercept Message-ID: [https://prod01-cdn04.cdn.firstlook.org/wp-uploads/sites/1/2016/01/GettyImages-456024380-article-header.jpg] f t ✉ ⎕ 629 Photo: Stephen Chernin/AFP/Getty Images Excerpts of Hillary Clinton’s Paid Speeches to Goldman Sachs Finally Leaked [https://prod01-cdn07.cdn.firstlook.org/wp-uploads/sites/1/2015/02/lee-staff-page-350x350.jpg]Lee Fang[https://prod01-cdn05.cdn.firstlook.org/wp-uploads/sites/1/2015/12/ZJ-1.jpg]Zaid Jilani[https://prod01-cdn04.cdn.firstlook.org/wp-uploads/sites/1/2016/01/alex-emmons-v3.jpg]Alex Emmons[https://prod01-cdn07.cdn.firstlook.org/wp-uploads/sites/1/2016/05/Naomi-LaChance-440x440.jpg]Naomi LaChance Oct. 7 2016, 3:31 p.m. EXCERPTS OF HILLARY Clinton’s remarks during paid speeches to Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley, and other groups wereleaked online Friday afternoon by WikiLeaks. Clinton, who was paid upwards of $225,000 per speech, earned more than $22 million on the paid speaking circuit after resigning as secretary of state. The excerpts are revealed in an email from Tony Carrk, the research director of the Clinton campaign, to John Podesta, the campaign chairman, and other top campaign officials. Carrk, who did not respond to a request for comment, highlighted in the memo the most politically damaging quotes from each paid speech, under headers including “CLINTON ADMITS SHE IS OUT OF TOUCH,” “CLINTON SAYS YOU NEED TO HAVE A PRIVATE AND PUBLIC POSITION ON POLICY,” and “CLINTON REMARKS ARE PRO KEYSTONE AND PRO TRADE.” The wealth Clinton accumulated was a topic at the paid events. Discussing middle class economic anxieties, Clinton told a crowd at a Goldman Sachs-sponsored speech that she is now “kind of far removed because the life I’ve lived and the economic, you know, fortunes that my husband and I now enjoy, but I haven’t forgotten it.” But the discussions were also an opportunity for Clinton to speak candidly about policy, politics, and her approach to governing. Touching on her view of developing financial regulations, Clinton declared to a crowd of Goldman Sachs bankers that in order to “figure out what works,” the “people that know the industry better than anybody are the people who work in the industry.” At the Goldman Sachs Builders and Innovators Summit, Clinton responded to a question from chief executive Lloyd Blankfein, who quipped that you “go to Washington” to “make a small fortune.” Clinton agreed with the comment and complained about ethics rules that require officials to divest from certain assets before entering government. “There is such a bias against people who have led successful and/or complicated lives,” Clinton said. At a speech for Morgan Stanley on April 18, 2013, Clinton praised the Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction plan — which would reduce corporate tax rates while raising the Social Security age. “But Simpson-Bowles — and I know you heard from Erskine earlier today — put forth the right framework. Namely, we have to restrain spending, we have to have adequate revenues, and we have to incentivize growth. It’s a three-part formula,” she said. Clinton also told a housing trade group in 2013 that on certain issues, she has “a public and a private position.” “If everybody’s watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least,” said Clinton. “So, you need both a public and a private position.” The Intercept was the first media outlet to ask Clinton directly if she would release the transcripts of her paid speeches to Goldman Sachs. When approached at an event in Manchester, New Hampshire, Clinton laughed off the question. The issue was raised again during the Democratic primary debates and in other media events. In February of this year, the New York Times editorial board called for Clinton to release her speech transcripts, declaring that voters “have every right to know what Mrs. Clinton told these groups.” According to reports, the campaign reviewed the speech transcripts but decided against releasing them out of fear that she would appear too friendly to banks and other donor interest groups. But there are signs in the emails released by WikiLeaks that she also took a fairly progressive stance on certain topics, including health care reform. During a talk in Grand Rapids, Michigan, in 2013, Clinton praised the single-payer model for health care reform. “If you look at the single-payer systems, like Scandinavia, Canada, and elsewhere, they can get costs down because, you know, although their care, according to statistics, overall is as good or better on primary care,” she said, adding that there were some drawbacks. “They do impose things like waiting times, you know.” But during the campaign this year, she dismissed the idea, declaring that single payer will “never, ever” happen in the U.S. Audio obtained by The Intercept last week showed Clinton dismissing the concept of free health care during another private event with donors. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 10 22:04:46 2016 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 22:04:46 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace] [OccupyCU] upcoming events: "Birth of a Nation" w/panel tonight... In-Reply-To: <38B5C324C9B0F94C848CD8F0F13FAC0D392458ED@CITESMBX5.ad.uillinois.edu> References: <7b7e73ae-fc58-a232-6fca-5fbbd14f8b3a@gmail.com> <38B5C324C9B0F94C848CD8F0F13FAC0D392458ED@CITESMBX5.ad.uillinois.edu> Message-ID: <179172340.1533316.1476137087028@mail.yahoo.com> I agree, Rachel, but I would add a couple of concerns. First, as the events of the past few days have shown, there is a double standard among many of those who call themselves liberals--or to put it more directly, Clinton supporters--regarding sexual violence and objectification of women. Jeffrey St. Clair pointed that out today in his review of the "debate."Second, those who are accused of sexual assault are not always guilty. I discussed this as dispassionately as I could on Counterpunch earlier this year: http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/24/rape-culture-the-hunting-ground-and-amy-goodman-a-critical-perspective/.  I received several e-mails from parents who feel that their children have been wrongly accused, and are simply advocating for impartial and evidentiary legal proceedings, especially relating to the campus environment.I would add that in some cases, it's pretty shocking that our nation's history regarding accusations of white women against black men is not taken into account among those who advocate against rape culture; although I have no idea whether this is relevant to the Parker case.DG On Monday, October 10, 2016 2:39 PM, "Storm, Rachel Lauren via Peace" wrote: #yiv7636552506 #yiv7636552506 -- _filtered #yiv7636552506 {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}#yiv7636552506 #yiv7636552506 p.yiv7636552506MsoNormal, #yiv7636552506 li.yiv7636552506MsoNormal, #yiv7636552506 div.yiv7636552506MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv7636552506 a:link, #yiv7636552506 span.yiv7636552506MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv7636552506 a:visited, #yiv7636552506 span.yiv7636552506MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv7636552506 span.yiv76365525064n-j {}#yiv7636552506 span.yiv7636552506wordbreak {}#yiv7636552506 span.yiv7636552506EmailStyle19 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv7636552506 .yiv7636552506MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv7636552506 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv7636552506 div.yiv7636552506WordSection1 {}#yiv7636552506 “Don’t let the manufactured outrage about what Parker may or may not have done as a teenager deter you from seeing this liberating film.”   I’m disappointed by this endorsement of a message/an op-ed that dismisses concerns about violence against women as “manufactured outrage” on a listserv allegedly concerned with anti-violence and peace-building. I think we need deeper conversations about gender and race-based violence and a recognition that we can’t separate war and structural violence from interpersonal violence.   See the film, sure—but rather than dismiss outrage as “manufactured” and sexual assault allegations as dismissible because of a lapse in time or worse yet, because Parker was a “teenager,” understand that sexual assault survivors are frequently disbelieved, blamed for their own victimization, and failed by the criminal justice system. Parker’s victim, clearly suffering from trauma both from the assault and the aftermath, took her own life after no one was held accountable for the harm she experienced. As people committed to anti-war, anti-violence, and social justice— we must be able to hold our own accountable.       From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net]On Behalf Of C. G. Estabrook via Peace Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2016 7:58 PM To: Stuart Levy Cc: Peace Discuss; occupycu; Peace Subject: Re: [Peace] [OccupyCU] upcoming events: "Birth of a Nation" w/panel tonight...   [A good note on Birth of a Nation from the editor of CounterPunch, Jeffrey St Clair]   Styron’s Historic Libel I never took to William Styron’s writing. He aspired to be Virginia’s William Faulkner, but Styron never had the master’s heart or humor. Behind those ornate, fractured, Cubist sentences, Faulkner was a writer who was haunted the barbarities of his own nation’s history and he had a deep feeling for those on the losing end: the blacks, the poor, the dispossessed and, especially, the women, all straining under the cruel shadow of the debased Southern aristocracy. Check out Light in August, a searing testament to Faulkner’s extraordinary empathy. By contrast, William Styron seemed obsessed by the failures of his own mind, which can make for powerful fiction in the hands of Dostoevsky. But Styron was no Dostoevsky, either. Styron’s self-loathing is projected onto his characters, nowhere more morbidly than in his book The Confessions of Nat Turner. Styron’s portrait of the black revolutionary is depraved. His Turner is almost subhuman, a kind of black Caliban driven by animal instincts and wild emotions that overwhelm his intellect and sense of morality. This is white fantasy, since we know very little about the man himself, except for the brutal treatment he received from the Virginia slave masters. Styron’s own family were slaveowners and the most generous reading of the novel is as a kind of psychological exercise to purge those ancestral demons, at the expense of one of the most heroic black figures in American history. My familial roots grow deep into the Virginia piedmont country and I went to school in DC, where I got to know many Virginia writers–novelists, essayists and poets. Few had any respect for Styron; some were embarrassed for him. Styron later blamed the hostile reaction toConfessions from black writers and intellectuals, such as Cecil Brown, for the onset of his crippling episodes of writer’s block, which seems like one more case of blaming the victims. Once Styron was considered one of the three Great White Male Hopes for the American novel, along with Gore Vidal and Norman Mailer. Now Styron is regarded, if at all, for Darkness Visible, his rather austere chronicle of his battles with depression. Perhaps there’s a measure of cold justice in that fate. Alexander Cockburn used to bump into the Styrons, Bill and Rose, when he lived on Cape Cod. He adored Rose and spoke glowingly to me of their dinner conversations. Alex claimed that Bill was usually plastered by 4 pm, babbling incoherencies deep into the evening. Nat Turner’s life and fiery uprising against the slaveowners has been redeemed from Styron’s libels by Nathan Parker’s powerful new film,Birth of a Nation. Don’t let the manufactured outrage about what Parker may or may not have done as a teenager deter you from seeing this liberating film. Watch the movie and judge it on its own merits. I bet that, like me, you’ll leave the theater uplifted with a joyous anger, rather than depressed, which is exactly the way revolutionary art should make you feel.     On Oct 9, 2016, at 1:33 PM, Stuart Levy via OccupyCU wrote: 7pm Sun 10/9 *tonight* - "Birth of a Nation" film at the Art Theater,    with panel discussion to follow.  (The film is showing at many other times too over the next couple of weeks, but this is the only panel.) Nate Parker's acclaimed film about Nat Turner's slave revolt addresses U.S. history and revolutionary violence, and raises several necessary specters of discussion - on & offscreen. More info: http://www.arttheater.coop/the-birth-of-a-nation/ Post-show panel: Malaika Mckee-Culpepper (Department of African American Studies, UIUC) Charisse Burden-Stelly (Department of African American Studies, UIUC) Robert King (Men Against Rape and Sexual Assault and the Breakfast Club) Lou Turner (Department of African American Studies, UIUC) Moderated by Sundiata Cha-Jua (Department of African-American Studies, UIUC)   _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Oct 10 22:29:37 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 22:29:37 +0000 Subject: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] And we just keep on killing....... & Russia warns US strikes against Syria In-Reply-To: <3b309258-2ace-7fa2-0b3e-6ca22fdeca1e@sbcglobal.net> References: <3b309258-2ace-7fa2-0b3e-6ca22fdeca1e@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: You could just google the author whose name I always use. Or you can go to www.wsws.com. On Oct 10, 2016, at 14:56, Karen Capel > wrote: Pardon my probable crankiness, but are there sources for these articles? A URL? Anything about where they come from? Or are we, lazy readers that we are, supposed to google titles and authors and find the sources ourselves? I'd like to know sources before I expend precious time reading. Karen Capel -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [Peace-discuss] And we just keep on killing....... & Russia warns US strikes against Syria Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 21:08:23 +0000 From: Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Reply-To: Karen Aram To: peace , Peace Discuss Thousands protest Saudi bombing that killed and wounded over 700 in Yemen By Bill Van Auken 10 October 2016 Tens of thousands of Yemenis, many of them armed, took to the streets of Sanaa, the country’s war torn capital, Sunday to protest the savage bombing of a packed funeral hall the day before by Saudi warplanes.... ............. Russia warns US strikes against Syria may lead to war By Alex Lantier 10 October 2016 In a sign that the Syrian conflict risks escalating into war between the world’s major nuclear-armed powers, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned yesterday against NATO air and missile strikes on its forces and allies in Syria, stating that Russia would respond militarily.... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Oct 10 22:34:22 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 22:34:22 +0000 Subject: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] And we just keep on killing....... & Russia warns US strikes against Syria In-Reply-To: <3b309258-2ace-7fa2-0b3e-6ca22fdeca1e@sbcglobal.net> References: <3b309258-2ace-7fa2-0b3e-6ca22fdeca1e@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: There are many other places you can find the same information. One such is anti-war.com. Another is RT.com. Crosstalk on RT.com is a program that provides both American and European, as well as Middle eastern academics, former CIA, former military analysts discussing the same issues with the same information. wsws provides background information as well which is why I usually post it. Though most people aren’t interested in reading what our current government is responsible for doing unless its coming from mainstream media, from which it will never come. On Oct 10, 2016, at 14:56, Karen Capel > wrote: Pardon my probable crankiness, but are there sources for these articles? A URL? Anything about where they come from? Or are we, lazy readers that we are, supposed to google titles and authors and find the sources ourselves? I'd like to know sources before I expend precious time reading. Karen Capel -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [Peace-discuss] And we just keep on killing....... & Russia warns US strikes against Syria Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 21:08:23 +0000 From: Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Reply-To: Karen Aram To: peace , Peace Discuss Thousands protest Saudi bombing that killed and wounded over 700 in Yemen By Bill Van Auken 10 October 2016 Tens of thousands of Yemenis, many of them armed, took to the streets of Sanaa, the country’s war torn capital, Sunday to protest the savage bombing of a packed funeral hall the day before by Saudi warplanes.... ............. Russia warns US strikes against Syria may lead to war By Alex Lantier 10 October 2016 In a sign that the Syrian conflict risks escalating into war between the world’s major nuclear-armed powers, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned yesterday against NATO air and missile strikes on its forces and allies in Syria, stating that Russia would respond militarily.... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Oct 10 22:40:24 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 22:40:24 +0000 Subject: [Peace] Fwd: [Peace-discuss] And we just keep on killing....... & Russia warns US strikes against Syria References: Message-ID: The Real News also contains useful related information, though not one I tend to use given there is little on Asia. Begin forwarded message: From: Karen Aram via Peace > Subject: Re: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] And we just keep on killing....... & Russia warns US strikes against Syria Date: October 10, 2016 at 15:34:22 PDT To: Karen Capel > Cc: peace >, Peace Discuss > Reply-To: Karen Aram > There are many other places you can find the same information. One such is anti-war.com. Another is RT.com. Crosstalk on RT.com is a program that provides both American and European, as well as Middle eastern academics, former CIA, former military analysts discussing the same issues with the same information. wsws provides background information as well which is why I usually post it. Though most people aren’t interested in reading what our current government is responsible for doing unless its coming from mainstream media, from which it will never come. On Oct 10, 2016, at 14:56, Karen Capel > wrote: Pardon my probable crankiness, but are there sources for these articles? A URL? Anything about where they come from? Or are we, lazy readers that we are, supposed to google titles and authors and find the sources ourselves? I'd like to know sources before I expend precious time reading. Karen Capel -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [Peace-discuss] And we just keep on killing....... & Russia warns US strikes against Syria Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 21:08:23 +0000 From: Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Reply-To: Karen Aram To: peace , Peace Discuss Thousands protest Saudi bombing that killed and wounded over 700 in Yemen By Bill Van Auken 10 October 2016 Tens of thousands of Yemenis, many of them armed, took to the streets of Sanaa, the country’s war torn capital, Sunday to protest the savage bombing of a packed funeral hall the day before by Saudi warplanes.... ............. Russia warns US strikes against Syria may lead to war By Alex Lantier 10 October 2016 In a sign that the Syrian conflict risks escalating into war between the world’s major nuclear-armed powers, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned yesterday against NATO air and missile strikes on its forces and allies in Syria, stating that Russia would respond militarily.... _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Mon Oct 10 22:47:57 2016 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 17:47:57 -0500 Subject: [Peace] What last night's debate should have been about In-Reply-To: References: <745FA348-0FE6-4122-86C3-7F01FC157753@newsfromneptune.com> <5489C839-553A-4E34-B30A-E11DC2FC15FA@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: https://consortiumnews.com/2016/10/10/hillary-clinton-candidate-of-war/ ...“Now, she talks tough,” [Trump] said of Clinton: “She talks really tough against Putin and against Assad. She talks in favor of the rebels. She doesn’t even know who the rebels are. You know, every time we take rebels whether it’s in Iraq or anywhere else, we’re arming people. And you know what happens? They end up being worse than the people [they overthrow]. Look at what she did in Libya with Gaddafi. Gaddafi is out. It’s a mess. And by the way, ISIS has a good chunk of their oil. I’m sure you’ve probably have heard that. It was a disaster. The fact is almost everything she has done has been a mistake and it’s been a disaster.” Trump’s comment was correct, more or less ... Hillary Clinton has made it crystal clear. Anyone who votes for her is voting for greatly expanded warfare in the Middle East and probably military confrontation with Russia elsewhere as well. As bad as things are in Syria, in a few months they could get a lot worse... From kcapel at sbcglobal.net Mon Oct 10 22:54:30 2016 From: kcapel at sbcglobal.net (Karen Capel) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 17:54:30 -0500 Subject: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] And we just keep on killing....... & Russia warns US strikes against Syria In-Reply-To: References: <3b309258-2ace-7fa2-0b3e-6ca22fdeca1e@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: <068150af-2f83-beec-bc4c-22b71bffb8c6@sbcglobal.net> I'm not interested in the millions of other places where information can be found. I'm interested in where *you* got the information. Nor am I interested, for this republishing purpose, in what you think about the current US government. All I want to know is where something specific, what you are republishing, came from. I think if someone thinks it's important enough to circulate, he or she should give complete information. Unfortunately, you don't do that. What I'm concerned about -- and asking for -- is a certain basic concern for citing sources with publishing and republishing. You can't comply with normal expected standards for publishing, it's important that I know that too. ...Duly registered. Karen Capel On 10/10/2016 5:34 PM, Karen Aram wrote: > There are many other places you can find the same information. One > such is anti-war.com . Another is RT.com > . Crosstalk on RT.com is a program that > provides both American and European, as well as Middle eastern > academics, former CIA, former military analysts discussing the same > issues with the same information. wsws provides background information > as well which is why I usually post it. Though most people aren’t > interested in reading what our current government is responsible for > doing unless its coming from mainstream media, from which it will > never come. > >> On Oct 10, 2016, at 14:56, Karen Capel > > wrote: >> >> Pardon my probable crankiness, but are there sources for these >> articles? A URL? Anything about where they come from? Or are we, lazy >> readers that we are, supposed to google titles and authors and find >> the sources ourselves? I'd like to know sources before I expend >> precious time reading. >> >> Karen Capel >> >> >> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >> Subject: [Peace-discuss] And we just keep on killing....... & >> >> >> Russia warns US strikes against Syria >> >> Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 21:08:23 +0000 >> From: Karen Aram via Peace-discuss >> Reply-To: Karen Aram >> To: peace , Peace Discuss >> >> >> >> >> >> *Thousands protest Saudi bombing that killed and wounded over 700 in >> Yemen* >> >> By Bill Van Auken >> 10 October 2016 >> >> Tens of thousands of Yemenis, many of them armed, took to the streets >> of Sanaa, the country’s war torn capital, Sunday to protest the >> savage bombing of a packed funeral hall the day before by Saudi >> warplanes.... >> >> >> ............. >> *Russia warns US strikes against Syria may lead to war* >> >> By Alex Lantier >> 10 October 2016 >> >> In a sign that the Syrian conflict risks escalating into war between >> the world’s major nuclear-armed powers, Russian Foreign Minister >> Sergei Lavrov warned yesterday against NATO air and missile strikes >> on its forces and allies in Syria, stating that Russia would respond >> militarily.... >> >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Oct 10 23:01:09 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 23:01:09 +0000 Subject: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] And we just keep on killing....... & Russia warns US strikes against Syria In-Reply-To: <068150af-2f83-beec-bc4c-22b71bffb8c6@sbcglobal.net> References: <3b309258-2ace-7fa2-0b3e-6ca22fdeca1e@sbcglobal.net> <068150af-2f83-beec-bc4c-22b71bffb8c6@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: I already told you in a previous email it came from the www.wsws.org. On Oct 10, 2016, at 15:54, Karen Capel > wrote: I'm not interested in the millions of other places where information can be found. I'm interested in where *you* got the information. Nor am I interested, for this republishing purpose, in what you think about the current US government. All I want to know is where something specific, what you are republishing, came from. I think if someone thinks it's important enough to circulate, he or she should give complete information. Unfortunately, you don't do that. What I'm concerned about -- and asking for -- is a certain basic concern for citing sources with publishing and republishing. You can't comply with normal expected standards for publishing, it's important that I know that too. ...Duly registered. Karen Capel On 10/10/2016 5:34 PM, Karen Aram wrote: There are many other places you can find the same information. One such is anti-war.com. Another is RT.com. Crosstalk on RT.com is a program that provides both American and European, as well as Middle eastern academics, former CIA, former military analysts discussing the same issues with the same information. wsws provides background information as well which is why I usually post it. Though most people aren’t interested in reading what our current government is responsible for doing unless its coming from mainstream media, from which it will never come. On Oct 10, 2016, at 14:56, Karen Capel > wrote: Pardon my probable crankiness, but are there sources for these articles? A URL? Anything about where they come from? Or are we, lazy readers that we are, supposed to google titles and authors and find the sources ourselves? I'd like to know sources before I expend precious time reading. Karen Capel -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [Peace-discuss] And we just keep on killing....... & Russia warns US strikes against Syria Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 21:08:23 +0000 From: Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Reply-To: Karen Aram To: peace , Peace Discuss Thousands protest Saudi bombing that killed and wounded over 700 in Yemen By Bill Van Auken 10 October 2016 Tens of thousands of Yemenis, many of them armed, took to the streets of Sanaa, the country’s war torn capital, Sunday to protest the savage bombing of a packed funeral hall the day before by Saudi warplanes.... ............. Russia warns US strikes against Syria may lead to war By Alex Lantier 10 October 2016 In a sign that the Syrian conflict risks escalating into war between the world’s major nuclear-armed powers, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned yesterday against NATO air and missile strikes on its forces and allies in Syria, stating that Russia would respond militarily.... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kcapel at sbcglobal.net Mon Oct 10 23:24:52 2016 From: kcapel at sbcglobal.net (Karen Capel) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 18:24:52 -0500 Subject: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] And we just keep on killing....... & Russia warns US strikes against Syria In-Reply-To: References: <3b309258-2ace-7fa2-0b3e-6ca22fdeca1e@sbcglobal.net> <068150af-2f83-beec-bc4c-22b71bffb8c6@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: Karen, I think you need to reread what I've already said. It apparently flew right by you. I'm done with this discussion. Karen On 10/10/2016 6:01 PM, Karen Aram wrote: > I already told you in a previous email it came from the www.wsws.org > . > > >> On Oct 10, 2016, at 15:54, Karen Capel > > wrote: >> >> I'm not interested in the millions of other places where information >> can be found. I'm interested in where *you* got the information. Nor >> am I interested, for this republishing purpose, in what you think >> about the current US government. All I want to know is where >> something specific, what you are republishing, came from. >> >> I think if someone thinks it's important enough to circulate, he or >> she should give complete information. Unfortunately, you don't do >> that. What I'm concerned about -- and asking for -- is a certain >> basic concern for citing sources with publishing and republishing. >> You can't comply with normal expected standards for publishing, it's >> important that I know that too. ...Duly registered. >> >> Karen Capel >> >> On 10/10/2016 5:34 PM, Karen Aram wrote: >>> There are many other places you can find the same information. One >>> such is anti-war.com . Another is RT.com >>> . Crosstalk on RT.com is a program >>> that provides both American and European, as well as Middle eastern >>> academics, former CIA, former military analysts discussing the same >>> issues with the same information. wsws provides background >>> information as well which is why I usually post it. Though most >>> people aren’t interested in reading what our current government is >>> responsible for doing unless its coming from mainstream media, from >>> which it will never come. >>> >>>> On Oct 10, 2016, at 14:56, Karen Capel >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Pardon my probable crankiness, but are there sources for these >>>> articles? A URL? Anything about where they come from? Or are we, >>>> lazy readers that we are, supposed to google titles and authors and >>>> find the sources ourselves? I'd like to know sources before I >>>> expend precious time reading. >>>> >>>> Karen Capel >>>> >>>> >>>> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >>>> Subject: [Peace-discuss] And we just keep on killing....... & >>>> >>>> >>>> Russia warns US strikes against Syria >>>> >>>> Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 21:08:23 +0000 >>>> From: Karen Aram via Peace-discuss >>>> Reply-To: Karen Aram >>>> To: peace , Peace Discuss >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *Thousands protest Saudi bombing that killed and wounded over 700 >>>> in Yemen* >>>> >>>> By Bill Van Auken >>>> 10 October 2016 >>>> >>>> Tens of thousands of Yemenis, many of them armed, took to the >>>> streets of Sanaa, the country’s war torn capital, Sunday to protest >>>> the savage bombing of a packed funeral hall the day before by Saudi >>>> warplanes.... >>>> >>>> >>>> ............. >>>> *Russia warns US strikes against Syria may lead to war* >>>> >>>> By Alex Lantier >>>> 10 October 2016 >>>> >>>> In a sign that the Syrian conflict risks escalating into war >>>> between the world’s major nuclear-armed powers, Russian Foreign >>>> Minister Sergei Lavrov warned yesterday against NATO air and >>>> missile strikes on its forces and allies in Syria, stating that >>>> Russia would respond militarily.... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Oct 11 00:00:08 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 00:00:08 +0000 Subject: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] And we just keep on killing....... & Russia warns US strikes against Syria In-Reply-To: References: <3b309258-2ace-7fa2-0b3e-6ca22fdeca1e@sbcglobal.net> <068150af-2f83-beec-bc4c-22b71bffb8c6@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: "You’re done with this discussion”. Duly registered and with relief I might add, as I have no tolerance for trolls who appear on this peace list to badger us, showing no concern for the information provided. Information in respect to the thousands of lives we are destroying elsewhere in the world. . On Oct 10, 2016, at 16:24, Karen Capel > wrote: Karen, I think you need to reread what I've already said. It apparently flew right by you. I'm done with this discussion. Karen On 10/10/2016 6:01 PM, Karen Aram wrote: I already told you in a previous email it came from the www.wsws.org. On Oct 10, 2016, at 15:54, Karen Capel > wrote: I'm not interested in the millions of other places where information can be found. I'm interested in where *you* got the information. Nor am I interested, for this republishing purpose, in what you think about the current US government. All I want to know is where something specific, what you are republishing, came from. I think if someone thinks it's important enough to circulate, he or she should give complete information. Unfortunately, you don't do that. What I'm concerned about -- and asking for -- is a certain basic concern for citing sources with publishing and republishing. You can't comply with normal expected standards for publishing, it's important that I know that too. ...Duly registered. Karen Capel On 10/10/2016 5:34 PM, Karen Aram wrote: There are many other places you can find the same information. One such is anti-war.com. Another is RT.com. Crosstalk on RT.com is a program that provides both American and European, as well as Middle eastern academics, former CIA, former military analysts discussing the same issues with the same information. wsws provides background information as well which is why I usually post it. Though most people aren’t interested in reading what our current government is responsible for doing unless its coming from mainstream media, from which it will never come. On Oct 10, 2016, at 14:56, Karen Capel > wrote: Pardon my probable crankiness, but are there sources for these articles? A URL? Anything about where they come from? Or are we, lazy readers that we are, supposed to google titles and authors and find the sources ourselves? I'd like to know sources before I expend precious time reading. Karen Capel -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [Peace-discuss] And we just keep on killing....... & Russia warns US strikes against Syria Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 21:08:23 +0000 From: Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Reply-To: Karen Aram To: peace , Peace Discuss Thousands protest Saudi bombing that killed and wounded over 700 in Yemen By Bill Van Auken 10 October 2016 Tens of thousands of Yemenis, many of them armed, took to the streets of Sanaa, the country’s war torn capital, Sunday to protest the savage bombing of a packed funeral hall the day before by Saudi warplanes.... ............. Russia warns US strikes against Syria may lead to war By Alex Lantier 10 October 2016 In a sign that the Syrian conflict risks escalating into war between the world’s major nuclear-armed powers, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned yesterday against NATO air and missile strikes on its forces and allies in Syria, stating that Russia would respond militarily.... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kcapel at sbcglobal.net Tue Oct 11 00:12:25 2016 From: kcapel at sbcglobal.net (Karen Capel) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 19:12:25 -0500 Subject: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] And we just keep on killing....... & Russia warns US strikes against Syria In-Reply-To: References: <3b309258-2ace-7fa2-0b3e-6ca22fdeca1e@sbcglobal.net> <068150af-2f83-beec-bc4c-22b71bffb8c6@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: Troll? You make me laugh. You have no idea what you're talking about. I've been on this peace-discuss list at least as long as you have. When you're done rereading what I've written about trying to credibly reproduce what's been published, kindly learn something about punctuation. What you yourself write is impossible to read and make sense of. Have some concern for *that* previous information I've provided. Now, go away...please. Karen Capel On 10/10/2016 7:00 PM, Karen Aram wrote: > "You’re done with this discussion”. > > Duly registered and with relief I might add, as I have no tolerance > for trolls who appear on this peace list to badger us, showing no > concern for the information provided. Information in respect to the > thousands of lives we are destroying elsewhere in the world. > > . >> On Oct 10, 2016, at 16:24, Karen Capel > > wrote: >> >> Karen, I think you need to reread what I've already said. It >> apparently flew right by you. >> >> I'm done with this discussion. >> >> Karen >> >> >> On 10/10/2016 6:01 PM, Karen Aram wrote: >>> I already told you in a previous email it came from the www.wsws.org >>> . >>> >>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Oct 11 00:23:38 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 00:23:38 +0000 Subject: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] And we just keep on killing....... & Russia warns US strikes against Syria In-Reply-To: References: <3b309258-2ace-7fa2-0b3e-6ca22fdeca1e@sbcglobal.net> <068150af-2f83-beec-bc4c-22b71bffb8c6@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: And, how long have I been on here? You’re giving yourself away…... I didn’t reproduce anything. I cut and paste, what you’re reading is as it was published in its entirety. But, of course you didn’t take the time to read it now did you? You just want to badger. I thought this discussion was over? . Well now it is. On Oct 10, 2016, at 17:12, Karen Capel > wrote: Troll? You make me laugh. You have no idea what you're talking about. I've been on this peace-discuss list at least as long as you have. When you're done rereading what I've written about trying to credibly reproduce what's been published, kindly learn something about punctuation. What you yourself write is impossible to read and make sense of. Have some concern for *that* previous information I've provided. Now, go away...please. Karen Capel On 10/10/2016 7:00 PM, Karen Aram wrote: "You’re done with this discussion”. Duly registered and with relief I might add, as I have no tolerance for trolls who appear on this peace list to badger us, showing no concern for the information provided. Information in respect to the thousands of lives we are destroying elsewhere in the world. . On Oct 10, 2016, at 16:24, Karen Capel > wrote: Karen, I think you need to reread what I've already said. It apparently flew right by you. I'm done with this discussion. Karen On 10/10/2016 6:01 PM, Karen Aram wrote: I already told you in a previous email it came from the www.wsws.org. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Oct 11 00:33:30 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 00:33:30 +0000 Subject: [Peace] Definition of a Troll Message-ID: A troll is someone who is out to annoy, irritate and discourage those who take on the establishment. They often are paid for their efforts, yes, by the establishment, but not always. Sometimes they are just irritable people who are full of anger and hate. They often use fake names, identities. When they begin to personally insult you, you know you’ve had an effect, made an impact. Sometimes they carry guns which is not a pleasant thought so one shouldn’t antagonize them too much. Just delete them from FB, or consider them to be wacko’s that will often crawl out of the woodwork when they don’t like what you say, especially when its true. And know, that someone is listening, your efforts are not wasted. From jbw292002 at gmail.com Tue Oct 11 01:12:03 2016 From: jbw292002 at gmail.com (John W.) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 20:12:03 -0500 Subject: [Peace] What last night's debate should have been about In-Reply-To: References: <745FA348-0FE6-4122-86C3-7F01FC157753@newsfromneptune.com> <5489C839-553A-4E34-B30A-E11DC2FC15FA@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: Vote for Donald Trump. He's a foreign policy genius! On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 5:47 PM, C. G. Estabrook via Peace < peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: https://consortiumnews.com/2016/10/10/hillary-clinton-candidate-of-war/ > > ...“Now, she talks tough,” [Trump] said of Clinton: “She talks really > tough against Putin and against Assad. She talks in favor of the rebels. > She doesn’t even know who the rebels are. You know, every time we take > rebels whether it’s in Iraq or anywhere else, we’re arming people. And you > know what happens? They end up being worse than the people [they > overthrow]. Look at what she did in Libya with Gaddafi. Gaddafi is out. > It’s a mess. And by the way, ISIS has a good chunk of their oil. I’m sure > you’ve probably have heard that. It was a disaster. The fact is almost > everything she has done has been a mistake and it’s been a disaster.” > > Trump’s comment was correct, more or less ... Hillary Clinton has made it > crystal clear. Anyone who votes for her is voting for greatly expanded > warfare in the Middle East and probably military confrontation with Russia > elsewhere as well. As bad as things are in Syria, in a few months they > could get a lot worse... > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Tue Oct 11 03:10:32 2016 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 22:10:32 -0500 Subject: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] What last night's debate should have been about In-Reply-To: <1374731823.2748007.1476154611558@mail.yahoo.com> References: <745FA348-0FE6-4122-86C3-7F01FC157753@newsfromneptune.com> <5489C839-553A-4E34-B30A-E11DC2FC15FA@newsfromneptune.com> <1374731823.2748007.1476154611558@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Trump was quite clear and concise in Sunday’s debate when he stomped on Pence’s neocon fire-breathing on Syria: “I didn’t talk to him and he’s wrong”! —CGE > On Oct 10, 2016, at 9:56 PM, Gregg Gordon via Peace-discuss wrote: > > When he attempted to address policy, it came out as an incoherent string of seemingly random phrases in no particular order -- nothing approaching a complete sentence, not sure there was a subject OR a verb in there. Carl's quote must have gotten some help from the journalist who quoted him, just to find places to put punctuation. > From: John W. via Peace > To: C. G. Estabrook > Cc: peace ; Peace-discuss List ; sf-core ; Occupy CU > Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 8:12 PM > Subject: Re: [Peace] What last night's debate should have been about > > > Vote for Donald Trump. He's a foreign policy genius! > > > > On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 5:47 PM, C. G. Estabrook via Peace wrote: > > https://consortiumnews.com/ 2016/10/10/hillary-clinton- candidate-of-war/ > > ...“Now, she talks tough,” [Trump] said of Clinton: “She talks really tough against Putin and against Assad. She talks in favor of the rebels. She doesn’t even know who the rebels are. You know, every time we take rebels whether it’s in Iraq or anywhere else, we’re arming people. And you know what happens? They end up being worse than the people [they overthrow]. Look at what she did in Libya with Gaddafi. Gaddafi is out. It’s a mess. And by the way, ISIS has a good chunk of their oil. I’m sure you’ve probably have heard that. It was a disaster. The fact is almost everything she has done has been a mistake and it’s been a disaster.” > > Trump’s comment was correct, more or less ... Hillary Clinton has made it crystal clear. Anyone who votes for her is voting for greatly expanded warfare in the Middle East and probably military confrontation with Russia elsewhere as well. As bad as things are in Syria, in a few months they could get a lot worse... > > ______________________________ _________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/ mailman/listinfo/peace > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Oct 11 03:11:28 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 03:11:28 +0000 Subject: [Peace] Another article to offend Message-ID: * WSWS * ICFI * Mehring Books * Mobile * RSS Feeds * Podcast * Newsletter * Select a language Afrikaans >العربية Čeština Deutsch Ελληνικά English Español فارسی Français Bahasa Indonesia Italiano Norsk Polski Português Română Русский Srpskohrvatski Sinhalese தமிழ் Türkçe اُردُو 中文 [http://www.wsws.org/img/title.png] [http://www.wsws.org/img/logo.png] Published by the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI) Click here for advanced search » * Home * Perspectives * World News * World Economy * Arts Review * History * Science * Philosophy * Workers Struggles * ICFI/Marxist Library * Chronology * Full Archive * Print * Leaflet * Feedback * Share » Russia warns US strikes against Syria may lead to war By Alex Lantier 10 October 2016 In a sign that the Syrian conflict risks escalating into war between the world’s major nuclear-armed powers, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned yesterday against NATO air and missile strikes on its forces and allies in Syria, stating that Russia would respond militarily. Lavrov referred to media reports that the United States plans to bomb Syrian or Russian forces inside Syria. “This is a very dangerous game,” he said, “given that Russia, being in Syria at the invitation of the legitimate government of this country and having two bases there, has air defense systems there to protect its assets.” Moscow also sent nuclear-capable Iskander-M missiles to the Russian Baltic city of Kaliningrad late Friday. From Kaliningrad, the missiles can strike targets, including NATO bases, across Poland and the Baltic republics. Russian Defense Ministry officials said the missiles were loaded onto a freighter in the Baltic Sea “right under a US reconnaissance satellite” to monitor its response and make clear to the US military that the missiles were en route to Kaliningrad. Leaks to US papers including the Washington Post last week revealed that US officials are discussing launching an attack on Syrian government forces behind the backs of the American people. While a handful of press reports have emerged on the leaks themselves, a deafening silence prevails in American and European media on the danger and the consequences of such an escalation. On Wednesday, the Post ’s Josh Rogin wrote, “[O]fficials from the State Department, the CIA and the Joint Chiefs of Staff discussed limited military strikes against the [Syrian] regime ... Options under consideration, which remain classified, include bombing Syrian air force runways using cruise missiles and other long-range weapons fired from coalition planes and ships, an administration official who is part of the discussions told me. One proposed way to get around the White House’s long-standing objection to striking the Assad regime without a UN Security Council resolution would be to carry out the strikes covertly and without public acknowledgment, the official said.” In a 2013 speech to Wall Street bankers leaked by WikiLeaks, Hillary Clinton said imposing such a “no-fly zone” would entail mass civilian casualties: “To have a no-fly zone you have to take out all of the air defenses, many of which are located in populated areas. So our missiles, even if they are standoff missiles so we’re not putting our pilots at risk—you’re going to kill a lot of Syrians.” After last month’s US bombing in Deir ez-Zor killed at least 62 Syrian soldiers and wounded 100, it must be assumed that US raids would aim to cause massive Syrian military casualties as well. Even before Lavrov made his remarks, Russian military officials responded to leaks like the Post report by warning US officials that they risked provoking a major war. Russian Defense Ministry spokesman General Igor Konashenkov said his forces would presume US strikes were hostile, and locate and destroy US fighters, including stealth aircraft, over Syria. “Any missile or air strikes on the territory controlled by the Syrian government will create a clear threat to Russian servicemen,” Konashenkov said. “Russian air defense system crews are unlikely to have time to determine in a ‘straight line’ the exact flight paths of missiles and then who the warheads belong to. And all the illusions of amateurs about the existence of ‘invisible’ jets will face a disappointing reality.” Addressing “leaks” such as the Post report, he added, “Of particular concern is information that the initiators of such provocations are representatives of the CIA and the Pentagon, who … today are lobbying for ‘kinetic’ scenarios in Syria.” Konashenkov warned Washington that it should make a “thorough calculation of the possible consequences of such plans.” This remark is chilling. While Konashenkov did not say it, the significance of Moscow’s remarks is clear: implementing US plans signifies a military clash with Russia, and the possible consequences of such a clash include escalation into a full-blown nuclear war that would kill billions of people. The diplomatic arrangements that for a time stabilized relations between NATO and Russia in the period after the Stalinist bureaucracy dissolved the USSR in 1991 have collapsed. As Moscow apparently concludes that it has no other option but to prepare for war if Washington and its NATO allies decide to launch it, working people around the world are emerging as the sole social constituency for opposition to a catastrophic war. The driving force in the war crisis is the aggressive policy of the NATO imperialist powers, led by the US. Russia’s emergence as an obstacle to unrestrained US-NATO wars in the Middle East, opposing a planned NATO war in Syria in 2013, is totally unacceptable to Washington. Now, as NATO’s Al Qaeda-linked Islamist proxies in Syria face defeat around Aleppo, factions of the American state are openly calling for launching a war to save them. Last month, US General Joseph Dunford indicated his support for imposing a “no-fly zone” over Syria to the US Senate, adding that this “would require us to go to war with Syria and Russia.” Last week, US Army Chief of Staff General Mark Milley mentioned Russia and China as enemies, and directly addressed them, declaring, “I want to be clear to those who wish to do us harm … the United States military—despite all of our challenges, despite our [operational] tempo, despite everything we have been doing—we will stop you and we will beat you harder than you have ever been beaten before. Make no mistake about that.” While the NATO powers bear central responsibility for the crisis in Syria, the response of Russia’s post-Soviet capitalist oligarchy is also reckless and reactionary. Incapable of and hostile to appealing to international opposition to war in the working class, it aimed to use its military strength to deter US-NATO escalation in Syria and to negotiate a deal with the imperialist powers. This policy has utterly failed. Instead, the Kremlin’s oscillations between begging Washington for a deal and escalating military action inside Syria have drawn it into a deepening confrontation with NATO that now threatens to unleash a major military conflict. Russia’s missile deployment to Kaliningrad is a signal to Washington and its European allies that Moscow not only believes that war is a very real possibility, but anticipates that such a war would rapidly spread from Syria to Europe. NATO has deployed tens of thousands of troops near Russia’s borders in Eastern Europe since backing a fascist-led putsch that toppled a pro-Russian regime in Ukraine in 2014. Lavrov said this posed an intolerable threat to Russian national security. “We have witnessed a fundamental change of circumstances [in] the aggressive Russophobia that now lies at the heart of US policy toward Russia,” he said. “It’s not rhetorical Russophobia, but aggressive steps which really concern our national interests and endanger our security. NATO enlargement, [deployments of] NATO military infrastructure next to our borders … and the deployment of a missile defense system—these are all a display of unfriendly, hostile actions.” Moscow was outraged in particular by US State Department spokesman John Kirby’s threat that if Russia did not obey US orders to retreat from Syria, Islamist groups could “expand their operations, which could include attacks against Russian interests, perhaps even Russian cities. Russia will continue to send troops home in body bags and will continue to lose resources, perhaps even aircraft.” In this context, Kirby’s subsequent observation that Washington can influence “some” opposition militias in Syria had the character of a threat. As CIA weapons reach armories of the Al Qaeda-linked Al Nusra front in Aleppo, it is clear that if Moscow simply let the Syrian regime fall to the Islamist opposition, Russia could soon find itself targeted for the type of Islamist operations NATO is currently aiming at Syria. This has apparently persuaded Moscow, at least for now, to risk an all-out confrontation with the US in a desperate attempt to deter NATO military action against Syria and Russia. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Tue Oct 11 03:32:10 2016 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 22:32:10 -0500 Subject: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] What last night's debate should have been about In-Reply-To: <1992775851.2750166.1476155956168@mail.yahoo.com> References: <745FA348-0FE6-4122-86C3-7F01FC157753@newsfromneptune.com> <5489C839-553A-4E34-B30A-E11DC2FC15FA@newsfromneptune.com> <1374731823.2748007.1476154611558@mail.yahoo.com> <1992775851.2750166.1476155956168@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <33342E4C-0BDD-433D-AF9F-172EC117AF29@newsfromneptune.com> Verbally. But Clinton’s stomping killed a lot of people. As Trump said, she should be in jail - in The Hague, awaiting trial on war crimes charges. > On Oct 10, 2016, at 10:19 PM, Gregg Gordon wrote: > > You're right. He did a lot of stomping. > > > From: C. G. Estabrook > To: Gregg Gordon > Cc: John W. ; peace ; Peace-discuss List ; sf-core ; Occupy CU > Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 10:10 PM > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] What last night's debate should have been about > > Trump was quite clear and concise in Sunday’s debate when he stomped on Pence’s neocon fire-breathing on Syria: “I didn’t talk to him and he’s wrong”! > > —CGE > > > On Oct 10, 2016, at 9:56 PM, Gregg Gordon via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > > When he attempted to address policy, it came out as an incoherent string of seemingly random phrases in no particular order -- nothing approaching a complete sentence, not sure there was a subject OR a verb in there. Carl's quote must have gotten some help from the journalist who quoted him, just to find places to put punctuation. > > From: John W. via Peace > > To: C. G. Estabrook > > Cc: peace ; Peace-discuss List ; sf-core ; Occupy CU > > Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 8:12 PM > > Subject: Re: [Peace] What last night's debate should have been about > > > > > > Vote for Donald Trump. He's a foreign policy genius! > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 5:47 PM, C. G. Estabrook via Peace wrote: > > > > https://consortiumnews.com/ 2016/10/10/hillary-clinton- candidate-of-war/ > > > > ...“Now, she talks tough,” [Trump] said of Clinton: “She talks really tough against Putin and against Assad. She talks in favor of the rebels. She doesn’t even know who the rebels are. You know, every time we take rebels whether it’s in Iraq or anywhere else, we’re arming people. And you know what happens? They end up being worse than the people [they overthrow]. Look at what she did in Libya with Gaddafi. Gaddafi is out. It’s a mess. And by the way, ISIS has a good chunk of their oil. I’m sure you’ve probably have heard that. It was a disaster. The fact is almost everything she has done has been a mistake and it’s been a disaster.” > > > > Trump’s comment was correct, more or less ... Hillary Clinton has made it crystal clear. Anyone who votes for her is voting for greatly expanded warfare in the Middle East and probably military confrontation with Russia elsewhere as well. As bad as things are in Syria, in a few months they could get a lot worse... > > > > ______________________________ _________________ > > Peace mailing list > > Peace at lists.chambana.net > > https://lists.chambana.net/ mailman/listinfo/peace > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Peace mailing list > > Peace at lists.chambana.net > > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Peace-discuss mailing list > > > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > > > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > > From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Oct 11 04:06:50 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 04:06:50 +0000 Subject: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] What last night's debate should have been about In-Reply-To: <1299546216.2774535.1476157809952@mail.yahoo.com> References: <745FA348-0FE6-4122-86C3-7F01FC157753@newsfromneptune.com> <5489C839-553A-4E34-B30A-E11DC2FC15FA@newsfromneptune.com> <1374731823.2748007.1476154611558@mail.yahoo.com> <1992775851.2750166.1476155956168@mail.yahoo.com> <33342E4C-0BDD-433D-AF9F-172EC117AF29@newsfromneptune.com> <1299546216.2774535.1476157809952@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Another troll, Gregg, who has nothing of value to add, just insults. No concern for the issues facing humanity, just insults. On Oct 10, 2016, at 20:50, Gregg Gordon via Peace-discuss > wrote: I suggest you hold your breath until you turn blue. ________________________________ From: C. G. Estabrook > To: Gregg Gordon > Cc: John W. >; peace >; Peace-discuss List >; sf-core >; Occupy CU > Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 10:32 PM Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] What last night's debate should have been about Verbally. But Clinton’s stomping killed a lot of people. As Trump said, she should be in jail - in The Hague, awaiting trial on war crimes charges. > On Oct 10, 2016, at 10:19 PM, Gregg Gordon > wrote: > > You're right. He did a lot of stomping. > > > From: C. G. Estabrook > > To: Gregg Gordon > > Cc: John W. >; peace >; Peace-discuss List >; sf-core >; Occupy CU > > Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 10:10 PM > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] What last night's debate should have been about > > Trump was quite clear and concise in Sunday’s debate when he stomped on Pence’s neocon fire-breathing on Syria: “I didn’t talk to him and he’s wrong”! > > —CGE > > > On Oct 10, 2016, at 9:56 PM, Gregg Gordon via Peace-discuss > wrote: > > > > When he attempted to address policy, it came out as an incoherent string of seemingly random phrases in no particular order -- nothing approaching a complete sentence, not sure there was a subject OR a verb in there. Carl's quote must have gotten some help from the journalist who quoted him, just to find places to put punctuation. > > From: John W. via Peace > > > To: C. G. Estabrook > > > Cc: peace >; Peace-discuss List >; sf-core >; Occupy CU > > > Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 8:12 PM > > Subject: Re: [Peace] What last night's debate should have been about > > > > > > Vote for Donald Trump. He's a foreign policy genius! > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 5:47 PM, C. G. Estabrook via Peace > wrote: > > > > https://consortiumnews.com/ 2016/10/10/hillary-clinton- candidate-of-war/ > > > > ...“Now, she talks tough,” [Trump] said of Clinton: “She talks really tough against Putin and against Assad. She talks in favor of the rebels. She doesn’t even know who the rebels are. You know, every time we take rebels whether it’s in Iraq or anywhere else, we’re arming people. And you know what happens? They end up being worse than the people [they overthrow]. Look at what she did in Libya with Gaddafi. Gaddafi is out. It’s a mess. And by the way, ISIS has a good chunk of their oil. I’m sure you’ve probably have heard that. It was a disaster. The fact is almost everything she has done has been a mistake and it’s been a disaster.” > > > > Trump’s comment was correct, more or less ... Hillary Clinton has made it crystal clear. Anyone who votes for her is voting for greatly expanded warfare in the Middle East and probably military confrontation with Russia elsewhere as well. As bad as things are in Syria, in a few months they could get a lot worse... > > > > ______________________________ _________________ > > Peace mailing list > > Peace at lists.chambana.net > > https://lists.chambana.net/ mailman/listinfo/peace > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Peace mailing list > > Peace at lists.chambana.net > > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Peace-discuss mailing list > > > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > > > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > > _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Tue Oct 11 04:22:48 2016 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 23:22:48 -0500 Subject: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] What last night's debate should have been about In-Reply-To: References: <745FA348-0FE6-4122-86C3-7F01FC157753@newsfromneptune.com> <5489C839-553A-4E34-B30A-E11DC2FC15FA@newsfromneptune.com> <1374731823.2748007.1476154611558@mail.yahoo.com> <1992775851.2750166.1476155956168@mail.yahoo.com> <33342E4C-0BDD-433D-AF9F-172EC117AF29@newsfromneptune.com> <1299546216.2774535.1476157809952@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <376F910A-56B2-4BA2-A470-0B7371DCF797@newsfromneptune.com> —allows us to form answers to common objections/shows us what views are being encouraged by government & media. > On Oct 10, 2016, at 11:06 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Another troll, Gregg, who has nothing of value to add, just insults. No concern for the issues facing humanity, just insults. > >> On Oct 10, 2016, at 20:50, Gregg Gordon via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> I suggest you hold your breath until you turn blue. >> >> >> From: C. G. Estabrook >> To: Gregg Gordon >> Cc: John W. ; peace ; Peace-discuss List ; sf-core ; Occupy CU >> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 10:32 PM >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] What last night's debate should have been about >> >> Verbally. But Clinton’s stomping killed a lot of people. As Trump said, she should be in jail - in The Hague, awaiting trial on war crimes charges. >> >> >> > On Oct 10, 2016, at 10:19 PM, Gregg Gordon wrote: >> > >> > You're right. He did a lot of stomping. >> > >> > >> > From: C. G. Estabrook >> > To: Gregg Gordon >> > Cc: John W. ; peace ; Peace-discuss List ; sf-core ; Occupy CU >> > Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 10:10 PM >> > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] What last night's debate should have been about >> > >> > Trump was quite clear and concise in Sunday’s debate when he stomped on Pence’s neocon fire-breathing on Syria: “I didn’t talk to him and he’s wrong”! >> > >> > —CGE >> > >> > > On Oct 10, 2016, at 9:56 PM, Gregg Gordon via Peace-discuss wrote: >> > > >> > > When he attempted to address policy, it came out as an incoherent string of seemingly random phrases in no particular order -- nothing approaching a complete sentence, not sure there was a subject OR a verb in there. Carl's quote must have gotten some help from the journalist who quoted him, just to find places to put punctuation. >> > > From: John W. via Peace >> > > To: C. G. Estabrook >> > > Cc: peace ; Peace-discuss List ; sf-core ; Occupy CU >> > > Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 8:12 PM >> > > Subject: Re: [Peace] What last night's debate should have been about >> > > >> > > >> > > Vote for Donald Trump. He's a foreign policy genius! >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 5:47 PM, C. G. Estabrook via Peace wrote: >> > > >> > > https://consortiumnews.com/ 2016/10/10/hillary-clinton- candidate-of-war/ >> > > >> > > ...“Now, she talks tough,” [Trump] said of Clinton: “She talks really tough against Putin and against Assad. She talks in favor of the rebels. She doesn’t even know who the rebels are. You know, every time we take rebels whether it’s in Iraq or anywhere else, we’re arming people. And you know what happens? They end up being worse than the people [they overthrow]. Look at what she did in Libya with Gaddafi. Gaddafi is out. It’s a mess. And by the way, ISIS has a good chunk of their oil. I’m sure you’ve probably have heard that. It was a disaster. The fact is almost everything she has done has been a mistake and it’s been a disaster.” >> > > >> > > Trump’s comment was correct, more or less ... Hillary Clinton has made it crystal clear. Anyone who votes for her is voting for greatly expanded warfare in the Middle East and probably military confrontation with Russia elsewhere as well. As bad as things are in Syria, in a few months they could get a lot worse... >> > > >> > > _ From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Oct 11 12:33:00 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 12:33:00 +0000 Subject: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] What last night's debate should have been about In-Reply-To: <376F910A-56B2-4BA2-A470-0B7371DCF797@newsfromneptune.com> References: <745FA348-0FE6-4122-86C3-7F01FC157753@newsfromneptune.com> <5489C839-553A-4E34-B30A-E11DC2FC15FA@newsfromneptune.com> <1374731823.2748007.1476154611558@mail.yahoo.com> <1992775851.2750166.1476155956168@mail.yahoo.com> <33342E4C-0BDD-433D-AF9F-172EC117AF29@newsfromneptune.com> <1299546216.2774535.1476157809952@mail.yahoo.com> <376F910A-56B2-4BA2-A470-0B7371DCF797@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: Carl This Karen Capel person is continuing to stalk me, just like Roger Helbig, either on or off the List, they are incapable of discussing the issues so they just lash out with insults, Greg is another one. Many Americans like Trump, because he represents this level of people. Then of course a few academics and intellectuals also like Trump but thats because they only listen to the “true things" Trump says in order to discredit the “Left”. He lacks credibility so nothing he says is meaningful, and anyone who supports him in the US is also vilified as a result. People who are intellectuals and academics supporting Trump aren’t in touch with mainstream media or people. They are looking at the big picture, and the potential for disaster. Unfortunately, any assumption that a jerk like Trump would reverse our path to destruction is misguided. Republicans and Democrats follow the same foreign policy, they may play good cop, bad cop with the American people but throwing a bone or two to the starving is of little comfort. Then we have those who support Hillary because she presents the image of the lesser evil, at least in respect to America, these are people who don’t recognize we live in a global world, not just a county, state, or nation. So when it hits home, they aren’t able to grasp the fact that it’s all connected, when they do, it will likely be too late. Chomsky’s "Manufactured Consent" in spades. > On Oct 10, 2016, at 21:22, C. G. Estabrook wrote: > > —allows us to form answers to common objections/shows us what views are being encouraged by government & media. > > >> On Oct 10, 2016, at 11:06 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Another troll, Gregg, who has nothing of value to add, just insults. No concern for the issues facing humanity, just insults. >> >>> On Oct 10, 2016, at 20:50, Gregg Gordon via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> >>> I suggest you hold your breath until you turn blue. >>> >>> >>> From: C. G. Estabrook >>> To: Gregg Gordon >>> Cc: John W. ; peace ; Peace-discuss List ; sf-core ; Occupy CU >>> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 10:32 PM >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] What last night's debate should have been about >>> >>> Verbally. But Clinton’s stomping killed a lot of people. As Trump said, she should be in jail - in The Hague, awaiting trial on war crimes charges. >>> >>> >>>> On Oct 10, 2016, at 10:19 PM, Gregg Gordon wrote: >>>> >>>> You're right. He did a lot of stomping. >>>> >>>> >>>> From: C. G. Estabrook >>>> To: Gregg Gordon >>>> Cc: John W. ; peace ; Peace-discuss List ; sf-core ; Occupy CU >>>> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 10:10 PM >>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] What last night's debate should have been about >>>> >>>> Trump was quite clear and concise in Sunday’s debate when he stomped on Pence’s neocon fire-breathing on Syria: “I didn’t talk to him and he’s wrong”! >>>> >>>> —CGE >>>> >>>>> On Oct 10, 2016, at 9:56 PM, Gregg Gordon via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>>> >>>>> When he attempted to address policy, it came out as an incoherent string of seemingly random phrases in no particular order -- nothing approaching a complete sentence, not sure there was a subject OR a verb in there. Carl's quote must have gotten some help from the journalist who quoted him, just to find places to put punctuation. >>>>> From: John W. via Peace >>>>> To: C. G. Estabrook >>>>> Cc: peace ; Peace-discuss List ; sf-core ; Occupy CU >>>>> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 8:12 PM >>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace] What last night's debate should have been about >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Vote for Donald Trump. He's a foreign policy genius! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 5:47 PM, C. G. Estabrook via Peace wrote: >>>>> >>>>> https://consortiumnews.com/ 2016/10/10/hillary-clinton- candidate-of-war/ >>>>> >>>>> ...“Now, she talks tough,” [Trump] said of Clinton: “She talks really tough against Putin and against Assad. She talks in favor of the rebels. She doesn’t even know who the rebels are. You know, every time we take rebels whether it’s in Iraq or anywhere else, we’re arming people. And you know what happens? They end up being worse than the people [they overthrow]. Look at what she did in Libya with Gaddafi. Gaddafi is out. It’s a mess. And by the way, ISIS has a good chunk of their oil. I’m sure you’ve probably have heard that. It was a disaster. The fact is almost everything she has done has been a mistake and it’s been a disaster.” >>>>> >>>>> Trump’s comment was correct, more or less ... Hillary Clinton has made it crystal clear. Anyone who votes for her is voting for greatly expanded warfare in the Middle East and probably military confrontation with Russia elsewhere as well. As bad as things are in Syria, in a few months they could get a lot worse... >>>>> >>>>> _ From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Oct 11 13:26:57 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 13:26:57 +0000 Subject: [Peace] Nuclear Power concerns Message-ID: Morton, I’m not discrediting the “technology” but the profit motive involved in the set up, and the security risks, which are just as dangerous at our chemical plants. [Antiwar.com] [http://dgxhtav2e25a8.cloudfront.net/highlights.jpg] The Saudis, Hillary, and Death in Yemen Justin Raimondo on the horrible war crimes there The Next President Will Drone People Lucy Steigerwald on the ongoing terror war Fifteen Years Into the Afghan War Do Americans know the truth? Ron Paul [http://dgxhtav2e25a8.cloudfront.net/breaking.jpg] Officials Split on Attacking Russia in Syria Obama hesitant to start a war months before leaving office More US Troops in Iraq Ahead of Mosul Op 6,000 US troops in Iraq, with more arriving all the time US: No 'Blank Check' for Saudis in Yemen Support for coalition war against Yemen [http://d3hx7dpmkgxle9.cloudfront.net/ScottHortonShow3a.gif] Pardon Edward Snowden! Trevor Timm on the American hero The Islamophobia Industry David Noriega on ACT For America's nonsense ISIS Fighters Desert Streets of Mosul But where have they gone? wonders Joe Lauria * Home * About Antiwar.com * Donate * Blog * US Casualties * Contact * Latest News IAEA Reveals Nuclear Plant Cyber-Attack Growing Fear That Plants Could Be a Target by Jason Ditz, October 10, 2016 Print This | Share This Vague fears about the inherent safety of anything with “nuclear” in the name always keeps them a high-priority security target, as well as a priority for militant groups. But has anyone ever tried to do anything with such a plant? The IAEA today suggested they might’ve. [http://news.antiwar.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/IAEA-Amano.jpg]Director Amano Yukiya todayreported that there was a “cyber attack” against an unnamed nuclear power plant in the last two or three years. The attack “disrupted” some unspecific operations, but didn’t force anything to shut down outright. Amano also revealed that about four years ago, someone at some other nuclear facility tried to steal some highly-enriched uranium, which might’ve been enough to build a dirty bomb of some sort, adding it was “not an imaginary risk.” Other security experts cited theoretical threats of “insider attacks” within the nuclear plants, though industry experts insisted that even such an infiltrator would likely be unable to do massive amounts of damage to a nuclear reactor. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Tue Oct 11 13:32:09 2016 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 08:32:09 -0500 Subject: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] What last night's debate should have been about In-Reply-To: References: <745FA348-0FE6-4122-86C3-7F01FC157753@newsfromneptune.com> <5489C839-553A-4E34-B30A-E11DC2FC15FA@newsfromneptune.com> <1374731823.2748007.1476154611558@mail.yahoo.com> <1992775851.2750166.1476155956168@mail.yahoo.com> <33342E4C-0BDD-433D-AF9F-172EC117AF29@newsfromneptune.com> <1299546216.2774535.1476157809952@mail.yahoo.com> <376F910A-56B2-4BA2-A470-0B7371DCF797@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: I think the correct course is to continue to point out that Stein-Baraka are far superior to either ‘major’ party on the issues, especially war. We still need to answer the objection that a vote for a third party is a vote for Trump, by pointing out that Trump has accurately criticized Clinton’s neocon warmongering. As Glen Ford and others point out, Trump is substantially to the left of Clinton on foreign policy (and perhaps economic policy - the trade pacts - as well). That’s why the Democrats want to focus on the ‘personal’ - and we should talk about war. > On Oct 11, 2016, at 7:33 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Carl > > This Karen Capel person is continuing to stalk me, just like Roger Helbig, either on or off the List, they are incapable of discussing the issues so they just lash out with insults, Greg is another one. > > Many Americans like Trump, because he represents this level of people. > > Then of course a few academics and intellectuals also like Trump but thats because they only listen to the “true things" Trump says in order to discredit the “Left”. He lacks credibility so nothing he says is meaningful, and anyone who supports him in the US is also vilified as a result. People who are intellectuals and academics supporting Trump aren’t in touch with mainstream media or people. They are looking at the big picture, and the potential for disaster. Unfortunately, any assumption that a jerk like Trump would reverse our path to destruction is misguided. Republicans and Democrats follow the same foreign policy, they may play good cop, bad cop with the American people but throwing a bone or two to the starving is of little comfort. > > Then we have those who support Hillary because she presents the image of the lesser evil, at least in respect to America, these are people who don’t recognize we live in a global world, not just a county, state, or nation. So when it hits home, they aren’t able to grasp the fact that it’s all connected, when they do, it will likely be too late. > > Chomsky’s "Manufactured Consent" in spades. > > >> On Oct 10, 2016, at 21:22, C. G. Estabrook wrote: >> >> —allows us to form answers to common objections/shows us what views are being encouraged by government & media. >> >> >>> On Oct 10, 2016, at 11:06 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> >>> Another troll, Gregg, who has nothing of value to add, just insults. No concern for the issues facing humanity, just insults. >>> >>>> On Oct 10, 2016, at 20:50, Gregg Gordon via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>> >>>> I suggest you hold your breath until you turn blue. >>>> >>>> >>>> From: C. G. Estabrook >>>> To: Gregg Gordon >>>> Cc: John W. ; peace ; Peace-discuss List ; sf-core ; Occupy CU >>>> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 10:32 PM >>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] What last night's debate should have been about >>>> >>>> Verbally. But Clinton’s stomping killed a lot of people. As Trump said, she should be in jail - in The Hague, awaiting trial on war crimes charges. >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Oct 10, 2016, at 10:19 PM, Gregg Gordon wrote: >>>>> >>>>> You're right. He did a lot of stomping. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: C. G. Estabrook >>>>> To: Gregg Gordon >>>>> Cc: John W. ; peace ; Peace-discuss List ; sf-core ; Occupy CU >>>>> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 10:10 PM >>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] What last night's debate should have been about >>>>> >>>>> Trump was quite clear and concise in Sunday’s debate when he stomped on Pence’s neocon fire-breathing on Syria: “I didn’t talk to him and he’s wrong”! >>>>> >>>>> —CGE >>>>> >>>>>> On Oct 10, 2016, at 9:56 PM, Gregg Gordon via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> When he attempted to address policy, it came out as an incoherent string of seemingly random phrases in no particular order -- nothing approaching a complete sentence, not sure there was a subject OR a verb in there. Carl's quote must have gotten some help from the journalist who quoted him, just to find places to put punctuation. >>>>>> From: John W. via Peace >>>>>> To: C. G. Estabrook >>>>>> Cc: peace ; Peace-discuss List ; sf-core ; Occupy CU >>>>>> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 8:12 PM >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace] What last night's debate should have been about >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Vote for Donald Trump. He's a foreign policy genius! >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 5:47 PM, C. G. Estabrook via Peace wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://consortiumnews.com/ 2016/10/10/hillary-clinton- candidate-of-war/ >>>>>> >>>>>> ...“Now, she talks tough,” [Trump] said of Clinton: “She talks really tough against Putin and against Assad. She talks in favor of the rebels. She doesn’t even know who the rebels are. You know, every time we take rebels whether it’s in Iraq or anywhere else, we’re arming people. And you know what happens? They end up being worse than the people [they overthrow]. Look at what she did in Libya with Gaddafi. Gaddafi is out. It’s a mess. And by the way, ISIS has a good chunk of their oil. I’m sure you’ve probably have heard that. It was a disaster. The fact is almost everything she has done has been a mistake and it’s been a disaster.” >>>>>> >>>>>> Trump’s comment was correct, more or less ... Hillary Clinton has made it crystal clear. Anyone who votes for her is voting for greatly expanded warfare in the Middle East and probably military confrontation with Russia elsewhere as well. As bad as things are in Syria, in a few months they could get a lot worse... >>>>>> >>>>>> _ > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Oct 11 14:22:43 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 14:22:43 +0000 Subject: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] What last night's debate should have been about In-Reply-To: References: <745FA348-0FE6-4122-86C3-7F01FC157753@newsfromneptune.com> <5489C839-553A-4E34-B30A-E11DC2FC15FA@newsfromneptune.com> <1374731823.2748007.1476154611558@mail.yahoo.com> <1992775851.2750166.1476155956168@mail.yahoo.com> <33342E4C-0BDD-433D-AF9F-172EC117AF29@newsfromneptune.com> <1299546216.2774535.1476157809952@mail.yahoo.com> <376F910A-56B2-4BA2-A470-0B7371DCF797@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: We’ve done what we can for Stein-Baraka and the Green Party, in an attempt to build the party.There is little more we can do if people aren’t interested in the truth. The focus on electoral politics with the “circus media of debates", to begin with is a distraction, from real issues. None of which are going to be solved by the Presidential election, either way. We can continue to focus on the war, but people don’t want to hear it. It really is Berlin early 30’s. > On Oct 11, 2016, at 06:32, C. G. Estabrook via Peace wrote: > > I think the correct course is to continue to point out that Stein-Baraka are far superior to either ‘major’ party on the issues, especially war. > > We still need to answer the objection that a vote for a third party is a vote for Trump, by pointing out that Trump has accurately criticized Clinton’s neocon warmongering. > > As Glen Ford and others point out, Trump is substantially to the left of Clinton on foreign policy (and perhaps economic policy - the trade pacts - as well). > > That’s why the Democrats want to focus on the ‘personal’ - and we should talk about war. > > > >> On Oct 11, 2016, at 7:33 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Carl >> >> This Karen Capel person is continuing to stalk me, just like Roger Helbig, either on or off the List, they are incapable of discussing the issues so they just lash out with insults, Greg is another one. >> >> Many Americans like Trump, because he represents this level of people. >> >> Then of course a few academics and intellectuals also like Trump but thats because they only listen to the “true things" Trump says in order to discredit the “Left”. He lacks credibility so nothing he says is meaningful, and anyone who supports him in the US is also vilified as a result. People who are intellectuals and academics supporting Trump aren’t in touch with mainstream media or people. They are looking at the big picture, and the potential for disaster. Unfortunately, any assumption that a jerk like Trump would reverse our path to destruction is misguided. Republicans and Democrats follow the same foreign policy, they may play good cop, bad cop with the American people but throwing a bone or two to the starving is of little comfort. >> >> Then we have those who support Hillary because she presents the image of the lesser evil, at least in respect to America, these are people who don’t recognize we live in a global world, not just a county, state, or nation. So when it hits home, they aren’t able to grasp the fact that it’s all connected, when they do, it will likely be too late. >> >> Chomsky’s "Manufactured Consent" in spades. >> >> >>> On Oct 10, 2016, at 21:22, C. G. Estabrook wrote: >>> >>> —allows us to form answers to common objections/shows us what views are being encouraged by government & media. >>> >>> >>>> On Oct 10, 2016, at 11:06 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>> >>>> Another troll, Gregg, who has nothing of value to add, just insults. No concern for the issues facing humanity, just insults. >>>> >>>>> On Oct 10, 2016, at 20:50, Gregg Gordon via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I suggest you hold your breath until you turn blue. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: C. G. Estabrook >>>>> To: Gregg Gordon >>>>> Cc: John W. ; peace ; Peace-discuss List ; sf-core ; Occupy CU >>>>> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 10:32 PM >>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] What last night's debate should have been about >>>>> >>>>> Verbally. But Clinton’s stomping killed a lot of people. As Trump said, she should be in jail - in The Hague, awaiting trial on war crimes charges. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Oct 10, 2016, at 10:19 PM, Gregg Gordon wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> You're right. He did a lot of stomping. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From: C. G. Estabrook >>>>>> To: Gregg Gordon >>>>>> Cc: John W. ; peace ; Peace-discuss List ; sf-core ; Occupy CU >>>>>> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 10:10 PM >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] What last night's debate should have been about >>>>>> >>>>>> Trump was quite clear and concise in Sunday’s debate when he stomped on Pence’s neocon fire-breathing on Syria: “I didn’t talk to him and he’s wrong”! >>>>>> >>>>>> —CGE >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Oct 10, 2016, at 9:56 PM, Gregg Gordon via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When he attempted to address policy, it came out as an incoherent string of seemingly random phrases in no particular order -- nothing approaching a complete sentence, not sure there was a subject OR a verb in there. Carl's quote must have gotten some help from the journalist who quoted him, just to find places to put punctuation. >>>>>>> From: John W. via Peace >>>>>>> To: C. G. Estabrook >>>>>>> Cc: peace ; Peace-discuss List ; sf-core ; Occupy CU >>>>>>> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 8:12 PM >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace] What last night's debate should have been about >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Vote for Donald Trump. He's a foreign policy genius! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 5:47 PM, C. G. Estabrook via Peace wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://consortiumnews.com/ 2016/10/10/hillary-clinton- candidate-of-war/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ...“Now, she talks tough,” [Trump] said of Clinton: “She talks really tough against Putin and against Assad. She talks in favor of the rebels. She doesn’t even know who the rebels are. You know, every time we take rebels whether it’s in Iraq or anywhere else, we’re arming people. And you know what happens? They end up being worse than the people [they overthrow]. Look at what she did in Libya with Gaddafi. Gaddafi is out. It’s a mess. And by the way, ISIS has a good chunk of their oil. I’m sure you’ve probably have heard that. It was a disaster. The fact is almost everything she has done has been a mistake and it’s been a disaster.” >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Trump’s comment was correct, more or less ... Hillary Clinton has made it crystal clear. Anyone who votes for her is voting for greatly expanded warfare in the Middle East and probably military confrontation with Russia elsewhere as well. As bad as things are in Syria, in a few months they could get a lot worse... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace From stuartnlevy at gmail.com Tue Oct 11 15:35:44 2016 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (Stuart Levy) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 10:35:44 -0500 Subject: [Peace] [OccupyCU] upcoming events: "Birth of a Nation" w/panel tonight... In-Reply-To: References: <7b7e73ae-fc58-a232-6fca-5fbbd14f8b3a@gmail.com> <38B5C324C9B0F94C848CD8F0F13FAC0D392458ED@CITESMBX5.ad.uillinois.edu> Message-ID: <43bd7f27-b2a8-8389-656c-8be4e2bc84ea@gmail.com> [I started by omitting the Peace list, but hope the below brings enough new information that I'll copy Peace too for now. But please, try to keep arguments off the Peace list - it's intended for announcements.] tl;dr summary -- * Artists may make great art. They may also do things that are repellent, or criminal. The one does not excuse the other. * Despite the limitations of the "Birth of a Nation" as a film, and the cloud over its director/lead actor, it's an important film. I*hope especially that many white people will see it, and come out wanting to know more.* * You can read Nat Turner's Confessions, made in prison after he turned himself in. Lou Turner, on the panel on Sunday, recommends them. Text is on line here (and likely many places): http://www.melanet.com/nat/nat.html * Many many thanks to the panelists on Sunday! Robert King, Gus Wood, Malaika Mckee-Culpepper,Charisse Burden-Stelly, Lou Turner, Sundiata Cha-Jua. * Glad Paul Mueth worked to make an audio recording - I hope it turns out to be usable. I have to agree that "manufactured outrage" is an unfair dismissal of a real issue. St. Clair deserves to be criticized for putting it that way. Thank you, Rachel. At Sunday night's panel, there was a good deal of discussion over the accusation against Nate Parker, and over artists (male) with a history of sexual bad conduct - Woody Allen, Vladimir Nabokov, it's too easy to name others. Lesson I'd want to take: artists may make great art. They may also do things that are repellent, or criminal. The one does not excuse the other. [In another field: the astronomer Geoffrey Marcy has done groundbreaking work in discovering planets around other stars over the last several decades. He is also, it was revealed, a serial sexual harasser of his female graduate students. His scientific work remains valuable, but that doesn't mean he should be allowed to have anything to do with students. UCBerkeley didn't respond well until they were pushed hard. In another case, Christian Ott, Cal Tech did much better.] One comment from Sunday: Nate Parker has been involved in several feature films, but the focus on the accusation of rape against him is brought up strongly now - when he has made a film about a black rebellion. A few years ago he was prominent in a popular - but non-threatening - film, Red Tails, about Black pilots in the US air force. Were people suggesting boycotting that film, or other Hollywood movies he's been in, over Parker's past? Here's the double standard David Green mentions - a legitimate claim which seems to be selectively used to distract from the substance of the film. There were plenty of complaints in Sunday's panel about the substance of the film as presenting historical events - opportunities missed (from what people said that evening, there is still plenty of room for /better/ historical films about Turner's slave rebellion!). For example: there were frequent small rebellions happening everywhere in the years around this time, though most went no further than a single family. All the great rebellions - including Toussaint L'Ouverture's in Haiti - were led by people who were mobile. (L'Ouverture was a livery driver, and the French colonizers had lots of parties to display their wealth!) Mobile people could gather information, and organize people, and quietly plan and build an organization, over years of work. Turner's preaching travels must have been opportunities for organizing as well. How did movements get built? How did people come to know each other well enough that they'd trust one another with their lives? We don't see anything like that here. It's wrong to think that those organizations just sprouted from one brilliant messianic leader and a bunch of followers, which is pretty much how it looks in this film. The real Black community was important in making Turner's planned rebellion actually happen - a date of July 4th had been set, but Turner got cold feet. The community pushed him to go forward, and the actual uprising came in late August. How were those tensions expressed? The grievances against the slaveowners look personal in the film - brutality, rape - but they had an economic foundation as well. A depression had started in agricultural prices in 1819 - the bursting of a banking bubble! (Grievances against those same bankers were important in the 1830s rise of Andrew Jackson, populist and scourge of the Native Americans.) Slaveowners responded to the loss of income. Some sold their slaves south to Georgia. Some hired brutal overseers to squeeze more labor out of their slaves, as the film does show. Some curious facts are preserved in the film: there /was/ an actual annular solar eclipse, taken as a sign that the time had come - in February of the year of the rebellion, 1831, and Southampton County VA was nearly on its center line. Turner, who had (pre-rebellion) escaped and fasted in the wilderness, had visions during his fast, including of blood coming from the corn, and of black and white angels wrestling in the sky. Lou Turner, on the panel, recommended to us Nat Turner's Confessions, dictated in prison after he turned himself in. They became maybe the first American best-seller book. (Text is on line here and surely elsewhere.) The film doesn't try to show anything about them. And it only hints at the great influence Turner's rebellion had going forward. It really was a wonderful panel (whose good comments the notes above don't begin to summarize). Thanks to all who took part! Paul Mueth made an audio recording - I hope it turns out to be usable. And even with its limitations, this looks to be an important film. I hope people, especially white people, will see it. On 10/10/16 2:44 PM, Irenka Carney wrote: > I couldn't agree more, and that is spectacularly well put, Rachel! > > On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 2:38 PM, Storm, Rachel Lauren via Peace > > wrote: > > /“Don’t let the manufactured outrage about what Parker may or may > not have done as a teenager deter you from seeing this liberating > film.”/ > > > > I’m disappointed by this endorsement of a message/an op-ed that > dismisses concerns about violence against women as “manufactured > outrage” on a listserv allegedly concerned with anti-violence and > peace-building. I think we need deeper conversations about gender > and race-based violence and a recognition that we can’t separate > war and structural violence from interpersonal violence. > > > > See the film, sure—but rather than dismiss outrage as > “manufactured” and sexual assault allegations as dismissible > because of a lapse in time or worse yet, because Parker was a > “teenager,” understand that sexual assault survivors are > frequently disbelieved, blamed for their own victimization, and > failed by the criminal justice system. Parker’s victim, clearly > suffering from trauma both from the assault and the aftermath, > took her own life after no one was held accountable for the harm > she experienced. As people committed to anti-war, anti-violence, > and social justice— we must be able to hold our own accountable. > > > > > > > > *From:*Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net > ] *On Behalf Of *C. G. > Estabrook via Peace > *Sent:* Sunday, October 09, 2016 7:58 PM > *To:* Stuart Levy > *Cc:* Peace Discuss; occupycu; Peace > *Subject:* Re: [Peace] [OccupyCU] upcoming events: "Birth of a > Nation" w/panel tonight... > > > > [A good note on Birth of a Nation from the editor of CounterPunch, > Jeffrey St Clair] > > > > Styron’s Historic Libel > > I never took to William Styron’s writing. He aspired to be > Virginia’s William Faulkner, but Styron never had the master’s > heart or humor. Behind those ornate, fractured, Cubist sentences, > Faulkner was a writer who was haunted the barbarities of his own > nation’s history and he had a deep feeling for those on the losing > end: the blacks, the poor, the dispossessed and, especially, the > women, all straining under the cruel shadow of the debased > Southern aristocracy. Check out Light in August, a searing > testament to Faulkner’s extraordinary empathy. > > By contrast, William Styron seemed obsessed by the failures of > his own mind, which can make for powerful fiction in the hands > of Dostoevsky. But Styron was no Dostoevsky, either. Styron’s > self-loathing is projected onto his characters, nowhere more > morbidly than in his book The Confessions of Nat Turner. Styron’s > portrait of the black revolutionary is depraved. His Turner is > almost subhuman, a kind of black Caliban driven by animal > instincts and wild emotions that overwhelm his intellect and sense > of morality. This is white fantasy, since we know very little > about the man himself, except for the brutal treatment he received > from the Virginia slave masters. Styron’s own family were > slaveowners and the most generous reading of the novel is as a > kind of psychological exercise to purge those ancestral demons, at > the expense of one of the most heroic black figures in American > history. > > My familial roots grow deep into the Virginia piedmont country and > I went to school in DC, where I got to know many Virginia > writers–novelists, essayists and poets. Few had any respect for > Styron; some were embarrassed for him. Styron later blamed the > hostile reaction toConfessions from black writers and > intellectuals, such as Cecil Brown, for the onset of his crippling > episodes of writer’s block, which seems like one more case of > blaming the victims. Once Styron was considered one of the three > Great White Male Hopes for the American novel, along with Gore > Vidal and Norman Mailer. Now Styron is regarded, if at all, > for Darkness Visible, his rather austere chronicle of his battles > with depression. Perhaps there’s a measure of cold justice in that > fate. > > Alexander Cockburn used to bump into the Styrons, Bill and > Rose, when he lived on Cape Cod. He adored Rose and spoke > glowingly to me of their dinner conversations. Alex claimed that > Bill was usually plastered by 4 pm, babbling incoherencies deep > into the evening. > > Nat Turner’s life and fiery uprising against the slaveowners has > been redeemed from Styron’s libels by Nathan Parker’s powerful > new film,Birth of a Nation. Don’t let the manufactured outrage > about what Parker may or may not have done as a teenager deter you > from seeing this liberating film. Watch the movie and judge it on > its own merits. I bet that, like me, you’ll leave the theater > uplifted with a joyous anger, rather than depressed, which is > exactly the way revolutionary art should make you feel. > > > > > > On Oct 9, 2016, at 1:33 PM, Stuart Levy via OccupyCU > > wrote: > > * > 7pm Sun 10/9 *tonight* - "Birth of a Nation" *film at the Art > Theater, > with panel discussion to follow. (The film is showing at > many other times too over the next couple of weeks, but this > is the only panel.) > > Nate Parker's acclaimed film about Nat Turner's slave revolt > addresses U.S. history and revolutionary violence, and raises > several necessary specters of discussion - on & offscreen. > > More info: http://www.arttheater.coop/the-birth-of-a-nation/ > > > > Post-show panel: > Malaika Mckee-Culpepper (Department of African American > Studies, UIUC) > Charisse Burden-Stelly (Department of African American > Studies, UIUC) > Robert King (Men Against Rape and Sexual Assault and the > Breakfast Club) > Lou Turner (Department of African American Studies, UIUC) > Moderated by Sundiata Cha-Jua (Department of African-American > Studies, UIUC) > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > > > > > > -- > *ɪ'rɛn.**kə* > *ɪ*: like in *i*t > *rɛn* : like a *wren* > *kə*: like in *cu*t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brussel at illinois.edu Tue Oct 11 16:06:33 2016 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 16:06:33 +0000 Subject: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] Nuclear Power concerns In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9B4D7C33-D63E-4344-8999-05EA3EA1DCE7@illinois.edu> All this is too ambiguous, vague, uncertain to be taken seriously (by me) . On Oct 11, 2016, at 8:26 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: Morton, I’m not discrediting the “technology” but the profit motive involved in the set up, and the security risks, which are just as dangerous at our chemical plants. [Antiwar.com] [http://dgxhtav2e25a8.cloudfront.net/highlights.jpg] The Saudis, Hillary, and Death in Yemen Justin Raimondo on the horrible war crimes there The Next President Will Drone People Lucy Steigerwald on the ongoing terror war Fifteen Years Into the Afghan War Do Americans know the truth? Ron Paul [http://dgxhtav2e25a8.cloudfront.net/breaking.jpg] Officials Split on Attacking Russia in Syria Obama hesitant to start a war months before leaving office More US Troops in Iraq Ahead of Mosul Op 6,000 US troops in Iraq, with more arriving all the time US: No 'Blank Check' for Saudis in Yemen Support for coalition war against Yemen [http://d3hx7dpmkgxle9.cloudfront.net/ScottHortonShow3a.gif] Pardon Edward Snowden! Trevor Timm on the American hero The Islamophobia Industry David Noriega on ACT For America's nonsense ISIS Fighters Desert Streets of Mosul But where have they gone? wonders Joe Lauria * Home * About Antiwar.com * Donate * Blog * US Casualties * Contact * Latest News IAEA Reveals Nuclear Plant Cyber-Attack Growing Fear That Plants Could Be a Target by Jason Ditz, October 10, 2016 Print This | Share This Vague fears about the inherent safety of anything with “nuclear” in the name always keeps them a high-priority security target, as well as a priority for militant groups. But has anyone ever tried to do anything with such a plant? The IAEA today suggested they might’ve. [http://news.antiwar.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/IAEA-Amano.jpg]Director Amano Yukiya todayreported that there was a “cyber attack” against an unnamed nuclear power plant in the last two or three years. The attack “disrupted” some unspecific operations, but didn’t force anything to shut down outright. Amano also revealed that about four years ago, someone at some other nuclear facility tried to steal some highly-enriched uranium, which might’ve been enough to build a dirty bomb of some sort, adding it was “not an imaginary risk.” Other security experts cited theoretical threats of “insider attacks” within the nuclear plants, though industry experts insisted that even such an infiltrator would likely be unable to do massive amounts of damage to a nuclear reactor. _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Oct 11 16:09:05 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 16:09:05 +0000 Subject: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] Nuclear Power concerns In-Reply-To: <9B4D7C33-D63E-4344-8999-05EA3EA1DCE7@illinois.edu> References: <9B4D7C33-D63E-4344-8999-05EA3EA1DCE7@illinois.edu> Message-ID: To me it means, bring the troops home, this is where we need security, as I said at our chemical plants as well as the nuclear plants. On Oct 11, 2016, at 09:06, Brussel, Morton K > wrote: All this is too ambiguous, vague, uncertain to be taken seriously (by me) . On Oct 11, 2016, at 8:26 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: Morton, I’m not discrediting the “technology” but the profit motive involved in the set up, and the security risks, which are just as dangerous at our chemical plants. [Antiwar.com] [http://dgxhtav2e25a8.cloudfront.net/highlights.jpg] The Saudis, Hillary, and Death in Yemen Justin Raimondo on the horrible war crimes there The Next President Will Drone People Lucy Steigerwald on the ongoing terror war Fifteen Years Into the Afghan War Do Americans know the truth? Ron Paul [http://dgxhtav2e25a8.cloudfront.net/breaking.jpg] Officials Split on Attacking Russia in Syria Obama hesitant to start a war months before leaving office More US Troops in Iraq Ahead of Mosul Op 6,000 US troops in Iraq, with more arriving all the time US: No 'Blank Check' for Saudis in Yemen Support for coalition war against Yemen [http://d3hx7dpmkgxle9.cloudfront.net/ScottHortonShow3a.gif] Pardon Edward Snowden! Trevor Timm on the American hero The Islamophobia Industry David Noriega on ACT For America's nonsense ISIS Fighters Desert Streets of Mosul But where have they gone? wonders Joe Lauria * Home * About Antiwar.com * Donate * Blog * US Casualties * Contact * Latest News IAEA Reveals Nuclear Plant Cyber-Attack Growing Fear That Plants Could Be a Target by Jason Ditz, October 10, 2016 Print This | Share This Vague fears about the inherent safety of anything with “nuclear” in the name always keeps them a high-priority security target, as well as a priority for militant groups. But has anyone ever tried to do anything with such a plant? The IAEA today suggested they might’ve. [http://news.antiwar.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/IAEA-Amano.jpg]Director Amano Yukiya todayreported that there was a “cyber attack” against an unnamed nuclear power plant in the last two or three years. The attack “disrupted” some unspecific operations, but didn’t force anything to shut down outright. Amano also revealed that about four years ago, someone at some other nuclear facility tried to steal some highly-enriched uranium, which might’ve been enough to build a dirty bomb of some sort, adding it was “not an imaginary risk.” Other security experts cited theoretical threats of “insider attacks” within the nuclear plants, though industry experts insisted that even such an infiltrator would likely be unable to do massive amounts of damage to a nuclear reactor. _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Tue Oct 11 20:39:36 2016 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 15:39:36 -0500 Subject: [Peace] Take part in the cablecast panel discussion, AWARE ON THE AIR In-Reply-To: References: <745FA348-0FE6-4122-86C3-7F01FC157753@newsfromneptune.com> <5489C839-553A-4E34-B30A-E11DC2FC15FA@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: Ron Szoke, who has been a mainstay of AWARE ON THE AIR on Urbana Public TV since its inception, has announced that he is on hiatus for a month or more. Members and friends of AWARE (Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort of C-U) are invited to participate in this spontaneous and unrehearsed panel discussion of US war and the racism it inspires. We record the hour-long program on Tuesdays at noon in the studios of Urbana Public TV ( = the Urbana City Council chambers), 100 Vine St., Urbana. All are welcome. My personal thanks to Ron for his years of work on local TV programs, CGE From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Oct 12 12:23:29 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 12:23:29 +0000 Subject: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] What last night's debate should have been about In-Reply-To: <1132666325.3850270.1476256695625@mail.yahoo.com> References: <745FA348-0FE6-4122-86C3-7F01FC157753@newsfromneptune.com> <5489C839-553A-4E34-B30A-E11DC2FC15FA@newsfromneptune.com> <1374731823.2748007.1476154611558@mail.yahoo.com> <1992775851.2750166.1476155956168@mail.yahoo.com> <33342E4C-0BDD-433D-AF9F-172EC117AF29@newsfromneptune.com> <1299546216.2774535.1476157809952@mail.yahoo.com> <376F910A-56B2-4BA2-A470-0B7371DCF797@newsfromneptune.com> , <1132666325.3850270.1476256695625@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Greg You've made some good points here, worthy of further discussion, though I personally don't care to engage in discussions related to electoral politics, or the two major candidates. It must be noted that while neither candidate holding the reigns of power are likely to want to incinerate their own fortunes, accidents and blowback do happen. While incinerating the other half of humanity, that should be kept in mind. I doubt that has occurred to either of them, any more than it has occurred to most Americans. ________________________________ From: Gregg Gordon Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 2:18:15 AM To: C. G. Estabrook; Karen Aram Cc: John W.; peace; Peace-discuss List; Occupy CU Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] What last night's debate should have been about OMG -- must we? Left or right is hardly the point when it comes to Donald Trump anymore. The point is the mental stability of a man who seeks control of thousands of nuclear weapons. You want to talk about war? Yeah, let's talk about it. To take this discussion to the lowest level possible -- why waste time, after all -- I trust the corrupt and evil Hillary Clinton to not want to incinerate the fortune she has worked so hard to acquire. Trump has just gone "nuclear" with his campaign, and I have no reason to think he wouldn't do so with the real thing -- and all of our lives --given the opportunity. 16 years of "party building" has taken the Greens from Ralph Nader's 3% to Jill Stein's 1% and has resulted in the election of not a single US Congressperson -- not even close -- so someone in that camp has not done a very good job, certainly not enough to inspire confidence in me that that is a promising alternative. But hey -- you never know. The polls could be wrong. This might be the time. Success is just around the corner. Democracy's on the march. So if you want to vote Green, vote Green. In my opinion, that makes you 99.44% pure, and .56% relevant , which frankly, is exactly where I want you. ________________________________ From: C. G. Estabrook To: Karen Aram Cc: John W. ; peace ; Peace-discuss List ; Gregg Gordon ; Occupy CU Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 8:32 AM Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] What last night's debate should have been about I think the correct course is to continue to point out that Stein-Baraka are far superior to either ‘major’ party on the issues, especially war. We still need to answer the objection that a vote for a third party is a vote for Trump, by pointing out that Trump has accurately criticized Clinton’s neocon warmongering. As Glen Ford and others point out, Trump is substantially to the left of Clinton on foreign policy (and perhaps economic policy - the trade pacts - as well). That’s why the Democrats want to focus on the ‘personal’ - and we should talk about war. > On Oct 11, 2016, at 7:33 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: > > Carl > > This Karen Capel person is continuing to stalk me, just like Roger Helbig, either on or off the List, they are incapable of discussing the issues so they just lash out with insults, Greg is another one. > > Many Americans like Trump, because he represents this level of people. > > Then of course a few academics and intellectuals also like Trump but thats because they only listen to the “true things" Trump says in order to discredit the “Left”. He lacks credibility so nothing he says is meaningful, and anyone who supports him in the US is also vilified as a result. People who are intellectuals and academics supporting Trump aren’t in touch with mainstream media or people. They are looking at the big picture, and the potential for disaster. Unfortunately, any assumption that a jerk like Trump would reverse our path to destruction is misguided. Republicans and Democrats follow the same foreign policy, they may play good cop, bad cop with the American people but throwing a bone or two to the starving is of little comfort. > > Then we have those who support Hillary because she presents the image of the lesser evil, at least in respect to America, these are people who don’t recognize we live in a global world, not just a county, state, or nation. So when it hits home, they aren’t able to grasp the fact that it’s all connected, when they do, it will likely be too late. > > Chomsky’s "Manufactured Consent" in spades. > > >> On Oct 10, 2016, at 21:22, C. G. Estabrook > wrote: >> >> —allows us to form answers to common objections/shows us what views are being encouraged by government & media. >> >> >>> On Oct 10, 2016, at 11:06 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>> >>> Another troll, Gregg, who has nothing of value to add, just insults. No concern for the issues facing humanity, just insults. >>> >>>> On Oct 10, 2016, at 20:50, Gregg Gordon via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>>> >>>> I suggest you hold your breath until you turn blue. >>>> >>>> >>>> From: C. G. Estabrook > >>>> To: Gregg Gordon > >>>> Cc: John W. >; peace >; Peace-discuss List >; sf-core >; Occupy CU > >>>> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 10:32 PM >>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] What last night's debate should have been about >>>> >>>> Verbally. But Clinton’s stomping killed a lot of people. As Trump said, she should be in jail - in The Hague, awaiting trial on war crimes charges. >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Oct 10, 2016, at 10:19 PM, Gregg Gordon > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> You're right. He did a lot of stomping. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: C. G. Estabrook > >>>>> To: Gregg Gordon > >>>>> Cc: John W. >; peace >; Peace-discuss List >; sf-core >; Occupy CU > >>>>> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 10:10 PM >>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] What last night's debate should have been about >>>>> >>>>> Trump was quite clear and concise in Sunday’s debate when he stomped on Pence’s neocon fire-breathing on Syria: “I didn’t talk to him and he’s wrong”! >>>>> >>>>> —CGE >>>>> >>>>>> On Oct 10, 2016, at 9:56 PM, Gregg Gordon via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> When he attempted to address policy, it came out as an incoherent string of seemingly random phrases in no particular order -- nothing approaching a complete sentence, not sure there was a subject OR a verb in there. Carl's quote must have gotten some help from the journalist who quoted him, just to find places to put punctuation. >>>>>> From: John W. via Peace > >>>>>> To: C. G. Estabrook > >>>>>> Cc: peace >; Peace-discuss List >; sf-core >; Occupy CU > >>>>>> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 8:12 PM >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace] What last night's debate should have been about >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Vote for Donald Trump. He's a foreign policy genius! >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 5:47 PM, C. G. Estabrook via Peace > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://consortiumnews.com/ 2016/10/10/hillary-clinton- candidate-of-war/ >>>>>> >>>>>> ...“Now, she talks tough,” [Trump] said of Clinton: “She talks really tough against Putin and against Assad. She talks in favor of the rebels. She doesn’t even know who the rebels are. You know, every time we take rebels whether it’s in Iraq or anywhere else, we’re arming people. And you know what happens? They end up being worse than the people [they overthrow]. Look at what she did in Libya with Gaddafi. Gaddafi is out. It’s a mess. And by the way, ISIS has a good chunk of their oil. I’m sure you’ve probably have heard that. It was a disaster. The fact is almost everything she has done has been a mistake and it’s been a disaster.” >>>>>> >>>>>> Trump’s comment was correct, more or less ... Hillary Clinton has made it crystal clear. Anyone who votes for her is voting for greatly expanded warfare in the Middle East and probably military confrontation with Russia elsewhere as well. As bad as things are in Syria, in a few months they could get a lot worse... >>>>>> >>>>>> _ > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Wed Oct 12 13:25:08 2016 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 08:25:08 -0500 Subject: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] What last night's debate should have been about In-Reply-To: <1132666325.3850270.1476256695625@mail.yahoo.com> References: <745FA348-0FE6-4122-86C3-7F01FC157753@newsfromneptune.com> <5489C839-553A-4E34-B30A-E11DC2FC15FA@newsfromneptune.com> <1374731823.2748007.1476154611558@mail.yahoo.com> <1992775851.2750166.1476155956168@mail.yahoo.com> <33342E4C-0BDD-433D-AF9F-172EC117AF29@newsfromneptune.com> <1299546216.2774535.1476157809952@mail.yahoo.com> <376F910A-56B2-4BA2-A470-0B7371DCF797@newsfromneptune.com> <1132666325.3850270.1476256695625@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: WAR AND THE GREEN PARTY A Green party president, such as Jill Stein, would stop the vicious war-making over which the current US president presides. Like all American presidents for more than a generation, President Obama is making war around the world. And now his administration is threatening Russia with war in Syria - and beyond. Since World War II, US presidents have killed more than 20 million people in 37 nations. The US remains during the Obama administration what Martin Luther King called it long ago: “...the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.” When the new president is inaugurated next January, Barack Obama will have become the first US president - ever - to have been at war throughout two presidential terms. He has attacked eight countries (two more than George Bush), and he is today conducting what has been called “the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times” - his drone assassinations. He has killed thousands of civilians with drones, including US citizens and hundreds of children. The New York Times says he chooses the targets himself, from lists prepared by the CIA. In addition to conducting wars throughout the Mideast, the Obama administration is acting with belligerence toward China and promoting an ongoing proxy war against Russia in Ukraine; that war has already killed more people than Israel killed (with US permission) in Gaza in 2014. The president is risking war with both Russia and China, even nuclear war. He also commands a 70,000-member private army, the Special Operations Command, active in more than 130 countries. Their activities include kidnapping ("rendition"), murder, and torture. Not only is the Obama administration risking nuclear war, they’re preparing for it: President Obama has launched a 1o-year trillion dollar program to update nuclear weapons - and make them more usable! The Obama administration is also responsible for the vicious civil war in Syria, which has killed thousands and flooded Europe with refugees. Hillary Clinton - responsible for horrors in Honduras, Libya, Syria and elsewhere - as president would only continue and intensify the warmongering of the Bush and Obama administrations, the blowback from which is now producing terrorist attacks in Europe and America. The Green party says instead, “Establish a foreign policy based on diplomacy, international law, and human rights. End the wars [in the Mideast and elsewhere] and stop the drone attacks; cut military spending by at least 50% and close the more than 700 foreign military bases. [Neither Russia nor China has more than twelve.] Stop US support and arms sales to human rights abusers [notably Israel], and lead on global nuclear disarmament.” That’s a call for a reversal of the Obama administration’s foreign and military policy. The positions of the Green party’s presidential candidate, Jill Stein, on both foreign and domestic policy - to say nothing of climate catastrophe - are far better than those of the major party candidates. And we shouldn’t be dissuaded from voting for Stein by the argument that voting for a third party helps Trump - because even his positions on war and the economy are substantially better than Clinton's. Clinton is the candidate of the ‘defense’ industries and Wall Street because they see accurately that she is both neoconservative (which means more war) and neoliberal (which means more austerity) - and that Trump isn’t. Not only do the leading neoliberals support Clinton, but also the leading neocons have fled the Republicans to support her. With Clinton as president, we're certain to get more war, in the tradition of the last 25 years. With Trump as president, we might not. The Australian journalist John Pilger writes, “The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is up. These tribunes of ‘perpetual war’ are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China's Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world's great power talking peace - however unlikely - would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire.” But there is in fact a candidate talking peace - and a reversal of Obama’s war policies - even more than Trump, and that’s Jill Stein of the Green party. Opponents of more American war should consider voting for the Green party’s nominees, Jill Stein for president, Ajamu Baraka for vice-president, and Scott Summers for US Senate. —CGE > On Oct 12, 2016, at 2:18 AM, Gregg Gordon wrote: > > OMG -- must we? > > Left or right is hardly the point when it comes to Donald Trump anymore. The point is the mental stability of a man who seeks control of thousands of nuclear weapons. You want to talk about war? Yeah, let's talk about it. > > To take this discussion to the lowest level possible -- why waste time, after all -- I trust the corrupt and evil Hillary Clinton to not want to incinerate the fortune she has worked so hard to acquire. Trump has just gone "nuclear" with his campaign, and I have no reason to think he wouldn't do so with the real thing -- and all of our lives --given the opportunity. > > 16 years of "party building" has taken the Greens from Ralph Nader's 3% to Jill Stein's 1% and has resulted in the election of not a single US Congressperson -- not even close -- so someone in that camp has not done a very good job, certainly not enough to inspire confidence in me that that is a promising alternative. But hey -- you never know. The polls could be wrong. This might be the time. Success is just around the corner. Democracy's on the march. So if you want to vote Green, vote Green. In my opinion, that makes you 99.44% pure, and .56% relevant , which frankly, is exactly where I want you. > > > > > From: C. G. Estabrook > To: Karen Aram > Cc: John W. ; peace ; Peace-discuss List ; Gregg Gordon ; Occupy CU > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 8:32 AM > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] What last night's debate should have been about > > I think the correct course is to continue to point out that Stein-Baraka are far superior to either ‘major’ party on the issues, especially war. > > We still need to answer the objection that a vote for a third party is a vote for Trump, by pointing out that Trump has accurately criticized Clinton’s neocon warmongering. > > As Glen Ford and others point out, Trump is substantially to the left of Clinton on foreign policy (and perhaps economic policy - the trade pacts - as well). > > That’s why the Democrats want to focus on the ‘personal’ - and we should talk about war. > From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Oct 12 16:20:19 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 16:20:19 +0000 Subject: [Peace] This guy is terrific..... Message-ID: 1. Karen Aram shared a link. 2. [https://external.ford1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/safe_image.php?d=AQC62kWgYetgOYxf&w=158&h=158&url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FjGKo2rSgMBc%2Fmaxresdefault.jpg&cfs=1&upscale=1&sx=291&sy=0&sw=720&sh=720] 3. Adrian Boutureira Sansberro 6 Oct 2016 The Field Organizer for Dr. Jill Stein's presidential campaign is Adrian Boutureira, and he spoke to a San Francisco crowd before Jill Stein came to the stage. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Oct 13 13:50:01 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 13:50:01 +0000 Subject: [Peace] [New post] King Pumipon of Thailand, now dead. In-Reply-To: References: <61854989.822.0@wordpress.com> Message-ID: On Oct 13, 2016, at 06:49, Karen > wrote: This article portrays my thoughts precisely. I lived in Thailand 22 years, asked questions, but never received answers because the people were so enamored of the King, or afraid of the law of "else majeste", which meant one could be arrested if they said anything critical of the monarchy. In recent years this law was extended to cover the military and all government. To those who think it unkind to speak ill of the dead: We live and die, and the best we can hope for is to die in our own beds, at an old age. To have lived a life of luxury at the expense of others, to have supported, contributed to the untimely and horrible deaths of the young, the poor, or anyone wanting progress, does not deserve respect or kind words of sympathy, upon their death. On Oct 13, 2016, at 05:23, Uglytruth-Thailand > wrote: New post on Uglytruth-Thailand [http://s0.wp.com/i/emails/blavatar.png] [http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/b94c98491e599510a5ec039e64af3261?s=50&d=identicon&r=G] King Pumipon of Thailand by uglytruththailand Giles Ji Ungpakorn King Pumipon of Thailand was a weak and characterless monarch who spent his useless and privileged life in a bubble, surrounded by fawning, grovelling, toadies who claimed that he was a “god”. He was a pathetic creature who should not in any way be pitied. His life’s work was in self-enrichment, support for military regimes and the defence of inequality. He played a significant role in preventing democratic rights, the development of social justice and the fair and unbiased use of the law. He did this by legitimising all the worst government policies and atrocities committed by Thai rulers. In recent years he remained silent while more and more dissidents were jailed, under the draconian lèse majesté law, for merely speaking out against the destruction of democracy. He always remained silent about the killing of innocent civilians by the military. [Pumipon and son with dictator Tanom] Pumipon and son with dictator Tanom Pumipon was a willing tool of the military, who constantly staged coups and obstructed democracy and the economic development of the Thai people. For Pumipon this resulted in great rewards. He amassed so much wealth from the work of others during his reign, that he became the richest man in Thailand and the richest monarch in the world. Yet he preached, through the “Sufficiency Economy Ideology” that his “subjects” should be happy in their poverty and he always opposed any redistribution of wealth. Thailand is one of the most unequal countries in Asia. His toadies had to constantly project a photo of him with a drop of sweat falling from his nose. The photo was always the same one, since Pumipon seldom did anything to work up a real sweat. Unbelievably, his followers wept when the Palace released a photo of him tying his own shoe-laces without help from any servants. He allowed the use of crawling and special royal language in his presence without any sense of shame and he passed on his warped and elitist view of the world to his dysfunctional children. [Pumipon working up a sweat just thinking about doing real work] Pumipon working up a sweat just thinking about doing real work [Pumipon trying to tie his own shoe laces] Pumipon trying to tie his own shoe laces Pumipon was born in the United States and spent much of his youth in Switzerland. His love of fast cars and the good life resulted in him losing an eye in a car accident. He came to the throne after his elder brother died from gunshot wounds to the head in 1946. His brother’s death was either a suicide or a gun accident, involving Pumipon. Either way, Pumipon was fully aware of the circumstances of his brother’s death, but chose to keep them a secret, allowing 3 innocent palace staff to be executed and allowing Pridi Panomyong to be falsely blamed for the incident by his political opponents. Pumipon carried on his career as a monarch in this deceitful and spineless manner for the rest of his life. [Pumipon saying his last goodbyes to the despot Sarit] Pumipon saying his last goodbyes to the despot Sarit During the late 1950s and early 1960s he was used by Thailand’s corrupt and despotic ruler, Field Marshall Sarit Tanarat, to build a strong coalition between the military and the monarchists. The monarchy had fallen into disrepute and was very unpopular among the Thai people in the 1930s and 1940s, before and after the successful revolution which overthrew the absolute monarchy in 1932. Even key military leaders had republican leanings in those days. Sarit and the monarchists used the Cold War as a means of building up the prestige of the conservative elites. King Pumipon was systematically promoted as the symbolic figurehead of this “anti-Communist” alliance and Pumipon became very fond of Sarit. Even the U.S. government helped out by distributing photos of the King to villagers in rural areas as part of the fight against communism. Any house without such a picture would be deemed as “red”. When the dictator Sarit died, his deputies, Tanom and Prapart, became the next bunch of corrupt military rulers and Pumipon carried on working with them. Never once did Pumipon ever speak up for democracy or social justice. Never once did he criticise corruption. The military promoted the King and his so-called “Royal Projects”, but over the years these projects had little impact on the standard of living of the majority of Thais. In October 1973 the military regime was overthrown by a mass popular uprising and Pumipon was called upon by the elites to step in and protect the status quo. This he did by appearing on television and announcing a new civilian government. Thus he also managed to pretend that he was a “democratic king”. But the dark clouds of class struggle were looming. This was at the height of the Vietnam War and the students and social activists in Thailand were looking for real social change. They were attracted by the ideas of the Communist Party. Pumipon joined up with the military and conservative elites in promoting right-wing paramilitary groups, such as the Village Scouts, who attacked the students and the Left. The end result was a bloody crackdown at Thammasart University in October 1976. Pumipon supported this crackdown, the military coup that followed, and the general repression and censorship under the new dictatorship. He justified this by saying, in December 1976, that Thailand had had “too much democracy”. Left-leaning Thais hated him for this. After 6th October 1976 massacre, Thailand was plunged into a civil war between the government and the communist party. [Pumipon with the Village Scouts] Pumipon with the Village Scouts By the mid 1980s the democratic space in Thailand was opening up and an elected civilian government came to power. Soon this was toppled by a new military coup in 1991 and Pumipon supported the military leaders again. However, a mass popular uprising and street fighting in Bangkok, in 1992, ended the dictatorship. When it was clear that the army had lost, Pumipon appeared again in public in order to claim his democratic credentials. But scores of people had been killed. Democratic elections were held and the political elites fell over each other to grovel and praise the “Great King”, while promoting and re-promoting his “super human talents”. By doing this they increased their own legitimacy. Pumipon lapped this all up and probably came to believe himself, that he was Devine. One of those elite politicians who helped to promote Pumipon’s image was Taksin Shinawat, who won repeated elections because his party had serious pro-poor policies. The vast majority of the Thai electorate enjoyed real and immediate economic and social gains from these policies. This was in stark contrast to the King’s supposedly good works over many decades. Going with the flow as ever, Pumipon praised Taksin’s brutal War on Drugs where 3000 people were killed by extra-judiciary means. Taksin’s influence among the majority of the electorate eventually enraged his rivals among the conservative elites: the army, the bureaucracy and the conservative political and business classes. The result was the 2006 and 2014 military coups and the subsequent destruction of democracy. Pumipon was a willing tool in these coups too, allowing his name to be used by the army and the royalist thugs who had laid the ground for such coups. He never once had the courage or the integrity to help prevent the growing political crisis. In fact Pumipon has never built stability for Thai citizens and never managed to “hold the country together”. He is a symbol of naked class oppression. When the army gunned down nearly a hundred civilians in April and May 2010, Pumipon remained silent. He was old, but he could still speak, often making speeches to newly appointed judges. This event alone was enough to show that having a King as Head of State was at best a complete waste of public money. It is this event, and the two military coups, which have raised serious questions in the minds of millions of Thai citizens about the so-called benefits of having Pumipon, or anyone else, as King. There is now a strong republican sentiment throughout Thailand. But it faces real repression. Many wrongly believed that Pumipon was powerful and ordered the 2006 coup and even the 2010 killings. By the time of the 2014 coup, Pumipon was so incapacitated by old age that he probably had limited awareness about what was happening. This did not stop General Prayut from using him, however. The fact is that Pumipon never had political power. His role was always to provide a strong ideological legitimacy for the elites and their actions, especially the actions of the army. Pumipon was never brave or resolute enough to be a political leader. He was the bright fairy on top of the Christmas tree. His ideological role was not just about defending the military and the undemocratic elites. His reactionary “Sufficiency Economy” ideology was designed to oppose any redistribution of wealth and to support neo-liberalism by opposing state intervention to alleviate poverty. All sections of the Thai elite sought to use him for their own benefit. This included top businessmen, including Taksin, and the civilian and military bureaucrats. Pumipon lived a life of luxury built on lies. He was projected as the “Father of the Nation, loved by all”. Yet his son, the Crown Prince is a half-wit and a bully, hated by many. He oppresses all women by publicising naked pictures of his women on the internet. Pumipon was supposed to be a “genius”. It was claimed that he led a “simple life”. Yet any criticism of his actions or those of the royalist elites, would be harshly punished by the use of the lèse majesté law. This is why many obituaries about him written by foreign journalists will continue to repeat the usual lies and nonsense in praise of this pathetic and loathsome man. Pumipon was a shy and alienated individual, more comfortable in the company of his dogs than that of fellow human beings. Millions of Thais will hope that his death will open the door to progressive changes to Thai society. But they will be disappointed as nothing is automatic. We must continue the fight for democracy and social justice and we still have to deal with the military and Pumipon’s reactionary successor. It is time for a genuine democratic republic. The amassed wealth of the Thai Royal Family and all their palaces should be turned over to the people in order to build a welfare state. Shed not one tear for Pumipon. Instead, think of those who were killed in his name by the military and all the people who will have to suffer from the long drawn out and very expensive funeral rites. Lazy journalists will claim that the long-running political crisis was all about the Succession. But the main reason for the decade of political crisis was never about the king’s failing health nor succession but can be traced back to the 1997 economic crisis and the attempt by Taksin Shinawat to modernise Thai society. The Asian Economic crisis was the spark that exposed the existing fault-lines in Thai society, and the actions of political actors in response to this, eventually led to a back-lash against democracy by the conservatives. [See http://bit.ly/2d9UUAu ] Read more about the dreadful Wachiralongkorn, the future king, here: http://bit.ly/1vQ1War The King is dead! Long live the Republic!! Further reading: http://bit.ly/2cexlW1 , http://bit.ly/2bSpoF2, http://bit.ly/2cmZkAa uglytruththailand | October 13, 2016 at 12:23 pm | Tags: Giles Ji Ungpakorn, King Pumipon, Thai politics | Categories: Thai politics | URL: http://wp.me/p4bxj7-dg Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from Uglytruth-Thailand. Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions. Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: https://uglytruththailand.wordpress.com/2016/10/13/king-pumipon-of-thailand/ Thanks for flying with [https://s0.wp.com/i/emails/blavatar-default.png] WordPress.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Thu Oct 13 15:11:06 2016 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 10:11:06 -0500 Subject: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] [New post] King Pumipon of Thailand, now dead. In-Reply-To: References: <61854989.822.0@wordpress.com> Message-ID: Lèse-majesté /ˌliːz ˈmædʒᵻsti/ (French: lèse-majesté [lɛz maʒɛste]; Law French, from the Latin laesa maiestas, "injured majesty"; in English, also lese-majesty, lese majesty or leze majesty) is the crime of violating majesty, an offence against the dignity of a reigning sovereign or against a state. See >. > On Oct 13, 2016, at 8:50 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > >> On Oct 13, 2016, at 06:49, Karen > wrote: >> >> This article portrays my thoughts precisely. I lived in Thailand 22 years, asked questions, but never received answers because the people were so enamored of the King, or afraid of the law of "else majeste", which meant one could be arrested if they said anything critical of the monarchy. In recent years this law was extended to cover the military and all government. >> >> To those who think it unkind to speak ill of the dead: >> >> We live and die, and the best we can hope for is to die in our own beds, at an old age. To have lived a life of luxury at the expense of others, to have supported, contributed to the untimely and horrible deaths of the young, the poor, or anyone wanting progress, does not deserve respect or kind words of sympathy, upon their death. >> >>> On Oct 13, 2016, at 05:23, Uglytruth-Thailand > wrote: >>> >>> New post on Uglytruth-Thailand >>> >>> >>> King Pumipon of Thailand by uglytruththailand >>> >>> Giles Ji Ungpakorn >>> >>> King Pumipon of Thailand was a weak and characterless monarch who spent his useless and privileged life in a bubble, surrounded by fawning, grovelling, toadies who claimed that he was a “god”. He was a pathetic creature who should not in any way be pitied. His life’s work was in self-enrichment, support for military regimes and the defence of inequality. He played a significant role in preventing democratic rights, the development of social justice and the fair and unbiased use of the law. He did this by legitimising all the worst government policies and atrocities committed by Thai rulers. In recent years he remained silent while more and more dissidents were jailed, under the draconian lèse majesté law, for merely speaking out against the destruction of democracy. He always remained silent about the killing of innocent civilians by the military. >>> >>> >>> >>> Pumipon and son with dictator Tanom >>> >>> Pumipon was a willing tool of the military, who constantly staged coups and obstructed democracy and the economic development of the Thai people. For Pumipon this resulted in great rewards. He amassed so much wealth from the work of others during his reign, that he became the richest man in Thailand and the richest monarch in the world. Yet he preached, through the “Sufficiency Economy Ideology” that his “subjects” should be happy in their poverty and he always opposed any redistribution of wealth. Thailand is one of the most unequal countries in Asia. >>> >>> His toadies had to constantly project a photo of him with a drop of sweat falling from his nose. The photo was always the same one, since Pumipon seldom did anything to work up a real sweat. Unbelievably, his followers wept when the Palace released a photo of him tying his own shoe-laces without help from any servants. He allowed the use of crawling and special royal language in his presence without any sense of shame and he passed on his warped and elitist view of the world to his dysfunctional children. >>> >>> >>> >>> Pumipon working up a sweat just thinking about doing real work >>> >>> >>> >>> Pumipon trying to tie his own shoe laces >>> >>> Pumipon was born in the United States and spent much of his youth in Switzerland. His love of fast cars and the good life resulted in him losing an eye in a car accident. He came to the throne after his elder brother died from gunshot wounds to the head in 1946. His brother’s death was either a suicide or a gun accident, involving Pumipon. Either way, Pumipon was fully aware of the circumstances of his brother’s death, but chose to keep them a secret, allowing 3 innocent palace staff to be executed and allowing Pridi Panomyong to be falsely blamed for the incident by his political opponents. Pumipon carried on his career as a monarch in this deceitful and spineless manner for the rest of his life. >>> >>> >>> >>> Pumipon saying his last goodbyes to the despot Sarit >>> >>> During the late 1950s and early 1960s he was used by Thailand’s corrupt and despotic ruler, Field Marshall Sarit Tanarat, to build a strong coalition between the military and the monarchists. The monarchy had fallen into disrepute and was very unpopular among the Thai people in the 1930s and 1940s, before and after the successful revolution which overthrew the absolute monarchy in 1932. Even key military leaders had republican leanings in those days. Sarit and the monarchists used the Cold War as a means of building up the prestige of the conservative elites. King Pumipon was systematically promoted as the symbolic figurehead of this “anti-Communist” alliance and Pumipon became very fond of Sarit. Even the U.S. government helped out by distributing photos of the King to villagers in rural areas as part of the fight against communism. Any house without such a picture would be deemed as “red”. >>> >>> When the dictator Sarit died, his deputies, Tanom and Prapart, became the next bunch of corrupt military rulers and Pumipon carried on working with them. Never once did Pumipon ever speak up for democracy or social justice. Never once did he criticise corruption. The military promoted the King and his so-called “Royal Projects”, but over the years these projects had little impact on the standard of living of the majority of Thais. >>> >>> In October 1973 the military regime was overthrown by a mass popular uprising and Pumipon was called upon by the elites to step in and protect the status quo. This he did by appearing on television and announcing a new civilian government. Thus he also managed to pretend that he was a “democratic king”. But the dark clouds of class struggle were looming. This was at the height of the Vietnam War and the students and social activists in Thailand were looking for real social change. They were attracted by the ideas of the Communist Party. Pumipon joined up with the military and conservative elites in promoting right-wing paramilitary groups, such as the Village Scouts, who attacked the students and the Left. The end result was a bloody crackdown at Thammasart University in October 1976. Pumipon supported this crackdown, the military coup that followed, and the general repression and censorship under the new dictatorship. He justified this by saying, in December 1976, that Thailand had had “too much democracy”. Left-leaning Thais hated him for this. After 6th October 1976 massacre, Thailand was plunged into a civil war between the government and the communist party. >>> >>> >>> >>> Pumipon with the Village Scouts >>> >>> By the mid 1980s the democratic space in Thailand was opening up and an elected civilian government came to power. Soon this was toppled by a new military coup in 1991 and Pumipon supported the military leaders again. However, a mass popular uprising and street fighting in Bangkok, in 1992, ended the dictatorship. When it was clear that the army had lost, Pumipon appeared again in public in order to claim his democratic credentials. But scores of people had been killed. Democratic elections were held and the political elites fell over each other to grovel and praise the “Great King”, while promoting and re-promoting his “super human talents”. By doing this they increased their own legitimacy. Pumipon lapped this all up and probably came to believe himself, that he was Devine. >>> >>> One of those elite politicians who helped to promote Pumipon’s image was Taksin Shinawat, who won repeated elections because his party had serious pro-poor policies. The vast majority of the Thai electorate enjoyed real and immediate economic and social gains from these policies. This was in stark contrast to the King’s supposedly good works over many decades. Going with the flow as ever, Pumipon praised Taksin’s brutal War on Drugs where 3000 people were killed by extra-judiciary means. >>> >>> Taksin’s influence among the majority of the electorate eventually enraged his rivals among the conservative elites: the army, the bureaucracy and the conservative political and business classes. The result was the 2006 and 2014 military coups and the subsequent destruction of democracy. Pumipon was a willing tool in these coups too, allowing his name to be used by the army and the royalist thugs who had laid the ground for such coups. He never once had the courage or the integrity to help prevent the growing political crisis. In fact Pumipon has never built stability for Thai citizens and never managed to “hold the country together”. He is a symbol of naked class oppression. >>> >>> When the army gunned down nearly a hundred civilians in April and May 2010, Pumipon remained silent. He was old, but he could still speak, often making speeches to newly appointed judges. This event alone was enough to show that having a King as Head of State was at best a complete waste of public money. It is this event, and the two military coups, which have raised serious questions in the minds of millions of Thai citizens about the so-called benefits of having Pumipon, or anyone else, as King. There is now a strong republican sentiment throughout Thailand. But it faces real repression. >>> >>> Many wrongly believed that Pumipon was powerful and ordered the 2006 coup and even the 2010 killings. By the time of the 2014 coup, Pumipon was so incapacitated by old age that he probably had limited awareness about what was happening. This did not stop General Prayut from using him, however. >>> >>> The fact is that Pumipon never had political power. His role was always to provide a strong ideological legitimacy for the elites and their actions, especially the actions of the army. Pumipon was never brave or resolute enough to be a political leader. He was the bright fairy on top of the Christmas tree. His ideological role was not just about defending the military and the undemocratic elites. His reactionary “Sufficiency Economy” ideology was designed to oppose any redistribution of wealth and to support neo-liberalism by opposing state intervention to alleviate poverty. All sections of the Thai elite sought to use him for their own benefit. This included top businessmen, including Taksin, and the civilian and military bureaucrats. >>> >>> Pumipon lived a life of luxury built on lies. He was projected as the “Father of the Nation, loved by all”. Yet his son, the Crown Prince is a half-wit and a bully, hated by many. He oppresses all women by publicising naked pictures of his women on the internet. >>> >>> Pumipon was supposed to be a “genius”. It was claimed that he led a “simple life”. Yet any criticism of his actions or those of the royalist elites, would be harshly punished by the use of the lèse majesté law. This is why many obituaries about him written by foreign journalists will continue to repeat the usual lies and nonsense in praise of this pathetic and loathsome man. >>> >>> Pumipon was a shy and alienated individual, more comfortable in the company of his dogs than that of fellow human beings. Millions of Thais will hope that his death will open the door to progressive changes to Thai society. But they will be disappointed as nothing is automatic. We must continue the fight for democracy and social justice and we still have to deal with the military and Pumipon’s reactionary successor. It is time for a genuine democratic republic. The amassed wealth of the Thai Royal Family and all their palaces should be turned over to the people in order to build a welfare state. Shed not one tear for Pumipon. Instead, think of those who were killed in his name by the military and all the people who will have to suffer from the long drawn out and very expensive funeral rites. >>> >>> Lazy journalists will claim that the long-running political crisis was all about the Succession. But the main reason for the decade of political crisis was never about the king’s failing health nor succession but can be traced back to the 1997 economic crisis and the attempt by Taksin Shinawat to modernise Thai society. The Asian Economic crisis was the spark that exposed the existing fault-lines in Thai society, and the actions of political actors in response to this, eventually led to a back-lash against democracy by the conservatives. [See http://bit.ly/2d9UUAu ] >>> >>> Read more about the dreadful Wachiralongkorn, the future king, here: http://bit.ly/1vQ1War >>> The King is dead! Long live the Republic!! >>> >>> Further reading: http://bit.ly/2cexlW1 , http://bit.ly/2bSpoF2 , http://bit.ly/2cmZkAa >>> uglytruththailand | October 13, 2016 at 12:23 pm | Tags: Giles Ji Ungpakorn , King Pumipon , Thai politics | Categories: Thai politics | URL: http://wp.me/p4bxj7-dg >>> Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from Uglytruth-Thailand. >>> Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions . >>> >>> Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: >>> https://uglytruththailand.wordpress.com/2016/10/13/king-pumipon-of-thailand/ >>> Thanks for flying with  WordPress.com >> > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Oct 13 16:22:27 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 16:22:27 +0000 Subject: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] [New post] King Pumipon of Thailand, now dead. In-Reply-To: References: <61854989.822.0@wordpress.com> Message-ID: Thank you Carl, it is as you spelled it, my auto spell check keeps redoing it as “else”, worse than the British computers in Hong Kong that kept telling me my American English was incorrect. The author of the article, Giles, is a former Thai/British Professor, now exiled in the UK as a result of the L. M. law. The first western foreigners in ancient Siam were the French, so some words in use, are French accented. On Oct 13, 2016, at 08:11, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: Lèse-majesté /ˌliːz ˈmædʒᵻsti/ (French: lèse-majesté [lɛz maʒɛste]; Law French, from the Latin laesa maiestas, "injured majesty"; in English, also lese-majesty, lese majesty or leze majesty) is the crime of violating majesty, an offence against the dignity of a reigning sovereign or against a state. See . On Oct 13, 2016, at 8:50 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: On Oct 13, 2016, at 06:49, Karen > wrote: This article portrays my thoughts precisely. I lived in Thailand 22 years, asked questions, but never received answers because the people were so enamored of the King, or afraid of the law of "else majeste", which meant one could be arrested if they said anything critical of the monarchy. In recent years this law was extended to cover the military and all government. To those who think it unkind to speak ill of the dead: We live and die, and the best we can hope for is to die in our own beds, at an old age. To have lived a life of luxury at the expense of others, to have supported, contributed to the untimely and horrible deaths of the young, the poor, or anyone wanting progress, does not deserve respect or kind words of sympathy, upon their death. On Oct 13, 2016, at 05:23, Uglytruth-Thailand > wrote: New post on Uglytruth-Thailand [http://s0.wp.com/i/emails/blavatar.png] [http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/b94c98491e599510a5ec039e64af3261?s=50&d=identicon&r=G] King Pumipon of Thailand by uglytruththailand Giles Ji Ungpakorn King Pumipon of Thailand was a weak and characterless monarch who spent his useless and privileged life in a bubble, surrounded by fawning, grovelling, toadies who claimed that he was a “god”. He was a pathetic creature who should not in any way be pitied. His life’s work was in self-enrichment, support for military regimes and the defence of inequality. He played a significant role in preventing democratic rights, the development of social justice and the fair and unbiased use of the law. He did this by legitimising all the worst government policies and atrocities committed by Thai rulers. In recent years he remained silent while more and more dissidents were jailed, under the draconian lèse majesté law, for merely speaking out against the destruction of democracy. He always remained silent about the killing of innocent civilians by the military. [Pumipon and son with dictator Tanom] Pumipon and son with dictator Tanom Pumipon was a willing tool of the military, who constantly staged coups and obstructed democracy and the economic development of the Thai people. For Pumipon this resulted in great rewards. He amassed so much wealth from the work of others during his reign, that he became the richest man in Thailand and the richest monarch in the world. Yet he preached, through the “Sufficiency Economy Ideology” that his “subjects” should be happy in their poverty and he always opposed any redistribution of wealth. Thailand is one of the most unequal countries in Asia. His toadies had to constantly project a photo of him with a drop of sweat falling from his nose. The photo was always the same one, since Pumipon seldom did anything to work up a real sweat. Unbelievably, his followers wept when the Palace released a photo of him tying his own shoe-laces without help from any servants. He allowed the use of crawling and special royal language in his presence without any sense of shame and he passed on his warped and elitist view of the world to his dysfunctional children. [Pumipon working up a sweat just thinking about doing real work] Pumipon working up a sweat just thinking about doing real work [Pumipon trying to tie his own shoe laces] Pumipon trying to tie his own shoe laces Pumipon was born in the United States and spent much of his youth in Switzerland. His love of fast cars and the good life resulted in him losing an eye in a car accident. He came to the throne after his elder brother died from gunshot wounds to the head in 1946. His brother’s death was either a suicide or a gun accident, involving Pumipon. Either way, Pumipon was fully aware of the circumstances of his brother’s death, but chose to keep them a secret, allowing 3 innocent palace staff to be executed and allowing Pridi Panomyong to be falsely blamed for the incident by his political opponents. Pumipon carried on his career as a monarch in this deceitful and spineless manner for the rest of his life. [Pumipon saying his last goodbyes to the despot Sarit] Pumipon saying his last goodbyes to the despot Sarit During the late 1950s and early 1960s he was used by Thailand’s corrupt and despotic ruler, Field Marshall Sarit Tanarat, to build a strong coalition between the military and the monarchists. The monarchy had fallen into disrepute and was very unpopular among the Thai people in the 1930s and 1940s, before and after the successful revolution which overthrew the absolute monarchy in 1932. Even key military leaders had republican leanings in those days. Sarit and the monarchists used the Cold War as a means of building up the prestige of the conservative elites. King Pumipon was systematically promoted as the symbolic figurehead of this “anti-Communist” alliance and Pumipon became very fond of Sarit. Even the U.S. government helped out by distributing photos of the King to villagers in rural areas as part of the fight against communism. Any house without such a picture would be deemed as “red”. When the dictator Sarit died, his deputies, Tanom and Prapart, became the next bunch of corrupt military rulers and Pumipon carried on working with them. Never once did Pumipon ever speak up for democracy or social justice. Never once did he criticise corruption. The military promoted the King and his so-called “Royal Projects”, but over the years these projects had little impact on the standard of living of the majority of Thais. In October 1973 the military regime was overthrown by a mass popular uprising and Pumipon was called upon by the elites to step in and protect the status quo. This he did by appearing on television and announcing a new civilian government. Thus he also managed to pretend that he was a “democratic king”. But the dark clouds of class struggle were looming. This was at the height of the Vietnam War and the students and social activists in Thailand were looking for real social change. They were attracted by the ideas of the Communist Party. Pumipon joined up with the military and conservative elites in promoting right-wing paramilitary groups, such as the Village Scouts, who attacked the students and the Left. The end result was a bloody crackdown at Thammasart University in October 1976. Pumipon supported this crackdown, the military coup that followed, and the general repression and censorship under the new dictatorship. He justified this by saying, in December 1976, that Thailand had had “too much democracy”. Left-leaning Thais hated him for this. After 6th October 1976 massacre, Thailand was plunged into a civil war between the government and the communist party. [Pumipon with the Village Scouts] Pumipon with the Village Scouts By the mid 1980s the democratic space in Thailand was opening up and an elected civilian government came to power. Soon this was toppled by a new military coup in 1991 and Pumipon supported the military leaders again. However, a mass popular uprising and street fighting in Bangkok, in 1992, ended the dictatorship. When it was clear that the army had lost, Pumipon appeared again in public in order to claim his democratic credentials. But scores of people had been killed. Democratic elections were held and the political elites fell over each other to grovel and praise the “Great King”, while promoting and re-promoting his “super human talents”. By doing this they increased their own legitimacy. Pumipon lapped this all up and probably came to believe himself, that he was Devine. One of those elite politicians who helped to promote Pumipon’s image was Taksin Shinawat, who won repeated elections because his party had serious pro-poor policies. The vast majority of the Thai electorate enjoyed real and immediate economic and social gains from these policies. This was in stark contrast to the King’s supposedly good works over many decades. Going with the flow as ever, Pumipon praised Taksin’s brutal War on Drugs where 3000 people were killed by extra-judiciary means. Taksin’s influence among the majority of the electorate eventually enraged his rivals among the conservative elites: the army, the bureaucracy and the conservative political and business classes. The result was the 2006 and 2014 military coups and the subsequent destruction of democracy. Pumipon was a willing tool in these coups too, allowing his name to be used by the army and the royalist thugs who had laid the ground for such coups. He never once had the courage or the integrity to help prevent the growing political crisis. In fact Pumipon has never built stability for Thai citizens and never managed to “hold the country together”. He is a symbol of naked class oppression. When the army gunned down nearly a hundred civilians in April and May 2010, Pumipon remained silent. He was old, but he could still speak, often making speeches to newly appointed judges. This event alone was enough to show that having a King as Head of State was at best a complete waste of public money. It is this event, and the two military coups, which have raised serious questions in the minds of millions of Thai citizens about the so-called benefits of having Pumipon, or anyone else, as King. There is now a strong republican sentiment throughout Thailand. But it faces real repression. Many wrongly believed that Pumipon was powerful and ordered the 2006 coup and even the 2010 killings. By the time of the 2014 coup, Pumipon was so incapacitated by old age that he probably had limited awareness about what was happening. This did not stop General Prayut from using him, however. The fact is that Pumipon never had political power. His role was always to provide a strong ideological legitimacy for the elites and their actions, especially the actions of the army. Pumipon was never brave or resolute enough to be a political leader. He was the bright fairy on top of the Christmas tree. His ideological role was not just about defending the military and the undemocratic elites. His reactionary “Sufficiency Economy” ideology was designed to oppose any redistribution of wealth and to support neo-liberalism by opposing state intervention to alleviate poverty. All sections of the Thai elite sought to use him for their own benefit. This included top businessmen, including Taksin, and the civilian and military bureaucrats. Pumipon lived a life of luxury built on lies. He was projected as the “Father of the Nation, loved by all”. Yet his son, the Crown Prince is a half-wit and a bully, hated by many. He oppresses all women by publicising naked pictures of his women on the internet. Pumipon was supposed to be a “genius”. It was claimed that he led a “simple life”. Yet any criticism of his actions or those of the royalist elites, would be harshly punished by the use of the lèse majesté law. This is why many obituaries about him written by foreign journalists will continue to repeat the usual lies and nonsense in praise of this pathetic and loathsome man. Pumipon was a shy and alienated individual, more comfortable in the company of his dogs than that of fellow human beings. Millions of Thais will hope that his death will open the door to progressive changes to Thai society. But they will be disappointed as nothing is automatic. We must continue the fight for democracy and social justice and we still have to deal with the military and Pumipon’s reactionary successor. It is time for a genuine democratic republic. The amassed wealth of the Thai Royal Family and all their palaces should be turned over to the people in order to build a welfare state. Shed not one tear for Pumipon. Instead, think of those who were killed in his name by the military and all the people who will have to suffer from the long drawn out and very expensive funeral rites. Lazy journalists will claim that the long-running political crisis was all about the Succession. But the main reason for the decade of political crisis was never about the king’s failing health nor succession but can be traced back to the 1997 economic crisis and the attempt by Taksin Shinawat to modernise Thai society. The Asian Economic crisis was the spark that exposed the existing fault-lines in Thai society, and the actions of political actors in response to this, eventually led to a back-lash against democracy by the conservatives. [See http://bit.ly/2d9UUAu ] Read more about the dreadful Wachiralongkorn, the future king, here: http://bit.ly/1vQ1War The King is dead! Long live the Republic!! Further reading: http://bit.ly/2cexlW1 , http://bit.ly/2bSpoF2, http://bit.ly/2cmZkAa uglytruththailand | October 13, 2016 at 12:23 pm | Tags: Giles Ji Ungpakorn, King Pumipon, Thai politics | Categories: Thai politics | URL: http://wp.me/p4bxj7-dg Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from Uglytruth-Thailand. Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions. Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: https://uglytruththailand.wordpress.com/2016/10/13/king-pumipon-of-thailand/ Thanks for flying with [https://s0.wp.com/i/emails/blavatar-default.png] WordPress.com _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Oct 14 12:23:31 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 12:23:31 +0000 Subject: [Peace] Reminder: Mark your calendars Message-ID: AWARE in conjunction with The World Can’t Wait”, S.T.E.M. Against War, the Prairie Greens, the Labor Hour, and others, is planning to protest Harold “Killer” Koh’s speaking engagement at the College of Law, University of Illinois, on October 28th, 11:30 am in the Courtyard. Location: 504 Pennsylvania Ave./Peabody Drive. Harold Hongju Koh, Hillary Clinton’s former legal advisor at the State Department has been invited as an ‘endowed speaker’ at the U.I. College of Law, twelve days prior to the November election. Koh, currently a Yale Law School professor and former Dean, is a close friend of Yale Law School graduates Bill and Hillary Clinton. He was appointed by President Bill Clinton as Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor; and by President Obama, as senior legal advisor to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: he provided legal advice to her during the 2009 coup in Honduras, the 2011 US/NATO attack on Libya, and Obama’s ongoing drone assassinations – as well as damage-control in her email controversy. He won’t say what that advice was, claiming “attorney-client privilege” – despite the Supreme Court ruling against attorney-client confidences between government lawyers and government officials. An avid advocate of the targeted killing program, “Killer Koh” supports the legality of what he terms “extrajudicial killing” in Pakistan, Yemen and other Middle Eastern countries in the US “war on terror,” saying it complies “with all applicable law, including the laws of war,” and citing the ‘principle of proportionality’ in “taking great care in planning and execution to ensure that only ‘legitimate’ objectives are targeted and that collateral damage is kept to a minimum.” In a feeble attempt at transparency, the Obama administration recently released a modest admission that some “116 civilians” may have been victims of U. S. drone attacks – a figure that is not reconcilable with the accounts of eyewitnesses, journalists and human rights researchers, who have documented many thousands of casualties. President Obama said – in a revealing moment of self-reflection – “Turns out I’m really good at killing people … Didn’t know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine” (from Mark Halperin & John Heilemann, “Double Down: Game Change 2012”). If Hillary Clinton is elected president, with the advice of Tim Kaine and Killer Koh, she may be even more eager to mass-murder than her predecessor: the number of casualties would likely exceed that of Obama’s kill list, just as his toll today greatly outnumbers G. W. Bush’s. Late on Friday 5 August, the White House grudgingly complied with an Federal Court order (from an ACLU suit) and released a redacted “President’s Policy Guidance” (PPG) on Obama’s program of targeted killings. The PPG stipulates that “nothing in this PPG shall be construed to prevent the President from exercising his Constitutional authority … to authorize lethal force against an individual who poses a continuing, imminent threat to another country’s persons.” (Killing US citizens requires specific approval by the President). Death lists are drawn up weekly by the ‘nominating committee’ and are reviewed by lawyers of the nominating agencies (CIA, Pentagon, NSC, officials of the State Department and “deputies and principals of the nominating committee”). Of the seven Middle Eastern countries where drone assassinations take place, “active war zones” – Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan (it’s not clear if Libya is included) – do not require prior approval. With this protocol in place, the White House and the National Security Council are insulated from outside scrutiny, even by Congress. It assumes that the Commander in Chief can do anything s/he wants; it would provide a President Clinton #2, with the approval of hawks Tim Kaine and Harold Koh, immense power and license to kill. Koh as the (former) State Department lawyer has publicly defended extrajudicial killing as “due process under the Constitution in the age of moral and political degeneration.” In a speech at the Oxford Political Union in 2013 he said, “This Administration has not done enough to be transparent about the legal standards and decision making process … fostering a growing perception that the program [extrajudicial killing] is not lawful and necessary…,” adding that this lack of transparency is counterproductive and has led to the “negative public image” of targeted killing. Does Prof. Koh think the recent exposure of the (heavily redacted) PPG ordered by the Court provides the “transparency” to satisfy critics of the legality of targeted killing? Although Koh has been described as a prominent advocate of human and civil rights (apparently exclusively of US citizens), he has been an “equal opportunist” as a legal advisor to Reagan, Clinton and Obama administrations – all of whom have violated the human rights of foreign nationals. He hardly represented human and civil rights as a member of the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel to the President in the Reagan administration, when that office justified violations of international law, the Charter of United Nations and the US Constitution, in grievous violation of human rights and attempts to destabilize the countries of Grenada, El Salvador, Nicaragua (attempting to withdraw from the International Court of Justice, which denounced the US for bombing Nicaraguan harbors), Guatemala, Libya, Angola and elsewhere in southern Africa; and when it supported the South African apartheid government against its black population, supported Israel’s invasion and massacres of Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon, and supported illegal Israeli settlements in the Palestinian Occupied Territories – for which the US exercised its veto in the U.N. Security Council, in opposition to sanctions against US. In addition, the Reagan administration and its legal advisors refused to support nuclear test ban treaties, instead proliferating first-strike nuclear weapons, SDI (“star wars”) and MX missiles. Not a record to be proud of for someone serving as legal counsel to the president. The opportunity extended Harold Koh to lecture potential scholars of political and international law poses the question, Is the University of Illinois College of Law – with its record of sanctions – qualified to educate future lawyers, when it sponsors a person of Harold H. Koh’s character in these politically charged times? The Nuremberg Military Tribunal in 1947 stated unequivocally that the crimes of the ten civilian Nazi defendants who were convicted of murder and other atrocities, conspiracy to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity of civilians and nationals of occupied territories, were liable to severe penalty whether or not they had engaged in military action. The Nuremberg judgment still stands in international law. A reception to protest Professor Koh’s appearance is planned at the north courtyard of the College of Law before the lecture on the afternoon of October 28. (Midge O’Brien was an academic professional in U. of I. life science laborotories over twenty years and secretary in the Union of Professional Employees; was an election judge twelve years; a member of Nuclear Freeze, and Prairie Alliance against nuclear power; and an anti-war activist since 1965. She is a member of the Green Party.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Oct 14 19:47:31 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 19:47:31 +0000 Subject: [Peace] Podcast worth a listen Message-ID: Eric Draitser has an excellent podcast discussion with Mark Crispin Miller on Counterpunch radio today. It’s related to the media and “conspiracy theory’s vs. conspiracies”. https://store.counterpunch.org/category/counterpunch-radio-podcasts/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From divisek at yahoo.com Sun Oct 16 15:45:14 2016 From: divisek at yahoo.com (Dianna Visek) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 15:45:14 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace] feds will be able to hack millions of computers with 1 warrant In-Reply-To: <290416035.765541.1476632601855@mail.yahoo.com> References: <290416035.765541.1476632601855.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <290416035.765541.1476632601855@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <336115894.772318.1476632714589@mail.yahoo.com> Unless stopped before Dec. 1, federal agents will be able to hack into millions of Americans' computers with only one search warrant. Lawmakers try to stop mass hacking of Americans' computers by feds | | | | | | | | | | | Lawmakers try to stop mass hacking of Americans' computers by feds Privacy advocates in Congress are moving to stop a new rule from taking effect Dec. 1 allowing federal agents ar... | | | | -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Oct 17 12:57:33 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 12:57:33 +0000 Subject: [Peace] In respect to the upcoming election by David Swanson Message-ID: [http://uziiw38pmyg1ai60732c4011.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/dropzone/2015/06/cp5.png] The Fearless Voice of the American Left Since 1993 [http://uziiw38pmyg1ai60732c4011.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/dropzone/2015/05/JoinList-new.png] * HOME * ARTICLES * MAGAZINE * SUBSCRIBE * DONATE * ARCHIVES * ABOUT * BOOKS * PODCASTS * FAQS OCTOBER 17, 2016 What Hillary Clinton Privately Told Goldman Sachs by DAVID SWANSON * * * * Email * * [http://uziiw38pmyg1ai60732c4011.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/dropzone/2015/07/print-sp.png] At first glance, Hillary Clinton’s speeches to Goldman Sachs, which she refused to show us but WikiLeaks claims to have now produced the texts of, reveal less blatant hypocrisy or abuse than do the texts of various emails also recently revealed. But take a closer look. Clinton has famously said that she believes in maintaining a public position on each issue that differs from her private position. Which did she provide to Goldman Sachs? Yes, Clinton does profess her loyalty to corporate trade agreements, but at the time of her remarks she hadn’t yet started (publicly) claiming otherwise. I think, in fact, that Clinton maintains numerous positions on various issues, and that those she provided to Goldman Sachs were in part her public stances, in part her confidences to co-conspirators, and in part her partisan Democratic case to a room of Republicans as to why they should donate more to her and less to the GOP. This was not the sort of talk she’d have given to labor union executives or human rights professionals or Bernie Sanders delegates. She has a position for every audience. In the speech transcripts from June 4, 2013, October 29, 2013, and October 19, 2015, Clinton was apparently paid sufficiently to do something she denies most audiences. That is, she took questions that it appears likely she was not secretly briefed on or engaged in negotiations over ahead of time. In part this appears to be the case because some of the questions were lengthy speeches, and in part because her answers were not all the sort of meaningless platitudes that she produces if given time to prepare. Much of the content of these speeches to U.S. bankers dealt with foreign policy, and virtually all of that with warfare, potential warfare, and opportunities for military-led domination of various regions of the globe. This stuff is more interesting and less insultingly presented than the idiocies spewed out at the public presidential debates. But it also fits an image of U.S. policy that Clinton might have preferred to keep private. Just as nobody advertised that, as emails now show, Wall Street bankers helped pick President Obama’s cabinet, we’re generally discouraged from thinking that wars and foreign bases are intended as services to financial overlords. “I’m representing all of you,” Clinton says to the bankers in reference to her efforts at a meeting in Asia. Sub-Saharan Africa has great potential for U.S. “businesses and entrepreneurs,” she says in reference to U.S. militarism there. Yet, in these speeches, Clinton projects exactly that approach, accurately or not, on other nations and accuses China of just the sort of thing that her “far left” critics accuse her of all the time, albeit outside the censorship of U.S. corporate media. China, Clinton says, may use hatred of Japan as a means of distracting Chinese people from unpopular and harmful economic policies. China, Clinton says, struggles to maintain civilian control over its military. Hmm. Where else have we seen these problems? “We’re going to ring China with missile ‘defense,'” Clinton tells Goldman Sachs. “We’re going to put more of our fleet in the area.” On Syria, Clinton says it’s hard to figure out whom to arm — completely oblivious to any options other than arming somebody. It’s hard, she says, to predict at all what will happen. So, her advice, which she blurts out to a room of bankers, is to wage war in Syria very “covertly.” In public debates, Clinton demands a “no fly zone” or “no bombing zone” or “safe zone” in Syria, from which to organize a war to overthrow the government. In a speech to Goldman Sachs, however, she blurts out that creating such a zone would require bombing a lot more populated areas than was required in Libya. “You’re going to kill a lot of Syrians,” she admits. She even tries to distance herself from the proposal by referring to “this intervention that people talk about so glibly” — although she, before and at the time of that speech and ever since has been the leading such person. Clinton also makes clear that Syrian “jihadists” are being funded by Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Qatar. In October 2013, as the U.S. public had rejected bombing Syria, Blankfein asked if the public was now opposed to “interventions” — that clearly being understood as a hurdle to be overcome. Clinton said not to fear. “We’re in a time in Syria,” she said, “where they’re not finished killing each other . . . and maybe you just have to wait and watch it.” That’s the view of many ill-meaning and many well-meaning people who have been persuaded that the only two choices in foreign policy are bombing people and doing nothing. That clearly is the understanding of the former Secretary of State, whose positions were more hawkish than those of her counterpart at the Pentagon. It’s also reminiscent of Harry Truman’s comment that if the Germans were winning you should help the Russians and vice versa, so that more people would die. That’s not exactly what Clinton said here, but it’s pretty close, and it’s something she would not say in a scripted joint-media-appearance masquerading as a debate. The possibility of disarmament, nonviolent peacework, actual aid on a massive scale, and respectful diplomacy that leaves U.S. influence out of the resulting states is just not on Clinton’s radar no matter who is in her audience. On Iran, Clinton repeatedly hypes false claims about nuclear weapons and terrorism, even while admitting far more openly than we’re used to that Iran’s religious leader denounces and opposes nuclear weapons. She also admits that Saudi Arabia is already pursuing nuclear weapons and that UAE and Egypt are likely to do so, at least if Iran does. She also admits that the Saudi government is far from stable. Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein asks Clinton at one point how a good war against Iran might go — he suggesting that an occupation (yes, they use that forbidden word) might not be the best move. Clinton replies that Iran can just be bombed. Blankfein, rather shockingly, appeals to reality — something Clinton goes on at obnoxious length about elsewhere in these speeches. Has bombing a population into submission ever worked, Blankfein asks. Clinton admits that it has not but suggests that it just might work on Iranians because they are not democratic. Regarding Egypt, Clinton makes clear her opposition to popular change. Regarding China again, Clinton claims to have told the Chinese that the United States could claim ownership of the entire Pacific as a result of having “liberated it.” She goes on to claim to have told them that “We discovered Japan for heaven’s sake.” And: “We have proof of having bought [Hawaii].” Really? From whom? This is ugly stuff, at least as damaging to human lives as the filth coming from Donald Trump. Yet it’s fascinating that even the bankers in whom Clinton confides her militarist mania ask her identical questions to those I get asked by peace activists at speaking events: “Is the U.S. political system completely broken?” “Should we scrap this and go with a parliamentary system?” Et cetera. In part their concern is the supposed gridlock created by differences between the two big parties, whereas my biggest concern is the militarized destruction of people and the environment that never seems to encounter even a slight traffic slowdown in Congress. But if you imagine that the people Bernie Sanders always denounces as taking home all the profits are happy with the status quo, think again. They benefit in certain ways, but they don’t control their monster and it doesn’t make them feel fulfilled. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Oct 17 23:40:09 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 23:40:09 +0000 Subject: [Peace] The Battle for Mosul..... Message-ID: [Home] * DONATE * SIGN UP FOR NEWSLETTER Monday, October 17, 2016 * Home * World * U.S. * Canada * Climate * War & Peace * Economy * Rights * Solutions * Defeating Dakota Access * Election 2016 * Hillary Clinton * Donald Trump * Jill Stein Battle for Mosul Begins as Aid Groups Warn of 'Massive Civilian Bloodshed' Published on Monday, October 17, 2016 by Common Dreams Battle for Mosul Begins as Aid Groups Warn of 'Massive Civilian Bloodshed' Without safe escape routes, many 'will have no choice but to stay and risk being killed...trapped beyond the reach of humanitarian aid' by Nadia Prupis, staff writer * * * * * * * 7 Comments [http://www.commondreams.org/sites/default/files/styles/cd_large/public/headlines/mosul_airstrikes.jpg?itok=0BrPsvdl] Smoke from an airstrike conducted by the U.S.-led coalition rises over Mosul. (Photo: Getty) Iraqi and Kurdish forces on Monday launched an offensive to take back the city of Mosul from Islamic State (ISIS) fighters, as human rights groups warned of the campaign's potentially catastrophic impact. "The hour has come and the moment of great victory is near," Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi said in an early-morning speech, followed by U.S. envoy Brett McGurk tweeting that the U.S.-led coalition was "proud" to support the "historic operation." Smoke rose over the city as the U.S.-led coalition began conducting airstrikes shortly after the announcement. The United Nations has long estimated that the battle could displace at least 1 million people, worsening the country's humanitarian crisis, and the agency's high commissioner for refugees Filippo Grandi said from Baghdad on Monday that protection of civilians should be "the most important element of this operation." But the offensive is rife with diplomatic issues. As the Guardian's Jason Burke explains, even if the offensive works to reclaim Mosul, which ISIS took in a 2014 blitz, its long-term impacts may widen sectarian rifts and fuel continued internal conflict—and could change the game in Syria as well. Burke writes: Mosul is of profound significance to both Kurds and Arabs, and to Sunni and Shia Muslims. Its recapture may widen faultlines between these communities, rather than heal them. Iraq's Sunni minority have long felt alienated by the country's Shia-led government in Baghdad, and it is Shia-dominated government forces who will reoccupy the city. The defeat of ISIS as a territorial power would dramatically rearrange the bloodstained three-dimensional chessboard of the Syrian civil war too. It could potentially benefit the regime of Bashar al Assad, or other rival Islamic militant groups there, such as the major al-Qaida-linked faction now known as Jabhat Fatah al-Sham. This is a conflict where unforeseen consequences have long been the rule, not the exception. And in the immediate term, civilians are facing an extreme humanitarian crisis, having reportedly been banned by ISIS from leaving the city and receiving little to no help from the government. Mosul is the militant group's de facto capital and has a population between 1.2 and 1.5 million people, at least half of which are minors, the charity Save the Children has estimated. The group warned Monday that without civilian protection measures, all of them are at risk. "Unless safe routes to escape the fighting are established, many families will have no choice but to stay and risk being killed by crossfire or bombardment, trapped beyond the reach of humanitarian aid with little food or medical care," Aram Shakaram, the group's deputy country director in Iraq, said. "Those that try to flee will be forced to navigate a city ringed with booby traps, snipers, and hidden landmines. Without immediate action to ensure people can flee safely, we are likely to see bloodshed of civilians on a massive scale." The aid groups War Child and World Vision issued similar warnings. "We're already supporting half a million people who fled Mosul when it was first occupied over two years ago. We're now poised for another massive influx of children and families who will have been through horrific experiences most of us could never imagine," said Khalil Sleiman, World Vision's response manager for northern Iraq. "They will arrive with nothing but the clothes on their back and will be thirsty, hungry, and need urgent medical attention." Sameena Gul, War Child U.K.'s country director in Iraq, told the Guardian, "The boys and girls we support can face a range of problems, from long-term psychological trauma, sexual assault, recruitment to militias, and disruption to education....It is crucial the international community therefore provides the necessary support to ensure these children are protected from harm." Those who are able to escape face the prospect of indefinite displacement, as Iraq's capacity to house and aid new refugees dwindles, said the International Rescue Committee's (IRC) Iraq director Aleksandar Milutinovic. "It is estimated that as many as 200,000 people could flee from the city in these first weeks, though there are currently only 60,000 tents available in seven emergency camps. In total, up to 1 million people could flee their homes in search of safety during the military operation, with an estimated 700,000 requiring shelter, food, water, and other vital aid," Milutinovic said. "With emergency camps not ready for the large numbers likely to flee, the IRC anticipates that many people will find their way to abandoned buildings, schools, and mosques in the towns and villages around Mosul." This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License Share This Article -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From susanroseparenti at gmail.com Mon Oct 17 23:49:54 2016 From: susanroseparenti at gmail.com (Susan Parenti) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 18:49:54 -0500 Subject: [Peace] looking for a 'wardrobe' to hang coats etc in---do you have one to sell? Message-ID: Hi---We're looking for a piece of furniture called a 'wardrobe'. One of the bedrooms in our house has no closets, so the 'wardrobe' would supply clothes hanging space Do you have one, or know of someone who has one? -- *Susan Parenti* *Educational Coordinator * *The School for Designing a Society *www.designingasociety.net *Like us on Facebook !* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Oct 18 13:16:37 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 13:16:37 +0000 Subject: [Peace] The current attack on Mosul and the devastation to come. Message-ID: * WSWS * ICFI * Mehring Books * Mobile * RSS Feeds * Podcast * Newsletter * Select a language Afrikaans >العربية Čeština Deutsch Ελληνικά English Español فارسی Français Bahasa Indonesia Italiano Norsk Polski Português Română Русский Srpskohrvatski Sinhalese தமிழ் Türkçe اُردُو 中文 [http://www.wsws.org/img/title.png] [http://www.wsws.org/img/logo.png] Published by the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI) Click here for advanced search » * Home * Perspectives * World News * World Economy * Arts Review * History * Science * Philosophy * Workers Struggles * ICFI/Marxist Library * Chronology * Full Archive * Print * Leaflet * Feedback * Share » US-backed Iraqi forces tighten noose around Mosul By James Cogan 18 October 2016 The first 24 hours of the US-directed assault on the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)-held city of Mosul in Iraq has shed further light on the calculated and murderous character of the operation. Tens of thousands of Kurdish and Iraqi Army forces have begun a slow advance on the city, tightening a noose around the estimated 5,000 ISIS fighters and up to 1.5 million civilians, including 600,000 children, who are trapped inside. American Lieutenant General Stephen Townsend, the commander of US and allied forces in Iraq and the de-facto commander of the entire operation, stated yesterday that the siege of Mosul “will likely continue for weeks, possibly longer.” A time frame as long as three months has been raised by Kurdish military commanders. The increasingly clear intent is to use air strikes, starvation and desperation to weaken what remains of ISIS’s fighting strength. The consequences for civilians—deprived of safe water supplies and adequate food, unable to access medical services, and enduring continuous bombardment—will be catastrophic. Thousands will most likely die. More accurate details have begun to emerge of the full extent of the military forces that have been arrayed against Mosul. The Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) has up to 10,000 of its Peshmerga militia deployed in an arc to the north and east of the city, with some 4,000 involved in initial offensive operations yesterday. Anti-ISIS Christian and Yazidi militias are fighting alongside them. In the first day, the Peshmerga seized nine villages some 30 kilometres from the centre of Mosul and about 200 square kilometres of territory. ISIS offered some resistance, with suicide bombers attacking the Kurdish forces with explosive-rigged vehicles. Oil wells were set ablaze by ISIS to cover their retreat. The Iraqi Army has deployed over 50,000 troops. One large force is pushing toward Mosul from the south, but is still well over 30 kilometres from the city. Other units have been dispatched to join Kurdish troops and advance from the north. Some 9,000 anti-ISIS local police and Sunni tribal militia are being kept in the wings, to be sent into the city to establish “order” once it falls. Shiite militiamen, the so-called Popular Mobilisation Units which stand accused of sectarian massacres of Sunnis after the western city of Fallujah was retaken from ISIS, are being kept out of the actual offensive. They have been deployed to the west of Mosul, to block escape routes toward Syria. Turkish Army units, with tanks and heavy artillery, are occupying the heights of Mount Bashiqa to the north-east of Mosul in defiance of Iraqi government demands to leave. Turkey has armed and trained a 1,500-strong ethnic Turkmen militia to assist its military forces. Both Iraqi Army and Kurdish units are being accompanied by special forces and advisors from the imperialist powers. General Townsend acknowledged yesterday that hundreds of American personnel are on the frontlines acting as “Joint Terminal Air Controllers” to help target air strikes. British and Australian advisors are also with Iraqi units. Canadian, German and Italian troops are reportedly operating with the Kurdish militia. US Marine and French artillery batteries are taking part in the assault. At least 100 aircraft—including American, British, French, Australian, Canadian, Jordanian and Iraqi—are providing air cover. The US has made available B1 heavy bombers, F-18 fighter-bombers, A-10 ground attack aircraft and Predator drones. The “Combined Task Force” claimed yesterday that recent air strikes in Mosul have destroyed tunnel entrances, radio repeater towers and antennas, solar electricity generators, vehicles, ISIS mortar positions and a bridge over the Tigris River connecting the western and eastern suburbs of the city. Seventeen air strikes were carried out yesterday in support of the Kurdish advance. For weeks the Obama administration, its European allies and virtually the entire western media have accused Russia and the Syrian government of war crimes for the desperate conditions that face civilians in Aleppo, due to the offensive being waged against Islamist rebels who control the east of the city. What has begun in Mosul is a war crime of even greater dimensions. The US-directed Iraqi government assaults on the western cities of Fallujah and Ramadi left them in ruins by the time they were recaptured from ISIS. Mosul, a far larger city, whose history goes back over 3,500 years to the Assyrian Empire, now faces the same fate. The United Nations and aid agencies are continuing to make alarmed warnings about the plight of civilians trapped in the city and for greater action to prepare for the predicted exodus of hundreds of thousands of starving and sick people. UN humanitarian affairs and emergency relief official Stephen O’Brien issued a press release on October 16, calling on “all parties to the conflict to uphold their obligations under international humanitarian law to protect civilians and ensure they have access to the assistance they are entitled and deserve.” After warning that “as many as one million people may be forced to flee their homes in a worst-case scenario,” O’Brien noted that shelter is currently available for only 60,000, with camps to house an additional 250,000 still being erected and supplied. “Funding,” he declared, “has been insufficient to prepare fully for the worst-case scenario.” The same media outlets that have devoted enormous coverage to indicting Russia and Syria—such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, CNN, and the major British, French, German, Canadian and Australian broadcasters and newspapers—are reporting only US and Iraqi government propaganda about Mosul. The prospect of large-scale casualties is being almost universally ascribed, including by the UN relief agencies, to ISIS using people as “human shields,” covering the city with explosives and minefields, and being prepared to wage a fanatical “fight to the death.” No attempt is being made in the pro-imperialist media to assess how ISIS came to take control of Iraq’s second largest city in the first place. It is the direct outcome of the brutal repression of the Sunni minority in the country, first at the hands of the US military occupation forces and then by the forces of the Shiite-dominated government that rules in Baghdad. ISIS, which gained its initial strength in Syria from the CIA-sponsored campaign to arm Islamist militias to fight the Russian-backed Assad regime, was able to cross into Iraq in 2014 and portray itself as the liberator of Sunni communities. ISIS—until then a de-facto US proxy in Syria—only came to be viewed as an obstacle to American strategic interests because of the threat it posed to both the Iraqi government and the pro-US Kurdish region. In June 2014, barely 1,000 ISIS fighters were able to rout as many as 30,000 Iraqi government troops, take over Mosul and capture vast quantities of vehicles, weapons and ammunition, as well as some $500 million in cash and gold. The reality that now faces the civilian population of Mosul, as US imperialism directs the recapture of the city by its puppet government, is that no escape routes have been negotiated with ISIS and every male aged 14 or over who leaves the city will be detained and questioned on suspicion of ISIS affiliation or sympathies. In Fallujah, as is well known in Mosul, hundreds of men were massacred or subjected to savage abuse by militias or troops of the Shiite-dominated Iraqi government. Of some significance, Kurdish Regional Government reported that no “internally displaced persons” arrived at refugee camps from the villages its forces seized yesterday. Civilians appear to have fled into the city, not away from it into Kurdish lines. The contrast between the portrayal of the siege of Aleppo and the assault on Mosul has entered into the annals of imperialist hypocrisy and deceit. One of final legacies of the eight-year Obama administration—elected in November 2008 in large part due to the anti-war sentiment among the American people but which has presided over continuous war since taking office—is shaping up to be a bloodbath in northern Iraq. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Oct 18 15:57:36 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 15:57:36 +0000 Subject: [Peace] The US directed assault on Mosul..... Message-ID: * WSWS * ICFI * Mehring Books * Mobile * RSS Feeds * Podcast * Newsletter * Select a language Afrikaans >العربية Čeština Deutsch Ελληνικά English Español فارسی Français Bahasa Indonesia Italiano Norsk Polski Português Română Русский Srpskohrvatski Sinhalese தமிழ் Türkçe اُردُو 中文 [http://www.wsws.org/img/title.png] [http://www.wsws.org/img/logo.png] Published by the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI) Click here for advanced search » * Home * Perspectives * World News * World Economy * Arts Review * History * Science * Philosophy * Workers Struggles * ICFI/Marxist Library * Chronology * Full Archive * Print * Leaflet * Feedback * Share » The US-directed assault on Mosul and imperialist hypocrisy 17 October 2016 The long-planned, US-directed offensive to recapture the northern Iraqi city of Mosul from Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has begun. On Monday morning, Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi declared on national television: “Today, I declare the start of these victorious operations.” The assault on Mosul starkly raises the boundless hypocrisy of US and European resolutions in the United Nations, and incessant media coverage, accusing Russian-backed Syrian forces of “war crimes” against civilians as they attempt to retake the eastern sectors of Aleppo from Islamist militias. In Iraq, the US, its allies and its puppet government in Baghdad have begun a savage onslaught against a far larger city, in which as many 1.5 million civilians, including 600,000 children, are trapped. Lise Grande, the United Nations’ humanitarian coordinator for Iraq, told the New York Times on the weekend: “The United Nations is deeply concerned that in a worst-case scenario, the operation in Mosul could be the most complex and largest in the world in 2016, and we fear as many as one million civilians may be forced to flee their homes.” The New York Times nevertheless welcomed “The Coming Battle for Mosul” in its October 14 editorial. It declared that the city must be “liberated” from “terrorists’ rule”—regardless of the human cost. Barely two weeks ago, its editorial page labelled Russia an “outlaw state” because it was supporting an assault in Aleppo that “threatens the lives of 250,000 more people.” The difference between the two battles, as far as the imperialist hypocrites are concerned, is that the Islamist extremist groups under attack in Aleppo are being supported and used by Washington and the European powers to attempt to overthrow the Russian-backed Syrian government. Civilian casualties are therefore “war crimes.” ISIS, by contrast, is considered an obstacle in Washington because it used the weapons and recruits it gained as a result of US intrigues in Syria to seize large parts of western and northern Iraq in 2014, threatening the pro-US puppet regimes in Baghdad and the Kurdish region. Any civilians killed in the process of recapturing Mosul will therefore be brushed aside as “collateral damage.” In both Syria and Iraq, US objectives are the same: asserting its dominance over the key oil-producing region of the world. Mosul is being attacked by up to 20,000 Iraqi Army personnel and 10,000 Kurdish Peshmerga troops, reinforced by some 6,000 Iraqi police, thousands of anti-ISIS Christian, Turkmen and Sunni militia fighters and thousands more militia members loyal to the Shiite-based political parties that control the Baghdad regime. Behind the scenes, the US military is monitoring and effectively commanding the onslaught. American, British, French, Australian and Jordanian jet fighters and helicopters are providing air support to the disparate government forces. US Marine and French Army units are giving artillery fire support. Hundreds of American, British, Australian, German and Italian special forces and “trainers” are involved in the battle, advising Iraqi and Kurdish units and directing air and artillery attacks. Every atrocity for which the Russian regime and its Syrian client state are responsible in Aleppo will be matched, and most likely exceeded, by the US-backed forces in Iraq. Past experience, including the assault earlier this year on the western Iraqi city of Fallujah, leave little doubt as to the outcome of the attack on Mosul. Entire suburbs will be reduced to rubble from both the air and the ground, regardless of how many desperate civilians are hiding in their homes. The city’s electricity, water and sewerage systems will be destroyed. Medical services and transport networks will be rendered dysfunctional. The destruction of Mosul and enormous toll in civilian casualties are being justified in advance as unavoidable, due to fanatical ISIS resistance. The estimates of the number of ISIS militants still in the city range from just a few thousand to over 10,000. Lurid accounts have appeared of extensive preparations by ISIS for protracted, street-to-street fighting. US and Iraqi officials, citing Mosul residents, have told media that buildings and cars have been rigged with explosives, minefields laid and roadblocks erected on the main thoroughfares. A tunnel network has allegedly been constructed linking various areas of the city. Mosul, to recall the reported 1968 US military statement in regard to the Vietnamese town of Bến Tre, must be destroyed “to save it.” The indifference toward the lives and well-being of the city’s population is revealed in the leaflets that were dropped, in the tens of thousands, over the city on Saturday night. According to a Reuters report, one leaflet advised: “Keep calm and tell your children that it [the bombardment] is only a game or thunder before the rain… Women should not scream or shout, to preserve the children’s spirit.” Another ominously warned: “If you see an army unit, stay at least 25 metres away and avoid any sudden movements.” The Iraqis who survive their “liberation” from ISIS by US-led forces will be forced to flee the unliveable ruins of the city for overcrowded and inadequate refugee camps. No serious preparations, such as pre-built tent cities with hospitals, food and water supplies, have been made to cope with such a situation. Aid agencies fear that tens of thousands will die from injury, exposure, disease, dehydration or starvation. The assault on Mosul will join the long list of horrors and crimes that have been inflicted on the Iraqi people by US imperialism and its military machine over a period of more than 25 years, in Washington's quest for hegemony over one of the most resource-rich and strategically significant regions of the world. The thousands who die will join those who lost their lives as a result of the 1991 Gulf War, the subsequent sanctions imposed on Iraq, the legacy of depleted uranium weapons contamination, the 2003 invasion, the murderous Sunni-Shiite sectarian warfare that was deliberately provoked by the US occupation forces, and the predations of the US-backed Iraqi government after most American troops were withdrawn in 2010-2011. Credible estimates place the cumulative death toll over a 25-year period at well over 1.5 million and as high as two million. Since 2003 alone, at least four million Iraqis have been internally displaced or forced to flee the country as refugees. The defence of the masses of Iraq and the Middle East against imperialist oppression must be at the very forefront of the struggle for an international anti-war movement of the working class, based on a revolutionary and socialist perspective. James Cogan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Tue Oct 18 23:30:04 2016 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 18:30:04 -0500 Subject: [Peace] AWARE on the Air, Tuesday 18 October In-Reply-To: References: <745FA348-0FE6-4122-86C3-7F01FC157753@newsfromneptune.com> <5489C839-553A-4E34-B30A-E11DC2FC15FA@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: War news commentary from the 'Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort' of Champaign-Urbana IL, 18 October 2016: AWARE on the Air - Episode #385: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQGwFxCCv60 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deb.pdamerica at gmail.com Wed Oct 19 11:19:06 2016 From: deb.pdamerica at gmail.com (Debra Schrishuhn) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 06:19:06 -0500 Subject: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] What last night's debate should have been about In-Reply-To: References: <745FA348-0FE6-4122-86C3-7F01FC157753@newsfromneptune.com> <5489C839-553A-4E34-B30A-E11DC2FC15FA@newsfromneptune.com> <1374731823.2748007.1476154611558@mail.yahoo.com> <1992775851.2750166.1476155956168@mail.yahoo.com> <33342E4C-0BDD-433D-AF9F-172EC117AF29@newsfromneptune.com> <1299546216.2774535.1476157809952@mail.yahoo.com> <376F910A-56B2-4BA2-A470-0B7371DCF797@newsfromneptune.com> <1132666325.3850270.1476256695625@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1CA26041-2FF4-4126-8C35-AB6089161E53@gmail.com> Agree with you, Gregg Deb Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 12, 2016, at 7:23 AM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: > > Greg > > > You've made some good points here, worthy of further discussion, though I personally don't care to engage in discussions related to electoral politics, or the two major candidates. > > It must be noted that while neither candidate holding the reigns of power are likely to want to incinerate their own fortunes, accidents and blowback do happen. While incinerating the other half of humanity, that should be kept in mind. I doubt that has occurred to either of them, any more than it has occurred to most Americans. > > From: Gregg Gordon > Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 2:18:15 AM > To: C. G. Estabrook; Karen Aram > Cc: John W.; peace; Peace-discuss List; Occupy CU > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] What last night's debate should have been about > > OMG -- must we? > > Left or right is hardly the point when it comes to Donald Trump anymore. The point is the mental stability of a man who seeks control of thousands of nuclear weapons. You want to talk about war? Yeah, let's talk about it. > > To take this discussion to the lowest level possible -- why waste time, after all -- I trust the corrupt and evil Hillary Clinton to not want to incinerate the fortune she has worked so hard to acquire. Trump has just gone "nuclear" with his campaign, and I have no reason to think he wouldn't do so with the real thing -- and all of our lives --given the opportunity. > > 16 years of "party building" has taken the Greens from Ralph Nader's 3% to Jill Stein's 1% and has resulted in the election of not a single US Congressperson -- not even close -- so someone in that camp has not done a very good job, certainly not enough to inspire confidence in me that that is a promising alternative. But hey -- you never know. The polls could be wrong. This might be the time. Success is just around the corner. Democracy's on the march. So if you want to vote Green, vote Green. In my opinion, that makes you 99.44% pure, and .56% relevant , which frankly, is exactly where I want you. > > > > > From: C. G. Estabrook > To: Karen Aram > Cc: John W. ; peace ; Peace-discuss List ; Gregg Gordon ; Occupy CU > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 8:32 AM > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] What last night's debate should have been about > > I think the correct course is to continue to point out that Stein-Baraka are far superior to either ‘major’ party on the issues, especially war. > > We still need to answer the objection that a vote for a third party is a vote for Trump, by pointing out that Trump has accurately criticized Clinton’s neocon warmongering. > > As Glen Ford and others point out, Trump is substantially to the left of Clinton on foreign policy (and perhaps economic policy - the trade pacts - as well). > > That’s why the Democrats want to focus on the ‘personal’ - and we should talk about war. > > > > > On Oct 11, 2016, at 7:33 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > > Carl > > > > This Karen Capel person is continuing to stalk me, just like Roger Helbig, either on or off the List, they are incapable of discussing the issues so they just lash out with insults, Greg is another one. > > > > Many Americans like Trump, because he represents this level of people. > > > > Then of course a few academics and intellectuals also like Trump but thats because they only listen to the “true things" Trump says in order to discredit the “Left”. He lacks credibility so nothing he says is meaningful, and anyone who supports him in the US is also vilified as a result. People who are intellectuals and academics supporting Trump aren’t in touch with mainstream media or people. They are looking at the big picture, and the potential for disaster. Unfortunately, any assumption that a jerk like Trump would reverse our path to destruction is misguided. Republicans and Democrats follow the same foreign policy, they may play good cop, bad cop with the American people but throwing a bone or two to the starving is of little comfort. > > > > Then we have those who support Hillary because she presents the image of the lesser evil, at least in respect to America, these are people who don’t recognize we live in a global world, not just a county, state, or nation. So when it hits home, they aren’t able to grasp the fact that it’s all connected, when they do, it will likely be too late. > > > > Chomsky’s "Manufactured Consent" in spades. > > > > > >> On Oct 10, 2016, at 21:22, C. G. Estabrook wrote: > >> > >> —allows us to form answers to common objections/shows us what views are being encouraged by government & media. > >> > >> > >>> On Oct 10, 2016, at 11:06 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > >>> > >>> Another troll, Gregg, who has nothing of value to add, just insults. No concern for the issues facing humanity, just insults. > >>> > >>>> On Oct 10, 2016, at 20:50, Gregg Gordon via Peace-discuss wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I suggest you hold your breath until you turn blue. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> From: C. G. Estabrook > >>>> To: Gregg Gordon > >>>> Cc: John W. ; peace ; Peace-discuss List ; sf-core ; Occupy CU > >>>> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 10:32 PM > >>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] What last night's debate should have been about > >>>> > >>>> Verbally. But Clinton’s stomping killed a lot of people. As Trump said, she should be in jail - in The Hague, awaiting trial on war crimes charges. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> On Oct 10, 2016, at 10:19 PM, Gregg Gordon wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> You're right. He did a lot of stomping. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> From: C. G. Estabrook > >>>>> To: Gregg Gordon > >>>>> Cc: John W. ; peace ; Peace-discuss List ; sf-core ; Occupy CU > >>>>> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 10:10 PM > >>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] What last night's debate should have been about > >>>>> > >>>>> Trump was quite clear and concise in Sunday’s debate when he stomped on Pence’s neocon fire-breathing on Syria: “I didn’t talk to him and he’s wrong”! > >>>>> > >>>>> —CGE > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Oct 10, 2016, at 9:56 PM, Gregg Gordon via Peace-discuss wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> When he attempted to address policy, it came out as an incoherent string of seemingly random phrases in no particular order -- nothing approaching a complete sentence, not sure there was a subject OR a verb in there. Carl's quote must have gotten some help from the journalist who quoted him, just to find places to put punctuation. > >>>>>> From: John W. via Peace > >>>>>> To: C. G. Estabrook > >>>>>> Cc: peace ; Peace-discuss List ; sf-core ; Occupy CU > >>>>>> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 8:12 PM > >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace] What last night's debate should have been about > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Vote for Donald Trump. He's a foreign policy genius! > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 5:47 PM, C. G. Estabrook via Peace wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> https://consortiumnews.com/ 2016/10/10/hillary-clinton- candidate-of-war/ > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ...“Now, she talks tough,” [Trump] said of Clinton: “She talks really tough against Putin and against Assad. She talks in favor of the rebels. She doesn’t even know who the rebels are. You know, every time we take rebels whether it’s in Iraq or anywhere else, we’re arming people. And you know what happens? They end up being worse than the people [they overthrow]. Look at what she did in Libya with Gaddafi. Gaddafi is out. It’s a mess. And by the way, ISIS has a good chunk of their oil. I’m sure you’ve probably have heard that. It was a disaster. The fact is almost everything she has done has been a mistake and it’s been a disaster.” > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Trump’s comment was correct, more or less ... Hillary Clinton has made it crystal clear. Anyone who votes for her is voting for greatly expanded warfare in the Middle East and probably military confrontation with Russia elsewhere as well. As bad as things are in Syria, in a few months they could get a lot worse... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> _ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Peace-discuss mailing list > > > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > > > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 19 12:56:36 2016 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 12:56:36 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] What last night's debate should have been about In-Reply-To: <1CA26041-2FF4-4126-8C35-AB6089161E53@gmail.com> References: <745FA348-0FE6-4122-86C3-7F01FC157753@newsfromneptune.com> <5489C839-553A-4E34-B30A-E11DC2FC15FA@newsfromneptune.com> <1374731823.2748007.1476154611558@mail.yahoo.com> <1992775851.2750166.1476155956168@mail.yahoo.com> <33342E4C-0BDD-433D-AF9F-172EC117AF29@newsfromneptune.com> <1299546216.2774535.1476157809952@mail.yahoo.com> <376F910A-56B2-4BA2-A470-0B7371DCF797@newsfromneptune.com> <1132666325.3850270.1476256695625@mail.yahoo.com> <1CA26041-2FF4-4126-8C35-AB6089161E53@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1371312108.844595.1476881796287@mail.yahoo.com> To assume that Hillary Clinton does not want to incinerate her own fortune, and that Trump is more likely to, is based on stereotypical reactions rather than reality; that is, it is based on absolutely nothing other than personal bias. Hillary got to where she is by not considering herself responsible for the consequences of her actions. Her neoconservative doctrine and the consequences of her enactment of that doctrine is a matter of historical record; that is, millions of deaths. Hillary has this election in the bag, with the help of overwhelming bias of the mainstream (liberal) media. Yet, her supporters behave desperately. The double standards regarding sexual behavior/assault are obvious and shameless. HRC is married to a sexual predator from whom we are instructed (by liberals and "progressive Democrats") to "move on." Liberal feminism has never sunk this low before; at least I hope not. Obviously, I'm voting for Jill Stein, not that my vote matters. DG On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 6:19 AM, Debra Schrishuhn via Peace-discuss wrote: Agree with you, GreggDeb Sent from my iPhone On Oct 12, 2016, at 7:23 AM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: Greg You've made some good points here, worthy of further discussion, though I personally don't  care to engage in discussions related to electoral politics, or the two major candidates.It must be noted that while neither candidate holding the reigns of power are likely to want to incinerate their own fortunes, accidents and blowback do happen. While incinerating the other half of humanity, that should be kept in mind. I doubt that has occurred to either of them, any more than it has occurred to most Americans. From: Gregg Gordon Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 2:18:15 AM To: C. G. Estabrook; Karen Aram Cc: John W.; peace; Peace-discuss List; Occupy CU Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] What last night's debate should have been about OMG -- must we? Left or right is hardly the point when it comes to Donald Trump anymore.  The point is the mental stability of a man who seeks control of thousands of nuclear weapons.  You want to talk about war?  Yeah, let's talk about it.   To take this discussion to the lowest level possible -- why waste time, after all -- I trust the corrupt and evil Hillary Clinton to not want to incinerate the fortune she has worked so hard to acquire.  Trump has just gone "nuclear" with his campaign, and I have no reason to think he wouldn't do so with the real thing -- and all of our lives --given the opportunity. 16 years of "party building" has taken the Greens from Ralph Nader's 3% to Jill Stein's 1% and has resulted in the election of not a single US Congressperson -- not even close -- so someone in that camp has not done a very good job, certainly not enough to inspire confidence in me that that is a promising alternative.  But hey -- you never know.  The polls could be wrong.  This might be the time.  Success is just around the corner.  Democracy's on the march.  So if you want to vote Green, vote Green.  In my opinion, that makes you 99.44% pure, and .56% relevant , which frankly, is exactly where I want you. From: C. G. Estabrook To: Karen Aram Cc: John W. ; peace ; Peace-discuss List ; Gregg Gordon ; Occupy CU Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 8:32 AM Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] What last night's debate should have been about I think the correct course is to continue to point out that Stein-Baraka are far superior to either ‘major’ party on the issues, especially war.  We still need to answer the objection that a vote for a third party is a vote for Trump, by pointing out that Trump has accurately criticized Clinton’s neocon warmongering. As Glen Ford and others point out, Trump is substantially to the left of Clinton on foreign policy (and perhaps economic policy - the trade pacts - as well). That’s why the Democrats want to focus on the ‘personal’ - and we should talk about war. > On Oct 11, 2016, at 7:33 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Carl > > This Karen Capel person is continuing to stalk me, just like Roger Helbig, either on or off the List, they are incapable of discussing the issues so they just lash out with insults, Greg is another one. > > Many Americans like Trump, because he represents this level of people. > > Then of course a few academics and intellectuals also like Trump but thats because they only listen to the “true things" Trump says in order to discredit the “Left”. He lacks credibility so nothing he says is meaningful, and anyone who supports him in the US is also vilified as a result. People who are intellectuals and academics supporting Trump  aren’t in touch with mainstream media or people. They are looking at the big picture, and the potential for disaster. Unfortunately, any assumption that a jerk like Trump would reverse our path to destruction is misguided. Republicans and Democrats follow the same foreign policy, they may play good cop, bad cop with the American people but throwing a bone or two to the starving is of little comfort.  > > Then we have those who support Hillary because she presents the image of the lesser evil, at least in respect to America, these are people who don’t recognize we live in a global world, not just a county, state, or nation. So when it hits home, they aren’t able to grasp the fact that it’s all connected, when they do, it will likely be too late. > > Chomsky’s "Manufactured Consent" in spades. > > >> On Oct 10, 2016, at 21:22, C. G. Estabrook wrote: >> >> —allows us to form answers to common objections/shows us what views are being encouraged by government & media. >> >> >>> On Oct 10, 2016, at 11:06 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> >>> Another troll, Gregg, who has nothing of value to add, just insults. No concern for the issues facing humanity, just insults.  >>> >>>> On Oct 10, 2016, at 20:50, Gregg Gordon via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>> >>>> I suggest you hold your breath until you turn blue. >>>> >>>> >>>> From: C. G. Estabrook >>>> To: Gregg Gordon >>>> Cc: John W. ; peace ; Peace-discuss List ; sf-core ; Occupy CU >>>> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 10:32 PM >>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] What last night's debate should have been about >>>> >>>> Verbally. But Clinton’s stomping killed a lot of people. As Trump said, she should be in jail - in The Hague, awaiting trial on war crimes charges.  >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Oct 10, 2016, at 10:19 PM, Gregg Gordon wrote: >>>>> >>>>> You're right.  He did a lot of stomping. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: C. G. Estabrook >>>>> To: Gregg Gordon >>>>> Cc: John W. ; peace ; Peace-discuss List ; sf-core ; Occupy CU >>>>> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 10:10 PM >>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] What last night's debate should have been about >>>>> >>>>> Trump was quite clear and concise in Sunday’s debate when he stomped on Pence’s neocon fire-breathing on Syria: “I didn’t talk to him and he’s wrong”! >>>>> >>>>> —CGE >>>>> >>>>>> On Oct 10, 2016, at 9:56 PM, Gregg Gordon via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> When he attempted to address policy, it came out as an incoherent string of seemingly random phrases in no particular order -- nothing approaching a complete sentence, not sure there was a subject OR a verb in there.  Carl's quote must have gotten some help from the journalist who quoted him, just to find places to put punctuation. >>>>>> From: John W. via Peace >>>>>> To: C. G. Estabrook >>>>>> Cc: peace ; Peace-discuss List ; sf-core ; Occupy CU >>>>>> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 8:12 PM >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace] What last night's debate should have been about >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Vote for Donald Trump.  He's a foreign policy genius! >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 5:47 PM, C. G. Estabrook via Peace wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://consortiumnews.com/2016/10/10/hillary-clinton- candidate-of-war/ >>>>>> >>>>>> ...“Now, she talks tough,” [Trump] said of Clinton: “She talks really tough against Putin and against Assad. She talks in favor of the rebels. She doesn’t even know who the rebels are. You know, every time we take rebels whether it’s in Iraq or anywhere else, we’re arming people. And you know what happens? They end up being worse than the people [they overthrow]. Look at what she did in Libya with Gaddafi.  Gaddafi is out. It’s a mess. And by the way, ISIS has a good chunk of their oil. I’m sure you’ve probably have heard that. It was a disaster. The fact is almost everything she has done has been a mistake and it’s been a disaster.” >>>>>> >>>>>> Trump’s comment was correct, more or less ... Hillary Clinton has made it crystal clear. Anyone who votes for her is voting for greatly expanded warfare in the Middle East and probably military confrontation with Russia elsewhere as well. As bad as things are in Syria, in a few months they could get a lot worse... >>>>>> >>>>>> _ > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Wed Oct 19 13:23:47 2016 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 08:23:47 -0500 Subject: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] What last night's debate should have been about In-Reply-To: <1371312108.844595.1476881796287@mail.yahoo.com> References: <745FA348-0FE6-4122-86C3-7F01FC157753@newsfromneptune.com> <5489C839-553A-4E34-B30A-E11DC2FC15FA@newsfromneptune.com> <1374731823.2748007.1476154611558@mail.yahoo.com> <1992775851.2750166.1476155956168@mail.yahoo.com> <33342E4C-0BDD-433D-AF9F-172EC117AF29@newsfromneptune.com> <1299546216.2774535.1476157809952@mail.yahoo.com> <376F910A-56B2-4BA2-A470-0B7371DCF797@newsfromneptune.com> <1132666325.3850270.1476256695625@mail.yahoo.com> <1CA26041-2FF4-4126-8C35-AB6089161E53@gmail.com> <1371312108.844595.1476881796287@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: http://www.greanvillepost.com/2016/03/01/hillarys-secret-letter-and-the-whole-matter-of-endless-war-and-the-almost-complete-corruption-of-americas-government/ An example of Clinton’s “public position and private position” on war: “Quite frankly, Israel didn’t teach Hamas a harsh enough lesson last year. True to form, Obama was too hard on our democratic ally, and too soft on our Islamofascist foe. “As president, I will give the Jewish state all the necessary military, diplomatic, economic and moral support it needs to truly vanquish Hamas – and if that means killing 200,000 Gazans, then so be it. “We realist Democrats understand that collateral damage is an unavoidable by-product of the War on Terror, and me being a mother, grandmother and tireless children’s rights advocate does not mean that I will flinch even one iota in allowing Israel to obliterate every last school-cum-rocket launching pad in Gaza. Those who allow their children to be used as human shields for terrorists deserve to see them buried under one-ton bombs.” > > On Oct 19, 2016, at 7:56 AM, David Green via Peace-discuss wrote: > > To assume that Hillary Clinton does not want to incinerate her own fortune, and that Trump is more likely to, is based on stereotypical reactions rather than reality; that is, it is based on absolutely nothing other than personal bias. > > Hillary got to where she is by not considering herself responsible for the consequences of her actions. Her neoconservative doctrine and the consequences of her enactment of that doctrine is a matter of historical record; that is, millions of deaths. > > Hillary has this election in the bag, with the help of overwhelming bias of the mainstream (liberal) media. Yet, her supporters behave desperately. The double standards regarding sexual behavior/assault are obvious and shameless. HRC is married to a sexual predator from whom we are instructed (by liberals and "progressive Democrats") to "move on." > > Liberal feminism has never sunk this low before; at least I hope not. > > Obviously, I'm voting for Jill Stein, not that my vote matters. > > DG > > > > > On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 6:19 AM, Debra Schrishuhn via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > Agree with you, Gregg > Deb > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Oct 12, 2016, at 7:23 AM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: > > Greg > > You've made some good points here, worthy of further discussion, though I personally don't care to engage in discussions related to electoral politics, or the two major candidates. > It must be noted that while neither candidate holding the reigns of power are likely to want to incinerate their own fortunes, accidents and blowback do happen. While incinerating the other half of humanity, that should be kept in mind. I doubt that has occurred to either of them, any more than it has occurred to most Americans. > From: Gregg Gordon > Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 2:18:15 AM > To: C. G. Estabrook; Karen Aram > Cc: John W.; peace; Peace-discuss List; Occupy CU > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] What last night's debate should have been about > > OMG -- must we? > > Left or right is hardly the point when it comes to Donald Trump anymore. The point is the mental stability of a man who seeks control of thousands of nuclear weapons. You want to talk about war? Yeah, let's talk about it. > > To take this discussion to the lowest level possible -- why waste time, after all -- I trust the corrupt and evil Hillary Clinton to not want to incinerate the fortune she has worked so hard to acquire. Trump has just gone "nuclear" with his campaign, and I have no reason to think he wouldn't do so with the real thing -- and all of our lives --given the opportunity. > > 16 years of "party building" has taken the Greens from Ralph Nader's 3% to Jill Stein's 1% and has resulted in the election of not a single US Congressperson -- not even close -- so someone in that camp has not done a very good job, certainly not enough to inspire confidence in me that that is a promising alternative. But hey -- you never know. The polls could be wrong. This might be the time. Success is just around the corner. Democracy's on the march. So if you want to vote Green, vote Green. In my opinion, that makes you 99.44% pure, and .56% relevant , which frankly, is exactly where I want you. > > > > > From: C. G. Estabrook > To: Karen Aram > Cc: John W. ; peace ; Peace-discuss List ; Gregg Gordon ; Occupy CU > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 8:32 AM > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] What last night's debate should have been about > > I think the correct course is to continue to point out that Stein-Baraka are far superior to either ‘major’ party on the issues, especially war. > > We still need to answer the objection that a vote for a third party is a vote for Trump, by pointing out that Trump has accurately criticized Clinton’s neocon warmongering. > > As Glen Ford and others point out, Trump is substantially to the left of Clinton on foreign policy (and perhaps economic policy - the trade pacts - as well). > > That’s why the Democrats want to focus on the ‘personal’ - and we should talk about war. > From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 19 18:19:04 2016 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 18:19:04 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] What last night's debate should have been about In-Reply-To: <1635215569.3361710.1476882767845@mail.yahoo.com> References: <745FA348-0FE6-4122-86C3-7F01FC157753@newsfromneptune.com> <5489C839-553A-4E34-B30A-E11DC2FC15FA@newsfromneptune.com> <1374731823.2748007.1476154611558@mail.yahoo.com> <1992775851.2750166.1476155956168@mail.yahoo.com> <33342E4C-0BDD-433D-AF9F-172EC117AF29@newsfromneptune.com> <1299546216.2774535.1476157809952@mail.yahoo.com> <376F910A-56B2-4BA2-A470-0B7371DCF797@newsfromneptune.com> <1132666325.3850270.1476256695625@mail.yahoo.com> <1CA26041-2FF4-4126-8C35-AB6089161E53@gmail.com> <1371312108.844595.1476881796287@mail.yahoo.com> <1635215569.3361710.1476882767845@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <631469201.1151250.1476901144952@mail.yahoo.com> Gregg, I guess you're not interested in any reality-based claims; so you resort to ridicule. On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 8:12 AM, Gregg Gordon wrote: Oh please.  Don't you ever get tired of being ridiculous? From: David Green To: Debra Schrishuhn ; Karen Aram Cc: peace ; Peace-discuss List ; C. G. Estabrook ; Gregg Gordon ; Occupy CU Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 7:56 AM Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] What last night's debate should have been about To assume that Hillary Clinton does not want to incinerate her own fortune, and that Trump is more likely to, is based on stereotypical reactions rather than reality; that is, it is based on absolutely nothing other than personal bias. Hillary got to where she is by not considering herself responsible for the consequences of her actions. Her neoconservative doctrine and the consequences of her enactment of that doctrine is a matter of historical record; that is, millions of deaths. Hillary has this election in the bag, with the help of overwhelming bias of the mainstream (liberal) media. Yet, her supporters behave desperately. The double standards regarding sexual behavior/assault are obvious and shameless. HRC is married to a sexual predator from whom we are instructed (by liberals and "progressive Democrats") to "move on." Liberal feminism has never sunk this low before; at least I hope not. Obviously, I'm voting for Jill Stein, not that my vote matters. DG On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 6:19 AM, Debra Schrishuhn via Peace-discuss wrote: Agree with you, GreggDeb Sent from my iPhone On Oct 12, 2016, at 7:23 AM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: Greg You've made some good points here, worthy of further discussion, though I personally don't  care to engage in discussions related to electoral politics, or the two major candidates.It must be noted that while neither candidate holding the reigns of power are likely to want to incinerate their own fortunes, accidents and blowback do happen. While incinerating the other half of humanity, that should be kept in mind. I doubt that has occurred to either of them, any more than it has occurred to most Americans. From: Gregg Gordon Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 2:18:15 AM To: C. G. Estabrook; Karen Aram Cc: John W.; peace; Peace-discuss List; Occupy CU Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] What last night's debate should have been about OMG -- must we? Left or right is hardly the point when it comes to Donald Trump anymore.  The point is the mental stability of a man who seeks control of thousands of nuclear weapons.  You want to talk about war?  Yeah, let's talk about it.   To take this discussion to the lowest level possible -- why waste time, after all -- I trust the corrupt and evil Hillary Clinton to not want to incinerate the fortune she has worked so hard to acquire.  Trump has just gone "nuclear" with his campaign, and I have no reason to think he wouldn't do so with the real thing -- and all of our lives --given the opportunity. 16 years of "party building" has taken the Greens from Ralph Nader's 3% to Jill Stein's 1% and has resulted in the election of not a single US Congressperson -- not even close -- so someone in that camp has not done a very good job, certainly not enough to inspire confidence in me that that is a promising alternative.  But hey -- you never know.  The polls could be wrong.  This might be the time.  Success is just around the corner.  Democracy's on the march.  So if you want to vote Green, vote Green.  In my opinion, that makes you 99.44% pure, and .56% relevant , which frankly, is exactly where I want you. From: C. G. Estabrook To: Karen Aram Cc: John W. ; peace ; Peace-discuss List ; Gregg Gordon ; Occupy CU Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 8:32 AM Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] What last night's debate should have been about I think the correct course is to continue to point out that Stein-Baraka are far superior to either ‘major’ party on the issues, especially war.  We still need to answer the objection that a vote for a third party is a vote for Trump, by pointing out that Trump has accurately criticized Clinton’s neocon warmongering. As Glen Ford and others point out, Trump is substantially to the left of Clinton on foreign policy (and perhaps economic policy - the trade pacts - as well). That’s why the Democrats want to focus on the ‘personal’ - and we should talk about war. > On Oct 11, 2016, at 7:33 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Carl > > This Karen Capel person is continuing to stalk me, just like Roger Helbig, either on or off the List, they are incapable of discussing the issues so they just lash out with insults, Greg is another one. > > Many Americans like Trump, because he represents this level of people. > > Then of course a few academics and intellectuals also like Trump but thats because they only listen to the “true things" Trump says in order to discredit the “Left”. He lacks credibility so nothing he says is meaningful, and anyone who supports him in the US is also vilified as a result. People who are intellectuals and academics supporting Trump  aren’t in touch with mainstream media or people. They are looking at the big picture, and the potential for disaster. Unfortunately, any assumption that a jerk like Trump would reverse our path to destruction is misguided. Republicans and Democrats follow the same foreign policy, they may play good cop, bad cop with the American people but throwing a bone or two to the starving is of little comfort.  > > Then we have those who support Hillary because she presents the image of the lesser evil, at least in respect to America, these are people who don’t recognize we live in a global world, not just a county, state, or nation. So when it hits home, they aren’t able to grasp the fact that it’s all connected, when they do, it will likely be too late. > > Chomsky’s "Manufactured Consent" in spades. > > >> On Oct 10, 2016, at 21:22, C. G. Estabrook wrote: >> >> —allows us to form answers to common objections/shows us what views are being encouraged by government & media. >> >> >>> On Oct 10, 2016, at 11:06 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> >>> Another troll, Gregg, who has nothing of value to add, just insults. No concern for the issues facing humanity, just insults.  >>> >>>> On Oct 10, 2016, at 20:50, Gregg Gordon via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>> >>>> I suggest you hold your breath until you turn blue. >>>> >>>> >>>> From: C. G. Estabrook >>>> To: Gregg Gordon >>>> Cc: John W. ; peace ; Peace-discuss List ; sf-core ; Occupy CU >>>> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 10:32 PM >>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] What last night's debate should have been about >>>> >>>> Verbally. But Clinton’s stomping killed a lot of people. As Trump said, she should be in jail - in The Hague, awaiting trial on war crimes charges.  >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Oct 10, 2016, at 10:19 PM, Gregg Gordon wrote: >>>>> >>>>> You're right.  He did a lot of stomping. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: C. G. Estabrook >>>>> To: Gregg Gordon >>>>> Cc: John W. ; peace ; Peace-discuss List ; sf-core ; Occupy CU >>>>> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 10:10 PM >>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] What last night's debate should have been about >>>>> >>>>> Trump was quite clear and concise in Sunday’s debate when he stomped on Pence’s neocon fire-breathing on Syria: “I didn’t talk to him and he’s wrong”! >>>>> >>>>> —CGE >>>>> >>>>>> On Oct 10, 2016, at 9:56 PM, Gregg Gordon via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> When he attempted to address policy, it came out as an incoherent string of seemingly random phrases in no particular order -- nothing approaching a complete sentence, not sure there was a subject OR a verb in there.  Carl's quote must have gotten some help from the journalist who quoted him, just to find places to put punctuation. >>>>>> From: John W. via Peace >>>>>> To: C. G. Estabrook >>>>>> Cc: peace ; Peace-discuss List ; sf-core ; Occupy CU >>>>>> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 8:12 PM >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace] What last night's debate should have been about >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Vote for Donald Trump.  He's a foreign policy genius! >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 5:47 PM, C. G. Estabrook via Peace wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://consortiumnews.com/2016/10/10/hillary-clinton- candidate-of-war/ >>>>>> >>>>>> ...“Now, she talks tough,” [Trump] said of Clinton: “She talks really tough against Putin and against Assad. She talks in favor of the rebels. She doesn’t even know who the rebels are. You know, every time we take rebels whether it’s in Iraq or anywhere else, we’re arming people. And you know what happens? They end up being worse than the people [they overthrow]. Look at what she did in Libya with Gaddafi.  Gaddafi is out. It’s a mess. And by the way, ISIS has a good chunk of their oil. I’m sure you’ve probably have heard that. It was a disaster. The fact is almost everything she has done has been a mistake and it’s been a disaster.” >>>>>> >>>>>> Trump’s comment was correct, more or less ... Hillary Clinton has made it crystal clear. Anyone who votes for her is voting for greatly expanded warfare in the Middle East and probably military confrontation with Russia elsewhere as well. As bad as things are in Syria, in a few months they could get a lot worse... >>>>>> >>>>>> _ > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Oct 20 16:18:02 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 16:18:02 +0000 Subject: [Peace] Fw: Take Away Military Weapons From Police In-Reply-To: <3066640037.-2079842455@wfc.wfcDB.reply.salsalabs.com> References: <3066640037.-2079842455@wfc.wfcDB.reply.salsalabs.com> Message-ID: ________________________________ Subject: Take Away Military Weapons From Police [https://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/6503/images/RA_Header.jpg] [https://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/6503/images/donate3bucks200b.png] Take Away Military Weapons From Police. [https://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/6503/images/1033weaponsEMAIL.jpg] [GRAPHIC: Sign here button] [https://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/6503/images/btn_facebook_icon_sm.jpg] Share this action on Facebook [https://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/6503/images/btn_twitter_icon_sm.jpg] Share this action on Twitter Throughout the Black Lives Matter movement, nonviolent protesters have been bombarded with armed tanks, rubber bullets, and grenade launchers containing toxic tear gas. As we witnessed in Ferguson, Baltimore, Charlotte and elsewhere, peaceful demonstrations for racial justice and police accountability have been routinely met with large trucks of law enforcement officers dressed and armed for war-like combat. The utilization of military equipment and tactics in local police departments fuels the widespread mentality that law enforcement officers, meant to protect and serve, are mere combatants in black and brown communities. Click here to sign a petition opposing "the transfer of military equipment to local U.S. police departments." Police do not typically address white protesters in the same manner. Consider the sharp contrast between these two events on the same weekend: * The historically racist Ku Klux Klan organized a nonviolent rally on Saturday, September 24th, 2016 at the city center of Madison, Indiana. Met with anti-racist college protesters upon arrival, the KKK immediately called the Madison Police Department for protection throughout their demonstration. Law enforcement officers arrived in their normal squad vehicles, with their normal blue uniforms, and their traditional weaponry of a baton and a single handgun. The crowd, including the KKK members as well as the college protesters, was mostly white. * Law enforcement officers in Charlotte, North Carolina met the Black Lives Matter protesters with rubber bullets, tear gas, and a large number of arrests. Eighty-two protesters have been arrested since the Charlotte uprising began, charged with the crime of "disturbing the peace." BLM activists in Charlotte are protesting against the unjust killing of disabled father Keith Lamont Scott by a black police officer. To help end the militarization of police forces, click here. The federal government continues to give millions of dollars worth of military equipment to police departments that are over-policing, over-incarcerating and killing black and brown people, often with apparent impunity. It is imperative that Defense Secretary Ashton Carter suspend the 1033 Weapons Transfer Program that authorizes the transfer of military weapons to police departments and law enforcement officers. After signing the petition, please use the tools on the next webpage to share it with your friends. This work is only possible with your financial support. Please chip in $3 now. -- The RootsAction.org Team P.S. RootsAction is an independent online force endorsed by Jim Hightower, Barbara Ehrenreich, Cornel West, Daniel Ellsberg, Glenn Greenwald, Naomi Klein, Bill Fletcher Jr., Laura Flanders, former U.S. Senator James Abourezk, Coleen Rowley, Frances Fox Piven, Lila Garrett, Phil Donahue, Sonali Kolhatkar, and many others. Background: > In These Times: If You Thought Obama Was Giving Less Military Gear, You Were Wrong > Knoxville News Sentinel: Tenn. Police Armed With $126 Million in Military Gear > RT: "Military-Style" Armed Police Arrest 20+ Dakota Access Protesters www.RootsAction.org [Donate button] [Facebook button] [Twitter button] Click here to unsubscribe and stop ALL email from RootsAction. [empowered by Salsa] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Oct 20 17:43:57 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 17:43:57 +0000 Subject: [Peace] Fw: Invite your friends to grab a No New Tax for Jails Yard Sign! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ________________________________ BUILD PROGRAMS NOT JAILS Dear Friends, Help oppose jail building in Champaign County and support our campaign to stop the sales tax referendum on the November ballot. Vote "NO" on the "public facilities sales tax." You can further support our efforts by: 1. Ordering your FREE "No New Tax For Jails" sign today! If you fill out the form on the link, we will deliver it to you. If you don't like online forms, just email jjincu at gmail.com with your name and address with "Yard sign" in the subject and we will come and put it in your yard. 2. Volunteer to help us in our "get out the vote" efforts on election day, November 8th and the preceding days (Nov. 5th, 6th and 7th). If you are willing to do this, please email Kristina at kristina.khan1 at gmail.com 3. Attend our final public event of the campaign, a showing of the new release film, 13th, at Channing Murray Foundation, 1209 W. Oregon, Urbana on Saturday, November 5th at 6:30 p.m. 13th, directed by Ava Duvernay of Selma fame, is a powerful documentary about mass incarceration and the legacy of slavery. Build Programs, Not Jails activist James Kilgore, who appears in the film, will lead a group discussion afterwards. 4. Consider a donation to pay for yard signs to stop jail building and divert resources to community building More Information: This election, voters in Champaign County will be asked to approve a referendum to double the existing county sales tax in order to fund "facilities" improvements. In truth, the largest share of this $50 million dollar tax increase will be used for jail building. Build Programs Not Jails has opposed jail-building proposals in Champaign County since 2011. This county, like most of the rest of the country, has spent too much money locking people up while neglecting healthcare, treatment, housing, education, and job creation. It is time for a new direction. Vote No on the public facilities sales tax. Other resources: -Visit our website - Flyers about the Jails Tax (please download, print and share!) - Pamphlet about why we oppose the jails tax - Community Justice Taskforce Recommendations to decrease the jail population [https://gallery.mailchimp.com/a395eac81747edb0b2a3b84e3/images/45ca55f0-05d0-46ca-82e6-34efcaa85763.jpg] Order your FREE "No New Tax For Jails" sign today! [https://cdn-images.mailchimp.com/icons/social-block-v2/color-twitter-48.png] [https://cdn-images.mailchimp.com/icons/social-block-v2/color-facebook-48.png] [https://cdn-images.mailchimp.com/icons/social-block-v2/color-link-48.png] Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. Copyright © 2016 Build Programs, Not Jails, All rights reserved. You are receiving this email because you gave us your contact information at an event. Our mailing address is: Build Programs, Not Jails 511 S Draper Ave Champaign, IL 61821 Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list [Email Marketing Powered by MailChimp] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gwoodiii3 at gmail.com Fri Oct 21 14:50:21 2016 From: gwoodiii3 at gmail.com (Gus Wood) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 09:50:21 -0500 Subject: [Peace] Fwd: NEW LOCATION ! WORLD LABOR HOUR - SAT. OCT. 22nd In-Reply-To: <004f01d22b50$25d2dd80$71789880$@comcast.net> References: <004f01d22b50$25d2dd80$71789880$@comcast.net> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Johnson Date: Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 11:03 PM Subject: NEW LOCATION ! WORLD LABOR HOUR - SAT. OCT. 22nd To: David Johnson *WORLD LABOR HOUR* *SATURDAY OCTOBER 22nd* *11 AM – 1 PM Central Time* *RADIO STATION WRFU 104.5 FM in Urbana Illinois and webcast LIVE world-wide at www.wrfu.net * *Tune in this Saturday October 22nd at our new location at WRFU radio station 104.5 * *Our guests will be ; University of Illinois Law Professor **Francis Boyle**, who will talk about an upcoming demonstration in Champaign against war criminal Harold " Killer " Koh, who has been invited to speak as an honored guest at the University of Illinois Law school on Friday Oct. 28th. * *Also, rank and file Labor activist and author **John Reimann** will call in from Oakland California to talk about " free and fair " elections and the current U.S. Presidential campaign. Stay tuned after the World Labor Hour for THE UNION EDGE, with Host Charles Showalter.* *WRFU – Radio Free Urbana, community radio by and for the people* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Oct 21 18:58:49 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 18:58:49 +0000 Subject: [Peace] Regarding difficulty accessing the WSWS today In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > On Oct 21, 2016, at 11:19, World Socialist Web Site wrote: > > Dear WSWS readers, > > The WSWS is currently experiencing problems for some readers, particularly in the US. This is apparently due to a denial of service attack on a major DNS provider, Dyn, which is affecting many sites. We have been assured that the problem is being fixed, and the WSWS should be fully accessible soon. > > This article provides more information: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/21/ddos-attack-dyn-internet-denial-service > > Included below is the full text of selected articles from today. > > Regards, > The WSWS > > > > The 2016 elections: American democracy in shambles > By Joseph Kishore > > In the aftermath of the final presidential debate on Wednesday, the US media is in an uproar over statements made by Republican candidate Donald Trump that he might not recognize the result of the November 8 election. > > Asked by debate moderator Chris Wallace from Fox News whether he would "absolutely accept the result of this election," Trump replied that he would "look at it at the time," and would "keep you in suspense." On Thursday, Trump climbed down on his remarks somewhat, saying that he would "accept a clear election result." However, arguing that Clinton "is the most corrupt and dishonest person ever to seek office," he added that he would reserve the right "to contest or file a legal challenge in the case of a questionable result." > > Trump's comments at the debate are in line with previous statements that the election is rigged by the media in favor of Clinton, and his assertions, which clearly have racist overtones, that millions of Americans, particularly in urban centers, are voting illegally. He is pitching his appeal to conditions that will develop after the elections, seeking to channel social anger and hostility to the entire political system in an extremely right-wing direction. > > From the media and dominant sections of the political establishment, the response has been universal condemnation of Trump for besmirching the purity of American democracy. The Washington Post proclaimed that "respecting the will of the voters has since the end of the Civil War allowed for a peaceful transition of power that has made this country the envy of the world." The New York Times added that Trump has turned from "insulting the intelligence of the American voter to insulting American democracy itself." > > Republican Senator and former presidential candidate John McCain issued a statement declaring that a concession to the victor in an election is "an act of respect for the will of the American people, a respect that is every American leader's first responsibility." And Vice President Joe Biden, donning the mantle of sanctimonious outrage, said in a speech on Thursday, "If you question, if you assert that a democratic election is fixed, you are attacking the very essence of the notion of whether we have a democratic system." > > These statements from newspaper editorial boards and leading politicians reek of hypocrisy. They also express a nervousness whose causes extend far beyond the comments of Mr. Trump. The political representatives of the ruling class are rushing to the defense of a political system that is increasingly seen as illegitimate by broad sections of the population. > > From a historical standpoint, it must first of all be pointed out that until the middle of the 20th century every election in the United States was "fixed," insofar as large portions of the population were barred from voting. Women were only given the right to vote in 1920. The systematic disenfranchisement of African Americans in the South-through poll taxes, Jim Crow segregation and other measures-was only ended in the mid-1960s, a byproduct of the immense social struggles of that period. And it was only in 1971 that the age of eligibility for the franchise was lowered from 21 to 18. Until then, young men could be drafted to fight and die in wars at the order of a commander-in-chief they could not vote for. > > For the past four decades, democratic forms of rule have been under systematic attack, in line with the extreme growth of social inequality. A turning point came with the campaign to impeach Bill Clinton over a sex scandal in 1998 and 1999, followed by the theft of the election in 2000. To the extent that the 2000 elections are mentioned at all in the present discussion over Trump's comments, it is to praise Al Gore's "respect for the process" in accepting the Supreme Court decision to hand the election to George W. Bush. > > In fact, the 5-4 decision by the highest court in the country to halt the recounting of ballots in Florida installed in office an individual who lost the popular vote and, if all the ballots had been fairly counted, the electoral vote as well. In one of the decisions culminating in this travesty of democracy, the Supreme Court asserted that the American people have no constitutional right to vote for the president of the United States. The rigging of the 2000 election was carried out, not in the back room of a county courthouse, but by the highest court in the land. > > In early December 2000, in advance of the decision in Bush v. Gore, WSWS editorial board chairman David North noted that the decision would reveal "how far the American ruling class is prepared to go in breaking with traditional bourgeois-democratic and constitutional norms." In the end, the blatantly political action by Supreme Court was met with no serious opposition from the Democratic Party and Gore, or from the media and political establishment as a whole. The outcome, as the WSWS wrote at the time, "revealed the lack of any significant constituency within the ruling elite for a democratic adjudication of the presidential election." > > The ruling class has demonstrated its contempt for democracy through its actions over the past decade and a half. The attacks of September 11, 2001 were followed, under Bush and then Obama, by a raft of anti-democratic measures justified by the "war on terror": the Patriot Act; warrantless mass surveillance; indefinite detention without trial; torture and "extraordinary rendition"; drone assassination, including of US citizens; the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security and the Northern Command, a military jurisdiction to oversee the increasing domestic use of the military. To this list must be added a militarized police force that kills more than 1,000 Americans every year. > > As for the electoral process, Supreme Court decisions have undermined the Voting Rights Act and sanctioned state laws requiring photo IDs and other restrictions aimed at disenfranchising poor, elderly and minority voters. Some 6 million citizens (one out of every 40 eligible voters) are barred from voting due to previous felony convictions. The Citizens United decision in 2010 abolished restrictions on big business financing of candidates and their political action committees. It is estimated that more than $7 billion has been spent on the 2016 elections, all told, twice what was spent in 2012. > > Everything is done to prevent independent and third-party candidates from having their names appear on the ballot, including requirements that they gather tens or even hundreds of thousands of signatures. Many states will not even count write-in votes. Meanwhile, the media works to ensure that the official "debate" remains safely confined to the narrow framework acceptable to the ruling class. > > "American democracy" is a hollowed-out shell, overseen by two parties that are controlled by the financial oligarchy and the military. The experience of the Obama administration-which came to power promising "change you can believe in"-has only demonstrated to millions of people that their vote has no impact on the policies of the ruling class. > > The protracted decay of American democracy has culminated in the election of 2016, a contest between a millionaire scion of the Clinton dynasty and a billionaire real estate speculator and reality television star. > > Trump himself is a product of a diseased social and political system, the legitimate heir of the "war on terror." As for Clinton, she is merely another expression of the same disease, running her campaign on the basis of the same scandal-mongering used by the Republicans against her husband, combined with McCarthyite smears that have a long and noxious history. > > The Democrats' stock response to any question about leaked emails exposing Clinton's ties to Wall Street is to change the subject to the completely unsubstantiated claim that it is all the handiwork of Russian President Vladimir Putin. While Trump has said that he might not accept the election as legitimate, if Clinton is defeated the Democrats will declare that it is the result of Russia's interference in the electoral process. > > Behind the whole rotten process, the fundamental issues are covered up or ignored. The reality of American "democracy" can perhaps be summed up in the fact that, three weeks before November 8, the American military has launched a massive military escalation in the Middle East, and there is no significant discussion about the consequences in an election that is supposedly the principal means through which the population can affect policy. > > The crisis of democracy is a product of the decay of American capitalism, overseen by a ruling class that is determined to advance a policy of war abroad and austerity at home-a policy that requires ever greater attacks on democratic forms of rule. Whatever happens on November 8, it will resolve nothing, and only set the stage for a protracted political crisis that can be resolved only through the independent intervention of the working class on the basis of a revolutionary socialist program. > > > *** > > Mosul offensive stirs a cauldron of conflicts > By James Cogan > > Iraqi Army units and troops of the autonomous Kurdish Regional Government (KRG), backed by US and allied air power, special forces and "advisors," continue to push toward the Islamic State (ISIS)-held northern city of Mosul and the estimated 1.5 million civilians trapped within its confines. In the past 24 hours, Kurdish forces claimed to have captured villages and towns to the city's north and east, while Iraqi Army units advanced from the south. > > The assault is unfolding amid uncritical media coverage, with embedded journalists filing reports that in general laud the success of Kurdish and Iraqi forces in the face of supposed fanatical resistance and suicide attacks by ISIS defenders. Vast columns of black smoke rising over the battle zones are universally attributed to ISIS igniting oil wells and mounds of tyres to obscure their movements from aerial detection and attack. > > No official estimates of Kurdish or Iraqi government casualties have been released, nor figures on ISIS losses. The US military confirmed yesterday that one of its special forces soldiers was killed by a roadside bomb to the north of Mosul. > > Next to nothing is being reported about the devastation and casualties caused by US and allied air strikes on targets within the urban reaches of the city itself. Instead, the media is full of accusations that ISIS is using people as "human shields"-justifying civilian deaths in advance. American, British, Australian, French, Canadian and Jordanian bombers, jet fighters, helicopter gunships, drones and surveillance aircraft are involved in the air assault. > > One indication of the destruction being inflicted was an October 19 report by the British Broadcasting Corporation that the University of Mosul, once one of the best equipped in the Middle East, is in ruin. A source stated: "The university is completely inoperative and air strikes have made it a difficult place to go. Most of the buildings have been brought down, it's virtually gone." > > US and allied military commanders project that operations to recapture Mosul will last as long as three months. This suggests that much of the city will be reduced to rubble and the predominantly Sunni Arab civilian population will suffer horrific casualties from the bombing, starvation and disease. > > Just five days into the Mosul offensive, however, it is stirring a cauldron of inter-state and ethno-sectarian conflicts that are the legacy of 25 years of US imperialist violence, intrigue and destabilisation in Iraq, Syria and the broader Middle East. Before the city even falls, savage fighting threatens to break out between nominal allies in the operations against ISIS. > > The Syrian regime, with the assistance of Russian air power and Lebanese and Iraqi Shiite militias, claims it is on the verge of recapturing the eastern sectors of the city of Aleppo from Sunni Islamist militias that have received overt support from the US, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states to try to overthrow the government of President Bashar al-Assad. The fall of Aleppo would largely end the US-backed rebellion in the coastal regions of Syria and enable Assad's military to shift focus to the ISIS-held areas in the interior and east of the country, particularly the city of Raqqa. > > Both the Syrian regime and Russia are accusing US-backed Iraqi and Kurdish forces of deliberately allowing ISIS fighters in Mosul to escape the city to the west and cross into ISIS-controlled areas of Syria. Hundreds have allegedly successfully made their way to Raqqa to join the fighting against the Syrian government. > > Iraqi Shiite militias, known as the Popular Mobilisation Units, are rushing to the west of Mosul to cut off such escape routes for ISIS and declared yesterday they will launch an assault on the ISIS-held city of Tal Afar in northwestern Iraq. The Shiite militias had been blocked from taking part in the attack on Mosul due to the sectarian killings and abuse of Sunnis they committed during earlier battles to recapture the western Iraqi cities of Fallujah and Ramadi. > > A militia attack on Tal Afar raises the prospect of Turkish military intervention, as it has a predominantly ethnic Turkmen population, factions among which are calling for their own autonomous province. Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has made shrill vows to protect the Turkish diaspora-which includes Iraq's Turkmen-from Eastern Europe, the Middle East and North Africa, to Central Asia and Afghanistan (see: "Amid Mosul offensive, Turkey denounces US policy, stakes claims in Balkans"). > > Erdogan has also expressed alarm that US backing is strengthening the position of the Kurdish region in northern Iraq. The openly-stated intention of the KRG is to incorporate the areas it has taken from ISIS into its autonomous zone, not return them to the jurisdiction of the Shiite Arab-dominated government in Baghdad. A spokesman for one of the largest Shiite militias said in September they would fight against KRG annexations. > > The Turkish establishment bitterly opposes any further expansion of the Kurdish region, fearing it will lead to the declaration of a Kurdish nation-state and fuel separatist agitation among the substantial Kurdish population in the east of Turkey, bordering Syria and Iraq. > > Unable to act in Mosul itself at this point, Turkey responded yesterday with its most intense air attacks on the Kurdish YPG militia in northern Syria, which recently seized a number of villages from ISIS and expanded the areas of the country under their control. The Turkish military claimed to have killed up to 200 fighters of the YPG-which it alleges is a front for the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) that advocates the separation of the Kurdish region of Turkey. This operation may well sharply escalate ethnic conflict inside Turkey itself, or attacks by Kurdish forces on the small number of Turkish troops that are in Iraq to the northeast of Mosul. > > In a statement, the Syrian government said it viewed the Turkish air strikes as an attack on its sovereignty and vowed to engage any future incursions. > > Anthony Cordesman, a leading US analyst for the Center for International and Strategic Studies (CSIS), expressed the perplexity among US imperialist strategists. On October 17 he commented: "[T]he most critical aspect of the battle may not be whether ISIS is defeated. It may be whether Iraq's deeply divided factions can find some way to cooperate if they win. The alternative could be worse than ISIS: Sunni versus Shiite, Arab versus Kurd, and Turkey, Iran, outside Arab states, and Russia all competing to serve their own ends. 'Winning' could all too easily divide Iraq on a lasting basis and/or turn into new forms of civil conflict." > > The victims will be the long-suffering masses of Iraq and the Middle East. In recent days, some 5,000 people have made their way from Mosul to a squalid tent city in northeastern Syria, while several thousand have reached the overcrowded refugee camp of Dibaga in Iraqi Kurdistan. Hundreds of thousands more are predicted to follow, overwhelming unprepared relief agencies. > > Disturbing video footage has already emerged of Iraqi government troops beating, with a hammer, a young boy who fled Mosul. All males over 14 who escape the city are being detained and interrogated on suspicion of ISIS loyalties. > > *** > > Does Bob Dylan deserve to receive the Nobel Prize for Literature? > By David Walsh > > Is American singer and songwriter Bob Dylan, now 75 years old, deserving of the Nobel Prize for Literature? > > Numerous issues need to be disentangled here, probably too many for one article. > > In the first place, there is the matter of the Nobel Prize itself. No one is obliged to accept the awarding process as either entirely objective or disinterested. The prize has been handed out by the Swedish Academy, whose 18 members have tenure for life, since 1901. The winners have for the most part tended to be European, with Swedish writers especially well represented in the first few decades of the prize's existence. > > The list of 113 Nobel Laureates includes many writers--however one may feel about the overall thrust of their work--who undoubtedly are serious figures, including Harold Pinter, Günter Grass, Doris Lessing, Gabriel García Márquez, Alice Munro, Isaac Bashevis Singer, Heinrich Böll, Samuel Beckett, Jean-Paul Sartre (who refused the award), Ernest Hemingway, William Faulkner, T. S. Eliot, André Gide, Eugene O'Neill, Luigi Pirandello, Sinclair Lewis, Thomas Mann, George Bernard Shaw, W. B. Yeats, Anatole France, Knut Hamsun, Gerhard Hauptmann, Rudyard Kipling, Pablo Neruda and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. > > There have also been numerous mediocrities and nonentities among the award winners, and inappropriate prizes, such as the one in 1953 given to former British prime minister Winston Churchill, "for his mastery of historical and biographical description as well as for brilliant oratory in defending exalted human values." > > Missing from the list of Nobel Laureates are Leo Tolstoy, August Strindberg, Anton Chekhov, Mark Twain, Henry James, Marcel Proust, James Joyce, Bertolt Brecht, Alfred Döblin, Sean O'Casey, Isaac Babel, Theodore Dreiser, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Franz Kafka, Robert Musil, Richard Wright, Virginia Woolf, W. H. Auden, George Orwell, Ignazio Silone, B. Traven, Jaroslav Hasek, André Breton, Pier Paolo Pasolini, Mariano Azuela, James Baldwin, Philip Roth and a host of other intriguing and important writers. > > The failure to bestow prizes on Tolstoy and Chekhov (who died in 1910 and 1904, respectively) in the first decade of the prize's existence is attributed to the anti-Russian inclinations of Swedish ruling circles. So much for the Academy's Olympian objectivity! > > No doubt politics of one sort or another entered into the 2016 choice. The Academy seems to be making an attempt to widen its definition of literature and perhaps prove its "relevancy" in the 21st century. Beyond that, one has the sense that, in the midst of US-European tensions that can only worsen and an unprecedented, tumultuous American election campaign, this is a signal from sections of the European upper middle class and bourgeoisie to their affluent counterparts in the US-the Obama constituency-so to speak, offering support and the "hand of friendship." > > There is a "political-psychological" aspect of this particular honor as well. The average age of the Swedish Academy members--academics, linguists, poets, critics--is 69 (the youngest member is 44 and the oldest 92). It may be that proceeding as though the American singer, who belongs more or less to their generation, still represents something artistically innovative and even socially oppositional is a means of convincing themselves that they still do as well, what with their dim memories (in some cases) of a radical youth and their abandoned idealism. In reality, to speak frankly, the prize is handed out by affluent 60- and 70-year-olds who, like Dylan himself, have been thoroughly integrated into the establishment and have not had anything politically interesting or serious, let alone genuinely rebellious, to say for decades. > > In any event, leaving the Swedish Academy and the various political considerations out of the picture, the unavoidable question is this: is Bob Dylan worthy of a major literary prize? > > Dylan is a singer and popular song writer. Decades ago, high school English teachers in America (and perhaps elsewhere), to inoculate their students against the supposed threat of rock and roll, liked to read out song lyrics and point to their inanity. It is doubtful that this ever accomplished much of anything, because it was largely the energy, the "beat," the vaguely subversive feeling of the music that young people were responding to. > > Bob Dylan has not been a composer of "hit songs," by and large, but popular songs of any kind have their peculiarities and limitations. Songwriting and poetry are not the same thing. Rhythm and repetition have far larger and more independent roles, even determining roles, to play in the creation and production of popular songs, as the adolescents of yesteryear instinctively recognized. The most profound or cleverest lyric will die on the vine unless it is backed or accompanied by--or counterposed to--the appropriate musical setting. In a truly memorable popular song, the words and music interact to enormous emotional effect. > > At least until the late 1960s, many popular tunes were written by duos, one member of which would concentrate on the music and the other the lyrics. To treat Dylan's work as "literature" is unfair to him, because one is then obliged to judge him solely on the basis of his lyrics, of what lies cold and dead on the page, and even in the best of circumstances that will almost always seem inadequate or lacking with vocal music or theatrical works, which are meant to be performed. > > So, we have to rephrase our question again: did Bob Dylan, in his popular songs, write lyrics that are worthy of a significant literary prize? > > On this score, a good many foolish claims are being made at present. Dwight Garner in the New York Times on October 13 contributed a few of them. "This Nobel," Garner wrote, "acknowledges what we've long sensed to be true: that Mr. Dylan is among the most authentic voices America has produced, a maker of images as audacious and resonant as anything in Walt Whitman or Emily Dickinson." > > The Times journalist goes on to cite "venerated [British] critic and scholar Christopher Ricks," who has made "the case most fully for Mr. Dylan as a complicated and complicating poet." In his 2003 book, Dylan's Visions of Sin, Ricks "persuasively" compared the singer-songwriter to "personages as distinct" as Yeats, Thomas Hardy, John Keats, Andrew Marvell and Alfred, Lord Tennyson. > > In an interview following the announcement of the prize winner, Sara Danius, Permanent Secretary of the Swedish Academy, placed Dylan in the company of Homer, believed to be the greatest epic poet by the Ancient Greeks, and Sappho, one of the greatest lyric poets. > > Historian Sean Wilentz, in the introduction to his Bob Dylan in America, was slightly more cautious, suggesting that Dylan belonged to the "tradition" of "Whitman, [Herman] Melville, and [Edgar Allan] Poe, which sees the everyday in American symbols and the symbolic in the everyday, and then tells stories about it." > > Such comparisons are out of place and unnecessary (and speak more than anything else to the debased state of present-day criticism and commentary). In the end, it will not do Bob Dylan any good to be placed in such company. > > By any objective measurement, contrary to Garner in the Times, the singer and songwriter has not created "images as audacious and resonant as anything" in Whitman (1819-92) or Dickinson (1830-86), two remarkable figures of the "American Renaissance," the period intimately bound up with the coming of the Second American Revolution, the Civil War. > > As literary historian F. O. Matthiessen noted, "The half-decade of 1850-55 saw the appearance of Representative Men (1850) [by Ralph Waldo Emerson], The Scarlet Letter (1850), The House of Seven Gables (1851) [both by Nathaniel Hawthorne], Moby-Dick (1851), Pierre (1852) [both by Herman Melville], Walden (1854) [by Henry David Thoreau], and Leaves of Grass (1855) [by Whitman]." Matthiessen added: "You might search all the rest of American literature without being able to collect a group of books equal to those in imaginative vitality." > > In his introduction to the first edition of Leaves of Grass, Whitman wrote: "Of all nations, the United States with veins full of poetical stuff most needs poets, and will doubtless have both the greatest and use them the greatest. Their Presidents shall not be their common reference as much as their poets shall." This insight was confirmed within a half-dozen years by the elevation of a poet into the White House, Abraham Lincoln, who was also America's greatest president. Whitman went on to assert that the poet "bestows on every object or quality its fit proportions neither more nor less. He is the arbiter of the diverse and he is the key. He is the equalizer of his age and land. ... he supplies what wants supplying and checks what wants checking." > > He continued: "If the time becomes slothful and heavy he [the poet] knows how to arouse it . . . he can make every word he speaks draw blood. Whatever stagnates in the flat of custom or obedience or legislation he never stagnates. Obedience does not master him, he masters it. ..." > > And further: "The attitude of great poets is to cheer up slaves and horrify despots. The turn of their necks, the sound of their feet, the motions of their wrists, are full of hazard to the one and hope to the other." > > Does this bring to mind Bob Dylan's body of work? Would he even maintain, were he to be honest with himself, that it does? > > Of course, in all fairness, not every poet could live up to Whitman's vision--in fact, probably few have. But his overwhelming ambition points to the complexity and demands of poetry, language concentrated and charged with meaning to the greatest possible extent. Whitman's own life-work is an illustration. He spent nearly four decades writing and adding to Leaves of Grass, expanding it from a slim volume of 12 poems in 1855 to a work of nearly 400 poems in the final edition published during his lifetime in 1892. > > It would be false and misleading to suggest that Bob Dylan has been "poetic" in the Whitman-Dickinson meaning of the word. He has been doing something else. > > A perusal of Bob Dylan--Lyrics: 1962-2001, at least its first half a dozen years or so, reveals a lively imagination at work, and sometimes deep feeling. Dylan can be witty, satirical, insightful and, as well, genuinely outraged at American society's injustices. The lyrics are capable of conveying physical and psychic longing, both for "the beloved" and for recognition by society at large. > > The songs from 1963-66 possess many appealing characteristics, but there is hardly one that does not suffer, if assessed solely by literary standards, from occasionally sloppy imagery, wordiness, and strained and obscure verbal juxtapositions (borrowed from the Beat and perhaps surrealist schools, among others, with mostly unhappy results). The songwriter passes between genuine spontaneity and informality, at one pole, to mere carelessness, at the other, sometimes within a single tune. > > Of course, he aspires quite deliberately to be the opposite of rigorously self-disciplined; on the contrary, part of the charm (and social unruliness) of the early music, before a certain self-pity and paranoia set in in the mid-1960s, is often its self-deprecating, breezy, unfettered feel. This was material, one must say forcefully, even at its angriest and most socially focused, that was not written and performed with the view in mind of securing prestigious literary prizes. And that is no insult, by any means. This is another reason why the Nobel Prize seems so false and out of keeping. > > To his credit, in May 1963, Dylan walked out before a scheduled appearance on the popular "Ed Sullivan Show" on CBS Television, at a time when performing there was one of the preferred routes to stardom, after CBS officials refused to allow him to sing "Talkin' John Birch Paranoid Blues," which satirized anti-communist hysteria in the US. Would the Bob Dylan of that day have passively and obediently resigned himself to the upcoming Stockholm ceremony? > > As noted above, the Swedish Academy's rather grandiose gesture will only have the paradoxical result of diminishing Dylan's reputation in many eyes. That would be unfortunate. I think it is an error to dismiss his best work. It meant a great deal to a certain generation, or more than one, and for good reason. > > In the early to middle part of the 1960s, but only during that period, as far as I can see, Bob Dylan represented an attitude to life that resonated strongly with many middle class young people in particular. > > There was at the time among these same young people a sudden and strong desire for honesty and authenticity. Official America was obviously lying through its teeth about everything. It was lying about its concern for democracy and freedom, it was lying and had been lying for years about "communism." A dreadful hypocrisy prevailed, which almost no one challenged. Authorized morality, including the rules governing conduct between the sexes, did not begin to correspond to elementary human needs and feelings. And there was terrible anxiety too. In October 1962, at the time of the Cuban missile crisis, many people felt the world might be coming to an end. > > In hindsight we can see that the growing skepticism about what the government, the corporations and the military were telling everyone had something to do with the unresolved and mounting problems of American capitalist society. But the young people did not see that, they merely felt they might suffocate if things continued as they were. > > It was inevitable that someone would articulate some of these earnest but confused feelings in a popular-artistic way. > > This is not the occasion to delve into the sociological background of the "folk music revival" in the 1960s and the extent to which it reflected the ideological influence of Stalinist Popular Frontism. The Stalinists' modus operandi consisted in finding "progressive" tendencies in every national bourgeoisie and its cultural traditions, as a means of helping to justify the alliance of workers with--or, in practice, their subordination to--the supposedly liberal, democratic sections of that ruling class. > > It would be wrong to view the "folk" outburst as something purely artificial or invented, although it is often challenging to distinguish the authentic from the inauthentic in the case of the folk music world as a whole or the career of a given performer. > > But there is no question that to the extent that this music was seen in the early 1960s as a center of anti-establishment sentiment and even social opposition it drew into its ranks some immensely gifted and sensitive artists, including Dylan, Dave Van Ronk, Joan Baez, Phil Ochs, Tom Paxton, Joni Mitchell, Odetta, Judy Collins, Fred Neil, Eric Andersen, Gordon Lightfoot, Donovan, Tim Hardin, Carolyn Hester, Ian and Sylvia and a good many others. > > The desire for what was perceived to be greater sincerity in popular music meant a rejection, which also had a generational element, of the polished and more easily palatable. There was a resulting interest in "abrasiveness" and "rawness," in imperfection even and in greater social and personal urgency. > > Bob Dylan brought to bear some of these elements. There were no doubt numerous irritating features to his first musical efforts: the inevitable dropping of the final "g" (as in "goin'," "freewheelin'," "travelin'," etc.), the other folksy pretenses, including second-hand and not very convincing Woody Guthrie imitations (and Guthrie's music already contained an element of not entirely convincing "folksiness"), the self-consciously rough voice, and so on. > > Some of the initial "protest songs" are affecting, or contain affecting passages, including "Masters of War," "A Hard Rain's a-Gonna Fall," "With God on Our Side," "The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll" and "Chimes of Freedom." > > In the last mentioned, the singer makes an impassioned plea on behalf of "the countless confused, accused, misused, strung-out ones and worse / And for every hung-up person in the whole wide universe." > > There are also heavy-handed and mawkish "socially conscious" songs on Dylan's first few records. > > It is possible to argue that Bob Dylan's strongest and most enduring tunes are his love songs, and that the latter, for better or worse, contain some of his most pronounced feelings of opposition and protest, although of course expressed in semi-bohemian and "individualistic" tones. In that regard, one could point to songs like "Boots of Spanish Leather," "All I Want to Do," "Spanish Harlem Incident," "To Ramona," "I Don't Believe You," "She Belongs to Me," "Love Minus Zero/No Limit," "Farewell Angelina," "Love Is Just a Four Letter Word," "One of Must Know (Sooner or Later)" and "Just Like a Woman," along with other personal pieces such as "Mr. Tambourine Man" and "Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues." > > These songs produced some of Dylan's clearest and "cleanest" lines, including these, from "To Ramona": > > The flowers of the city > Though breathlike > Get deathlike at times > And there's no use in trying > To deal with the dying > Though I cannot express that in lines > > From his music of 1963-64 in particular we come away with the image of the artist in energetic and sensual pursuit of the woman (or women) he adores in the face of the collective disapproval or hostility of official society. In the earliest songs, one has the impression at times that the various warmongers, racists and "John Birchers" (right-wingers, after the ultra-reactionary John Birch Society) provoke the singer's ire, as much as anything else, because they threaten to deprive him of life with the object of his affections. A little later, in the more sophisticated efforts, family obligations, conventional wisdom and "public opinion" seem the chief impediments. > > It is outside the scope of this article to discuss in any depth Bob Dylan's abrupt "jumping ship" in 1967 or so. > > Suffice it to say that given the relative thinness of his own commitment and understanding, Dylan inevitably rejected the role that had been prepared for him by the "left" folk music world, as the new "people's troubadour." He was not wrong to do so. Arch-Stalinist Irwin Silber's "Open Letter," published in Sing Out! magazine in November 1964, which criticized Dylan's new "inner-directed ..., inner-probing, self-conscious" material, had unmistakably repressive, even threatening overtones. Silber, a longtime member of the Communist Party, went on to an inglorious career in Maoist pseudo-culture and politics. > > The musical-lyrical status quo was untenable. It was impossible to go on playing at "hobos" and "freight trains" and "Walkin' Down the Line," and so forth. The singer himself recognized that, titling a new album Highway 61 Revisited. Inner city riots erupted in New York and Los Angeles. A Democratic Party president, after having promised not to send "our boys" to Southeast Asia, was doing precisely that, in large numbers. Something new and tense was in the air. > > Less and less convinced (if he ever had been) by radical politics, ever more attracted by the siren song of commercial success, intensely envious of those who enjoyed that success, and not immune either to "good, old-fashioned" American anti-communism, Dylan used Silber and company and their crude efforts to direct him as a pretext to turn his back on any concerted social involvement or interest. In the time-honored manner, he threw the baby out with the bathwater. > > It had all been a terrible misunderstanding, he had never meant to be a "leader" or a "protester," he now regretted idle talk about "equality" ("Ah, but I was so much older then / I'm younger than that now"). His evolution was rapid and ignominious. There is precious little to show for the past 45 years or more. > > Bob Dylan was neither the first nor the last American popular artist, or artist of any kind, to imagine he could outwit historical and social processes--which threatened to "slow down" or even block his rise--by avoiding their most vexing questions and problems. What he didn't realize was that in turning his back on social life and softening his attitude toward the existing order, he was at the same time cutting himself off from the source of artistic inspiration, that he was surrendering forever what was best in him. > > Links: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeP4FFr88SQ > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fB9xqA3eUY > > Other performers singing Bob Dylan songs: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJ94iDhF7Cc > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y89rmBlNAx4 > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nHwILs8bdo > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > To be unsubscribed from the World Socialist Web Site mailing list simply click on the link below: > http://www4.wsws.org/cgi-bin/subproee/s.pl?r=1&l=2&e=karenaram=:hotmail.com > > > AOL USERS: > One-Click Unsubscribe Link Here > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Oct 22 08:35:14 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2016 08:35:14 +0000 Subject: [Peace] info on cyber attack In-Reply-To: <282221778.8917.1477096840690@mail.yahoo.com> References: <282221778.8917.1477096840690.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <282221778.8917.1477096840690@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Oct 21, 2016, at 17:40, Dianna Visek > wrote: Massive cyberattack knocks out major East Coast websites [https://s.yimg.com/nq/storm/assets/enhancrV2/23/logos/nbcnews.png] Massive cyberattack knocks out major East Coast websites Major websites and services across the East Coast were shut down for two hours Friday morning by a denial of ser... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rachelstrm at gmail.com Sun Oct 23 02:47:11 2016 From: rachelstrm at gmail.com (Rachel Storm) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2016 21:47:11 -0500 Subject: [Peace] =?utf-8?b?TW9uZGF5OiBUw6p0ZS3DgC1Uw6p0ZSBFeGhpYml0aW9u?= =?utf-8?q?_Reception_with_Charlotte_Prieu?= Message-ID: Tête-À-Tête Exhibition Reception with Charlotte Prieu *Monday Oct. 24th, 5pm* *Women's Resources Center * *703 S. Wright St. 2nd Fl. Champaign, 61820* Join us for an exhibition of artwork by Charlotte Prieu, doctoral student in Linguistics and creator of the Unbothered and Unimpressed: The Side-Eye Series comic collection. The Women's Resources Center is delighted to sponsor a solo exhibition of Charlotte's drawings, paintings, and installation work. The Tête-À-Tête Exhibition explores art as resistance to racial, sexual, and gender injustices. The collection features artwork created over a one-year period in response to issues of police brutality, street harassment, and a diverse range of social issues. The exhibit also seeks to pay homage to local student and community activists who are working for a better world. Join us for a reception on Mon. Oct. 24th featuring works on display, an artist's talk, and refreshments. Free and open to the public. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Tete A Tete.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 93820 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rachelstrm at gmail.com Sun Oct 23 03:14:50 2016 From: rachelstrm at gmail.com (Rachel Storm) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2016 22:14:50 -0500 Subject: [Peace] Mon. Oct. 24th! Hot Topics Dialogue: "Beyond Trump: Race, Gender, & the Election Message-ID: Hot Topics Dialogue: "Beyond Trump: Race, Gender, & the Election& Elections" *Mon. Oct. 24th, 7pm* *Women's Resources Center * *703 S. Wright St. 2nd Fl. Champaign* Join us for a dialogue on how the upcoming election has centered enduring issues of power and oppression in the United States. About Hot Topics Dialogues: Hot Topics Dialogues is a series hosted by the Women's Resources Center and the YWCA on campus on the 2nd and 4th Monday of each month. Hot Topics seeks to provide a space for dialogue on gender, other social identities, and social justice. Hot Topics Dialogues is always free and open to the public; bring your friends! Refreshments will be provided. Should you require any accommodations (assistance with food and seating, large print programs, an ASL interpreter, visual/audio assistance, etc.), please contact us at your earliest convenience. at 217-333-31337 or womenscenter at illinois.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Oct 26 14:26:02 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 14:26:02 +0000 Subject: [Peace] Sign Making Party tonight for Killer Koh Protest the 28th. Message-ID: Message from Stuart Levy, in respect to the Koh protest on Friday at the College of Law To be held at the Channing Murray Foundation 7:00pm tonight the 26th. From stuartnlevy at gmail.com Wed Oct 26 14:32:51 2016 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (Stuart Levy) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 09:32:51 -0500 Subject: [Peace] *tonight* 10/26 - Sign Making for Harold "Killer" Koh event Message-ID: <13644ef7-3725-97ad-01cf-e1e7e8c48e1c@gmail.com> Hey all, Harold "Killer" Koh speaks this Friday (10/28, 11:30). We need new signs to welcome him with, and let people know the history of the man whom the Law School has invited to speak. Let's meet around 7pm tonight, Wed 10/26, in Channing Murray's "fireside room", on the main floor - *not* the big sanctuary area, as the salsa dancers will be there (and loud!). We'll have posterboard and markers - bring your ideas! Channing-Murray is at 1209 W Oregon St, Urbana. (The Red Herring's weekly fusion dinner will be downstairs, 5-8pm - I'm aiming to be down there to try it - they're doing Indian this week.) Who is Harold Koh? See Friday's event: https://www.facebook.com/events/333776623637727/ Or Midge O'Brien's article for the Public i: http://publici.ucimc.org/october-surprise-harold-killer-koh-to-lecture-at-ui-law-school-in-election-week/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Oct 26 14:46:56 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 14:46:56 +0000 Subject: [Peace] Killer Koh Protest on the 28th at the COL, U of I Message-ID: It’s important to note that this protest, against war criminal Harold “Killer” Koh, as he is known in the Beltway for his support of war and drone killings, is not about the election, it’s not even about the College of Law bringing him here, in spite of knowing, well, the crimes he is responsible for committing. It’s about reviving the anti-war movement. We are looking at permanent war in the middle east, with provocations on the border of Russia, and in the S. China Sea. We have our military bases located in every African nation but two. Control by corporate elites, the Pentagon, and the imperialists occupying the State Dept., may differ on strategy, but they are in agreement on the goal to control other nations, and those nations resources. As a result they are taking even greater risks now. We have militarized our police, who are killing people of color everyday with impunity. The degradation of the environment continues at an alarming rate. Healthcare costs are continuing to escalate, with pensions, salaries and jobs being cut. Education is no longer affordable for working class people. All of our money goes to support the war machine, and the 1% elite. It’s time to stand up and say “no more”, if not for “our” sake, then for the sake of all mankind, and the future of our children. From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Oct 26 15:21:31 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 15:21:31 +0000 Subject: [Peace] Fwd: Breaking News References: <1806753222.6103.1477494337513.JavaMail.nobody@prd-10-60-172-204.nodes.56m.dmtio.net> Message-ID: Why we need more outrage, it’s effective. See below: Secretary of Defense Ash Carter suspends all efforts to collect reimbursement from improperly awarded enlistment bonuses given to some members of the California National Guard. The action follows outrage from veterans and their families over attempts to recover the money 10 years after it was disbursed. ---------------------------------------------- Get complete coverage of breaking news on CNN TV, CNN.com and CNN Mobile. Watch CNN live or On Demand from your computer or mobile device using CNNgo. ---------------------------------------------- You have opted-in to receive this e-mail from CNN.com. To unsubscribe from Breaking News e-mail alerts, go to: http://cnn.com/EMAIL/breakingnews/unsubscribe.html?l=domestic-adh-bn One CNN Center Atlanta, GA 30303 (c) & (r) 2016 Cable News Network -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Oct 27 12:21:52 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 12:21:52 +0000 Subject: [Peace] More war, more bombings in Iraq to come Message-ID: According to the NYT’s: "Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter said in Brussels on Wednesday that the offensive to oust the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, from Raqqa would begin within weeks." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Oct 27 22:43:04 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 22:43:04 +0000 Subject: [Peace] HUNDREDS OF RIOT POLICE AND ARMY ATTEMPTING TO REMOVE PROTESTORS FROM THE NORTH DAKOTA PIPELINE!!!! Message-ID: HUNDREDS OF RIOT POLICE AND ARMY ATTEMPTING TO REMOVE PROTESTORS FROM THE NORTH DAKOTA PIPELINE!!!! RT. COM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kmedina67 at gmail.com Thu Oct 27 23:20:10 2016 From: kmedina67 at gmail.com (Karen Medina) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 18:20:10 -0500 Subject: [Peace] time clarification Fwd: demonstration against Clinton/Koh Administration Message-ID: People have been asking for clarification on the time of the anti-Koh demonstration on Friday, October 28, 2016 at the UofI Law School. * The public talk begins at noon. * Koh is also giving an earlier talk to a closed group, and I think that starts at 9am. * Why 8:30am -> If you want Koh to see the protests as he comes to the building. * Why 11:30am -> the public / students would see the signs. * Where: the protest will take place on the North side in what everyone is calling the courtyard. If we get kicked out of there, we will head to the sidewalk on the North side. We hope to see you tomorrow! From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Oct 27 23:35:48 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 23:35:48 +0000 Subject: [Peace] Killer Koh Protest on the 28th at the COL, U of I In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > > It’s important to note that this protest, against war criminal Harold “Killer” Koh, as he is known in the Beltway for his support of war and drone killings, is not about the election, it’s not even about the College of Law bringing him here, in spite of knowing, well, the crimes he is responsible for committing. > > It’s about reviving the anti-war movement. We are looking at permanent war in the middle east, with provocations on the border of Russia, and in the S. China Sea. > > We have our military bases located in every African nation but two. > > Control by corporate elites, the Pentagon, and the imperialists occupying the State Dept., may differ on strategy, but they are in agreement on the goal to control other nations, and those nations resources. As a result they are taking even greater risks now. > > We have militarized our police, who are killing people of color everyday with impunity. > > The degradation of the environment continues at an alarming rate. > > Healthcare costs are continuing to escalate, with pensions, salaries and jobs being cut. > > Education is no longer affordable for working class people. > > All of our money goes to support the war machine, and the 1% elite. > > It’s time to stand up and say “no more”, if not for “our” sake, then for the sake of all mankind, and the future of our children. > > From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Oct 28 23:40:38 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 23:40:38 +0000 Subject: [Peace] Demonstration at the U of I, COL Message-ID: Thank you to all those who showed up today to support Professor Francis Boyle in his efforts to fight for justice and uphold the law. The laws of the US, International and Humanity. Thank you to all who contributed to this event, highlighting the crimes of Harold “Killer” Koh, as Legal Advisor to Hillary Clinton, and the Bush and Reagan administrations. Harold “Killer” Koh is a war criminal and should be treated as such, given his support for drone killings and crimes against humanity. For those who couldn’t make it, there will be, unfortunately, many more such opportunities in the future. Peace and Solidarity From divisek at yahoo.com Fri Oct 28 23:48:48 2016 From: divisek at yahoo.com (Dianna Visek) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 23:48:48 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace] =?utf-8?q?Fw=3A_County_nursing_home=2C_others_fail_health?= =?utf-8?q?_inspections=C2=A0?= In-Reply-To: <9dcfb889a03d4c38c9157650fab6bfd7038.20161028210001@mail28.atl111.rsgsv.net> References: <9dcfb889a03d4c38c9157650fab6bfd7038.20161028210001@mail28.atl111.rsgsv.net> Message-ID: <507783386.39313.1477698528100@mail.yahoo.com> Show original message On Friday, October 28, 2016 4:00 PM, CU-CitizenAccess. org wrote: County nursing home, others fail health inspections #yiv8527287488 p{margin:10px 0;padding:0;}#yiv8527287488 table{border-collapse:collapse;}#yiv8527287488 h1, #yiv8527287488 h2, #yiv8527287488 h3, #yiv8527287488 h4, #yiv8527287488 h5, #yiv8527287488 h6{display:block;margin:0;padding:0;}#yiv8527287488 img, #yiv8527287488 a img{border:0;height:auto;outline:none;text-decoration:none;}#yiv8527287488 body, #yiv8527287488 #yiv8527287488bodyTable, #yiv8527287488 #yiv8527287488bodyCell{height:100%;margin:0;padding:0;width:100%;}#yiv8527287488 #yiv8527287488outlook a{padding:0;}#yiv8527287488 img{}#yiv8527287488 table{}#yiv8527287488 .yiv8527287488ReadMsgBody{width:100%;}#yiv8527287488 .yiv8527287488ExternalClass{width:100%;}#yiv8527287488 p, #yiv8527287488 a, #yiv8527287488 li, #yiv8527287488 td, #yiv8527287488 blockquote{}#yiv8527287488 a .filtered99999 , #yiv8527287488 a .filtered99999 {color:inherit;cursor:default;text-decoration:none;}#yiv8527287488 p, #yiv8527287488 a, #yiv8527287488 li, #yiv8527287488 td, #yiv8527287488 body, #yiv8527287488 table, #yiv8527287488 blockquote{}#yiv8527287488 .yiv8527287488ExternalClass, #yiv8527287488 .yiv8527287488ExternalClass p, #yiv8527287488 .yiv8527287488ExternalClass td, #yiv8527287488 .yiv8527287488ExternalClass div, #yiv8527287488 .yiv8527287488ExternalClass span, #yiv8527287488 .yiv8527287488ExternalClass font{line-height:100%;}#yiv8527287488 a .filtered99999 {color:inherit;text-decoration:none;font-size:inherit !important;font-family:inherit !important;font-weight:inherit;line-height:inherit !important;}#yiv8527287488 #yiv8527287488bodyCell{padding:10px;}#yiv8527287488 .yiv8527287488templateContainer{max-width:600px !important;}#yiv8527287488 a.yiv8527287488mcnButton{display:block;}#yiv8527287488 .yiv8527287488mcnImage{vertical-align:bottom;}#yiv8527287488 .yiv8527287488mcnTextContent{}#yiv8527287488 .yiv8527287488mcnTextContent img{height:auto !important;}#yiv8527287488 .yiv8527287488mcnDividerBlock{table-layout:fixed;}#yiv8527287488 body, #yiv8527287488 #yiv8527287488bodyTable{background-color:#FAFAFA;}#yiv8527287488 #yiv8527287488bodyCell{border-top:0;}#yiv8527287488 .yiv8527287488templateContainer{border:0;}#yiv8527287488 h1{color:#202020;font-family:Helvetica;font-size:26px;font-style:normal;font-weight:bold;line-height:125%;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:left;}#yiv8527287488 h2{color:#202020;font-family:Helvetica;font-size:22px;font-style:normal;font-weight:bold;line-height:125%;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:left;}#yiv8527287488 h3{color:#202020;font-family:Helvetica;font-size:20px;font-style:normal;font-weight:bold;line-height:125%;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:left;}#yiv8527287488 h4{color:#202020;font-family:Helvetica;font-size:18px;font-style:normal;font-weight:bold;line-height:125%;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:left;}#yiv8527287488 #yiv8527287488templatePreheader{background-color:#FAFAFA;background-image:none;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-position:center;background-size:cover;border-top:0;border-bottom:0;padding-top:9px;padding-bottom:9px;}#yiv8527287488 #yiv8527287488templatePreheader .yiv8527287488mcnTextContent, #yiv8527287488 #yiv8527287488templatePreheader .yiv8527287488mcnTextContent p{color:#656565;font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;line-height:150%;text-align:left;}#yiv8527287488 #yiv8527287488templatePreheader .yiv8527287488mcnTextContent a, #yiv8527287488 #yiv8527287488templatePreheader .yiv8527287488mcnTextContent p a{color:#656565;font-weight:normal;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv8527287488 #yiv8527287488templateHeader{background-color:#FFFFFF;background-image:none;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-position:center;background-size:cover;border-top:0;border-bottom:0;padding-top:9px;padding-bottom:0;}#yiv8527287488 #yiv8527287488templateHeader .yiv8527287488mcnTextContent, #yiv8527287488 #yiv8527287488templateHeader .yiv8527287488mcnTextContent p{color:#202020;font-family:Helvetica;font-size:16px;line-height:150%;text-align:left;}#yiv8527287488 #yiv8527287488templateHeader .yiv8527287488mcnTextContent a, #yiv8527287488 #yiv8527287488templateHeader .yiv8527287488mcnTextContent p a{color:#2BAADF;font-weight:normal;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv8527287488 #yiv8527287488templateBody{background-color:#FFFFFF;background-image:none;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-position:center;background-size:cover;border-top:0;border-bottom:2px solid #EAEAEA;padding-top:0;padding-bottom:9px;}#yiv8527287488 #yiv8527287488templateBody .yiv8527287488mcnTextContent, #yiv8527287488 #yiv8527287488templateBody .yiv8527287488mcnTextContent p{color:#202020;font-family:Helvetica;font-size:16px;line-height:150%;text-align:left;}#yiv8527287488 #yiv8527287488templateBody .yiv8527287488mcnTextContent a, #yiv8527287488 #yiv8527287488templateBody .yiv8527287488mcnTextContent p a{color:#2BAADF;font-weight:normal;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv8527287488 #yiv8527287488templateFooter{background-color:#FAFAFA;background-image:none;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-position:center;background-size:cover;border-top:0;border-bottom:0;padding-top:9px;padding-bottom:9px;}#yiv8527287488 #yiv8527287488templateFooter .yiv8527287488mcnTextContent, #yiv8527287488 #yiv8527287488templateFooter .yiv8527287488mcnTextContent p{color:#656565;font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;line-height:150%;text-align:center;}#yiv8527287488 #yiv8527287488templateFooter .yiv8527287488mcnTextContent a, #yiv8527287488 #yiv8527287488templateFooter .yiv8527287488mcnTextContent p a{color:#656565;font-weight:normal;text-decoration:underline;}@media screen and (min-width:768px){#yiv8527287488 .yiv8527287488templateContainer{width:600px !important;}}@media screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv8527287488 body, #yiv8527287488 table, #yiv8527287488 td, #yiv8527287488 p, #yiv8527287488 a, #yiv8527287488 li, #yiv8527287488 blockquote{}}@media screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv8527287488 body{width:100% !important;min-width:100% !important;}}@media screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv8527287488 #yiv8527287488bodyCell{padding-top:10px !important;}}@media screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv8527287488 .yiv8527287488mcnImage{width:100% !important;}}@media screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv8527287488 .yiv8527287488mcnCartContainer, #yiv8527287488 .yiv8527287488mcnCaptionTopContent, #yiv8527287488 .yiv8527287488mcnRecContentContainer, #yiv8527287488 .yiv8527287488mcnCaptionBottomContent, #yiv8527287488 .yiv8527287488mcnTextContentContainer, #yiv8527287488 .yiv8527287488mcnBoxedTextContentContainer, #yiv8527287488 .yiv8527287488mcnImageGroupContentContainer, #yiv8527287488 .yiv8527287488mcnCaptionLeftTextContentContainer, #yiv8527287488 .yiv8527287488mcnCaptionRightTextContentContainer, #yiv8527287488 .yiv8527287488mcnCaptionLeftImageContentContainer, #yiv8527287488 .yiv8527287488mcnCaptionRightImageContentContainer, #yiv8527287488 .yiv8527287488mcnImageCardLeftTextContentContainer, #yiv8527287488 .yiv8527287488mcnImageCardRightTextContentContainer{max-width:100% !important;width:100% !important;}}@media screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv8527287488 .yiv8527287488mcnBoxedTextContentContainer{min-width:100% !important;}}@media screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv8527287488 .yiv8527287488mcnImageGroupContent{padding:9px !important;}}@media screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv8527287488 .yiv8527287488mcnCaptionLeftContentOuter .yiv8527287488mcnTextContent, #yiv8527287488 .yiv8527287488mcnCaptionRightContentOuter .yiv8527287488mcnTextContent{padding-top:9px !important;}}@media screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv8527287488 .yiv8527287488mcnImageCardTopImageContent, #yiv8527287488 .yiv8527287488mcnCaptionBlockInner .yiv8527287488mcnCaptionTopContent:last-child .yiv8527287488mcnTextContent{padding-top:18px !important;}}@media screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv8527287488 .yiv8527287488mcnImageCardBottomImageContent{padding-bottom:9px !important;}}@media screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv8527287488 .yiv8527287488mcnImageGroupBlockInner{padding-top:0 !important;padding-bottom:0 !important;}}@media screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv8527287488 .yiv8527287488mcnImageGroupBlockOuter{padding-top:9px !important;padding-bottom:9px !important;}}@media screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv8527287488 .yiv8527287488mcnTextContent, #yiv8527287488 .yiv8527287488mcnBoxedTextContentColumn{padding-right:18px !important;padding-left:18px !important;}}@media screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv8527287488 .yiv8527287488mcnImageCardLeftImageContent, #yiv8527287488 .yiv8527287488mcnImageCardRightImageContent{padding-right:18px !important;padding-bottom:0 !important;padding-left:18px !important;}}@media screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv8527287488 .yiv8527287488mcpreview-image-uploader{display:none;width:100% !important;}}@media screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv8527287488 h1{font-size:22px !important;line-height:125% !important;}}@media screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv8527287488 h2{font-size:20px !important;line-height:125% !important;}}@media screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv8527287488 h3{font-size:18px !important;line-height:125% !important;}}@media screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv8527287488 h4{font-size:16px !important;line-height:150% !important;}}@media screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv8527287488 .yiv8527287488mcnBoxedTextContentContainer .yiv8527287488mcnTextContent, #yiv8527287488 .yiv8527287488mcnBoxedTextContentContainer .yiv8527287488mcnTextContent p{font-size:14px !important;line-height:150% !important;}}@media screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv8527287488 #yiv8527287488templatePreheader{display:block;}}@media screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv8527287488 #yiv8527287488templatePreheader .yiv8527287488mcnTextContent, #yiv8527287488 #yiv8527287488templatePreheader .yiv8527287488mcnTextContent p{font-size:14px !important;line-height:150% !important;}}@media screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv8527287488 #yiv8527287488templateHeader .yiv8527287488mcnTextContent, #yiv8527287488 #yiv8527287488templateHeader .yiv8527287488mcnTextContent p{font-size:16px !important;line-height:150% !important;}}@media screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv8527287488 #yiv8527287488templateBody .yiv8527287488mcnTextContent, #yiv8527287488 #yiv8527287488templateBody .yiv8527287488mcnTextContent p{font-size:16px !important;line-height:150% !important;}}@media screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv8527287488 #yiv8527287488templateFooter .yiv8527287488mcnTextContent, #yiv8527287488 #yiv8527287488templateFooter .yiv8527287488mcnTextContent p{font-size:14px !important;line-height:150% !important;}} | | | | New on CU-CitizenAccess.org, a website and social network devoted to coverage and discussion of social and economic issues within Central Illinois: | | View this email in your browser | | | | | | | | | | | | Champaign County nursing home among 18 food spots to fail health inspections | Johnathan Hettinger A moldy ice chute, food preparation areas with pesticides stored above them and storage coolers occupied by houseflies and moths were among the worst violations leading to closures and failures of eateries across the county since July.In total, 18 establishments were closed or failed inspections for serious health code violations between July 1 and Sept. 30, according to a review of inspection records. Among those failing was the Champaign County Nursing Home, 500 Art Bartell Rd., Urbana. Health inspectors gave it an adjusted score of 28 and found four critical violations during a routine inspection on Aug.16. An inspector observed gloved employees “handling soiled dishes, and then transferring to putting away clean dishes without removing gloves and washing their hands between tasks.” | | | | | How did your favorite restaurant score?  | | | | | Despite influx of funds, vacant housing increases in county | Jelter Meers CHAMPAIGN-URBANA: Since the housing market crashed in 2007, the cities of Champaign and Urbana have received more than $2 million in state and federal dollars to combat vacant and nuisance housing.Yet the number of empty houses is still climbing.As of 2014, one in every 10 houses in Champaign County sat vacant, according to the most recent U.S. census data available. That total number, 8,700, was nearly double the number of vacant houses in the year 2000. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | About CU-CitizenAccessA community online news and information project devoted to investigative and enterprise coverage of social, justice and economic issues in east central Illinois.CU-CitizenAccess offers the opportunity for members of the community - including citizens, journalists, and university students - to share news and information, raise and discuss important issues, and suggest solutions. The project also serves as a platform for new and innovative journalism techniques and practices. Based at the University of Illinois, the project works with other media outlets, such as The News-Gazette, Illinois Public Media and Hoy Chicago, a Spanish-language daily. CU-CitizenAccess is run by the Journalism Department of the College of Media at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The project began with funding from the Marajen Stevick Foundation and the University of Illinois and a matching grant from the John S. Knight and James L. Knight Foundation. | | | | | | | | Copyright © 2016 CU-CitizenAccess, All rights reserved. You are receiving this email because you are a registered recipient. Our mailing address is: CU-CitizenAccess810 S. Wright St.Urbana, IL 61802 Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Oct 29 00:01:26 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2016 00:01:26 +0000 Subject: [Peace] "All-Out War" in North Dakota Message-ID: From Common Dreams today: Published on Friday, October 28, 2016 by Common Dreams 'All-Out War' in North Dakota as Police Arrest 141 Water Protectors Activists vow to keep up resistance to Dakota Access Pipeline by Nadia Prupis, staff writer * * * * * * * 45 Comments [http://www.commondreams.org/sites/default/files/styles/cd_large/public/headlines/dapl_arrest.jpg?itok=VcJuC-yM] Police descended on protest camps with pepper spray and armored tanks. (Photo: AP) Police arrested 141 people in North Dakota on Thursday, moving in with pepper spray and armored tanks on Native American water protectors and other activists who for months have waged resistance against the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL). Tara Houska, an Ojibwe attorney and director of the rights group Honor the Earth, told Democracy Now! on Friday that the raid was an act of "all-out war...waged on Indigenous protectors." Houska, who was reportedly shot in the face with a beanbag round during the onslaught, also said in a separate statement released by a coalition of Indigenous groups on Friday, "Yesterday was a shameful moment in American history. Law enforcement is supposed to serve and protect the people, not corporate interests. Police enacted violence on people who were armed only with prayer." "I'm still in shock and keep waiting to wake from what's surely a nightmare though this is my reality as a Native woman in 2016 trying to defend the sacred." —Kandi Mossett, Indigenous Environment Network Thursday's raid of the Cannon Ball site came amid months of Indigenous-led resistance to the $3.8 billion pipeline, which opponents say violates Native Americans' treaty rights and threatens their access to safe water. The militarized response also signals that recent escalation of police tactics, which reportedly include brutality and excessive criminal charges against protesters and journalists, may continue. Altogether, police have made about 260 arrests since the demonstrations began to pick up momentum and media coverage in August. Rose Stiffarm, a Native American cinematographer, told the Guardian that the response Thursday was unnecessarily harsh. "The government is attacking us for protesting, for protecting the water," she said Friday. "We are innocent people—women, children, and elders." [Fall Fundraising Banner] Despite the raid, pipeline opponents have sworn to remain steadfast in their actions. "Everybody is still standing strong. We are still holding the lands," Dean Dedman, Jr., a member of the Standing Rock Hunkpapa tribe from South Dakota, added to the Guardian. "We're all just trying to keep the prayer and keep the singing." Kandi Mossett of the Indigenous Environmental Network described the scene as being "a war zone. I was sprayed in the face with pepper spray, the guy next to me was shot by something that didn't break the skin but appeared to have broken the ribs, and another guy beside me was randomly snatched violently by police shoving me into the officers who held me off with batons then tried to grab me." "I'm still in shock and keep waiting to wake from what's surely a nightmare though this is my reality as a Native woman in 2016 trying to defend the sacred," she said. Houska recalled similar scenes. "I saw an officer raise his gun to my face and was pulled back by another protector just as a beanbag round ricocheted off a trailer next to my head. As that was happening, several teenagers a few feet a way were maced as some police officers smiled and laughed. The original peoples of this country have rights—yesterday we were treated like animals for the benefit of Dakota Access. Construction resumed as night fell." Eryn Wise of the Indigenous Youth Council said, "I have no words for what happened to any of us today. They are trying to again rewrite our narrative and we simply will not allow it. Our youth are watching and remember the faces of the officers that assaulted them. They pray for them." Environmental law firm Earthjustice, which represents the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, also noted that the Obama administration still has "a tremendous amount of responsibility and control" over what happens at the DAPL site. That includes making a decision on the easement which could prohibit the pipeline company from building under Lake Oahe. The government has requested that the oil company behind the pipeline, Energy Transfer Partners, cease construction within 20 miles of the easement, but the company has been ignoring that request as it creeps closer to the water's edge and fueling tensions between police and protesters. Regardless of the easement decision, Earthjustice added, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has the authority to order that work stop on the pipeline in the immediate area of Lake Oahe. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License Share This Article * * 2.27k * 6 * * * * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Oct 29 02:29:42 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2016 02:29:42 +0000 Subject: [Peace] Anti War Group Protests On U of I Campus Message-ID: Anti War Group Protests On U of I Campus BY HUNTER MCKEE FRIDAY, OCTOBER 28TH 2016 CHAMPAIGN, Ill. (WCCU) — Protesters lined up outside the University of Illinois Law School Friday. An anti-war group who expressed their concerns about guest speaker Harold Koh, who they believe is an advocate toward violence. Koh served as a Dean at Yale Law School and spent four years as the 22nd Legal Advisor of the United States. "He is an advocate of drone warfare, he's responsible for many deaths, not of soldiers, but of children, he's killing civilians and this is what the American people have to recognize,” said Karen Aram, a member of a member of the local antiwar, anti-racism effort or "AWARE. They are just one of the groups who decided to protest against the university for showcasing Koh as a guest speaker for the law school, but this protest doesn't just involve them. Francis Broyle has been a law professor at the college for 39 years and he supports this movement, "This is the most despicable act I have ever seen here at the College of Law.” The University of Illinois respond by stating this: "Professor Harold Koh was selected because he is one of the country's leading experts in public and private international law, national security law, and human rights. He has received fourteen honorary degrees and more than thirty awards for his human rights work." However, Broyle and others believe it’s wrong for the university to support him. "This clearly violates the Illinois Ethics Government Act and I would encourage the people in the community to file a complaint.” FOX 55/27 News in Illinois See the VDO on their website -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Sat Oct 29 03:08:30 2016 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 22:08:30 -0500 Subject: [Peace] Anti War Group Protests On U of I Campus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <23D93DCE-43CE-4954-9780-B0D8651C29D5@newsfromneptune.com> Congratulations. That’s the most successful AWARE activity in 15 years. > On Oct 28, 2016, at 9:29 PM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: > > Anti War Group Protests On U of I Campus > BY HUNTER MCKEE FRIDAY, OCTOBER 28TH 2016 > CHAMPAIGN, Ill. (WCCU) — Protesters lined up outside the University of Illinois Law School Friday. > An anti-war group who expressed their concerns about guest speaker Harold Koh, who they believe is an advocate toward violence. > Koh served as a Dean at Yale Law School and spent four years as the 22nd Legal Advisor of the United States. > "He is an advocate of drone warfare, he's responsible for many deaths, not of soldiers, but of children, he's killing civilians and this is what the American people have to recognize,” said Karen Aram, a member of a member of the local antiwar, anti-racism effort or "AWARE. > They are just one of the groups who decided to protest against the university for showcasing Koh as a guest speaker for the law school, but this protest doesn't just involve them. > Francis Broyle has been a law professor at the college for 39 years and he supports this movement, "This is the most despicable act I have ever seen here at the College of Law.” > The University of Illinois respond by stating this: > "Professor Harold Koh was selected because he is one of the country's leading experts in public and private international law, national security law, and human rights. He has received fourteen honorary degrees and more than thirty awards for his human rights work." > However, Broyle and others believe it’s wrong for the university to support him. > "This clearly violates the Illinois Ethics Government Act and I would encourage the people in the community to file a complaint.” > FOX 55/27 News in Illinois > See the VDO on their website > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deb.pdamerica at gmail.com Sat Oct 29 08:02:43 2016 From: deb.pdamerica at gmail.com (Debra Schrishuhn) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2016 03:02:43 -0500 Subject: [Peace] Medea Benjamin book signing event in Champaign Message-ID: Central Illinois Progressive Democrats of America, Just Foreign Policy, Eco-Justice Collaborative, and Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort (AWARE) present Activist and Nobel Peace Prize nominee Medea Benjamin Medea will sign and discuss her new book, Kingdom of the Unjust: Behind the US-Saudi Connection, and the condition of the international Peace Movement. WHERE: Thanks to McKinley Presbyterian Church, 809 S. Fifth St., Champaign, IL 61820. Parking available in garage across from church or on-street. WHEN: Saturday, Nov. 5, 4:00-5:30 pm Books available for purchase on-site. Medea Benjamin, co-founder of women’s peace organization CODEPINK, has become famous for fearlessly tackling head-on subjects most of us studiously avoid. In Kingdom of the Unjust, she researches the sinister nature of the relationship between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. In seven succinct chapters followed by a meditation on prospects for change, Benjamin—cited by the L.A. Times as “one of the high-profile members of the peace movement”—shines a light on one of the most perplexing elements of American foreign policy. What is the origin of this strange alliance between two countries that seemingly have very little in common? Why does it persist, and what are its consequences? This event is free and open to the public. From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Oct 29 12:07:42 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2016 12:07:42 +0000 Subject: [Peace] Medea Benjamin coming to Champaign flyer. Message-ID: Central Illinois Progressive Democrats of America, Just Foreign Policy, Eco-Justice Collaborative, and Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort (AWARE) present Activist and Nobel Peace Prize nominee Medea Benjamin Medea will sign and discuss her new book, Kingdom of the Unjust: Behind the US-Saudi Connection, and the condition of the international Peace Movement. WHERE: Thanks to McKinley Presbyterian Church, 809 S. Fifth St., Champaign, IL 61820. Parking available in garage across from church or on-street. WHEN: Saturday, Nov. 5, 4:00-5:30 pm Books available for purchase on-site. Medea Benjamin, co-founder of women’s peace organization CODEPINK, has become famous for fearlessly tackling head-on subjects most of us studiously avoid. In Kingdom of the Unjust, she researches the sinister nature of the relationship between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. In seven succinct chapters followed by a meditation on prospects for change, Benjamin—cited by the L.A. Times as “one of the high-profile members of the peace movement”—shines a light on one of the most perplexing elements of American foreign policy. What is the origin of this strange alliance between two countries that seemingly have very little in common? Why does it persist, and what are its consequences? Paid for by Progressive Democrats of America. Printed in-house with volunteer labor. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee. Central Illinois Progressive Democrats of America, Just Foreign Policy, Eco-Justice Collaborative, and Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort (AWARE) present Activist and Nobel Peace Prize nominee Medea Benjamin Medea will sign and discuss her new book, Kingdom of the Unjust: Behind the US-Saudi Connection, and the condition of the international Peace Movement. WHERE: Thanks to McKinley Presbyterian Church, 809 S. Fifth St., Champaign, IL 61820. Parking available in garage across from church or on-street. WHEN: Saturday, Nov. 5, 4:00-5:30 pm Books available for purchase on-site. Medea Benjamin, co-founder of women’s peace organization CODEPINK, has become famous for fearlessly tackling head-on subjects most of us studiously avoid. In Kingdom of the Unjust, she researches the sinister nature of the relationship between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. In seven succinct chapters followed by a meditation on prospects for change, Benjamin—cited by the L.A. Times as “one of the high-profile members of the peace movement”—shines a light on one of the most perplexing elements of American foreign policy. What is the origin of this strange alliance between two countries that seemingly have very little in common? Why does it persist, and what are its consequences? Paid for by Progressive Democrats of America. Printed in-house with volunteer labor. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Oct 29 13:30:56 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2016 13:30:56 +0000 Subject: [Peace] A link for you Message-ID: You should read this! http://foxillinois.com/news/local/anti-war-group-protests-on-u-of-i-campus From briandolinar at gmail.com Sun Oct 30 20:48:20 2016 From: briandolinar at gmail.com (Brian Dolinar) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 15:48:20 -0500 Subject: [Peace] Fw: County nursing home, others fail health inspections Message-ID: Funny they never reported on the mold outbreak in the jail last summer. BD On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 6:48 PM, Dianna Visek via Peace < peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > Show original message > > > On Friday, October 28, 2016 4:00 PM, CU-CitizenAccess. org < > hello at cu-citizenaccess.org> wrote: > > > New on *CU-CitizenAccess.org > , *a > website and social network devoted to coverage and discussion of social and > economic issues within Central Illinois: > View this email in your browser > > Champaign County nursing home among 18 food spots to fail health > inspections > | > Johnathan Hettinger > A moldy ice chute, food preparation areas with pesticides stored above > them and storage coolers occupied by houseflies and moths were among the > worst violations leading to closures and failures of eateries across the > county since July. > In total, 18 establishments were closed or failed inspections for serious > health code violations between July 1 and Sept. 30, according to a review > of inspection records. > > Among those failing was the Champaign County Nursing Home > , > 500 Art Bartell Rd., Urbana. Health inspectors gave it an adjusted score of > 28 and found four critical violations during a routine inspection on > Aug.16. An inspector observed gloved employees “handling soiled dishes, and > then transferring to putting away clean dishes without removing gloves and > washing their hands between tasks.” > ------------------------------ > *How did your favorite restaurant score? > * > D > espite > influx of funds, vacant housing increases in county > | > Jelter Meers > CHAMPAIGN-URBANA: Since the housing market crashed in 2007, the cities of > Champaign and Urbana have received more than $2 million in state and > federal dollars to combat vacant and nuisance housing. > Yet the number of empty houses is still climbing. > As of 2014, one in every 10 houses in Champaign County sat vacant, > according to the most recent U.S. census data available. That total number, > 8,700, was nearly double the number of vacant houses in the year 2000. > > > > > > > > About CU-CitizenAccess > A community online news and information project devoted to investigative > and enterprise coverage of social, justice and economic issues in east > central Illinois. > CU-CitizenAccess offers the opportunity for members of the community - > including citizens, journalists, and university students - to share news > and information, raise and discuss important issues, and suggest solutions. > > The project also serves as a platform for new and innovative journalism > techniques and practices. > > Based at the University of Illinois, the project works with other media > outlets, such as The News-Gazette, Illinois Public Media and Hoy Chicago, a > Spanish-language daily. > > CU-CitizenAccess is run by the Journalism Department > > of the College of Media > > at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign > . > The project began with funding from the Marajen Stevick Foundation and the > University of Illinois and a matching grant from the John S. Knight and > James L. Knight Foundation > > . > *Copyright © 2016 CU-CitizenAccess, All rights reserved.* > You are receiving this email because you are a registered recipient. > > *Our mailing address is:* > CU-CitizenAccess > 810 S. Wright St. > Urbana, IL 61802 > > Add us to your address book > > > > Want to change how you receive these emails? > You can update your preferences > > or unsubscribe from this list > > > [image: Email Marketing Powered by MailChimp] > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > > -- Brian Dolinar, Ph.D. briandolinar.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Oct 30 22:33:17 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 22:33:17 +0000 Subject: [Peace] John Pilger on the Invisible Government, War, and Propaganda Message-ID: OCTOBER 28, 2016 Inside the Invisible Government: War, Propaganda, Clinton & Trump by JOHN PILGER * * * * Email * * [http://uziiw38pmyg1ai60732c4011.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/dropzone/2015/07/print-sp.png] [Photo by Diego Torres Silvestre | CC BY 2.0] Photo by Diego Torres Silvestre | CC BY 2.0 The American journalist, Edward Bernays, is often described as the man who invented modern propaganda. The nephew of Sigmund Freud, the pioneer of psycho-analysis, it was Bernays who coined the term “public relations” as a euphemism for spin and its deceptions. In 1929, he persuaded feminists to promote cigarettes for women by smoking in the New York Easter Parade – behaviour then considered outlandish. One feminist, Ruth Booth, declared, “Women! Light another torch of freedom! Fight another sex taboo!” Bernays’ influence extended far beyond advertising. His greatest success was his role in convincing the American public to join the slaughter of the First World War. The secret, he said, was “engineering the consent” of people in order to “control and regiment [them] according to our will without their knowing about it”. He described this as “the true ruling power in our society” and called it an “invisible government”. Today, the invisible government has never been more powerful and less understood. In my career as a journalist and film-maker, I have never known propaganda to insinuate our lives and as it does now and to go unchallenged. Imagine two cities. Both are under siege by the forces of the government of that country. Both cities are occupied by fanatics, who commit terrible atrocities, such as beheading people. But there is a vital difference. In one siege, the government soldiers are described as liberators by Western reporters embedded with them, who enthusiastically report their battles and air strikes. There are front page pictures of these heroic soldiers giving a V-sign for victory. There is scant mention of civilian casualties. In the second city – in another country nearby – almost exactly the same is happening. Government forces are laying siege to a city controlled by the same breed of fanatics. The difference is that these fanatics are supported, supplied and armed by “us” – by the United States and Britain. They even have a media centre that is funded by Britain and America. Another difference is that the government soldiers laying siege to this city are the bad guys, condemned for assaulting and bombing the city – which is exactly what the good soldiers do in the first city. Confusing? Not really. Such is the basic double standard that is the essence of propaganda. I am referring, of course, to the current siege of the city of Mosul by the government forces of Iraq, who are backed by the United States and Britain and to the siege of Aleppo by the government forces of Syria, backed by Russia. One is good; the other is bad. What is seldom reported is that both cities would not be occupied by fanatics and ravaged by war if Britain and the United States had not invaded Iraq in 2003. That criminal enterprise was launched on lies strikingly similar to the propaganda that now distorts our understanding of the civil war in Syria. Without this drumbeat of propaganda dressed up as news, the monstrous ISIS and Al-Qaida and al-Nusra and the rest of the jihadist gang might not exist, and the people of Syria might not be fighting for their lives today. Some may remember in 2003 a succession of BBC reporters turning to the camera and telling us that Blair was “vindicated” for what turned out to be the crime of the century. The US television networks produced the same validation for George W. Bush. Fox News brought on Henry Kissinger to effuse over Colin Powell’s fabrications. The same year, soon after the invasion, I filmed an interview in Washington with Charles Lewis, the renowned American investigative journalist. I asked him, “What would have happened if the freest media in the world had seriously challenged what turned out to be crude propaganda?” He replied that if journalists had done their job, “there is a very, very good chance we would not have gone to war in Iraq”. It was a shocking statement, and one supported by other famous journalists to whom I put the same question — Dan Rather of CBS, David Rose of the Observer and journalists and producers in the BBC, who wished to remain anonymous. In other words, had journalists done their job, had they challenged and investigated the propaganda instead of amplifying it, hundreds of thousands of men, women and children would be alive today, and there would be no ISIS and no siege of Aleppo or Mosul. There would have been no atrocity on the London Underground on 7thJuly 2005. There would have been no flight of millions of refugees; there would be no miserable camps. When the terrorist atrocity happened in Paris last November, President Francoise Hollande immediately sent planes to bomb Syria – and more terrorism followed, predictably, the product of Hollande’s bombast about France being “at war” and “showing no mercy”. That state violence and jihadist violence feed off each other is the truth that no national leader has the courage to speak. “When the truth is replaced by silence,” said the Soviet dissident Yevtushenko, “the silence is a lie.” The attack on Iraq, the attack on Libya, the attack on Syria happened because the leader in each of these countries was not a puppet of the West. The human rights record of a Saddam or a Gaddafi was irrelevant. They did not obey orders and surrender control of their country. The same fate awaited Slobodan Milosevic once he had refused to sign an “agreement” that demanded the occupation of Serbia and its conversion to a market economy. His people were bombed, and he was prosecuted in The Hague. Independence of this kind is intolerable. As WikLeaks has revealed, it was only when the Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad in 2009 rejected an oil pipeline, running through his country from Qatar to Europe, that he was attacked. From that moment, the CIA planned to destroy the government of Syria with jihadist fanatics – the same fanatics currently holding the people of Mosul and eastern Aleppo hostage. Why is this not news? The former British Foreign Office official Carne Ross, who was responsible for operating sanctions against Iraq, told me: “We would feed journalists factoids of sanitised intelligence, or we would freeze them out. That is how it worked.” The West’s medieval client, Saudi Arabia – to which the US and Britain sell billions of dollars’ worth of arms – is at present destroying Yemen, a country so poor that in the best of times, half the children are malnourished. Look on YouTube and you will see the kind of massive bombs – “our” bombs – that the Saudis use against dirt-poor villages, and against weddings, and funerals. The explosions look like small atomic bombs. The bomb aimers in Saudi Arabia work side-by-side with British officers. This fact is not on the evening news. Propaganda is most effective when our consent is engineered by those with a fine education – Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Columbia — and with careers on the BBC, the Guardian, the New York Times, theWashington Post. These organisations are known as the liberal media. They present themselves as enlightened, progressive tribunes of the moral zeitgeist. They are anti-racist, pro-feminist and pro-LGBT. And they love war. While they speak up for feminism, they support rapacious wars that deny the rights of countless women, including the right to life. In 2011, Libya, then a modern state, was destroyed on the pretext that Muammar Gaddafi was about to commit genocide on his own people. That was the incessant news; and there was no evidence. It was a lie. In fact, Britain, Europe and the United States wanted what they like to call “regime change” in Libya, the biggest oil producer in Africa. Gaddafi’s influence in the continent and, above all, his independence were intolerable. So he was murdered with a knife in his rear by fanatics, backed by America, Britain and France. Hillary Clinton cheered his gruesome death for the camera, declaring, “We came, we saw, he died!” The destruction of Libya was a media triumph. As the war drums were beaten, Jonathan Freedland wrote in the Guardian: “Though the risks are very real, the case for intervention remains strong.” Intervention — what a polite, benign, Guardian word, whose real meaning, for Libya, was death and destruction. According to its own records, Nato launched 9,700 “strike sorties” against Libya, of which more than a third were aimed at civilian targets. They included missiles with uranium warheads. Look at the photographs of the rubble of Misurata and Sirte, and the mass graves identified by the Red Cross. The Unicef report on the children killed says, “most [of them] under the age of ten”. As a direct consequence, Sirte became the capital of ISIS. Ukraine is another media triumph. Respectable liberal newspapers such as the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Guardian, and mainstream broadcasters such as the BBC, NBC, CBS, CNN have played a critical role in conditioning their viewers to accept a new and dangerous cold war. All have misrepresented events in Ukraine as a malign act by Russia when, in fact, the coup in Ukraine in 2014 was the work of the United States, aided by Germany and Nato. This inversion of reality is so pervasive that Washington’s military intimidation of Russia is not news; it is suppressed behind a smear and scare campaign of the kind I grew up with during the first cold war. Once again, the Ruskies are coming to get us, led by another Stalin, whom The Economist depicts as the devil. The suppression of the truth about Ukraine is one of the most complete news blackouts I can remember. The fascists who engineered the coup in Kiev are the same breed that backed the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941. Of all the scares about the rise of fascist anti-Semitism in Europe, no leader ever mentions the fascists in Ukraine – except Vladimir Putin, but he does not count. Many in the Western media have worked hard to present the ethnic Russian-speaking population of Ukraine as outsiders in their own country, as agents of Moscow, almost never as Ukrainians seeking a federation within Ukraine and as Ukrainian citizens resisting a foreign-orchestrated coup against their elected government. There is almost the joie d’esprit of a class reunion of warmongers. The drum-beaters of the Washington Post inciting war with Russia are the very same editorial writers who published the lie that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. To most of us, the American presidential campaign is a media freak show, in which Donald Trump is the arch villain. But Trump is loathed by those with power in the United States for reasons that have little to do with his obnoxious behaviour and opinions. To the invisible government in Washington, the unpredictable Trump is an obstacle to America’s design for the 21stcentury. This is to maintain the dominance of the United States and to subjugate Russia, and, if possible, China. To the militarists in Washington, the real problem with Trump is that, in his lucid moments, he seems not to want a war with Russia; he wants to talk with the Russian president, not fight him; he says he wants to talk with the president of China. In the first debate with Hillary Clinton, Trump promised not to be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into a conflict. He said, “I would certainly not do first strike. Once the nuclear alternative happens, it’s over.” That was not news. Did he really mean it? Who knows? He often contradicts himself. But what is clear is that Trump is considered a serious threat to the status quo maintained by the vast national security machine that runs the United States, regardless of who is in the White House. The CIA wants him beaten. The Pentagon wants him beaten. The media wants him beaten. Even his own party wants him beaten. He is a threat to the rulers of the world – unlike Clinton who has left no doubt she is prepared to go to war with nuclear-armed Russia and China. Clinton has the form, as she often boasts. Indeed, her record is proven. As a senator, she backed the bloodbath in Iraq. When she ran against Obama in 2008, she threatened to “totally obliterate” Iran. As Secretary of State, she colluded in the destruction of governments in Libya and Honduras and set in train the baiting of China. She has now pledged to support a No Fly Zone in Syria — a direct provocation for war with Russia. Clinton may well become the most dangerous president of the United States in my lifetime –a distinction for which the competition is fierce. Without a shred of evidence, she has accused Russia of supporting Trump and hacking her emails. Released by WikiLeaks, these emails tell us that what Clinton says in private, in speeches to the rich and powerful, is the opposite of what she says in public. That is why silencing and threatening Julian Assange is so important. As the editor of WikiLeaks, Assange knows the truth. And let me assure those who are concerned, he is well, and WikiLeaks is operating on all cylinders. Today, the greatest build-up of American-led forces since World War Two is under way – in the Caucasus and eastern Europe, on the border with Russia, and in Asia and the Pacific, where China is the target. Keep that in mind when the presidential election circus reaches its finale on November 8th, If the winner is Clinton, a Greek chorus of witless commentators will celebrate her coronation as a great step forward for women. None will mention Clinton’s victims: the women of Syria, the women of Iraq, the women of Libya. None will mention the civil defence drills being conducted in Russia. None will recall Edward Bernays’ “torches of freedom”. George Bush’s press spokesman once called the media “complicit enablers”. Coming from a senior official in an administration whose lies, enabled by the media, caused such suffering, that description is a warning from history. In 1946, the Nuremberg Tribunal prosecutor said of the German media: “Before every major aggression, they initiated a press campaign calculated to weaken their victims and to prepare the German people psychologically for the attack. In the propaganda system, it was the daily press and the radio that were the most important weapons.” This is adapted from an address to the Sheffield Festival of Words, Sheffield, England. Join the debate on Facebook John Pilger can be reached through his website: www.johnpilger.com More articles by:JOHN PILGER -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Oct 31 22:44:14 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 22:44:14 +0000 Subject: [Peace] A Conversation with Harold Killer Koh: In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Having seen Harold Killer Koh interviewed briefly on tv, I was reminded of what Hannah Arendt referred to as the “banality of evil”. Filing a complaint after the event is a good idea. We’re not curbing anyone's "freedom of speech”. We were able to go ahead with the demonstration as planned. The complaint form is one page very simple. One can do it anonymously, if so desired. When completing the form it becomes obvious that it’s actually meant for after the fact, and likely deals primarily with “harassment” type of complaints. If enough people file, perhaps an investigation might actually take place. The College of Law shouldn’t be exempt from the law. On Oct 12, 2016, at 11:19, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: As I said before, if you don’t like this you should all file Complaints with the Illinois Inspector General at their web-site and demand an investigation. The more the better. Fab. Ed Norton Professor of Law Illinois Nazis Law School Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 1:00 PM To: 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' >; 'Amanda Bass' >; 'C. G. Estabrook' >; 'C. G. Estabrook' >; 'Peace Discuss' >; 'David Johnson' >; 'Stuart Levy' >; 'Karen Medina' >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Mildred O'brien' >; 'peace at lists.chambana.net' >; 'davegreen84 at yahoo.com' >; Readel, Karin >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'Belden Fields' >; 'jmachota at shout.net' >; 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List' >; 'Bryan Savage' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' >; 'David Swanson' >; 'Karen Aram' > Subject: FW: A Conversation with Harold Killer Koh: A Seminar for Illinois Nazis Law School FYI Ed Norton Professor of Law Illinois Nazis Law School Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Turner, Carolyn Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 12:56 PM To: Law * College of Law Community > Subject: A Conversation with Harold Hongju Koh: A Seminar for College of Law Faculty, Staff, and Students Please join us for a conversation with Harold Hongju Koh Sterling Professor of International Law at Yale Law School Seminar for College of Law Faculty, Staff, and Students Friday, October 28 9-10 a.m. Room A As an academic institution, we strive to offer opportunities for academic discourse about important and complicated issues that challenge our communities, our nation, and the world. Consistent with that goal, we invite you to join fellow College of Law faculty, staff, and students for a conversation with Professor Harold Hongju Koh, the Sterling Professor of International Law at Yale Law School and former Legal Adviser of the U.S. Department of State. Professor Koh is one of the country’s leading experts in public and private international law, national security law, and human rights. If you wish to participate in the seminar-style conversation, please consider reading the materials listed below and available on the intranet, to facilitate discussion: Dan Klaidman, Kill or Capture: The War on Terror and the Soul of the Obama Presidency Prologue (pages 1-11) and Chapter 8 (pages 199-223) Charlie Savage, Power Wars: Inside Obama’s Post-9/11 Presidency Chapter 6 on Targeted Killing Elisa Massimino, Washington Post The wrong litmus test for activists Ryan Goodman, Just Security Advancing Human Rights from Within: The Footsteps of Harold Koh For more information: Carolyn Turner carolynt at illinois.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: