Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
US Braced for Surge of Protest Over War in Afghanistan
The conflict in Afghanistan used to be called the 'forgotten war'. But with the number of soldiers dying there outstripping casualties in Iraq, support – for the fighting and for President Obama – is melting away
At his home in Richmond, Virginia, Larry Syverson spends part of every day worrying there will be an unwanted knock on the door. Syverson's son, Branden, is an American soldier serving in Afghanistan, conducting dangerous patrols in an area infested with Taliban.
Commander of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) US General Stanley McChrystal (R) arrives at the Baraki Barak Joint combat Outpost in Logar Province in August 2009. Insurgents killed another five US soldiers in Afghanistan's southern Taliban stronghold, NATO said Friday, with their commander poised to request more troops to avoid failure in the eight-year war.
(AFP/Manan Vatsyayana) "I worry every day that I might hear someone come to the door unexpected. Just last week two of his best friends were killed over there," he said.
That's why Syverson, 60, an environmental engineer, is trying to organise a protest in Richmond against the war in Afghanistan for the second weekend in October, almost eight years after the conflict began.
He is a member of Military Families Speak Out, an anti-war group made up of relatives of military personnel that is preparing to turn its attentions from the conflict in Iraq to the one in Afghanistan. He has three sons in the military who together have served five tours in Iraq as well as Branden's stint in Afghanistan.
"I am extremely proud that they have chosen a military career. I just don't like the way that they are being used to fight these unnecessary wars," said Syverson.
That is a growing sentiment in America. As Barack Obama appears likely to increase America's already greatly enlarged troop commitment to the Afghan war, the war itself is becoming increasingly disliked.
The conflict used to be called America's "forgotten war". No longer. As casualties have spiked, so has hatred for the war: a solid 57% of Americans now oppose it. That has seen the anti-war movement in America prepare to turn its attentions from Iraq to Afghanistan, gearing up for an autumn campaign of marches and civil disobedience.
They hope to emulate the anti-Vietnam war protests, using highly visible public campaigns to force the hand of the White House to pull out of the country, not escalate the conflict.
The first major protest will happen next weekend, when anti-war protesters plan to arrange more than 500 empty pairs of boots on a grassy lawn right outside the White House. Each pair will represent an American soldier killed in the war.
Syverson knows that such a move is symbolic but he hopes its position so close to the centre of power will be effective, just like the old Vietnam war protesters who regularly thronged Washington's Mall in the 1960s.
"If Obama looks out of his window, he is going to see a symbol of over 500 soldiers who died in Afghanistan. He is going to know the public is waking up to this war. The honeymoon with Obama is over and the American people are not going to stand for it much longer." Syverson said.
One person who will be in Washington for the boots protest is Cindy Sheehan, perhaps the most famous single protester to emerge from the demonstrations against the Iraq war. Since her son, Casey, was killed in Iraq, Sheehan has become a bête noir to many conservatives and an outspoken rallying point for the anti-war movement. She was a one-woman force of nature who dominated the headlines when she camped outside the Texas ranch of President George W Bush.
Now she too is concentrating on opposing the war in Afghanistan. She has already kept a vigil outside Obama's summer holiday home on Martha's Vineyard and will be going to Washington next weekend. "It's unfortunate that it has taken eight years for the anti-war movement to focus on Afghanistan," she told the Observer. "We have to start to put a human face on what is happening over there."
Sheehan said that she and her fellow organisers would be gearing up for next year, which will feature midterm elections to Congress. She sees this autumn's events as being a preview of mass actions to come all the way through 2010.
"It is year of the midterm elections. I can't tell you what we are planning but it is going to be brilliant. There will be a lot of protests, a lot of civil disobedience," she said.
A broad coalition of anti-war groups is also already co-ordinating protests and demonstrations for the coming weeks, hoping to emulate the successes of the Vietnam protests in a way that the anti-Iraq war movement never pulled off. There will be vigils, memorials, teach-ins, demonstrations and marches. They will range in scale from a few individuals to events where thousands of people will be expected to turn up.
Groups involved include Military Families Speak Out, Win Without War, Code Pink, United For Peace and Justice and Iraq Veterans Against the War.
"There will be hundreds of events all across the US," said Syverson. Some other groups, like US Labor Against the War, which represents 190 unions, which have been largely silent on Afghanistan compared to Iraq, have also announced they are now planning to start opposing the Afghan war too.
The movement is certainly tapping into a growing public mood of anger and discontent. For years, Afghanistan was seen as the "good war" as opposed to Iraq's "bad war". It had supposedly been won with relatively little loss of life, deposed a reviled government and been justified by the Taliban's open support of al-Qaida.
But now, there are more US casualties each day in Afghanistan than in Iraq, and American troop numbers will have risen dramatically to 68,000 by the end of the year. Indeed, Washington and the White House are consumed by speculation over whether Obama will accept a request from General Stanley McChrystal for yet more troops to be sent to the combat zone.
On American television screens, reports from Iraq have become rare. But news from Afghanistan - nearly all of it bad - has become common. Pictures of the carnage reach into every American living room and are frequently splashed across the front pages.
Now public sentiment has shifted firmly towards wanting American troops to pull out, a reversal of the once common opinion that Afghanistan had been a conflict worth fighting. As recently as April, a majority of Americans supported the war. Now only 43% do.
It has hit Obama's personal ratings too. When it comes to Afghan policy, his approval score has dropped 18 points from 67% to 49%. A handful of soldiers are also refusing to serve in Afghanistan. In Fort Hood, Texas, Iraq war veteran Victor Agosto was sentenced last month to 30 days in jail and his rank reduced to private after refusing to deploy there. He was the second Fort Hood soldier to do so.
But sustaining a meaningful opposition movement to the war in Afghanistan is not going to be easy. Much of the wind was taken out of the anti-war movement by the election of Obama, who, it is safe to say, the majority of protesters supported in the 2008 election.
Even Sheehan admits that taking the anti-war fight to the White House under Obama is not going to be a walk in the park, despite the fact that he is presiding over a massive escalation of the war. "It was super-easy to hate George Bush. It was also easy to embrace Obama. But both emotions are irrational when the policies remain the same. We have to make it about the policy, not the person," Sheehan said.
Yet so far, the Obama administration does not appear to have much fear of the doveish wing of the broad liberal coalition that put Obama into the White House. In America's two-party system of government, the Republican party offers an alternative on Afghanistan that is more hawkish, not less. Indeed Obama, who has championed the already massive increase in US troops there, has been criticised only for seeming to hesitate in agreeing to McChrystal's latest request for yet more troops. The request was included in a confidential assessment of the situation that concluded the entire mission would most likely result in failure without more soldiers.
"This is not the time for Hamlet in the White House," said Mitt Romney, one of the likely candidates for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012.
Yet that criticism seems unfair. Though Obama is reportedly striving to reshape Afghan policy in the face of the worsening violence there and the fallout from an Afghan election widely regarded as deeply fraudulent, no one seriously expects America's troop commitment to the country to be radically cut. That means the anti-war movement too is gearing up for a long struggle and a war of attrition aiming to chip away at Obama's popularity.
It might work. After only a year in office, Obama's approval ratings have dipped across the board and the war in Afghanistan is increasingly seen as "Obama's war", not just the legacy of Bush and his neoconservative foreign policy. Indeed, Obama fought his election on a campaign promise of shifting the focus to Afghanistan away from Iraq.
"If Obama's decisions are seen as a continuation of Bush's, then Obama will lose the effect of his honeymoon period. You can already see that happening," said Mitch Hall, a history professor at Central Michigan University.
The irony of left wing, anti-war protesters campaigning against Obama is not lost on many of them, including Syverson, who voted for Obama, went to his rallies and campaigned for him.
"I feel really let down," he said. He is unlikely to be alone. But American history has shown repeatedly, especially with Vietnam, that political stripes at home often mean nothing abroad. After all, it was under the liberal Democrat presidents JFK and Lyndon Johnson that US involvement in Vietnam escalated and under conservative Republican Richard Nixon that America finally got out. Some prominent commentators have drawn other parallels with Vietnam, comparing McChrystal's troop increase request with those of General William Westmoreland, who demanded extra troops for the doomed fight in Vietnam. "In Vietnam and Afghanistan, as the situation worsened and public opinion began turning against the war, the commanding generals - Westmoreland and McChrystal - put in requests for thousands of extra troops," wrote San Francisco Chronicle columnist Joel Brinkley. Given that history, it seems perfectly possible that the deepening quagmire in Afghanistan might last for every year of Obama's time in office, even if he serves two terms.
For Syverson, though, Obama's policy on Afghanistan has already been enough to make him angrily tear off the Obama bumper sticker he had put on his car. "Hell, if I'd ever vote for him again," he said. As the anti-war protests unfold, Obama's presidency may end up being defined by how many Americans can be persuaded to take a similar view.
73 Comments so far
Show All"They hope to emulate the anti-Vietnam war protests, using highly visible public campaigns to force the hand of the White House to pull out of the country, not escalate the conflict."
Keep dreaming. Demonstrations worked in the sixties because the media wasn't controlled by a few corporations. Today, the only media that will cover peace demonstrations are blogs like this one. Make all the invisible demonstrations you want, no one will see them.
No one will see them?
Wanna Bet?
But haven't you heard now we have dedicated free speech zones...
Of course, Bush set those up.
I would not go to one of those closed in prisons.
Really? An "surge of protest"?! I seem to recall something like that prior to the Iraq "shock and awe" incident. If I remember correctly, its significance was dismissed by the U.S. president at that time as being equivalent to a "focus group."
Popular protests are meaningful only where some form of real democracy actually exists. The "business of America" is business, folks. Mere expressions of the popular will are totally irrelevant. You might as well beg the corporate CEOs to voluntarily forego their huge wages and benefits. Nothing short of a real and direct threat to that "business of America" will have the slightest impact on any of USA Incorporated's decisions and actions.
It seems weird that the negatives who always call for taking to the streets, when it comes down to put up or shut up want to cop out.
Absolutely RV. Protesters and I am one need to stop thinking of a protest as "hey I'll do this day march and go home and everything will turn out fine." Wrong, If you are against the war and the capitalism that is crushing our country you too have to sacrifice by not buy what they sell.Reduce your income and reduce your taxes to them. Buy from your neighbor and pay no sales tax. Put a big dent it their wallet and they might look up from their greedy whoring around.
Don't use that big corp credit card. Put your money in a credit union.
We are in for tough times and they will not help you out but will be there only to profit from your loss. Wake up and prepare your self to survive without them or suffer their acts of cruelty.
Sales taxes are admittedly regressive, but they aren't used for war - they are used for things like public transportation and state programs for the poor.
American Families must awaken and understand that a military career or a stint in the military is no longer acceptable. The American Military today represents the interests of the economic elites who buy the congress and ignore the needs of the majority of the American People. Therefore, a military career or stint represents people working to oppose the best interests of the American People; and, it furthers the imperialist dreams of the super rich only. It hurts doubly by encouraging terrorism by peoples of other countries who fight to resist American imperialism and hegemony. Today, the military appears to be a part of the Democracy Wrecking Crew.
Very important also is that America is rotting from within and it is the enemy within that needs to be addressed. It needs to be addressed with the reestablishment of the Social Contract or Commonwealth. Unfortunately it will probably be addressed with the Military being used against the uprising of the American People to reestablish economic and social justice. The American military today appears to be oppressors of the American majority. It is only Government Propaganda funded by the Pentagon that creates favorable attitudes toward the oppressive military. It's all very strange but not inconsistent in a time of rapid change.
Stone September 27th, 2009 12:45 pm
"Today, the military appears to be a part of the Democracy Wrecking Crew."
The Pentagon hires private contractors for a reason, and it doesn't seem to be to save the lives of Americans in the military.
"As the American Civil Liberties Union documented in their 2007 and 2008 reports on fusion center abuses, one motivation is precisely to subvert oversight laws which do not apply to private mercenary contractors.
The civil liberties' watchdog characterized the rapid expansion of fusion centers as a threat to our constitutional rights and cited specific areas of concern: "their ambiguous lines of authority, the troubling role of private corporations, the participation of the military, the use of data mining and their excessive secrecy." Interesting article: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15386
The current situation is volatile. People in the military take an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". The first duty of a soldier is to protect the Constitution of the people - not the bogus ideology of corporate welfare and warfare.
Bring America Back !!!!........!...Yep Stone, sadly you are very correct, yes !
***But, Stone, you must not use the word 'military' to include our poor troops,
most of whom are trapped inside a dictatorship called "The Uniform Code of Military Justice" .. When you enlist, you give up your civil rights and orders always come down to you, never go back up !
***I heard one lady say.....'my kid enlisted to get a free education and to see various points of the world, not to go fight wars. ! Some of the national guard and reservist units are doing 4 and 5 "stop-loss' tours of duty in Iraq ! Basically, they signed up for 1 tour of duty.
***One famous military sergeant==Mutada-==refused to return to Iraq using the defense of an "illegal wAR"==last week , after a court-martial and another
civil trial, they gave him a discharge "other than honorable circumstances." !
Mutada is a modern day hero, but not under the UCMJ.
TruthKnoller
I basically agree with what you have written though there are a few corrections that need to be made. The person who said that he would not deploy to Iraq [I wish that he would have said the same thing concerrning Afghanistan] was Lt. [not sergeant] Ehren Watada, not Mutada. As he stated, among other things, in a speech that he gave at the Veterans for Peace convention in 2006 in Seattle that myself and other veterans heard:
"To stop an illegal and unjust war [which was "instrumental in ending the Vietnam War"] the soldiers can choose to stop fighting it."
He also told the veterans that:
"The oath we take swears allegiance not to one man but to a document of principles and laws designed to protect the people. Enlisting in the military does not relinquish one's right to seek the truth-neither does it excuse one from rational thought nor the ability to distinguish between right and wrong. 'I was only following orders' is never an excuse."
If only the soldiers who are being used as cannon fodder in Afghanistan and Iraq could come to the same realization as Watada that "I was only following orders" should never be used as justification for taking part in an illegal and immoral occupation.
Stone I agree with you about what the military stands for. In fact, most of corporate America "represents the interests of the economic elites who buy the congress and ignore the needs of the majority of the American People". The difference is that the military is in the business of direct killing, including many civilians.
But this is a hard sell in areas in which there have not been any jobs for a long time. In those communities, young people have no way to bring money into the home. You are talking about people whose parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins are all unable to help. Maybe there is a meth lab or a drug gang in the area, but that is not so hot either. That's largely who is joining the army these days.
If the peace movement does not start standing up for young people, getting them jobs and education, then many of the least privileged will continue to join the military.
Joe
It seems to me that the anonymous cynics like "RV" and "Caleb Abell" who constantly post cynical "why bother trying" messages are likely government provocateurs -- sent to websites like Common Dreams to constantly throw wet blankets over any attempts to make the world a better place.
JulieP; you are wrong. CD, (Common Dreams), is in the business of discussing politics and foreign polcy. stripped of propaganda, these are brutal realities. Understanding politics is no excersize in Love. But, ironically, most of us are angry, and insist on seeking hard truths; because we want a better world-a functon of empathy, even love.
RV's posts i've read much, they are usually dead-on, and reflect the truth. peaceofheartjulie
But when it comes down to doing something, too many on Common Dreams throw wet blankets on the peace and justice movement with their vision of a Fascist America as an excuse to do nothing but complain.
This is not the kind support we need in the fight for a better world.
You haven't considered all of the possibilities. It is possible to be active, see the fascism and also recognize the ineffectiveness of past efforts.
Years of protests, letter writing, etc. have yielded nothing, both during the time of the Bush administration and now in our current time of Democratic control. In fact, we have the same identical policies, and no change in sight. The Democrats are equally as unyielding to public demands as the Republicans. Witness healthcare, for one.
It's not for a lack of trying. We've had historic massive outpourings against the war. Even a pretty good fight over single payer. I'm not sure why you think people didn't try.
The simple fact is that the Republic has ceased to function. The public is just ignored. Sure, probably a lot of people here see our present Republic as having swerved to fascism. I'm not sure what you think it is. Whatever kind of government we have it doesn't care what you think nor what I think. So, cheer up - we're all in the same boat. Quit complaining and bail.
-TIA
our kids internalize our values; syverson has 3 sons, who volunteered, who've done 5 tours and he's extremely proud.
he should be ashamed, the hypocrite. i raised 2 sons, they know our wars are wrong.
now the soldier raiser don't like the war?
hypocrisy. teach you children peace. not war. not pride.
I would rather have those with experience in the military demonstrating for peace with me than the self righteous who do nothing.
There is nothing Hypocritical about wanting to end this War.
Hi Jim, I was referring to raising soldiers instead of teaching children peace-a clear choice for an intelligent parent.
Jim, this guy raised 3 men who volunteered to go far away and kill. and he says he is proud.
to now decide war is hell is incongruous in the extreme. hypocritical to me personally.
signed, a single parent who raised all 3 kids to abhorr war, revere love, and avoid pride, a deadly sin.
respectfully, joe.........he's fearful one of his kids will get hurt, but is PROUD they are trying to hurt, kill others?
Azjoe
As a Vietnam veteran, I totally agree with your sentiments. Keep speaking out against American militarism and aggression.
Wow, thank you Erroll, beyond glad you survived that melee, that debacle.
All perceptions and awarenesses of, start in our hearts, then extend to our home, then neighborhood, country, and finally the world.
But all perceptions begin in our hearts, our homes, where our children are taught of right and wrong.
peacedeargod, peace
But he found out from experience that these are unnecessary wars.
Lots of folks in the military are learning the hard way. That is how the peace movement grows and I welcome it.
The boots display is part of a project of the American Friends Service Committee called "Eyes Wide Open"
Link to free AFSC resources/information - and information to bring "Eyes Wide Open" to your home town
http://www.afsc.org/ht/d/sp/i/457/pid/457
Bring America Back !!!!............!!!... Obama has taken over ownership of the Wars now; esp Afghan !!!!
****Team Obama has not got a clue ! Three weeks ago, when his boots on the ground==General McChrystal threw up his hands saying he had not one idea of what to do in Afghan; Team Obama missed a golden chance to become true heros, and fulfill his main campaign promise !!
When your GeneraL ON DUTY goes blank==It was time to say and order Get out of Afghan, Out of Iraq===Bring the troops home and re:think the whole Terror fantasy !! Stop playing the Caveman dragon versus the Drone-boy games !
***But NO, not Team Obama, they are controlled by the Neocon Military Industrial Complex==just as was KIng George, and so Obama now wants fitted for his Flite Suit, and his Mission Accomplished Banner is on order !!!
====The shame factor is that our poor troops are the collateral damages extracted by Obama's MI Complex. But then, the only factor the MI Complex recognizes is $$$$$$.
So, are you gonna be active in support of the peace movement?
On Saturday in Afghanistan, 6 UN troops were KIA, including 2 US voluteers. Protest? The MSM will not cover it and they're fully aware of what's going on in the streets.
Our congress citters don't give a rats ass about peace; nation building is big business and it ain't cheap, the global oil corporations need pipeline protection and the US needs more dictators to protect that interests.. But what if nobody showed up? What if no one, or very few, volunteered?
Well, the only option then is Blackwater and other grunts for hire or a nation-wide military draft.
'Surge of protest'? What a joke. In fact the dominant Democratic Party wing of the antiwar movement is hiding behind the issue of Afghanistan just like it once hid itself behind the issue of Iraq. During the Bush reign it refused to oppose the occupation of Afghanistan because Democratic Party voters supported it mainly, and they only talked of GI 'boots' lost in Iraq ad nauseum. Now, as Barack Obama continues the war and occupation in Iraq, the Democrats Party 'Peace' wing wants to not really mention Iraq at all and only will talk about Afghanistan (kind of)! Well Iraq is still occupied, too, and that occupation probably will go on indefinitely. Obama has merely stalled everybody out!
The war is everywhere and the Democratic Party Wing Peacenics see it only one increment at a time. Where is the antiwar outcry about the obvious frame-up of the Colorado Afghan immigrant resident named Zazi, as the FBI launched its racial profiled witch hunt to justify endless war and occupation forever using him and his family as collateral damage? Anybody see a 'surge of protest' about it?
from AP news..
Attorney: No evidence of bomb-making by suspect
By IVAN MORENO and P. SOLOMON BANDA (AP) – 23 hours ago
DENVER — Claims that an Afghan immigrant was on the verge of unleashing a terrorist attack on New York City on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks are missing a key element: explosives or the chemicals allegedly used to make them, the man's attorney said.
FBI agents have yet to find those elements and connect them to Najibullah Zazi, charged with conspiring to use weapons of mass destruction in a plot authorities say was aimed at commuter trains, attorney Arthur Folsom told a federal judge in Denver Friday.
So I wonder, would you at least like to see a surge in protest over the war?
They are fighting the wrong war. We need a crash program to phase out the private automobile for most urban travel. We should be converting the 14 abandoned GM plants to streetcar manufacturing.
Every cent being spent to garrison the planet so we have access to oil should be being spent for solar and wind and geothermal power so we won't need the oil.
I was camped in a grove of Giant Sequoias recently. One that was logged, most recently in the 1940s. They didn't bother to cut them down, they just blew them up with dynamite, and there are ragged gray stumps about 50 feet high alongside magnificent trees that were spared. I wondered what was wrong with people "back then" that they would do such a thing, and then I was reminded that right now we are destroying the atmosphere. The big trees will go too if climate changes radically. We haven't changed much since those fools were out dynamiting 3,000 year old trees.
Yes, sending a military force to Afghanistan was and is and will always be the height of folly. Especially when the more important challenges are right here at home.
The support for the war should have started eroding when Innoccent Afghanis were being killed.
Now that Americans are dying the war is wrong?
As to protests, the Police forces of the USA are well prepared for them. See Pittsburgh. They will not allow the 60's to happen again.
The media will be diligent in advancing the Governmnets version of events against "Radicals, Anarchists and terrorists" and other "Un_americans".
GwNorth
Very well said. Americans decide to protest when their own start to come back in body bags but care little for the fact that Afghans are being slaughtered unjustifiably by 500 lb. and 2000 lb. American bombs.
EXACTLY.
while it is always a good thing if people protest and refuse to support war - and hopefully to end it - it is HARDLY a completely just thing, until the protests are EQUALLY at LEAST as MUCH about the people the country wages war AGAINST. for that is exactly what it boils down TO.
however americans wish to think of the USA and "ourselves, defending our freedoms and way of life from threats".......
they are really "starting" the argument "against war" - from the MIDPOINT - without starting from the ROOT -
AMERICA's OWN instigation of warlike behavior against other nations and culture.
the Iranians were not "enemies" UNTIL the USA MADE them to be so...they were not "anti-american" UNTIL the USA , CIA destroyed their democracy decades ago...followed by the consequences....
the Afghanis were not "insurgents" against american troops UNTIL the Americans SET FOOT in their land - whether as CIA advisers or trainers of the early taliban and mujahedeen against the soviets , or today
the "anti -american" South americans had no quarrels with america UNTIL the USA installed and supported cruel oligarchies and treated south america as its "backyard" under the Monroe Doctrine of Manifest Destiny...
the "illegal aliens from south america" did NOT need to leave their lands and loved ones to seek FOOD and WORK - UNTIL after America DESTROYED their livelihoods and dispossessed them of lands and means of living through its corporatism...
RUSSIA did NOT have to recalibrate its Iskander Missiles directed at Europe UNTIL america tried to built missile sites 200 miles from Moscow.
no nation on earth has been more the provocateur towards the consequences of its own provocations -- than the USA itself.
if one leaves the beehive alone and not threaten the bees - why should they sting?.
but america likes to go abroad with a Big Stick - poking it in other nations' and people's business....all supposedly to "spread freedom and democracy" when in reality it is just
"To make the world safe for our supernationalistic capitalism and our cultural and economic assault" -- General Smedley Butler, US Marines, 1933 speeches.
whether it was against the native indians or the mexicans, or russia and china or afghanistan , iran , iraq, venezuela ,
it is all the USA's OWN doing....the fruits of its own "labor"
which is WAR MAKING in all its forms.
need one say more?.
a year ago - i had the privilege of sitting down for a friendly conversation with a very, very old man...he was then 104 years old...but VERY very clear in his mind and memory, he did not even use eyeglasses to read newspapers in five languages ..he might still be alive as he was generally very hale, except for a few minor ailments on his old bones...
he was from Italy and traveled all over the world as a maritime engineer.
and he told me something i will not forget:
"we in the WEST are responsible for much of the ailing problems of this world today..it is because of OUR imperialisms and colonialisms that we interfered with other nations and cultures....because we wanted THEIR resources ..and left them with nothing or very little...and THEN we complain that they come to our shores or that they threaten us -- but that is a consequence of OUR own actions...i was a teenager when Fascism swept Italy...my brother and i played in the public squares and saw how it developed...that is now happening in the USA...i am also a Roman..and I know history ..i know what the Imperial Rome was and did...the USA is indeed today's Imperial Rome..and it too will suffer the consequences".
Would you at least like to see a surge in protest over the war?
Marian Cole
The US Military needs to be Out of Iraq and Afghanistan and as soon as possible. We need to be in the streets, on street corners, at train stations, in shopping malls in large and small numbers on a regular basis.
When I listen to "the Generals" my soul shivers and my "Hope for Change" is sitting on the edge of the shredder.
MC
Thank you,
Common Dreams is a grassroots activist organization who's mission is to inform, inspire, and ignite change for the common good.
You are right on.
Absolutely, Marian. If we are waiting for purity, we're saying screw you to Afghans. This is not to say protests and civil disobedience directly related to the war are all we can do. We can hold anti-military recruitment learning sessions at schools. We can try to get communities on record through official resolutions. Some of us should focus on the MSM, physically, as in protest and civil disobedience. So often arguments seem to revolve around the ONE thing to do and if we don't get think we can get immediate results we go into a deep debilitating (and useless) cynicism.
I share the disgust in discerning the common hypocrisy of those who only care when fellow citizens are dying, but that unease is of small importance in the greater cause. Remember, WE are also making our views known.
About protests in general...Persistence and growth are needed and we can't have the second without the first. It's frustrating to be "invisible", but we have to be a continual thorn in the side of the war makers. They will make mistakes and that's good.
In regard to the attempted police shutdowns...They are *all the more reason* to "protest". I can't believe all the statements I hear about "They've won." Protest, but not on their terms. It will be rough. What can I say?
(By the way, protests coupled with general strikes have brought down oppressive governments. Got to start somewhere.)
Cynicism is about the least revolutionary position imaginable.
Here's why it's coming to this: Amerikkans hate to be losers. Perish the thought. Once the body bags start coming home in larger numbers, they want out.
Where were these people in 2003 at the start of the Iraq invasion? I'm guessing they were behind it. Where were they when Obama explicitly came out during the debates and said he'd "take out" the terra over in Afghanistan? Did they not see that as a hostile and offensive posture? A violent posture? Why would they then vote for this immoral coward even though he said that?
It doesn't particularly matter why people want the wars stopped; the important thing is that they want them stopped.
But I'll be damned if someone shouldn't shine the light of their hypocrisy on them in full frontal. I just can't understand how someone can be "pro-war" and then switch positions to "anti-war." Do they not understand that the beginning of a war includes the same damage, violence, raping, destruction, death, and dehumanization as the middle or end of a war?
Mind boggling.
you are EXACTLY correct.
I have always said that Americans TOLERATE or even SUPPORT wars
"so long as they THINK they are WINNING"...
but when they see the PRICE as TOO HIGH, to their pocketbooks, their "economy", "our neglected domestic problems", their losing TOO many "relatives" or friends, "it's taking TOO LONG", etc. etc. etc.
when they can FINALLY say to themselves "it's NOT WORTH IT", ONLY THEN do they collectively "turn against the war"...
but fundamentally -- they SUPPORT WARS "if the price is right".
LOST in the entire edifice of "american way of life" INCLUDING WAR - is WHAT their country , with their own passive connivance , as part of the glorification of "good america", DOES TO OTHER NATIONS and PEOPLE...during the actual Military wars and the ECONOMIC wars behind them and around them, and preceding and accompanying them, of which MILITARY WARS are just the version that has
the "bombs bursting in air"....
as an american poet said (i can not remember his name) :
"WE AMERICANS -- CAREFULLY NURTURE AN ATTITUDE OF DETACHED INDIFFERENCE TO THE SUFFERING OF OTHERS.....EVEN IF WE ARE THE CAUSE OF IT".
and part of that "cause" is american's national TOLERANCE and even AGREEMENT with being a Militaristic nation that always "prepares for war" - and therefore CREATES war and GETS IT.
until of course, americans decide - after all their complacency for not wanting their "lifestyle" to be INTERRUPTED by CONCERN and RESISTANCE , on a NATIONAL LEVEL< against WAR of ANY KIND - which wars are ALWAYS
:"waged for profit, money and power...they are pillage and rape and theft of the wealth of other nations" -- SOCRATES...
they decide "it's not worth IT"
IT -- being WHAT?
to maintain their lifestyles and WARS are supposed to "defend the american" Lifestyles?
that's IT?
of course THAT IS - "IT".
and in all of "IT" -- there is HYPOCRISY. perhaps even the most "american" of ALL traits.
as the Arch Conservative - for once saying TRUTH that I can admire - Patrick Buchanan says:
"WE AMERICANS HAVE MANY FINE QUALITIES.......seeing ourselves as OTHERS see us....is NOT one of these".
this is reflected in the way americans, passively or in active support (such as by sending their onw children to "military training" for what ELSE< but FOREIGN WARS or waving their "support the troops" flags, or celebrating the "heroism of america" in its wars against nations for that is what ALL these wars ARE)
they way americans ALLOW wars - allow the rich and moneyed class to get away with it - because americans ALLOW themselves to do what General Smedley Butler , US MARINE, 1933, ADMITTED but MOST americans WON'T -- and DON"T NEED to be geniuses to KNOW in their hearts and minds :
"SUSPENDED MY OWN CONSCIENCE knowing that what we do is EVIL".
and they SUSPEND their sense of common humanity and empathy towards people of other nations - that not only are already MUCH POORER and WEAKER than the USA - largely , often BECAUSE of what the USA has DONE to those countries through its Global Empire and Capitalist Dogma of "very , very Vicious Exploitation" (JOHN PERKINS, Former CIA "economic Hitman")
but - UNTIL the USA - WITH the participation of american populace - meddled in internatl affairs of other nations - or PAINTED them as the "next threat"
NEVER were threats to the USA ...and IN FACT were the OPPOSITE -- it is THEY that were THREATENED BY the United States.
and americans blind themselves from the CONSEQUENCES of the USA's meddling - which are counted in the Suffering, the poverty, the chaos, the economic destruction, the cultural destruction and national destinies of other peoples....
while americans at the same time CRY RIVERS of sentiment about "our loved ones, our sons and daughters sacrificing ...over there......for OUR Defense and to secure OUR way of life"
while their nation has DESTROYED the way of life of OTHER people across the world!
this is like a MOTHER who beats here breasts and pulls her hair at the sight of her "beloved son" coming home with a black eye - after YET another day of BULLYING kids in the neighborhood because those kids were so TINY , so thin, so poor in comparison to HIM - after yet another day when
for HIS "horrible black eye" -- the mother CRIES to the heavens - HER kid actually MAIMED other kids left and right , stole their WOODEN bicycles or destroyed them
PURELY out of Contempt for them because they are "not like my kid who is SO NICE"...and because he could get away with it...
and come home to MOMMY who'll wrape him in her embrace cursing at how those "other kids are SO BAD..."!!
even if it was HER kid that was the neighborhood bully.
Hey Caleb get the fuck off this site and return to fox noise--we don't want your stinking negative blather here on CD--most likely you are a weak-will-wussy who supports the killing of innocent people--I'll tell you what, after I saw what they did in the pitts, I am certain we can bring this shameful excuse for leadership to its knees--we see how fearful they are of the truth--just like you. The one thing that is still the same as in the 60's is that we still have the moral high ground--in fact after last week it rose to an even higher level--when you're evil and show fear to the degree that you need to attack unarmed, peaceful protesters you have already lost the ideological battle and revealed that you are just a bunch of lawless bullies who have absolutely no regard for the constitution of this once great concept of a nation. I know you won't have the guts to be there unless suited in all that high-priced battle gear--but if you should please be aware of this--there is a God of Justice--we see it in the occupations when they nail the occupiers with i.e.d.s and other cheap and unsophisticated devices. you may look up in the silence of your ear plugs to behold a rain of fire that will melt you, your gear, and the horse you rode in on to ashes--I will cheer that image and honor that God. If you kill us we will still obtain the wonderful freedom of not having to suffer this horrible fate of having to live under this mean, ugly, and despicable rule--I now understand those great words, Give me LIBERTY or give me Death. Either way we will be free!
I can't make more than very short posts, again, however the article seriously undervalues or covers up the large number of U.S. soldiers who oppose serving in either of the GWoT wars. Camilo Mejia, in an interview with Dem. Now! August 5th, says it's difficult to put a finger on the exact total number, but it may be even 40,000.
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/8/5/camilo_mejia_1st_gi_to_publicly
That there weren't anywhere as many Afghanistan War dissenting soldiers as for those from the Iraq War is duh(?!) to understand. Until the beginning of I believe this year, there were around 5,000 U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan; there were more NATO troops than there were American. As the number of US soldiers there skyrockets, the number of dissenters and "deserters" is likely to be like what happened in Iraq.
for all the wars until afghanistan , but demonstrably during the iraq buildup -- the american people - in the eyes of the world - had FAILED to stop WAR.
while there were movements against it...they were either ostracized, marginalized, or ignored....
and the SUCCESS of the WAR PARTY of the United States was in large part due to the NATIONAL passivity of ordinary americans.
REGARDLESS of what their individual reasons were:
"too busy"
"too frightened to lose a job if showing unpatriotism"
"not wanting to be political"
"not wanting to rock the boat"
"too many personal concerns: money, job, kids to school, shopping, the car insurance...etc"...
the END RESULT is - that in this FAILURE - the american people have shown the world only ONE THING:
they TOLERATED WAR - criminal and illegal and lying.
this is a time for americans - the MAJORITY to show their faces - because if they are proud to be people who "make sacrifices to be all we can be" - in their jobs, in their school, in being "a good american" - in being "responsible" ....
there is ONE OVERRIDING RESPONSIBILITY of americans...
their responsibility as CITIZENS who have the courage to BE REAL citizens who not just TALK the TALK about "peace-loving nation" - but actually DO IT...ESPECIALLY because their own passivity has ALLOWED their own country to be the WARLIKE NATION that it is....that destroys and enslaves and dehumanizes other people and cultures and in the process also dehumanizes americans themselves.
their other responsibility is TO THE WORLD - for what the USA has DONE to countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Haiti, Venezuela, Honduras, Panama, Peru, Chile, Korea, Philippines, and so MANY MORE over the decades of its existence as an Empire...a Militaristic, Exploitative and Enslaving Nation whose greatest characteristic shown to other nations and people is
NOT what americans claim as "our freedoms" or "our great economy"
but its CRUELTY and its INHUMANITY and its WARS!!
If anything "surge of protests" - UNLESS they are NATIONAL in SCALE and SIMULTANEOUS (a very distant possibility , if that, considering how passive americans are) -
is exactly what the FBI, POLICE, CIA , NIS, PENTAGON, HOMELAND "security", Private Mercenary "security" industry, the PRISON industry.....etc are WAITING FOR...to FIRMLY put in wider practice, FASCISM.......
and of course americans will have to "Pay" for their own incarceration - by becoming "Detainees" who will have to "work for your board and lodging to pay your obligation to society"....
it will become the USA's Version of the GULAGS.
all under the banner of "American Democracy,
Lawfulness, freedom, security and Western Civilization...one nation , under god".
"in order to SECURE the domestic front"
"in order to SECURE PEACE and SAFETY"
"in order to MAINTAIN our way of life"...
The Republicans or "conservatives" aren't really more hawkish than the Dems; it's just that the latter are very silent hawks. According to Rick Rizoff, editor of "Stop NATO" (a group at Google), the U.S. and NATO are seriously escalating in Afghanistan and Pakistan, NATO has started flying war jets (not drones) into Pakistan for air ops there, Ru. and China have now been re-labeled as part of the same "axis" as Iran and North Korea, and woes are ahead.
"U.S., NATO Poised For Most Massive War In Afghanistan's History", by Rick Rizoff, Stop NATO (indeed!), Sep 24 2009
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15364
"U.S. Missile Shield Plans: Retreat Or Advance?", by Rick Rizoff, Sep 18 2009
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15264
excerpt from the second article in a series..
for the rest:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/HJ20Ad01.html
=======================
AMERICA'S ACUPUNCTURE POINTS
PART 2: The assassin's mace
By Victor N Corpus
(Click here for Part 1, Striking the US where it hurts)
If America ever goes to war with China, Chinese military doctrine suggests the US should expect attacks on a number of key points where it is particularly vulnerable - where a single jab would paralyze the entire nation. China would aim at targets such as the US electricity grid, its computer networks, its oil supply routes, and the dollar. Other vital "acupuncture" points are outlined below.
1 A powerful triumvirate
No one ever imagined before 1991 that China and Russia would
come together to form a close-knit alliance politically, diplomatically and, most important of all, militarily. For more than three decades before the break-up of the Soviet Union, China and the USSR had been bitter rivals, even going into a shooting war with each other along their common border.
But now the picture has changed completely. China and Russia have embraced one another and help each other ward off the military advances of the lone superpower in their respective backyards. In fact, it was a series of strategic blunders by the superpower that forced China and Russia into each other's arms. How so?
When the Soviet Union disintegrated in 1991, it would have been the best time for the US to use soft power to win over Russia into the Western fold. Russia at that time was an economic basket case, with the price of oil at $9 per barrel. But the promises of economic assistance from the US and Europe proved empty, and the Russian oligarchs were the main beneficiaries of relations with the Western powers.
NATO and EU then slowly advanced eastward, absorbing many of the countries making up the former Warsaw Pact alliance. Serbia, a close ally of Russia, was subjected to 78 days of continuous air bombardment. Regime changes were instigated by US and Western-financed non-governmental organizations in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan - all former Soviet republics and considered Russia’s backyard - giving Russia a feeling of strategic encirclement by the US and its allies. There was also the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, followed by the establishment of US bases and deployment of troops in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan.
These aggressive geopolitical moves by the US pushed Russia into the waiting arms of China, which badly needed Russian energy resources, modern weapon systems and military technology as a consequence of the US-led arms embargo imposed after the Tienanmen incident. Furthermore, China also needed a reliable and militarily capable ally in Russia because of the perceived threat of the US.
Reinforcing this Chinese perception was the outrageously wanton bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade by US-led NATO forces in 1999; the spy plane incident in 2001; the unilateral withdrawal of the US from the ABM Treaty in 2002; the enhanced military cooperation between the US and Japan; the inclusion of Taiwan in the Theater Missile Defense program.; the setting up of a military base in Kyrgyzstan which is only some 250 miles from the Chinese border near Lop Nor, China’s nuclear testing ground.
Add to that the announcement of President George W Bush that the US would come to the aid of Taiwan in the event that China uses force against it; the sending of two aircraft carrier battle groups to waters near Taiwan in 1995-1996; and the naval show of strength of seven aircraft carrier battle groups converging off the China coast in August 2004. All these aggressive moves by superpower America pushed China to embrace its former bitter rival, Russia.
Both China and Russia needed a secure and reliable rear; and both are ideally positioned to provide it. Moreover, their strengths ideally complement each other. It must be borne in mind that both are nuclear powers. The abundant energy resources of Russia ensures that China will not run out of gas in a major conflict - a strategic advantage over the US and its key allies.
Russia is also supplying China with many of the modern armaments and military technology it needs to modernize its defense sector. This effectively militates against the arms embargo imposed by the US and the EU on China. Russia in turn needs the increased trade with China, China’s financial clout and assistance, and manufactured goods.
The coming together of China and Russia was one of the most earth-shaking geopolitical events of modern times. Yet hardly anyone noticed the transition from bitter enemity to a solid geopolitical, economic, diplomatic and military alliance. The combined strengths of the two regional powers surely surpass that of the former Warsaw Pact. If we add Iran to the equation, we have a triumvirate that can pose a formidable challenge to the lone superpower. Iran is the most industrialized and the most populous nation in the Middle East. It is second only to Russia in terms of gas resources and also one of the largest oil producers in the world. It is also one of the most mountainous countries in the world, which makes it ideal for the conduct of asymmetric and guerrilla warfare against a superior adversary.
Iran borders both the Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea, two of the richest oil and gas regions of the world. Most importantly, it controls the gateway to the Persian Gulf - the Strait of Hormuz. Modern bottom-rising, rocket propelled sea mines and supersonic cruise missiles deployed along the long mountainous coastline of Iran, manned by "invisible" guerrillas, could indefinitely stop the flow of oil from the Gulf, from which the US gets 23% of its imported oil.
Japan also derives 90% of its oil from the Persian Gulf area, and Europe about 60%. In a major conflict, Iran can effectively deprive the US war machine and those of its key allies of much needed energy supplies.
Imagine the war machine of the superpower running out of gas. Imagine also a US economy minus 23% of its imported oil. This 23% can rise considerably once Chinese and Russian submarines start sinking US-bound oil tankers. The triumvirate of China, Russia, and Iran could bring the US to its knees with a minimum of movement.
second installment of Second article :
ASSASSIN's MACE
================
2 The US's geopolitical disadvantage
Another "acupuncture point" in America’s anatomy in the event of a major conflict with China (and Russia) is its inherent disadvantage dictated by geography. Being the lone superpower, any major conventional conflict involving the US will necessitate its bringing its forces to bear on its adversaries. This means that the US must cross the Pacific, Indian, and/or Atlantic Oceans in order to bring logistics or troop reinforcements to the battlefield.
In so doing, the US will be crossing thousands of miles of sea lanes of communication (SLOC) that can easily become a gauntlet of deadly Chinese and Russian submarines lying in ambush with bottom-rising sea mines, supercavitating rocket torpedoes, and supersonic cruise missiles that even aircraft carrier battle groups have no known defense against. Logistic and transport ships and oil tankers are particularly vulnerable.
The air corridors above these sea lanes will also be put at great risk by advanced air defense systems aboard Sovremenny destroyers or similar types of warships in Chinese and Russian inventories. In short, the US will be forced by geography to suffer all the disadvantages of conducting offensive operations against adversaries in Eurasia.
Of course, the US has "forces in being" and "logistics in place" in numerous military bases scattered around the world, especially those strategically encircling China, Russia, and Iran. But when the shooting war starts, these bases will be the first to be hit by barrages of short- and medium-range ballistic missiles and long-range land-attack cruise missiles armed with electro-magnetic pulse, anti-radar, thermobaric, and conventional warheads.
Following the missile barrages, the remnants of such weakened US military bases will easily be overwhelmed by blitzkrieg assaults from Russian and Chinese armored divisions in the Eurasian mainland. China, for instance, has four large armored units constantly on standby, poised to cross the Yili Corridor in Xinjiang province at a moment’s notice. The US base in Kyrgyzstan near the Chinese border would not stand a chance.
China, Russia and/or Iran, on the other hand, will operate on interior lines within the Eurasian mainland. When they move troops and logistics to meet any threat on the continent, they will have relatively secure lines of communication and logistics, using inland highways, railways and air transport.
Since the US cannot correct the dictates of geography, it and its main allies Japan and the UK will have to live and fight with this tremendous geopolitical disadvantage. Of course the US can bypass this geographic obstacle if it attacks China and Russia with its intercontinental ballistic missiles, sea-launched ballistic missiles and strategic bombers in a nuclear first strike, but China and Russia have the means to retaliate and obliterate the United States and its allies as well.
There are some among the leading neo-conservatives in the US who believe that a nuclear war is winnable; that there is no such thing as mutually assured destruction (MAD). Well, that truly mad way of thinking may well spell the end of planet earth for all of us.
3 Asymmetric attack
Superpower America is particularly vulnerable to asymmetric attack. A classic example of asymmetric attack is the September 11, 2001, attack on America. Nineteen determined attackers, armed with nothing but box cutters, succeeded in toppling the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City and causing the death of some 3,000 Americans. Notice the asymmetry of casualty ratio as well - the most lopsided casualty ratio ever recorded in history.
China, Russia, and Iran also possess asymmetric weapons that are designed to neutralize and defeat a superpower like America in a conventional conflict. Supersonic cruise missiles now in their inventories can defeat and sink US aircraft carriers. The same is true for medium- and short-range ballistic missiles with independently targetable warheads, extra-large bottom-rising, rocket-propelled sea mines (EM52s), and supercavitating rocket torpedoes (SHKVAL or "Squall"). The US Navy has no known defense against these weapons.
Iraqi insurgents are conducting a form of asymmetric warfare. They use improvised explosive devices, car bombs, booby traps and landmines against the most modern army the world has ever seen. The US's huge advantage in weaponry is negated by the fact that its soldiers cannot see their adversary. They are fighting against a "phantom" enemy - an invisible army.
ASSASSIN's MACE:
5 Attack on US aircraft carrier battle groups
Aircraft carrier battle groups are the mainstay of US military supremacy. They serve as America’s chief instrument for global power projection and world dominance. In this category, the US has no equal. At the moment, the US maintains a total of 12 aircraft carrier battle groups. In comparison, China has none.
From June to August 2004, the US, for the first time in its naval history, conducted an exercise involving the simultaneous convergence of seven of its 12 aircraft carrier battle groups to within striking distance of China’s coast. This was the biggest and most massive show of force the world has ever seen. It was to remind China that if it uses force against Taiwan, China will have to contend with this kind of response.
It was mentioned earlier that China’s strategy in defeating the superior by the inferior is shashaojian or the "assassin’s mace". "Mace" is not only a blinding spray; it is also a meaner and deadlier weapon, a spiked war club of ancient times used to knock out an adversary with one blow. The spikes of the modern Chinese mace may well spell the end for aircraft carriers.
..............