Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Feingold Gets Afghanistan Right
Senator Russ Feingold was way ahead of the Senate curve in insisting on a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, and last week he got it right again in calling for a flexible timetable to bring US troops out of Afghanistan.
In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Feingold writes that "we must recognize that our troop presence contributes to resentment in some quarters and hinders our ability to achieve our broader national security goals." He voices particular concern about the war destabilizing Pakistan--"a witch's brew of threats to our national security that we cannot afford to further destabilize." He also points out that this "nation-building experiment...may distract us from combating al Qaeda and its affiliates, not just in Pakistan, but in Yemen, the Horn of Africa and other terrorist sanctuaries."
Feingold lays out a compelling case for an alternative course--"a civilian-led strategy discouraging any support for the Taliban by Pakistani security forces, and offer[ing] assistance to improve Afghanistan's economy while fighting corruption in its government. This should be coupled with targeted military operations and a diplomatic strategy that incorporates all the countries in the region."
Senator Feingold is expressing what many progressives now believe. Overall, 51 percent of Americans say the war is not worth fighting, including 7 in 10 Democrats. Yet too many top Democrats have become part of a poorly reasoned bipartisan consensus that threatens to entrap the US in another costly occupation. In contrast, progressives who want to see President Obama succeed see Afghanistan as a threat to his presidency-- especially to his domestic agenda, as resources, lives and political capital are lost in the "graveyard of Empires". (Much like LBJ's presidency was tarnished and defined by the Vietnam War.)
This is perhaps a watershed moment for progressives. Nearly 100 Representatives in the House are calling for an exit strategy, and now we have an ally in the Senate to rally around in demanding a sane timetable--one that is a much needed contrast to Af-Pak Special Representative Richard Holbrooke's inane description of success in Afghanistan as, "We'll know it when we see it."
In October, antiwar groups will demonstrate, educate, and lobby to raise awareness about alternatives to the current course in Afghanistan. In the meantime, you can support Senator Feingold's call for a timetable here.
And check out The Nation for our special issue this Fall and TheNation.com for further opportunities for action in the coming months.
- Posted in
24 Comments so far
Show AllI wish more people would ask, publicly, what is this war for? Who are we fighting? Why? What would constitute victory? Is there an exit strategy? Is there a limit to the number of lives and resources that can be put into this project?
Obviously you haven't been paying attention. The answers to your questions are the same as the same questions regarding Iraq. We don't need a reason, but if we did it would have something do with national security, patriotism, values oil, etc etc. We are fighting terrorists, enemies, bad-guys etc etc. Why? See answer to question 1. How do we define victory: when we win of course. Exit strategy? When we win! Limit to number of lives resources etc.....as many as it takes to win! Don't try to complicate things by asking questions and don't try to confuse the issues with facts. We all know as the prophet Colbert often says...facts have a Liberal bias.
odoco
We're broke. Where is the money coming from to fight these wars, and what is the 'opportunity costs' for such foreign intrigues?
Opportunity costs only matter if the government wants to do something for ordinary citizens. There is only one opportunity. The opportunity for war profiteering by multinational corporations.
odoco,
Can't we just squeeze a little more out of the Social Security trust fund?
Thats easy. You borrow it from the banks whom you just gave 23 trillion to. You charge them 0 percent for the bailout funds and they charge you 3.5 to lend it back.
Feingold will get it right when she admits US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were crimes against peace and when she calls for the arrest and trial of the perpetrators and their enablers.
"She"?
Russ Feingold? Are you sure you're not thinking of Sen. Dianne Feinstein?
Feingold's prettier.
· Yr Obd't Servant
I'm with you on that one OS!
Even Feingold is too wishy washy on this. Allowing for "targeted military operations" is the same phrase a lot of conservative democrats used about Iraq to appease their anti-war constituents while actually doing nothing but leaving a loophole big enough to drive a tank through. The only way to restore any shred of credibility in the middle east or anywhere else in the world is to get out, completely. Later, if asked, we can go in as part of a multilateral peacekeeping or rebuilding force.
Junk article; nothing more than sycophantic pundits of the liberal elite spewing milque-toast cut and paste insider blather. Who cares that Russ Feingold has changed his tune slightly, I don't. How about some analyisis of the democratic deficit, institutional corruption and the disconnect between public opinion and policy. You know real serious stuff, in-depth analysis, not just surface gossip.
For example a clear majority of the US population realizes that occupying Afghanistan is not worth it; yet plans for further escalation and expansion into Pakistan continues.
"In contrast, progressives who want to see President Obama succeed..."
Succeed? So far, I have NOT seen or heard much coming from Mr. Obama which was much different from the previous Snake Oil Salesmen who have been destroying this nation through blind force, enabling avarice, and deliberate deceit.
Ms. vanden Heuvel is either a hypocritic 'pragmatist' or a fool if she thinks that Obama has shown much in the way of progressive leadership.
yes, we must separate the individual from the needed changes...we need the changes to succeed, whether due to the individual's efforts, or in spite of them...
the individual's success is only relevant, and even then, only as a sub-success, when the individual's efforts are aligned with, and fostering, the successful implementation of the needed changes...
iraq/af/pak, are the forgotten wars. feingold seems to be the only one even vaguely speaking out. they will ask, and get more troops. if this is not nam, then i do not know what is.
Don't you guys understand-- There are only about 30,000 Talibahn left and we only need about 20,000 more troops to win. Look at the progress we are making compared to 3 months ago when there were only about 20,000 Talibahn left and it would only take only 17,000 more troops to win. We are winning victory after victory on the ground and killing more and more of the enemy from the air with our drones. At this rate we can keep the war going for years and years, perfect our robotic army and get even more defense dollars for our army-- and if that isn't victory--what is.
My father was a socialist. I can still remember him, back in the '50's, sitting in his chair, reading The Nation. If he'd read this drivel ("In contrast, progressives who want to see President Obama succeed see Afghanistan as a threat to his presidency-- especially to his domestic agenda . . . ") he would have puked.
The Nation magazine has long been a solid pillar of the social democratic and anti-imperialist activists and educators in our prgressively more militaristic country.
But like the liberals that most Common Dreams commentators, for good reasons, do not trust, the article posted above is typical of those progressives that are reluctant to confront the structural and cultural pathologies of addictive imperialist national-chauvinism that have dominated the USA at home and around the world.
Sen. Finegold and Editor vanden Heuvel are allowing their wishes for Progressivist success to prevent them from showing what liberals need to hear.
That is that Pres. Obama is solidly and powerfully a major "part of the problem," rather than contributing to a realistic diagnosis and an urgently needed solution.
So far, Obama is naively trapped in and deeply embedded in the total dominance of the mega-incorporation of militaristic profiteering that entraps our national officials, education administrators, mainstream mass media, religious organizations, industries, entertainment cultures, etc.
He is in that respect the opposite of Rev. MLK Jr. who called our imperialistic wars "vicious racism."
King railed against U.S. genocide in many of his major addresses. He was like Rev.Jeremiah Wright, who was very unfairly denegrated by Obama
The future "success" of Obama is the most incapacitating delusional "Belief-System" that progressives suffer from.
The Afghan war, like the Vietnam and Iraq wars is clearly unwinnable to any honest and well informed citizen.
Yet, after eight long futile and genocidal years, the liberals who are afraid of displeasing or offending American militarists have poisoned the national critique of the "War on Terror" by offering new ways to make "nation building"
(Read: Americanisation-Privatisation) become more successful in areas where there may be big resource wars in the near future, in areas where the patriarchal cultures are light years away from western style liberal democratic societies.
The USA is at war in Muslim nations to build huge forward military bases like those in Iraq and coming in Afghanistan.
U.S. bases and airport accesses are in the Balkans,Turkey, Israel,etc. because the operatives and investors in Big Oil and Big Military require an endless supply of invasions, occupations, and combat operations to keep the billions of dollars in profits rolling along for generations to come.
They are "booming" while the rest of our economy is "tanking" as long as the evasive liberals continue to avoid getting honest with the public and openly expose the disabling venal disease of our incorporated democracy.
N.Chomsky, N.Klein, J.Cahill, M.Parenti,Bill Moyers,
R.Nader, D.Ellsberg, and all the other analysts who focus on the pervasive profit-dominated "power-structures" of our nation and its obedient predatory allies should be featured more on Common Dreams and other news-views sites.
The cures for our genocidal national disease(the Midas Complex)will not be found in news and gossip about celebrities, like a Obama, Bush, and Cheney.
When I speak about these "diseases of the heart" to liberal groups here in Florida they accuse me of "undermining Obama!"
For realism without delusional dreams, if you have not already, read Michael Klare's "Blood and Oil.'
Playing the "politics of war."
Senator Feingold is one of our few honest and semi-independent-minded federal leaders.
Yet he seems to be disingenuous in pretending that he does not know what the strategies of our Afghan War could be.
He also seems to be pretending not to know what the goals of the War have been and still are.
This is a very bad sign. The goals of imperialist and profiteering wars are always kept secret from the public by politicians who think of themselves as the least of two evils in power.
Military goals and strategies have rational justifications in every era and every nation.
But, as our top foreign relations expert in Congress, Finegold has an obligation not to pretend that he hasn't a clue what the goals are for those who make them at the highest levels of power.
It seems extremely unlikely that he is as totally unaware as he claims about Central Asia/Middle East strategies like, for example, the by now famous geopolitical strategies of Brzczinski and the big petroleum corporations.
The Senator's unwillingness to mention any of the many goals of our wars in the West Asia Muslim areas is very troubling.
Unlike Ron Reagan Jr. who mentioned today on a mainstream TV network that Al Qaeda has many possible places to train and plot against U.S. policies, Feingold just acted fuzzy and folksy about goals and places.
To his credit he did mention the fact that our wars in these areas are creating more and more "terrorists."
He stressed strongly our responsibilities for our military personnel.
But he avoided talking about why a very decisively large majority of Congress members have not and do not speak and act on these wars as he does.
This is also a bad sign, not good news, not part of the diagnosis and the cure for addictive cultural and structural militarism and imperialism.
Robert MacDonald www.psycho-imperialism.com
At least The Nation here is generally anti-imperialist. Better than the article by Villalobos trashing progressive change in Venezuela, and now Nations Books publishing a book claiming (ready?) that the 2002 coup that overthrew the Venezuelan government was...really repression by President Chávez of a peaceful demonstration that had to defend itself; by overthrowing the constitution. That book should be published by Freedom House.
So, I guess we should be grateful for at least a generally progressive article from The Nation on Afghanistan; if it were Venezuela the U.S. State Dept. could write it for them.
The Nation has shifted substantially to the right of progressivism under the stewardship of Katrina vanden Heuvel. She is self-described as a "liberal" whatever that is, and as part owner of The Nation, has a financial stake in it's fiscal health. So understandably The Nation has abandoned it's radical roots for a more moderate and profitable stance. I suppose if it hadn't sold it's soul, it would have gone bankrupt. Unfortunately, the result was to become soulless.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
Sorry Katrina but Feingold's "prescription" is still larded with our meddling in the internal affairs of Afghanistan and Pakistan. If that is "progressive" I am not a "progressive".
To Robert MacDonald: Obama is NOT "naively trapped" by corporations, etc. YOU are naive to believe this. He and Michelle and the kids are living it up vacationing in Europe and on Martha's Vineyard. He has been in Wall Street's pocket all along. His votes in the Senate confirmed his corporatism. I voted for Ralph Nader but my confidence and trust still remain with Dennis Kucinich. Impeach.
Sue,
Your telling me that Obama was not "naively" trapped by the big corporations and the War Profits Complex is a much more accurate presentation of his career before and during his rise to be the Top Tool of USA Incorporated.
I am so pleased to substitute your fuller evaluation of his place in our corporate mega-state.
In my 78th year, surrounded by conservative True Believers here in the South, it is very stimulating and reassuring to me as a harsh critic and lifelong activist against the policies of the world's biggest militarist-terrorist nation (our own USA), very reassuring to know every day that I can read every day on Common Dreams and the other highly informed critical websites the many sharp refutations of the big dishonest propaganda machines of history's most arrogant and exploitative, heartless and dangerous mega-nation as our USA lords its lethal power over the helpless and innocent peoples in every continent where extractive profiteering ravages their eco-systems, the cultures, and their brave blowback resisters against global conquest by the USA and its smirking and plundering multinational predators.
Robert MacDonald www.psycho-imperialism.com