Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Why Peaceniks Should Care About the Afghanistan Study Group Report
There is a tradition among some peace activists of striking a pose
of annoyed indifference to the question of how to get out of an
unpopular war. "There are three ways to get out," goes one waggish
response. "Air, land, and sea."
This is funny and emotionally satisfying, and also represents a truth for peace activists: ending the war is a first principle, not something contingent on whether a particular means of doing so satisfies someone else's notion of what is practical.
On the other hand, peace activists can't be satisfied with being right; they also are morally compelled to try to be effective. And part of being effective is giving consideration to, and seeking to publicize, arguments are likely to end the war sooner rather than later. It's not likely, for example, that discussing ways in which the war might be useful for the long-term maintenance of the "capitalist world system" will turn the Washington debate against war in the short run. If, on the other hand, central to the official story is a claim that the war is a war against Al Qaeda, but senior U.S. officials publicly concede that there is no significant Al Qaeda presence today in Afghanistan, that is certainly a fact worth knowing and spreading.
This is why it is important for as many people as possible to read and digest the short and accessible report of the "Afghanistan Study Group" which has been publicly unveiled this week. The assumptions and conclusions of the ASG report should be the subject of a thousand debates. But there are a few things about it that one can say without fear of reasonable contradiction. The authors of the report oppose the war and want to end it. The principal authors of the report are Washington insiders with a strong claim to expertise about what sort of arguments are likely to move Washington debate. The authors of the report have a strategy for trying to move Washington debate so that at the next fork in the road, the choice made is to de-escalate the war and move towards its conclusion, rather than to escalate it further. Therefore, the arguments made deserve careful consideration. They may not be particularly useful for making posters for a demonstration. But for lobbying Congressional staff, writing a letter to the editor, or making any other presentation to people who are not already on our side, the arguments of the Afghanistan Study Group are likely to be useful.
Many of the authors and signers of the report are known to peace activists who follow policy debates. Former Marine Corps captain Matthew Hoh, director of the ASG, made waves last October when became the first U.S. official known to resign in protest over the Afghan war. Stephen Walt, with his co-author John Mearsheimer, helped break open mainstream debate about U.S. policy towards Israel and the Palestinians with their book "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy." Juan Cole, author of the blog Informed Comment, is the author of "Engaging the Muslim World." Robert Pape, author of "Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism," has documented how U.S. military escalation in Afghanistan has produced more terrorism. Former CIA official Paul Pillar attacked the central justification of the current military escalation in an op-ed in the Washington Post last September, arguing that there was little reason to believe that a "safe haven" for Al Qaeda in Afghanistan would have any significant bearing on the terrorist threat to the United States. Steve Clemons of the New America Foundation, author of the blog Washington Note, originally convened the ASG.
Of course, these impeccable "establishment dissident" credentials do not put the assumptions or conclusions of the report beyond criticism. But they do make a strong case for consideration of the report.
Furthermore, the Afghanistan Study Group does break new ground politically, in the direction of ending the war.
By far the most important contribution, in my view, is the report's call for expedited and more vigorous efforts to resolve Afghanistan's civil war through political negotiations leading to decentralization of power in Afghanistan and a power-sharing agreement between the government and the insurgency. This call should be a commonplace, but the opposite is currently true: people in Washington, even critics of the war, are afraid to say out loud the most important fact about ending the war: there needs to be a political deal in Afghanistan with the Afghan Taliban insurgency. One of the most important potential accomplishments of an experts' study group is to try to put into play key facts which experts know but politicians are afraid to say. It's the "Murder on the Orient Express" strategy: if there's something important that no-one wants to say, have a bunch of people say it together. If the Afghanistan Study Group makes it easier for people to say out loud, "There needs to be a political deal with the Afghan Taliban," it will have made a major contribution to ending the war.
The second important contribution is to focus attention on the urgent need to engage "regional stakeholders," especially Pakistan, India, and Iran, in a political resolution of the armed conflict. In particular, current U.S. policy has appeared to be predicated on the bizarre belief that the U.S. can cajole Pakistani decision-makers into abandoning what they perceive to be their core national security interests in Afghanistan, rather than on the far more realistic approach of engaging with Pakistan so that its national security concerns are met in an Afghan political settlement. The approach of trying to "wall out" antagonistic regional actors has failed spectacularly in Afghanistan and produced much needless death and human suffering, as it failed before in Iraq and Lebanon. If the Obama Administration would implement the course correction in Afghanistan which the Bush Administration implemented in Iraq and Lebanon after 2006 - accepting that antagonistic regional actors could not be walled out, and that the U.S. is better off trying to manage their influence rather than trying to exclude it - it would be a major step to ending the war.
The third important contribution is the call for the U.S. to reduce and eventually end its military operations in southern Afghanistan. Southern Afghanistan, the historic heartland of the Taliban insurgency, is the focal point of the current U.S. military escalation; the current U.S. military escalation in southern Afghanistan is the main cause of the fact that U.S. troops are dying in record numbers.
The fourth major contribution of the report is to attack the central justification of the war: the claim that it will reduce the threat of terrorism against Americans. The report argues:
First, the decision to escalate the U.S. effort in Afghanistan rests on the mistaken belief that victory there will have a major impact on Al Qaeda's ability to attack the United States. Al Qaeda's presence in Afghanistan today is very small, and even a decisive victory there would do little to undermine its capabilities elsewhere. Victory would not even prevent small Al Qaeda cells from relocating in Afghanistan, just as they have in a wide array of countries (including European countries).Second, a U.S. drawdown would not make Al Qaeda substantially more lethal. In order for events in Afghanistan to enhance Al Qaeda's ability to threaten the U.S. homeland, three separate steps must occur: 1) the Taliban must seize control of a substantial portion of the country, 2) Al Qaeda must relocate there in strength, and 3) it must build facilities in this new "safe haven" that will allow it to plan and train more effectively than it can today.
Each of these three steps is unlikely, however, and the chances of all three together are very remote. [...] Most importantly, no matter what happens in Afghanistan in the future, Al Qaeda will not be able to build large training camps of the sort it employed prior to the 9/11 attacks. Simply put, the U.S. would remain vigilant and could use air power to eliminate any Al Qaeda facility that the group might attempt to establish. Bin Laden and his associates will likely have to remain in hiding for the rest of their lives, which means Al Qaeda will have to rely on clandestine cells instead of large encampments. Covert cells can be located virtually anywhere, which is why the outcome in Afghanistan is not critical to addressing the threat from Al Qaeda.
In short, a complete (and unlikely) victory in Afghanistan and the dismantling of the Taliban would not make Al Qaeda disappear; indeed, it would probably have no appreciable effect on Al Qaeda. At the same time, dramatically scaling back U.S. military engagement will not significantly increase the threat from Al Qaeda.
From the point of view of official Washington, this speaks to the core of the argument against the war. Continuing the war is not promoting the national security interests of the United States, and in fact is counterproductive to those interests.
This is also the part of the argument that is most likely to stick in the craw of many peace activists, in part because they have a well-grounded allergy to efforts to promote the purported "national security interests of the United States," and in part because the report, if implemented, still envisions a potential role for U.S. military force in the region.
However, a bit of realism about prospects in the near-term future is in order. If you look around the world, the U.S. is currently deploying military force in a lot of places. In the places where the U.S. is deploying military force without the presence of a significant number of U.S. ground troops, this activity goes on without occasioning significant public debate in the U.S. There is essentially zero public debate over what the U.S. is doing in the Philippines, almost zero about what the U.S. is doing in Somalia, very little about what the U.S. is doing in Yemen, not very much about what the U.S. is doing in Pakistan. Following the blip occasioned by President Obama's announcement of the so-called "end of combat mission" in Iraq, it is likely that public debate about what the U.S. is doing in Iraq will fall back towards Pakistan levels.
That these things are true, of course, does not make them just. However, as I wrote at the outset, it is not enough to be right; one has the moral obligation to also try to be effective. And part of being effective is understanding where the adversary is vulnerable, and where the adversary is not, at present, very vulnerable. The permanent war apparatus is currently politically vulnerable over the war in Afghanistan primarily because U.S. troops are currently dying there in significant numbers for no apparent reason, so it makes sense for this to be a central point of attack.
The choices before Washington in Afghanistan, in the short run, are not "counterterrorism" or "counterinsurgency." Washington is already pursuing counterterrorism in Afghanistan, as it is in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, and almost certainly it will continue to do so in some way in the near future, under any conceivable U.S. policy likely to be implemented. The choices before Washington in Afghanistan in the short run are "counterterrorism" and "counterinsurgency" or "counterterrorism" alone. "Counterterrorism" in Afghanistan and elsewhere is killing innocent people, and that must be opposed. But "counterinsurgency" in Afghanistan is killing far more people, and it is much more politically vulnerable.
The fact that you cannot, at present, see your way clear to quitting drinking, is not a good reason not to quit smoking. The recommendations of the Afghanistan Study Group, if implemented, will significantly reduce the harm currently caused by U.S. policy in Afghanistan, both to Americans and to Afghans. That is why its conclusions should be urgently pressed on Members of Congress and officials of the Obama Administration, and should be pushed into the mainstream media and public debate.
- Posted in
57 Comments so far
Show AllI would like to make a correction in what Robert Naiman has written. He has said that "US troops are currently dying there [i.e. in Afghanistan] in significant numbers for no apparent reason..." US soldiers are dying in Afghanistan for one basic reason and that is because the freedom fighters in that country are defending their homeland from the United States military. As the peace activists note early in Mr. Naiman's article, if the soldiers were to finally leave that country, either by land, sea or air, then they would no longer be in danger of being killed and blown up.
US-out of Afghanistan-Now!
Aren't the Troops dying for the completion and security stabilization of the Ring Road by next summer, with add-on infrastructure to follow under a security arrangement similar to Iraq? I mean the US hasn't been giving billions in aid to Israel and it's development of the Gaza Model for nothing has it? Halliburton and Bin Laden Construction must both be doing good business...a bumpy road here and there, but pretty much according to plan(?).
I think the Al Qeada angle is a valid talking point, but with the main consideration that Obama is using the word in a similar way that George W. Bush used Weapons of Mass Destruction; any other usage might invite a Surge To Pakistan response again similar to Iraq(if something's not broke, why fix it) this time in it an "exit" and "completion of combat" strategy from Afghanistan....hmm now that I look at it...it appears that the Domino Theory is finally coming to fruition.
you've said all that there is to be said.
about what for peaceniks to do: start / join alternative community (ways of life), as the dominant one is not designed to change in the way that the peaceniks are asking it to, no matter what.
When I wrote
"US troops are currently dying there [i.e. in Afghanistan] in significant numbers for no apparent reason..."
of course what I meant was,
"for no apparent reason that would make sense from the point of view of the interests of the majority of Americans."
-RN
Mr. Naiman, First I would like to thank you for entering the forum. Second, I mean you no disrespect but I think my question is worthy of contemplation.
It seems that some of the journalists literally or psychologically embedded in the war zone confuse the official narrative with the genuine cause behind the soldiers' deployment there.
I would assume that as a leading intellectual, you'd be familiar with the work of John Perkins and/or Smedley Butler. What these men exposed about the MIC and its make-war mandate remains true to this day.
In other words, to "sell" the "product" of war to the American people, ideas like:
1. Liberating Afhan women from the Taliban's obscene clutches
2. Spreading peace and democracy
3. Stabilizing the region
4. Pursuing Bin Laden/Al Qaeda
5. Protecting America
6. Fighting them "over there" so we won't have to fight them over here
Are promoted. And your analysis seems to follow along these lines.
Many of us in The Commondream forum recognize other far more compelling factors at work. Such things as:
1. The geopolitical advantages the occupation of that strategic region entails
2. Access to mineral wealth, and an evolving gas pipeline
3. Pre-empting Russia or China's control of this region
4. All-out naked imperial acquisition serving as perennial quest of Empire
5. A pretext for continuing to invest in the MIC long after the Cold war froze over
6. That U.S. presidents seem to need to hang their name on some war; and so the homeland security state remains ever in pursuit of the next potentially viable enemy
7. Easy access to drug money for covert, nefarious causes (i.e. the opium crop)
Howard Zinn did a splendid job of deconstructing American history away from the sanitized narrative school children are taught.
Sometimes I wonder if writers like yourself are so close to the smoke, they don't understand the basis for the fire?
I grow impatient with analysts whose entire scope of reasoning focuses on the pretexts for war (i.e. the "offical story"), as opposed to the genuine causative factors.
I mean you no disrespect. With so many years wasted, along with lives and resources, I grow tired of the endless redundant excuses for war. Our nation's economy is dying, its people grow restless and angry. Taking into account the spiritual factor, an enormous karmic debt has been created. And still, the generals line up and attempt to recycle the same strategic failures that made Vietnam the scar on history (and our nation's psyche) that it remains.
It's not that peace activists aren't getting behind a viable message... it's that the whole dual-fronted war (against terrorism!) is a fraud. It began on false pretexts and continues as thus. NOTHING good will come out of it. And history speaks presciently of this inevitable outcome.
Intellectual arguments indirectly grant cover, for they presume a logic where there is none. It is madness, waste, and bloodlust let loose like the monster it is... the one Eisenhower warned against.
Peace activists understand this. Too many pundits seem content to virtually move chess pieces on the board, endlessly arguing effective strategy. The time for that deceit is over.
Actually, I addressed this concern in my piece, although not in detail.
Addressing the pretexts for war is a key feature of arguing against it inside the political system.
You may be right that "understanding" the war, in some abstract sense, requires a focus elsewhere.
But it's not at all obvious that such "understanding" is very relevant to ending it.
My interest is in ending the war, not in "understanding" it in an abstract sense. To end the war requires attacking its pretexts.
For developing an argument and ensuing actions to end the oil war I'd just stick to the fact that Naiman is making his best attempt at developing the argument; including engaging in the commentary here.
Also, as you show, the pretexts that the administrations keep presenting are lies, and the fact that they keep changing can help to eventually shed light on the true pretext; presented very well by Glen Ford in the commentary here(for me that form of concise historical litany is the way to go for The Argument).
Your quote "to bring freedom and democracy". What Presidents ObambyaBush have done is to take freedom away from the American people to "bring freedom and democracy to the M.E.". Since their is a finite supply of "freedom and democracy" in the universe, and Americans are using too much "freedom and democracy" so it is reduced so that the USG can export the excess "freedoms and democracy" to the M.E. This is based on the prevailing philosophy of the Fascist Federalist Predatory Capitalist WELFARE KINGS that everything is win a win-lose proposition and for the M.E. to win "freedom and democracy" the USA has to lose its "freedom and democracy".The cost of exporting the excess "freedom and democracy" is expensive and the way it works best is to bomb the recipients of of "freedom and democracy" into ruble and this is best achieved by murdering women and children and then abusing the survivors into "freedom and democracy". This makes more sense than the explanations of the USG and their warmongering propaganda activists, which relies on mindlessness explanation for the American public of mindlessness, which is legitimized by the government, businesses, pretend christian churches and taught to children with "no child left behind".
"there's finite amount of freedom and democracy to go around"?
"excess democracy"?
are these your ideas, or?
I dreamed it up, no dope either.
I haven't "essentially stated" that discussion of the "real reasons" should be "off the table." Everyone is free to discuss what they want.
Yes, when some pretexts are knocked down, other pretexts are created. So? Then one goes after the new pretexts. Your example of Iraq is not a counter-example to my argument. Tearing down the WMD pretext had a significant impact. Even Secretary of Defense Gates conceded, visiting Iraq on the occasion of the so-called "end of the combat mission," that the fact that the WMD pretext turned out to be false would forever mark the Iraq invasion.
It's not a legitimate argument to say: X activity is useless, because the war happened anyway. According to this logic, every single human activity undertaken against the Iraq war - demonstrations, lobbying, civil disobedience, public presentations, GI resistance, writing, reading - was useless, because the war happened anyway.
RichM
Bravissimo! Your comments and analysis clearly illustrate the worth of people like yourself who, while perhaps not having the bona fides of someone such as Robert Naiman, certainly demonstrate that those who participate in forums such as Common Dreams can think just as cogently and incisively, if not more so, than Mr. Naiman.
Washington Warmongers is certainly an apt way to describe the foreign policies of our government. One also has to wonder why Common Dreams has elected to print the views of a Robert Naiman which, while sincere and interesting on the surface, do not delve as deeply as the thoughts and ideas of a Chris Floyd whose searing analysis of the US war machine that he puts forth from his blog Empire Burlesque has proven to be so invaluable and which has been so clearly lacking by so many progressive web sites.
RICH M: Thank you for your posts. I wondered if I had perhaps misread Mr. Naiman, but I had such a gut response to the nature of his analysis. Later I realized it pretty much came down to what George Lakoff relates to as per the use of frame(s).
It was refreshing to return to the CD forum and notice that you'd essentially spoke in terms of this "framing" thing with right-on, incisive analysis.
Thank you.
And if Mr. Naiman should return to this thread, I wish to thank him for his comments. I'm not sure he realizes the degree to which he appears lost inside his own paradigm. One can lose direction in a world of smoke and mirrors where they're forced constantly to analyze each new trail laid through a maze of intended illusions. One can forget those intended illusions when a focus on the trails becomes the key basis for observation... sort of like losing the forest for the trees.
It's gratifying that someone else notices what I do.
Bogus.
Your attempt to encapsulate the comment that was made in SPECIFIC REFERENCE to your own text content into a generalization that "...X activity...bla bla bla...therefore all activity is useless..bla bla" is a flimsy smoke screen at best;
ALL activity against the corporate criminals that temporarily rule the planet for the benefit of their own ridiculously flawed reasoning concerning their own goals of global hegemony (there won't BE a world to be controlled if their psychopathic wishes were to come true)is not only beneficial, it is highly necessary and it is every global citizens human duty to engage in any/all means of resistance as the local situation enables at any specific moment.
The point made, as you very well know, was that meaningful dialogue with known pathological liars is in and of itself useless, for liars will simply create a new or altered version of the original lie in order to maintain their position which is based on false pretenses and pretex from the outset.
Be that as it may, and while I wholly concur with the comments made against your content as such, it pays us all to remember that a sword is a two edged blade... it is easy enough to engage the enemy of human brotherhood in ... staged dialogue ... precisely in order that we can manipulate them into positions more easily assailed at will...
It is easy enough to see to it that the enemy of human brotherhood BELIEVES that they are succeeding in the presentation of their pre-arranged ... pretexts ... precisely in order that they can be trapped like the rats they truly are.
If you TRULY want to defeat our enemy, you must learn to understand that enemy; to comprehend it´s way of thinking and to learn how to manipulate that. I speak of course in general terms and to all readers and not to you personally in this case.
I do now speak directly to you personally however, concerning your ... staged comment .... that "tearing down the WMD pretext had a significant impact", which you obviously know as well as I or any other is a flat lie, for the facts speak the truth more plainly than any spin you care to attempt;
All the presentations by international and meritorious experts presented PRIOR to the criminal invasion of a sovereign state had not one single jot of "impact" whatsoever. Not even to the members of that con game that may perhaps have been our Congress at some time in the distant past, for they all gladly and without even ... reading ... signed off on a deliberate spree of mass murder against innocent humans in the interests of those who paid for their seats and own their ... asses. You know this to be true, for again, the facts speak the truth more eloquently than any Texan criminal for hire you care to name.
You need to try harder, or perhaps reconsider your position, for your own sake if nothing else.
I do not believe there was a Civil War occurring when the USA invaded in 2001.
The Taliaban had pacified 90% of Afghanistan with only two about to pockets of resistence in the North.
The Taliban had eradicated, at the USA's and UN's, request 90% of the poppy crop.
Both the USA and Argentine were confident enough of the Taliban control of the nation that they were willing to invest in a pipeline crossing Afghanistan from the Northwest to the Southeast.
The Taliban had visited Houston with Bush for pipeline talks and were officially recognized by a couple of nations as the rulers of Afghanistan.
The USA rearmed and re-energized the Northern Alliance in the USA's 2001 attack.
What is happening now is that the USA is attempting to control a Pashtun faction, Karzai allied with a Afghan National Army comprised mostly of Uzbek and Tajic officiers.
These USA backed forces are battling the whole Pashtun Nation, both in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
A NATO spokesperson recently said the Haqani Network is the greatest strategic threat to NATO and Haqani is not even Talib!
So basically the Taliban had pacificied Afghanistan well enough for UNOCAL and Argentina to be willing to sign pipeline contracts before the 2001 USA invasion of a Taliban stabilized Afghanistan.
And now the War is between a USA propped government/military and most of the rest of the nation i.e. Pashtuns.
What you say rings true,a good reply.I can accept it only because it is a convincing argument to the US policy makers to end the war and leave Afghanistan.Many of its internal propositions may not be true though.But you should sell it to the US generals for whom it is designed, not to the peace camp.
I think that Mr Naiman support of the 'Afghanistan study report' is a good thing.
But basically it is a cloak for the real elite Bosses to back track with.
Ie.- provide cover and new Talking Points for a new stage in the Imperial design run by the 'Power Elite'.
Meaning to consolidate their losses and embellish their gains.
The real reasons for the War and the future Wars will not be talked about; at least by the main stream media.
And as for Ms Sioux Roses excellent breakdown of the real reasons/lies for the Afghanistan war-
" 1. The geopolitical advantages the occupation of that strategic region entails
2. Access to mineral wealth, and an evolving gas pipeline
3. Pre-empting Russia or China's control of this region
4. All-out naked imperial acquisition serving as perennial quest of Empire
5. A pretext for continuing to invest in the MIC long after the Cold war froze over
6. That U.S. presidents seem to need to hang their name on some war; and so the homeland security state remains ever in pursuit of the next potentially viable enemy
7. Easy access to drug money for covert, nefarious causes (i.e. the opium crop)"
I would add again my belief, that yes the MIC Power elites desire to Profit from a Oil/gas pipeline,
Mineral wealth exploration and Drug sales are part of the equation. The primary underlying reason is the psychopathic obsession of these demented reptiles to -
KEEP them Factories Pumping Out Killing Equipment. THIS MAD PROFIT MANGERING IS KILLING THE PLANET and has already pretty much destroyed Amerika.
Again How do Peaceniks circumvent the BIG BOSSES before they drive the Earth spaceship into the black hole.
Answer- get some new Drivers! Easier said than done:
well said.
we the peaceniks will have to be the drivers of the vehicle, which we build and is alternative to the current vehicle.
the kind of change that the peaceniks envision will not come from within the system that needs to go.
curiousteve,
Would you agree with the statement that:
"..he who would have peace should prepare for war?"
In direct consideration of the facts of our current situation? For truly, the criminals temporarily in control will not relinquish their positions willingly
and the voice of reason will not be given "equal air time" by the mouthpieces of the enemy...it is entirely irrelevant whether a "D" or a "R" is in political control of the administration, for it is itself merely a tool at the enemy´s disposal as witnessed by the known facts.
Congress frequently brings witnesses in to congress to tell their positions on different topics. I was deeply disappointed when the congress did not call peace activist to testify before the first gulf war. They were right to be against the wars especially the Iraq war.They would have been able to prove that Bush and Cheney were lying. about the need to go to war in the Middle East.
If only congress and the Obama Administration would listen to the study group and the peace activist now to help get us out of these unjust wars.
Pretzels anyone? Pass the salt.
"Bin Laden and his associates will likely have to remain in hiding for the rest of their lives, which means Al Qaeda will have to rely on clandestine cells instead of large encampments. Covert cells can be located virtually anywhere, which is why the outcome in Afghanistan is not critical to addressing the threat from Al Qaeda."
We should all bow down while facing New York, and repeat slowly "Oh Wha. ta Goo Siam" three times and ask for absolution!
Good article except for the fact that the author assumes rational thought or the public interest is a key factor in the decision to continue the war in Afghanistan. Statements like 'nation building' or the 'War on Terror' are nothing more than manufactured catch phrases used to mask the establishments true intentions. Too many politicians have their corporate sponsors demanding that this war can never end. The same political contributors also direct the talking points and parameters of any debate in the mainstream media. In other words what is in the interest of the rich and powerful MIC contractors, Big Oil and other vested interests will undoubtedly trump what is in the best interests of most Americans (re: the public interest).
In predictable fashion now, both Democrats and Republicans will endorse the study's findings in public while ensuring their corporate puppet masters that it will 'be business as usual' in private. The public will naturally be confused and continue switching from one party to the next oblivious to why nothing is changing on the Hill. Meanwhile the real proponents of peace like Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich will continue to garner 2 or 3% of the vote while being intentionally ignored, ridiculed or marginalized by the mainstream media.
I've been criticized often of being far too negative, but so far there hasn't been any sign that things could actually improve.
Mr. Naiman makes some good observations however needs to ask the more fundamental questions: who is benefitting from the occupation and what are their interests? Where is the money going? Who is "al Quaeda" really?
I don't think that re-hashing what is clearly the official nonsense is helpful to an even somewhat informed audience. Let's raise the level of analysis just a smidge.
For a more comprehensive view and analysis, in my opinion, see:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20958
SOCIALIST & SPACE CADET: Excellent posts.
I've seen other writers change their positions after participating in the CD forum. Maybe Mr. Naiman will take our insights to heart.
Enlightenment Happens!
You asked the best questions and comments, Siouxrose.
I feel that most peaceniks knew the outcomes reported in this study group way before the study and more. Between 9/11 and the first invasion a few months later, most knew that an invasion was what the hijackers wanted and it would make everything worse and the MIC richer.
This wasn't a bad study but it lacks so many of the real causes of the war as you and others here have pointed out.
Thank you, Jim, & Peter Peacenik. Nice to get favorable feedback.
Correct me.Please. The USA financed a small group called Taliban in early 1990's to fight the Soviets. Taliban take over the country 1996 and are hitlerite especially against women.Americans bomb Afganistan 2001 in retaliation for 9/11. My nurse manager is afghan surgeon. 25,000 afghans killed first day of bombings.Total war bombings of weddings,markets,over 200,000 killed most innocentsAbout 4000 Nato soldiers killed .I was living in Bible Belt in 2001. During our church choir practice our elderly director a STRONG Christian played a little ditty .Well bomb them to mud.On this committee that proposes to deal with Taliban there are NO Women.When that happens and country reverts to Taliban, how will you sleep gentlemen?Will your conscience leave you any peace.Are you comfortable that the little people of the world are there to be killed en masse. Peace with you.Is that the Pax Americana. Is it really christian?
"is it really christian".Good question and judging by christian conduct this seem to be the real face of American christianity and perhaps it is pretend christianity the precursor of the Anti Christ, pretending to be christ, not against Christ. Then what is the Beast. The Beast is the One World System, Globalization for the Fascist Federalist PREDATORY CAPITALIST WELFARE KINGS. This is a better explanation than most without the trumped up ego's of the pretend christian pastors with phony doctrines and congregations of fools whom their preachers abuse and call foul names and then beg for donations and their fools give them donations, not to mention all the emergencies, building fund donations in addition to the weekly plus Wednesday night donations. Also, you can contact me should you want to make a donation.
Invading and occupying armies have 3 resposibilities.
1) stop invading and occupying. (most important)
2) pay damages and reparations for every single thing broken or killed.
3) put the people responsible for the invasion and occupation in prison.
That's IT ! end of story. Nothing else is moral and nothing else is OK.
This article is just another version of how the colonial invaders need to "fix" the little brown peoples country.
it's not too complicated to understand, is it.
willful denial on the part of the population makes them accomplices in the crimes.
they won't admit it or change their ways until they absolutely have to.
Care, absolutly! Can do anything? not so much. I write my senators and congresscritters. They don't even reply anymore, The headings NO WAR and STOP THIS MADNESS goto the recycle bin straightaway :(
They know I wouldn't vote for them at gunpoint! Whats left to say to do?
>^^<
I take issue with Mr. Naiman's use of the dismissive-pejorative term "Peacenik" for those of us he considers "not-serious," as Glenn Greenwald would say. Rather, I insist that he just come right out and call us "dirty fucking hippies" -- and then proceed to lecture us on how to engage with others in "effective" discussion.
Additionally, if one looks at a map of Afghanistan, one can easily see that it doesn't have an ocean coastline, nor does it have any easily accessible land routes into and out of the country. This explains why we have to pay our "enemies" to let our supplies into the country. Really "effective" geopolitical thinking there by our self-styled "foreign policy elite." Afghanistan does, however, have a huge airbase at Bagram from which American and NATO military personnel can fly out of the country in no time at all -- without having to pay any bribes to the local resistance in order to do so. Therefore, we dirty fucking hippies would not posit three possibilities for leaving Afghanistan, but only the most obvious and practical one: "by air." I don't think that Mr. Naiman has ever actually met any of us dirty fucking hippies, though, so what he thinks we think has little, if any, connection with reality.
Furthermore, our insistence on getting the hell out of Iraq and Afghanistan -- yesterday -- has nothing to do with the "popularity" or "unpopularity" of these two criminal enterprises, but with their manifest and indefensible illegality. Neither of these countries ever attacked America and thus under the UN Charter -- which, as ratified by the United States Senate constitutes the law of the land -- our unprovoked aggression constitutes a war crime under international -- and American -- law. Culpable American officials perpetrated these crimes with knowledge and malice aforethought and so the only "effective" conversation one needs to have with them goes by the jurisprudential term "sentencing." This doesn't require any more talking from the lying perps. They only have to listen.
Moving right along, I completely reject the absurd notion that America should adopt a policy of only killing a smaller number of hapless foreigners (Plan B) as opposed to killing a larger number of them (Plan A). America doesn't have any business killing ANY of them. America invaded and occupied Afghanistan and Iraq entirely as a matter of choice and so America can get out of those two countries the same way. We don't need anyone's permission. America -- or rather its berserk Executive Branch -- left Vietnam because Congress cut off the money for any further misadventuring. Congress can do the same with the Bush/Obama Executive Branch misadenturism. The House of Representatives doesn't need the permission of the Executive Branch or the concurrence of the Senate to simply refuse to originate any bills funding further executive branch misadventuring. Two American presidents sent American troops into harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan. They did this on their own authority and at their own political peril. Getting the troops home safely rests with them, not with the American people whose tacit acquiescence these presidents have extorted through false and cynical deception. As the jaded bar girls on Saigon's Tu Do Street used to jeer at the broke and hard-up G.I.s: "No money, no honey!" You want an "effective" way out of our two endless debacles? There you have it. Cut off the money -- which America doesn't even have anyway. And none of this need have anything to do with America's so-called and self-styled "foreign policy elite." They don't even understand the simplest truth about our present situation, namely:
"We lost the day we started and we win the day we stop."
So just stop. I did that, by the way, when I first decided not to smoke "now" and not to drink "now" several decades ago. I never "quit" either bad habit. I just don't do either of them "now." Anyone can NOT do something "now." Even a country like today's America -- as ineptly and disastrously misgoverned as at any time in its history -- can follow such a sound and sane prescription.
Thus says this dirty fucking hippie and veteran Vietnamizer of the Vietnamese four decades ago. I know what stopping the stupid looks like -- and its salutary consequences -- and since we will leave Afghanistan anyway, one way or another, it only makes sense to cut out America's contribution to the needless death and destruction right now. Because we can. If we want to do the right and reasonable thing.
Michael Murry
Most intelligently and persuasively well stated. As another Vietnam veteran I also believe that what is happening in Afghanistan is Vietnam all over again. If the politicians and those who populate the corporate media in this country had an ounce of honesty in their bodies and minds they would be shouting to the American people:
Plus jamais ca!
If the major media decided to show the dead and mangled corpses of those who have been on the receiving end of America's 500 lb. bombs, then that very relevant phrase would have meaning,
Ditto Murray and Eroll. I , too am a Vietnam Vet and I have always reasoned the way you do - Foreign Policy Elites, My Ass! International Criminals by their OWN Laws no less. Simply - you listening contemptable, cowardly Congress critters - just cut off the f@#king $Money$ !!! Do it NOW !
at the risk of stating the obvious, here's what i think should be the starting point.
meaningful change can't come from within, through millions of tiny baby-step reforms, even if the intention is sincere.
meaningful change happens when the majority of the people understand and then abandon the assumptions of the current dominant system for an alternative set of assumptions as to how they want to relate to each other as a society.
current wars are only symptoms of the way of life that we have.
Until the grunts on the ground realize THEY are the problem nothing will change. We all know that our alleged leaders are insane and greedy. The marines, soldiers and pilots know it too. Why do they continue to take orders? The oath they took to defend the Constitution is not an impediment as their very actions violate that Constitution.
You know what I'm talking about, that very same Constitution that the last Administration and now this Administration use when the they are finished on the toilet.
Real history tells us that the war Viet Nam became un-winnable for us BECAUSE the citizen soldier became disenchanted right along with the American public. So as long as there is this misplaced sense of loyalty and duty inculcated into our armed forces to blindly follow "orders" we are doomed.
I had always believed Just Foreign Policy to be one of the better progressive organizations. But after seeing that NORAD, which failed this country on 09/11/01, is funding them, I have to have second thoughts about how progressive this organization actually is.
everyone is hedging their bets these days, more so than ever.
also there's a great confusion of names, categories, and concepts, probably intentionally produced by the elites on wall street and DC.
though the funding source is an important indicator of the nature / scope of the analysis, the analysis itself should be look into on its own merit. and it seems well within the mainstream democratic party politics.
I think the White House will agree with this study and say "We are trying but it takes more time".
I don't see the peaceniks that I know and love getting behind this study. The study should tell the White House to get behind the peaceniks because we are against the next war too just like the one we are stuck in now.
That would be effective.
Thank you for finally getting around to laying it on the table. I have seldom seen the ludicrous proposed so lucidly:
"Washington and the corporate media will need some way to rationalize their way out of" [name your favorite domestic or foreign policy debacle].
You do know what the word "rationalize" means, don't you? If not, try the standard dictionary definition of the term which applies in the present context, i.e.:
"to attribute (one's actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives; broadly : to create an excuse or more attractive explanation for [whatever]; to provide plausible but untrue reasons for conduct."
Mr. Naiman, you claim, only wishes to help our mendacious miscreants *rationalize* [meaning, escape accountability for] their culpable crimes against both American and International Law, crimes that have caused widespread death and destruction, a generation of traumatized widows and orphans, along with refugee homelessness for millions -- as well as the squandering of enormous national resources to no purpose but the vainglorious enrichment of the very corrupt cretins who perpetrated these crimes. Not to put too fine a point on it, but should Mr. Naiman succeed in "helping" Washington and the Corporate Media successfully escape accountability by inducing another face-saving episode of national narcolepsy -- i.e., "forgetting" -- then, as a natural consequence of refusing to learn, the United States will forthwith embark upon yet another disastrous Crusade before we can even terminate the present ones. So much for Barack Obama's announced desire to "change the mindset that caused these wars in the first place." How do President Obama's cheap slogans, "turning the page" and "looking forward, not backward," contribute to that laudable and necessary goal? Answer: They don't.
This dirty-fucking-hippie-Vietnam-Veteran-pinko-Peacenik citizen wishes Mr. Naiman no success in this efforts to help war-agitating American officials "save face." I don't care about their faces, other than wishing to see them peeking out from between the bars of a cell in the Hague. Personally, I want to see Watergate-style investigations, impeachments, law-suits, trials, convictions, and prison sentences -- meaning, Justice -- for all those in America's government who've got real punishment coming to them for what they have done. Either American Law applies to all Americans, and not just the voiceless poor, or America has no Law.
And to anticipate your usual "what have you done?" rejoinder, I'll just note that I voted in the Democratic Party primary in my home state so as to see that the candidate who wanted to "change the mindset that got us into this war" won the nomination for President instead of You-Know-Her and others who stupidly voted to support Deputy Dubya Bush's juvenile stud-hamster vendetta against the toothless Saddam Hussein. I also voted for the "Democrat" Barack Obama in preference to the "hundred years in Iraq" geezer, John McCain. What did I get in return for these votes? I got another stupid escalation of another stupid war brought to me by a "Democratic" administration full of the same right-wing stooges -- including You-Know-Her and Joe "Bite Me" Biden -- who did so much to help make Deputy Dubya's debacles the shame of our country and yet another stain on its history. So, I did what little my country allowed me to do as a participant in its "democracy."
But you may also ask: Have I written, or helped to get written, any sort of book, like Mr. Naiman has? Well, no -- at least not yet. But I've gotten to work on it over the past six years and someday hope to publish my collected polemical poetry which -- in the present instance -- would include this rejoinder to America's "foreign policy elites" and their current malevolent machinations in the Middle East:
"Thanks for Nothing"
Benevolent invader of my land
How can I thank you for the helping hand?
Why, had you not come here with awe and shock,
Reducing my poor home to piles of rock,
I might have raised my children safe and sound,
But, thanks to you, I’ve laid them in the ground.
A wife I had, once too, but now no more.
She died one day while driving to the store.
Some nervous mercenaries that you hired
Screamed something at her once, then aimed and fired.
The bullet-riddled windshield told the tale:
That “freed” of life, our women need no veil.
Your generals have come so many times,
Yet never have to answer for their crimes.
Instead, promotion weighs them down with stars
But never, like enlisted men, the scars
Resulting from the bungling and sheer waste
Of thinking last but shooting first in haste.
On nine-eleven, two-thousand-and-one
You got a taste of what you’ve often done
To countries that had never caused you harm
Yet still, too late, you sounded the alarm
And whipped yourself into a lather thick
So you could hurt yourself with your own stick.
Three thousand on that fateful day you lost.
Five thousand more you’ve added to the cost
Since then, which only proves that there or here
You act the same: in folly, rage, and fear.
In time, you’ll go back home to where you’re from,
To fight among yourselves, the deaf and dumb.
Too bad for all the carnage that you’ve caused
Who never thought or for a minute paused
Before afflicting us with your disease:
A plague of bankrupt bullies, fascist fleas,
Who, both hands outward stretched to beg a loan,
Continue “helping” us to shrink and groan.
You talk to pat yourselves upon the back.
Your actions only scream of what you lack:
The insight and intelligence to see
How much you’ve harmed yourself as well as me.
But just the same I’ll thank you to go home
Before you earn the fate that toppled Rome.
Michael Murry, "The Misfortune Teller," Copyright 2009
how all his efforts for peace have achieved practically nothing so far, if not negative results,
is the only proof needed to conclude that his analysis or intention or both are suspect.
shame on us if we do the same thing today that we did yesterday, expecting a different outcome.
When I read or hear the tomes about how complex an issue is, and difficult it is or will be to alter the behaviors needed to affect change, my eyes glaze over.
The Commander-in-Chief can halt all hostile actions on all fronts with a single command. The Dems in Congress can halt all funds to support the wars. The simple truth is not enough people in positions of authority want the wars to end. See how simple that is? Issues are only complex when no one wants to change things.
Occum's razor wins again!
peace will come when justice is done.
justice will be done when wall street and its fascism is defeated.
When specific entities start disappearing without a trace and no demands are forthcoming other specific entities will be more likely to accept constructive change.
There are situations that arise that make it more appropriate to penetrate to the core rather than stalk around the periphery.
A message sent that cannot be misconstrued, for the tiger you cannot see is far more frightening than the pack of baboons howling in the distance...
Peace will come when justice is served...how true.