EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- 'Beyond Orwellian': Outrage Follows Revelations of Vast Domestic Spying Program
- The Bill of Rights Exists: An Open Letter to Dianne Feinstein
- The World Economy Is a Ticking Time Bomb (and The Fuse is Burning)
- Major Loss to Organic Farmers as Court Rules in Favor of Monsanto
- Naomi Klein: 'Anti-Shock Doctrines' Show the Way to Resist
Popular content
Today's Top News
Midterm Election Results a Setback for Peace
The November election was a setback for the peace movement, not only because of the defeat of Sen. Russ Feingold but for deeper reasons.
Both parties collaborated in keeping Afghanistan out of the national election debate and media coverage - while during the period June-November alone, 274 American soldiers were killed and 2,934 were wounded on the battlefield.
(The official American toll under Obama in Afghanistan has become at least 730 deaths and 6,400 wounded; the taxpayer costs under Obama currently are $113 billion per year.)
Democratic candidates this year chose not to use Afghanistan-Iraq as an issue perhaps because they have become Obama's wars. According to the New York Times, the US even plans to orchestrate an invitation to remain in Iraq after the current 2011 deadline, but desperately wanted to keep the controversy out of the election debates.
With Republican control of the House, antiwar Democrats will have little room to hold hearings or maneuver against the wars. There were 162 House members, nearly all Democrats, who voted against funding the war or in favor of an exit strategy earlier this year, one-fourth of the House. In the Senate, Feingold authored similar legislation that obtained 18 votes, a number not likely to increase either.
The notion among some that ultra-right fiscally conservative Republicans will vote with the peace Democrats is largely a fantasy. Republicans like Karl Rove did not want to advertise their support for Obama's troop escalation this fall while they prepare to blast him for drawing down short of "victory" next July. For example, Sen. John McCain, who is planning a trip to Afghanistan, told Reuters that "this date for withdrawal that the president announced without any military advice or counsel has caused us enormous problems in our operations in Afghanistan, because our enemies are encouraged and our friends are confused over there."
McCain's comment was a huge lie, an indicator of the campaign rhetoric to come. As McCain well knows, Obama has not given a "date for withdrawal," only a date to "begin" a phase-out. Obama had months of military advice and counsel, as reported in Bob Woodward's most recent book. In fact, according to Woodward and Jonathan Alter, Obama had Petraeus's word that they would have no complaints about the July 2011 deadline. In August, however, Petraeus declared that "the president didn't send me over here to seek a graceful exit."
Obama's pledge to begin a July withdrawal may draw little or no peace movement support unless he includes a timeline and substantial numbers, and shows progress in diplomacy and talks with the Taliban. The president's situation is similar to his problems with health care when he appeared to over-promise and under-deliver, leaving his base dispirited once again. (It should be noted that Obama took the strongest exit strategy position among his internal advisers, according to Woodward, with Hillary Clinton immediately supporting whatever troop escalation Petraeus wanted.)
The next test for Obama will be whether his December review of Afghanistan policy results in only another ratification of Afghanistan status quo. Then comes another budget battle, with antiwar forces in Congress at a greater tactical disadvantage than last year. By then Obama's actual Afghan drawdown numbers will be publicly known, with Republicans, the military and most of the media opposed or skeptical.
The 2012 national election predictably will be fought over Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and the Long War favored by the Republicans and the generals, with Obama positioned as favoring gradual troop drawdowns in order to invest in his domestic agenda.
The wars will continue in any event, with increasing risks of terrorist attacks on the US, bloody quagmires on the battlefields, and the US propping up unpopular regimes in Kabul, Baghdad, Islamabad and Yemen. The wars are unwinnable and unaffordable, but no one in power dares say it.
The peace bloc - activist groups, anti-war Congress members, writers and artists, here and across the NATO - can exercise a massive drag against the war-making machine through 2012 as long as the wars remain deeply unpopular. But in the absence of political statesmanship, Petraeus need not worry, because the final stage will be anything but "graceful."
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
35 Comments so far
Show AllYou only count US deaths why?
Because Hayden represents what Chris Hedges calls "the liberal class" (refer to:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_phantom_left_20101031/ - or as Chris so eloquently notes, the "liberal class justif[ies] its complacency and lethargy. It diverts attention from corporate power. It perpetuates the myth of a democratic system that is influenced by the votes of citizens, political platforms and the work of legislators."
Hayden and his pals at the Nation, Move ON, and Huffington Post, have morphed into the status quo; whatever he (or they) had, they lost it a long time ago. "
Chris also notes at the end of his prophetic piece the following, "And in the end, for those who serve up this drivel, the game is about money in the form of ratings and advertising. Beck, Colbert, [Hayden, Katrina, Hartmann, Flanders, et al] and Stewart all serve the same masters. And it is not us."
Chris Hedges' screeds have all the coherence of Sarah Palin's. He sounds like SDS out of the sixties or the Weathermen. Anyone who is not 100 percent with him is a tool of imperialism. And that would include decent humans like Tom Hayden (a former SDS leader), Feingold, or Michael Moore. This baloney shows up all too often on this site--the refusal to negotiate, compromise, or even show a measure a tolerance for ideas slightly different from orthodox left thinking--and, I'm sick of it. Most of the hotheads railing at Tom Hayden or Huffington are immature in their thinking and short on life experience. Maybe they should find another place to share their sense of righteousness and their impotence.
talk about tolerance, dude. I don't recall the "purists" ever telling you to leave and find another home. no wonder you don't like hedges. you just proved his point in this post.
The only "impotence" I know of is people like yourself who threw your vote away on Obama and his corrupt brethren who advance interminable war, torture via proxy states, anti environmental policies predicated on a fantasy called "clean coal," nuclear hegemony, unlimited mountain top removal permits for the coal lobby, carte blanche drilling in pristine oceans without toxic cleanup and then marginalizing the whistleblowes who point it out; No CEO Left Behind (TARP), NAFTA, G-8, GATT, voiding habeus corpus, perpetuating government snooping into privacy rights without due process, executive orders authorizing the assassination of US citizens living outside the US suspected of terror activities void of due process; and perhaps the bigest corporate sellout was a For Profit Health Model void of a public option that would have created competition and lower costs this in light of Democratic control of both houses and the presidency and the reason is Big Insurence funding of campaigns - both Dem and Republican, and now a stated willingness (as Obama recently articulated) to capitulate further with neo-conservatives as though it is something new for him. Obama has more in common Sarah Palin, the Bush family, Reagan, and the other careerist politicians in the duoply then he does with the authentic left.
Impotence is as impotence does. And his name is Obama and all his disciples. :)
I was screaming at the TV quite a bit during the election campaign about this very issue - unnecessary, illegal, despicable 'wars'.
I do not recall hearing even one discussion or debate on anything related to Afghanistan or Iraq, which I found appalling for several reasons. One was the relation of our dire economic situation to the massive expenditures to maintain the 'oil empire' in the ME for the benefit of the oil barons.
If we stop the war and bring the troops home we'd have billions to use for education - research & dev. - infrastructure - job creation.
Plus we'd have the added benefit of relative Peace (except that the Israelis/neo-cons would probably do something stupid to ensure the never-ending MIC wars will continue).
But Tom, Until the peace movement realizes that Palestine cannot be ignored like Fiengold seems to have left his legacy as for peace, but easy on Israel, the movement is frozen.
This is why the peace movement is frozen, not because of any election.
But can the peace movement bring peace... If 10 million demonstrated would it bring peace? No, millions of demonstrators would not stop a war anymore than a million bombs dropped on the "enemy" does.
I am skeptical of the peace movement because i have considered myself a part of it for over 50 years so I see how it works how it operates and it is very fictional in reality because it is so divided like the what is considered the Left is divided.
War is about money for the big boys and they are in no position to surrender.
But peace will come not because War is wrong and peace is right, it will come because our falling Empire of war cannot win and will lose as long as it thinks it can win this illegal war.
It was a crime when Bush invaded and it remains a crime until the US loses or declares it over and comes home.
I disagree with the notion that Israel's policies in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, as horrific as they are, have frozen the peace movement here at home. I believe that the recent mid-term election(s) here in the United States, overall, have been a setback for the peace process. Having said this, I believe that, before we point fingers at other countries, including Israel, for their indefensible policies, that we take a harder look at our own government's policies.
OK, but What about our own governments policies of supporting Israel no matter what.
If you think you can Isolate Palestine from this Crusade we are stuck in now, try a little harder to convince me and actually look at our governments policies... what country keeps pushing the USA towards a wider war with others like Iran.
What other country but Israel does not want American citizens freedom to travel to Cuba and really end the cold war.
Come to think of it, what is the significant difference between the US and Israel's policies anyway?
Well said, independent too. You've both drilled down to the heart of it, the genesis of our wars. Israel is the real elephant in the room that none dare mention.
Jim Glover: For starters, Americans have been travelling to Cuba since around 1970, or so.
Israel has nothing to do with whether or not Americans travel to and from Cuba.
The United States actually really goes out of its way to invade countries that're half a planet away from them, unlike most other countries, including Israel. One doesn't have to approve of Israeli policy in West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem to see that the United States government is the worst of the worst when it comes to chores and refusing to invade foreign countries.
RE: "The United States actually really goes out of its way to invade countries that're half a planet away from them, unlike most other countries, including Israel." - independentminded
SEE: "Bush: Olmert asked me to bomb suspected Syria nuclear plant" ~ By Reuters, 11/05/10
(excerpts)...Bush wrote in his memoirs that he considered ordering a U.S. military strike against a suspected Syrian nuclear facility at Israel's request in 2007, but ultimately opted against it...Israel eventually destroyed the facility, which Syria denied was aimed at developing nuclear weapons.
In his memoir, "Decision Points," to hit bookstores Tuesday, Bush says that shortly after he received an intelligence report about a "suspicious, well-hidden facility in the eastern desert of Syria," he spoke by phone with former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.
"George, I'm asking you to bomb the compound," Olmert told Bush, according to the book, a copy of which was obtained by Reuters.
Bush says he discussed options with his national security team. A bombing mission was considered "but bombing a sovereign country with no warning or announced justification would create severe blowback," he writes...
ENTIRE ARTICLE - http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/
bush-olmert-asked-me-to-bomb-suspected-syria-nuclear-plant-1.323194
It was all too clear at Obama's "concession" press conference where, for an hour, all present studiously avoided the stinking elephant in the room ---three wars, and rumors of wars, by and for Israel, squatting on the global economy and infuriating Progressive voters ---that both parties, the media, and the "professional left" are now complicit in war crimes. It was like watching the ancient Roman Senate spin, a violent circus ignoring the obvious as the barbarians storm the gates.
Welcome the barbarians. Despite stark differences in other areas, it's time to make common cause with Ron and Rand Paul to end these criminal wars and the Federal Reserve racket.
We needed a game changer. I was glad Rand Paul won his seat. And had it not been for the Koch brothers Tea Party and their clown candidates, the Republicans would probably have taken Harry Reid's rubber gavel as well. At least then the maddening pretense would be over.
Some good may come out of this mess.
Wouldn't it be ironic if some of the Tea Party started to call for cutting spending on war.
All the other issues are a distraction from the prize... Saftey nets, civil rights, medicare, jobs, retirement, freedom and a sustainable better America now depend on a revolution of peace.
It has never happened before but remember the Mothers of Invention.
"Welcome the barbarians. Despite stark differences in other areas, it's time to make common cause with Ron and Rand Paul to end these criminal wars and the Federal Reserve racket."
Agreed.
I may not agree with everything R&RP stand for, but I agree with them 10x more than what the democrats/republicans stand for.
I was really hoping that Obama would be the man to reunite and remold the democrats into an opposition party, a party against endless war and thievery, that would work for the working class. That notion I admit was horribly wrong. I was terribly wrong.
R&RP both offer the best chance now at dismantling the MIC and deconstructing the Fed. Those are the two most pressing issues and the two democrats are against.
So, we may already have some key people in place to help bring about peace...if the MIC or the Press doesn't neutralize them first. We know what happened to JFK. They blew his brains out. (I'd hate to admit it, but perhaps 9-11 was an MIC operation as well.)
Gee Tom....the 2006 and 2008 elections were "Setbacks for Peace" too. Or haven't you been paying attention.
All these neo-pubs (as well as democ-rat) "Christians" who praise God and Jesus with one hand and vote for more war- which is murder- with the other, disgust me.
Perhaps they will find at the end of life that "Thou shalt not kill" also applies to them. They are so good at judging others- even to death.
By their own theology they would burn in hell.
"That which ye do to the least of these, ye do unto me"
"Noone comes to the father but by me."
Ever picture some of these so-called Christians so self assuredly approaching the Pearly Gates being blocked by a Palestinian or Iraqi or Afghan child?
As both corrupt parties are avid supporters of American aggression abroad I don't see how these election results change anything at all.
I guess some folks are still in denial, Hayden is among them.
Although I was not around then, the Viet-nam war experience should have taught us a lesson: that Ds and Rs both share the blame of war crimes, crimes against humanity etc.
LBJ ran on "we seek no wider war", yet escalated troop levels. The dynamic duo of Nixon/Kissinger escalated as well and then finally had to end the disaster.
Hayden needs to go seek professional counseling as he is clearly in a state of denial.
Obama and the D Congress continue to shovel 100s of billions of dollars for the Empire and Death and Destruction Inc. while letting the rest of us fend for ourselves in the decaying and crumbling "homeland"
As others point out, even so-called progressives in Congress support and fund Israel with all of the crimes it commits.
This article is simply inaccurate
Tom Hayden and others like him have nothing left to say, so they re-tool, re-figure the old line.
My suggestion is to perhaps scan these pieces of theirs for any significant change - fat chance! - and refuse to comment when it's the same old drivel. I think the attention they get only encourages them.
You raise a good point rvwalker, these intellectualy bankrupt pundits benefit from the status quo, better to ignore them.
Israel's "piece plan" has more supporters in Congress than ever, if that is possible.
Let me get this straight...Mr Hayden wants us to note that the President took the "strongest exit strategy position among his internal advisors." In other words the President should be given credit for expressing a desire to wind down his own escalation policy. (Apparently Hilary Clinton is the boogey man in this scenario.) Eventually, we will applaud the President for returning the troop levels in Afghanistan to what they were when Bush was president. This is what has become of anti-war progressives!! So sad.
"Midterm Election Results a Setback for Peace" -- how presumptuous. Perhaps the election will influence some to forgo peace(highly doubtful once sipped) or to quest for peace, but it will not setback peace. Peace is -- join it, or not, as you wish.
Spare us the lecture, Tom Hayden. Elected Dems continue to support the wars and they never hesitated to see that the funding for those wars got passed. They, like their Repug partners in crime, saw to it that their military industrial complex constituents and banking constituents (a.k.a. campaign contributors) were kept happy. Remember, the Dems once had majority control and it still didn't make a difference then.
Hayden concludes that peace activists "can exercise a massive drag against the war-making machine through 2012 as long as the wars remain deeply unpopular." I'm not sure what that means. The wars have been unpopular for a long time and continue to be so. We've been completely ignored, even as hundreds of thousands protested. And, if I have to say it, ignored by the elected Dems.
We know the Repugs are evil. But we also know that the Dems are evil too.
-TIA
True, as Hayden says: "Democratic candidates this year chose not to use Afghanistan-Iraq as an issue perhaps because they have become Obama's wars."
Even more significant is that not one of the endless negative ads fueled by the Citizens United ruling offered the slightest comment, much less criticism, of Obama's war policy. I'm not even so sure, as Hayden seems to think, that the wars will be much of an issue in 2012. There is simply no daylight between the war policy of Obama and that of the most rightwing zealots.
A few demonstrations wouldn't hurt, and would help to keep a dream of peace alive for those who will come after us. I'm thinking of a very beautiful, prophetic and totally forgotten demonstration I joined in March, 2003. As the US prepared to launch the war that cost at least 100,000 lives, a group of about 20 artists met in the Mesopotamian gallery of the Metropolitan Museum in New York, and sketched ancient sculptures while nervous museum guards fidgeted. The message was clear: we Americans were about to destroy an ancient culture, and a few weeks later the museum of Baghdad was looted in an orgy of violence that began then and has lasted ever since.
You can say this accomplished nothing, but those who were there by choice, or who happened by, remember a moment of poignancy and sadness, which is perhaps the most human response to the terrible wrongs our country is inflicting on people we never see and rarely even mention.
Any realistic analysis shows that the problem is a country called USA.
We have to get rid of it. As with the Israeli Zionists, its own exuberant self-hate helps but nothing good can come from relying on such a perversion for a solution.
In my experience we need to look outside the suffocating box. A lunatic's perceived darkness is a sane person's light. There are ample signs that that surely now proven rotten core, the elite of the USA, by pointing at its darkness is accordingly pointing the way
So, to find peace we must look at what frightens the USA.
It is China. There is no doubt about it. The Chinese know something and what they know frightens the lights out of the USA.
My opinion is that this something is harmony.
"So, to find peace we must look at what frightens the USA. It is China. There is no doubt about it. The Chinese know something and what they know frightens the lights out of the USA. My opinion is that this something is harmony."
I beg your pardon -- what do these words mean? We should embrace Chinese "harmony" and place writers under arrest, demand that they not be awarded the Nobel Prize, militarily enforce totalitarian rule, and invade/annex Tibet?
My criticism of Obama and the US could go on for many paragraphs, but in what way is China helpful?
Whoever said, "Wouldn't it be ironic if the Tea Party called for the de-funding of the DOD?" He/she should at least listen to what Ron Paul has been saying forever and he was the original founder of the Tea Party. If we let the neo-cons take over the Tea Party, then look out Iran, Yemen, and any other regime that is a potential threat to Israel. Ron Paul wants our "empire" to end, to bring our troops home from everywhere in the world, i.e., England, Germany, Italy, Holland, Belgium, Japan, South Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., etc.
I cannot understand why nobody understands that Europe is richer than we are and should take care of itself. I cannot understand why nobody understands that Japan is richer than we are and should take care of itself. All of this rhetoric is just too stupid.
I agree with you, James Edwards. The Chinese are beating us in productivity AND THEY OWN OUR NATIONAL DEBT! If we dissolve our national debt, we will have war with China. What is the FED doing about this? They want us to go down the historical path of defeat, but they are fended off, a bit, because they cannot control China. Bless you, China!
The best thing that we Americans could do is to glue ourselves to China. We would have a wonderful coalition. China is more capitalistic than we are. I would never have said that 20 years ago, but I have been to China and what they are doing for their population is without parallel in our world.
No FED, just China. The FED has almost destroyed us already.
Make a choice: the FED, Israel, China?
I don't want to lose our souls to Israel, a false prophet. I don't want us to lose our souls to American Fundamentalists who believe that the Israel of today is the fulfillment of prophecy.
It is also interesting to note that Hayden ignores the simple fact that Obama is the Commander In Chief, and does not need congress to pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq. But since the man cowers in fear of the Generals and the military industrail establishment, getting out is a pipe dream for people like Hayden who is wishing upon a star; and then emasculated to writing impotent position pieces like this that carry no personal empowerment to achieve his stated goals. Undoubtedly, we will continue to read these pieces well into Obama's presidency: however long that is.