

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
A progressive Presidency is a terrible thing to waste. It only comes
around once every so often. Wouldn't it be a shame if Americans' hopes
for the Obama Administration were squandered in Afghanistan?
Members of Congress who want the Obama Administration to succeed won't
do it any favors by keeping silent about the proposed military
escalation in Afghanistan. The actions of the Obama Administration so
far clearly indicate that they can move in response to pressure: both
good pressure and bad pressure. If there is only bad pressure, it's
more than likely that policy will move in a bad direction. In
announcing an increase in U.S. troops before his Afghanistan review
was complete, Obama partially acceded to pressure from the military.
If we don't want the military to have carte blanche, there needs to be
counterpressure.
Some Members of Congress are starting to speak up. Rep. Murtha
recently said he's uncomfortable with Obama's decision to increase the
number of troops in the country by 17,000 before a goal was clearly
defined, AP reports.
Sen. Nelson is calling for clear benchmarks to measure progress in
Afghanistan, and said he may try to add benchmarks to the upcoming war
supplemental bill this spring, CQ Today reports.
But these individual expressions of discomfort will likely not be
enough to stop the slide towards greater and greater military
escalation.
Eight Members of Congress (Walter Jones, Neil Abercrombie, Roscoe
Bartlett, Steve Kagen, Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, Ed Whitfield, and
Lynn Woolsey) have initiated a letter to President Obama urging him to
reconsider his support for military escalation. The letter argues that
military escalation may well be counterproductive towards the goal of
creating a stable government that can control Afghanistan, noting that
a recent Carnegie Endowment study concluded that "the only meaningful
way to halt the insurgency's momentum is to start withdrawing troops.
The presence of foreign troops is the most important element driving
the resurgence of the Taliban." [You can find the letter - and ask
your Representative to sign it - here.]
There is political space for challenging the logic of escalation.
Forty-two percent of Americans think troops in Afghanistan should be
increased, up from 34 percent in January, CBS News reports,
no doubt reflecting the largely uncritical press treatment that the
proposal for military escalation has received. But the same CBS
News/New York Times poll still found that more people thought that
U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan should be decreased (24%) or kept the
same (23%) - i.e. 47% thought troop levels should be decreased or stay
the same, rather than increased.
If we want the US government to seriously pursue diplomacy, there must
be serious counterpressure against sending more troops without end. If
you want recycling, you have to discourage the establishment of new
landfills. If you want economic development and human rights to be at
the center of trade policy, you have to jam up corporate trade deals.
If you want diplomacy, there has to be a significant political
pushback to military escalation.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
A progressive Presidency is a terrible thing to waste. It only comes
around once every so often. Wouldn't it be a shame if Americans' hopes
for the Obama Administration were squandered in Afghanistan?
Members of Congress who want the Obama Administration to succeed won't
do it any favors by keeping silent about the proposed military
escalation in Afghanistan. The actions of the Obama Administration so
far clearly indicate that they can move in response to pressure: both
good pressure and bad pressure. If there is only bad pressure, it's
more than likely that policy will move in a bad direction. In
announcing an increase in U.S. troops before his Afghanistan review
was complete, Obama partially acceded to pressure from the military.
If we don't want the military to have carte blanche, there needs to be
counterpressure.
Some Members of Congress are starting to speak up. Rep. Murtha
recently said he's uncomfortable with Obama's decision to increase the
number of troops in the country by 17,000 before a goal was clearly
defined, AP reports.
Sen. Nelson is calling for clear benchmarks to measure progress in
Afghanistan, and said he may try to add benchmarks to the upcoming war
supplemental bill this spring, CQ Today reports.
But these individual expressions of discomfort will likely not be
enough to stop the slide towards greater and greater military
escalation.
Eight Members of Congress (Walter Jones, Neil Abercrombie, Roscoe
Bartlett, Steve Kagen, Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, Ed Whitfield, and
Lynn Woolsey) have initiated a letter to President Obama urging him to
reconsider his support for military escalation. The letter argues that
military escalation may well be counterproductive towards the goal of
creating a stable government that can control Afghanistan, noting that
a recent Carnegie Endowment study concluded that "the only meaningful
way to halt the insurgency's momentum is to start withdrawing troops.
The presence of foreign troops is the most important element driving
the resurgence of the Taliban." [You can find the letter - and ask
your Representative to sign it - here.]
There is political space for challenging the logic of escalation.
Forty-two percent of Americans think troops in Afghanistan should be
increased, up from 34 percent in January, CBS News reports,
no doubt reflecting the largely uncritical press treatment that the
proposal for military escalation has received. But the same CBS
News/New York Times poll still found that more people thought that
U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan should be decreased (24%) or kept the
same (23%) - i.e. 47% thought troop levels should be decreased or stay
the same, rather than increased.
If we want the US government to seriously pursue diplomacy, there must
be serious counterpressure against sending more troops without end. If
you want recycling, you have to discourage the establishment of new
landfills. If you want economic development and human rights to be at
the center of trade policy, you have to jam up corporate trade deals.
If you want diplomacy, there has to be a significant political
pushback to military escalation.
A progressive Presidency is a terrible thing to waste. It only comes
around once every so often. Wouldn't it be a shame if Americans' hopes
for the Obama Administration were squandered in Afghanistan?
Members of Congress who want the Obama Administration to succeed won't
do it any favors by keeping silent about the proposed military
escalation in Afghanistan. The actions of the Obama Administration so
far clearly indicate that they can move in response to pressure: both
good pressure and bad pressure. If there is only bad pressure, it's
more than likely that policy will move in a bad direction. In
announcing an increase in U.S. troops before his Afghanistan review
was complete, Obama partially acceded to pressure from the military.
If we don't want the military to have carte blanche, there needs to be
counterpressure.
Some Members of Congress are starting to speak up. Rep. Murtha
recently said he's uncomfortable with Obama's decision to increase the
number of troops in the country by 17,000 before a goal was clearly
defined, AP reports.
Sen. Nelson is calling for clear benchmarks to measure progress in
Afghanistan, and said he may try to add benchmarks to the upcoming war
supplemental bill this spring, CQ Today reports.
But these individual expressions of discomfort will likely not be
enough to stop the slide towards greater and greater military
escalation.
Eight Members of Congress (Walter Jones, Neil Abercrombie, Roscoe
Bartlett, Steve Kagen, Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, Ed Whitfield, and
Lynn Woolsey) have initiated a letter to President Obama urging him to
reconsider his support for military escalation. The letter argues that
military escalation may well be counterproductive towards the goal of
creating a stable government that can control Afghanistan, noting that
a recent Carnegie Endowment study concluded that "the only meaningful
way to halt the insurgency's momentum is to start withdrawing troops.
The presence of foreign troops is the most important element driving
the resurgence of the Taliban." [You can find the letter - and ask
your Representative to sign it - here.]
There is political space for challenging the logic of escalation.
Forty-two percent of Americans think troops in Afghanistan should be
increased, up from 34 percent in January, CBS News reports,
no doubt reflecting the largely uncritical press treatment that the
proposal for military escalation has received. But the same CBS
News/New York Times poll still found that more people thought that
U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan should be decreased (24%) or kept the
same (23%) - i.e. 47% thought troop levels should be decreased or stay
the same, rather than increased.
If we want the US government to seriously pursue diplomacy, there must
be serious counterpressure against sending more troops without end. If
you want recycling, you have to discourage the establishment of new
landfills. If you want economic development and human rights to be at
the center of trade policy, you have to jam up corporate trade deals.
If you want diplomacy, there has to be a significant political
pushback to military escalation.