

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.
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.
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 |
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.
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.