

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.
On Sept. 14, 2001, the U.S. House of
Representatives considered House Joint Resolution 64, "To authorize the
use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the
recent attacks launched against the United States." The wounds of 9/11
were raw, and the lust for vengeance seemed universal. The House vote
was remarkable, relative to the extreme partisanship now in evidence in
Congress, since 420 House members voted in favor of the resolution.
More remarkable, though, was the one lone vote in opposition, cast by
Barbara Lee of San Francisco. Lee opened her statement on the
resolution, "I rise today with a heavy heart, one that is filled with
sorrow for the families and loved ones who were killed and injured in
New York, Virginia and Pennsylvania." Her emotions were palpable as she
spoke from the House floor.
"September 11 changed the world. Our
deepest fears now haunt us. Yet I am convinced that military action
will not prevent further acts of international terrorism against the
United States. ... We must not rush to judgment. Far too many innocent
people have already died. Our country is in mourning. If we rush to
launch a counterattack, we run too great a risk that women, children
and other noncombatants will be caught in the crossfire."
The Senate also passed the resolution,
98-0, and sent it on to President George W. Bush. What he did with the
authorization, and the Iraq War authorization a year later, has become,
arguably, the greatest foreign policy catastrophe in United States
history. What President Barack Obama will do with Afghanistan is the
question now.
On Oct. 7, the U.S. enters its ninth year
of occupation of Afghanistan-equal to the time the United States was
involved in World War I, World War II and the Korean War combined.
Obama campaigned on his opposition to the war in Iraq, but pledged at
the same time to escalate the war in Afghanistan. On his first Friday
in office, Commander in Chief Obama's military fired three Hellfire
missiles from an unmanned drone into Pakistan, reportedly killing 22
people, mostly civilians, including women and children. He has
increased U.S. troops in Afghanistan by more than 20,000, to a total
numbering 61,000. This does not count the private contractors in
Afghanistan, who now outnumber the troops. The new U.S. military
commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, is expected to ask
for even more troops.
This past August was the deadliest month
yet for U.S. troops in Afghanistan, with 51 killed, and 2009 is by far
the deadliest year, with 200 U.S. troops killed so far. These
statistics don't count the soldiers who commit suicide after returning
home, nor those injured, and certainly don't include the number of
Afghans killed. The attacks also are increasing in sophistication,
according to recent reports. So it may be no surprise that more
comparisons are now being made between Afghanistan and Vietnam.
When asked about the comparison, Obama
recently told The New York Times: "You have to learn lessons from
history. On the other hand, each historical moment is different. You
never step into the same river twice. And so Afghanistan is not
Vietnam. ... The dangers of overreach and not having clear goals and
not having strong support from the American people, those are all
issues that I think about all the time."
According
to a recent CNN/Opinion Research poll, 57 percent of those asked oppose
the U.S. war in Afghanistan, reportedly the highest level of opposition
since the war began in 2001. Among those polled, 75 percent of
Democrats opposed the war, which might explain statements recently from
key congressional Democrats against sending more troops to Afghanistan.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said last Thursday, "I don't think there's a
great deal of support for sending more troops to Afghanistan in the
country or in the Congress," echoing Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and
Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., the chairman of the Senate Armed Services
Committee.
Obama said in his health care speech
before the joint session of Congress, "The plan I'm proposing will cost
around $900 billion over 10 years-less than we have spent on the Iraq
and Afghanistan wars."
President Lyndon Johnson escalated the war
in Vietnam and ultimately decided not to run for re-election. But he
also passed Medicare, the revered, single-payer health insurance
program for seniors. Barbara Lee presciently compared the invasion of
Afghanistan to Vietnam in her speech back in 2001 and closed by quoting
the Rev. Nathan Baxter, dean of the National Cathedral: "As we act, let
us not become the evil that we deplore."
Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.
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 |
On Sept. 14, 2001, the U.S. House of
Representatives considered House Joint Resolution 64, "To authorize the
use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the
recent attacks launched against the United States." The wounds of 9/11
were raw, and the lust for vengeance seemed universal. The House vote
was remarkable, relative to the extreme partisanship now in evidence in
Congress, since 420 House members voted in favor of the resolution.
More remarkable, though, was the one lone vote in opposition, cast by
Barbara Lee of San Francisco. Lee opened her statement on the
resolution, "I rise today with a heavy heart, one that is filled with
sorrow for the families and loved ones who were killed and injured in
New York, Virginia and Pennsylvania." Her emotions were palpable as she
spoke from the House floor.
"September 11 changed the world. Our
deepest fears now haunt us. Yet I am convinced that military action
will not prevent further acts of international terrorism against the
United States. ... We must not rush to judgment. Far too many innocent
people have already died. Our country is in mourning. If we rush to
launch a counterattack, we run too great a risk that women, children
and other noncombatants will be caught in the crossfire."
The Senate also passed the resolution,
98-0, and sent it on to President George W. Bush. What he did with the
authorization, and the Iraq War authorization a year later, has become,
arguably, the greatest foreign policy catastrophe in United States
history. What President Barack Obama will do with Afghanistan is the
question now.
On Oct. 7, the U.S. enters its ninth year
of occupation of Afghanistan-equal to the time the United States was
involved in World War I, World War II and the Korean War combined.
Obama campaigned on his opposition to the war in Iraq, but pledged at
the same time to escalate the war in Afghanistan. On his first Friday
in office, Commander in Chief Obama's military fired three Hellfire
missiles from an unmanned drone into Pakistan, reportedly killing 22
people, mostly civilians, including women and children. He has
increased U.S. troops in Afghanistan by more than 20,000, to a total
numbering 61,000. This does not count the private contractors in
Afghanistan, who now outnumber the troops. The new U.S. military
commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, is expected to ask
for even more troops.
This past August was the deadliest month
yet for U.S. troops in Afghanistan, with 51 killed, and 2009 is by far
the deadliest year, with 200 U.S. troops killed so far. These
statistics don't count the soldiers who commit suicide after returning
home, nor those injured, and certainly don't include the number of
Afghans killed. The attacks also are increasing in sophistication,
according to recent reports. So it may be no surprise that more
comparisons are now being made between Afghanistan and Vietnam.
When asked about the comparison, Obama
recently told The New York Times: "You have to learn lessons from
history. On the other hand, each historical moment is different. You
never step into the same river twice. And so Afghanistan is not
Vietnam. ... The dangers of overreach and not having clear goals and
not having strong support from the American people, those are all
issues that I think about all the time."
According
to a recent CNN/Opinion Research poll, 57 percent of those asked oppose
the U.S. war in Afghanistan, reportedly the highest level of opposition
since the war began in 2001. Among those polled, 75 percent of
Democrats opposed the war, which might explain statements recently from
key congressional Democrats against sending more troops to Afghanistan.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said last Thursday, "I don't think there's a
great deal of support for sending more troops to Afghanistan in the
country or in the Congress," echoing Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and
Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., the chairman of the Senate Armed Services
Committee.
Obama said in his health care speech
before the joint session of Congress, "The plan I'm proposing will cost
around $900 billion over 10 years-less than we have spent on the Iraq
and Afghanistan wars."
President Lyndon Johnson escalated the war
in Vietnam and ultimately decided not to run for re-election. But he
also passed Medicare, the revered, single-payer health insurance
program for seniors. Barbara Lee presciently compared the invasion of
Afghanistan to Vietnam in her speech back in 2001 and closed by quoting
the Rev. Nathan Baxter, dean of the National Cathedral: "As we act, let
us not become the evil that we deplore."
Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.
On Sept. 14, 2001, the U.S. House of
Representatives considered House Joint Resolution 64, "To authorize the
use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the
recent attacks launched against the United States." The wounds of 9/11
were raw, and the lust for vengeance seemed universal. The House vote
was remarkable, relative to the extreme partisanship now in evidence in
Congress, since 420 House members voted in favor of the resolution.
More remarkable, though, was the one lone vote in opposition, cast by
Barbara Lee of San Francisco. Lee opened her statement on the
resolution, "I rise today with a heavy heart, one that is filled with
sorrow for the families and loved ones who were killed and injured in
New York, Virginia and Pennsylvania." Her emotions were palpable as she
spoke from the House floor.
"September 11 changed the world. Our
deepest fears now haunt us. Yet I am convinced that military action
will not prevent further acts of international terrorism against the
United States. ... We must not rush to judgment. Far too many innocent
people have already died. Our country is in mourning. If we rush to
launch a counterattack, we run too great a risk that women, children
and other noncombatants will be caught in the crossfire."
The Senate also passed the resolution,
98-0, and sent it on to President George W. Bush. What he did with the
authorization, and the Iraq War authorization a year later, has become,
arguably, the greatest foreign policy catastrophe in United States
history. What President Barack Obama will do with Afghanistan is the
question now.
On Oct. 7, the U.S. enters its ninth year
of occupation of Afghanistan-equal to the time the United States was
involved in World War I, World War II and the Korean War combined.
Obama campaigned on his opposition to the war in Iraq, but pledged at
the same time to escalate the war in Afghanistan. On his first Friday
in office, Commander in Chief Obama's military fired three Hellfire
missiles from an unmanned drone into Pakistan, reportedly killing 22
people, mostly civilians, including women and children. He has
increased U.S. troops in Afghanistan by more than 20,000, to a total
numbering 61,000. This does not count the private contractors in
Afghanistan, who now outnumber the troops. The new U.S. military
commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, is expected to ask
for even more troops.
This past August was the deadliest month
yet for U.S. troops in Afghanistan, with 51 killed, and 2009 is by far
the deadliest year, with 200 U.S. troops killed so far. These
statistics don't count the soldiers who commit suicide after returning
home, nor those injured, and certainly don't include the number of
Afghans killed. The attacks also are increasing in sophistication,
according to recent reports. So it may be no surprise that more
comparisons are now being made between Afghanistan and Vietnam.
When asked about the comparison, Obama
recently told The New York Times: "You have to learn lessons from
history. On the other hand, each historical moment is different. You
never step into the same river twice. And so Afghanistan is not
Vietnam. ... The dangers of overreach and not having clear goals and
not having strong support from the American people, those are all
issues that I think about all the time."
According
to a recent CNN/Opinion Research poll, 57 percent of those asked oppose
the U.S. war in Afghanistan, reportedly the highest level of opposition
since the war began in 2001. Among those polled, 75 percent of
Democrats opposed the war, which might explain statements recently from
key congressional Democrats against sending more troops to Afghanistan.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said last Thursday, "I don't think there's a
great deal of support for sending more troops to Afghanistan in the
country or in the Congress," echoing Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and
Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., the chairman of the Senate Armed Services
Committee.
Obama said in his health care speech
before the joint session of Congress, "The plan I'm proposing will cost
around $900 billion over 10 years-less than we have spent on the Iraq
and Afghanistan wars."
President Lyndon Johnson escalated the war
in Vietnam and ultimately decided not to run for re-election. But he
also passed Medicare, the revered, single-payer health insurance
program for seniors. Barbara Lee presciently compared the invasion of
Afghanistan to Vietnam in her speech back in 2001 and closed by quoting
the Rev. Nathan Baxter, dean of the National Cathedral: "As we act, let
us not become the evil that we deplore."
Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.