Escalating the war in Afghanistan is not the answer

afghan

President Obama will make his speech on the war in Afghanistan tonight and all the hints from the administration and the media spin suggest that it will be a call for thousands of additional troops; a move that will spell disaster first of all for the people of Afghanistan but also for the people of the United States.

When Obama ran for the presidency he and Biden raised the hopes hundreds of millions here and billions around the world that peace was possible. In fact there was a big collective global sigh of relief when Obama's victory was announced. The hope for peace was a big reason why he won the presidency and over a million and a half came to Washington on that frigid January 20th to witness what they believed was a historic turning point for our nation.

The majority wanted human needs over corporate greed and war. That hope is still very much alive in the hearts and minds of the American people of all races and nationalities.

Since people have found out about the escalation or "surge" Obama's popularity according to some polls has dropped below 50%.

The well-financed Republican-led racist and red-baiting campaign to bring Obama down didn't do it, but the prospect of an escalation of the war did. The tea baggers, anti-abortionists, anti-stimulus package, astro turfers, birthers, all (whose fear of socialism is really deep down a fear of democracy) were not able to lower the president's popularity below 50%, but the war has.

While ratings are clearly an accumulative process it is significant that the peace issue pushed Obama's popularity below the 50 yard line. The prospect of a wider war is going to be a thorn in the side of the president and  Congress unless it is reversed.

Those who think that things would have been no different (or just a difference in style) if McCain and Palin had been elected are not paying attention. Have you been following Palin's statements and the reports on the content of her book? Did you hear McCain's speeches against the stimulus bill and recently against health care reform?

Now visualize them in the White House with a Republican majority in Congress and two wars and an economic crisis. The words that come to my mind are not "no difference" but "much worse." The Communist Party USA like all decent-minded people is not for much worse. We are fighting in all ways possible for much better.

But this is not to say that we agree with all of Obama's policies. Even those that go in the right direction generally do not go far enough. Like most progressive, democratic-minded people, we see real shortcomings in some of the White House policies. However, we know that with a McCain/Palin administration our nation, especially its working people, racial minorities and immigrants  would have to deal with the worse possible circumstances.

In the midst of the health care fight in the Senate the Republicans are now arguing that because of the need to finance the war the nation can't afford health care reform. Sen. Richard Lugar said just yesterday, "Put aside health care. Let's talk about the essentials: the war and money."

Does he mean that 45,000 U.S. lives a year are not essential? They are saying that the effort to end the needless loss of 45,000 lives a year here at home for lack of health care  is not as important as financing the continuing massive loss of blood and money in the endless unwinnable wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? To me it is not only a wrong priority - it's insanity!

The Republican Party is now rated in the low 20% of registered voters. Instead of listening to the Republican generals, President Obama should listen to the voice of the people (including growing numbers of military families). The people in their majority want peace. He should listen to the strong opposition in his own party and heed the call to deescalate.

This war policy is splitting the democratic forces and will weaken the fight for health care, Employee Free Choice and the effort to stop global warming. It will be a roadblock to the passing of a much needed second stimulus package and  putting our economy on a healthy green growth cycle.

What is really essential is an organized, active, visible and united movement with labor, minorities, women youth and students, and seniors that can fight for the change the majority voted for in 2008. We have a good opportunity to respond to the escalation tomorrow. Let's go all out to support the peace demonstrations against the escalation.

Photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lorri37/ / CC BY 2.0

 

 

Post your comment

Comments

  • Gary, send me your address... I'll send you a big bottle of aspirins... you are going to be needing them :)

    Posted by Alan Maki, 12/07/2009 8:23pm (3 months ago)

  • alan maki:

    thanks for the most recent thoughts outta podunk.

    this was exactly what i was looking for from you when i somewhat sarcastically wanted to know what's to be done and by whom. if i got sarcastic, etc. it was in response[reaction?] to the tone of the original email you posted on this thread, a tone i might add that you've expressed on many other threads in this publication. it was bound to generate a lot of heat and smoke but little light.

    all by way of saying that the thread below is pretty civil, explains exactly where you're coming from, and should have been the initial entry on this thread. it would have saved us all a lot of headaches.

    Posted by gary hicks, 12/07/2009 4:06pm (3 months ago)

  • Gary, you asked me to explain how I arrived at my conclusions which you sarcastically refer to as "superior" politics or something like that.

    As for the cheap shot below--- I think Stalin said something to the effect that there are no Stalinists, only Marxist-Leninists; maybe Stalin said this maybe he didn't... it sounds good anyhow. As for some of the other crap, including your petty attacks, they are intended to stifle and thwart discussion, dialogue and debate--- I think it is pathetic... but, what's new?

    Anyways, this was a post I made on a list serve after I was attacked for "being a Democrat" as a letter signed by 100 or so peace activists was being discussed, take it for whatever you think it is worth:

    I think there is confusion here.

    The source of the confusion has to do with not understanding the difference between "criticizing" the Democrats and holding the Democrats "accountable."

    There is a big difference even though on the surface this might seem like splitting hairs.

    Criticism is used to "convince" someone to do things differently.

    "Accountability" is used to "coerce" some action.

    I don't think the peace movement understands the distinction between "criticism" and "accountability."

    No amount of "criticism" is going to "convince" Barack Obama and the Democrats to halt the escalation of the war and killing in Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iraq.

    Does anyone really believe Obama, Congress people and Senators will be swayed by "criticism?"

    No way.

    They are going to have to be "coerced" through "accountability."

    Pesonally, I think the peace movement has the exact same problem the labor movement has even though most people--- including peace activists--- do not want to acknowledge the problem.

    The "leaders" of the peace movement are tied in one way or another to the Democratic Party or at least they are convinced their "credibility" is tied to not doing anything that offends Barack Obama and the Democrats.

    Calling for using "accountability" to enforce and coerce Democratic Party politicians to act for peace instead of expanding and escalating wars is definitely considered a "no, no" because what is it you have to do to enforce "accountability?"

    You have to pledge not to vote for Obama and these Democrats who vote for these wars in various ways.

    Out of the more than "100 leading peace activists" calling for these mobilizations against the war... not one single one of them have called for the kind of "accountability" along the lines of:

    No peace; no votes.

    They do not have to "criticize" Obama or any Democrats in an offensive manner.

    But, why would they not simply be urging the tens of millions of people who are fed up with these wars to actively do something anyone 18 or over can do to oppose these wars.

    We all know that very few people take the plunge from thinking these wars are wrong to marching through the streets... their activity level is someplace between their thinking process and taking to the streets.

    In my opinion there is a direct correlation between more and more people thinking these dirty wars are wrong, and fewer and fewer people willing to take to the streets and this is because these "leaders" of the peace movement have not suggested that those presently in the streets go back into their communities in a way that convinces their friends and neighbors to become involved in the struggles for peace by helping people take a step forward in becoming involved... people will not take a flying leap from thinking to doing.

    We are missing a step... the anti-Vietnam war movement was very successful in bringing more and more people out into the streets because the call for accountability at the ballot box was always a part of the peace movement. First you get people to take the easist step--- associated with the ballot box, then they learn they need to reinforce that step by stepping into the streets.

    Now, for some reason "leaders" of the peace movement have refused to place acountability on the table--- and I believe the reason is the foundation money financing peace organizations are connected to the Democratic Party and the leaders of these peace organizations understand very thoroughly where their pay-checks come from. So if they begin calling for "accountability" at the ballot box by saying:

    No peace; no votes... they will not have their jobs for long. Often this is enforced through tax-exempt status which prohibits partisan political activity.

    Calling on people not to vote for specified candidates because they promote war--- like Barack Obama--- is deemed partisan political activity... we saw the trouble Julian Bond got the NAACP into when he called for members to exercise accountability when it came to Bush and the Republicans.

    Now, I think most grassroots and rank-and-file peace activists in communities and places of employment-- - except those believing they have some kind of "responsibility" to protect Democrats--- will agree with me that "accountability" is a needed and required tactic especially as we move towards the 2010 elections where we can serve notice on any Democrat who votes to escalate and continue these dirty wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq that in accordance with our strategy aimed at bringing about "Peace Now!" we are going to include in our tactics, "No peace, no votes," in the same way we encourage people to demonstrate in the streets or write a letter to the President or their Senator or member of Congress.

    We need to be asking these "leaders" of the peace movement why they urge people to do everything and anything for peace except use their vote as a means to coerce these politicians to do what is right and just.

    I think the vast majority of the people in this country understand that they have a right to get peace rather than stupid, dirty, imperialist wars for domination and occupation in return for their votes; and politicians, in a democracy, are supposed to be accountable to the people, not the other way around.

    Barack Obama and the Democrats making these wars have no one but themselves to blame should they lose elections because they escalated the war in Afghanistan rather than stopping it.

    Leaders of the peace movement also need to be held "accountable;" their job is to mobilize people to the maximum so we can stop these wars, not to protect Barack Obama's or any other Democrat's worthless political butt... and, let's be clear, when any politician acts in any way to promote war instead of peace, no matter Democat, Republican, Green, Independent, Socialist or Communist they are worthless politicians and no matter what their stand on any other issue they should get the boot by voters holding them accountable.

    We have a wortless labor "leadership" in this country which has learned to pander and grovel to the Democrats for piddly jobs at poverty wages by learning to keep their mouths shut when it comes to these dirty wars... not once have I heard any "leader" of the AFL-CIO or Change To Win tell Obama and the Democrats that their warmongering policies are killing American jobs and further depressing he economy causing the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs... common sense, not a Harvard Business degree, tells us the government can't spend trillions of dollars to fight wars with the objective of occupying countries which will cost trillions more and still expect the government to create jobs here at home. Yet, every major labor "leader" in this country--- including Anna Berger, Richard Trumka and Leo Gerard--- was face-to-face with Obama this past week and not a one of them stated any opposition to his announcement of escalating the war in Afghanistan--- if any did, I haven't heard it... of course, like the leaders of the peace movement who are following in the path of these labor leaders... no one told Obama that he was going to be losing the labor vote because of his wars.

    We need to put "accountability" in front of the American people--- with or without the "leaders" who should be leading on this issue, but aren't:

    No peace; no votes.

    There is no weapon in our arsenal of tactics more powerful than enforcing "accountability" at the ballot box and it is the one tactic as part of a strategy for winning peace that is missing. I don't think it is missing by oversight or by accident.

    I would suggest that if you want new leaders in the peace movement you look around... but, start by looking in the mirror if you think "accountability" is a tactic that has been overlooked.

    Maybe as your first step as a leader you could consider writing a letter to the editor explaining why Barack Obama will never again get your vote.

    I would rather have a peace-loving George McGovern lose an election than get stuck with a warmongering Barack Obama.

    I don't think this country has ever had a more dishonest president than Barack Obama considering what he led people to believe he stood for to get elected and what he actually is doing to win Wall Street's confidence in him.

    Of course, the other side of the coin comes from those in the peace movement who have refused to raise the issue of "accountability" through "No peace; no vote;" they are the ultra-leftists who are so super-revolutionary they think paricipating in elections is selling out.

    This is not about "criticism;" it is about "accountability." The two usually go together.

    Alan L. Maki
    58891 County Road 13
    Warroad, Minnesota 56763
    Phone: 218-386-2432
    Check out my blog:
    http://thepodunkblog.blogspot.com/

    Posted by Alan Maki, 12/06/2009 7:23pm (3 months ago)

  • I thought we made a break with 20th Century Socialism. I agree with Bruce Bostick. Why is this Maki being given a forum for his Stalinist propaganda?

    Posted by Joe Linder, 12/06/2009 5:28pm (3 months ago)

  • My post on the Huffington Post in response to an article by Christian Parenti which I am sure Barack Obama's hacks will read:

    I disagree with you on the reasons for this war--- but this disagreement is neither here nor there; the killing has to stop.

    Obama is carrying out the McCain/Palin agenda of endless wars creating untold death, destruction and misery for large sections of humanity while as a result of funding these dirty wars for whatever reasons: oil, gas, regional domination, political popularity--- the needs of the American people go unmet--- our right to real health care reform that includes a public health care system providing free, comprehensive, all-inclusive, pre-natal to grave health care, publicly funded, publicly administered and publicly delivered; decent housing; good schools providing quality education; and jobs at real living wages--- all remain ellusive as trillions of dollars are squandered on killing abroad so the Wall Street merchants of death and destruction can profit while maintaing the military-financial-i­ndustrial complex of which maximum corporate profits is the only goal.

    The only way Barack Obama's killing spree in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq will be brought to an end is when the American people send this con-artist and flim-flam man turned health insurance salesman who hypocritically manipulated and hoodwinked the American people into electing him president with his lies of "change" and "hope"--- is when the American people deliver Obama a very clear message:

    No peace; no votes!

    End the killing now!

    Agreed: Whatever the outcome, Obama has made it clear: he is willing to kill to get reelected.

    Posted by Alan Maki, 12/05/2009 10:15am (4 months ago)

  • "Escalating the war in Afghanistan is not the answer"

    What is the answer to preventing this escalation of the war from taking place?

    Recognizing that it will take all these people becoming highly visible is one thing. What can we do to help create this high visibility? Isn't this the real question requiring an answer?

    Mr. Tyner would you expand on the excellent article you wrote with your suggestions for getting from where we are now to where we need to be? Do you think it is possible to stop the escalation of the war in Afghanistan?

    I am thinking we would be better off forgetting about this war if we can rely on Obama to wind it down.

    This way we could concentrate our efforts on winning a public option in health care reform.

    By the time the peace movement could get wound up the war will be winding down.

    This is a President I have a lot of faith in.

    jerry lund beloit wisconsin

    Posted by jerry lund, 12/04/2009 11:36pm (4 months ago)

  • [once more, replies in brackets. ------- gary]

    ====================================================================
    Gary, strategies require development of specific tactics to make them work. You are separating strategies from tactics when you should be advocating and supporting all tactics aimed at implementing a strategy with a goal and objective in mind.


    [i already stated my ideas of goal and strategy in previous entries on this thread. please go back and read them. and no, just because a strategy is aimed at implementing a strategy doesn't mean it always succeeds in doing so. so in the example of no peace, no vote i suggested that it be tried out to see what happens. since peace is often disassociated from social justice in our land, i suggested that it be expanded to no justice,no peace! no peace, no vote!]

    In this case the No peace, No vote is clearly being advocated as one tactic among many as part of a strategy to end the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan.

    This is not about developing dome new strategy but trying one more tactic without abandoning other tactics.


    [this i have assumed all along.]

    Tyner stated:

    "What is really essential is an organized, active, visible and united movement with labor, minorities, women youth and students, and seniors that can fight for the change the majority voted for in 2008."

    As part of this fight for peace people engage in all kinds of activities.

    Letter writing is an accepted form of activity.

    I read all the peace organizations requesting letters to elected officials in Congress and to Obama.

    This letter writing is now part of a "mass effort" to stop the escalation of this war.

    You have acknowledged you have not "wasted" one of your precious Bart Simpson stamps in writing a letter to Barack Obama.


    [again go back to what i really said. i said i would not waste a stamp on the letter YOU want me to write, especially since i took the proposal as a taunt and therefore a cheap shot.]

    You have acknowledged you did not participate in any demonstration against this escalation of the war in Afghanistan.

    [and i gave my reason why. say, have you read my stuff carefully?]



    May I ask what "mass" effort you are waiting for that meets your "superior politics" since you have not participated in either of the two most popular forms of protest both of which are an integral part of the strategy aimed at bringing about peace?

    Might I suggest you could write a letter to Barack Obama telling him that unless he ends these wars you will not be voting for him or any other Democrats supporting the wars and this new escalation of the war in Afghanistan.

    You could then take that letter and distribute it to everyone you come across on your way to and from work, when you go grocery shopping and post it on bulletin boards. Maybe hand it out to all your neingbors and ask them to sign on to your letter.

    You could even pass out your letter to passerbys at the next peace demonstration.

    You could take your letter to all the various meetings you go to and ask people at these meetings to sign on to your letter.

    I met Gus Hall once and he explained to me that working in this way is what he meant by the "Communist Plus."

    Gary, I don't see any indication here in reading any of this where anyone except for you thinks they have a "superior politics" and it kind of looks to me like you are looking for excuses not to do anything.

    [if this is true, thank god. if my incomplete thoughts about here and now ever came across as superior, and others agreed in a massive way, we'd all be spattered with jim hightower's huge can of whupass! ]

    My gosh, if writing a letter is a waste of your time and you don't want to splurge on a postage stamp I can just imagine what you say about spending some coin for bus fare to participate in a demonstration.

    [i would suggest that you imagine this in high definition technicolor. or at least in some varying shades of gray. your sense of black or white isn't working for me.]

    If you do go to a demonstration what do you do there? Do you collect signatures from people on a petition so you can work up a mailing list and send the petition to public officials with a letter telling them you participated in a demonstration so they understand a movement is developing and growing so they begin to think about what they are doing in waging these wars?

    [ i largely attend demos to be one of the bodies needed to make those events as numerous as humanly possible. i also pass out the peoples weekly world, when available --- tho' come january that won't be an option so i'll have to pass out the stuff we develop on site in my club, district, etc. sometimes i read poetry, tho' not lately.]

    The "organized, active, visible and united movement" Tyner talks about does not come ready made.

    Maybe you feel No peace, no votes will harm or retard the development of this "organized, active, visible and united movement?" If you think this is the case then by all means share that opinion with us all.

    [like i said, try it and see if it works.]

    Maybe Jarvis Tyner would care to answer this question.

    Probably like most people I often do and support things because I think they are a good idea at the time but there is a dimension that I don't consider and it takes someone else providing that dimension for me to understand.

    There must be something more than not wanting to waste your time writing a letter or spending a few cents for a postage stamp you are mulling over in your mind. Please share your thoughts with all of us.

    [again, re-read my entries on this thread.]

    Dan Plochman Traverse City, Michigan



    Posted by Dan Plochman, 04/12/2009 1:10pm (20 secs ago)


    Posted by gary hicks, 12/04/2009 2:11pm (4 months ago)

  • Gary, strategies require development of specific tactics to make them work. You are separating strategies from tactics when you should be advocating and supporting all tactics aimed at implementing a strategy with a goal and objective in mind.

    In this case the No peace, No vote is clearly being advocated as one tactic among many as part of a strategy to end the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan.

    This is not about developing dome new strategy but trying one more tactic without abandoning other tactics.

    Tyner stated:

    "What is really essential is an organized, active, visible and united movement with labor, minorities, women youth and students, and seniors that can fight for the change the majority voted for in 2008."

    As part of this fight for peace people engage in all kinds of activities.

    Letter writing is an accepted form of activity.

    I read all the peace organizations requesting letters to elected officials in Congress and to Obama.

    This letter writing is now part of a "mass effort" to stop the escalation of this war.

    You have acknowledged you have not "wasted" one of your precious Bart Simpson stamps in writing a letter to Barack Obama.

    You have acknowledged you did not participate in any demonstration against this escalation of the war in Afghanistan.

    May I ask what "mass" effort you are waiting for that meets your "superior politics" since you have not participated in either of the two most popular forms of protest both of which are an integral part of the strategy aimed at bringing about peace?

    Might I suggest you could write a letter to Barack Obama telling him that unless he ends these wars you will not be voting for him or any other Democrats supporting the wars and this new escalation of the war in Afghanistan.

    You could then take that letter and distribute it to everyone you come across on your way to and from work, when you go grocery shopping and post it on bulletin boards. Maybe hand it out to all your neingbors and ask them to sign on to your letter.

    You could even pass out your letter to passerbys at the next peace demonstration.

    You could take your letter to all the various meetings you go to and ask people at these meetings to sign on to your letter.

    I met Gus Hall once and he explained to me that working in this way is what he meant by the "Communist Plus."

    Gary, I don't see any indication here in reading any of this where anyone except for you thinks they have a "superior politics" and it kind of looks to me like you are looking for excuses not to do anything.

    My gosh, if writing a letter is a waste of your time and you don't want to splurge on a postage stamp I can just imagine what you say about spending some coin for bus fare to participate in a demonstration.

    If you do go to a demonstration what do you do there? Do you collect signatures from people on a petition so you can work up a mailing list and send the petition to public officials with a letter telling them you participated in a demonstration so they understand a movement is developing and growing so they begin to think about what they are doing in waging these wars?

    The "organized, active, visible and united movement" Tyner talks about does not come ready made.

    Maybe you feel No peace, no votes will harm or retard the development of this "organized, active, visible and united movement?" If you think this is the case then by all means share that opinion with us all.

    Maybe Jarvis Tyner would care to answer this question.

    Probably like most people I often do and support things because I think they are a good idea at the time but there is a dimension that I don't consider and it takes someone else providing that dimension for me to understand.

    There must be something more than not wanting to waste your time writing a letter or spending a few cents for a postage stamp you are mulling over in your mind. Please share your thoughts with all of us.

    Dan Plochman Traverse City, Michigan

    Posted by Dan Plochman, 12/04/2009 1:10pm (4 months ago)

  • dan:

    1. slogans are tactical. the no peace, no vote proposal is a good tactic. it is not a strategy.

    2. i'm not going to write a letter to president obama for the simple reason that it won't accomplish anything other than a waste of one of my precious bart simpson stamps for postage. i write letters as part of a mass effort. when you get that together, let me know and i'll see if i like it.

    3. i asked -- rather gruffly admittedly-- for alan maki to tell us what he would do in the name of superior politics that he obviously thinks he holds. i have no apologies to make on that score. i subsequently put out some ideas of what i thought would constitute what we need to pay attention to. please go back over my stuff carefully. if you don't agree with them, fine. very fine. write up your alternatives.

    Posted by gary hicks, 12/04/2009 4:20am (4 months ago)

  • As I read this article by Jarvis Tyner and the comments my attention is drawn to the only concrete suggestion for action posted here.

    A movement for accountability.

    Tyner offers not one suggestion aimed at holding Barack Obama and the Democrats accountable for anything they do.

    Gary in his comments tries to twist No peace-No Votes into nothing more than a slogan when my understanding from reading these comments is this is being advanced as a tactic.

    A very novel and creative tactic which fits in very well with our country's democratic traditions.

    I am going to write Obama a letter telling him and the Democrats not to expect my vote as long as the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan continue.

    I challenge Jarvis Tyner and Gary Hicks to write a similar letter. If they won't do this I would like them to explain why they are opposed to doing this.

    I will write my letter and post it here for everyone to read.

    I appreciate Suzy standing up for what is right and getting us all to think.

    Suzy have you considered making those protest signs to sell? If you do count me in as your first customer. I'll buy a dozen for our local vigil.

    Maybe we could work up postcards, petitions and an open letter to Obama and the Democrats to go with it.

    Gary you asked to be provided by someone else with "What Needs To Be Done?" then you turn around and post an analysis that offers nothing in the way of what needs to be done and you still haven't answered your own question. You say others are wrong so you have a responsibility to offer an alternative.

    I don't even see any photos in the PW of any Communists protesting against Obama's decision to send another 30,000 butchers to Afghanistan.

    Not only has Obama made all the wrong decisions about expanding the war in Afghanistan he has made all the wrong economic moves and Tyner strongly insinuates Obama is making the right economic moves.

    Obama. Wrong on war.

    Obama. Wrong on health care.

    Obama. Wrong on the economy.

    Previously Jarvis Tyner said that Barack Obama was a progressive. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

    Dan Plochman Traverse City, Michigan

    Posted by Dan Plochman, 12/04/2009 2:58am (4 months ago)

1 2 3 next »

RSS feed for comments on this page | RSS feed for all comments