Anti-War
When it comes to war, the American public is remarkably fickle.
The responses of Americans to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars provide telling examples. In 2003, according to opinion polls, 72 percent of Americans thought going to war in Iraq was the right decision. By early 2013, support for that decision had declined to 41 percent. Similarly, in October 2001, when U.S. military action began in Afghanistan, it was backed by 90 percent of the American public. By December 2013, public approval of the Afghanistan war had dropped to only 17 percent.
In fact, this collapse of public support for once-popular wars is a long-term phenomenon. Although World War I preceded public opinion polling, observers reported considerable enthusiasm for U.S. entry into that conflict in April 1917. But, after the war, the enthusiasm melted away. In 1937, when pollsters asked Americans whether the United States should participate in another war like the World War, 95 percent of the respondents said “No.”
The responses of Americans to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars provide telling examples. In 2003, according to opinion polls, 72 percent of Americans thought going to war in Iraq was the right decision. By early 2013, support for that decision had declined to 41 percent. Similarly, in October 2001, when U.S. military action began in Afghanistan, it was backed by 90 percent of the American public. By December 2013, public approval of the Afghanistan war had dropped to only 17 percent.
In fact, this collapse of public support for once-popular wars is a long-term phenomenon. Although World War I preceded public opinion polling, observers reported considerable enthusiasm for U.S. entry into that conflict in April 1917. But, after the war, the enthusiasm melted away. In 1937, when pollsters asked Americans whether the United States should participate in another war like the World War, 95 percent of the respondents said “No.”
While the ‘zero option’ becomes increasingly popular as far as U.S. troops are concerned in Afghanistan, the unfolding scenario two countries over may cause the Obama administration to weigh its available strategies again.
Before the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), a strong al-Qaeda affiliate, overran and seized the cities of Fallujah and Ramadi in Iraq, the idea of pulling out all American troops from a particularly volatile world region had a fair amount of support. Amongst a war-weary nation, after all, such prescriptions sound quite nice. Take Afghanistan, for example. After more than a decade of war, who would oppose a complete evacuation? Never mind the reasons for America’s entrance into the war, the ‘zero option’ still remains popular. And now for the Administration, timing is everything.
Before the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), a strong al-Qaeda affiliate, overran and seized the cities of Fallujah and Ramadi in Iraq, the idea of pulling out all American troops from a particularly volatile world region had a fair amount of support. Amongst a war-weary nation, after all, such prescriptions sound quite nice. Take Afghanistan, for example. After more than a decade of war, who would oppose a complete evacuation? Never mind the reasons for America’s entrance into the war, the ‘zero option’ still remains popular. And now for the Administration, timing is everything.
Syracuse has passed this:
WHEREAS, the prospect of using Unmanned Aircraft System (UAV’s) often referred to as “Drones” inside the United States raises far-reaching issues concerning the extent of government surveillance, the value of privacy in the digital age, and the role of Congress in reconciling these issues; and
WHEREAS, Drones are being considered for use in non-federal law enforcement agencies, which might include surveillance, crime fighting, disaster relief, searches for missing persons, and immigration and environmental monitoring; and
WHEREAS, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) predicts that 30,000 Drones may be operated in the national airspace in less than 20 years; and
WHEREAS, research must be conducted into the logistics, safety and privacy considerations related to proposed civil and commercial uses for Drones; and
WHEREAS, there are currently insufficient safeguards in place to ensure that Drones are not used to surveil Americans, unduly infringing upon their fundamental privacy as guaranteed by the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution; and
WHEREAS, the prospect of using Unmanned Aircraft System (UAV’s) often referred to as “Drones” inside the United States raises far-reaching issues concerning the extent of government surveillance, the value of privacy in the digital age, and the role of Congress in reconciling these issues; and
WHEREAS, Drones are being considered for use in non-federal law enforcement agencies, which might include surveillance, crime fighting, disaster relief, searches for missing persons, and immigration and environmental monitoring; and
WHEREAS, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) predicts that 30,000 Drones may be operated in the national airspace in less than 20 years; and
WHEREAS, research must be conducted into the logistics, safety and privacy considerations related to proposed civil and commercial uses for Drones; and
WHEREAS, there are currently insufficient safeguards in place to ensure that Drones are not used to surveil Americans, unduly infringing upon their fundamental privacy as guaranteed by the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution; and
Senator Kirk was praying to Senators Schumer and Menendez, or rather to his god but for their benefit. He was praying in his office where the three were gathered late at night. He was praying for a chance to drop bombs on Iran.
An aged stranger entered the office without a sound, despite the closed door. He moved with slow and noiseless step toward Senator Kirk's desk, his eyes fixed upon the senator, his long body clothed in a robe that reached to his feet, his head bare, his white hair descending in a frothy cataract to his shoulders, his seamy face unnaturally pale, pale even to ghastliness. With all eyes following him and wondering, he made his silent way; without pausing, he reached the desk and stood there waiting. With shut lids the senator, unconscious of his presence, continued with his moving prayer, and at last finished it with the words, uttered in fervent appeal, "Bless our arms, grant us the victory, O Lord our God, Father and Protector of our land and flag!"
An aged stranger entered the office without a sound, despite the closed door. He moved with slow and noiseless step toward Senator Kirk's desk, his eyes fixed upon the senator, his long body clothed in a robe that reached to his feet, his head bare, his white hair descending in a frothy cataract to his shoulders, his seamy face unnaturally pale, pale even to ghastliness. With all eyes following him and wondering, he made his silent way; without pausing, he reached the desk and stood there waiting. With shut lids the senator, unconscious of his presence, continued with his moving prayer, and at last finished it with the words, uttered in fervent appeal, "Bless our arms, grant us the victory, O Lord our God, Father and Protector of our land and flag!"
With the year winding down, time is running out on the American effort in Afghanistan. Inaugurated over a decade ago, the climate abroad appears dampened with skepticism and the energy for war at home lessens every day. It is worth recalling that President Obama, when faced with Iraq and Afghanistan wars, regarded the latter as a confrontation of necessity. Yet this necessary appointment has come down to a most unfortunate set of circumstances, wherein the Obama administration must rely on a fickle partner to succeed.
The Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA), which stipulates the working relationship between U.S. interests and Afghan security forces after American troops scale back from Afghanistan, awaits the signature of President Hamid Karzai. As far as the U.S. is concerned, the agreement is ready to see implementation in 2014. In fact, last month the Loya Jirga even endorsed the BSA. Considering the Loya Jirga is a national assembly of Afghan elders, it would seem the agreement has nothing but smooth sailing ahead.
The Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA), which stipulates the working relationship between U.S. interests and Afghan security forces after American troops scale back from Afghanistan, awaits the signature of President Hamid Karzai. As far as the U.S. is concerned, the agreement is ready to see implementation in 2014. In fact, last month the Loya Jirga even endorsed the BSA. Considering the Loya Jirga is a national assembly of Afghan elders, it would seem the agreement has nothing but smooth sailing ahead.
Statement by the European Section Global Anti-Drone Network
Ban Weaponized Drones!
We oppose the use of drone technology for killing, surveillance and repression.
We oppose weaponized and surveillance drones because their deployment lowers the threshold to armed aggression, is used for “targeted” killing of people within and outside warzones – without indictment, trial and conviction, terrorizes the population of the targeted territories, fuels hatred, thereby increasing the cycle of violence, leads to the development of autonomous kille robots, thereby making even more horrifying wars likely, initiates a new round in the arms race.
We demand that all governments cease the production and acquisition of armed drones, as well as their research and development, and work towards a worldwide ban of these weapons.
Endorsed by:
Althaler, Birgit – Palestine Solidarity Basel, Switzerland
Aune, Björn – Boycott, Sanctions, Divestment (BDS) Campaign Berlin, Germany
Baloch, Farooq – Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI), Germany
Benjamin, Medea - Code Pink (Co-Founder), USA
Björkmann, Rosie – Women for Peace, Sweden
Ban Weaponized Drones!
We oppose the use of drone technology for killing, surveillance and repression.
We oppose weaponized and surveillance drones because their deployment lowers the threshold to armed aggression, is used for “targeted” killing of people within and outside warzones – without indictment, trial and conviction, terrorizes the population of the targeted territories, fuels hatred, thereby increasing the cycle of violence, leads to the development of autonomous kille robots, thereby making even more horrifying wars likely, initiates a new round in the arms race.
We demand that all governments cease the production and acquisition of armed drones, as well as their research and development, and work towards a worldwide ban of these weapons.
Endorsed by:
Althaler, Birgit – Palestine Solidarity Basel, Switzerland
Aune, Björn – Boycott, Sanctions, Divestment (BDS) Campaign Berlin, Germany
Baloch, Farooq – Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI), Germany
Benjamin, Medea - Code Pink (Co-Founder), USA
Björkmann, Rosie – Women for Peace, Sweden
I have now had the chance to read Obama’s Report on Nuclear Employment Strategy of the United States, that just came out on Friday, June 21, 2013. The critical passage can be found on page 5:
“The 2010 Nuclear Posture Review established the Administration’s goal to set conditions that would allow the United States to safely adopt a policy of making deterrence of nuclear attack the sole purpose of U.S. nuclear weapons. Although we cannot adopt such a policy today, the new guidance re-iterates the intention to work towards that goal over time.”
In other words, “nuclear deterrence” is not now and has not been the policy of the Obama administration going back to and including their 2010 Nuclear Posture Review as well. Since “nuclear deterrence” is not now and has never been the Obama administration’s nuclear weapons policy from the get-go, then by default this means that offensive first-strike strategic nuclear war fighting is now and has always been the Obama administration’s nuclear weapons policy. This policy will also be pursued and augmented by means of “integrated non-nuclear strike options.” Id.
“The 2010 Nuclear Posture Review established the Administration’s goal to set conditions that would allow the United States to safely adopt a policy of making deterrence of nuclear attack the sole purpose of U.S. nuclear weapons. Although we cannot adopt such a policy today, the new guidance re-iterates the intention to work towards that goal over time.”
In other words, “nuclear deterrence” is not now and has not been the policy of the Obama administration going back to and including their 2010 Nuclear Posture Review as well. Since “nuclear deterrence” is not now and has never been the Obama administration’s nuclear weapons policy from the get-go, then by default this means that offensive first-strike strategic nuclear war fighting is now and has always been the Obama administration’s nuclear weapons policy. This policy will also be pursued and augmented by means of “integrated non-nuclear strike options.” Id.
Recently, the Free Press ran a story about Jim Leftwich, covering his double-dipping into the public trough, lobbying the Federal Aviation Agency to designate the Dayton-Springfield area as a special testing site for military drones, while simultaneously charging Wright State University a consulting fee. While reporting on his $114,000 per year from the State of Ohio, and $20,000 per month from Wright State and the resultant ethics flap, we did not roll the clock back far enough.
Leftwich has vast connections in the Dayton Aerospace world, built in part by the job he had prior to his getting in on the ground floor of the Kasich administration. Leftwich was previously the CEO of the Dayton Development Coalition, a non-profit job that netted him $257,000 in 2009.
Far from being a civic booster non-profit that works to attract business to the Dayton area, the DDC is a military funded nonprofit powerhouse. It is the sole authorized group to disburse funds granted by the congressional Base Relocation and Closures Commission or BRAC.
Leftwich has vast connections in the Dayton Aerospace world, built in part by the job he had prior to his getting in on the ground floor of the Kasich administration. Leftwich was previously the CEO of the Dayton Development Coalition, a non-profit job that netted him $257,000 in 2009.
Far from being a civic booster non-profit that works to attract business to the Dayton area, the DDC is a military funded nonprofit powerhouse. It is the sole authorized group to disburse funds granted by the congressional Base Relocation and Closures Commission or BRAC.
Veterans For Peace has once again teamed up with March Forward to bring the Our Lives Our Rights campaign to active duty Gis facing deployment to Afghanistan. Since Monday, Iraq and Afghanistan combat veterans—including active-duty soldiers—have been engaged in a daring outreach campaign on and around Fort Hood, TX, the biggest U.S. military base in the world.
Every morning, as soldiers flood onto Fort Hood, Our Lives Our Rights organizers have been holding a massive 50-foot banner at the base gates reading “You don’t have to go to Afghanistan.” This trip was timed ahead of the deployment of Fort Hood’s III Corps in May.
This message—and information about why and how soldiers can resist deployment to Afghanistan—is also on thousands of leaflets and educational pamphlets.
This week, our organizers are actually on base at Fort Hood, distributing all of this literature to soldiers in uniform. Soldiers are also finding this literature in waiting rooms and lobbies at the USO, mental health clinic, post hospital, art and recreation center, and more. Soldiers will also open the Fort Hood post newspaper to find our literature stashed inside.
The Nobel Peace Prize that President Obama received 40 months ago has emerged as the most appalling Orwellian award of this century. No, war is not peace.
George Carlin used to riff about oxymorons like “jumbo shrimp,” “genuine imitation,” “political science” and “military intelligence.” But humor is of the gallows sort when we consider the absurdity and tragedy of the world’s most important peace prize honoring the world’s top war maker.
This week, a challenge has begun with the launch of a petition urging the Norwegian Nobel Committee to revoke Obama’s Peace Prize. By midnight of the first day, nearly 10,000 people had signed. The online petition simply tells the Nobel committee: “I urge you to rescind the Nobel Peace Prize that was awarded to Barack Obama.”
Many signers have added their own comments. Here are some samples:
George Carlin used to riff about oxymorons like “jumbo shrimp,” “genuine imitation,” “political science” and “military intelligence.” But humor is of the gallows sort when we consider the absurdity and tragedy of the world’s most important peace prize honoring the world’s top war maker.
This week, a challenge has begun with the launch of a petition urging the Norwegian Nobel Committee to revoke Obama’s Peace Prize. By midnight of the first day, nearly 10,000 people had signed. The online petition simply tells the Nobel committee: “I urge you to rescind the Nobel Peace Prize that was awarded to Barack Obama.”
Many signers have added their own comments. Here are some samples: