Op-Ed
I started the Afghanistan War Weekly several months ago because it seemed important to learn more about how the war was being fought on the ground, and what was the impact or what were the results of the military and civilian programs being put in place.
My conclusion so far is that the war, from the US point of view, has been lost. Not just that the war is in trouble, but that from a military and political point of view, things have gone so badly that they cannot be turned around, even with more time and resources.
I think this conclusion is important because the "war is lost" perspective or slogan addresses the likely future moves of the war managers in a way that our current slogans and perspectives do not.
Our antiwar slogans or perspectives now broadly include:
The war is immoral; it kills civilians
The war is not a good response to terrorism; it is making us less safe
The war is expensive; we need the money to build real security at home; and
The war should be ended through negotiations asap.
My conclusion so far is that the war, from the US point of view, has been lost. Not just that the war is in trouble, but that from a military and political point of view, things have gone so badly that they cannot be turned around, even with more time and resources.
I think this conclusion is important because the "war is lost" perspective or slogan addresses the likely future moves of the war managers in a way that our current slogans and perspectives do not.
Our antiwar slogans or perspectives now broadly include:
The war is immoral; it kills civilians
The war is not a good response to terrorism; it is making us less safe
The war is expensive; we need the money to build real security at home; and
The war should be ended through negotiations asap.
Laurie Goodstein's article, 'American Muslims Ask, Will We Ever Belong?' was intended as a sympathetic reading of the concerns of US Muslim communities facing increasing levels of hostility and fear. While generally insightful and sensibly written, the article also highlights the very misconceptions that riddle the bizarre debate pitting American Muslims against much of the government, the mainstream media and most of the general public.
This is how Goodstein lays the ground for her discussion: "For nine years after the attacks of Sept. 11, many American Muslims made concerted efforts to build relationships with non-Muslims, to make it clear they abhor terrorism, to educate people about Islam and to participate in interfaith service projects. They took satisfaction in the observations by many scholars that Muslims in America were more successful and assimilated than Muslims in Europe." (New York Times, September 5, 2010)
This argument is not Goodstein's alone, but one repeated by many in the media, the general public, and even among American Muslims themselves. The insinuation of the above context is misleading, and the timeline is selective.
This is how Goodstein lays the ground for her discussion: "For nine years after the attacks of Sept. 11, many American Muslims made concerted efforts to build relationships with non-Muslims, to make it clear they abhor terrorism, to educate people about Islam and to participate in interfaith service projects. They took satisfaction in the observations by many scholars that Muslims in America were more successful and assimilated than Muslims in Europe." (New York Times, September 5, 2010)
This argument is not Goodstein's alone, but one repeated by many in the media, the general public, and even among American Muslims themselves. The insinuation of the above context is misleading, and the timeline is selective.
It took the U.S. secretary of defense, for God’s sake, to get a Florida preacher to cancel his plans for pyrotechnic sacrilege on Sept. 11. A few days later, CNN asked some of its blog contributors to reflect on the incident . . . “now that the crisis is over.”
We’re neck deep in two wars (excuse me, one and a half) and an imploding economy, not to mention global warming, endemic violence and hurricane season, but Terry Jones’ creepy publicity stunt has the status of a national crisis: America’s close call! We came this close to offending Muslims!
Oh, we are a sensitive nation.
And Jones was, indeed, dabbling at the margins of holy war, which media coverage managed to turn into a global phenomenon. “. . . he ignited an international conflagration of outrage,” as CNN put it, though he didn’t do it by himself.
We’re neck deep in two wars (excuse me, one and a half) and an imploding economy, not to mention global warming, endemic violence and hurricane season, but Terry Jones’ creepy publicity stunt has the status of a national crisis: America’s close call! We came this close to offending Muslims!
Oh, we are a sensitive nation.
And Jones was, indeed, dabbling at the margins of holy war, which media coverage managed to turn into a global phenomenon. “. . . he ignited an international conflagration of outrage,” as CNN put it, though he didn’t do it by himself.
A pithy idea -- now going around in some progressive circles -- is that elections are a waste of time.
The idea can be catchy. It all depends on some tacit assumptions.
For instance: elections are a waste of time if you figure the U.S. government is so far gone that it can’t get much worse.
Elections are a waste of time if you’ve given up on grassroots organizing to sway voters before they cast ballots.
Elections are a waste of time if you think there’s not much difference on the Supreme Court between Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia, or Sonia Sotomayor and Samuel Alito.
Elections are a waste of time if you’re so disgusted with Speaker Pelosi that you wouldn’t lift a finger to prevent Speaker Boehner.
Elections are a waste of time if you don’t see much value in reducing -- even slightly -- the extent of injustice and deprivation imposed on vulnerable people.
Or, if you see the organizing of protests, community groups, unions and the like as “either/or” in relation to working for the election of better candidates.
The idea can be catchy. It all depends on some tacit assumptions.
For instance: elections are a waste of time if you figure the U.S. government is so far gone that it can’t get much worse.
Elections are a waste of time if you’ve given up on grassroots organizing to sway voters before they cast ballots.
Elections are a waste of time if you think there’s not much difference on the Supreme Court between Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia, or Sonia Sotomayor and Samuel Alito.
Elections are a waste of time if you’re so disgusted with Speaker Pelosi that you wouldn’t lift a finger to prevent Speaker Boehner.
Elections are a waste of time if you don’t see much value in reducing -- even slightly -- the extent of injustice and deprivation imposed on vulnerable people.
Or, if you see the organizing of protests, community groups, unions and the like as “either/or” in relation to working for the election of better candidates.
Robert Scheer's new book "The Great American Stickup: How Reagan Republicans and Clinton Democrats Enriched Wall Street While Mugging Main Street," is not yet another account of how we got robbed or "why the economy imploded for dummies." If you're like me, you just didn't need another lesson in how swapped collateralized debt obligation derivative tranches didn't really make the pie higher. Scheer's book is something else: a straightforward broad-view account of the past thirty years focused on who did the robbing.
Here's the short answer that Scheer provides: Reagan announced the robbery but couldn't pull it off. Clinton robbed us blind. Bush Jr. and Obama drove the get-away car, with Obama disguised as a security guard.
Here's the short answer that Scheer provides: Reagan announced the robbery but couldn't pull it off. Clinton robbed us blind. Bush Jr. and Obama drove the get-away car, with Obama disguised as a security guard.
What does it mean that the New York Times, upon the occasion of President Obama’s announced drawdown of forces in Iraq last week, called our seven and a half years of invasion and occupation of the country “a pointless war”?
The editorial proceeded to do what Obama himself seemed to be under enormous political pressure to avoid: It skewered his predecessor, mildly perhaps, but repeatedly throughout the 645-word editorial: “the war made America less safe,” “it is important not to forget how much damage Mr. Bush caused by misleading Americans,” etc. The editorial even acknowledged an Iraqi death toll: “at least 100,000.”
The editorial proceeded to do what Obama himself seemed to be under enormous political pressure to avoid: It skewered his predecessor, mildly perhaps, but repeatedly throughout the 645-word editorial: “the war made America less safe,” “it is important not to forget how much damage Mr. Bush caused by misleading Americans,” etc. The editorial even acknowledged an Iraqi death toll: “at least 100,000.”
"OK, so your heart's broken," as the old song goes. So's mine. But we have to get over it -- now -- and start taking action for the November election.
Granted, we're far from where we thought we'd be when Barack Obama was elected and people danced in the streets. Change was on its way, spearheaded by Obama's soaring words and by the millions of ordinary Americans who got involved as never before to help carry him to victory. We thought we'd finally created the opening for a historic transformation.
Granted, we're far from where we thought we'd be when Barack Obama was elected and people danced in the streets. Change was on its way, spearheaded by Obama's soaring words and by the millions of ordinary Americans who got involved as never before to help carry him to victory. We thought we'd finally created the opening for a historic transformation.
On the last night of August, the president used an Oval Office speech to boost a policy of perpetual war.
Hours later, the New York Times front page offered a credulous gloss for the end of “the seven-year American combat mission in Iraq.” The first sentence of the coverage described the speech as saying “that it is now time to turn to pressing problems at home.” The story went on to assert that Obama “used the moment to emphasize that he sees his primary job as addressing the weak economy and other domestic issues -- and to make clear that he intends to begin disengaging from the war in Afghanistan next summer.”
But the speech gave no real indication of a shift in priorities from making war to creating jobs. And the oratory “made clear” only the repetition of vague vows to “begin” disengaging from the Afghanistan war next summer. In fact, top administration officials have been signaling that only token military withdrawals are apt to occur in mid-2011, and Obama said nothing to the contrary.
Hours later, the New York Times front page offered a credulous gloss for the end of “the seven-year American combat mission in Iraq.” The first sentence of the coverage described the speech as saying “that it is now time to turn to pressing problems at home.” The story went on to assert that Obama “used the moment to emphasize that he sees his primary job as addressing the weak economy and other domestic issues -- and to make clear that he intends to begin disengaging from the war in Afghanistan next summer.”
But the speech gave no real indication of a shift in priorities from making war to creating jobs. And the oratory “made clear” only the repetition of vague vows to “begin” disengaging from the Afghanistan war next summer. In fact, top administration officials have been signaling that only token military withdrawals are apt to occur in mid-2011, and Obama said nothing to the contrary.
Now that the dust has settled from Glenn Beck's weekend revival at the Lincoln Memorial, two messages need to be delivered loud and clear.
First: the United States of America has NEVER been a Christian nation, but there are those who would make it so, past and future.
And second: do not discount Glenn Beck becoming president of the United States.
I say these things after having sat through nearly all of the 17-part video rendering of Beck's rally this past weekend, and having read as many critiques of it---left and right---as I could find.
This rally was not about intellectual content, and it's a mistake to analyze it that way.
Its organizers kept the verbal content extremely simple: honor the military, "restore America," have faith in your churches, follow their lead, and donate generously.
Much of the real meaning was in who was missing.
The only major media stars were Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin. Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, Levin, Dr. Laura, Ann Coulter---no one else from the firmament of the Right got the mike or---unless I missed them---appeared on camera.
First: the United States of America has NEVER been a Christian nation, but there are those who would make it so, past and future.
And second: do not discount Glenn Beck becoming president of the United States.
I say these things after having sat through nearly all of the 17-part video rendering of Beck's rally this past weekend, and having read as many critiques of it---left and right---as I could find.
This rally was not about intellectual content, and it's a mistake to analyze it that way.
Its organizers kept the verbal content extremely simple: honor the military, "restore America," have faith in your churches, follow their lead, and donate generously.
Much of the real meaning was in who was missing.
The only major media stars were Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin. Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, Levin, Dr. Laura, Ann Coulter---no one else from the firmament of the Right got the mike or---unless I missed them---appeared on camera.
As news stories are leading those still aware of the war on Iraq to believe it's over, it was encouraging to see Busboys and Poets restaurant in Washington, D.C., packed Sunday evening for a four-hour forum on actions needed to actually end that war, make reparations, and deter future wars of aggression. The event was advertised with the following description:
"Is the U.S. military really leaving Iraq or just rebranding? What is the toll of seven years of occupation on Iraqis, U.S. soldiers and our economies? What is the status of Iraqi refugees around the world? Is it still possible to hold accountable those who dragged us into the war or committed crimes such as torture? What role did Congress and the media play in facilitating the invasion/occupation? We'll also look at the role of the peace movement -- its strengths and weaknesses -- and draw key lessons to make our work for peace, including in Afghanistan, more effective."
"Is the U.S. military really leaving Iraq or just rebranding? What is the toll of seven years of occupation on Iraqis, U.S. soldiers and our economies? What is the status of Iraqi refugees around the world? Is it still possible to hold accountable those who dragged us into the war or committed crimes such as torture? What role did Congress and the media play in facilitating the invasion/occupation? We'll also look at the role of the peace movement -- its strengths and weaknesses -- and draw key lessons to make our work for peace, including in Afghanistan, more effective."