#2 OF 6 REASONS TO OPPOSE THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN

#2 OF 6 REASONS TO OPPOSE THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN

Posted using ShareThis

"How The Vietnam War Was Stopped" presentation by Brian Lenzo

The war in Vietnam may have been 40 years ago, but the parallels it draws with the United State’s current imperial wars of mass destruction are important. It was a war justified by the ‘boogeyman’ of its time, communism, and waged on the basis of gifting American democracy. Yet the ruling class’s facade could not hide the horrors of one of the most out of control and brutal conflicts of the twentieth century.

Brian Lenzo (aka. RAW Politik, author of “6 Reasons to Oppose the War in Afghanistan“) in a talk given at Nazareth College in April 2008, explains the revolutionary conditions of the 1960s, the events that shook people to take action, and the role of GI resistance against the atrocities being committed abroad.

#1 of 6 Reasons to Oppose the War in Afghanistan

#1 of 6 Reasons to Oppose the War in Afghanistan

Posted using ShareThis

6 Reasons to Oppose the War in Afghanistan

6 Reasons to Oppose the War in Afghanistan

Posted using ShareThis

Rochester Antiwar Movement Issues Response to Election Results

Rochester, NY. Following Election Day 2008, Rochester Against War, Rochester Students for a Democratic Society, Campus Antiwar Network, Military Families Speak Out, and local Iraq and Afghanistan Veternas stand together to make the following statement:


Video by Rochester Indy Media (other media outlets didn't show up)

Article Originally appeared on Rochester Indy Media Website. Link here

<Afghanistan>The War that Dare Not Speak Its Name</Afghanistan>

In recent weeks, I have joined another blogging community. Head on over and check out my friends at "The Sitch". This article appears there as well.

If you are not excited to see 8 years of Bush and 30 years of Republican ideological dominance crumble into the waste bin of history, then you are probably still rocking back and forth in tears.

The Republicans were trounced eight ways from Sunday last night, despite the racist, fear mongering, smear campaign of McCain/Palin. America, the home of slavery and Jim Crow, elected a African American president. Let that marinate for a while.

Given this historic moment, and being the insomniac political junkie that I am, I set to work. I want to know what will be the pressure points, the issues to push in order to make our government deliver on its promises. Rochester Against War just took a stand opposing the war in Afghanistan, so I went to check out Obama's stated position. I wandered on over to BarakObama.com but found a glaring issue with Obama’s “issues” section.

While you will find subjects like, “Economy, Poverty, Immigration, and even Iraq”, what you wont find is, to me, one of the defining issues of the day, second only to the economic crisis. THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN. (screen shot attached)

Check out the Foreign Policy page. Among the 2,845 word explanation of Obama/Biden’s foreign policy, you wont find mention of Afghanistan there either! Not even once. In fact, if you do a Google site search of Obama’s website, you get 12 hits, most of which are from the same 2 speeches.

Now, isn’t this a little odd considering its one of the two major wars the US Military is currently fighting?

When you CAN find the country mentioned, Obama is clearly planning to escalate the war in Afghanistan. At the end of this post you can find a comprehensive set of quotations and links from the Obama/Biden website. Here are some choice phrases to consider:

-- "The scale of our deployments in Iraq continues to set back our ability to finish the fight in Afghanistan, producing unacceptable strategic risks.”

-- “When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

-- “I will never hesitate to defend this country and our critical interests.”

-- “Above all, I will send a clear message: we will not repeat the mistake of the past, when we turned our back on Afghanistan following Soviet withdrawal.”

Those last two should make you feel pretty queasy. Is he suggesting we should have CONTINUED supporting Bin Laden through the 90's, that Bin Laden would have been a good ally if we didn't piss him off?

Why is this? Why is Obama's analysis of Afghanistan, a major war, buried so much on his website. I don't think its an accidental oversight. In fact, Obama has used his website to raise millions of dollars and connect millions of volunteers to each other during his campaign. What I think Obama and his handlers realize is that his "base" the millions who brought him to power, are under the assumption that Obama is the "peace candidate" The Democratic party is just fine with this notion and purposely downplay this seeming contradiction. And so they bury and distract, bob and weave, and allow incorrect beliefs to continue, as long as they deliver their vote on Nov 4th. Its straight out of the McCain playbook.

In fact, Obama isn't a "peace candidate", he falls more on the "Wrong War, Wrong Way." The places he plays UP his desire to escalate is among those generals, military contractors, and Washington elite that stand to benefit from US domination of the region. He is courting them by arguing he can manage the Empire better than old Bushie, who has really made a mess of things.

I think the overall point made is that far from opposing US military intervention, Obama is squarely in the camp of using the US Military to “defend this country and our critical interests.” As I started this article saying, we should be extremely excited and we should realize that sentiment is moving in a leftward, progressive, whatever word you want to use, OUR direction!

But we should remember, that politicians are bought and sold like credit default swaps. Unlike Wall St., bankers WE have something to lose and everything to gain by examining in explicit detail what is THE CONTENT of their policies, and who do those policies end up benefiting?

I can remember getting calls from my friends, trapped in downtown Manhattan as the World Trade towers fell. I also remember that Bush was reading a childrens book in Florida, and Cheney was safe in his bunker. “Our critical interests” are actually “their” critical interests. No Afghani ever gambled my life savings away. No Iraqi ever denied me healthcare, and no Pakistani ever imprisoned me indefinitely without charge.

RAW Politiko

===================

Obama by the quotes:
Lets see what the Obama/Biden ticket says about Afghanistan (ive bolded some of the most important remarks):

-- In the Iraq section, under the headings “Resurgent Al Aqaeda in Afghanistan” it says the following:

The decision to invade Iraq diverted resources from the war in Afghanistan, making it harder for us to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden and others involved in the 9/11 attacks. Nearly seven years later, the Taliban has reemerged in southern Afghanistan while Al Qaeda has used the space provided by the Iraq war to regroup, train and plan for another attack on the United States. 2007 was the most violent year in Afghanistan since the invasion in 2001. The scale of our deployments in Iraq continues to set back our ability to finish the fight in Afghanistan, producing unacceptable strategic risks.

-- In a speech given in Des Moines, IA | May 21, 2008, Obama says:

“Change is ending a war that we never should've started and finishing a war against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan that we never should've ignored.”

-- A speech given in Washington, DC | August 01, 2007 titled, “The War We Need to Win” Obama said the following:

"And so, a little more than a year after that bright September day, I was in the streets of Chicago again, this time speaking at a rally in opposition to war in Iraq. I did not oppose all wars, I said. I was a strong supporter of the war in Afghanistan."

He continues:

"When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.

The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

He continues:

Above all, I will send a clear message: we will not repeat the mistake of the past, when we turned our back on Afghanistan following Soviet withdrawal.

http://origin.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/remarks_of_senator_obama_the_w.php

-- In a speech given to some Flag Officers from the Army, Navy and Air Force in Chicago, IL | March 12, 2008 he says:

That is why I have consistently called for an increased commitment to Afghanistan, and why I called last August for at least two additional combat brigades to support our mission there. And that is why I will end the war in Iraq when I am President, and focus on finishing the job in Afghanistan.

I will never hesitate to defend this country and our critical interests.

http://origin.barackobama.com/2008/03/12/obama_receives_endorsement_of.php

Ron Paul, Libertarianism, and the Antiwar Movement

This is my extended take on Ron Paul and Libertarianism. Be warned, this is a polemic, and while I personally have no beef with Libertarians (I know one who makes a mean vegetarian chili), I do have issue with their political ideas, so all in good fun, but serious debate :)

Its not what Ron Paul IS, but what he ISN'T.

Ron Paul represents the interests of small business owners and highly paid professionals. People sandwiched between big business and the unwashed masses. They resent the domination of society by large corporations, not because they desire a more equal world, but because big business (and government) present obstacles to their own individual success. The disdain for ordinary people is hardly masked if you listen to their rhetoric about immigrants, minorities, and even the rights of women.

The problem is that the libertarian (classical libertarian) world is a freeze frame of 19th century American capitalism, a utopia of rugged individualism and small competition. Problem is that

1. that world never really existed (the one that did was built on slavery)
2. it rests on the ridiculous presumption that everyone starts out on a level playing field where raw talent is the deciding factor of success, life or death.

Unfortunately, power is inheritable. A cursory look at our current inbred crop of politicians will dispel any sense that the cream rises to the top. Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton?

While romantic, the populist notion that the biggest problem is "government interference" is as Sean put it "hogwash." Some pigs just want their own spot at the trough.

I think we must reject this world view in favor of one that puts the resources of society to work for all that make it possible, not the rich that were born at the controls.

So why do progressives then support Ron Paul?

Because of the two party stranglehold, corporate control, etc. most Americans electoral choices are made through process of elimination of what is "beyond the pale" for them.

So their support for a candidate is based mostly on the positions their opponents take, not the positions their chosen candidate takes. So Ron Paul could accept a $500 donation from an open White Supremacist (which he did last week), but as long as Giuliani accepts Pat Robertson, and Huckabee rejects evolution, Paul is still in the ballpark.

For progressives, its a recognition that Kucinich (and Gravel) are not even viable enough to affect the positions of the front-runners of their own party, let alone affect the issues of the general election. Thats why I think Kucinich should leave the Democratic party like Cynthia McKinney did and run on the Green Party ticket.

The Republican party is falling apart and they don't have the apparatus to marginalize Paul like the Democrats can marginalize Kucinich. The Republicans don't fear a party revolt because the ideas Paul puts forward are pretty crazy (dissolve public education, no government control except over women's right to control the fate of her own uterus).

The Democrats fear Kucinich, because his ideas WILL appeal to the masses of people the Democrats count on for votes and that kind of party revolt would destroy the Democratic party, not pull it to the left. Corporate party, corporate rules, corporate efficiency in eliminating threats.

Finally, the "Ron Paul revolution" also flows from a mistaken (in my opinion anyways) position that leftists have to compromise their core principles in order to be "relevant" to the mainstream electoral process. Tom Hayden and Phyllis Bennis have made those exact arguments in the pages of the Nation magazine lately.

If they are willing to concede Healthcare and the War to Obama and Clinton in order to be "relevant", then why not concede abortion and immigration to a crazy old guy who speaks like a 19th century populist.

In my opinion, the solution to a 30 year assault by the right wing isn't to co-opt sections of the right wing, or to adapt to its politics, but figure out how to be firmer and better at organizing our side.

The right wing doesn't need huge numbers of regular Americans to get its message out and be effective, a small number of right wingers will have the ear of big media and the majority of politicians, because the right wing message benefits the rich and powerful (including Ron Paul). So their message is amplified and exaggerated by a media that shares their views.

The left on the other hand, needs to be extremely organized, principled, and disciplined in order to get its message out and be powerful enough to win.

The power of organized people demanding their basic rights is more powerful than any government, army, or corporation, but it is much, much harder to organize them (and the governments, armies and corporations also fear popular power and try to stop us for good measure).

So it takes a long time, much longer than a 2 year electoral cycle, and every 2 years (or 4 years) politicians tell us that we don't have to do all that hard work (or that hard work is not worth while), and you can just vote and everything will be OK. Its not that people are lazy, but people are desperate for change and will give politicians the benefit of the doubt without a strong alternative force to look to.

We need to build a core of folks to stand up to those counter-acting forces year after year, and walk along side those who agree with us on a number of issues, but don't have the confidence to put their chips in our corner yet. While walking and struggling, we should never, never be silent about the fact that this is a long-term struggle. We should figure out as best we can, who our friends are, and who our enemies are. And we should NOT think that hiding our differences is the best kind of unity. We should not aim to organize along the least common denominator, but aim to raise the level of confidence, the level of knowledge, and the level of skill.

Its not easy, but the payoff is a world worth living in.