‘No escalation' is first step to peace in Afghanistan

As the administration continues crucial discussions of next steps in Afghanistan, a broad coalition of peace organizations last week launched a new campaign, NoEscalation.org, to intensify pressure on Congress to speak out and vote against escalating the war.

The coalition, including Peace Action, Just Foreign Policy, United for Peace and Justice, Progressive Democrats of America and others, is urging calls to members of the House of Representatives to support HR 3699 by Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., which would bar a troop increase, and HR 2404 by Rep. James McGovern, D-Mass., calling for a military exit strategy. McGovern's measure, introduced earlier this year, now has 100 co-sponsors; Lee's bill, introduced earlier this month, now has 23. The coalition's web site features a spreadsheet showing House members' stance on the bills.

NoEscalation calls for pressing senators to speak out publicly against a troop increase and to introduce legislation favoring an exit strategy and timetable for military withdrawal.

"The groups organizing this project want to end the war," the coalition says. "But the first step to ending the war is not to deepen it."

In a telephone interview, Robert Naiman, policy director at Just Foreign Policy, took up that theme. "It's pretty easy to predict what the consequences of military escalation will be," he said. "Even if the president, the Congress, or we don't know what is the right thing to do, we know what the wrong thing is, and the first step is not to do the wrong thing."

Next, he said, is moving toward a political settlement. "It's going to be complicated and take time, there are many actors, the insurgency is not monolithic, so things will need to happen at the national, regional and local levels," he said. But taking that path will not only have a "dramatic impact" on the violence, it will also make humanitarian aid and economic development much more possible.

Civilian aid also needs to be sustainable, the decision-making must be led by local people, and projects must employ local people, Naiman said. "Local people may not have all the technical knowledge that foreigners have, but they know how to do things that they can sustain." International involvement in aid projects is essential, including by the United Nations, he said, because even civilians working for the U.S. in Afghanistan are linked to the military effort.

Adele Welty, whose organization, September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, last year published a detailed proposal for ending U.S. military involvement and helping Afghanistan to rebuild, emphasized the "terrible damage" from the war's civilian casualties. Despite concerns about what will happen when U.S. and NATO troops leave, she said, "we don't know of any more positive strategy than trying to help with humanitarian aid and education, which is a way to win hearts and minds ... I don't think guns and bombs are any way to reach peace, or to rebuild the future and to forge an alliance with the Afghan people." September 11th Families' proposal, "Afghanistan: Ending a Failed Military Strategy," can be found at www.peacefultomorrows.org.

Others are also weighing the next steps. Blogging on Huffington Post, Sojourners founder Jim Wallis called for "a whole new approach." The U.S. "should let the non-military lead with development now," only providing security necessary to protect the urgently needed rebuilding of the country, and make that security as international as possible, he wrote.

And in an Oct. 29 New York Times op-ed, Nicholas Kristof pointed out that it is possible to build 20 schools in Afghanistan for the cost of maintaining one U.S. soldier there for a year. To those who say education can't succeed in a war-torn society, he responded that hundreds of schools have been built by the aid organization CARE, the Afghan Institute of Learning and others - including schools educating girls - and none have been destroyed by insurgents.

Underscoring the seriousness of the administration's debate, President Obama Oct. 29 journeyed for the first time to be present when the caskets of 18 Americans - 15 Army soldiers and three Drug Enforcement Administration agents killed there this week - were returned to Delaware's Dover Air Force Base. The administration was reportedly seeking a province-by-province analysis of the country's security needs. And on Oct. 28, the president signed legislation formally recognizing the U.S. obligation to completely withdraw its military from Iraq by the end of 2011.

 

Post your comment

Comments

  • US should pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Leave them to sort out their own mess. Give them advice, by all means, but no more. If US wants to go after rogue states, then why not take on Zimbabwe/China/ Myanmar,etc. US cant solve the world's problems. Leave the security issues to the CIA.

    Posted by Faz, 10/30/2009 2:50pm (5 months ago)

  • Let's sum up the argument here, shall we? Essentially: War is peace, but only if it's Obama's war.

    Posted by Nicholas Hewko, 10/30/2009 1:33am (5 months ago)

  • With or without more troops the war in Afghanistan escalates by the hour.

    There is only one thing Barack Obama and the Democrats might listen to:

    No peace; no votes in 2010 or 2012.

    Why is it so hard for these peace organizations to issue this ultimatum? Have these peace organizations even discussed this approach; or, are they just so overwhelmed with Barack Obama that they will acquiesce to him no matter how anti-people and warmongering his policies and actions on behalf of Wall Street are?

    Everything is based and centered around giving Barack Obama and the Democrats some kind of "benefit of doubt"--- as if we, the people, are beholden to them rather than it being the other way around.

    What have Barack Obama and the Democrats ever done for working people that they are owed such allegiance?

    All the way around it is workers fighting and dying in these wars and working class families suffer the brunt of these wars... be it Americans or people in Afghanistan.

    These are the same Democrats and the same Barack Obama who voted overwhelmingly to support the barbaric Israeli killing spree in Gaza Strip. These are the same Democrats and the same Obama who see peace as the successful imperialist occupation of other peoples' countries.

    What has happened to calling this an imperialist war in the pages of the PWW/PW. This article does not even mention "imperialist war."

    Then you conclude by writing:

    "And on Oct. 28, the president signed legislation formally recognizing the U.S. obligation to completely withdraw its military from Iraq by the end of 2011."

    No one believes this wil happen. Not only that, Iraq will remain occupied in Wall Street's interests in one way or another for the very long term or until the occupiers are driven out by the Iraqi people or the American people become so fed up they force the war to end--- more than likely, like with Vietnam it will be a combination of both not to mention massive international pressure... does it make any difference if tax-payer funded troops do the occupation of Iraq or Afghanistan or paid mercenaries (contractors, thugs) directly employed by Wall Street? In fact, occupation by these mercenaries will probably end up costing U.S. tax-payers more than supplying U.S. troops. Maybe we should be requesting Obama keep the troops in Iraq because it would be cheaper?

    In fact, Obama's only intent is to get the peace movement off his back and out campaigning--- again--- for the Democrats in time for the 2010 elections.

    This is not a "failed military strategy." To suggest this as a "failed military strategy" instead of an imperialist military strategy is suggesting that there is a "successful military strategy." All of this obscures the real imperialist purpose for these wars to begin with... and we wouldn't want to see Barack Obama refered to as an "imperialist warmonger," would we... even though he is one.

    The suggestions from Robert Naiman, a die-hard Obama backer, sounds all too similar to exactly what Obama has done regarding Iraq where the casualties on both sides continue to mount and the destruction of Iraq continues as successful imperialist domination and occupation is Wall Street's objective; coincidentally, Barack Obama's objective, too.

    Why isn't the position of the U.S. Peace Council or the World Peace Council provided in this article? And why has the PWW/PW been so silent concerning the Canadian peace movement given that Canadians never supported involvement of their country in this dirty imperialist war and they were dragged into it by a right-wing government which Barack Obama collaborates with in pushing the war in Afghanistan.

    Here is the call to the peace conference in Toronto of which not one single word has been published in the PWW/PW that just took place in Toronto (why not report on how this conference views the war in Afghanistan since it involves Canadian forces, too?--- I assume you know how to contact Al Marder of the U.S. Peace Council... we have a right to read in the PWW/PW what this conference decided to do about initiating cross-border peace activities aimed at ending the war in Afghanistan). Perhaps I am wrong, but I assume this Peace Conference took action regarding the war in Afghanistan:

    For Unity in Action of the Peoples of Mexico, Canada and the USA, for Peace, Sovereignty, Anti-Imperialist Solidarity and the Rights of the Working People.


    Invitation to Participants from Mexico, Canada and the USA to Attend the Second Tri-Lateral Conference of the World Peace Council, October 2-4, 2009 Toronto Ontario, Canada


    In 2004, the Peace Movements of Mexico, Canada and the United States met in Puebla-Mexico, for the first Trilateral North American regional meeting. It was agreed then to invite to a peace promoting meeting all interested parties, every four years. This agreement was ratified last April during the World Peace Assembly called by the World Peace Council in Caracas, Venezuela.


    Acting without the approval of the people, big business governments in Mexico, Canada and the USA promote the interests of a small group of transnational corporate and banking monopolies. Driven solely by profiteering these interests trample the sovereignty of the peoples, exploit their labour, besmirch their achievements in culture, language and art and ignore and violate the rights of indigenous people.


    Driven by greed, corporate monopolies appropriate and wantonly exploit the energy, water and other natural resources of the continent with devastating affects on the environment. These interests treat the territory of North America from the far Arctic to the Yucatan Peninsula, from the Pacific to the Atlantic as a private domain of imperial power to subjugate the peoples of North America, the Caribbean, Central and South America to project their interests globally.


    Committed to the global ambitions of US imperialism and without regard for the consequences of the peoples affected, these corporate interests and the governments they control, collaborate to militarize and fully integrate the economies of the USA, Mexico and Canada, destroy the home markets and subvert and exclude the democratic oversight of the people.


    The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Security and Prosperity Partnership, (SPP) are continental and integrationist agreements foisted on the people by big business proclaiming their right to develop the economies of Mexico, Canada and the USA exclusively in the interests of wealthy investor elites.


    The peace, labour and democratic movements resist and challenge corporate edicts over their lives and condemn governments that fail to uphold their vital economic and social interests. In Mexico, Canada and the USA workers and farmers oppose free trade pacts that destroy domestic industries and agriculture, weaken standards of protection for workers and farmers, promote discriminatory immigration laws, adopt labour mobility agreements, de-regulate food, safety and inspection standards, divert public funding from health, education and pension funds to private hands, and divest state property at fire sale prices to private investors.


    The struggle of the Mexican people to defend the gas industry, to modify the free trade agreement and to safeguard the country’s integrity are clear examples of the corporatist threats facing people.


    Of particular danger to the peace and security of the people of Canada, Mexico and the USA are over arching military and security pacts ostensibly protecting the continent that in fact harbor aggressive first strike weapons systems and rapid deployment forces incorporating operational use of nuclear weapons that in the era of Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) includes their deployment to space.


    The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), the US Northern Command (NORTHCOM), the US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM), the activation of the US 4th Fleet and extra-territorial attempts of US imperialism to impose Homeland Security doctrines on the people of Mexico and Canada, are flagrant violations of sovereignty that threaten peace and security and promote a new international arms race.


    The Tri-Lateral Conference in Toronto Ontario Canada, October 2-4, 2009 will address these problems, analyze the threats posed to peace, sovereignty, democratic and economic rights and present alternative solutions and programs to strengthen the anti-imperialist movements of the people.


    We invite your participation. An agenda will be forthcoming. The Canadian Peace Congress website, www.canadianpeacecongress.ca will publish information and documents of the Tri-Lateral Conference and exchange information, inviting contributions to the pre-Conference discussion and where registrations, travel and accommodation information can be accessed.


    Let Us Meet in Toronto Canada, October 2-4, 2009.

    In Peace and Solidarity,

    Canadian Peace Congress, MOMPADE, US Peace Council



    Posted by Alan L. Maki, 10/30/2009 1:06am (5 months ago)

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