The PJRC

The Democracy Journal
Search Site
Get Involved
This form does not yet contain any fields.
    Support the PJRC

    Support the PJRC for continued original analysis on ending the wars, funding domestic priorities and preserving civil liberties.

    Make a contribution to benefit the PJRC now! 

    Conferences & Events

    Tom Hayden speaks in Port Huron, MI, in celebration of the 50th anniversary of the Port Huron Statement.

    Invite Tom Hayden to speak in your town! 

     

     

    Follow Tom

                    

    Contact Us
    This form does not yet contain any fields.
      Monday
      Jan102011

      On 2011-2012 Strategy: Changing the Political Calculus

      A version of this article appeared at The Nation on January 14, 2011.

      We are now entering the time frame pointing to the 2012 presidential election, when anti-war networks and peace voters, as Rep. Barbara Lee says, can become a factor in the President’s calculus and convince him to campaign for re-election against the wars.
       
      For background, the Bob Woodward book, Obama’s Wars, is worth reading carefully for clues to a peace strategy. Woodward tells the inside story of the executive review regarding Afghanistan last year. He reports that:

      “[Obama] repeated that he wasn’t buying into a $1 trillion, 10-year counterinsurgency strategy. 'I want an exit strategy,' the president said.[p. 253]
       
      “Obama was almost fretting. ‘A six-to-eight-year war at $50 billion a year is not in the national interest of the United States.’ That was what was before him.” [p.278]
       
      "'I can't lose all the Democratic Party. And people at home don’t want to hear we’re going to be there for ten years.’”[p.336
      ]
       
      “What was unsaid, what everyone knew, was that a president could not lose – or be seen to be losing – a war.” [p.167]

      Obama was the commander-in-chief, but there were other voices in the room. Vice-president Joe Biden led questioning of the war’s costs. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton supported whatever the generals wanted. Gen. David Petraeus opposed timelines and argued for a military surge, saying, “All we have to do to is begin to show progress, and that’ll be sufficient to add time to the clock and we’ll get what we need.” [p. 339]
       
      What has changed since that time is the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives, dimming the President’s stated expectation that a timetable would come from the Hill. [p. 232]. If only for political reasons, the Republicans are not going to give the president that cover. It remains to be seen if a majority of Democrats will stand up as they did last year. In addition, with the loss of Sen. Russ Feingold, there is no sign of anti-war opposition coming from the Senate for now.
       
      But public opinion remains stubborn, with 60 percent saying the war is not worth fighting. About 75 percent of Democrats and 55 percent of independent voters are opposed as well.

      One task for peace advocates is public education, in targeted congressional districs, about the costs of the war, the existence of diplomatic alternatives, and outreach to other political constituencies concerned about the economy and budget crises.
       
      At this point, no one beyond the Barbara Lee bloc is calling for a termination of the funding. But significant voices within the establishment are moving towards the exits.
       
      The New York Times published an excellent piece on talks with the Taliban by Scott Atran on Oct. 26. Atran makes the point that the time for introducing a diplomatic offensive is now, instead of waiting until the U.S. begins drawing down. Instead, the current strategy is, as top White House adviser Bruce Riedel phrases it, “until we kill them, they’re going to keep trying to kill us.” [p.106] But the rising slaughter of so-called mid-level Taliban insurgents and their local supporters, Atran warns, “may create a whirlwind that no one will be able to control.”
       
      On Dec. 20, the Wall Street Journal printed an anti-Afghanistan article by the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass, proposing that Obama’s next policy review this spring “should call for reducing US forces to 30,000 by mid-2012, a reduction of 70,000 from present levels starting this July." Haass even called Afghanistan “a strategic distraction,” arguing that, “the greatest threat to US national security stems from our own fiscal crisis.”

      Inside the White House, Biden appears to be holding his own, saying on NBC's Meet the Press in December that America will be "totally out of [Afghanistan], come hell or high water, by 2014." No doubt that is an exaggeration, but it reinforces the sense that U.S. combat operations will decline radically. So does the recent announcement by Defense Secretary Robert Gates that 47,000 troops will be cut from the overall Pentagon payroll by 2015.

      These signs come in the wake of the Afghanistan Study Group report last year that argued for the same withdrawal schedule now endorsed by Haass.
       
      If a majority of House Democrats issued a letter to the president supporting the same goal – withdrawing 70,000 troops at a $75 billion saving by mid-2012 – that could conceivably give Obama the political cover to do what he apparently is willing to do anyway. At least it would be a powerful test of where everyone stands heading into 2012.
       
      Even if that level of withdrawal can be achieved, it would not be a perfect solution. Frankly, there is no perfect solution in divided and bleeding Afghanistan, nor in Pakistan, and few besides Lee have the willingness to end our malign military presence. A recent article in Foreign Affairs, “Plan B in Afghanistan,” suggests what establishment critics reluctantly have in mind: a de facto partition as the “least bad option.” The author, Robert Blackwill, is a former Bush era diplomat now at the Council on Foreign Relations as well. In his view, the United States has to accept Taliban control of the south and east while militarily protecting the same tribal forces that constituted the Northern Alliance a decade ago. His approach is described as “withdraw in order to stay,” and as “the best alternative to strategic defeat.” [Foreign Affairs, Vol. 90, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 2001]
       
      The only “good news” in all this ghastly reasoning is the appearance of the dawn of rationality among a foreign policy class too accustomed to carving up the world. A realism learned in a decade of maiming, killing, wounding, and displacing countless people in one of the world’s poorest countries. A realism, the article admits, that has grown from “dying for a mistake.”
       
      So we come to three options:

      1. The Lee option, most desirable from the peace movement’s viewpoint, is a full-withdrawal of all U.S. troops with a peace blueprint not yet agreed to.
      2. The New Realist option, which would withdraw most American troops, lessen the suffering, save $70 billion per year, and still deploy 30,000 U.S. troops on bases.
      3. And the John McCain/Karl Rove option: “there’s only one option the president should consider, and that’s the winning option,” McCain says. [p. 155]

      There remains another set of questions for committed peace activists, having to do with goals and the capacity to achieve them. The peace movement acquires a mass character when clearly-unpopular wars impose heavy American casualties [Vietnam: 58,000 dead, 153,303 wounded; Iraq: 4,435 dead, 32,012 wounded; Afghanistan: 1,445 dead, 9,971 wounded]. There sometimes are exceptions, for example, the huge solidarity and sanctuary movements during the Central American civil wars, possibly a continuation of the anti-Vietnam surge shortly before; or the Cold War threats to Europe which provoked hundreds of thousands to demand a nuclear freeze.
       
      That is why while public opposition to the Afghanistan war is very high, the streets have been relatively quiet. It also is why the peace movement loses leverage when American casualties sharply decline, as in Iraq since 2008.
       
      There are two other problems facing committed peace activists. As long as President Obama appears to be managing a transition to peace, his supporters will grant him time. That may change if he enters 2012 with one or more war zones on fire. The other problem is the reasonable choice of many American progressives to take up the issues that touch American lives more directly, unemployment, budget disasters, and Wall Street scandal. The time to hit the streets for peace is deferred.
       
      That doesn’t mean there is no reason for small, principled protests including civil disobedience – like Code Pink’s appearances in Congressional hearings, or shows of outrage over Wikileaks’ repression by Big Brother.
       
      Nor does it mean the White House and the national security crowd are immune to the unexpected, unscripted event like the implosion of a client state, Vietnam-style, or assassinations like those from Pakistan to Tucson this past week. Or another 9/11 attack, which could plunge the nation further to the right.
       
      But there must be a plan for a long peace movement to oppose the Long War, beginning with study of the Long War doctrine itself, and carried out by coalition-building with allies wherever they can be found. Plenty of Americans are tired of these wars, and tired of protesting as well. But they can be counted on to stand up when issues touch their everyday lives. That’s the job of organizers.

      PrintView Printer Friendly Version

      EmailEmail Article to Friend

      Reader Comments (5)

      ..."and convince [Obama] to campaign for re-election against the wars." Why should we care WHAT he campaigns on -- we know he's a serial breaker of all campaign promises. And didn't he "quietly" just send almost 2000 more Marines over to Afghanistan?? Obama is an amoral sociopath and cares nothing about doing "the right thing" for anyone except the rich. Let's see -- he's cut social security and wants to cut more, given tax breaks to the rich, no estate tax for the rich and richer, fin-reg -- useless, health care.-- useless and possibly unconstitutional, war and more war and more contractors and outsourcing of war, torture, Wikileaks persecution, DOJ = useless, new Korea "free trade" f*** the workers pact, GM bankruptcy = f*** the workers, freeze govt workers pay, unemployment with no hope of improving in any meaningful way because trade and tax policies are corrupt. Oh, and the Big One: the end of net neutrality. And his new Chief of Staff Daley from JPMorgan is not at all encouraging that Obama really has a good heart and really means well, he just somehow can't. Well, thanks for letting me vent. .

      January 11, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterKim Kaufman

      the option to build is that people are tired of the wars, endless, and the whole war system and war mission.
      america needs the commander in chief to change the mission, the warriors are now in command, the majority would have it another way. america needs a commander in chief who will mobilize the majority for a turn toward peace, and challenge the war parties in side the government and in the various war zones. is mr obama that commander in chief?
      put another way, is there a movement for peace together and creative enough to articulate the vision and lead the leaders to mobilize the millions for a new mission?

      i think there need to be more independent citizen initiatives bring the outstanding questions to the peace table, exploring the terms of real, just and inclusive "end of conflict" settlement agreements, promoting generosity, empathy, creativity and everyone, not greed, hate, destruction and just us, as a good button says. if the peoples movements in the war zones and internationally put forward the peace vision, taking initiative to invite the politicians to come to the table to discuss, more reasonable outcomes might be expected. by and large the politicians, as a class, in the war zones and among the warriors have failed. a wider justice and a freer life for all is not the outcomes of their polices. the politics is blocked. an intervention from below might allow opportunities for realignments, and call into being the quality of leadership we hope mr obama must possess. he must know better than to believe in empire. in my view it is for the movements to give him better chances and choices to show it. alan haber, ann arbor, michigan

      January 12, 2011 | Unregistered Commenteralan haber

      The Anti War Movement has NO voice in the media and until we do, politicians such as Obama will feel free to ignore us. The media barely covers anti war demonstrations. I get much of my news from NPR, and I have NEVER heard a commentator express an opinion against the war. Most of their war commentators are military. Writing and calling them often, as I do, asking for the voices of the 63% of the people against the war to be heard is an exercise in futility.

      We need to have a major action directed at the media, something to get their attention. Perhaps a day where people show up at media outlets nationwide and present them with a letter (from Barbara Lee?) saying its time to pull out and that we want this option to become a regular part of the national discussion

      I'd like to see a national boycott of funding for NPR from the left, with people still sending their dues to local radio stations but with the stipulation that the funds don't go to NPR until anti war voices are part of the mix of the center to right opinion pieces and Talk of the Nation guests they air.

      I'd like to see the anti war movement reach out to anti war teapartiers and libertarians. Though progressives have many differences with them, the important thing is to end the war.

      January 12, 2011 | Unregistered Commentershel neymark

      On Dec. 16th 131 people were arrested on the fence of the White House. This was organized by Veterans For Peace and there are plans to continue with these protests aimed at the Executive Branch. If each protest increases the number of arrested citizens by 100% over the next year, the West Wing will have an impossible time ignoring this nonviolent agenda. The mass media ignored this last effort by Veterans For Peace and the coalition that supported the action that included Code Pink.

      The time for demonstrations is over, it is time now for mass nonviolent civil disobedience. Come to D.C. the next time this broadening coalition of dedicated peace activists say no to war and stand firm in a nonviolent manner when the police say; "Move now or be arrested".

      Now is the time to stand up and be counted.

      January 12, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterCarl Rising-Moore

      "I'd like to see the anti war movement reach out to anti war teapartiers and libertarians." says Shel Neymark.

      Yes, well there is a lot of anti-war sentiment there to be tapped into.

      Just check out American Conservative Magazine or popular libertarian websites such as antiwar.com or Future of Freedom Foundation.

      The problem is that there is little other common ground between you progressives and we libertarians.

      Any out-reach has to account for that fact; an understanding must be had from the onset that this is an alliance towards a narrow common end, not a broad cooperation on mutiple issues.

      We can't blame you for waving signs with the catchy phrase "Healthcare not Warfare", as long as you're all in agreement. And surely defend your right to do so...

      But for us to join you, healthcare, amoungst other points of disagreement, must be put aside.

      ---The Bikemessenger

      January 12, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterRobert Noval

      PostPost a New Comment

      Enter your information below to add a new comment.
      Author Email (optional):
      Author URL (optional):
      Post:
       
      All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.