The PJRC

The Peace Exchange Bulletin
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 the PJRC now!

    Make a tax-deductible donation of $25 or more and receive an autographed copy of Tom Hayden's newest book!

    Inspiring Participatory Democracy: Student Movements from Port Huron to Today

    Conferences & Events

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

    4/12 - Los Angeles Times Festival of Books

    Invite Tom Hayden to speak in your town!

    Follow Tom

                    

    Contact Us
    This form does not yet contain any fields.
      Monday
      Jun132011

      Take Credit, but Do Not Accept or Endorse

      If Leslie Gelb is right, and he usually is, if President Obama is set to announce that only 30,000 of the current 109,391 U.S. troops in Afghanistan will be withdrawing over two-plus years, I would recommend that the peace movement take some credit for being a factor in the decision but not endorse the number leaving because it is still too low.

      A withdrawal of 30,000 will end the U.S. surge, which was a 2009 compromise between hawks and doves in the national security world, and will likely open perhaps a final phase of the Afghanistan war involving two more years of combat combined with peace talks on power-sharing while the U.S. military role winds down. This is a defeat for the Pentagon and the counterinsurgency advocates who want combat continued until the Taliban have been destroyed.

      But it is not yet a victory for peace. Unless further clarified, the Obama proposal means we’ll be pushing to decrease the near 80,000 Americans remaining in combat until the end of 2014, three-and-a-half years from now. The savings will be something in the $30 billion range through 2012, not the major peace dividend, which he could have achieved. Our military will be sending special forces and drones after insurgents who are not a security threat to America, inflicting massive damage on a country that is already wrecked.

      We should call for Obama to withdraw all our troops from Iraq this year and commence diplomatic talks with the Taliban and regional powers, two steps which would save $50 billion and make diplomacy irreversible.

      My friend and political consultant, Bob Mulholland, warns that Obama is “in danger of being outflanked by the Reps” now that Mitt Romney has called for a rapid withdrawal. Romney’s rhetoric – and that’s all it is so far – does put helpful pressure on Obama. However, most in the military and conservative ranks will claim that he is virtually surrendering and weakening our security, making Obama’s moderate position more palatable to the center and left. The ranks of the anti-war movement could decline, however, as people move on, and a media consensus grows that the war is ending.

      A large part of the problem is that the spectrum of Beltway thinking is much narrower than the country as a whole. For months many Beltway peace advocates have been predicting that the number would be far lower than 30,000, so they will feel this is a big win. According to most polls, a majority of Americans would be okay with accepting a much bigger reduction with the savings going into the domestic economy.

      I congratulate those who fought the fight, who provided pressure and climate so that this reduction could happen, and look forward to a renewed battle to fundamentally change our priorities. See you in the trenches.

      PrintView Printer Friendly Version

      EmailEmail Article to Friend

      Reader Comments (3)

      Drawing down the troops is relevant and necessary; but it still does not approach the fundamental cause of the war: the "unwarranted influence" (Eisenhower) of the military-industrial-congressional-complex. We should fight harder to enforce our own treaty obligations to the Geneva Conventions and other rules of war which our governments have endorsed in the past. War is by definition illegal. Planning a war is illegal. Invading a sovereign country is illegal. Massive dislocation of civilians and destruction of civilian infrastructure is illegal. Yet we are openly engaged in such illegal wars in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and now Yemen (and other wars in Africa.) Not only does our government plan wars, now it plans them openly on television months and even years before the onset of combat. "War shall endless war still breed." (Coleridge) Somehow, we must advocate for the abolition of the notion of "empire."

      June 14, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterMike Havenar

      You know Prof. Turley.

      June 22, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterDoralee Nation

      The speculation in the news is that Obama will announce that he plans to withdraw 5,000 troops sometime this summer; another 5,000 by the end of the year. That's a reduction in forces in Afghanistan of 5% now, maybe 5% by the end of the year. But we all know how that goes. They will say the circumstances have changed.

      Even more disgusting is the claim that he plans to withdraw another 20,000 troops by the end of 2012. After the election, right? He probably plans to also create jobs, end the wars, indict the criminals on wall street, and help the Americans who can no longer afford food and shelter, nevermind medical insurance. All that will happen after we re-elect him.

      I think it is simply a propaganda speech so he can say "I said I would withdraw troops, we will withdraw 5,000 'sometime' this summer." That's really all he's saying. It's not only inadequate, it's insulting.

      June 22, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterNABNYC
      Comments for this entry have been disabled. Additional comments may not be added to this entry at this time.