Saturday, February 28, 2009

Should Move On Oppose Afghanistan?

by John Nichols
MoveOn.org became a meaningful force in American politics when it emerged as a muscular network of activists that was willing to challenge not just Republicans but Democrats when they were wrong about foreign policy.
Democratic leaders in Congress might have been willing to compromise with the Bush administration on Iraq back in 2002. But MoveOn said "no."
And MoveOn was right.
Now, more than ever, we need MoveOn to remain true to its historic mission.
We need MoveOn to be right about Afghanistan.
For that reason, I certainly hope that Justin Ruben, the new MoveOn executive director, was wrong when he told my colleague Ari Melber that he did not think the group would be letting President Obama know he is wrong to be surging more U.S. troops into Afghanistan.
Here's what Ruben said about MoveOn's agenda for the coming months:
And while MoveOn loudly led the battle against the Iraq "surge," Ruben said he not expect ending the war Afghanistan, where Obama is deploying additional troops, to make the priority list. The "overwhelming priority" is still Iraq, Ruben explains, and while his members are concerned about Afghanistan, they tend to 'differ on what ought to be done about it.'
Unless the MoveOn membership has lost touch with its values and its former allies, I am going to bet that they are a lot more concerned about Afghanistan than Ruben thinks.
Here's what Peace Action says:
Yesterday, President Obama announced his decision to send 17,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan, on the grounds that ‘the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan demands urgent attention'. Peace Action strongly opposes Obama's recent announcement and urges people to immediately call on Obama to choose diplomacy, not escalation.
More troops won't solve our problems in Afghanistan...
We have seen the disastrous consequences of heading into war without a plan in Iraq. We are still mourning American and Iraqi lives lost, and struggling to rehabilitate our economy while spending billions of dollars on war.
Peace Action calls for the ‘rapid withdrawal' of U.S. troops from Afghanistan and a new commitment to a negotiated diplomatic solution involving all regional players.
The Obama Administration should:
-- De-escalate troop levels in Afghanistan and to reject the idea that there is a military solution to the region's problems;
-- Immediately stop military activities that indiscriminately impact civilians such as air and drone strikes;
-- Rapidly withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan;
-- Commit to negotiated diplomatic talks involving all major regional players, including major international peace-keeping bodies;
-- Address the real needs of Afghans, which include health-care, clean water, education, and security.
Here's what the new www.stateupcongress.org network -- which has been organized by the group Win Without War and is backed by TrueMajority.org, the Council for a Livable World, Working Assets, Women's Action for New Directions, Faithful America, 2020 Vision, the American Friends Service Committee, the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee, the Unitarian Universalist Association and NETWORK (the National Catholic Social Justice Lobby) -- says:
President Obama has announced a plan to send 17,000 additional troops to Afghanistan this spring and summer. In the absence of a clear mission or exit plan, this troop escalation is more likely to fuel anti-American sentiment and the Taliban-led insurgency than provide any meaningful improvement in security.
Here's the Afghanistan assessment of California Congresswoman Maxine Waters, the driving force behind the Congressional Out of Iraq Caucus:
We don't want to substitute Afghanistan for Iraq.
Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold, the member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with the steadiest track record of challenging presidents of both parties when they make wrong moves on the international stage, adds:
After years of a failed foreign policy which distracted us from our top national security priority of defeating al Qaeda and its affiliates, I am encouraged by President Obama's focus on Afghanistan where the 9/11 attacks originated. But we need to make sure we have a strategy in place for Afghanistan that will actually work before we commit thousands more U.S. troops. A military escalation without a strategy to address the complex problems facing Afghanistan and the region could alienate the Afghan people and make it much more difficult to achieve our top national security goal of defeating al Qaeda.
Is MoveOn really out of synch with Peace Action, Win Without War and other major anti-war and religious groups and congressional allies of the peace movement?
Let's hope not.

Monday, February 23, 2009

Obama Follows Some of Bush Footsteps

by Helen Thomas

President Barack Obama is already back-tracking on some of his high-road campaign stands and is copying some of former President George W. Bush’s dubious policies.
A couple of weeks ago the Obama administration invoked the controversial state secrets act in the case of Binyam Mohamed, an Ethiopian native, and four other detainees. They claimed they were victims of the Bush administration’s rendition program under which terrorism suspects were secretly taken to other countries where, they say, they were tortured.
The Bush administration’s position has been that the case should be dismissed because even courtroom discussion of their treatment could threaten national security. When the case was heard earlier this month before a panel of Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals judges sitting in San Francisco, the Obama administration made the same argument.
One judge asked the Justice Department lawyer if the change in administrations had any bearing on the case.
"No, your honor," came the reply.
According to The New York Times, "even the judges on the panel seemed surprised by the administration’s decision to go forward" with the same argument. That’s not "change," the theme of the Obama presidential election campaign. It’s more of the same.
Former President Bush’s legal advisers went out of their way to cleanse new laws of any penalties for White House officials and CIA agents to be tried for abuses of power. A "heavy" among them was newly departed Attorney General Michael Mukasey, the same official who said he couldn’t decide whether the use of waterboarding during interrogation was torture.
And he was a former federal judge!
Another instance of Obama in lock step with his predecessor was the new president’s executive order perpetuating Bush’s "faith-based office in the White House," but failing to provide safeguards against the blurring of separation of church and state.
During his campaign, Obama agreed to uphold the Bush administration program of granting federal aid and contracts to churches, temples and mosques for charitable work but promised to bar religious discrimination in hiring. There was no such prohibition in his directive.
Obama also has backed Bush's last-minute move to allow concealed firearms in national parks. He did so even while a review is underway to see if the firearms measure meets environmental restrictions.
Obama has been true to some of his big pledges by issuing orders to shut down the controversial prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and the shameful CIA’s secret prisons abroad -- prisons known for cruel and inhuman abuses of prisoners.
Whether out of charity toward his predecessor or a protective spirit for the reputation of the country, Obama has ruled out a "truth commission" that would re-examine the policies and practices of his predecessor. Instead, the new president insists that we have to "move forward" without assigning blame to those who dishonored us. So much for the much touted Obama campaign slogan of "change." And to think that he once taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School and was head of the Harvard Law Review.
Meantime, two Senate Democrats -- Richard Durbin of Illinois and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island -- are urging the Justice Department to release its findings of an ethics investigation into legal opinions of the Bush administration that paved the way for waterboarding and other harsh questioning of prisoners captured during the "war on terror."
The Bush advisers then serving in the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel -- John C. Yoo and Jay S. Bybee -- wrote memos that narrowed the definition of torture. A separate Yoo memo suggested that those acting under the president’s authority as commander in chief would be immune from prosecution for torture.
Unless Obama acts to clear our name we may forever be identified with the horrors of the American Gulag in our treatment of prisoners.

Political Articles

This is a site to display the most interesting political articles, articles and ideas that stimulate the mind and further the cause of intellectual freedom.