You are herePeace and War
Peace and War
Chicago: Peace Town
A huge crowd gathered for several hours and marched for over two miles in the hot sun to oppose NATO and U.S. wars on Sunday in Chicago. Finishing the march outside the NATO meeting, numerous U.S. veterans of current wars denounced their previous "service" and threw their medals over the fence, a scene not witnessed since the U.S. war on Vietnam.
Email this Blog entryEnding the Mindset That Gets Us into War
MAY 20, 2012, MILITARIZED CHICAGO -- Next month in Baltimore they're going to celebrate the War of 1812. That's what we do with wars. We say they're the last resort. We say they're hell. We say they're for the purpose of eliminating themselves: we fight wars for peace. Although we never keep peace for wars. We claim to wage only wars we have been forced into despite all possible effort to find a better way. And then we celebrate the wars. We keep the wars going for their own sake after all the excuses we used to get them started have expired. The WMDs have not been found. Osama bin Laden's been killed. Al Qaeda is gone from the country where we're fighting it. Nobody's threatening Benghazi anymore. But the war
Forum in Richmond, Va. -- Peace Perspectives on Iran: Why Military Intervention is Not the Answer
Don’t miss the important forum, “Peace Perspectives on Iran: Why Military Intervention is Not the Answer,” scheduled to take place on Thursday, May 24.
The event will explore the roots of the current tensions and the risks and costs of war. It will also shed light on the negotiations between Iran and the west and identify pathways to genuine peace.
This discussion comes as the threat of war with Iran escalates, and the United States and other western powers tighten sanctions. The forum will be held one day after talks are scheduled to begin in Baghdad between Iran and six western powers.
A panel of speakers will address and challenge a number of myths about the “Iran crisis,” including widely repeated but incorrect claims that Iran has an active nuclear weapons program, that military strikes could achieve stated goals, and that Iran poses a direct threat to the United States. Speakers will also discuss Iranian perceptions of U.S. policy and its internal political dynamics, and examine Iran’s nuclear energy program.
“This event will be an antidote to fear-mongering,” says Richmond Peace Education Center director Adria Scharf, who will moderate the discussion. “The speakers will challenge common myths with facts and fresh perspectives.”
The panel includes local scholars Dr. Majid Amini and Dr. Michael Fischbach, and Charlottesville-based author and activist David Swanson.
Dr. Majid Amini is Professor of Philosophy at Virginia State University. He was born in Iran and comes from a family that has had extensive public and political participation in Iranian affairs since the turn of the 19th century. Currently he is working on two projects: one on the limits of religion in the public square and another on divine regret.
Dr. Michael Fischbach is Professor of History at Randolph-Macon College in Ashland, Virginia. He received his doctorate in modern Middle Eastern history from Georgetown University. He researches issues relating to land and property ownership in the modern Middle East. Fischbach frequently addresses international conferences and the media, and has been a consultant for Middle Eastern negotiators as well as the Library of Congress, the United Nations Development Programme, and the International Development Research Center.
David Swanson is a nationally recognized author and peace activist. He currently works with Veterans for Peace and hosts Talk Nation Radio. His most recent books include The Military Industrial Complex at 50 and When the World Outlawed War. Swanson helped to plan the nonviolent occupation of Freedom Plaza in Washington, D.C., in 2011, and blogs at http://davidswanson.org.
“We can transcend the dynamic of conflict with Iran,” says Scharf. “Learning the facts and coming to a clearer understanding of U.S. involvement in the region are necessary first steps. We must also seek out Iranian views. Ultimately the United States needs to fundamentally rethink its approach to the region, and its nuclear policies more broadly. We simply cannot afford more war.”
“Peace Perspectives on Iran” is part of the Richmond Peace Education Center’s programming on global peace issues. The forum is free and the public is invited to attend.
WHAT: “Peace Perspectives on Iran: Why Military Intervention is Not the Answer,” a public forum.
WHERE AND WHEN: Ginter Park Presbyterian Church, Thursday, May 24, 7:15pm – 9pm. For directions: http://ginterparkpc.org/visitors/directions.htm
CONTACT: Adria Scharf, Executive Director, Richmond Peace Education Center, 232-1002, scharf@rpec.org
Hopelessly Devoted
You'd never know it from watching television, but there are many thousands of people in the United States who take peace, justice, environmental protection, and government of the people so seriously that they don't censor themselves whenever the president is a Democrat.
While many others are still debating whether it would be appropriate to criticize or protest President Obama after a mere three and a half years of disaster, the people I have in mind have been openly and honestly resisting the latest Wall Street war monger since before he was elected.
Even Star Spangled War Is Hell
Originally published in the Indypendent Reader
In this bicentennial year of the War of 1812, the StarSpangledBaltimore.com website tells us:
"The War of 1812 represents what many see as the definitive end of the American Revolution. A new nation, widely regarded as an upstart, successfully defended itself against the largest, most powerful navy in the world during the maritime assault on Baltimore and Maryland. America's victory over Great Britain confirmed the legitimacy of the Revolution."
But the revolution had ended three decades before 1812, and the choice to launch a new war was made by the U.S. government in Washington, D.C.
In the lead-up to the War of 1812, the British and Americans exchanged attacks along the Canadian border and in the open seas. Native Americans also exchanged attacks with U.S. settlers, although who was invading whom is a question we've never wanted to face. But the choice to launch a full-scale war was not made by the "largest, most powerful navy in the world"; it was made by the national government that we now depict as fighting defensively in Baltimore.
In Four Minutes Thom Hartmann Explains What's Wrong With War and Violence
Listen to this four-minute clip from the Thom Hartmann Show:
http://warisacrime.org/downloads/thomhartmannviolence.mp3
Thom tells his caller to read War Is A Lie:
http://warisalie.org
But Thom uses brilliant arguments and facts that are not even in the book, which is really the best result an author can hope for: inspiring further thought.
There's also a video of Thom Hartmann and David Swanson discussing this topic at http://warisalie.org
The Thom Hartmann Show is at http://thomhartmann.com
Drones in U.S. Flight Paths: What Could Go Wrong?
On March 9th the Federal Aviation Administration requested comments from the public on drone test sites. On May 8th, lengthy comments were submitted by Not 1 More Acre! and Purgatoire, Apishapa & Comanche Grassland Trust. The FAA asked all the wrong questions, but still got a lot of the right answers. When the drone accidents start, and you're told "Nobody could have known," refer them here: PDF.
I would have asked "Should weaponized drones be permitted to exist on earth?" and "How can surveillance drones possibly comply with the Fourth Amendment?" The FAA asked:
"The Congressional language asks the FAA to consult with and leverage the resources of the Department of Defense and NASA in this effort. Since many public operators already have access to test ranges and control the management and use of those ranges, should the management of these new test ranges be held by local governments or should private entity [sic] schedule and manage the airspace?"
Not 1 More Acre! replied:
"Neither. Although the pilot UAS [Unmanned Aircraft System] program is a Congressional mandate, and the timelines are accelerated, the complexities and potential dangers of integration of UAS into civilian airspace must not be delegated to local governments or private organizations in the name of expediency, entrepreneurship, or profit. . . . The wording of Question A suggests that the FAA is contemplating abdicating its inherent authority to manage the NAS [National Airspace System] by ceding broad discretion over UAS flight operations. . . .
". . . The primary driver of the move to integration has clearly been contractors funded by the DOD, working in concert with the secretive Joint Special Forces Operation Command, the Department of Homeland Security, and the CIA, among others. . . . Private defense [sic] contractors increasingly woo local law enforcement agencies and other community groups with grants to help fund the purchase of new UAS. The FAA should not allow any other federal agency to usurp its authority over the NAS or circumvent the pre-decisional public disclosure requirements of NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] including agencies like the CIA, NASA, and JSOC which are not transparent or accountable to the public."
Of course, there's a catch. Even the accountable agency has, naturally, ceased to be accountable:
"However, the FAA has never conducted any NEPA review related to UAS. The agency has never prepared an Environmental Impact Statement or Environmental Assessment to disclose the potential impacts of UAS to the public and agency officials, despite issuing hundreds of Certificates of Waiver and Authorization to some 60 public agencies."
Have you heard about the 51st State for Armed Robotic Drones?
The 63 drone sites in the U.S.?
The 30,000 drones planned for U.S. skies?
The habit drones have of crashing even on their own?
While initially cheaper than manned planes, unmanned drones of the sort used now tend to require many more personnel: 168 people to keep a Predator drone in the air for 24 hours, plus 19 analysts to process the videos created by a drone. Drones and their related technologies are increasing in price rapidly. And to make matters worse, they tend to crash. They even "go rogue," lose contact with their "pilots" and fly off on their own. The U.S. Navy has a drone that self-destructs if you accidentally touch the space bar on the computer keyboard. Drones also tend to supply so-called enemies with information, including the endless hours of video they record, and to infect U.S. military computers with viruses. But these are the sorts of SNAFUs that come with any project lacking oversight, accountability, or cost controls. The companies with the biggest drone contracts did not invest in developing the best technologies but in paying off the most Congress members.
What could go wrong?
"We Did Not Choose This War" and Other Hypocrisies
By Leah Bolger and David Swanson
"We did not choose this war. This war came to us on 9/11. We don't go looking for a fight. But when we see our homeland violated, when we see our fellow citizens killed, then we understand what we have to do."
These are the words that President Obama used on Tuesday to describe the Afghanistan war, but they would have been more appropriately said by any Afghan citizen.
Leaving Afghanistan by Staying
Is staying in Afghanistan OK with you as long as we call it leaving?
President Obama has signed an agreement with President Karzai to keep a major U.S. military presence in Afghanistan (currently about three times the size Obama began with) through the end of 2014, and to allow a significant unspecified presence beyond that date, with no end date stipulated. Obama stresses that no permanent U.S. bases will be involved, but his agreement requires Afghanistan to let U.S. troops use "Afghan" bases.
Obama forgot to provide any reason not to withdraw from Afghanistan now, given majority U.S. desire to end the war. Like Newt Gingrich promising to quit campaigning before actually doing so, Obama is promising to leave Afghanistan, but not yet -- except that he isn't promising to ever leave at all. The agreement is open-ended.
Obama spoke on Tuesday of a transition to Afghan control, but we've heard that talk for a decade. That's not some new bright idea that requires two-and-a-half more years to develop.
Obama talked of fighting al Qaeda, but the U.S. has not been fighting al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and has admitted for years that there is virtually no al Qaeda presence there. That's not the two-year project, and it's not the reason to remain indefinitely after 2014.
The agreement requires that all "entities" involved in a peace process renounce violence, but the Taliban will no more do that while under foreign occupation than the United States will do so while occupying. This is not a serious plan to leave. Nor is it a plan based on Afghan sovereignty, numerous claims to the contrary notwithstanding. This is a treaty for more years of war, on the model of the Bush-Maliki treaty for Iraq, but with the difference that theirs included an end date.
The agreement says it enters into force when "the Parties notify one another, through diplomatic channels, of the completion of their respective internal legal requirements." The U.S. Constitution requires ratification by the Senate of all treaties. Congress could insist on its right to approve or reject this, just as the Afghan Parliament will be permitted to do. Or Congress could require withdrawal now, as does bill HR 780, which has 70 cosponsors.
The written agreement doesn't mention it, but Obama said on Tuesday that he would withdraw 23,000 troops by the end of the summer, after which reductions would continue "at a steady pace." Assuming 90,000 U.S. troops now in Afghanistan, a steady pace would get them all home by about a year from now, not two-and-a-half years from now. But Obama says that it will be the end of 2014, not when the last troop leaves, but when a significant number of troops remain, as Afghans become "fully responsible for the security of their country" -- except for whatever it is that the U.S. troops will do.
Obama is full of praise for U.S. troops, as if they've benefitted Afghanistan. And he's full of concern for the suffering of U.S. troops and U.S. citizens. When he mentions Afghans, at best he equates their suffering under U.S. bombs, drones, night raids, and prison cells, to the suffering of Americans scared by their television sets and forced to over-eat to relieve their stress. "Neither Americans nor the Afghan people asked for this war," Obama said, forgetting that one of those two countries had invaded the other one and occupied it for over a decade. "The reason America is safe is because of you," Obama told U.S. troops, forgetting that the war has made our nation more hated around the world.
This agreement is inexcusable. It's also vague and preliminary. A more detailed treaty will be worked out on May 20th when NATO meets in Chicago. We need to be there en masse in protest.
##
David Swanson's books include "War Is A Lie."
The Libyan Model and the Oxymoron: Class of 2012 Queen and King
There's a new Atrocity Prevention Board in town, and its chief tool for preventing atrocities will be . . . wait for it . . . atrocities!
What a breakthrough! And this clown is forming a tentative life partnership with an unbelievably beautiful model from Libya. The key word is "unbelievably."
The Atrocity Prevention Board is rumored to still be married to World War II, but the primary reason to doubt the latest gossip is the grotesque hideousness of the Libyan Model with no makeup in the light of day.
