Weather permitting, it should provide music, poetry, ideas and community
for a fine afternoon at the beach. Kids will love Get Lit and the drums.
Roy too. He's funny.
-Ed
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20091022_the_country_that_cries_wolf/
The Country That Cries Wolf
By William Pfaff
Truthdig: October 22, 2009
PARIS-Philip Gordon, the U.S. assistant secretary of state for Europe and
Eurasia, visited his European clients earlier this month to ask for more
European cooperation. The United States has elected a president all but
universally admired in Western Europe's most influential circles. If they
like the man so much, why is there not more enthusiasm for the Obama
administration's foreign policy? Where are more European NATO troops to
fight the Taliban and keep al-Qaida from making a return? "Europe," Gordon
said, "is as vulnerable as we are, if not more so."
At this point, most of his European auditors have probably tuned out.
Vulnerable to what? He said that "since the 11th of September [2001] Europe
has been struck more often than the United States by terrorists who have
their refuge in Pakistan and Afghanistan."
It is true there have been more bombings or attempted bombings in Western
Europe since 9/11 than in the United States (where there have been none).
But neither al-Qaida nor Taliban from Afghanistan have committed them. The
bombings have mostly been the work of estranged Muslims who live in Europe,
with grievances of their own.
The only successful terrorist bombings in France during the past
quarter-century were carried out by Algerian Islamist sympathizers to punish
France for keeping up relations with an Algerian military government then
attempting-by brutal measures-to put down an even more brutal Islamic
fundamentalist campaign indiscriminately killing Algerian civilians. This
was long before anyone outside security circles had heard of al-Qaida.
The Madrid train bombings and the attacks on the London Underground were
copycat affairs inspired by 9/11, but according to security and police
sources were local affairs having nothing to do with Osama bin Laden and his
friends residing in the Afghanistan badlands.
What was Gordon talking about? The Bush administration liked to admonish the
Europeans that they were in greater danger than the United States from
attack by Iranian nuclear missiles-if there were any. This was in the
context of the Polish-Czech anti-missile systems that also, at the time, did
not exist and were planned to counter Iranian nuclear missiles. This was
assuming that one day there would be Iranian nuclear missiles that the
Iranians would be disposed to use to attack Europe, for reasons presently
unknown.
This is the problem people like Philip Gordon meet during these thankless
missions to Europe to urge the Europeans to send more troops to support the
United States in Iraq (yesterday), Afghanistan (today), and (I fear)
Pakistan or Somalia or Kashmir tomorrow. They are working inside Never-Never
Land strategic schemes based on implausible assumptions and hypothetical
threats and responses.
First, after 9/11 it was the invasion of Afghanistan the allies were
supposed to support. To attack al-Qaida's base, and try to seize its leaders
and members, was perfectly justified. But why did the Taliban regime and
army have to be subjected to slaughter by B-52s, and why did Afghanistan's
government have to be handed back, amid profuse international professions of
good will, to what proved to be essentially the same conditions of disorder
and warlordism that prevailed after the Soviet defeat?
Next, everyone was supposed to join the invasion of Iraq to seize the
weapons of mass destruction that were said to have threatened international
peace but proved not to exist. There is no need to go on. But it doesn't
require great perspicacity to understand why the European allies have tired
of the cries of "wolf! wolf!" regularly heard from Washington.
The British respond because since 1944 such has been the cold and calculated
policy of the Foreign Office: Humor the Americans. Susceptible prime
ministers like Tony Blair fall for White House glamour. The Foreign Office
doesn't, nor does the War Office (now politically corrected to Ministry of
Defense), responsible for supplying the human price that has to be paid. The
Danes and the Dutch usually step up to the plate (to use the idiom
increasingly heard from Europeans). Other West Europeans are inclined to
think twice, or thrice.
The "new Europeans" have gone along because they have an engrained fear of
Russia, and the United States seems the only source of available protection.
They don't trust Western Europe.
Officials such as Philip Gordon regularly travel to Europe to ask for
support for U.S. initiatives. The Europeans reply that they have not been
consulted in making these policies. The Americans say we will be happy to
discuss them, but we are putting up most of the men and money, so it's too
late to change anything. Maybe next time.
Visit William Pfaff's Web site at www.williampfaff.com.
© 2009 Tribune Media Services, Inc.
***
http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/10/22/post-poll-public-evenly-split-on-afghan-escalation/
WP Poll: Public Evenly Split on Afghan Escalation?
by Peter Hart
F.A.I.R.: 10/22/2009
"U.S. Deeply Split on Troop Increase for Afghan War" is the headline on the
Washington Post's October 21 report about its latest polling on Afghanistan.
The paper reports that "Americans are evenly and deeply divided" over
sending 40,000 extra troops: "47 percent of those polled favor the buildup,
while 49 percent oppose it."
If you've followed polling on this question, these results are
striking--most recent surveys show the public is deeply troubled by the war
and opposed to sending more troops. The most recent CNN survey
(10/16-18/09), to take one example, found 39 percent support for sending
more troops, and 59 opposed to that idea.
So who did the Post get those results? They've been asking questions about
troop buildup in their other polls, but for this one they changed the
wording of the question to this:
U.S. military commanders have requested approximately 40,000 more U.S.
troops for Afghanistan. Do you think Obama should or should not order these
additional forces to Afghanistan?
It's very likely that including references to "military commanders" and
Obama skew the responses to the question--as has been noted, Obama tends to
poll better than his policies do. One of the Post's recent polls
(8/13-17/09) on Afghanistan was more neutrally worded:
Do you think the number of U.S. military forces in Afghanistan should be
increased, decreased or kept about the same?
The result then: 24 percent favored an increase, 45 percent favored a
decrease, 27 percent supported keeping troop levels the same. This led the
Post to report the results of that poll under the headline, "Public Opinion
in U.S. Turns Against Afghan War."
So did the Post change the wording of the poll to get a different outcome?
Or did public opinion just dramatically reverse course in two months? The
latter seems implausible.
Tags: Afghanistan, polling, Washington Post
***
This Sunday, October 25th, Ash Grove Music and Beyond
November present "Resistance Then, Resist Now," an all
free afternoon of entertainment and dialogue on war,
recruitment, poverty and opportunities lost. We are pleased
to join with Arlington West, the long-running war memorial
for this event.
Famed veteran and peace activist Ron Kovic will MC, and
Featured artists include teenage wizards of poetry, the Get Lit
Players / musical satirist Roy Zimmerman and the SHINE
Mawusi Womens Drum Aliance.
We will hear from The Resistance, the Coalition Against
Militarization in our Schools, and others. Our latest additions:
Maricela Guzman of the AFSC (American Friends Service Committee)
will speak from the perspective of being a vet who became a C.O. during
her military time, and knows many others who share that transformation.
As a current student at CSULA, she'll also speak of the effect of the
War and the military budget on herself and many other students..
Art Goldberg was a student leader in 1960's UC Berkeley's Free Speech
Movement, and hasn't stopped since. He founded the Echo Park Workers
Law Center, has organized for peace and Justice continually and is now
a spokesperson for the Single Payer movement. Warfare vs. Healthcare.
Bring your drum or shaker for our drum circle. Adaawe, reknowned
Women's drum group will join SHINE Mawusi for this event.
It all begins 2 PM on the sand next to the Arlington West monument,
just North of the Santa Monica Pier. Be a part of this moving moment---
Resistance then, Resist now! at Arlington West this Sunday, October 25th.
For information, www.AshgroveMusic.com
KPFK is a Proud Media Sponsor.
Schedule for Sun, Oct. 25
1pm Tour of monument for early-comers
2pm SHINE Mawusi Drumming (no intro)
2:20 S. Pearl back intro, intro's Harriet, AG Secretary
2:25 Harriet intro's show, intro's Ron Kovic
2:30 Ron Kovic speaks, intro's Joe Mazlish
2:40 Joe, on The Resistance, intro's Michael Lindley
2: 47 Michael Lindley, Pres.of Vets for Peace on Arlington West
2:52 Letter from marine in Iraq
2:57 C.A.M.S. (Coalition for Alternatives to Militarization of Schools)
3:05 S. Pearl intro's Get Lit Players
3:07 Get Lit Players
3:30 Harriet Pitches as David Collects, INTERMISSION
3:50 Roy Zimmerman, Musician
4:15 Ron K intro's Gordon Alexandre, History Prof, Union Pres.
4:20 Gordy speaks, intro's Marisela, Art
4:30 Marisela Guzman, student
4:35 Art Goldberg, Healthcare, not Warfare
4:45 Drum Circle. then tour of monument
5:? Help Vets for Peace pack up the monument.
No comments:
Post a Comment