Elections a Setback for Peace

Elections a Setback for Peace

 

by Tom Hayden

The Peace and Justice Resource Center

November 3, 2010 at 12:34PM

http://tomhayden.com/home/elections-a-setback-for-peace.html

 

The November election was a setback for the peace movement,

not only because of the defeat of Sen. Russ Feingold but for

deeper reasons.

 

Both parties collaborated in keeping Afghanistan out of the

national election debate and media coverage - while during

the period June-November alone, 274 American soldiers were

killed and 2,934 were wounded on the battlefield.

 

[The official American toll under Obama in Afghanistan has

reached 732 deaths and 6,480 wounded; the taxpayer costs

under Obama are currently $12.5 billion per month, and Obama

estimates $113 billion in direct costs/per year at current

U.S. troop levels of 100,000.]

 

Democratic candidates this year chose not to use

Afghanistan-Iraq as an issue perhaps because they have

become Obama's wars. According to the New York Times, the US

even plans to orchestrate an invitation to remain in Iraq

after the current 2011 deadline, but desperately wanted to

keep the controversy out of the election debates. [NYT, Aug. 18]

 

With Republican control of the House, antiwar Democrats will

have little room to hold hearings or maneuver against the

wars. There were 162 House members, nearly all Democrats,

who voted against funding the war or in favor of an exit

strategy earlier this year, one-fourth of the House. In the

Senate, Feingold authored similar legislation that obtained

18 votes, a number not likely increase either.

 

The notion among some that ultra-right fiscally conservative

Republicans will vote with the peace Democrats is largely a

fantasy. Republicans like Karl Rove did not want to

advertise their support for Obama's troop escalation this

fall while they prepare to blast him for drawing down short

of "victory" next July. For example, Sen. John McCain, who

is planning a trip to Afghanistan, told Reuters that "this

date for withdrawal that the president announced without any

military advice or counsel has caused us enormous problems

in our operations in Afghanistan, because our enemies are

encouraged and our friends are confused over there."

[Reuters, Nov. 3]

 

McCain's comment was a huge lie, an indicator of the

campaign rhetoric to come. As McCain well knows, Obama has

not given a "date for withdrawal", only a date to "begin" a

phase-out. Obama had months of military advice and counsel,

as reported in Bob Woodward's most recent book.  In fact,

according to Woodward and Jonathan Alter, Obama had

Petraeus' word that they would have no complaints about the

July 2011 deadline. In August, however, Petraeus declared,

"the president didn't send me over here to seek a graceful exit."

 

Obama's pledge to begin a July withdrawal may draw little or

no peace movement support unless he includes a timeline and

substantial numbers, and shows progress in diplomacy and

talks with the Taliban. The president's situation is similar

to his problems with health care when he appeared to over-

promise and under-deliver, leaving his base dispirited once

again. [It should be noted that Obama took the strongest

exit strategy position among his internal advisers,

according to Woodward, with Hillary Clinton immediately

supporting whatever troop escalation Petraeus wanted.]

 

The next test for Obama will be whether his December review

of Afghanistan policy results in only another ratification

of Afghanistan  status quo. Then comes another budget

battle, with antiwar forces in Congress at a greater

tactical disadvantage than last year. By then Obama's actual

Afghan drawdown numbers will be publicly known, with

Republicans, the military and most of the media opposed or skeptical.

 

The 2012 national election predictably will be fought over

Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and the Long War favored by the

Republicans and the generals, with Obama positioned as

favoring gradual troop drawdowns in order to invest in his

domestic agenda.

 

The wars will continue in any event, with increasing risks

of terrorist attacks on the US, bloody quagmires on the

battlefields, and the US propping up unpopular regimes in

Kabul, Baghdad, Islamabad and Yemen. The wars are unwinnable

and unaffordable, but no one in power dares say it.

 

The peace bloc - activist groups, anti-war Congress members,

writers and artists, here and across the NATO - can exercise

a massive drag against the war-making machine through 2012

as long as the wars remain deeply unpopular. But in the

absence of political statesmanship, Petraeus need not worry,

because the final stage will be anything but graceful.

___________________________________________