Act Now!

Out of Afghanistan

posted by Peter Rothberg on 05/19/2009 @ 11:52am

In my view, there are many good reasons to support the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan. But Afghanistan is not Iraq and public opinion still largely supports Obama's escalation. (This is partly, I think, because there's so little media coverage of what's actually taking place in the country -- recent estimates of coverage by major news outlets report that a scant 0.6 percent of reporting has been devoted to Afghanistan.)

So, the first step to effectively opposing the war in Afghanistan is shifting US public opinion. That's why a coalition led by United for Peace and Justice has organized this Thursday's National Media Day of Action. The idea is to focus attention on all the reasons the current strategy isn't working and to highlight positive solutions for re-shifting our priorities.

Public pressure is especially critical at this moment with the White House's selection of Gen. Stanley McChrystal as top commander in Pakistan and Afghanistan after his classified role in running Special Ops in Iraq for five years. McChrystal's "rise can only mean an intensified campaign of secret--and dirty--warfare in the remote villages of Pakistan and Afghanistan," as Tom Hayden wrote recently,

In other words, things could get real ugly real fast if Obama isn't convinced to change course. So do all you can on Thursday!

There are numerous ways we can all work together to get our voices out: through letters to the editor, calls to talk-radio shows, blog comments, posts on your blog and/or to your online social networks, notes to your email lists and Twitter followers -- even actually talking to people about why we think the war in Afghanistan needs to end. The message is what you want it to be but you can find talking points here. Watching and sharing this video produced by our friends at Brave New Foundation also helps underscore the stakes involved.

This collective push to end the war could be an important step toward shifting public opinion away from the historical fallacy that Afghanistan can be conquered by military might.

PS: If you have extra time on your hands and want to follow me on Twitter -- a micro-blog -- click here. You'll find (slightly) more personal posts, breaking news and lots of links.

Comments (31)

  1. Good luck, PETER, but...

    "So, the first step to effectively opposing the war in Afghanistan is shifting US public opinion."

    Remember how long it took with Iraq? And this is essentially a "fresh start", given the public will likely give Obama atleast a few years (probably less than 3 though) to do what he thinks is right and show results.

    Posted by Mask at 05/19/2009 @ 12:40pm

  2. Remember how long it took with Iraq?

    Posted by Mask at 05/19/2009 @ 12:40pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    and then we got the hell out!!!!

    oh...wait...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/19/2009 @ 1:02pm

  3. Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/19/2009 @ 1:02pm

    Well, we atleast had a timetable to get STARTED to get out, IBB. Remember just a year ago, the neo-cons were telling us that "Obama's plan" would be disasterous and lead to Iraq's ruin....now they accept it and claim its implementation as "proof Dubya was right!"

    Frankly, it should be easier with Afghanistan since, as it was after 2003, most of the Right has completely abandoned Afghanistan (first as a strategic priority, now as a political issue) and care nothing about it.

    Posted by Mask at 05/19/2009 @ 1:56pm

  4. Peter,

    why do you continue to promote a Communist who hates America as much as Leslie Cagan does?

    <Leslie Cagan is co-chair of the anti-war coalition United For Peace and Justice (UFPJ)

    Cagan was an original founder of the Committees of Correspondence, a splinter group rooted in the Communist Party USA (of which Cagan is a longtime member). A strong supporter of Fidel Castro, she proudly aligns her politics with those of Communist Cuba.

    The Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism is a democratic socialist group in the United States which originated in 1991 as the Committees of Correspondence, a moderate, dissenting wing of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA).

    In 2000 the group changed its name to the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism. CCDS permits dual membership in the Socialist Party USA.

    Her Facebook page lists her as a fan of the Communist Party USA and the Ruckus Society.

    Now the Ruckus Society claims to be nonviolent, but in response to being listed as an extremist anarchist group by the Dept of Homeland Security, provided this response in an interview (which is on their website)

    <Do you consider property damage or the targeting of busniesses non-violent?

    In a world where people are being killed, forced to live in inhumane conditions with very little actual say over it, forced out of their homes, displaced so that large corporations can access oil or natural gas or water or land...on a scale relative to the violence we level against people or the planet, living things, I can't say that I see property damage in the same realm.>

    Peter, I'm surprised you aren't on Leslie's Facebook Friends list. Katha is.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/19/2009 @ 2:23pm

  5. peter, you unamerican traitor!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/19/2009 @ 2:31pm

  6. "I can no longer sit back and allow Leslie Cagen infiltration, Leslie Cagen indoctrination, Leslie Cagen subversion and the international Leslie Cagen conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids. "----Posted by antisocialist at 05/19/2009 @ 2:23pm

    Posted by Mask at 05/19/2009 @ 2:59pm

  7. Posted by Mask at 05/19/2009 @ 1:56pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    sure...

    i'm giving a year's pass on the administration to start REALLY TRULY HONESTLY actually drawing down.

    i understand the complexity, but i did not vote for mr. obama to continue bleeding in iraq. i voted for him to undo as much damage as is humanly possible from the last guys in charge.

    and to move the country a step or two forward...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/19/2009 @ 3:12pm

  8. Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/19/2009 @ 3:12pm

    I'll go two. After all, Bush abandoned Afghanistan, so it's really been free-wheeling since 2003.

    After that though, Obama better show a "glide-path" to withdrawal.

    Posted by Mask at 05/19/2009 @ 3:19pm

  9. I'll go two. After all, Bush abandoned Afghanistan, so it's really been free-wheeling since 2003.

    Posted by Mask at 05/19/2009 @ 3:19pm

    You want to enlighten us on how Bush abandoned Afghanistan?

    Here I thought libs were complaining about the continued fighting and troop presence in Afghanistan for the past 7 years.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/19/2009 @ 3:24pm

  10. PETER: "....Afghanistan is not Iraq and public opinion still largely supports Obama's escalation. (This is partly, I think, because there's so little media coverage of what's actually taking place in the country -- recent estimates of coverage by major news outlets report that a scant 0.6 percent of reporting has been devoted to Afghanistan.)..."

    ================================

    See, I'm not against SOME media, and credit needs to be given when deserved!

    $94 Billion is 2.7% of the proposed $3.5 Trillion Budget......give a gold star to those "major news outlets" that spotted the "scant 0.6 percent of reporting ....devoted to Afghanistan."

    Unfair! Don't think this is the Hopey and Changey, "spread the wealth" & "thrills up the legs" party time you all expected.

    Posted by Happy at 05/19/2009 @ 3:39pm

  11. You want to enlighten us on how Bush abandoned Afghanistan?

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/19/2009 @ 3:24pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    IRAQ

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/19/2009 @ 4:06pm

  12. IRAQ

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/19/2009 @ 4:06pm

    Did I miss out on helicopters flying off of the roofs of our embassy in Kabul? Damn the MSM, burying that glorious (to the Left) phase....must be ACORN at the helm.....:)

    Posted by Happy at 05/19/2009 @ 4:14pm

  13. Posted by Happy at 05/19/2009 @ 4:14pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    do some last minute money dumping, train something resembling a national army, bug out...

    then when the taliban comes back throw up our hands and...

    be prepared to return from time to time for tea and crumpets with the US military and pound them when needed...

    then get out before we get sucked in and they all learn to hate us.

    because an occasional preventative/punitive shock and awe hammering, localized and time limited strike will...

    a. deal with specific problems

    b. leave less bereaved of innocents killed

    c. endear ourselves to those in that region that hate that fundamentalist stupidity

    d. make the "blow 'em up" crowd at home happy and all high testosterony

    e. and be a lot more cost effective and satisfying than trying to walmartize them crazy jihaddin' towelheads...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/19/2009 @ 4:32pm

  14. oh, and...

    meghan mccain is hot.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/19/2009 @ 4:40pm

  15. You want to enlighten us on how Bush abandoned Afghanistan?

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/19/2009 @ 3:24pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Iraq invasion ring a bell? The taking of Kabul = Mission Accomplished; NOT.

    Remember, Bush thought Taliban was a rock group.

    For the neocons - the real prize was Iraq - ever closer to the promised land next to the Mediterranean.

    Posted by OneVote at 05/19/2009 @ 4:46pm

  16. Iraq invasion ring a bell? The taking of Kabul = Mission Accomplished; NOT.

    Remember, Bush thought Taliban was a rock group.

    For the neocons - the real prize was Iraq - ever closer to the promised land next to the Mediterranean.

    Posted by OneVote at 05/19/2009 @ 4:46pm

    We did not pull out of Afghanistan for Iraq. At most a few hundred military personnel were transferred from Afghanistan to Qatar.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/19/2009 @ 5:50pm

  17. We did not pull out of Afghanistan for Iraq. At most a few hundred military personnel were transferred from Afghanistan to Qatar.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/19/2009 @ 5:50pm

    Ask the One and ibble to show if there has ever been a decline in the total number of US troops since it started in late 2001!

    One can not abandon without standing down! Not in my book of accurate accounting!

    Posted by Happy at 05/19/2009 @ 6:02pm

  18. Happy and Anti.

    We absolutely took our eye of the ball in afghanistan when we went into Iraq. IDK if troop numbers changed, but when Bush stated that he was not concerned about Bin Laden anymore it was for all intents an admission that they did not feel Al Qaeda in Afghanistan was as important. Once we removed the Taliban from power, we took a maintenance course of action when in fact we had not followed through and completed the mission. There is no denying this. We did not put the effort in to finish the job. We let the Taliban regroup because our focus was in Iraq.

    Hindsight is 20/20 but if we had not gone and wasted lives, resources, and political captitol in Iraq, and used those resources to complete the mission in Afghanstan. We would not be in the situation we are in today. We let the Taliban regroup because the resources we had in Afghanistan were not sufficient to keep them on the run. The Taliban shifted to the border of Pakistan and into Pakistan, but since we lost the political capital and moral highground by invading Iraq and allowing attrocities to be commited there (Abu Grahib) we lost any chance for support of the Pakistanis to root them out. Not until now when the Pakistani gvt is threatened by the Taliban are they taking action. We let this situation develop, because the eye of Sauron (Bush Admin) believed the ring was in Iraq.

    Now we have a resurgence

    Posted by Extraneous at 05/19/2009 @ 6:32pm

  19. Hindsight is 20/20 but if we had not gone and wasted lives, resources, and political captitol in Iraq, and used those resources to complete the mission in Afghanstan. We would not be in the situation we are in today. We let the Taliban regroup because the resources we had in Afghanistan were not sufficient to keep them on the run. The Taliban shifted to the border of Pakistan and into Pakistan, but since we lost the political capital and moral highground by invading Iraq and allowing attrocities to be commited there (Abu Grahib) we lost any chance for support of the Pakistanis to root them out. Not until now when the Pakistani gvt is threatened by the Taliban are they taking action. We let this situation develop, because the eye of Sauron (Bush Admin) believed the ring was in Iraq.

    Now we have a resurgence

    Posted by Extraneous at 05/19/2009 @ 6:32pm

    If it had only been a US operation, I might concede some of your points. However, this has been primarily a NATO operation and they have increased their troop levels during the past 7 years, not reduced them.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/19/2009 @ 7:09pm

  20. If it had only been a US operation, I might concede some of your points. However, this has been primarily a NATO operation and they have increased their troop levels during the past 7 years, not reduced them.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/19/2009 @ 7:09pm

    as numerous dead canadians can't testify.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/19/2009 @ 10:51pm

  21. So Larry, why is it we went into Afghanist FIRST....yet it's the one with the biggest problems now?

    Unless it was because resources that could have secured it were drawn to a place where Al Qaeda wasn't headquartered, to look for WMDs that didn't exist, and to install a government MORE friendly to Iran?

    oh and kill 4100+ GIs to do it?

    Posted by Mask at 05/20/2009 @ 08:32am

  22. So Larry, why is it we went into Afghanist FIRST....yet it's the one with the biggest problems now?

    Unless it was because resources that could have secured it were drawn to a place where Al Qaeda wasn't headquartered, to look for WMDs that didn't exist, and to install a government MORE friendly to Iran?

    oh and kill 4100+ GIs to do it?

    Posted by Mask at 05/20/2009 @ 08:32am

    You falsely post the leftist lie that necessary resources in Afghanistan were relocated to Iraq. that simply never happened.

    Secondly, like other anti-military leftists, you persist with this utter falsehood that the US killed over 4000 GI's.

    You're becoming more and more of a radical leftist on military matters. You must be taking up with Chomsky and Zinn.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/20/2009 @ 10:36am

  23. Posted by antisocialist at 05/20/2009 @ 10:36am

    1. Was Afghanistan secured completely?

    2. Could it have been if 1000s of troops in Iraq, had NOT been deployed there, and been available for Afghanistan?

    3. Was the primary focus of the Bush Administration after Baghdad fell, securing and re-building Iraq...or Afghanistan?

    4. Did 4100+ GIs die?

    Posted by Mask at 05/20/2009 @ 10:40am

  24. 4. Did 4100+ GIs die?

    Posted by Mask at 05/20/2009 @ 10:40am

    That has nothing to do with Afghanistan Mask.

    And you remain a fringe radical who hates the military.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/20/2009 @ 11:43am

  25. Posted by antisocialist at 05/19/2009 @ 5:50pm

    Ask the One and ibble to show if there has ever been a decline in the total number of US troops since it started in late 2001!

    One can not abandon without standing down! Not in my book of accurate accounting!

    Posted by Happy at 05/19/2009 @ 6:02pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Good grief!!

    You suppose that Bush intended to leave troop force stable post invasion? Or, were we just fed a crock of sh_t from this administration so that perplexing questions about Afghanistan wouldn't crop up regarding Iraq invasion.

    Boys....your arguments are pretty foolish. Especially in light of the fact that we are now talking a troop strength of 500,000 to secure the country....

    Posted by OneVote at 05/20/2009 @ 1:22pm

  26. Posted by antisocialist at 05/20/2009 @ 11:43am

    Yeah, I "hate the military" because....

    I don't like it when 1000s of US soldiers get killed for no good reason.

    Brilliant logic as always, Larry!

    Posted by Mask at 05/20/2009 @ 1:47pm

  27. Yeah, I "hate the military" because....

    I don't like it when 1000s of US soldiers get killed for no good reason.

    Brilliant logic as always, Larry!

    Posted by Mask at 05/20/2009 @ 1:47pm

    As I've said Mask, in the years we both have been posting here, you have yet to ever say anything positive about our military.

    I wouldn't like it either if ever there comes a time when US soldiers die for no good reason. Fortunately that has yet to occur in our history.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/20/2009 @ 1:52pm

  28. jeez louise, asocialist! [don't worry, jeez louise is not related to El Senor, no names taken in vain here]

    you've been posting here "for years"!!!???

    you must REALLY LIKE IT HERE!!!

    [either that or... you see it as some kind of divine mission, like Schweitzer among the lepers, to convert nonbelievers into accepting the Holy Sacrament of Carpet Bombing...?]

    ... wait, I guess that was a somewhat rhetorical question

    Posted by canaro71 at 05/20/2009 @ 9:07pm

  29. THEY

    Talk to Judge Robert Bork or Justice Clarence Thomas about how they tried to destroy lives, reputations and character, and I'm supposed to say I don't want the President to fail? The Limbaw just today...

    With fresh meat from, '87 and '91

    Posted by winyahn at 05/20/2009 @ 10:35pm

  30. As I've said Mask, in the years we both have been posting here, you have yet to ever say anything positive about our military.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/20/2009 @ 1:52pm

    nice hats.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/21/2009 @ 1:11pm

  31. I wouldn't like it either if ever there comes a time when US soldiers die for no good reason. Fortunately that has yet to occur in our history.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/20/2009 @ 1:52pm

    i would write HAHAHAHAHAHA if the reality weren't so tragic.

    you, my good friend (god bless you, larry) are a fool.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/21/2009 @ 1:13pm

Peter Rothberg Peter Rothberg

Your guide to expressing informed dissent to war, racism, sexism, environmental degradation and market-based solutions to social problems.

Archives

  1. February 2010

  2. January 2010

  3. December 2009

  4. November 2009

  5. October 2009

  6. September 2009

blog roll

Advertisement
Advertisement

Blogs

» The Beat

RNC's Steele Decides It Is O.K. to Play the Race Card | "Why? Is it because Michael Steele is the chairman, or is it because a black man is chairman?” he wonders. Maybe he could compare notes with Obama.
John Nichols
23 Comments
Posted 42 minutes ago

» Editor's Cut

New Web Column at The Washington Post | Every Tuesday, I'll be featuring progressive thinking about politics and challenging the Right in my new web column for The Washington Post. Read my first one here.
Katrina vanden Heuvel
34 Comments

» The Notion

When Snow Melts: Vancouver’s Olympic Crackdown | Anger is growing in Vancouver in advance of the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver. Like Olympic clockwork, here comes the media crackdown.
Dave Zirin
49 Comments

» The Dreyfuss Report

The Mind-Boggling Stupidity of Michael Rubin | How an AEI apparatchik's love affair for Ahmed Chalabi blinds him to Chalabi's pro-Iran treachery.
Robert Dreyfuss
36 Comments

» Act Now!

Demand Question Time | Join the call for the President and Congress to implement regular Question Time sessions.
Peter Rothberg
64 Comments

» And Another Thing

How to Counterbalance Focus on the Family on Superbowl Sunday | Give to help low income girls and women.
Katha Pollitt
62 Comments

» Altercation

Slacker Friday | James O'Keefe and Alter-reviews.
Eric Alterman