A few Peace Action media hits around the Obama visit to Afghanistan and Bin Laden anniversary

Peace Action West’s Political Director Rebecca Griffin’s excellent op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle focused on public opinion and opportunities to end the war while stressing diplomacy, political and economic development support for Afghanistan.

Field Director Judith Le Blanc’s response to the president’s speech from Kabul addressed the cost of the war to both the Afghan and U.S. people (watch for this piece, it could show up in your local paper, as it is being distributed nationally by the Oregon Peace Institute’s op-ed service, and it was also published with a different headline on Counterpunch).

Executive Director Kevin Martin and U.S. Labor Against the War’s Michael Eisenscher called for the troops to come home now, not at the end of 2014 or worse, 2024, in an essay on Common Dreams.

Martin again, on Chicago public radio station WBEZ’s excellent Worldview program yesterday, spoke of the president’s trip in the context of the public’s clear support for ending the war rapidly, upcoming congressional action on Afghanistan, and the NATO Summit in Chicago later this month (my segment is from yesterday, 5.2.12, and begins 16 minutes into the program, lasts about 22 minutes, with two good callers!)

Only a Month Away, Won’t You Please Come to Chicago…for Peace, Justice and a NATO-Free Future!

–Executive Director Kevin Martin

In just over a month, peace activists and allies from other social justice movements from around the country and around the world will gather in Chicago (where I lived and worked for ten terrific years) to call for peace, economic justice and the end of NATO when that alliance convenes for its annual meeting. Please plan to join us May 18-20 for what will be an illuminating, action oriented Counter-Summit conference, and a march of veterans of the Afghanistan war returning their medals to U.S. officials to call for an end to our country’s longest war and just treatment for returning veterans and the people of Afghanistan who have suffered immeasurably over the last several decades of nearly endless wars.

More information, including registration and speakers can be found on the NATO-Free Future website (Peace Action is a founding member of the national and international coalitions on this issue). I’ll be there and hope you will join us!

Also, WBEZ-FM, Chicago’s public radio station, hosted a thought-provoking live public town meeting on NATO and the upcoming summit, featuring Kathy Kelly, co-founder of Voices for Creative Non-Violence, a longtime friend and ally and a principle speaker at our conference in May. It’s long, and hour and a half, but worthwhile. Kathy, who has traveled many timed to Afghanistan in solidarity with the people of that war-weary country, is excellent as always on the show, and the audience Q and A session with host Jerome McDonnell (the last 30-45 minutes or so) is very interesting, great questions and comments from the attendees.

2012: Out Now

by Peter Deccy, Peace Action

U.S. military leaders are still pressing to keep the bulk of US troops in Afghanistan until 2014, removing only the remaining 22,000 “surge” forces President Obama promised would be withdrawn this summer. That will leave over 68,000 US troops in Afghanistan. For what? Is there any reason to believe that two more years of fighting will make us safer? Will we look back and declare another two years of war was worth the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars and the horrific loss of life? Not likely.

Peace Action is working to recruit co-sponsors for H.R. 780 – the Responsible End to the War in Afghanistan Act, introduced by Representative Barbara Lee (D-CA). You can help build the demand by calling your Representative today at 202-224-3121 and asking her or him to co-sponsor the Lee bill.

After meeting with U.S. Defense Secretary Panetta earlier this month, Afghanistan’s President Hamid Karzai said, “Afghanistan is ready right now to take all security responsibilities completely.” A bold assertion to be sure, and one that should be put to the test as an alternative to a war strategy that is costing too many civilian lives, poisoning future relations with Afghanistan (and Pakistan as well) and one our Afghan allies vehemently oppose. What is the President waiting for?

Most Americans are fed up with the war and want the same thing. A new Rasmussen poll shows 53% of likely voters support the immediate and complete withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan. As support for the present military strategy continues to erode and the justifications for continuing the US investment in blood and treasure wear thin, now is the time for peace advocates to raise their voices.

Call 202-224-3121 today and tell your Representative to support H.R. 780 – the Responsible End to the War in Afghanistan Act.

In the wake of the horrific murders of 16 Afghan civilians, nine of them children, the U.S. should revisit its timeline for transfer of security to Afghan forces and accelerate the departure of all foreign troops. It’s time our troops came home.

Interview on Chicago Public Radio from Monday

This program, Worldview, with host Jerome McDonnell, is one of the best on public radio. It’s on five days a week, focusing on international affairs. I’ve known Jerome for over 20 years, he’s a good egg, very sharp, asks good questions, good politics. Not a bad segment I don’t think, we covered a lot of issues of import to the peace movement. Feel free to give me feedback on my “performance” if you like!

What do Durham, NC and Afghanistan have in common?

A terrific op-ed by Betsy Crites, director of North Carolina Peace Action, in the Durham News.

What do Durham and Afghanistan have in common?

We are worlds apart, but we both have people who need jobs, health care, schools, transportation and sewers, and help for our homeless, elderly and hungry. Neither of us is getting our critical needs met in part because a war neither of us really wants is draining our economies, killing and injuring our young people, and depleting our spirits.

We don’t often make the connections with this far-off country, but we need to.

We’ve been told that deficits and debt are why we must endure major cuts in educational programs, health care, environmental protection and a wide array of services offered by non-profits. We are rarely told that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are estimated to account for 23 percent of our deficits since 2003 (as reported in an article by N.C. Rep. Walter Jones in the Feb. 18 Washington Post).

A look at the numbers helps to understand how Durham and the countries where we’ve been at war are connected. In fiscal year 2011, the United States funneled $122 billion into the war in Afghanistan/Pakistan and $47.4 billion for military in Iraq. The combined $169.4 billion amounts to $3.2 billion a week.

Taxpayers in Durham are paying $106.8 million of that bill in 2011. With just a fraction of that money, we could easily cover the shortfalls in Durham’s education budget. Instead we will need to raise the sales tax just to keep schools afloat and begin funding a light rail system.

What else could Durham do with that $106.8 billion in war taxes? We could pay for:

45,204 children receiving low-income health care for one year;

Or 1,977 elementary school teachers for one year;

Or 13,817 Head Start slots for children for one year;

Or 15,351 military veterans’ VA medical care for one year;

Or 2,111 police or sheriff’s patrol officers for one year;

Or 19,238 students receiving Pell Grants of $5,550.

With state and federal deficit hawks cutting everything from education programs to environmental protection, we have an obligation to ask: “Do we have our priorities straight?”

In case anyone thinks that Afghanistan is profiting from the huge influx of money and soldiers, consider these sad numbers: The per capita annual income is $330. The entire gross national product of Afghanistan is only $11.7 billion. (Recall the U.S. war there costs $122 billion.) It is a desperately poor country that needs schools, clinics, water systems, and health care. One out of eight Afghan mothers dies in childbirth. If they are ever going to rebuild, they need peace.

Neither Durham nor Afghanistan, Pakistan nor Iraq is getting what is needed to sustain a decent, secure life for their citizens, and they won’t until we make the connections and speak up about our priorities.

Durham citizens and community leaders are posing this question to our local elected officials. The U.S. Conference of Mayors and Los Angeles City Council passed resolutions to end the wars and fund human needs, sending a clear message to federal officials. Durham can do the same.

We invited concerned citizens to join the discussion with our local elected officials on Sept. 10, 10:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m. at First Presbyterian Church, 305 E. Main St., Durham. Members of the City Council, Board of County Commissioners, Board of Education, and members of the General Assembly from our area will be present. All are welcome.

Betsy Crites is the director of NC Peace Action in Durham; ww.ncpeaceaction.org

© Copyright 2011, The News & Observer Publishing Company A subsidiary of The McClatchy Company

Four More Years of War? Not On Our Watch!

I made notes on President Obama’s “war lite” speech the other night, intending to rebut many of his points, but it’s too easy, and also not really what I want to convey. However, here are a few points:

-The mainstream media frame that Obama is withdrawing more troops than the military wanted, so this will help his anti-war base, if way, well, off-base. While the 10,000 troops coming home this year and additional 23,000 by next September is too small, it’s larger than it would have been without our tireless grassroots and congressional organizing. So we recognize our power, and will re-double our efforts; we are not in the least appeased by the president’s half-measures, and neither is Congress. A bi-partisan letter to Obama is already in circulation calling for a bigger, faster troop withdrawal.

-The president said violence is declining, but that’s not at all true. This year has been the deadliest both for Afghan civilians and for our troops (and violence is on the rise in Baghdad, too, now one of our “other wars”).

-The president talked about devoting resources to rebuilding our country, but he has just committed us to another $300-400 billion of war over the next four years in Afghanistan.  The U.S. Conference of Mayors didn’t buy it; last weekend in Baltimore, they passed a strong anti-war resolution (their first since 1971 during the Vietnam War). 

-Nobody in the Administration will admit this, but these (too small) withdrawals do indeed change the strategy, at least looking past a year. As my colleague Bill Goodfellow from the Center for International Policy points out, 68,000 troops is too small a force to continue a counterinsurgency strategy, so our pressure has forced a strategic shift.

Peace Action got some good media hits after the president’s speech, here are a few of them:

John Nichols on The Nation, NPR and CBS websites (quotes our tireless Organizing and Policy Director Paul Kawika Martin)

Augusta Free Press

 

Long Island Newsday

 

Peace Action also got a “tip of the hat” in Tom Hayden’s article in The Nation

For some terrific analysis of the president’s speech and the way forward, try these:

Rebecca Griffin of Peace Action West

Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies on AlterNet

Former Peace Action Executive Director (back in the day when we were Sane and Sane/Freeze) David Cortight on CNN.com

And finally, my article which draws a bit of a broader frame, and will be in our next Action Report newsletter:

When I first heard a report of President Obama’s decision to remove only 5,000 U.S. troops from Afghanistan this year (which turned out to be only half what he announced June 22, with another 23,000 troops to leave by September, 2012), my first thought was “did he forget a zero?” The decision was disappointing but not surprising. Remember, candidate Obama promised to escalate the Afghanistan war (which he did, twice), and as president, he has committed himself to “winning” it (whatever that means, I’m reminded of the pacifist Congresswoman Jeannette Rankin’s quote, “You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake”).

Moreover, the military has consistently and effectively influenced the president’s decisions on the war, with former Secretary of War Robert Gates, Generals David Petraeus, Stanley McChrystal and others constantly speaking in public and to the media “setting policy,” which the president has enabled (Truman or Eisenhower would doubtless have fired them for that).

The President’s decision to prolong the war despite escalating public and congressional pressure surely reflects the malign influence of the Military-Industrial Complex (though I don’t mean to give the president a pass here, he is accountable for his decisions). The MIC won’t be taken down quickly or easily, perhaps not in our lifetimes.

But it will be taken down. The U.S. Empire is on the decline. Let’s replace it with a flowering U.S. Republic (in the phrase of the philosopher Johan Galtung). Protesting the wars and scourges of the Empire is only half our job. Empowering people to envision and decide what comes after, or along with, that decline is even more important. Even some in the military realize the U.S. needs a new foreign policy, one based less on belligerence and military might and more on peaceful diplomacy and international cooperation, as the recent “Mr. Y” article showed.

At reception near the United Nations at which I was humbled to be honored by non-governmental organizations that work at the UN, I asked attendees to close their eyes and envision that more peaceful, just world we will help build as the Empire declines. I asked folks to shout out what they envisioned. “A peaceful future for our children,” “meaningful jobs for all,” “an environment restored, with green energy technology and good public transit,” “health care for everyone” and “the end of nuclear power” were just some of the inspiring visions shared that night. It was beautiful!

So this is not a time to despair. Yes, we at Peace Action are sick of all wars, whether a Republican or Democrat is in the White House. But signs of our successes at shaping that new world abound:

-Public opinion is now solidly against the Afghanistan war – that’s our doing!

-The House and Senate finally sent strong messages to Obama of their opposition to the war, mostly because of our hard work.

-Congress is pushing the administration on the illegality of the Libya war.

-(Now former) Secretary of War Gates on the defensive in his last Senate hearing, reduced to declaring about Afghanistan “it’s not a war without end.”

-The recent U.S. Conference of Mayors resolutions calling for redirecting war spending to human needs and advocating the global elimination of nuclear weapons.

- The military budget is still gargantuan, but the organizing and political climate for working on this issue is the best we’ve seen decades – our Move the Money campaign is growing every day!

-Next year’s Peace Voter 2012 campaign could be one of our most important yet, as citizen-activists take control of the debate over wars, military spending and nuclear weapons and force House, Senate and Presidential candidates to address our issues on our terms!

-The Peace Action affiliate and chapter network is growing, very impressively, into new states and regions (please see the “Affiliates in Action” article and photo of Nebraskans for Peace, our new affiliate, in this issue!)

Peace and justice work is hard, there’s no question about it. That’s why we call it “the struggle,” not “the picnic.” But we have momentum, and the power of the people, on our side, let’s never forget that, and most importantly, let’s organize that power!

Summary of Peace Action’s 2011-2016 Strategic Plan

Building a grassroots movement for peace and justice:

Peace Action’s Long-Range Strategic Plan, 2011-2016

Summary and Overview

 

Our Vision

 

Peace Action is a grassroots-based national organization, committed to building a peaceful world. We share a vision of world peace, in which: the menace of nuclear weapons has forever been erased; war has been abolished as a method of solving conflicts; all human beings are assured the wherewithal to live in health and dignity; and no one is denied the opportunity to participate in decisions that affect the common good.

 

Our Mission

 

The most important threats to the people of this country are not terrorists or foreign enemies but joblessness, foreclosures, gaping holes in the safety net, the climate crisis, concentration of wealth, influence of major corporations, and absence of true democracy. Our current foreign policy and military spending threaten our democracy at home and our security abroad. Abolition of nuclear weapons, an end to the international arms trade and reductions in military spending will

free up resources to address our real needs at home. Support for international law, humanitarian aid, and diplomacy will save lives and promote peace with justice abroad

 

Peace Action seeks: (1) the global abolition of nuclear weapons and other means of mass destruction; (2) the end of the international arms trade; (3) significant reductions in worldwide military expenditures and implementing an effective program of economic conversion.

 

Peace Action supports: (1) the development of creative, democratic international non-military peacekeeping initiatives and institutions; (2) globally sustainable and economically just societies dedicated to ensuring basic human rights.

 

Peace Action will mobilize Americans to secure:

 A demilitarized, sustainable economy;

 A nuclear weapons-free world; and

 An end to U.S.-supported wars and occupations.

 

Policy and Program Goals and Objectives

 

A. A Demilitarized, Sustainable Economy

 

 Reduce the military budget by 25%

 Reduce the number of U.S. foreign military bases by 30%

 Reduce the amount of the military budget that goes to contractors by 35%

 Demilitarize public schools by increasing to twelve the number of states with legislation prohibiting the use of military testing for recruitment purposes.

 

 

 

B. A Nuclear Weapons-Free World

 

 Prevent “modernization” of the U.S. nuclear weapons production complex and upgrading of delivery systems;

Ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

 Achieve progress towards nuclear disarmament outside the treaty process.

 Negotiate three international treaties to end the threat of nuclear war: Nuclear Weapons-Free Zone in the Middle East; abolish nuclear weapons worldwide; stop production of nuclear weapons-grade materials worldwide

C. An End to U.S.-Supported Wars and Occupations

 In Afghanistan and Pakistan, end U.S. military operations, support regional peace-making: bring home all U.S. military personnel and close all U.S. military bases, and contribute to the reconstruction of Afghanistan.

 In Israel/Palestine, promote sustainable peace with justice by supporting peacemakers in both communities and by pressing for an end to U.S. financial and military aid to the Israeli government until it complies with international law.

 Defuse the U.S./Iran conflict, as reflected in the creation of a regional security network with participation from all Middle East countries.

 End the U.S. occupation of Iraq by the end of 2011: bring home all U.S. military personnel and all contractors, close all military bases in Iraq, and contribute to the reconstruction of Iraq.

 Support and strengthen the United Nations as a guarantor of international security, human rights and social progress.

 

Afghanistan Exit

“Nobody wants to give up the gains that have been won at such hard cost. And nobody wants to give our allies an excuse to run for the exits.”
Defense Secretary Robert Gates

The image of our NATO allies breaking for the exit at the first sign the US begins withdrawing its troops from Afghanistan pretty much says it all. A bottomless quagmire, an unpopular, unwinnable war our allies can’t wait to be free of.

In the coming weeks, President Obama will announce his plan for fulfilling his promise that the 30,000 ‘surge’ troops he sent to Afghanistan would begin coming home this July. Americans no longer view the war as worth the cost. Opposition in Congress is growing, and members of his own administration, including Vice President Biden have expressed doubts about the efficacy of an all-in military campaign.

On the other side of the debate, Gates and the Pentagon Brass aren’t leading with the ‘allies running for the exit’ argument, but rather are pressing for a continuation of a strategy they say is protecting “gains that have been won at such a hard cost.” This is an argument that resonates with those predisposed to the military option.

Having toppled the Taliban, driven al-Qaeda out of Afghanistan and killed bin Laden, the US has achieved what it set out to do, albeit “at such a hard cost.” What’s left – preventing the return of the Taliban to power and al-Qaeda to its Afghanistan havens and the corresponding requirement of building a functional government to prevent that outcome, is purely a case of Gates and the Brass gambling with house money.

Let’s start with the foundation needed to achieve these objectives – building a functional government in Afghanistan that can prevent the return of the Taliban to power and al-Qaeda to its Afghanistan havens. Success hinges on the Karzai government, rigger of elections and overseer of the kleptocracy which controls only a small portion of the country. President Karzai is a harsh critic of US military strategy who even threatened to join the Taliban. A succession of US ambassadors and envoys have – at best – expressed serious misgivings as to his potential as a partner in US efforts to build a stable government.

Afghanistan’s economy is a shambles. Its two billion dollar budget will not be able to sustain the projected eight billion dollar annual cost for the security forces the US will spend some $30 billion to recruit and train.

The bipartisan Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan, created by Congress in 2008 to find waste, fraud, abuse and mismanagement of contracts, has warned that tens of billions of dollars will be wasted on projects Afghanistan cannot sustain while tens of billions of dollars more will be eaten by old-fashion waste and fraud. The Commission concluded in its June 3 report:

“In Afghanistan, the United States has contracted for: schools and clinics that lack adequate personnel, supplies, and security; a large power plant that the host country cannot maintain or operate unassisted; roads that will need substantial and continuing maintenance; and security-force training and support whose costs exceed Afghan funding capabilities.”

While the Obama administration executes its warplan in Afghanistan at a cost of $2 billion a week, al-Qaeda’s presence in Yemen, Somalia and elsewhere is growing. In Pakistan, where Taliban elements find safe haven along a porous border, the US war, drone strikes and the killing of bin Laden fuels public anger and resentment at our government and Pakistan’s as well. This not only threatens the vital supply line to landlocked Afghanistan, but the stability of our nuclear armed and increasingly disenchanted ally.

So, with our own economy at risk as well, what are the alternatives to continuing the administration’s Afghanistan gamble?

• Draw down our force levels. The President promised to begin withdrawing surge forces in July and he must stick to his commitment. The argument that the Taliban will simply ‘wait us out” fails to recognize the war has gone on for 10 years now, and the Taliban will “wait us out” another 10 years if it has to, adapting its tactics, recruiting new fighters and inflicting maximum damage as long as foreign troops occupy Afghanistan.

• End offensive military actions. Stop the night raids and drone strikes that are causing civilian casualties. Challenge the insurgency to work for a political settlement.

• Accelerate negotiations. Seek a cease fire and set the stage for fair elections in 2014 that will allow the people of Afghanistan to determine their own future.

• Reach a political settlement. Our own military leaders acknowledge this is the only way the war will end. But trying to beat the Taliban into submission so they will be more compliant to our conditions for a settlement gambles our blood and treasure with no guarantee of a successful outcome.

Peace Action and twenty of our colleague organizations launched a week of action in May to build support in the House of Representatives for an amendment to the Pentagon spending bill calling on the President to provide an exit plan that would bring our troops home well ahead of the 2014 date favored by the administration. While the amendment failed 204-214, the vote was much closer than expected and represents growing congressional opposition to the war in Afghanistan. Last year, the same bill was defeated 162-260. Our work is paying off.

We have it on good authority that the President has heard the message from the House loud and clear. Our next step is to organize a bipartisan letter from the Senate to President Obama urging a substantial and responsible redeployment of our forces this summer.

Call the Senate switchboard – (202) 224-3121 and strongly urge your Senators to sign the Merkley-Lee-Udall letter to President Obama urging a “sizeable and sustained” reduction in forces from Afghanistan beginning in July.

We will soon see if it’s enough to make July a turning point in this terrible war. Come what may, we will not let up until the last of our troops come home.

From the UK: A father’s lament for a son killed in Afghanistan, and a fellow soldier’s reply

Devastatingly frank and difficult to read, this is from our colleagues at Stop the War UK, an article in the Independent by Stuart Alexander, whose son Sam died in Afghanistan, and a reply from another soldier.  Very critically, Stuart asks if his son’s death was a price worth paying; the soldier replies that in his opinion, Sam’s death and those of his comrades was not worth it. A must read for anyone who supports the war but has no personal connection to it. As a parent, this brought me to tears.

Exit Afghanistan – Op-Ed in Omaha World-Herald

Terrific op-ed published last Friday, written by Paul Olson, Peace Action member and President Emeritus of Nebraskans for Peace, which signed up as a Peace Action affiliate earlier this year. Great job, Paul!

The war in Afghanistan is 10 years old. Our longest war, it’s also one of our most futile.

In his campaign for president, Barack Obama said the war on Iraq had taken our eyes off of Osama bin Laden, allowing things to go to ruin in Afghanistan, and pledged to wage the “right war.”

As commander in chief, he ordered a “surge” of 30,000 troops and changed our strategy from “nation-building” to “peace-building.” We would not seek to transform Afghanistan, he said, but pacify its violent areas and defeat al-Qaida and the Taliban. He set a withdrawal date of 2012.

Today, however, Afghanistan also has become the “wrong war.” Al-Qaida barely exists in the country, operating instead in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Indonesia and the United States. The Taliban are no longer uniformly regarded as enemies. We have held a variety of back-channel negotiations that promise to make them friends for as long as we pay them.

The dream of a democratic and stable Afghanistan has receded as President Hamid Karzai engineered a fraudulent election, his brother banked our money in Dubai, and the Taliban and warlords continue to control vast areas of the countryside — funded as they are by heroin trafficking. Bribes run the show, and Karzai threatens to join the Taliban.

Post-Vietnam War analyses said that war failed because we had no partner there. We have no partner in Afghanistan, either.

We have little reason to wage this fight, save for our stake in Central Asian oil and minerals. The argument that we are there on behalf of women’s rights hardly commands respect, since we seem to care little about women’s rights in most of the Muslim world — rights that will ultimately be determined by indigenous Islamic movements.

Unhappily however, we have expended much blood and treasure over there. Counting just the U.S. casualties, as of April, nearly 1,500 had been killed and 11,000 wounded.

Allied forces, on the other hand, have killed thousands of civilians, perhaps as many as 2,000 to 3,000 per year in the past 10 years — many of them villagers who have had little to no role in the war.

We have no serious exit strategy, as evidenced by the two bipartisan congressional proposals calling on President Obama to set a specific benchmarked strategy for withdrawal.

And then there’s the cost.

The fiscal cost of the war is huge, with the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimating it as follows:

The cumulative total appropriated from 9/11 for war operations, diplomatic operations and medical care for Iraq and Afghan war veterans is $1.3 trillion, including:

>> $806 billion for Iraq.

>> $444 billion for Afghanistan.

>> $29 billion for enhanced security.

>> $6 billion not allocated.

Because the war-fighting emphasis has now shifted from Iraq to Afghanistan, Afghanistan spending is slated to rise to over a trillion more in the next decade. And who’s going to pay for this?

This very minute, Congress is quarreling over whether to raise the debt ceiling above its current $14.3 trillion level. Raising taxes is taboo. Deep cuts in domestic spending are being proposed. But the military budget, so far, has been sacrosanct.

Do we really want to cut Medicare and funding for hungry children for this war?

Under the pseudonym of “Mr. Y,” assistants to Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently produced a National Security Narrative, arguing that our national security logic must change. “Y” argues that, internationally, the United States can no longer seek to run the show. Global dominance is not possible. We must move from military efforts to control others, to civilian efforts to influence them.

“Y” notes that we can spend ourselves right into the poorhouse on deterrence and defense against the world’s developing nations, but we would do better to seek a civilian development of the poor and underemployed across the world. We could do so through a reduction in military spending and a demilitarizing of American foreign policy.

In short, “Y” argues that we could recognize our interdependence and make it fruitful in security terms.

Afghanistan could be the testing ground for this new security narrative.

President Obama is an admirer of Dr. Martin Luther King, who exhorted us to get out of Vietnam and settle issues at home. With the death of Osama bin Laden, President Obama has an opportunity to stake out a new strategy for U.S. engagement in the world — the only one, in fact, that promises us the hope of security.
Copyright ©2011 Omaha World-Herald®.