***From The Amercian Left History Archives (2010) As We Drag Out The 12th Year O f The Afghan War -No, No Damn It- Not Obama's Twenty Months But Nine (Oops! Ten)Long Years In Afghanistan -Troops Out Now!

Markin comment:

Apparently I can just keep reposting the entry from a couple of years back as long as Obama is in charge. And if someone else takes over in 2013 well then we will just delete and change the name. Except I have a better idea. Let's end this thing our way- Immediate Uncondtional Withdrawal From Afghanistan, Period!
*****
October 7, 2010

No, No Damn It- Not Obama's Twenty Months But Nine Long Years In Afghanistan -Troops Out Now!

Markin comment:

No, old Markin has not gotten lazy, at least not too lazy, in his old age and just casually reposted last year's commentary on this the anniversary (9th) of the American occupation of Afghanistan. When I went to read it over, in the main, it seemed a perfect fit, again. Except, of course, do the math-add 12 months to the eight and add an additional year. It will however take more than a calculator to get Obama out of Afghanistan! Let's get moving- I don't want to have to add another twelve to that twenty and a one to that nine. For the rest read below (except for General McChrytsal, that's old news now).
*********

Wednesday, October 07, 2009

* No, No Damn It- Not Obama's Eight Months But Eight Long Years In Afghanistan


Click on title to link to my September 4, 2009 blog entry of National Public Radio's report on September 1, 2009 of the musings of Afghan top commander, General Stanley "Search and Destroy first and let god sort it out)" McChrystal, about (another) future troop escalation in Afghanistan. Well,boys and girls, the time for Obamian illusions is over. It is time to settle up. The streets are not for dreaming now. Get the poster boards, the old bed sheets, magic markers, paint and cell phones ready. Obama-Immediate Unconditional Withdrawal Of All U.S./Allied Troops From Afghanistan ((And Iraq And Pakistan Too!)

Markin comment:

I really am, after a long political life, usually non-plussed by bizarre remarks from liberals and from those even further to the right, who I do not even bother rebutting these days, but a recent remark from one such liberal specimen after I made a comment about Obama’s Afghan war policy and troop escalations has got “my dander” up. It seems the rules of war, or at least of calculating the lengths of such wars, have changed in the “Age of Obama”. Apparently this person has been steeped in the educational philosophy of John Locke and his theory of tabula rasa. The logic of this position in terms of Obama’s innate Afghan War policy is that we should not count the war times under former President George W. Bush against newly-minted current President Obama.

A follow up discussion on that logic indicated that this person believed that one could, and should, draw a sharp distinction between Bush’ s “war of choice” and Obama’s “war of necessity” and give the President a break. No, no a thousand times no. But just to prove I do not remain forever with my “dander” up here is what I will do. Prior to 12 o’clock noon on January 20, 2009 Bush- Immediate Unconditional Withdrawal of All U.S./Allied Troops From Iraq and Afghanistan! After 12 o’clock noon on January 20, 2009 Obama- Immediate Unconditional Withdrawal of All U.S./Allied Troops From Iraq and Afghanistan! There, now let’s do the math starting from the bombing of Afghanistan- eight long ……years. Enough.

******

Every once in a while (more frequently than I would like but today seems like a very appropriate time) old Pete Seeger's song about his World War II adventures that served as a parable for President Lyndon Johnson and his constant Vietnam escalations, Waist Deep In The Big Muddy just seems appropriate. This is one of those occasions. Just switch "Big Poppy" for "Big Muddy" and you will have it just about right.

Waist Deep In The Big Muddy-Pete Seeger

It was back in nineteen forty-two,
I was a member of a good platoon.
We were on maneuvers in-a Loozianna,
One night by the light of the moon.
The captain told us to ford a river,
That's how it all begun.
We were -- knee deep in the Big Muddy,
But the big fool said to push on.

The Sergeant said, "Sir, are you sure,
This is the best way back to the base?"
"Sergeant, go on! I forded this river
'Bout a mile above this place.
It'll be a little soggy but just keep slogging.
We'll soon be on dry ground."
We were -- waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool said to push on.

The Sergeant said, "Sir, with all this equipment
No man will be able to swim."
"Sergeant, don't be a Nervous Nellie,"
The Captain said to him.
"All we need is a little determination;
Men, follow me, I'll lead on."
We were -- neck deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool said to push on.

All at once, the moon clouded over,
We heard a gurgling cry.
A few seconds later, the captain's helmet
Was all that floated by.
The Sergeant said, "Turn around men!
I'm in charge from now on."
And we just made it out of the Big Muddy
With the captain dead and gone.

We stripped and dived and found his body
Stuck in the old quicksand.
I guess he didn't know that the water was deeper
Than the place he'd once before been.
Another stream had joined the Big Muddy
'Bout a half mile from where we'd gone.
We were lucky to escape from the Big Muddy
When the big fool said to push on.

Well, I'm not going to point any moral;
I'll leave that for yourself
Maybe you're still walking, you're still talking
You'd like to keep your health.
But every time I read the papers
That old feeling comes on;
We're -- waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool says to push on.

Waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool says to push on.
Waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool says to push on.
Waist deep! Neck deep! Soon even a
Tall man'll be over his head, we're
Waist deep in the Big Muddy!
And the big fool says to push on!

Obama, FBI- Hands Off The "Anonymous" Group

Click on the headline to link to an NPR online report, dated February 10, 2011, on the "Anonymous" Group (Hey that is what they are  called and if you listen to the story you will know why.) that has been acting as a cyberspace thorn in the side of the American government and assorted businesses

Markin comment:

I have run into some supporters of this group and they are interesting, kind of soft anarchist techie-types. Not Bolsheviks by any means but, seemingly, their hearts are in the right place. Hands Off "Anonymous" Group. And while we are at- Hands Off Wikileaks!- Hands Off The Chicago and Minneapolis Anti-war and Anti-Imperialist activists!- Free Private Bradley Manning! See, they all goes together, right?

* No, No Damn It- Not Obama's Twenty Months But Nine Long Years In Afghanistan -Troops Out Now!

Markin comment:

No, old Markin has not gotten lazy, at least not too lazy, in his old age and just casually reposted last year's commentary on this the anniversary (9th) of the American occupation of Afghanistan. When I went to read it over, in the main, it seemed a perfect fit, again. Except, of course, do the math-add 12 months to the eight and add an additional year. It will however take more than a calculator to get Obama out of Afghanistan! Let's get moving- I don't want to have to add another twelve to that twenty and a one to that nine. For the rest read below (except for General McChrytsal, that's old news now).
*********

Wednesday, October 07, 2009

* No, No Damn It- Not Obama's Eight Months But Eight Long Years In Afghanistan


Click on title to link to my September 4, 2009 blog entry of National Public Radio's report on September 1, 2009 of the musings of Afghan top commander, General Stanley "Search and Destroy first and let god sort it out)" McChrystal, about (another) future troop escalation in Afghanistan. Well,boys and girls, the time for Obamian illusions is over. It is time to settle up. The streets are not for dreaming now. Get the poster boards, the old bed sheets, magic markers, paint and cell phones ready. Obama-Immediate Unconditional Withdrawal Of All U.S./Allied Troops From Afghanistan ((And Iraq And Pakistan Too!)

Markin comment:

I really am, after a long political life, usually non-plussed by bizarre remarks from liberals and from those even further to the right, who I do not even bother rebutting these days, but a recent remark from one such liberal specimen after I made a comment about Obama’s Afghan war policy and troop escalations has got “my dander” up. It seems the rules of war, or at least of calculating the lengths of such wars, have changed in the “Age of Obama”. Apparently this person has been steeped in the educational philosophy of John Locke and his theory of tabula rasa. The logic of this position in terms of Obama’s innate Afghan War policy is that we should not count the war times under former President George W. Bush against newly-minted current President Obama.

A follow up discussion on that logic indicated that this person believed that one could, and should, draw a sharp distinction between Bush’ s “war of choice” and Obama’s “war of necessity” and give the President a break. No, no a thousand times no. But just to prove I do not remain forever with my “dander” up here is what I will do. Prior to 12 o’clock noon on January 20, 2009 Bush- Immediate Unconditional Withdrawal of All U.S./Allied Troops From Iraq and Afghanistan! After 12 o’clock noon on January 20, 2009 Obama- Immediate Unconditional Withdrawal of All U.S./Allied Troops From Iraq and Afghanistan! There, now let’s do the math starting from the bombing of Afghanistan- eight long ……years. Enough.

******

Every once in a while (more frequently than I would like but today seems like a very appropriate time) old Pete Seeger's song about his World War II adventures that served as a parable for President Lyndon Johnson and his constant Vietnam escalations, Waist Deep In The Big Muddy just seems appropriate. This is one of those occasions. Just switch "Big Poppy" for "Big Muddy" and you will have it just about right.

Waist Deep In The Big Muddy-Pete Seeger

It was back in nineteen forty-two,
I was a member of a good platoon.
We were on maneuvers in-a Loozianna,
One night by the light of the moon.
The captain told us to ford a river,
That's how it all begun.
We were -- knee deep in the Big Muddy,
But the big fool said to push on.

The Sergeant said, "Sir, are you sure,
This is the best way back to the base?"
"Sergeant, go on! I forded this river
'Bout a mile above this place.
It'll be a little soggy but just keep slogging.
We'll soon be on dry ground."
We were -- waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool said to push on.

The Sergeant said, "Sir, with all this equipment
No man will be able to swim."
"Sergeant, don't be a Nervous Nellie,"
The Captain said to him.
"All we need is a little determination;
Men, follow me, I'll lead on."
We were -- neck deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool said to push on.

All at once, the moon clouded over,
We heard a gurgling cry.
A few seconds later, the captain's helmet
Was all that floated by.
The Sergeant said, "Turn around men!
I'm in charge from now on."
And we just made it out of the Big Muddy
With the captain dead and gone.

We stripped and dived and found his body
Stuck in the old quicksand.
I guess he didn't know that the water was deeper
Than the place he'd once before been.
Another stream had joined the Big Muddy
'Bout a half mile from where we'd gone.
We were lucky to escape from the Big Muddy
When the big fool said to push on.

Well, I'm not going to point any moral;
I'll leave that for yourself
Maybe you're still walking, you're still talking
You'd like to keep your health.
But every time I read the papers
That old feeling comes on;
We're -- waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool says to push on.

Waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool says to push on.
Waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool says to push on.
Waist deep! Neck deep! Soon even a
Tall man'll be over his head, we're
Waist deep in the Big Muddy!
And the big fool says to push on!


posted by Markin at 1:12 PM

From The United For Justice With Peace (UJP) Website- The October 2nd "One Nation" Washington Demonstration

Click on the headline to link to a UJP entry for the October 2, 2010 One Nation demonstration in Washington, D.C.

Markin comment:

I will keep this one short and sweet for now. I am glad that this demonstration occurred as a "show of colors." But, politically, it was (as advertised) a rally to stir up the troops for the Democrats in November. Christ, I am glad our committee did not endorse this thing. We have much, much, much work to do to get people to break from Obama's wars, and Obama's party. More later.

From The "Renegade Eye" Blog -Stratfor: Pakistan and the U.S. Exit From Afghanistan

Stratfor: Pakistan and the U.S. Exit From Afghanistan
By George Friedman
September 28, 2010

Bob Woodward has released another book, this one on the debate over Afghanistan strategy in the Obama administration. As all his books do, the book has riveted Washington. It reveals that intense debate occurred over what course to take, that the president sought alternative strategies and that compromises were reached. But while knowing the details of these things is interesting, what would have been shocking is if they hadn’t taken place.

It is interesting to reflect on the institutional inevitability of these disagreements. The military is involved in a war. It is institutionally and emotionally committed to victory in the theater of combat. It will demand all available resources for executing the war under way. For a soldier who has bled in that war, questioning the importance of the war is obscene. A war must be fought relentlessly and with all available means.

But while the military’s top generals and senior civilian leadership are responsible for providing the president with sound, clearheaded advice on all military matters including the highest levels of grand strategy, they are ultimately responsible for the pursuit of military objectives to which the commander-in-chief directs them. Generals must think about how to win the war they are fighting. Presidents must think about whether the war is worth fighting. The president is responsible for America’s global posture. He must consider what an unlimited commitment to a particular conflict might mean in other regions of the world where forces would be unavailable.

A president must take a more dispassionate view than his generals. He must calculate not only whether victory is possible but also the value of the victory relative to the cost. Given the nature of the war in Afghanistan, U.S. President Barack Obama and Gen. David Petraeus — first the U.S. Central Command chief and now the top commander in Afghanistan — had to view it differently. This is unavoidable. This is natural. And only one of the two is ultimately in charge.

The Nature of Guerrilla Warfare

In thinking about Afghanistan, it is essential that we begin by thinking about the nature of guerrilla warfare against an occupying force. The guerrilla lives in the country. He isn’t going anywhere else, as he has nowhere to go. By contrast, the foreigner has a place to which he can return. This is the core weakness of the occupier and the strength of the guerrilla. The former can leave and in all likelihood, his nation will survive. The guerrilla can’t. And having alternatives undermines the foreigner’s will to fight regardless of the importance of the war to him.

The strategy of the guerrilla is to make the option to withdraw more attractive. In order to do this, his strategic goal is simply to survive and fight on whatever level he can. His patience is built into who he is and what he is fighting for. The occupier’s patience is calculated against the cost of the occupation and its opportunity costs, thus, while troops are committed in this country, what is happening elsewhere?

Tactically, the guerrilla survives by being elusive. He disperses in small groups. He operates in hostile terrain. He denies the enemy intelligence on his location and capabilities. He forms political alliances with civilians who provide him supplies and intelligence on the occupation forces and misleads the occupiers about his own location. The guerrilla uses this intelligence network to decline combat on the enemy’s terms and to strike the enemy when he is least prepared. The guerrilla’s goal is not to seize and hold ground but to survive, evade and strike, imposing casualties on the occupier. Above all, the guerrilla must never form a center of gravity that, if struck, would lead to his defeat. He thus actively avoids anything that could be construed as a decisive contact.

The occupation force is normally a more conventional army. Its strength is superior firepower, resources and organization. If it knows where the guerrilla is and can strike before the guerrilla can disperse, the occupying force will defeat the guerrilla. The occupier’s problems are that his intelligence is normally inferior to that of the guerrillas; the guerrillas rarely mass in ways that permit decisive combat and normally can disperse faster than the occupier can pinpoint and deploy forces against them; and the guerrillas’ superior tactical capabilities allow them to impose a constant low rate of casualties on the occupier. Indeed, the massive amount of resources the occupier requires and the inflexibility of a military institution not solely committed to the particular theater of operations can actually work against the occupier by creating logistical vulnerabilities susceptible to guerrilla attacks and difficulty adapting at a rate sufficient to keep pace with the guerrilla. The occupation force will always win engagements, but that is never the measure of victory. If the guerrillas operate by doctrine, defeats in unplanned engagements will not undermine their basic goal of survival. While the occupier is not winning decisively, even while suffering only some casualties, he is losing. While the guerrilla is not losing decisively, even if suffering significant casualties, he is winning. Since the guerrilla is not going anywhere, he can afford far higher casualties than the occupier, who ultimately has the alternative of withdrawal.

The asymmetry of this warfare favors the guerrilla. This is particularly true when the strategic value of the war to the occupier is ambiguous, where the occupier does not possess sufficient force and patience to systematically overwhelm the guerrillas, and where either political or military constraints prevent operations against sanctuaries. This is a truth as relevant to David’s insurgency against the Philistines as it is to the U.S. experience in Vietnam or the Russian occupation of Afghanistan.

There has long been a myth about the unwillingness of Americans to absorb casualties for very long in guerrilla wars. In reality, the United States fought in Vietnam for at least seven years (depending on when you count the start and stop) and has now fought in Afghanistan for nine years. The idea that Americans can’t endure the long war has no empirical basis. What the United States has difficulty with — along with imperial and colonial powers before it — is a war in which the ability to impose one’s will on the enemy through force of arms is lacking and when it is not clear that the failure of previous years to win the war will be solved in the years ahead.

Far more relevant than casualties to whether Americans continue a war is the question of the conflict’s strategic importance, for which the president is ultimately responsible. This divides into several parts. This first is whether the United States has the ability with available force to achieve its political goals through prosecuting the war (since all war is fought for some political goal, from regime change to policy shift) and whether the force the United States is willing to dedicate suffices to achieve these goals. To address this question in Afghanistan, we have to focus on the political goal.

The Evolution of the U.S. Political Goal in Afghanistan

Washington’s primary goal at the initiation of the conflict was to destroy or disrupt al Qaeda in Afghanistan to protect the U.S. homeland from follow-on attacks to 9/11. But if Afghanistan were completely pacified, the threat of Islamist-fueled transnational terrorism would remain at issue because it is no longer just an issue of a single organization — al Qaeda — but a series of fragmented groups conducting operations in Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen, North Africa, Somalia and elsewhere.

Today, al Qaeda is simply one manifestation of the threat of this transnational jihadist phenomenon. It is important to stop and consider al Qaeda — and the transnational jihadist phenomenon in general — in terms of guerrillas, and to think of the phenomenon as a guerrilla force in its own right operating by the very same rules on a global basis. Thus, where the Taliban apply guerrilla principles to Afghanistan, today’s transnational jihadist applies them to the Islamic world and beyond. The transnational jihadists are not leaving and are not giving up. Like the Taliban in Afghanistan, they will decline combat against larger American forces and strike vulnerable targets when they can.

There are certainly more players and more complexity to the global phenomenon than in a localized insurgency. Many governments across North Africa, the Middle East and South Asia have no interest in seeing these movements set up shop and stir up unrest in their territory. And al Qaeda’s devolution has seen frustrations as well as successes as it spreads. But the underlying principles of guerrilla warfare remain at issue. Whenever the Americans concentrate force in one area, al Qaeda disengages, disperses and regroups elsewhere and, perhaps more important, the ideology that underpins the phenomenon continues to exist. The threat will undoubtedly continue to evolve and face challenges, but in the end, it will continue to exist along the lines of the guerrilla acting against the United States.

There is another important way in which the global guerrilla analogy is apt. STRATFOR has long held that Islamist-fueled transnational terrorism does not represent a strategic, existential threat to the United States. While acts of transnational terrorism target civilians, they are not attacks — have not been and are not evolving into attacks — that endanger the territorial integrity of the United States or the way of life of the American people. They are dangerous and must be defended against, but transnational terrorism is and remains a tactical problem that for nearly a decade has been treated as if it were the pre-eminent strategic threat to the United States.

Nietzsche wrote that, “The most fundamental form of human stupidity is forgetting what we were trying to do in the first place.” The stated U.S. goal in Afghanistan was the destruction of al Qaeda. While al Qaeda as it existed in 2001 has certainly been disrupted and degraded, al Qaeda’s evolution and migration means that disrupting and degrading it — to say nothing of destroying it — can no longer be achieved by waging a war in Afghanistan. The guerrilla does not rely on a single piece of real estate (in this case Afghanistan) but rather on his ability to move seamlessly across terrain to evade decisive combat in any specific location. Islamist-fueled transnational terrorism is not centered on Afghanistan and does not need Afghanistan, so no matter how successful that war might be, it would make little difference in the larger fight against transnational jihadism.

Thus far, the United States has chosen to carry on fighting the war in Afghanistan. As al Qaeda has fled Afghanistan, the overall political goal for the United States in the country has evolved to include the creation of a democratic and uncorrupt Afghanistan. It is not clear that anyone knows how to do this, particularly given that most Afghans consider the ruling government of President Hamid Karzai — with which the United States is allied — as the heart of the corruption problem, and beyond Kabul most Afghans do not regard their way of making political and social arrangements to be corrupt.

Simply withdrawing from Afghanistan carries its own strategic and political costs, however. The strategic problem is that simply terminating the war after nine years would destabilize the Islamic world. The United States has managed to block al Qaeda’s goal of triggering a series of uprisings against existing regimes and replacing them with jihadist regimes. It did this by displaying a willingness to intervene where necessary. Of course, the idea that U.S. intervention destabilized the region raises the question of what regional stability would look like had it not intervened. The danger of withdrawal is that the network of relationships the United States created and imposed at the regime level could unravel if it withdrew. America would be seen as having lost the war, the prestige of radical Islamists and thereby the foundation of the ideology that underpins their movement would surge, and this could destabilize regimes and undermine American interests.

The political problem is domestic. Obama’s approval rating now stands at 42 percent. This is not unprecedented, but it means he is politically weak. One of the charges against him, fair or not, is that he is inherently anti-war by background and so not fully committed to the war effort. Where a Republican would face charges of being a warmonger, which would make withdrawal easier, Obama faces charges of being too soft. Since a president must maintain political support to be effective, withdrawal becomes even harder. Therefore, strategic analysis aside, the president is not going to order a complete withdrawal of all combat forces any time soon — the national (and international) political alignment won’t support such a step. At the same time, remaining in Afghanistan is unlikely to achieve any goal and leaves potential rivals like China and Russia freer rein.

The American Solution

The American solution, one that we suspect is already under way, is the Pakistanization of the war. By this, we do not mean extending the war into Pakistan but rather extending Pakistan into Afghanistan. The Taliban phenomenon has extended into Pakistan in ways that seriously complicate Pakistani efforts to regain their bearing in Afghanistan. It has created a major security problem for Islamabad, which, coupled with the severe deterioration of the country’s economy and now the floods, has weakened the Pakistanis’ ability to manage Afghanistan. In other words, the moment that the Pakistanis have been waiting for — American agreement and support for the Pakistanization of the war — has come at a time when the Pakistanis are not in an ideal position to capitalize on it.

In the past, the United States has endeavored to keep the Taliban in Afghanistan and the regime in Pakistan separate. (The Taliban movements in Afghanistan and Pakistan are not one and the same.) Washington has not succeeded in this regard, with the Pakistanis continuing to hedge their bets and maintain a relationship across the border. Still, U.S. opposition has been the single greatest impediment to Pakistan’s consolidation of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and abandoning this opposition leaves important avenues open for Islamabad.

The Pakistani relationship to the Taliban, which was a liability for the United States in the past, now becomes an advantage for Washington because it creates a trusted channel for meaningful communication with the Taliban. Logic suggests this channel is quite active now.

The Vietnam War ended with the Paris peace talks. Those formal talks were not where the real bargaining took place but rather where the results were ultimately confirmed. If talks are under way, a similar venue for the formal manifestation of the talks is needed — and Islamabad is as good a place as any.

Pakistan is an American ally which the United States needs, both to balance growing Chinese influence in and partnership with Pakistan, and to contain India. Pakistan needs the United States for the same reason. Meanwhile, the Taliban want to run Afghanistan. The United States has no strong national interest in how Afghanistan is run so long as it does not support and espouse transnational jihadism. But it needs its withdrawal to take place in a manner that strengthens its influence rather than weakens it, and Pakistan can provide the cover for turning a retreat into a negotiated settlement.

Pakistan has every reason to play this role. It needs the United States over the long term to balance against India. It must have a stable or relatively stable Afghanistan to secure its western frontier. It needs an end to U.S. forays into Pakistan that are destabilizing the regime. And playing this role would enhance Pakistan’s status in the Islamic world, something the United States could benefit from, too. We suspect that all sides are moving toward this end.

The United States isn’t going to defeat the Taliban. The original goal of the war is irrelevant, and the current goal is rather difficult to take seriously. Even a victory, whatever that would look like, would make little difference in the fight against transnational jihad, but a defeat could harm U.S. interests. Therefore, the United States needs a withdrawal that is not a defeat. Such a strategic shift is not without profound political complexity and difficulties. But the disparity between — and increasingly, the incompatibility of — the struggle with transnational terrorism and the war effort geographically rooted in Afghanistan is only becoming more apparent — even to the American public.

RENEGADE EYE
Posted by Renegade Eye at 12:56 AM Email This BlogThis! Share to Twitter Share to Facebook Share to Google Buzz
Labels: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Stratfor
2 comments:
The Pagan Temple said...
The only way this situation is going to be solved satisfactorily is by putting the warlords in charge of the country.

Actually, I should be more concise than that. I should say that we should recognize the reality that the warlords are the natural leaders of the country, help shore them up, support them, guide them into the formation of a stable government, and then get out of their way.

Forget the idea of political and religious freedom, that's not happening, though we could encourage with some degree of success access to education and economic opportunity, which is really all that matters.

The death of the Taliban and the transnational jihad movement as applies to Afghanistan would then be heralded by the sickening sweet stench of tens of thousands of burning bodies. And that suits me fine.

30 September, 2010 05:45
Renegade Eye said...
When the socialist government was in power, it was Afghanistan's golden age. Your comment proves it.

30 September, 2010 22:45
Post a Comment

Newer Post

*All Out On October 2nd To End The Afghan And Iraq Wars And Struggle For Economic And Social Justice

Click on the headline to link to the Majority Agenda Report website for information on the aims of sponsors of the One Nation October 2, 2010 March and Rally in Washington, D.C.

Markin comment:

I have already argued in previous entries about the continuing importance of massing in Washington, D.C. on October 2nd for this event. (See, On The Question Of Organizing Anti-War Contingents For The October 2, 2010 "One Nation" Demonstrations In Washington, D.C., originally dated September 7, 2010.) Bring your own slogans and banners, but be there to really start building the long-delayed and needed divorce from one Barack Obama who has been given a pass on war issues- for no known rational reason. We anti-war militants knew, because he made it clear from the beginning what his priorities were in 2008, and he rubbed our noses in it last year. Now we need to get our priorities clear along with all the other issues. Obama- Troops Out Now!

*On The Question Of Organizing Anti-War Contingents For The October 2, 2010 "One Nation" Demonstrations In Washington, D.C.

Click on the headline to link to the Majority Agenda Report website for information on the aims of sponsors of the One Nation October 2, 2010 March and Rally in Washington, D.C.

Markin comment:

Last winter I went out of my way to argue, and argue strongly, for organizing our anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist forces as best we could for the March 20th anti-war rally in Washington, D.C. (See, On The Question Of Organizing For A Major National Anti-War Rally This Spring – A Commentary, dated January 30, 2010.) My motivation at that time was to stir up opposition to President Barack Obama’s then recent troop escalations in Afghanistan with a show of anti-war forces in the streets if for nothing else than to see who we really had on board, and to stick a thumb in Obama’s false anti-war credentialed eye. As I noted after the event the turnout was not as large, not nearly as large, as we could have used in order to create an effective battering ram against the Obama war policies. I believed, and argued so shortly after that rally to the effect, that it was still a worthwhile effort.

Now comes the inevitable fall campaign season, no, not the electoral sideshow 2010 Congressional elections but a labor-centered rally in Washington, D.C. on October 2nd being pushed by the NAACP, SEIU, AFL-CIO and the usual other suspects . (See the call to action from the Majority Agenda Project website below). As a perusal of the call indicates this is about jobs and other economic issues (all important, no question) but has no, none, nada, point on the struggle against Obama’s imperial war policies. I assume the sponsors, given their almost unanimous 2008 support to his candidacy, believed that they were being very “radical” by merely advocating the idea of a rally in Obama’s Washington during election time. Well, as the saying use to go back in the day, the 1960s day, a Maoist favorite aphorism as well, that is THEIR contradiction.

That, however, still begs the question of what leftists and other anti-war militants should do about the war issue at this rally. Or, for that matter, about whether we should be marching in this thing at all. I believe on that second point, which also will incorporate the first point, that we should attend as anti-war contingents linking the opposition to the Obama war policies with the one thousand and one other things that need fixing and that his Administration is patently incapable of fixing, even if it knew how to do so is which is very much up an open question these days.

As motivation for this position I would offer up most of the arguments that I made for participation in the March rally and will repost the pertinent sections below:

“In a recent blog entry, As The 2010 Anti-War Season Heats Up- A Note On "The Three Whales" For A Class Struggle Fight Against Obama’s Wars, dated January 19, 2010, I put forth a few ideas, particularly around the concept of forming anti-war soldiers and sailors solidarity committees, that the circle of anti-war militants that I work with locally are committed to pursuing this year as the struggle against War-monger-in-Chief Obama’s Afghan war policies takes shape. The elephant in the room that was missing in that laundry list of tasks enumerated in the entry was any notion of supporting a national mass anti-war rally in Washington, D.C. this spring, now scheduled, as usual, for the anniversary of the start of the Iraq war in 2003, March 20th. And there is a good and sufficient reason for that omission. The circle is split on an orientation toward that event. Thus, the comment that follows in favor of organizing for and building such an endeavor and putting some resources and energy into the event is my own personal take on the question, fair or foul.

Certainly, given the priorities listed in that previous blog entry mentioned above, it would be quite easy to walk away from serious organizing for, getting transportation for, making housing arrangements for, and the thousand and one details that go into providing a contingent for a national march or rally. Moreover, as has been argued in the circle by a number of militants, to do so for just one more garden variety of a seemingly endless (and fruitless) series of mass marches over the past several years. And normally I would agree with that analysis, especially once it became clear that the main strategy of those groups who call such national marches is to make such events the main, and exclusive, point of extra-parliamentary opposition to the war. Or worst, see these things as an effective political tool for “pressuring” politicians, especially “progressive” Democrats (if there are any left, as of late). Pleassee...

Hear me out on this one though. President Obama made his dramatic announcement for a major Afghan troop escalation on December 1, 2009. That, along with a less publicized build-up in February 2009, and the odd brigade deployed here or there since has meant that the troop totals-I will not even bother to count “contractors”, for the simple reason that who knows what those numbers really are. I don’t, do you? - are almost double those that ex-President Bush nearly had his head handed to him on a platter for in the notorious troop “surge” of 2007. And the response to Obama’s chest-thumping war-mongering. Nada. Or almost nothing, except a small demonstration in Washington on December 12th with the “usual cast of suspects” (Kucinich, McKinney, et. al) and a few hundred attendees and small local demonstrations around the country.

Now this might seem like a slam-dunk argument for wasting no more time on the spring rally tactic. And that argument is enticing. But, as a veteran of way too many of these demos, and as a militant who has spilled no small amount of ink arguing against the endless rally strategy on many previous occasions, I still like the idea of a spring march. First, because Obama needs to know that those on his left, particularly those who supported him in the 2008 election cycle are more than just passively angry at him for the Afghan troop escalation. And that is important even if the numbers do not match those of the Bush era. Secondly, those of us on the extra-parliamentary left need to see who those disenchanted Obamians are. If we are going to be successful we have to get our fair share of these left-liberals before they ditch politics altogether. And lastly, as the bikers and gang members say- “we have to show our colors”. Large or small we need to see what we look like. All those may not be individually, in the end, sufficient reasons but I will say this to finish up. Unless you plan to have an anti-war demonstration outside the gates of places like the military bases at Fort Bragg, Fort Hood, Fort Drum, and Fort Lewis in which case I will be more than happy to mark you present and accounted for you should be in Washington on March 20th. And ready to fight around the slogan – Obama- Immediate, Unconditional Withdrawal of all U.S./Allied Troops and Mercenaries from Iraq and Afghanistan!”

And on October 2nd too! More later.



***************


Published on Majority Agenda Project (http://majorityagendaproject.org/go)

Home > A Call to all sectors of our movements for justice and peace to mobilize for October 2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Call to all sectors of our movements for justice and peace to mobilize for October 2
signatories [1] || what you can do [2] || transportation [3]

The NAACP, SEIU 1199, United for Peace and Justice, the AFL-CIO, Green for All, and a broad range of civil rights, labor, peace and social justice organizations around the country are calling upon us to join them on October 2 in Washington. Leading with a demand for jobs, this will be a massive demonstration to blunt the attack from the right and to unify a majority of Americans around a hopeful and inspiring vision of our nation based on social justice, mutual respect and common values.

Come to Washington DC on October 2 for an emergency mobilization of all our forces at this critical moment before the fall elections!

•Take our government back from big oil and the banks.
•Stand up for the well-being and economic security of all our families.
•Stand up against hatred, intolerance and immigrant-bashing.
•Stand up for a society that works for all of us.
•Demand the change that we voted for in 2008.

Dear Friends,
Our country is at a crossroads. Big oil, big banks, big pharmaceuticals, the military-industrial complex and big money of all types have a stranglehold on our government and our society. Their corporate agenda has led us into an unparalleled social crisis marked by economic distress, environmental danger, unsustainable military spending and endless war.

But this is also a time of opportunity for comprehensive, mutually-reinforcing and effective solutions: building a green economy cuts harmful emissions and creates millions of desperately needed jobs; national security based on international cooperation and negotiation rather than war frees up the resources needed to keep our teachers in the classroom and maintain all essential local services; sustainable economic policies protect our environment and foster grassroots economic development. All of these goals are within our grasp and are supported by a growing majority. Together they save lives, dollars and the planet that sustains us.

Yet instead of positive solutions we see the media dominance of an aggressive, energized and reactionary movement of the right fostered by Fox News and an out-of-control talk radio establishment. Intolerance, hatred and immigrant-bashing will be the big story this fall--grabbing national attention and electing extremist candidates who will ride the coattails of that mobilization to make big gains in November and beyond. Unless …

…we all come together to create a vibrant, viable grassroots mobilization built on a vision that inspires action and commitment. That galvanizes the majority for justice and fair play. That builds a movement that involves everyone in dealing effectively with the multiple crises confronting the country.

Now is the time to give visibility to effective policies that actually address our crises of employment, health care, environmental catastrophe and a deepening war in Afghanistan and Pakistan that is draining our resources, undermining out security and killing scores of people every day.

It is critical that our social movements join together with labor and major African-American and Latino organizations to make a broad-based showing of strength.

Fortunately, the NAACP in Washington and SEIU 1199 in New York have initiated “One Nation Working Together.” Exciting meetings in New York and Washington brought together the AFL-CIO, many other labor unions, United for Peace and Justice, Green For All and over one hundred other major social change organizations. They are building a mobilization that can unify the majority around a hopeful and inspiring vision of our nation based on social justice.

The signature event of One Nation is a massive march on Washington on October 2, 2010.

They have asked all of us to join them in this major effort to move us off the sidelines of the national debate and out, onto the playing field where we can participate in the fight for the future, starting with the fall elections.

This mobilization addresses only some of the key issues that deeply concern us. But without such a mobilization, all of our efforts will be set back years if the right-wing mobilization is allowed to go unchallenged.

We call on all parts of our social movements to mobilize for the October 2 demonstration and participate in the One Nation Campaign and bring your priorities to D.C.

- The Majority Agenda Project
August 4, 2010

*All Out On October 2nd To End The Afghan And Iraq Wars And Struggle For Economic And Social Justice

Click on the headline to link to the Majority Agenda Report website for information on the aims of sponsors of the One Nation October 2, 2010 March and Rally in Washington, D.C.

Markin comment:

I have already argued in previous entries about the continuing importance of massing in Washington, D.C. on October 2nd for this event. (See, On The Question Of Organizing Anti-War Contingents For The October 2, 2010 "One Nation" Demonstrations In Washington, D.C., originally dated September 7, 2010.) Bring your own slogans and banners, but be there to really start building the long-delayed and needed divorce from one Barack Obama who has been given a pass on war issues- for no known rational reason. We anti-war militants knew, because he made it clear from the beginning what his priorities were in 2008, and he rubbed our noses in it last year. Now we need to get our priorities clear along with all the other issues. Obama- Troops Out Now!

*All Out On October 2nd To End The Afghan And Iraq Wars And Struggle For Economic And Social Justice

Click on the headline to link to the Majority Agenda Report website for information on the aims of sponsors of the One Nation October 2, 2010 March and Rally in Washington, D.C.

Markin comment:

I have already argued in previous entries about the continuing importance of massing in Washington, D.C. on October 2nd for this event. (See, On The Question Of Organizing Anti-War Contingents For The October 2, 2010 "One Nation" Demonstrations In Washington, D.C., originally dated September 7, 2010.) Bring your own slogans and banners, but be there to really start building the long-delayed and needed divorce from one Barack Obama who has been given a pass on war issues- for no known rational reason. We anti-war militants knew, because he made it clear from the beginning what his priorities were in 2008, and he rubbed our noses in it last year. Now we need to get our priorities clear along with all the other issues. Obama- Troops Out Now!

*Films To While Away The Class Struggle By- A Slice Of Cold War History- “The Real Story Of Charlie Wilson’s War”- A Guest Review-An Encore

Click on the title to link to a YouTube film clip of the commercial movie trailer version of Charlie Wilson's War.

Recently I have begun to post entries under the headline- Songs To While Away The Class Struggle By-that will include progressive and labor-oriented songs that might be of general interest to the radical public. I have decided to do the same for some films that may perk that same interest under the title in this entry’s headline. In the future I expect to do the same for books under a similar heading.-Markin

Markin comment: September 25, 2010

I have recently viewed the History Channel's 2003 production, The Real Story of Charlie Wilson's War. That docu-drama effort basically follows the outline of the commercial film except that there you get interviews, self-serving, self-justifying interviews of course, in the post-9/11 period from the main villains of the piece. Thus, on this one I stand by my comments directly below and the thrust of the comments from the guest reviewer's review of the commercial film.

Markin comment:

The other day I made a short comment on another political blog after viewing this film and reading a long review that gave the real details behind the CIA efforts and the long-term political implications behind the maneuvers that Texas Congressman Charlie Wilson used to get secret appropriations to fund the mujahadeens in Afghanistan back in the early 1980s, the previous heyday of American covert operations around the world, during the early years of the Reagan administration. In that comment I noted that the reviewer made all the key points about the political meaning of this film, including the obvious ones that there was disturbing absence of context about who these 8th century-loving mujahadeen “allies” were and, more importantly, their political program (other than the obvious anti-Soviet one) that Congressman Wilson was so earnestly attempting to help and why the then legally-constituted secular government in Kabul sought out help from the Soviets against this threat. But those are merely just ‘little’ picky points on my part now, right?

I would only add that in politics, any kind of politics, as the American government now has been learning under successive Republican and Democratic administrations in relationship to Afghanistan under different circumstances than those portrayed in the film- the enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend. I believe that you learn that basic lesson in your youthful schoolyard days, no later. Ouch! The only other point worth noting is that Congressman Wilson surely deserved the citation from the American governmental “combined intelligences services” for his services on their behalf in long ago Afghanistan. However, the rest of us are still living with the fall-out from his “innocent” escapades.


******

Workers Vanguard No. 921
26 September 2008

We Said “Hail Red Army in Afghanistan!”

Charlie Wilson’s War Was the ISO’s War

After spending decades in bed with the most vile anti-Communist and woman-hating forces around the world—from Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan and Iran to clerical reactionary Polish Solidarność and Tibetan monks—the International Socialist Organization (ISO) has suddenly decided it was time for a morning-after pill. A September 9 Web posting by the ISO is promoting a petition by faculty at the University of Texas objecting “to the establishment of a chair in Pakistan studies named for former Texas congressman and misguided cold warrior Charlie Wilson.” Democratic Congressman Wilson played a key role in winning billions in CIA funding and high-tech weaponry for the Afghan mujahedin fighting the Soviet Red Army in the 1980s. For its part, the ISO would have preferred a less “misguided” Cold Warrior.

Earlier this year, in a column by Joe Allen (Socialist Worker, 25 January), the ISO disparaged the movie Charlie Wilson’s War, which, the ISO complains, paid “a fawning homage to America’s ‘clandestine services’,” who were “recruiting largely reactionary Islamic forces to the mujahedeen.” Allen’s article, “Charlie Wilson’s Not-So-Good War,” declares that “Hollywood’s liberals portray the Afghanistan war as a great triumph in the struggle for freedom, when it should be seen as another savage war for empire in which the people of Afghanistan continue to be the prime targets.” Reading these articles, one wouldn’t know that the ISO was for the Afghan mujahedin long before they were against them.

Well before the Soviet intervention into Afghanistan in December 1979, Washington started funneling arms to the mujahedin from the moment the Soviet-allied People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) came to power in April 1978 in what was essentially a left-wing military coup with popular support among intellectuals and government workers. The PDPA embarked on a program of reforms that included canceling peasant debts, carrying out land redistribution, prohibiting forced marriages and lowering the bride price to a nominal sum. They made schooling compulsory for girls and launched literacy programs for women, building 600 schools in just over a year. These measures threatened the mullahs’ stranglehold on social and economic life and immediately provoked a murderous backlash. The earliest bloody confrontations were over women’s literacy, as PDPA cadres and women literacy workers were driven from villages and killed.

The PDPA could not quell the mujahedin insurgency, which was heavily backed by the U.S., Pakistan and Iran (where the Islamic theocracy under Ayatollah Khomeini had come to power in early 1979). After ignoring repeated requests for military aid, including troops, the Soviet Union, fearing the PDPA regime was about to collapse, finally sent in 100,000 soldiers to combat the Islamic reactionaries. The imperialists seized on the Red Army intervention to launch a renewed Cold War drive. As the CIA undertook its biggest covert operation ever, Afghanistan became the front line of the imperialists’ relentless drive to destroy the Soviet Union. The threat of a CIA-backed Islamic takeover on the USSR’s southern flank posed pointblank unconditional military defense of the Soviet degenerated workers state. As we wrote at the time:

“A victory for the Islamic-feudalist insurgency in Afghanistan will not only mean a hostile, imperialist-allied state on the USSR’s southern border. It will mean the extermination of the Afghan left and the reimposition of feudal barbarism—the veil, the bride price. Moreover, the Soviet military occupation raises the possibility of a social revolution in this wretchedly backward country, a possibility which did not exist before.”

—Spartacist (English-language edition) No. 29, Summer 1980

We unambiguously declared, “Hail Red Army! Extend the gains of the October Revolution to Afghan peoples!” For their part, the ISO howled with the imperialist wolves when the Soviets entered Afghanistan, and popped champagne corks when the Red Army was withdrawn nine years later. Since Charlie Wilson’s war was the ISO’s war, we are left wondering, “What’s their beef?” The exposures of CIA waterboarding, extraordinary rendition and secret prison black sites may make being on the same side as the CIA torturers a bit awkward. Or perhaps lauding the virtues of the veterans of the war against the Red Army isn’t the kick it was before the September 11 attacks. Or it just could be that the ISO—historically allied with the international tendency led by the late Tony Cliff—is irritated that no credit is being given to their role in drumming up support for the CIA-backed cutthroats at the height of Cold War II. Maybe a “Tony Cliff chair” is what they are after.

Screaming “Troops Out of Afghanistan” was not enough for the ISO’s then-parent group, the British Socialist Workers Party (SWP). SWP leader Paul Foot succeeded in provoking an anti-Soviet frenzy on the floor of Parliament, by right-wing Tories and Labour Party “lefts” alike, through incendiary “exposés” in his Daily Mirror column of the possibility that British meat—“our beef”—exported to the Soviet Union might be sent to Soviet soldiers serving in Afghanistan.

Today, the ISO calls Charlie Wilson’s War “thoroughly reactionary.” There is, for example, the scene where wealthy right-wing socialite Joanne Herring, played by Julia Roberts, tells Wilson, played by Tom Hanks, “I want you to deliver such a crushing defeat to the Soviets that Communism crumbles.” But such was exactly the position of the ISO. When Soviet forces pulled out of Afghanistan in 1988-89, in a futile attempt by the Kremlin Stalinist bureaucracy to appease the imperialists, the ISO gloated: “We welcome the defeat of the Russians in Afghanistan. It will give heart to all those inside the USSR and in Eastern Europe who want to break the rule of Stalin’s heirs” (Socialist Worker, May 1988). Three years later, the British SWP exulted: “Communism has collapsed…. It is a fact that should have every socialist rejoicing” (Socialist Worker [Britain], 31 August 1991). The ISO could have scripted the lines for crazed anti-Communist Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser under Democrat Jimmy Carter and today a foreign policy adviser to Barack Obama, when he ranted: “What was more important in the world view of history? The Taliban or the fall of the Soviet Empire? A few stirred-up Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?”

Charlie Wilson’s War is a thoroughly reactionary movie. The film peddles anti-Soviet lies discredited long ago, such as that Red Army troops planted toys containing bombs on roadsides in order to maim Afghan children. Nowhere does the film even hint that long before the Red Army intervention, the U.S. was funneling aid to the mullahs who rose up against the Afghan government’s modest reforms for the brutally enslaved women. Ronald Reagan’s “freedom fighters,” with whom the ISO sided, were exemplified by one Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, the largest recipient of American aid, who had a penchant for throwing acid at the faces of unveiled women. Though the mujahedin fought to maintain women in purdah (seclusion), forced them to wear the suffocating head-to-toe burka and deprived them of education and medical care, the film ludicrously shows unveiled women mixing freely with men in refugee camps.

Meanwhile, Jonathan Neale of the ISO’s erstwhile comrades of the British SWP (they split in 2001) has suddenly discovered, doubtless after much research, that “feminism is now very weak in Afghanistan”! The cause? “In the 1980s Afghan feminist women supported the Russians and their violent occupation” (Socialist Worker [Britain], 19 January). The “lesson for today,” Neale lectures, is “if the left allies with the invader, the eventual resistance will hate the left.” In blaming the present condition of Afghan women on the Soviet Union and those women who fought alongside the Red Army, the SWP sounds much like the Southern “redeemers” after the U.S. Civil War who condemned former slaves for joining with the Union Army as it marched through the South.

The Soviet military intervention into Afghanistan was one of the few genuinely progressive acts carried out by the Soviet Stalinist bureaucracy, opening the vista of social liberation to the downtrodden Afghan peoples. It underlined the Trotskyist understanding that despite its degeneration under a Stalinist bureaucratic caste, the Soviet Union remained a workers state embodying the historic gains of the October Revolution of 1917, centrally a planned economy and collectivized property. A Red Army victory posed the extension of the social gains of the October Revolution to Afghanistan through a prolonged occupation and the country’s integration into the Soviet system. The Red Army troops, many of them recruits from Soviet Central Asia, who fought against the CIA-backed mujahedin genuinely believed they were fulfilling their internationalist duty. And so they were!

This military intervention in defense of the Soviet degenerated workers state not only opened up the possibility of tremendous gains for the hideously oppressed Afghan peoples but offered the prospect of reanimating the Bolshevik program of proletarian revolutionary internationalism in the Soviet Union. As we stressed at the time, a genuinely internationalist perspective toward Afghanistan required a proletarian political revolution to oust the Stalinist bureaucracy and return the Soviet Union to the road of Lenin and Trotsky.

By the mid 1980s the Red Army had the mujahedin on the run. But as we warned from the outset, the Kremlin bureaucracy cut a deal with the imperialists and pulled out. When in 1988-89 Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev withdrew Soviet forces from Afghanistan, we denounced this as a crime against both the Afghan and Soviet peoples. We stressed to Soviet workers and soldiers that it was far better to defeat counterrevolution in Afghanistan than to confront it in Leningrad. Events have bitterly and amply verified our warning that the Soviet pullout from Afghanistan would mean a bloodbath for women and leftists. And the Stalinist bureaucracy’s treachery in Afghanistan was the direct precursor to the 1991-92 capitalist counterrevolution in the Soviet Union, destroying the homeland of the October Revolution.

As the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan, we extended an offer to the beleaguered PDPA regime to organize international brigades to “fight to the death” against the mujahedin cutthroats. This offer was refused, but the Partisan Defense Committee—a class-struggle, non-sectarian legal and social defense organization associated with the Spartacist League—took up the PDPA’s appeal to organize an international aid campaign for the besieged city of Jalalabad, raising some $44,000. For the next three years, the Kabul government forces, especially the women’s militias, fought valiantly, but were finally overrun by the U.S.-backed fundamentalists. A few years later, the Taliban, born and bred under the patronage of Pakistan’s ISI secret police and supported by the U.S., emerged as the strongest of the mujahedin factions in the internecine feuding that broke out after the fall of the PDPA regime, coming to power in Afghanistan in 1996.

The ISO greeted the Taliban’s rise to power by grotesquely declaring, “Tragically, the Taliban has no answer to the terrible crisis of the country”! The Cliffites have always displayed a certain penchant for Islamic fundamentalism. As the Shi’ite mullahs fought for power in Iran in 1979, we put forward a program for proletarian revolution, declaring: “Down With the Shah! Down With the Mullahs! Workers Must Lead Iranian Revolution!” In contrast, the ISO ran laudatory articles on the mullahs’ “mass movement” with headlines like, “The Form—Religious, the Spirit—Revolution!” In 1994, the Cliffites published a pamphlet by SWP “theoretician” Chris Harman titled, The Prophet and the Proletariat, complete with a green cover and Arabic-looking lettering, while the British SWP declared, “Islamists have now replaced socialists and the left in terms of being in the frontline against the state in many countries” (Socialist Worker [Britain], 20 August 1994).

The Cliffites’ genuflection before religious reaction is not a bizarre aberration. They have historically sided with any and all counterrevolutionary forces against the Soviet Union, no matter how reactionary. In this, they stand completely in line with U.S. imperialism, which, notwithstanding its current reactionary crusade against Islamic fundamentalism, fostered the growth of Islamic reaction for decades as a bulwark against “godless” Communism and even secular nationalism. In 1950, John Foster Dulles, who was later Secretary of State during the Eisenhower presidency, wrote: “The religions of the East are deeply rooted and have many precious values. Their spiritual beliefs cannot be reconciled with Communist atheism and materialism. That creates a common bond between us, and our task is to find it and develop it.”

Just as it was obligatory to fight for the unconditional military defense of the Soviet Union and East European deformed workers states, so it is the elementary duty of workers around the world to defend the remaining deformed workers states of China, Cuba, Vietnam and North Korea. Today, the ISO continues to fight Charlie Wilson’s war. In “Tyrannies That Ruled in the Name of Socialism” (Socialist Worker, 28 August), Paul D’Amato reasserts the ISO’s “Where We Stand” call for capitalist counterrevolution: “China and Cuba, like the former Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc, have nothing to do with socialism. They are state capitalist regimes.” The ISO sides with the forces of “democratic” imperialism and capitalist counterrevolution, reprinting in Socialist Worker online (27 August) a piece by Dave Zirin, a regular contributor to that paper, that chides the bourgeois media for insufficient China-bashing during the Olympics and condemning them for supposedly not asking “why the State Department last April took China off its list of nations that commit human rights violations.”

As Bolshevik leader Leon Trotsky taught, you can’t win new gains without defending those already won. The capitalist counterrevolution welcomed by the imperialists and their social-democratic lackeys like the ISO was a world-historic defeat for the international proletariat, creating a “one superpower” world where the U.S. imperialists feel they can run roughshod over the world. It paved the way for the brutal wars against Iraq and Afghanistan, where women continue to be enslaved. U.S. out of Iraq and Afghanistan! Defeat U.S. imperialism through workers revolution! For new October Revolutions!

*All Out On October 2nd To End The Afghan And Iraq Wars And Struggle For Economic And Social Justice

Click on the headline to link to the Majority Agenda Report website for information on the aims of sponsors of the One Nation October 2, 2010 March and Rally in Washington, D.C.

Markin comment:

I have already argued in previous entries about the continuing importance of massing in Washington, D.C. on October 2nd for this event. (See, On The Question Of Organizing Anti-War Contingents For The October 2, 2010 "One Nation" Demonstrations In Washington, D.C., originally dated September 7, 2010.) Bring your own slogans and banners, but be there to really start building the long-delayed and needed divorce from one Barack Obama who has been given a pass on war issues- for no known rational reason. We anti-war militants knew, because he made it clear from the beginning what his priorities were in 2008, and he rubbed our noses in it last year. Now we need to get our priorities clear along with all the other issues. Obama- Troops Out Now!

*All Out On October 2nd To End The Afghan And Iraq Wars And Struggle For Economic And Social Justice

Click on the headline to link to the Majority Agenda Report website for information on the aims of sponsors of the One Nation October 2, 2010 March and Rally in Washington, D.C.

Markin comment:

I have already argued in previous entries about the continuing importance of massing in Washington, D.C. on October 2nd for this event. (See, On The Question Of Organizing Anti-War Contingents For The October 2, 2010 "One Nation" Demonstrations In Washington, D.C., originally dated September 7, 2010.) Bring your own slogans and banners, but be there to really start building the long-delayed and needed divorce from one Barack Obama who has been given a pass on war issues- for no known rational reason. We anti-war militants knew, because he made it clear from the beginning what his priorities were in 2008, and he rubbed our noses in it last year. Now we need to get our priorities clear along with all the other issues. Obama- Troops Out Now!

*On The Question Of Organizing Anti-War Contingents For The October 2, 2010 "One Nation" Demonstrations In Washington, D.C.

Click on the headline to link to the Majority Agenda Report website for information on the aims of sponsors of the One Nation October 2, 2010 March and Rally in Washington, D.C.

Markin comment:

Last winter I went out of my way to argue, and argue strongly, for organizing our anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist forces as best we could for the March 20th anti-war rally in Washington, D.C. (See, On The Question Of Organizing For A Major National Anti-War Rally This Spring – A Commentary, dated January 30, 2010.) My motivation at that time was to stir up opposition to President Barack Obama’s then recent troop escalations in Afghanistan with a show of anti-war forces in the streets if for nothing else than to see who we really had on board, and to stick a thumb in Obama’s false anti-war credentialed eye. As I noted after the event the turnout was not as large, not nearly as large, as we could have used in order to create an effective battering ram against the Obama war policies. I believed, and argued so shortly after that rally to the effect, that it was still a worthwhile effort.

Now comes the inevitable fall campaign season, no, not the electoral sideshow 2010 Congressional elections but a labor-centered rally in Washington, D.C. on October 2nd being pushed by the NAACP, SEIU, AFL-CIO and the usual other suspects . (See the call to action from the Majority Agenda Project website below). As a perusal of the call indicates this is about jobs and other economic issues (all important, no question) but has no, none, nada, point on the struggle against Obama’s imperial war policies. I assume the sponsors, given their almost unanimous 2008 support to his candidacy, believed that they were being very “radical” by merely advocating the idea of a rally in Obama’s Washington during election time. Well, as the saying use to go back in the day, the 1960s day, a Maoist favorite aphorism as well, that is THEIR contradiction.

That, however, still begs the question of what leftists and other anti-war militants should do about the war issue at this rally. Or, for that matter, about whether we should be marching in this thing at all. I believe on that second point, which also will incorporate the first point, that we should attend as anti-war contingents linking the opposition to the Obama war policies with the one thousand and one other things that need fixing and that his Administration is patently incapable of fixing, even if it knew how to do so is which is very much up an open question these days.

As motivation for this position I would offer up most of the arguments that I made for participation in the March rally and will repost the pertinent sections below:

“In a recent blog entry, As The 2010 Anti-War Season Heats Up- A Note On "The Three Whales" For A Class Struggle Fight Against Obama’s Wars, dated January 19, 2010, I put forth a few ideas, particularly around the concept of forming anti-war soldiers and sailors solidarity committees, that the circle of anti-war militants that I work with locally are committed to pursuing this year as the struggle against War-monger-in-Chief Obama’s Afghan war policies takes shape. The elephant in the room that was missing in that laundry list of tasks enumerated in the entry was any notion of supporting a national mass anti-war rally in Washington, D.C. this spring, now scheduled, as usual, for the anniversary of the start of the Iraq war in 2003, March 20th. And there is a good and sufficient reason for that omission. The circle is split on an orientation toward that event. Thus, the comment that follows in favor of organizing for and building such an endeavor and putting some resources and energy into the event is my own personal take on the question, fair or foul.

Certainly, given the priorities listed in that previous blog entry mentioned above, it would be quite easy to walk away from serious organizing for, getting transportation for, making housing arrangements for, and the thousand and one details that go into providing a contingent for a national march or rally. Moreover, as has been argued in the circle by a number of militants, to do so for just one more garden variety of a seemingly endless (and fruitless) series of mass marches over the past several years. And normally I would agree with that analysis, especially once it became clear that the main strategy of those groups who call such national marches is to make such events the main, and exclusive, point of extra-parliamentary opposition to the war. Or worst, see these things as an effective political tool for “pressuring” politicians, especially “progressive” Democrats (if there are any left, as of late). Pleassee...

Hear me out on this one though. President Obama made his dramatic announcement for a major Afghan troop escalation on December 1, 2009. That, along with a less publicized build-up in February 2009, and the odd brigade deployed here or there since has meant that the troop totals-I will not even bother to count “contractors”, for the simple reason that who knows what those numbers really are. I don’t, do you? - are almost double those that ex-President Bush nearly had his head handed to him on a platter for in the notorious troop “surge” of 2007. And the response to Obama’s chest-thumping war-mongering. Nada. Or almost nothing, except a small demonstration in Washington on December 12th with the “usual cast of suspects” (Kucinich, McKinney, et. al) and a few hundred attendees and small local demonstrations around the country.

Now this might seem like a slam-dunk argument for wasting no more time on the spring rally tactic. And that argument is enticing. But, as a veteran of way too many of these demos, and as a militant who has spilled no small amount of ink arguing against the endless rally strategy on many previous occasions, I still like the idea of a spring march. First, because Obama needs to know that those on his left, particularly those who supported him in the 2008 election cycle are more than just passively angry at him for the Afghan troop escalation. And that is important even if the numbers do not match those of the Bush era. Secondly, those of us on the extra-parliamentary left need to see who those disenchanted Obamians are. If we are going to be successful we have to get our fair share of these left-liberals before they ditch politics altogether. And lastly, as the bikers and gang members say- “we have to show our colors”. Large or small we need to see what we look like. All those may not be individually, in the end, sufficient reasons but I will say this to finish up. Unless you plan to have an anti-war demonstration outside the gates of places like the military bases at Fort Bragg, Fort Hood, Fort Drum, and Fort Lewis in which case I will be more than happy to mark you present and accounted for you should be in Washington on March 20th. And ready to fight around the slogan – Obama- Immediate, Unconditional Withdrawal of all U.S./Allied Troops and Mercenaries from Iraq and Afghanistan!”

And on October 2nd too! More later.



***************


Published on Majority Agenda Project (http://majorityagendaproject.org/go)

Home > A Call to all sectors of our movements for justice and peace to mobilize for October 2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Call to all sectors of our movements for justice and peace to mobilize for October 2
signatories [1] || what you can do [2] || transportation [3]

The NAACP, SEIU 1199, United for Peace and Justice, the AFL-CIO, Green for All, and a broad range of civil rights, labor, peace and social justice organizations around the country are calling upon us to join them on October 2 in Washington. Leading with a demand for jobs, this will be a massive demonstration to blunt the attack from the right and to unify a majority of Americans around a hopeful and inspiring vision of our nation based on social justice, mutual respect and common values.

Come to Washington DC on October 2 for an emergency mobilization of all our forces at this critical moment before the fall elections!

•Take our government back from big oil and the banks.
•Stand up for the well-being and economic security of all our families.
•Stand up against hatred, intolerance and immigrant-bashing.
•Stand up for a society that works for all of us.
•Demand the change that we voted for in 2008.

Dear Friends,
Our country is at a crossroads. Big oil, big banks, big pharmaceuticals, the military-industrial complex and big money of all types have a stranglehold on our government and our society. Their corporate agenda has led us into an unparalleled social crisis marked by economic distress, environmental danger, unsustainable military spending and endless war.

But this is also a time of opportunity for comprehensive, mutually-reinforcing and effective solutions: building a green economy cuts harmful emissions and creates millions of desperately needed jobs; national security based on international cooperation and negotiation rather than war frees up the resources needed to keep our teachers in the classroom and maintain all essential local services; sustainable economic policies protect our environment and foster grassroots economic development. All of these goals are within our grasp and are supported by a growing majority. Together they save lives, dollars and the planet that sustains us.

Yet instead of positive solutions we see the media dominance of an aggressive, energized and reactionary movement of the right fostered by Fox News and an out-of-control talk radio establishment. Intolerance, hatred and immigrant-bashing will be the big story this fall--grabbing national attention and electing extremist candidates who will ride the coattails of that mobilization to make big gains in November and beyond. Unless …

…we all come together to create a vibrant, viable grassroots mobilization built on a vision that inspires action and commitment. That galvanizes the majority for justice and fair play. That builds a movement that involves everyone in dealing effectively with the multiple crises confronting the country.

Now is the time to give visibility to effective policies that actually address our crises of employment, health care, environmental catastrophe and a deepening war in Afghanistan and Pakistan that is draining our resources, undermining out security and killing scores of people every day.

It is critical that our social movements join together with labor and major African-American and Latino organizations to make a broad-based showing of strength.

Fortunately, the NAACP in Washington and SEIU 1199 in New York have initiated “One Nation Working Together.” Exciting meetings in New York and Washington brought together the AFL-CIO, many other labor unions, United for Peace and Justice, Green For All and over one hundred other major social change organizations. They are building a mobilization that can unify the majority around a hopeful and inspiring vision of our nation based on social justice.

The signature event of One Nation is a massive march on Washington on October 2, 2010.

They have asked all of us to join them in this major effort to move us off the sidelines of the national debate and out, onto the playing field where we can participate in the fight for the future, starting with the fall elections.

This mobilization addresses only some of the key issues that deeply concern us. But without such a mobilization, all of our efforts will be set back years if the right-wing mobilization is allowed to go unchallenged.

We call on all parts of our social movements to mobilize for the October 2 demonstration and participate in the One Nation Campaign and bring your priorities to D.C.

- The Majority Agenda Project
August 4, 2010

Fragments Of Working Class Culture- On the Question Of Working-Class War Time Social-Patriotism

Markin comment:

Recently I posted in this space under my Songs To While Away The Class Struggle By series a lesser-known anti-war song by Bob Dylan from the early 1960s, John Brown. (See archives, September 15, 2010). As part of the commentary about the lyrics of the song, which I have again included below, I mentioned some of my own experiences growing up in a working class neighborhood and the pressures faced from the neighbors, and others, to conform to the unquestionably accepted social-patriotic working class war stance during the early stages of the Vietnam War. I mentioned there that the “shawlies” put considerable pressure on my parents, my mother in particular, to get me to knuckle under to the war hysteria once it was known that I was, frankly, even rather mildly opposed to the war. The shawlies were not unlike the mother in John Brown, despite the known consequences that some sons, their sons, were not going to come back, or if they did come back, as many did, would be in Brother Brown’s condition.

Someone mentioned to me that they did not know what a “shawlie” was and further that I should expand on my commentary about my own working class anti-war experiences. I intended to do this in any case but when I thought about it a bit I wanted to, additionally, suggest that there is a certain working class attitude toward war somewhat different, as bespeaks those who, one way or another, bear the brunt of the “grunt” work of war, from other classes and that requires a different kind of anti-war work from that of the campuses or in middle class towns, and for our cause, is more problematic. (We will not even discuss the rich; they did not, and do not, sent their kids to war, under any circumstances. Hell, they no longer even bother to provide the general staff officers anymore like in the old days of the WASP stranglehold on the military command posts.) Until I get a chance to write that up for now I will make some general points in aid of that proposition.

*************

Most of us have gone through over the past decade (and continue to go through), at least here in America, two major wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The initial response by the vast majority of the citizenry to the Afghan war in October 2001 in the aftermath of the World Trade Center atrocities was overwhelming support for the Bush Administration to bomb them (presumably the Taliban and Al Qaeda) back to the Stone Age, or further back if possible. No questions asked. I have related on other occasions my own fears, for one of the few times in my long political career, to be out on the streets of America protesting that war. The point that I want to make here is more that this “quick war” does not serve as a fair model for how the working class quarters response to war calls by the American president, any president. Virtually the whole populace was up in arms, and to about the same degree.

Iraq (2003), and the build-up to the invasion to Iraq, is more indicative. We will leave aside the machinations and other manipulations by the Bush Administration to “prove” whatever it was they were out to prove. What is important, and I will listen to contrary evidence on this, but I think I have it pretty accurate is that in most working class areas, city or small town, the initial response was to support, and to support vocally, the invasion, whatever the rationale as an extension of the Al Qaeda hunt. And this from people, from mothers, mothers like John Brown’s who would be sending their sons and daughters off with the ubiquitous yellow ribbon.

I know the heat of that fervor from personal experience in that period, as I witnessed it closely, too closely, in at least two pro-war rallies, both in working class areas, hard working class areas (South Boston, Massachusetts and the Albany, New York triangle), as well as anecdotal evidence from others in industrial Chicago and New Jersey. In this sense, for those who either forgets or who are too young to remember and who want to get a feel for what unabashed early support for the Vietnam War looked like down at the working class base those more current examples should suffice.

And that brings us back to my own anti-war experiences with the “shawlies.”, the Irish working class mothers who sent their sons (and now daughters) off to war without so much as a flinch. In our neighborhood, although I confess I only heard it used by more recent or older immigrants, it signified that circle, council if you will, unofficial of course, of mothers, young and old, who set the moral tone, at least the public moral tone of the place. In short, the gossips, old hags, and rumor-mongers (I am being polite here) who had their own devious grapevine, and more importantly, were a constant source of information about you to your own mother. Usually nothing good either.

I actually know the term better as used in the Irish playwright Sean O’Casey’s Dublin plays set during the First World War, and signified those mothers who were receiving money from the British government for the use of their sons in that war as cannon fodder oops, soldiers. Notwithstanding that Ireland was then the prime colony of dear old “Mother England.” Those “sawflies” moreover were the first to denounce the boys (and the few girls) of the Easter, 1916 uprising for national liberation in order to keep the bloody British dole coming. So, this is clearly not a term of endearment.

However the "shawlies” are still with us. They do not have to be in Dublin or its environs, nor do they have to be Irish, for that matter. My use here, reflecting Bob Dylan’s lyrics, is of that mother (or father, sister, uncle, or brother) who in knee-jerk reaction is more than willing to give up their young relatives to the American imperial state. And the hard fact of life, and of left-wing political organizing from the Bolsheviks forward has been the struggle to break that allegiance, or as is more usually the case take advantage of war-weariness when it finally hits the working class.

As I noted previously, for the last several years at least, at many of the peace rallies that I have attended there is usually a representative speaking for Military Families For Peace or some such organization that signifies that they too have gotten “hip” on the war question. What seems to be universally true is that in this overwhelmingly working class element of the anti-war movement (probably most prominently represented several years ago by Gold Star Mother, Cindy Sheehan, in her struggles to get ex-President George W. Bush’s attention) the initial pride, patriotism, and sense of glory turned to ashes when the deal went down. The simple, ubiquitous yellow ribbon didn’t mean a damn thing beyond some superficial nod to that service.

I speak from some experience on this turning against war, although somewhat from the opposition direction. My growing-up working class neighborhood provided more than its fair share of soldiers and other military personnel for the various stages of the Vietnam War. That wall down in Washington, the VA hospitals, the half-way houses and the flophouses of this country testify to that. Although, I am sure, every mother exhibited the usual anxieties about military service for her sons during war time no one, at least publicly, called for opposition to the Vietnam War early on (and later, when it was practically de rigueur to oppose it to do so quietly without public fanfare, to those of us on the other side’s utter frustration).

When I was called to military duty and “turned commie” for opposing the war while in uniform in the process, as my own mother related to me the opinions of other neighbor mothers, this was so “abnormal” that I was officially dis-invited from many homes. That part was, in the end, probably not important for me as I was heading out the door of that neighborhood anyway, but for those left behind, in this case my parents, this scorn was very real and very hurtful. Especially, as my parents, not without some very hard internal struggles went out of their way to support their son, not politically so much as because I was their son. Kudos.

Let me end this up like I did the previous commentary. When they (today’s shawlies) come, like vultures, at you for not “supporting” the troops, or some such argument show that you are “hip” and run this song (John Brown)at them. Oh, and scream to the high heavens, Obama-Immediate, Unconditional Withdrawal Of All U.S./Allied Troops And Mercenaries (and whoever else they have running around) From Afghanistan And Iraq!

************

John Brown-Bob Dylan lyrics


John Brown went off to war to fight on a foreign shore
His mama sure was proud of him!
He stood straight and tall in his uniform and all
His mama’s face broke out all in a grin

“Oh son, you look so fine, I’m glad you’re a son of mine
You make me proud to know you hold a gun
Do what the captain says, lots of medals you will get
And we’ll put them on the wall when you come home”

As that old train pulled out, John’s ma began to shout
Tellin’ ev’ryone in the neighborhood:
“That’s my son that’s about to go, he’s a soldier now, you know”
She made well sure her neighbors understood

She got a letter once in a while and her face broke into a smile
As she showed them to the people from next door
And she bragged about her son with his uniform and gun
And these things you called a good old-fashioned war

Oh! Good old-fashioned war!

Then the letters ceased to come, for a long time they did not come
They ceased to come for about ten months or more
Then a letter finally came saying, “Go down and meet the train
Your son’s a-coming home from the war”

She smiled and went right down, she looked everywhere around
But she could not see her soldier son in sight
But as all the people passed, she saw her son at last
When she did she could hardly believe her eyes

Oh his face was all shot up and his hand was all blown off
And he wore a metal brace around his waist
He whispered kind of slow, in a voice she did not know
While she couldn’t even recognize his face!

Oh! Lord! Not even recognize his face

“Oh tell me, my darling son, pray tell me what they done
How is it you come to be this way?”
He tried his best to talk but his mouth could hardly move
And the mother had to turn her face away

“Don’t you remember, Ma, when I went off to war
You thought it was the best thing I could do?
I was on the battleground, you were home . . . acting proud
You wasn’t there standing in my shoes”

“Oh, and I thought when I was there, God, what am I doing here?
I’m a-tryin’ to kill somebody or die tryin’
But the thing that scared me most was when my enemy came close
And I saw that his face looked just like mine”

Oh! Lord! Just like mine!

“And I couldn’t help but think, through the thunder rolling and stink
That I was just a puppet in a play
And through the roar and smoke, this string is finally broke
And a cannonball blew my eyes away”

As he turned away to walk, his Ma was still in shock
At seein’ the metal brace that helped him stand
But as he turned to go, he called his mother close
And he dropped his medals down into her hand

Copyright © 1963, 1968 by Warner Bros. Inc.; renewed 1991, 1996 by Special Rider Music

*All Out On October 2nd To End The Afghan And Iraq Wars And Struggle For Economic And Social Justice

Click on the headline to link to the Majority Agenda Report website for information on the aims of sponsors of the One Nation October 2, 2010 March and Rally in Washington, D.C.

Markin comment:

I have already argued in previous entries about the continuing importance of massing in Washington, D.C. on October 2nd for this event. (See, On The Question Of Organizing Anti-War Contingents For The October 2, 2010 "One Nation" Demonstrations In Washington, D.C., originally dated September 7, 2010.) Bring your own slogans and banners, but be there to really start building the long-delayed and needed divorce from one Barack Obama who has been given a pass on war issues- for no known rational reason. We anti-war militants knew, because he made it clear from the beginning what his priorities were in 2008, and he rubbed our noses in it last year. Now we need to get our priorities clear along with all the other issues. Obama- Troops Out Now!

*Songs To While Away The Class Struggle By-Bob Dylan's "John Brown"- Obama- Troops Out Now From Afghanistan And Iraq

Click on the title to link a YouTube film clip of a amateur performer (I guess) covering Bob Dylan's John Brown. Sorry, I could find no clip of Dylan doing the song. Singer-songwriter, professional folk version, Eric Andersen did a cover, if you can find it.

In this series, presented under the headline Songs To While Away The Class Struggle By, I will post some songs that I think will help us get through the “dog days” of the struggle for our communist future. I do not vouch for the political thrust of the songs; for the most part they are done by pacifists, social democrats, hell, even just plain old ordinary democrats. And, occasionally, a communist, although hard communist musicians have historically been scarce on the ground. Thus, here we have a regular "popular front" on the music scene. While this would not be acceptable for our political prospects, it will suffice for our purposes here. Markin.

***********

Markin comment:

The next time someone argues with you that it is unpatriotic, treasonable, bad form or just plain, ordinary cowardice to question the notion of young men and women going off to fight Obama’s Afghan and Iraq wars just direct them to Bob Dylan’s John Brown. In several verses he says all that needs to be said about so-called patriotic fervor in “supporting” the troops, no, not just supporting them but pushing them, seemingly at bayonet’s point, to the front. (You can also fill in the appropriate president’s name depending on which one is in power at the time and you can also fill in the appropriate war, or wars, depending on the time of the argument, although Afghanistan might be a correct fill-in for a long time to come unless we can turn the tables on that war now.)

Needless to say that this is a very different John Brown than the one the reader is used to seeing in this space. Our beloved John Brown, late of Harper’s Ferry, was a hero in the struggle for human emancipation. Dylan’s ordinary young soldier is more a victim, or, plainly speaking, mere cannon-fodder for some imperial design. In that sense his lyrics here stand in the tradition of his much better known Masters Of War written in the same time period. What comes to mind even more fully though is to compare its sentiment to that evoked in Dalton Trumbo’s World War I-centered, anti-war classic novel, Johnny Got His Gun. Trumbo’s Johnny had all the same impulses for glory, medals and the girls, as Dylan’s John Brown. When, unfortunately too late, the horribly wounded Johnny got “hip” to the war question and asked, begged, to be put on display at war bond rallies and such it was too late. When John Brown slips his mother those vaunted medals he also got “hip”, again too late. Read Trumbo and listen to Dylan.

It has been a while since there has been a draft system to fill out the armed forces in America (and here I am not referring to the de facto economic draft that places our working class sons and daughters, white, black, and brown in harm’s way in disproportionate numbers, as cannon fodder, but the universal conscription system used when I was young) so many Americans may not be fully aware of the sentiments expressed in Dylan’s lyrics, the notion that a mother, any mother, would, willingly, push her son (or daughter) into military service for glory, medals or fighting some unnamed enemy of the hour.

Lately, for the last several years at least, at many of the peace rallies that I have attended there is usually a representative speaking for Military Families For Peace or some such organization that signifies that they too have gotten “hip” on the war question. What seems to be universally true is that in this overwhelmingly working class element of the anti-war movement (probably most prominently represented several years ago by Gold Star Mother, Cindy Sheehan, in her struggles to get ex-President George W. Bush’s attention) the initial pride, patriotism, and sense of glory turned to ashes when the deal went down. The simple, ubiquitous yellow ribbon didn’t mean a damn thing beyond some superficial nod to that service.

Let me say that on this question I speak from some experience, although somewhat from the opposition direction. My growing-up working class neighborhood provided more than its fair share of soldiers and other military personnel for the various stages of the Vietnam War. Although, I am sure, every mother exhibited the usual anxieties about military service for her sons during war time no one, at least publicly, called for opposition to the Vietnam War early on (and later, when it was practically de rigueur to oppose it even in the working class quarters to do so quietly without public fanfare). When I was called to military duty and “turned commie” in the process for opposing the war while in uniform, as my own mother related to me concerning the opinions of other neighbor mothers, this was so “abnormal” that I was officially disinvited from many homes.

And truth be known, my own working class mother, although there was a very strong strand of the Catholic Worker movement in her was not immune to that pressure, and that criticism coming from her friends, the “shawlies” (although in the end she was a stalwart supporter). Here is the kicker though, the guy who you would think would go the other way, the guy who went through World War II with the Marines in the Guadalcanal campaign and other savage South Pacific actions, quietly, as was his manner but in his own manly way was most supportive from day one (although he did not personally agree with my stance for a number of reasons that I will write about at another time). Yes, my father. See, he was “hip” to war, the hard Johnny and John Brown way. So like I said before when they come, like vultures, at you for not “supporting” the troops, or some such argument show that you are “hip” and run this song at them. Oh, and scream to the high heavens, Obama-Immediate, Unconditional Withdrawal Of All U.S./Allied Troops And Mercenaries (and whoever else they have running around) From Afghanistan And Iraq!

***********

John Brown Lyrics- Bob Dylan

John Brown went off to war to fight on a foreign shore
His mama sure was proud of him!
He stood straight and tall in his uniform and all
His mama’s face broke out all in a grin

“Oh son, you look so fine, I’m glad you’re a son of mine
You make me proud to know you hold a gun
Do what the captain says, lots of medals you will get
And we’ll put them on the wall when you come home”

As that old train pulled out, John’s ma began to shout
Tellin’ ev’ryone in the neighborhood:
“That’s my son that’s about to go, he’s a soldier now, you know”
She made well sure her neighbors understood

She got a letter once in a while and her face broke into a smile
As she showed them to the people from next door
And she bragged about her son with his uniform and gun
And these things you called a good old-fashioned war

Oh! Good old-fashioned war!

Then the letters ceased to come, for a long time they did not come
They ceased to come for about ten months or more
Then a letter finally came saying, “Go down and meet the train
Your son’s a-coming home from the war”

She smiled and went right down, she looked everywhere around
But she could not see her soldier son in sight
But as all the people passed, she saw her son at last
When she did she could hardly believe her eyes

Oh his face was all shot up and his hand was all blown off
And he wore a metal brace around his waist
He whispered kind of slow, in a voice she did not know
While she couldn’t even recognize his face!

Oh! Lord! Not even recognize his face

“Oh tell me, my darling son, pray tell me what they done
How is it you come to be this way?”
He tried his best to talk but his mouth could hardly move
And the mother had to turn her face away

“Don’t you remember, Ma, when I went off to war
You thought it was the best thing I could do?
I was on the battleground, you were home . . . acting proud
You wasn’t there standing in my shoes”

“Oh, and I thought when I was there, God, what am I doing here?
I’m a-tryin’ to kill somebody or die tryin’
But the thing that scared me most was when my enemy came close
And I saw that his face looked just like mine”

Oh! Lord! Just like mine!

“And I couldn’t help but think, through the thunder rolling and stink
That I was just a puppet in a play
And through the roar and smoke, this string is finally broke
And a cannonball blew my eyes away”

As he turned away to walk, his Ma was still in shock
At seein’ the metal brace that helped him stand
But as he turned to go, he called his mother close
And he dropped his medals down into her hand

Copyright © 1963, 1968 by Warner Bros. Inc.; renewed 1991, 1996 by Special Rider Music