Truth-seeking writers, media professionals, and citizens, who have come to the conclusion that the case for war is no longer ethical or valid, know as the involvement continues Americans can only expect more horrific stories to play out: stories of veterans committing suicide because of post-traumatic stress disorder, stories of Afghan civilians bombed to death, stories of Afghan civilians assassinated or caught up in night raids, stories of women gassed or hit with acid attacks, stories of abuse or torture in prisons like Bagram, and providing historical context and ample argument for ending the war, and stories of soldiers killing Afghan civilians for sport and collecting fingers as trophies.
For victims of the Afghan war, truth-seekers, and those who feel they have a duty to work to end the wars, there is no reason to accept the premise for the midterms that the Afghanistan War is an afterthought. Everything is connected, all issues must be on the table for public discussion.
More importantly, the idea that issues can only be tackled through elections does not have much currency. They do not expect elections to have any meaningful impact on a lot of issues. They understand elections to be a mechanism for managing expectations and contend that they simply provide a way for Republicans and Democrats to renew support for their inaction or inability to take action to confront the truth of the war in Afghanistan every two years.
That is why events like "One Nation Working Together" are crucial and especially problematic when squandered because organizers fear they might alienate President Obama or Democrats if they make demands.
Democrats, is it important to bring this war that continues to cost humanity blood and treasure to an end? Democrats, what agenda for jobs and the economy do you think will advance if the war machine continues to impact what is politically possible in this country? Democrats, if it is important, do you think it important to go deeper in discussion on just how ending the war can be done? And, Democrats, should Americans have a plan for saving people in this world from the political and military "masters of war" that think like keepers of the state instead of keepers of humanity?
Organizing only focused on what
little change Americans can get political leaders to convince corporate
financiers to permit will do little for Afghanis suffering. Those who
understand what is happening but wish to be pragmatic in their action must stop
and think of the complete violation of Afghanis sovereignty that goes on as the
war continues.
Is it "purism" to to put these questions to Democratic voters and people who have read the news on Afghanistan especially op-eds on blogs throughout the past years? I don't know. That argument insinuates that under certain circumstances that which is unethical can somehow be skewed, justified, re-cast, and made to be ethical.
If there is to be any hope of ending injustice, organizing efforts aimed at creating support for taking on issues need to be sharp. Demands have to be made. Consequences have to be attached to those demands. And, expressions of antiwar sentiment, diluted or forthright, must involve specifics--leaders responsible, incidents reported, failures of fortitude and courage, etc.
This can be said for a number of issues, but on the issue of ending the war in Afghanistan it is incredibly apparent that the movement for peace must divest itself entirely from the Democratic Party. It must become an entirely independent political movement that invites people to embrace the freedom that comes with a movement that does not have an allegiance to the left wing of this nation's war machine. It must not succumb to the perils and pratfalls of lesser-of-two-evils politics; Democrats are just as likely to start and escalate wars as Republicans.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
