Voices For Peace Institute (V4PI)

NO U.S. military intervention in Libya!

2011-03-13T12:43:00.001-05:00

Here is an important and TIMELY read: http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/201138143448786661.html I just emailed my US Senators and my US Representative asking them to please do all they can to oppose using US military forces in Libya, including for setting up a no-fly zone. I know from experience that at least staffers do read these (at least sometimes). I also know that snail-mail takes a long, long, time because mail gets routed to some initial location to be scanned for dangerous stuff in them.

There are for sure compelling financial reasons to oppose getting involved militarily in Libya. They are legitimate but too often they are the only reasons given for abstaining from using military force. This --and, "can we win?"-- seem to be the ONLY type of criterion which countries that do not adhere to the principle of the rule of law at home or abroad consider before using military force.

I was raised to believe that America takes other things into consideration, including moral values and a profound respect for the principle of the rule of law. Please read the whole article, but if you don't have time, here are some excerpts:

"The core legal obligation of the UN Charter requires member states to refrain from any use of force unless it can be justified as self-defence after a cross-border armed attack or mandated by a decision of the UN Security Council.

Neither of these conditions authorising a legal use of force is remotely present, and yet the discussion proceeds in the media and Washington circles as if the only questions worth discussing pertain to feasibility, costs, risks, and a possible backlash in the Arab world.

....There are also serious credibility concerns. As has been widely noted in recent weeks, the US has had no second thoughts about supporting oppressive regimes throughout the region for decades, and is widely resented for this role by the various anti-regime movements.

....The absence of any learning from Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq is startling,...

....Among the most ardent advocates of intervention in Libya are the last republican presidential candidate, John McCain, the supposedly independent Joe Lieberman, and the Obama democrat John Kerry.

It seems that many of the republicans focused on the deficit although cutting public expenditures punishes the poor at a time of widespread unemployment and home foreclosures would not mind ponying up countless billions to finance acts of war in Libya."

From Hiroshima & Nagasaki to Iraq & Afghanistan

2011-02-16T07:23:00.003-06:00

I am only a few pages away from finishing the book, "The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb", by Gar Alperovitz (1996, Random House). In over 650 pages, it shows how the decision to drop a nuclear bomb apiece on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was decidedly NOT to save American lives or because it was the only way to end what inevitably would've been a war that would drag on for an indefinite period of time.

The dropping of these bombs resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands of people, including women and children and gravely poisoned the environment. The book shows how some American POWs were also killed by these bombs.

The book documents that the predominant reason the US dropped these awful things on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was that doing so was seen by Truman as means to achieve what he believed were critically important post-war foreign policy goals.

Furthermore, it lays out how our government systematically sought to cover up the real reasons the bombs were dropped and in fact lied to the American people about this in public statements.

From that awful time to today, our government has continued to refuse to admit that using those bombs was an unmitigated grave evil. Writing about the attitudes that made it possible for the US government to go ahead and use those awful weapons, Alperovitz writes:

"Around the world, Americans are famous for a certain naive self-righteousness, even arrogance. We like to see ourselves as possessed of special, unique virtue....So long as we accept a distorted, overly idealized image of ourselves and of our society, however --so long as we see all 'good' here and all 'evil' elsewhere-- I believe we must inevitably err in our relationships with others. Many of the excesses of the Cold War --and the overreaching that produced the Vietnam War-- can be traced in part to such attitudes." (Pg. 638).

While reading this book, it seems to me that I can draw a reasonably straight line from the attitudes that spawned the acts of dropping nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the attitudes that spawned the invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. You might think this is a stretch, and you certainly have the right to agree or disagree. This is just how I see it.

Because I see it this way, I will continue to be a voice for peace....for using diplomacy, development and international cooperation instead of military force in America's relationships with other nations. I want my country to be known around the world as a HUMANITARIAN super-power!

After the Revolution: Mubarak is Gone After 30 Years in Power, But Questions Remain as to How Transition Will Proceed

2011-02-14T13:09:00.005-06:00

Notwithstanding the title of this post...seems to me that in Egypt there is hope mixed with strong concern as the Egyptian revolution CONTINUES...
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/2/14/after_the_revolution_mubarak_is_gone

The success of the revolution is significant. If it succeeds, it seems to me that there's a greater than 50% chance that a near-future Egyptian government will be able to pressure Israel to behave in a more civilized manner towards Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. Also, perhaps the Egyptian government would also allow aid into Gaza through its common border.

Any developments that tend towards Israel treating Palestinians justly can only be good for peace in the region. Maybe even peace in the world in general. It's my sense that mistreatment of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank fuels the anger of fundamentalist Islamic groups and makes it easier for those groups to recruit.

The ultimate goal would be the creation of a truly sovereign Palestinian state within its pre-1967 borders, living in peace and security next to Israel.

Bearing witness against America's wars

2011-01-23T05:20:00.001-06:00

America recently observed Martin Luther King day. It is perhaps not widely known the King strongly and publicly opposed America's war in Vietnam. There is no doubt in my mind that if King were alive today he would publicly oppose America's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Part of what makes King’s life and actions so compelling, even decades later, is the love and peace he had in his own heart which he projected in his speaking and actions against war and all kinds of injustices.

Last week on Friday, 8 folks (including yours truly) braved the intense cold to peacefully stand on the corner of Brackett Ave and Hwy 53 from 5pm to 6pm to be witnesses against America's wars. We have been doing this every third Friday of the month for many, many months. Consider joining us! But this is only one way amongst many to express opposition to America’s wars – particularly those in Iraq & Afghanistan.

To anyone reading this: please reflect on the incalculable cost in precious human lives along with the almost incalculably large sums of money that represents the toll America's wars are taking.

Please contact your federal legislators and ask them to consider ways they could help America turn away from using its military to achieve its foreign policy goals and instead use diplomacy, development, and international cooperation.

In this way, the vast amounts of tax dollars that are poured into U.S. military operations could be re-directed to meeting human needs not only here in America but abroad as well.

America could be and should be known and loved around the world as a humanitarian super-power!

"....a billionaire military and a pauper diplomacy...."

2011-01-16T19:13:00.003-06:00

"....we have a billionaire military and a pauper diplomacy. The U.S. military now has more people in its marching bands than the State Department has in its foreign service — and that’s preposterous." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/opinion/26kristof.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss#

Beyond Belief - Watch the Documentary Film for Free | Watch Free Documentaries Online | SnagFilms

2010-12-23T19:02:00.006-06:00

A really well-done vid....well worth the 1.5 hours it takes to view it. Why? Because at least for me, it helped stimulate a vitally-needed thing in our world: empathy... something we must have more of -very soon- if we are to move towards living with each other in peace.

"Susan Retik and Patti Quigley were two ordinary soccer moms living in the affluent suburbs of Boston until the tragedy of September 11 struck. Rather than turn inward, grief compelled these women to focus on empowering widows in the country where the terrorists who took their husbands’ lives were trained: Afghanistan."

Beyond Belief - Watch the Documentary Film for Free | Watch Free Documentaries Online | SnagFilms

"The inhumane conditions of Bradley Manning's detention"

2010-12-17T06:33:00.002-06:00

The Salon article, "The inhumane conditions of Bradley Manning's detention" at http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/14/manning alleges (and it seems true to me) that Manning has been held in psychologically crippling solitary confinement and is denied even a sheet and pillow for his bed.

No civilized nation should treat its prisoners this way - whether proven guilty or not. America IS a civilized nation, but if our military is treating him in the way that the Salon piece alleges, we are not acting like a civilized nation.

I love America and want it to be a moral example to the world of justice for all.

See also the companion piece at: http://www.democracynow.org/2010/12/16/alleged_wikileaks_whistleblower_bradley_manning_imprisoned

2010 Veterans Day Reflection

2010-11-14T20:50:00.002-06:00

I know Veterans Day has passed. I posted the following on Facebook, and want to also post it here. I believe that what I'm expressing is pertinent all year 'round...

The purpose of a military is to defend one's nation from being invaded and/or occupied. It is good and right to recognize and honor every American veteran, past and present, who was willing put his or her life on the line because he or she believed their service was achieving exactly this purpose.

It seems to me though that if we just automatically accept it when our government sends our men and women in the military to kill and maim and be killed and maimed and to occupy other nations, when in fact there is either no connection or only the most far-fetched connections with defending our nation from being invaded and/or occupied, we make a mockery of the bravery and suffering and death of our soldiers.

Everyone must decide for him or herself when or if this is ever the case. For me, sadly, there is no doubt that in our military actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen, we are making a mockery of the bravery and suffering and death of our soldiers.

A Million Minutes for Peace

2010-09-05T20:24:00.001-05:00

I've "signed up" for doing this, and hope all people of faith who read this will also make this one-minute commitment. "People of different faiths from all over the world will stop at noon and pray for peace for one minute - each in their own way on September 21st - the U.N. International Day of Peace." Read more about this (and about how you can participate!) at: http://amillionminutesforpeace.org/
Peace to all,
Lou Recine

As the war in Afghanistan enters its final chapter, Sean Smith's brutal, uncompromising film from the Helmand frontline shows the horrific chaos of a stalemate that is taking its toll in blood

2010-07-29T19:30:00.005-05:00

WARNING: distressing images and audio. (Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2010/jul/29/afghanistan-war-us-military - retrieved 7/29/10). When watching, keep in mind that according to our own govt, our leaders made a decision to let bin Laden escape from our grasp in late 2001 (see foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Tora_Bora_Report.pdf).

In Global Peace Index, U.S. ranked #85 out of 149 in study seeking to rank the most peaceful nations

2010-06-23T06:19:00.000-05:00

"The 2010 rankings are here! This year 149 nations of the world have been ranked by their peacefulness and the results have stimulated some very interesting analysis." (The work is named the "Global Peace Index" - http://www.visionofhumanity.org/).

I blogged about this last November, looking at stats for 2009. Last year the U.S. ranked #83 out of 144 countries. For 2010, the U.S. ranked #85 out of 149 countries. To see the factors that are taken into account when ranking, go to: http://www.visionofhumanity.org/about/, and in the left-hand side bar, click on "Peace Indicators"; also click on "Related Indicators". For the second year in a row, New Zealand is #1. Iraq is the least peaceful (#149), Afghanistan is at #147, and Israel is at #144.

Endorsers of the Global Peace Index effort can be seen at: http://www.visionofhumanity.org/info-center/endorsers/

It's deja vu all over again in Afghanistan

2010-05-27T07:32:00.003-05:00

"After First Denying Involvement, US Forces Admit Killing Two Pregnant Afghan Women & Teenager"- http://www.democracynow.org/2010/4/6/after_first_denying_involvement_us_forces

"Afghanistan's My Lai Massacre" - http://www.truthout.org/where-are-this-wars-hejavascript:void(0)roes-military-and-journalistic57406

Here are two SEPARATE stories of U.S. / U.S.-led actions in Afghanistan. Sadly they are only two stories out of many other, similar stories. Speaking personally, as a Christian, I believe God's heart is deeply, deeply, deeply grieved at what America is doing in Afghanistan.

But I don't think one needs to be a person of religious faith to have a reason to object to U.S. behavior in Afghanistan. If you are an American citizen who cares about what your government is doing in your name with your tax dollars, these sorts of reports will, I hope, cause you to question your government and contact your legislators in Washington.

My own research and reading makes me fear that these reports reveal just the tip of the iceberg. For me --a person old enough to remember the My Lai Massacre being reported on the news-- U.S. behavior in Afghanistan is chilling.

Jason Hicks' May 5 presentation-"A road map of the political landscape of the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict"

2010-05-05T21:56:00.001-05:00

I just got back from Jason Hicks' "A road map of the political landscape of the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict" presentation at The Cabin, in Davies Center, UWEC Campus, 7pm-8pm tonight. What an informative talk! I came away from the talk with a better understanding of the "political landscape" there - what is the current stance --vis-a-vis the Palestinians-- of the current Israeli govt, and then, also, the current stances, vis-a-vis Israel, of the Palestinians as represented by: Fateh (West Bank) and Hamas (Gaza). I also came away with a better realization of how important peace there is to my security today as an American, and to the security of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. And...I can report that The Cabin was FILLED. I estimate that there was a 100 people in there for the entire hour....from college-age, to high-school age, to old fogies like me! KUDOS and heartfelt thanks to my Voices For Peace Institute co-sponsors of this event-particularly Allison Kimble, UWEC College Democrats, Collin Hawkins, UWEC Society for Peace & Justice in Palestine, the UWEC Model UN Club and the Wisconsin Federation of College Republicans!

U.S. and NATO actions in Afghanistan fuel the Afghan insurgency

2010-04-04T20:28:00.006-05:00

Both quotes below are from a 3/26/10 New York times article, Tighter Rules Fail to Stem Deaths of Innocent Afghans at Checkpoints (retrieved 4/4/10):

“We have shot an amazing number of people, but to my knowledge, none has ev'er proven to be a threat,” said Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who becme the senior American and NATO commander in Afghanistan last year. His comments came during a recent videoconference to answer questions from troops in the field about civilian casualties."

"Many of the detainees at the military prison at Bagram Air Base joined the insurgency after the shootings of people they knew, said the senior NATO enlisted man in Afghanistan, Command Sgt. Maj. Michael Hall."

U.S. State Department offers hope for an end to resorting to force as U.S. policy

2010-03-30T05:43:00.001-05:00

First--a brief background to my reflections....
Phyllis Bennis, fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies and author, most recently, of "Ending the US War in Afghanistan: A Primer" was interviewed in February by Amy Goodman, host of Democracy Now! Bennis stated that in order to end the U.S. war in Afghanistan, the U.S. anti-war movement needs to "mobilize in different ways with different allies", and recognize that the "costs of war are going to be key". She also said that people in the U.S. anti-war movement need to "work as much with people that are fighting for new green jobs as we do fighting against the travesty of civilian deaths in Afghanistan or Iraq."
(Source: Phyllis Bennis on Ending the US War in Afghanistan; http://www.democracynow.org/2010/2/23/phyllis_bennis_on_ending_the_us )

My reaction to what Bennis says is "yes"....and, "no". "Yes" as a way to eventually help bring the current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to a stop. But "no" in that unless there's also a fundamental change in how America "does" foreign policy, reflexively resorting to force, we will only find ourselves in another "Afghanistan" in the not-too-distant future.

The American government itself has provided the answer, as expressed at the web site of the U.S. Department of State, which basically says that America totally buys into and is committed to, principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "The protection of fundamental human rights was a foundation stone in the establishment of the United States over 200 years ago. Since then, a central goal of U.S. foreign policy has been the promotion of respect for human rights, as embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The United States understands that the existence of human rights helps secure the peace, deter aggression, promote the rule of law, combat crime and corruption, strengthen democracies, and prevent humanitarian crises."
(Source: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/hr/, retrieved 3-13-10; also, see the text of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights at: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2008/108544.htm)

I perused the text of Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and was immediately struck by how America has, in some glaring and tragic ways, not lived up to key values expressed there. But at least the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a standard that you and I could hold in common with the U.S. government. There are creative, intelligent groups of people of good will in our country who are offering guidance to Congress, to help our country live up to its stated values by implementing peace-building initiatives. One group amongst others is the Friends Committee on National Legislation and their "Peaceful Prevention of Deadly Conflict" initiative. You can learn more about it at: http://www.fcnl.org/ppdc/.

There IS hope for an America that can be seen around the world as humanitarian super-power, not a military super-power.

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) says Jerusalem must join Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)

2009-11-29T06:35:00.000-06:00

Amidst a constant stream of news stories about the IAEA's calls to Iran to curb its nuclear ambitions, this morning I inadvertently ran across a recent (9/18/09) Reuters piece about the IAEA calling on Israel to join Non-Proliferation Treaty and allow it to monitor its facilities. The Reuters piece was posted in Ynet News, an Israeli news source. This speaks well of the Israeli people, many of whom are peace-loving. See the story at: http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3778884,00.html. Kudos also to the IAEA for its even-handed treatment of Israel. This example of objectivity is something that U.S. officials, including our Nobel Peace-prize winning president, might well learn from, and finally bring a stop to America's apparent lack of objectivity in failing to hold Israel to the same standards it insists on with Iran and other nations.

The Reuters article states: "Israel is one of only three countries worldwide along with India and Pakistan outside the nuclear NPT and is widely assumed to have the Middle East's only nuclear arsenal, though it has never confirmed or denied it." Indeed if one does some research, it's easy to conclude from a number of sources that Israel has a formidable nuclear arsenal. For all the Israeli and U.S. complaining about Iran's nuclear plants, it seems to me that Israel's own thinly-veiled nuclear arsenal makes it, and not Iran, the greatest threat to peace and stability in the middle east.

U.S. ranked #83 out of 144 in study seeking to rank the most peaceful nations

2009-11-26T09:38:00.002-06:00

A study of the world's most peaceful countries released earlier this year puts the U.S. as number 83. The top five most peaceful countries are said to be, respectively: New Zealand (#1), Denmark, Norway, Iceland, and Austria.

Israel is ranked as fourth to last (141) among the 144 countries ranked. To put this into perspective, Pakistan is ranked at #137. See http://www.visionofhumanity.org/gpi/results/rankings.php for the list.

According to the site, the rankings were arrived at by: "Twenty-three indicators of the existence or absence of peace were chosen by the panel of experts, which are divided into three broad categories: measures of ongoing domestic and international conflict, measures of safety and security in society and measures of militarization." For more details, see: http://www.visionofhumanity.org/gpi/about-gpi/methodology.php

Nov. 17, 2009 - thought-provoking and informative "Rethink Afghanistan" documentary

2009-11-14T21:58:00.004-06:00

Brave New Foundation's documentary, "Rethink Afghanistan" showing:
7:00PM Tuesday, November 17th at Memorial High School's Little Theater in Eau Claire!
Ending the American military occupation of Afghanistan starts with Americans everywhere getting together with friends, neighbors and family members and discussing the costs --human and financial-- of this misguided use of America's military.

Rethink Afghanistan is a ground-breaking, full-length documentary focusing on the key issues surrounding this war. Through the film, Brave New Foundation hopes "to raise critical questions regarding Afghanistan that Congress must address in oversight hearings, which inform the public and challenge policymakers."

The segments that make up this dvd are all posted online (http://rethinkafghanistan.com/videos.php). I've watched, I think, 5 or 6 of the 7 total segments on the dvd, and am very impressed with the good work that went into this dvd.

U.S. and Israeli hypocrisy in the matter of Iran's nuclear plants?

2009-09-26T09:54:00.001-05:00

I am struggling to understand what all the alarm about Iran's nuclear facilities is about. Particularly the sense of alarm emanating from the U.S. and Israeli governments. It's very difficult for me not to see dangerous hypocrisy in the U.S. and Israel in this. Iran claims that even its most recently revealed nuclear plant is for peaceful purposes. But even if it were not, what gives the U.S. or Israel the right to voice opposition to Iran because of this (which is what I gather from recent news reports)? I have even detected veiled threats in the news of either the U.S. or Israel taking military action against Iran on account of its nuclear plants. Does not the U.S. and Israel both possess nuclear weapons? Has not the U.S. used nuclear weapons against civilian populations, with no guarantees it will not use them again? If the U.S. is serious about a nuclear-weapons free world - particularly in the middle east-- it and Israel should have taken the lead years ago in disarming, under a internationally-agreed upon inspections apparatus. I hope it is not yet too late.

Are we likely to achieve real security in Afghanistan? Click below....

2009-08-29T10:38:00.003-05:00

How much security did $1 trillion buy?

Shared via AddThis

The Failure of War -- Wendell Berry

2009-08-23T13:23:00.001-05:00

The Failure of War -- Wendell Berry

Shared via AddThis

"The Awful Sound of Silence" by Steve Carlson

2009-05-25T07:05:00.003-05:00

When I read Steve Carlson's recent post to commondreams.org, it seems to me that he compellingly reveals how we not only have an economic crisis in America, but a crisis of conscience as well. Check it out at: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/05/23-3

What our federal tax dollars COULD go to instead of funding the Iraq and Afghanistan wars

2009-04-29T06:40:00.001-05:00

According to the National Priorities Project (NPP), as of 4/28/09, taxpayers in Wisconsin have paid $13.2 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. According to the NPP, this could have paid for other things, such as health care for 8,536,735 people for one year, or 230,972 Elementary School teachers for one year, or 1,968,551 scholarships for university students for one year. Find out what taxpayers in YOUR state have spent on these wars, and what else your state could have gotten with the same amount of money, at: http://www.nationalpriorities.org/tradeoffs

Tomgram: Questions to Ask in the Dead of Night

2009-04-24T18:23:00.002-05:00

Tomgram: Questions to Ask in the Dead of Night

Posted using ShareThis

A Dark Day for Justice

2009-04-19T11:57:00.001-05:00

A Dark Day for Justice

Posted using ShareThis

President Obama's strategy for defeating al-Qaida is not likely to succeed

2009-03-29T06:31:00.004-05:00

A 3/27/09 Associated Press article, posted by Yahoo (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090327/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_afghanistan), reported the following quotes from President Obama's announcement about US military strategy for defeating al-Qaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan:
" 'So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future,' the president said.
'That is the goal that must be achieved,' Obama added. 'That is a cause that could not be more just. And to the terrorists who oppose us, my message is the same: we will defeat you.' "

In contrast: according to a 2008 study produced by the RAND Corporation, military offensives such as those launched by President George W. Bush and continued by President Obama, rarely succeed in defeating terrorist groups. The report is called: "How Terrorist Groups End - Lessons for Countering al Qa’ida".

Here are some excerpts:

"All terrorist groups eventually end. But how do they end? Answers to
this question have enormous implications for counterterrorism efforts.
The evidence since 1968 indicates that most groups have ended because
(1) they joined the political process or (2) local police and intelligence
agencies arrested or killed key members. Military force has rarely been
the primary reason for the end of terrorist groups...."

"The good news about countering al Qa’ida is that its probability of
success in actually overthrowing any governments is close to zero. Al
Qa’ida’s objectives are virtually unachievable, and it has succeeded in
alienating most governments in Asia, Europe, North America, South
America, the Middle East, and Africa. Nor does it have a firm base of
support, as do such groups with welfare services, such as Hizballah and
Hamas. As al Qa’ida expert Peter Bergen concluded, 'Making a world
of enemies is never a winning strategy.'

"But the bad news is that U.S. efforts against al Qa’ida have not
been successful. Despite some successes against al Qa’ida, the United
States has not significantly undermined its capabilities. Al Qa’ida has
been involved in more attacks in a wider geographical area since September
11, 2001, including in such European capitals as London, than it
was before that date. Its organizational structure has also evolved. This
means that the U.S. strategy in dealing with al Qa’ida must change. A
strategy based predominantly on military force has not been effective.
Considering al Qa’ida’s organizational structure and modus operandi,
only a strategy based primarily on careful police and intelligence work
is likely to be effective."

You can download the entire report at: http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9351/

How do we know if/when we have a healthy, effective peace movement?

2009-02-01T16:48:00.003-06:00

How do we know if and when we have a healthy, effective peace movement? There are, arguably, many, many peace and justice organizations in this state (this includes Voices For Peace Institute) and in the country, small and large, with and without paid staff...many of them are trying to either stop certain wars the U.S. is involved in and/or to prevent the U.S. from getting involved in future wars. And yet...congressional election cycle after congressional election cycle comes and goes, and presidential election cycle after presidential election cycle comes and goes, and, it seems to this observer that the U.S. remains firmly entrenched in militaristic thinking and behavior...using its military (or by proxy, the militaries of other nations) to get its way abroad.

How can you and I know when and if American peace groups have even begun to change the way voters think and vote, and the way the federal government behaves, when it comes to the military-industrial-congressional-corporate-complex? What does this kind of a political milieu look like?

The Saturday, Jan. 24 All-American Peace Inaugural Ball

2009-01-25T10:04:00.002-06:00

Wow! I feel blessed to have been able to attend the All-American Peace Inaugural Ball yesterday evening, at the nearby Seymour Town Hall. This event had been planned and organized, in large part, by Mark Ruddy and Mark Helpsmeet. Many kudos to each of them for the hard work and many hours they put into making last night's event an inspiriing reality. I can today testify that their hard work PAID OFF. I feel happy that Voices For Peace Institute had the opportunity to be one of the sponsors of this inspiring event. Women in Black, Iraq Moratorium, the Friends Meeting, and other groups had information tables, plus, Mark Ruddy made available much helpful information from the Friends National Committee on Legislation (http://www.fcnl.org/index.htm).

Mike McCabe of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign (http://www.wisdc.org/) was the keynote speaker. He talked about how grass-roots movements that change the way governments behave (state or national) are started and continued by individuals like you and me simply taking the time to (and in some cases being brave enough to) TALK to family members, friends, neighbors, co-workers, etc. about what we have learned to be true about political problems facing us and the possible solutions to those problems. He told an inspiring story of how Wisconsinites way back in the mid-1850s got the ball rolling that led to many positive changes in our state...and they did it by talking WITH each other and TO politicians.

Then, too, the Peace Ball last night was honored to have Bruce O'Brien lead people in a Group Sing of Peace and Justice songs, and the Ball also was graced with the music of the peerless Sue Orfield Band providing (incredible music to dance by)!

Thank you again, Mark Ruddy and Mark Helpsmeet, once again, for having the vision and tenacity to make last night's event a reality! May we now all roll up our sleeves and look for ways to talk with each other and talk TO our government representatives about the changes we want to see in America!

Jan. 22, 2009 - President Obama issues order to close Gitmo

2009-01-22T13:22:00.003-06:00

Finally! THANK YOU President Obama! The order involved not only closing Gitmo down but all overseas CIA secret prisons. In the AP story, the following excerpt appeared, at the beginning of the piece:

"WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama began overhauling U.S. treatment of terror suspects Thursday, signing orders to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center, shut down secret overseas CIA prisons, review military war crimes trials and ban the harshest interrogation methods.

With his action, Obama started changing how the United States prosecutes and questions al-Qaida, Taliban or other foreign fighters who pose a threat to Americans — and overhauling America's image abroad, battered by accusations of the use of torture and the indefinite detention of suspects at the Guantanamo prison in Cuba.

"The message that we are sending the world is that the United States intends to prosecute the ongoing struggle against violence and terrorism and we are going to do so vigilantly and we are going to do so effectively and we are going to do so in a manner that is consistent with our values and our ideals," the president said."

I read the full story at: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090122/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_suspected_terrorists (accessed today - 1/22/09).

10-7-08 Statement of the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA), the seventh anniversary of the US invasion of Afghanistan

2008-12-14T06:35:00.009-06:00

To the best of my knowledge, RAWA has been one of the most consistent voices for women's rights and for democracy in Afghanistan. They opposed the Oct. 2001 US invasion and ensuing occupation, because of the devastation and death they believe it would bring to the Afghan people. Sadly, the US occupation that RAWA opposed then and opposes now is the same occupation that President-Elect Obama intends to continue and intensify*. The following are excerpts from the Oct. 7, 2008 statement (source: http://www.rawa.org/events/sevenyear_e.htm, accessed 12/14/08) of the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) on the seventh anniversary of the US invasion of Afghanistan. I encourage you to read the entire statement.

"Neither the US nor Jehadies and Taliban, Long Live the Struggle of Independent and Democratic Forces of Afghanistan!

Seven years back the US government and its allies were successfully able to legitimize their military invasion on Afghanistan and deceive the people of the US and the world under the banners of “liberating Afghan women”, “democracy” and “war on terror”. Our people, who had been tormented and oppressed by the Taliban’s dominance, were filled with hope but soon their dream of the establishment of security, democracy and freedom was shattered in the most painful manner.

By the installation of the puppet government of Karzai, the US reused its creations and continued its deal with the Jehadi criminal warlords. From the very start, Mr. Karzai shunned the demands and trusts of the people and chose to compromise with the criminals of the “Northern Alliance” and placed the filthiest faces in the key posts of the government. In contradiction to the shameless claims of the ministers and other treacherous and corrupt officials, our people feel more ill-fated; the country has been turned to a mafia state and self-immolation, rape and abduction of women and children has no parallel in the history of Afghanistan

The day to day expansion of the power of Taliban reflects the real nature of the “war on terror” which has empowered the roots of fundamentalist terrorism more than ever. This is only a showcase to justify the long military presence of the US in our country and in the region.

Instead of removing the cancerous lump of the Taliban and their Jehadi brothers from the framework of Afghanistan, the troops of the US and its allies are bombarding wedding and joy parties and showering bullets on our oppressed people, especially women and children. Furthermore, when such crimes are exposed they shamelessly and haughtily deny them, and when the matter is proved, an arrogant “sorry” is offered, which pours more salt on the wounds of the people.

As we have declared many times, the US government has no and will not have any genuine concern for the condition of freedom, democracy and women’s rights in Afghanistan. It is ready to accept a more corrupt, destructive and anti-democratic government than the one in power now, provided that its stooges are the rulers. Therefore today, some top criminals are being consistently freed from the prison. This clearly shows that “democracy” and “freedom of women” do not hold even an iota of value for the US administration and its allies in Afghanistan.

Forgetting their foremost duty of giving awareness, a portion of the intellectuals of our country are engaged in shameful deeds of creating and igniting the ethnic, religious and linguistic differences among people on which the occupations are pouring fuel too. Some have taken this to such a level of disgrace that they believe the Taliban to be the rescuing forces; and the band of the murderers and agents of the “National Front”, and the groups attached to the US and NATO to be the sources of prosperity.

The Afghan intellectuals who see the remedy of freedom from the captivity of Taliban and Jehadis as leaning on the US have no idea about the history of the US; more importantly about the bourn of Afghanistan in the past seven years. Neither can they present a single example of a country that had gained freedom and democracy with the help of the US military invasion nor can they bury the secrets of the bloody wars and invasions of the US in different parts of the world. Thus, the mentioned intellectuals are practically known as “agents of CIA” in the political scenario of Afghanistan.

RAWA strongly believes that there should be no expectation of either the US or any other country to present us with democracy, peace and prosperity. Our freedom is only achievable at the hands of our people. It is the duty of all the intellectuals, all the democratic forces and progressive and independence-seeking people to rise in a constant and decisive struggle for independence and democracy by taking the support of our wounded people as the independent force, against the presence of the US and its allies and the domination of Jehadi and Taliban criminals. Combating against the armed and alien forces in the country without being loud-mouthed against the Talibi and Jehadi enemies would mean welcoming the misfortunes of fascism and religious mafia. Also, struggling against this enemy without fighting the military presence of the US, its allies and its puppet government would mean falling before foreign agents. The path of the freedom-fighters of our country without doubt, will be very complex, difficult and bloody; but if our demand is to be freed from the chains of the slavery of foreigners and their Talib and Jehadi lackeys, we should not fear trial or death to become triumphant."

*See website of the Office of the President-Elect, http://change.gov/agenda/foreign_policy_agenda/ (see section, "Afghanistan and Pakistan", accessed 12/14/08), and, http://change.gov/agenda/iraq_agenda/ (accessed 12/14/08).

Obama's intent to persist in an illegal U.S. "Operation Enduring Freedom" in Afghanistan

2008-12-11T18:56:00.015-06:00

Sadly, it seems that doing the right thing with regards to Afghanistan is the opposite of what President-Elect Barack Obama plans to do. How do I know what Obama intends to do? Obama's web site makes it plain - go to the web site of the "Office of the President-Elect", http://change.gov/agenda/foreign_policy_agenda/ (I accessed it today- 12/11/08) and it states: "Obama and Biden will refocus American resources on the greatest threat to our security -- the resurgence of al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan. They will increase our troop levels in Afghanistan...."

The above statement, seen on Obama's web site, is a declaration that President-Elect Obama intends to persist in illegal and unwarranted U.S. military action (including occupation) in Afghanistan, thus perpetuating the scourge of American militarism, like so many presidents before him, Republican and Democrat. This is NOT "change we can believe in". No. It's "same-old, same-old that we thought would happen." Obama, like other presidents before him, would tell you that America believes in the "rule of law". But also like so many presidents before him, at the level of foreign policy, will behave as if America really believes that it is "above the law". Additionally, Obama's pledged policy for Afghanistan is highly likely to result in increasing recruits to al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, and will thus make America far more vulnerable to terrorist attacks than it ever was before 9/11.

The United States had no business invading a sovereign nation which had NOT invaded the United States nor taken any military action against the United States. Additionally, neither did the Taliban government (to the best I've been able to learn) have any material involvement in the planning or carrying out of the 9/11 attacks.

And, should anyone be tempted the Bush administration's argument that because the Taliban refused to extradite bin Laden to the U.S. for trial, that therefore (as Bush proclaimed) we (the U.S.) will treat terrorists and the states that harbor terrorists in the same way -- it is a documented fact that the U.S. has reserved to itself the right to not extradite individuals accused of terrorism when requested to do so by foreign governments, so that those individuals could be put on trial. Therefore, using the fact that the Taliban did not unconditionally and immediately extradite bin Ladin to the U.S. military as justification for military invasion and occupation of Afghanistan is just plain old hypocrisy.

It bothers and completely baffles me that a person like Barack Obama, so good, (it seems to me) in so many ways, will not take a stand, on principal, against the U.S. invasion and occupation of Afghanistan.

Again, to the best that I've been able to determine, the Taliban government in Afghanistan (as bad as it was) did NOT help plan, much less help carry out, the 9/11 attacks.

The United States' invasion and occupation of Afghanistan is wrong on more levels than this blog entry can fully explore. I will, though, point the reader to two sources of information as a start: "Afghanistan: The Other Illegal War" (article found at http://www.alternet.org/audits/93473/afghanistan:_the_other_illegal_war/?page=entire, written by Marjorie Cohn, a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, president of the National Lawyers Guild, and the U.S. representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists) and, "Operation Enduring Freedom: A Retrospective" (article found at http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3616, written by Stephen Zunes, Middle-East editor for the Foreign Policy In Focus Project. He is a professor of politics and the author of Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism).

I welcome comments to this blog post. I am aware that what I've written here may anger Obama supporters. For those of you that may feel that way, I urge you to put aside political partisanship, and try to look at the matter objectively from the standpoint of international law. If a reader of this blog post of mine can show me that the U.S. military operation in Afghanistan known as "Operation Enduring Freedom", commenced under George W. Bush's administration, and which Obama pledges to continue and increase, is LEGAL under international law, I am wide open to seeing the evidence you have, and if you can convince me, I will publicly repudiate what I've written in this blog post. Please enter your inputs via the "Comment" functionality, under this blog posting.

I understand that an argument could be made that a McCain victory likely would have been nearly incalculably worse in its impact than the Obama victory we got. I agree with this. But-on the other hand, I beleve that when it comes to foreign policy, Obama is, in principle, the same as John McCain...i.e., that both McCain and Obama believe the United States is above the law (both its own law and international law) when it comes to getting its way, internationally. This must stop because it's WRONG. It must also stop if you, I, our children, and our grandchildren are to be able to live in a truly secure America.

Scenes from Afghanistan, the so-called 'Good War'

2008-11-29T07:46:00.005-06:00

Noam Chomsky reminds his readers about the importance of not consigning recent events to oblivion if we have any hope of making lasting, positive changes in the way Americans think and most importantly in the way that the US government acts. I think that the US "Operation Enduring Freedom" is a key subject for Chomsky's advice. As far as I know, the US invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001 was illegal from an international law standpoint, and possibly illegal from US law standpoint as well, depending on what aspects of the just-mentioned international laws had been previously ratified by the US Congress. It also appears to me to be illegal in a number of the ways that it is conducted. So, to serve as a visual reminder of the "recent past", today I added a slideshow to the left-hand sidebar of this blog site. The pictures, as far as I could tell, are for the most part from the initial US invasion of Afghanistan, in 2001. The source for these photos is: http://www.robert-fisk.com/, accessed 11/29/08.

However: it should be noted that that the site from which I got the pictures, is NOT, by its own admission Robert Fisk's official Website. It was created by a group of individuals who share Fisk's views. From their "About Us" page: "Please note that this is not Robert Fisk's official Website. He is neither connected to it in any way nor does he have an interest in it. This Website has been created by a group of individuals who share views of Robert Fisk. It is meant to provide easy access to his articles, reports and related material."

Fri., Nov. 21, 2008: Eau Claire's first Iraq Moratorium demonstration!

2008-11-24T13:09:00.011-06:00

I can say that Eau Claire's people for peace, including Voices For Peace Institute, had a successful "first run"! Through the course of the 2 hours (4pm to 6pm), Tom Ahrens (Voices For Peace Institute and also Iraq Moratorium representative) counted 30 total participants (i.e., this is not the greatest number of folks present at one time, but, rather, a total count of people who participated over the course of the two hours).

I'm very encouraged about this because we only had from Nov. 11 (the day after Steve Carlson's presentation at UWEC) to plan and promote. Thanks to Tom Ahrens as well as two other participants, we have some photos! Also: see a write-up about us under "Eau Claire", at: http://iraqmoratoriumwis.blogspot.com/2008/11/reports-from-field-nov-21-actions.html

1:9:1

2008-11-13T16:36:00.003-06:00

The other night when meeting with friends we were talking on how to reach people who are not necessarily against this war. One friend brought up a very interesting point. Most people think of wars in terms of the way wars were once fought, not the way that modern warfare has evolved.

Back in "conventional" wars like WW1 and WWII the ratio of for civilian to soldier death was about 1 civilian for every nine soldiers. In this era of modern wars with smart bombs, shock and awe etc. the ratio is more like 9 civilians to each soldiers death. Today's wars are creating enemies in far larger numbers than we can kill them.

Reason enough for me to rethink how we choose to handle our international issues!

-saw-

I took the pledge today!

2008-11-06T13:36:00.006-06:00

That is, the Iraq Moratorium Pledge... I went to http://www.iraqmoratorium.com/, and made it official!

"I hereby make a commitment that, on the Third Friday of every month, I will break my daily routine and take some action, by myself or with others, to end the War in Iraq."

Besides also participating in group actions, with others in Eau Claire WI (and environs) who have also taken the pledge, I'm looking forward to doing stuff on the individual level, too!
Some ideas for individual actions can be seen at: http://www.iraqmoratorium.com/indiv_actions.htm

"Real Change Trickles Up"

2008-10-24T13:44:00.005-05:00

I was both challenged and inspired by an Oct. 18 post on Huffington Post called "Real Change Trickles Up", by Eugene Jarecki - (see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eugene-jarecki/real-change-trickles-up_b_135822.html)In the post, Jarecki opens by writing:

"I'm compelled to remind myself amid this economic emergency that crises can indeed be therapeutic. When the body politic of the American system takes a shock like that currently affecting the country, pain, as it were, can lead to gain. But only in the right circumstances. What are these? And what can we do in November and beyond to reap any benefit from the problems we face?"

He further writes:
"...we all implicitly know that real change - like economic prosperity -- is not trickle-down; it comes from below, requiring massive investment and sacrifice by everyday people that goes far beyond the effort of casting a ballot. Don't get me wrong. Voting is essential. But unless we see our vote as part of a commitment to involve ourselves consistently and unrelentingly in the political process, our vote is wasted."
(Read Jarecki's full post to find out more about why).

I confess that for many, many years of my life, I pretty much saw "voting" as the biggest thing I could do to participate in the political process (aside from running for public office, which I never did).

Jarecki further writes:
"To be fair, modern life is hectic and leaves us little time to attend to even the most basic elements of health and survival, let alone the kind of far-reaching effort needed to reform a nation from below. Yet I would argue that we all have our own version of spending amounts of wasted time watching American Idol, NFL highlights, or aimlessly surfing eBay. And so long as we have the time for such pursuits, we don't have the luxury at this critical historic crossroads not to take the time to devote to the health of our republic. Our survival as a people and as a majestic idea in the history of the world is at stake. But what can any one of us do?"
(Again, read the full post to find out what his answer is).

For my part, I'd say that what Jarecki writes is really "where the rubber meets the road" for any of us, myself included. It's not that no one should take time out for relaxation, fun, etc. There is a legitimate place in our lives, I think, for just "wasting time" as part of refreshing and re-charging ourselves. Having said this, I am in the process of taking a hard look at my own life to ascertain how I can help contribute to CHANGE in my country, and assessing how much time investment that will take, after legitimate, reasonable needs for spending time on relaxation are met. I dare say every American should make this same self-examination. Jarecki is, I think, exactly right in what I think he's trying to communicate: most Americans, on most days, do little to nothing to educate themselves on what's going on in their country --in terms of social and/or political challenges-- much less take ACTION about these. I myself spent the vast portion of my life up until now in the same condition.

I have found that it's very important to take the necessary time to first educate myself as a necessary pre-condition to talking to others (to influence or change their views). Sometimes, this can take many hours. A few examples: trying to figure out not only whether the United Nations Security Council did or did not authorize the United States' invasion of Afghanistan, but when? (Can I just call or email the UN?) Or, understanding the S.O.F.A. (Status of Forces Agreement) in Iraq, and what that means for America's future; learning how the way the US military is conducting it's "war on terror" in Afghanistan affects civilians in that ravaged country. I have found that even with the internet, educating myself about these things takes time and patience. After becoming educated comes the necessary task of trying persuade my legislators to do the right thing and to persuade my fellow Americans to persuade THEIR legislators to do the right thing.

If any of us who are average citizens who care about influencing the way the public thinks, and then influencing how politicians act, cannot or will not take the time for stuff like this, I don't know how we can expect to see real, lasting "change".

Hello!

2008-10-23T14:31:00.002-05:00

Hello fellow blog-readers! My name is Joe and I am a member of the Voices for Peace Institute in Eau Claire, WI. I work with Lou and we live in the same neighborhood. The Voices for Peace Institute has a simple mission: to lead our neighbors to the belief that we do not need war to solve our problems. I think this is a pretty simple idea.

The two wars we're engaged in right now are quagmires in their own rights. Ending them responsibly will require serious thought, and hopefully President Obama will take some time, along with diplomats, leaders, and military advisors, and plan our exit strategy carefully. I think war is a lot like a stab wound: the knife cuts on its way in and on its way out.

Ending the war has to be a bipartisan solution. This does not mean bending over and accepting all options. It means that we're going to have to find the middle way. What that way is, I don't know. But we are reaping the consequences for our thoughtless actions right now, in the form of blood from all sides. Neither side wants more bloodshed. Neither side wants the spectre of losing a war. Finding a way to balance those two tenets will be a challenge, but it can be and will be done. Someday, I hope to tell my future children about these wars, in the hopes that they will stand with me in opposing the next military blunder that we're getting goaded into.

FCNL - "President Bush Asserts Right to Control Iraqi Oil"

2008-10-22T21:07:00.005-05:00

In an Oct. 16 press release the Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL) wrote:

"President George W. Bush this week rejected a Congressional effort to bar the U. S. military from controlling Iraq’s oil resources.

Before signing a bill authorizing military funding earlier this week, the president issued a 'signing statement', saying that he would not be bound by a provision in the bill prohibiting expenditure of funds “to exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq" (see http://www.fcnl.org/press/releases/oilcontrol101608.htm).

The FCNL's online aforementioned press release provided a link to said signing statement (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/10/20081014-8.html), as well as the language of the the legislation (http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_id=3431&issue_id=35).

I was struck, in reading the signing statement, how oblique it was (you'll have to read it for yourself to see what I mean), and yet, the import of it seems to be that even though Congress' defense spending bill, in terms of military spending in Iraq, prohibits using the funds for the purposes of exercising "United States control of the oil resources of Iraq" this is understood by those who know about these things (such as the FCNL) to in fact mean something like: "Though you, Congress, have passed this legislation, and have made specific requirements about the use of the military funding it authorizes", I, as President of the United States, don't have to be bound by this or that requirement that appears in the spending authorization, if I believe it could inhibit my doing what I need to do, as President."

The statement is, as I've said, not nearly so straightforward, though. Rather, it's as if the President is afraid to come right out and say, in terms anyone could understand: "I'm not going to obey Congress in this", but in fact, he won't obey, and says so, but does it in a way reminiscent of Bilbo Baggins' farewell speech, in which he tells his well-wishers: "I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

I have heard from many that President Bush has done many, many "signing statements" (upwards of 1000?), and indeed I only learned what the import of a "signing statement" by a President is, during the Bush administration.

As someone living in west-central Wisconsin; the part of these United States which Sarah Palin probably considers part of the "real America", the part of this country in which Palin would likely say that "they grow good people", I am baffled by the whole concept of "signing statements". Really. I mean, isn't the whole purpose of Congress to do things like pass stuff like spending authorizations for the military?

How can it be that the President will just say: "I'm not going to follow the will of the American people as expressed by legislation passed by people Americans have elected to do things exactly like pass legislation about military funding and HOW that funding is to be used?

Voices For Peace 2008 Pictures

2008-10-21T06:53:00.005-05:00