Dan Pearson & Kathy Kelly: The rotten fruits of war

By Dan Pearson and Kathy Kelly
October 22, 2009

Five months ago, shortly after the Pakistani government had begun a military offensive against suspected Taliban fighters in the northernmost area of the country, we arrived in Islamabad, the capital, as part of a small delegation organized by Voices for Creative Nonviolence.

Our initial travel plans had focused on learning more about civilian suffering caused by U.S. drone attacks. But, over the course of our three-week visit, close to 3 million people had become uprooted by violence in the Swat Valley and neighboring districts. Visiting tent encampments and abandoned buildings to which people had fled, we spoke with people who identified themselves as poor people, with meager resources, who were anxious to return to their homes as soon as possible. They were also alarmed because they feared that their crops, animals, shops and stores were already destroyed.

Now that the military offensive in Swat has wound down, Pakistan’s government officials have labeled the operation a success. They claim to have cleared the area of Taliban fighters and have commenced a new military offensive in South Waziristan.

A closer look reveals a very different story.

Many families from Swat and surrounding districts returned to find that their homes, crops and other means of survival have been damaged or destroyed. Such circumstances force many to rely heavily on food aid. According to Amjad Jamal, a spokesperson for the World Food Program (WFP), “around 2.4 million displaced people received aid from the WFP food hubs last month.”

The WFP announced today that they are temporarily closing 20 food hubs in the North West Frontier Province citing concerns of worsening security.

Reporting from a Pakistani field hospital run by the International Committee of the Red Cross, the BBC met with scores of victims wounded by land mine explosions. The father of a 14 year old boy whose hands were blown off while he was playing with a piece of unexploded ordnance expressed anger over the government’s failure to remove the land mines before telling people it was safe to return. The father worked as a jeweler before the military offensive began, but after he and his family fled the fighting, his shop was looted; now he has no income, and his home was damaged in the shelling.

The BBC also reported that more than 200 corpses, believed to be bodies of suspected Taliban, have been found across the valley in recent weeks. Pakistan's independent Human Rights Commission has called for an investigation into reports of numerous extra-judicial killings and reprisals carried out by security forces.

Dr. Aasim Sajjad, a professor at the Lahore University of Management Sciences, believes that the Taliban’s numbers will grow as a result of Pakistan’s military offensives. “The hundreds of thousands languishing in refugee camps talk of the mortar shells that have destroyed their homes and killed their relatives,” says Dr. Sajjad. “They seethe with anger and warn the government that most Taliban fighters hail from the local population. The longer the war continues -- and it has only just begun in this region -- the better the chances that the Taliban will be able to recruit from the refugees.” (Monthly Review “War, Islamists and the Left,” July 7, 2009)

Yesterday’s deadly suicide bombing at the Islamic University in Islamabad was the latest in a series of the Taliban’s recent reprisal attacks against the Pakistani government that have claimed the lives of over 150 people.

Military offensives that promise to smash or eradicate “the bad guys” may accomplish short-term “successes” by locking up or killing armed resisters and promising that the military will provide peace and security. But military establishments aren’t set up to address the long-term, desperate grievances that afflict impoverished people and give rise to support for militant groups of resisters.

According to conservative estimates, 75% of Pakistan's population of 170 million lives on less than $2 a day. The majority of Pakistanis yearn for food security, clean water, a livelihood that can sustain their families and education that will help their children break out of impoverishment. Young men who are jobless, shut out of education are resentful of social structures that favor wealthy landowners and other elites and they are drawn to
Taliban groups that promise a Robin Hood sort of redistribution. These Taliban groups have been dealt a temporary setback by the military offensive, but the fundamental problems of hunger, lack of clean water, illiteracy and joblessness haven’t been tackled.

Meanwhile, U.S. drone attacks continue, in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. Using “eyes in the skies” by piloting Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, (UAVs or drones), the U.S. analysts can see and attack suspected Taliban or Al Qaida fighters, along with anyone else who might happen to be in the vicinity. But the UAVs won’t help us understand the acute need for humanitarian relief, diplomacy, negotiation and dialogue in a region already overwhelmed by attacks, counter-attacks, bloodshed and death.

Whether it is in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq or even in the U.S., as we've seen in recent years, war takes its heaviest toll on the poorest. It is a profound mistake to believe that military force is a solid foundation for peace.

-----
Kathy Kelly (Kathy@vcnv.org) and Dan Pearson (dan@vcnv.org) are co-coordinators of Voices for Creative Nonviolence. a WNPJ member group. With colleagues in Chicago, they are organizing the Peaceable Assembly Campaign to nonviolently resist U.S. wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as military support for the Israeli military.

Dan Kenney: Is a "Blackwater Wannabe" coming to a town near you?

Many “Blackwater wannabes” have been sprouting up around the country this past year. Proposed large private training centers have been brought to my attention from California, Ohio, Michigan, Virginia, and Florida. The one in Ohio was defeated by citizens. The ones in California and Virginia are still being fought.

The proposed 7,700 acre Eagle National Training Center that was under consideration near Venus Florida has for now been turned down on their attempt to secure zoning changes. The Highland County commissioners voted unanimously to not approve the requested zoning variances.

Opponents of the proposed private military and security training facility turned out in large numbers to speak out against the project. The citizens filled the meeting room and more waited outside. The meeting lasted for over 12 hours. It is unclear if the security center is a dead deal, the developer, Greg Eagle of the Ft. Meyers area isn’t saying. There is a good chance that it is and credit must go to the opponents who worked quickly and with determination to stop it.
The developers made many concessions to try and when over the local residents like giving up plans for a 6,000 foot runway and firing of large guns. But the citizens were not swayed. Many of the citizens voiced concern that Eagle was just purchasing the land but then would lease it to Blackwater (now known as Xe.)

But because Eagle lost this round it does not mean the fight is over. Eagle could come back in six months with a revised plan to try and fit into the present zoning requirements. Also De Soto County, one hour from Highlands, has let it be known that if Highlands didn’t want the training center they would take it. The promise of 1,000 jobs that Eagle has put out is very tempting in the present economic environment.

Also watch for another Eagle Training Center that may be coming to a neighborhood near you. According to a 10 year business plan that was submitted to the commissioners Eagle, following in Blackwater’s footsteps, plans to create twenty additional satellite training installations nationally. Their plan was to make the Florida location a headquarters. Their plan also included the training of foreign soldiers and police. It also mentioned the possibility of “flipping the property” to a larger private training company such as Blackwater.

It seems that many have seen the huge profits that companies like Blackwater, Triple Canopy, DynCorp, and others are making and have decided it is time to join them at the U.S. government privatization feeding trough.

Be on the watch for a private military security company near your home town.

Dan Kenney is a contact for WNPJ member group DeKalb Interfaith Network for Peace and Justice and frequently does public speaking on the subject of private military contractors for the group No Private Armies.

Steve Burns: The strategy behind "Bring the Guard Home - It's the Law!"

"Bring the Guard Home - It's the Law!" is a national campaign, now active in more than 20 states, that is raising a legal challenge to the Federal Government's use of our National Guard troops for deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. In Wisconsin, the campaign is promoting AB 203, a bill in the Wisconsin state assembly which would give the Governor the authority to examine the legality of any federal order for deployment of the Wisconsin National Guard and to challenge in court any orders determined to be unlawful. I'm excited about this campaign because I see it as the beginning of a much larger national movement that is asking the long-overdue question: "Who decides about war?" This was the title of a recent conference in Washington D.C. that brought together grassroots peace activists and legal and constitutional scholars to ask one of the most fundamental questions we can ask, as citizens of a nation that claims to be a democracy.

Just take a look at our current situation: The United States exists in a permanent state of war, can even be said to be addicted to war, and all decision-making about the question of war has now been placed in the hands of one man: the President. Whatever we think of the current occupant of that office, this is clearly a dangerous, unhealthy and undemocratic state of affairs.

And yet who is pushing back against the idea of one-man rule on questions of war and peace? Certainly not Congress. Here's Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, after a recent meeting of Congressional "leaders" with President Obama about Afghanistan:

"The one thing that I thought was interesting was that everyone, Democrats and Republicans, said whatever decision you make, we’ll support it basically," said Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader.

But that's really just a continuation of Congress' supine behavior over the past eight years. Congress no longer even bothers to declare war, even though it is the only body given authority by the constitution to do that. Instead, it passes "Authorizations for Use of Military Force" which are either based on blatant falsehoods, like the Iraqi Authorization, or are an unconstitutional abdication of Congressional war-making powers to the President, as with the Afghanistan Authorization, which says, in effect, "You go wherever you think you need to go, and for as long as you need to, Mr. President, in pursuit of the people who did 9/11, and we'll just sit here and sign the checks."

If Congress is worse than useless, what other centers of power in this country might be mobilized in opposition to the permanent-war state?

There is popular opposition, of course, and the peace movement has proved remarkably successful in building public opposition in the face of an almost complete blackout of pro-peace voices in the corporate media. When you read, for example, that 57% of Americans now oppose the Afghanistan war, remember that this shift in opinion happened even though Americans have never seen a single person on their televisions calling for withdrawal from Afghanistan. Clearly, the American people are capable of making up their own minds even while they swim in a sea of government propaganda, and the peace movement can take a large share of credit for that.

There is also opposition within the uniformed military. Iraq Veterans Against the War has helped to amplify the voices of antiwar vets like Camilo Mejia, and, as Dahr Jamail reports in his new book, "The Will to Resist", even soldiers who do not go public with their opposition are engaging in lower-level resistance through "search and avoid" missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, choosing to park their vehicles and radio in reports of "patrols" while avoiding contact with the resistance.

And let's not forget the resistance by youth, parents and educators against military recruiters in schools and elsewhere. Although the recruiters are now reaping the benefits of an economic collapse and widespread joblessness and are currently meeting their quotas, counter-recruitment can, over the long term, help to choke off the supply of warm bodies needed to fuel the war machine.

But we, as a peace movement, would not be doing our jobs if we did not explore every center of power and its potential for anti-war resistance. And that takes us back to "Bring the Guard Home - It's the Law!" The military has become increasingly dependent on the National Guard, especially for the logistical tasks that make war-fighting possible, and authority for the National Guard is not granted exclusively to the Federal government. It is shared by the States and the Feds, in a complex arrangement that raises numerous legal questions - and opportunities. Can we, joining with activists in more than 20 states, turn our state legislatures into centers of opposition to the misuse of the Guard? I don't claim to know the answer to that question, but I think that a peace movement that doesn't explore this option is leaving one of the most important "pillars of war" untouched.

But can AB 203 pass the legislature? At our first legislative lobby day in support of AB 203, one legislative aide told us, "There are a thousand bills introduced in the legislature every session." That's a daunting statistic, to be sure, but it also clarifies our task: Through constituent phone calls and meetings, we must raise our one bill above the sea of a thousand bills, so that it first becomes one of the hundred bills that your legislator has actually heard of, and then one of the few dozen bills that your legislator will vote for. Still discouraged? Ask yourself: How many bills have citizens roaming the halls of the Capitol on their behalf? Ours does, and whether our bill succeeds on what we do, including how many of us make the trip to Madison for the October 20 lobby day in support of AB 203.

But will any Governor use the authority given by AB 203 to withhold the Guard? As with the question about whether AB 203 will pass the legislature, the answer depends on us. I can easily imagine, if AB 203 becomes law, a thousand pro-peace citizens (or thousands, even) surrounding the Capitol, demanding that the Governor do the right - and legally proper - thing and refuse the next deployment order to send more of Wisconsin's Guard to Iraq or Afghanistan. When that happens, it will be because those citizens have been provided with an opportunity to protest, closer to home and directed at a target that's more subject to pressure than Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, or Barack Obama, and because the Governor has lost an excuse for inaction that he once enjoyed. This is why it's a mistake to see the campaign for AB 203 in opposition to other tactics, such as street protests. Done strategically, a legislative campaign can create opportunities for protest and raise the level of popular interest in street protest.

Clearly, peace movement activity is now at a low ebb. Some cite the "Obama effect", some note that other issues, such as health care, have drawn away the interest of politically active people. These explanations all contain a grain of truth, but the peace movement also needs to examine the types of activities it is promoting, and constantly assess our strategies and tactics and search for new strategies when the old ones clearly aren't working. "Bring the Guard Home - It's the Law!" is one of the new strategies we should be exploring. Whether it leads anywhere depends, at least in part, on us.

Steve Burns: “Has the peace movement hit the wall?”

“Has the peace movement hit the wall?” was the title of a recent newspaper story by Rochester, NY reporter Tim Louis Macaluso, and the picture Mr. Macaluso painted wasn’t encouraging. Everyone from Rochester peace activist Doug Noble - who asked, "Where are the protests? Where is the outrage?" - to national figures such as Paul Kawika Martin, national political director Peace Action, agreed that the peace movement is at a low ebb.

What’s the situation in Wisconsin? We shared Mr. Macaluso's article with participants at an anti-war/anti-militarism workshop at WNPJ’s annual assembly on October 3, and asked them for their responses to this question. Very quickly, WNPJ’s “intelligence network” kicked into action, providing a quick statewide survey of the state of Wisconsin’s peace movement, from Superior to Racine, from LaCrosse to Eagle River. The ideas and impressions flowed freely, and some themes emerged:

The “Obama effect”
Most agreed that it’s more difficult to get people to engage in antiwar activities today, and some cited the Obama presidency as a major factor. “I think many are taking a ‘wait and see’ approach to Obama,” said one, while another said, “I gave Obama the benefit of the doubt, now I'm questioning that.”

“The time of the rally is over”
Another common sentiment was dissatisfaction with the traditional methods of protest offered by the peace movement, including rallies and vigils. From Milwaukee: “The time of the rally is over,” and from Eagle River, “We need more activity than just standing on the corner.”

Too much on our plates?
One participant from Richland Center noted that “Obama has a lot on his plate, with economic crisis and health care,” and the same could be said of peace and justice activists. The economic crisis and the debate over issues ranging from health care to climate change have drawn public attention away from war. How can the peace movement shift attention back to our issues? Or should that be our goal? Are there ways in which we can ally with activists in other movements? From Iowa County: “I see a waning in energy, but also new creativity in connecting issues, for example, by looking at the ‘carbon footprint’ of war.”

Thinking long term
These days, we may not be used to seeing the words “success” and “peace movement” in the same sentence, but one participant from LaCrosse asked, “How do we measure the successes of the peace movement? We may not see our successes until we’re many years down the road.” Others encouraged a long view, for example, from Mt. Horeb: “The peace movement shouldn't be on an election cycle. We need a steady effort, in all years.” From Madison: “I’ve seen 50 years of ups and downs in the peace movement, but peace has never enjoyed such broad public support as it does today.”

Breaking free of the Democrats
Even though Obama may still get the “benefit of the doubt” from some, dissatisfaction with Congressional Democrats – and the Democratic Party in general – was strongly felt. From Madison: “Democrats used the antiwar movement to get elected,” and from Duluth: “The more serious wing of the peace movement is regrouping around a call for a movement that is independent of the Democrats,” citing the National Assembly and the March 20 protests in D.C. and San Francisco organized by ANSWER as examples of “independent” actions and organizations.

Be the change you want to see
Several participants drew a distinction between the protest-oriented activities we usually encourage people to take part in, and making deeper changes to ones own life and community. From Onalaska: “There's an important difference between peace protest and living peaceably.” And, from Mosinee: “In the Oneida nation, peace has a different meaning, it’s not about rallies.” And, from Madison: “Peace is not just the absence of war, but the peace movement focuses all of its activities on opposition to war. We need activities to create good citizens, by working with kids.”

Signs of hope
A recent poll showing 57% of Americans opposed to the war in Afghanistan was cited as a positive sign, and from La Crosse: “I've never had such a good time as we're having now, and I’ve never seen such public support for peace message. Recently, a contingent of uniformed soldiers came up us at the Vets for Peace vigil to thank us for what we were doing.”

Next steps
So how do we translate that public opposition to the war into a change in policy? How do we move the majority of Americans who now oppose the war to take action, either against the Iraq and Afghanistan wars specifically or against militarism generally? Four specific suggestions for action came forward:

• October 17 nationwide actions against the Afghanistan war and March 20 protests in D.C. and San Francisco against the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
• The “Bring the Guard Home – It’s the Law!” campaign to challenge federal use of the Wisconsin Guard in Iraq and Afghanistan.
• The “Options” counter-recruitment program to help Wisconsin high school counselors inform their students of peaceful alternatives to military service.
• A campaign by Tom Hayden and Progressive Democrats of America to oppose war funding.

Lee Brown: Stop the War Stimulus

Stop the $625.8 billion War Stimulus Bill now moving through Congress! Congress must reject the $625.8 billion 2010 Defense Budget because…

1. The War Stimulus Bill funds the Afghanistan War. Approximately $128.2 billion of the total is for conducting the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq through September 2010. For very convincing reasons the majority of Americans oppose continuing these wars.

2. The War Stimulus Bill funds projects causing Global Climate Change. Last April the WASHINGTON POST reported that the Department of Defense is the largest consumer of energy in the United States. (1) Bruce E. Johansen, an expert on the causes of Global Warming, documents “The Carbon Footprint of War.” His evidence includes these facts: “The U.S. armed forces consume about 14 million gallons of oil per day, half of it in jet fuel. Humvees average 4 miles per gallon, while an Apache helicopter gets half a mile per gallon…The 68-ton Abrams Tank gets 0.8 miles per gallon…The business of the Pentagon is still war, and the making of war destroys the Earth.” (2)

3. The War Stimulus Bill makes possible manufacture of weapons for export. Last year the United States sold $37.8 billion worth of weapons around the world. (3) Being the world leader in selling armaments, you might say we are doing more than any other nation to encourage war around the world!

The most serious threat to the whole world is Global Climate Change which has recently caused death and destruction in Taiwan, Istanbul, western equatorial Africa, southeastern U.S., and Manila. Less dramatic than the flooding caused by severe storms but also deadly are the droughts confronting Darfur, Iraq and eastern Africa.

Instead of a War Stimulus Bill, the United States should be passing a Green Jobs Stimulus Bill. We citizens must insist that the U.S. Congress changes its first priority from death to life.

Lee Brown is a WNPJ member and a member of United Nations Association - Wisconsin