VFP-111 Monthly Chapter Meeting
WHEN: Friday, January 18, 6 p.m.
WHERE: Bellingham Food Co-Op Connections Building*
405 E. Holly St, Room 103
*(Small bakery conference room)
WHEN: Friday, January 18, 6 p.m.
WHERE: Bellingham Food Co-Op Connections Building*
405 E. Holly St, Room 103
*(Small bakery conference room)
VFP-111 Once Again Co-Sponsors MLK Conference
The Hypocrisy of the 'Liberal' Foreign Policy Establishment Knows No Bounds
by Maj. Danny Jsursen
January 8, 2019
This piece originally appeared on Antiwar.com.
If anyone else were president, the “liberals” would be celebrating. After all, pulling American soldiers out of a couple of failing, endless wars seems like a “win” for progressives. Heck, if Obama did it there might be a ticker-tape parade down Broadway. And there should be. The intervention in Syria is increasingly aimless, dangerous and lacks an end state. Afghanistan is an unwinnable war – America’s longest – and about to end in outright military defeat. Getting out now and salvaging so much national blood and treasure ought to be a progressive dream.
There’s only one problem: Donald Trump. Specifically, that it was Trump who gave the order to begin the troop withdrawals.
Lost in the haze of their pathological hatred of President Trump, the majority of mainstream liberal pundits and politicians can’t, for the life of them, see the good sense in extracting the troops from a couple Mideast quagmires. That or they can see the positives, but, in their obsessive compulsion to smear the president, choose politics over country. It’s probably a bit of both. That’s how tribally partisan American political discourse has become. And, how reflexively hawkish and interventionist today’s mainstream Democrats now are. Whither the left-wing antiwar movement? Well, except for a few diehards out there, the movement seems to have been buried long ago with George McGovern.
Make no mistake, the Democrats have been tacking to the right on foreign policy and burgeoning their tough-guy-interventionist credentials for decades now. Terrified of being painted as soft or dovish on martial matters, just about all the “serious” baby-boomer Dems proudly co-opted the militarist line and gladly accepted campaign cash from the corporate arms dealers. Think about it, any Democrat with serious future presidential aspirations back in 2002 voted for the Iraq War – Hillary, Joe Biden, even former peace activist John Kerry! And, in spite of the party base now moving to the left, all these big name hawks – along with current Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer – are still Democratic stalwarts. Heck, some polls list Biden as the party’s 2020 presidential frontrunner.
More disturbing than the inconsistency of these political hacks is the vacuousness of the supposedly liberal media. After Trump’s announcement of troop withdrawals, just about every MSNBC host slammed the president and suddenly sounded more hawkish than the clowns over at Fox News. Take Rachel Maddow. Whatever you think of her politics, she is – undoubtedly – a brilliant woman. Furthermore, unlike most pundits, she knows a little something about foreign policy. Her 2012 book, Drift: The Unmooring of American Military Power was a serious and well-researched critique of executive power and the ongoing failure of the wars on terror. Drift was well reviewed by regular readers and scholars alike.
Enter Donald Trump. Ever since the man won the 2016 election, Maddow’s nightly show has been dominated the hopeless dream of Russia-collusion and a desire for Trump’s subsequent impeachment. Admittedly, Maddow’s anti-Trump rhetoric isn’t completely unfounded – this author, after all, has spent the better part of two years criticizing most of his policies – but her zealousness has clouded her judgment, or worse. Indeed, that Maddow, and her fellow “liberals” at MSNBC have now criticized the troop withdrawals and even paraded a slew of disgraced neoconservatives – like Bill Kristol – on their shows seems final proof of their descent into opportunistic hawkishness.
Read complete article on Antiwar.com.
by Maj. Danny Jsursen
January 8, 2019
This piece originally appeared on Antiwar.com.
If anyone else were president, the “liberals” would be celebrating. After all, pulling American soldiers out of a couple of failing, endless wars seems like a “win” for progressives. Heck, if Obama did it there might be a ticker-tape parade down Broadway. And there should be. The intervention in Syria is increasingly aimless, dangerous and lacks an end state. Afghanistan is an unwinnable war – America’s longest – and about to end in outright military defeat. Getting out now and salvaging so much national blood and treasure ought to be a progressive dream.
There’s only one problem: Donald Trump. Specifically, that it was Trump who gave the order to begin the troop withdrawals.
Lost in the haze of their pathological hatred of President Trump, the majority of mainstream liberal pundits and politicians can’t, for the life of them, see the good sense in extracting the troops from a couple Mideast quagmires. That or they can see the positives, but, in their obsessive compulsion to smear the president, choose politics over country. It’s probably a bit of both. That’s how tribally partisan American political discourse has become. And, how reflexively hawkish and interventionist today’s mainstream Democrats now are. Whither the left-wing antiwar movement? Well, except for a few diehards out there, the movement seems to have been buried long ago with George McGovern.
Make no mistake, the Democrats have been tacking to the right on foreign policy and burgeoning their tough-guy-interventionist credentials for decades now. Terrified of being painted as soft or dovish on martial matters, just about all the “serious” baby-boomer Dems proudly co-opted the militarist line and gladly accepted campaign cash from the corporate arms dealers. Think about it, any Democrat with serious future presidential aspirations back in 2002 voted for the Iraq War – Hillary, Joe Biden, even former peace activist John Kerry! And, in spite of the party base now moving to the left, all these big name hawks – along with current Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer – are still Democratic stalwarts. Heck, some polls list Biden as the party’s 2020 presidential frontrunner.
More disturbing than the inconsistency of these political hacks is the vacuousness of the supposedly liberal media. After Trump’s announcement of troop withdrawals, just about every MSNBC host slammed the president and suddenly sounded more hawkish than the clowns over at Fox News. Take Rachel Maddow. Whatever you think of her politics, she is – undoubtedly – a brilliant woman. Furthermore, unlike most pundits, she knows a little something about foreign policy. Her 2012 book, Drift: The Unmooring of American Military Power was a serious and well-researched critique of executive power and the ongoing failure of the wars on terror. Drift was well reviewed by regular readers and scholars alike.
Enter Donald Trump. Ever since the man won the 2016 election, Maddow’s nightly show has been dominated the hopeless dream of Russia-collusion and a desire for Trump’s subsequent impeachment. Admittedly, Maddow’s anti-Trump rhetoric isn’t completely unfounded – this author, after all, has spent the better part of two years criticizing most of his policies – but her zealousness has clouded her judgment, or worse. Indeed, that Maddow, and her fellow “liberals” at MSNBC have now criticized the troop withdrawals and even paraded a slew of disgraced neoconservatives – like Bill Kristol – on their shows seems final proof of their descent into opportunistic hawkishness.
Read complete article on Antiwar.com.
Trump vs. the foreign policy establishment
SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images
President Trump arrives to speak to members of the US military during an unannounced trip to Al Asad Air Base in Iraq on Dec. 26.
Waging war to pacify the Greater Middle East hasn’t worked and won’t
by Andrew Bacevich
December 28, 2018
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.
I find myself haunted these days by Pete Seeger’s antiwar anthem of 1967, written when it had become evident to Seeger and many others (although not yet to me) that the United States was engaged in an enterprise certain to end in disaster and dishonor. The Big Muddy was Vietnam. The big fool committed to blindly pushing on was President Lyndon Baines Johnson.
Today Seeger’s lyrics possess an ironic resonance. The United States once more finds itself stuck in a perplexing military misadventure, this one dating from 2001 and known initially as the Global War on Terrorism. Once more we have a bona fide fool in the White House, one whose antics make LBJ look like a font of acumen and good sense.
Yet note the contradiction. In this instance, it’s the big fool who grasps the obvious: Waging war to pacify the Greater Middle East hasn’t worked and won’t. However unwittingly, President Trump has embraced Pete Seeger’s cause as his own.
Yet we have it from the nation’s putative “wise men” that the fool is dead wrong. Much as in 1967, members of the foreign policy establishment (today very much including women) say that the United States has no choice but to push on, no matter how dark the night or deep the water.
So when Trump recently announced his intention to withdraw US troops from Syria and cut in half the troop contingent in Afghanistan, reaction from across that establishment was swift, severe, and all but unanimous. Terminating lengthy wars in places of marginal importance to the United States, it turns out, represents the height of irresponsibility.
For Defense Secretary James Mattis, Trump’s announced intention to pull out of Syria was the last straw: He resigned (and was then unceremoniously fired). In an instant, Mattis — widely proclaimed as the last adult in the room — became the recipient of encomiums usually reserved for icons like George C. Marshall. With Mattis gone, it is said, the way is now clear for Trump to convert America First from provocation into policy.
We thus find ourselves at an interesting, and perhaps pivotal, moment in American history. At issue are the prerogatives of the commander-in-chief. Since World War II, those prerogatives have expanded exponentially, so much so that in practical terms the Congress has all but forfeited its war powers to the executive branch.
For decades now, presidents have used those powers to initiate, expand, and redefine armed conflicts more or less at will, Vietnam being only one example among many. Underlying this practice is an assumption: That the president, drawing on the expert advice of the foreign policy establishment, is uniquely situated to divine and to pursue the nation’s true interests. Especially in matters related to war, we the people, not to mention our elected representatives, are expected to respect his decisions.
Acting on that assumption finds the United States today mired in several armed conflicts that members of the establishment accept as more or less perpetual. In Syria, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, their inclination is to press on. Deeply invested in a militarized and interventionist conception of demonstrating global leadership, they will admit to no alternative.
The commander-in-chief begs to differ. Exercising prerogatives enjoyed by his predecessors, he appears determined to wind down conflicts he considers contrary to the nation’s interests. The big fool apparently thinks that interminable wars are a bad thing.
Trump’s conviction places him directly at odds with and also threatens the foreign policy establishment. After all, the status of that establishment derives from the claim that listening to the likes of James Mattis keeps America safe and strong. If presidents cease to listen, then the entire raison d’etre of that establishment, which is both unelected and unaccountable, collapses.
In that event, a genuine debate over America’s role in the world might ensue. Alternatives to the existing militarized and interventionist conception of national security policy just might become possible. This is what the foreign policy establishment fears most.
And that’s why it will fight tooth and nail to obstruct Trump’s efforts to end armed conflicts that he correctly sees as misguided. In establishment circles, the big fool’s opposition to foolish wars will become one more indication that he is unfit to serve.
by Andrew Bacevich
December 28, 2018
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.
I find myself haunted these days by Pete Seeger’s antiwar anthem of 1967, written when it had become evident to Seeger and many others (although not yet to me) that the United States was engaged in an enterprise certain to end in disaster and dishonor. The Big Muddy was Vietnam. The big fool committed to blindly pushing on was President Lyndon Baines Johnson.
Today Seeger’s lyrics possess an ironic resonance. The United States once more finds itself stuck in a perplexing military misadventure, this one dating from 2001 and known initially as the Global War on Terrorism. Once more we have a bona fide fool in the White House, one whose antics make LBJ look like a font of acumen and good sense.
Yet note the contradiction. In this instance, it’s the big fool who grasps the obvious: Waging war to pacify the Greater Middle East hasn’t worked and won’t. However unwittingly, President Trump has embraced Pete Seeger’s cause as his own.
Yet we have it from the nation’s putative “wise men” that the fool is dead wrong. Much as in 1967, members of the foreign policy establishment (today very much including women) say that the United States has no choice but to push on, no matter how dark the night or deep the water.
So when Trump recently announced his intention to withdraw US troops from Syria and cut in half the troop contingent in Afghanistan, reaction from across that establishment was swift, severe, and all but unanimous. Terminating lengthy wars in places of marginal importance to the United States, it turns out, represents the height of irresponsibility.
For Defense Secretary James Mattis, Trump’s announced intention to pull out of Syria was the last straw: He resigned (and was then unceremoniously fired). In an instant, Mattis — widely proclaimed as the last adult in the room — became the recipient of encomiums usually reserved for icons like George C. Marshall. With Mattis gone, it is said, the way is now clear for Trump to convert America First from provocation into policy.
We thus find ourselves at an interesting, and perhaps pivotal, moment in American history. At issue are the prerogatives of the commander-in-chief. Since World War II, those prerogatives have expanded exponentially, so much so that in practical terms the Congress has all but forfeited its war powers to the executive branch.
For decades now, presidents have used those powers to initiate, expand, and redefine armed conflicts more or less at will, Vietnam being only one example among many. Underlying this practice is an assumption: That the president, drawing on the expert advice of the foreign policy establishment, is uniquely situated to divine and to pursue the nation’s true interests. Especially in matters related to war, we the people, not to mention our elected representatives, are expected to respect his decisions.
Acting on that assumption finds the United States today mired in several armed conflicts that members of the establishment accept as more or less perpetual. In Syria, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, their inclination is to press on. Deeply invested in a militarized and interventionist conception of demonstrating global leadership, they will admit to no alternative.
The commander-in-chief begs to differ. Exercising prerogatives enjoyed by his predecessors, he appears determined to wind down conflicts he considers contrary to the nation’s interests. The big fool apparently thinks that interminable wars are a bad thing.
Trump’s conviction places him directly at odds with and also threatens the foreign policy establishment. After all, the status of that establishment derives from the claim that listening to the likes of James Mattis keeps America safe and strong. If presidents cease to listen, then the entire raison d’etre of that establishment, which is both unelected and unaccountable, collapses.
In that event, a genuine debate over America’s role in the world might ensue. Alternatives to the existing militarized and interventionist conception of national security policy just might become possible. This is what the foreign policy establishment fears most.
And that’s why it will fight tooth and nail to obstruct Trump’s efforts to end armed conflicts that he correctly sees as misguided. In establishment circles, the big fool’s opposition to foolish wars will become one more indication that he is unfit to serve.
Senators Vote To End U.S. Support For Saudis In Bloody Yemen War, Despite GOP Objections
Another resolution blames the Saudi crown prince for the death of Jamal Khashoggi — the first time any U.S. government entity has declared that publicly.
By Igor Bobic and Akbar Shahid Ahmed
Another resolution blames the Saudi crown prince for the death of Jamal Khashoggi — the first time any U.S. government entity has declared that publicly.
By Igor Bobic and Akbar Shahid Ahmed
Hani Mohammed/ASSOCIATED PRESS
A father gives water to his malnourished daughter at a feeding center in a hospital in Hodeida, Yemen. An international aid group says an estimated 85,000 children under age 5 may have died of hunger and disease since the outbreak of Yemen’s civil war in 2015.
12/13/18
WASHINGTON ― A slim majority of senators voted Thursday to end U.S. support for a Saudi Arabian military campaign in Yemen that has been blamed for tens of thousands of deaths and mass starvation. The vote provides the biggest rebuke yet of a three-year U.S. policy that the Trump administration says it has no plans to end.
The historic 56-41 vote on a resolution from Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) represents the first time the Senate has voted to end a U.S. military operation not approved by Congress. It’s also a major loss for the Saudis, who are already worried about mounting criticism in Washington over their government’s role in the murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi.
But the passage of the resolution is symbolic, at least for the moment. It will not legally require President Donald Trump to withdraw American intelligence and logistical assistance for the Saudi effort because the GOP has quashed attempts to pass similar bills in the House this session and, even if passage there was possible, Trump has already threatened to veto the resolution.
Read complete article in HuffPost.
WASHINGTON ― A slim majority of senators voted Thursday to end U.S. support for a Saudi Arabian military campaign in Yemen that has been blamed for tens of thousands of deaths and mass starvation. The vote provides the biggest rebuke yet of a three-year U.S. policy that the Trump administration says it has no plans to end.
The historic 56-41 vote on a resolution from Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) represents the first time the Senate has voted to end a U.S. military operation not approved by Congress. It’s also a major loss for the Saudis, who are already worried about mounting criticism in Washington over their government’s role in the murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi.
But the passage of the resolution is symbolic, at least for the moment. It will not legally require President Donald Trump to withdraw American intelligence and logistical assistance for the Saudi effort because the GOP has quashed attempts to pass similar bills in the House this session and, even if passage there was possible, Trump has already threatened to veto the resolution.
Read complete article in HuffPost.
Veterans For Peace Stands In Solidarity with Central American Asylum Seekers
November 30, 2018
Members of San Diego Veterans For Peace marched to the border with Tijuana, Mexico on Sunday, November 25, as part of a San Diego coalition expressing solidarity with and support for thousands of Central American asylum seekers. VFP members were on both sides of the border and joined in with a march of asylum seekers on the Mexican side. So we had a good look at the crisis which was contrived by the Trump administration to make it look like there was indeed an "invasion" of "criminals" and "terrorists."
A perfectly peaceful march turned into chaos when the legal entry point to where the asylum seekers were headed was closed off by Mexican authorities, presumably at the request of Homeland Security. When some marchers then surged toward the border wall, Customs and Border Protection (CPB) officers wasted no time in firing multiple CS (tear gas) canisters across the border into Mexico, causing great chaos as mothers fled with their choking children. As if on cue, U.S. authorities then totally shut down the busiest border crossing in North America, an exercise they had been practicing during the week. Soon Marine helicopters were landing on the railroad tracks next to the border, and Marines, apparently armed, were fanning out along the border fence. At the same time, 300 Army soldiers with shields and clubs stood menacingly behind CPB officers.
A number of arrests were reportedly made on both sides of the border. Curiously, the U.S. says the 46 people it arrested will not be prosecuted. Mexican police, who were noted for the low key presence and nonviolence during this contrived event, also reported arresting several dozen people whom they say will be deported back to their home countries in Central America (primarily Honduras, where government death squads and violent gangs await their return).
In the meantime, rains and a shortage of food and shelter for the asylum seekers in Tijuana are turning an already difficult into a serious humanitarian crisis. As many as one-third of the 6,000 or so asylum seekers are suffering from respiratory and other illnesses. Mexico's federal government has provided no aid, and the mayor of Tijuana says that the city can provide little further assistance.
NGO's on both sides of the border are doing what they can to help, but so far their efforts are insufficient. The Unified U.S. Deported Veterans chapter of Veterans For Peace has also been helping asylum seekers who are camped out at the border, only about a half-block from their office. The Deported Veterans have experience with this, as they have helped previous caravans of asylum seekers as well. They are supplying food, water, blankets, and now seek to provide much needed tarps. San Diego VFP is helping out with this. Ultimately, they would like to provide backpacks filled with essential items.
Most needed are dollars, which can be used to purchase essential items in Mexico.
You can donate directly through a special link on the VFP website. Just indicate that your donation is for the asylum seekers.
VFP members who work with the Deported Veterans to assist the asylum seekers will be welcomed in Tijuana. San Diego Veterans For Peace will also be participating in a series of solidarity actions at the border, along with immigration justice groups, human rights groups, churches, peace groups and the Poor People's Campaign. VFP members will also be reaching out to soldiers and Marines to let them know they will have our support if they refuse to obey immoral or illegal orders.
Tucson Veterans For Peace will be part of a coalition of groups who will protest outside the Davis-Monthan Airforce Base in Tucson (Saturday, Dec. 1, 9-11 am) that is also housing Army troops that Trump has deployed to the border.
There are also discussions about organizing a Christmas holiday vigil outside the children's detention center at El Paso, Texas. All of these plans are in formation. VFP members who are interested in joining border actions in California, Arizona or Texas should email Gerry Condon at gerrycondon@veteransforpeace.org or phone him at 206-499-1220.
Members of San Diego Veterans For Peace marched to the border with Tijuana, Mexico on Sunday, November 25, as part of a San Diego coalition expressing solidarity with and support for thousands of Central American asylum seekers. VFP members were on both sides of the border and joined in with a march of asylum seekers on the Mexican side. So we had a good look at the crisis which was contrived by the Trump administration to make it look like there was indeed an "invasion" of "criminals" and "terrorists."
A perfectly peaceful march turned into chaos when the legal entry point to where the asylum seekers were headed was closed off by Mexican authorities, presumably at the request of Homeland Security. When some marchers then surged toward the border wall, Customs and Border Protection (CPB) officers wasted no time in firing multiple CS (tear gas) canisters across the border into Mexico, causing great chaos as mothers fled with their choking children. As if on cue, U.S. authorities then totally shut down the busiest border crossing in North America, an exercise they had been practicing during the week. Soon Marine helicopters were landing on the railroad tracks next to the border, and Marines, apparently armed, were fanning out along the border fence. At the same time, 300 Army soldiers with shields and clubs stood menacingly behind CPB officers.
A number of arrests were reportedly made on both sides of the border. Curiously, the U.S. says the 46 people it arrested will not be prosecuted. Mexican police, who were noted for the low key presence and nonviolence during this contrived event, also reported arresting several dozen people whom they say will be deported back to their home countries in Central America (primarily Honduras, where government death squads and violent gangs await their return).
In the meantime, rains and a shortage of food and shelter for the asylum seekers in Tijuana are turning an already difficult into a serious humanitarian crisis. As many as one-third of the 6,000 or so asylum seekers are suffering from respiratory and other illnesses. Mexico's federal government has provided no aid, and the mayor of Tijuana says that the city can provide little further assistance.
NGO's on both sides of the border are doing what they can to help, but so far their efforts are insufficient. The Unified U.S. Deported Veterans chapter of Veterans For Peace has also been helping asylum seekers who are camped out at the border, only about a half-block from their office. The Deported Veterans have experience with this, as they have helped previous caravans of asylum seekers as well. They are supplying food, water, blankets, and now seek to provide much needed tarps. San Diego VFP is helping out with this. Ultimately, they would like to provide backpacks filled with essential items.
Most needed are dollars, which can be used to purchase essential items in Mexico.
You can donate directly through a special link on the VFP website. Just indicate that your donation is for the asylum seekers.
VFP members who work with the Deported Veterans to assist the asylum seekers will be welcomed in Tijuana. San Diego Veterans For Peace will also be participating in a series of solidarity actions at the border, along with immigration justice groups, human rights groups, churches, peace groups and the Poor People's Campaign. VFP members will also be reaching out to soldiers and Marines to let them know they will have our support if they refuse to obey immoral or illegal orders.
Tucson Veterans For Peace will be part of a coalition of groups who will protest outside the Davis-Monthan Airforce Base in Tucson (Saturday, Dec. 1, 9-11 am) that is also housing Army troops that Trump has deployed to the border.
There are also discussions about organizing a Christmas holiday vigil outside the children's detention center at El Paso, Texas. All of these plans are in formation. VFP members who are interested in joining border actions in California, Arizona or Texas should email Gerry Condon at gerrycondon@veteransforpeace.org or phone him at 206-499-1220.
Community Celebrates 100th Armistice Day
Veterans for Peace and allies stand across from the Church of Assumption in silence
By Alexia Suarez
November 14, 2018
Veterans for Peace and allies stand across from the Church of Assumption in silence
By Alexia Suarez
November 14, 2018
Photo by Alexia Suarez
The bells at the Church of Assumption in downtown Bellingham rang 11 times at 11 a.m. on Sunday, November 11. Their slow, rhythmic beats commemorated the 100th anniversary of Armistice Day. Local activist organization Veterans for Peace and Armistice Day supporters stood in silence across the street, flags for peace waving in the crisp autumn air.
The first Armistice Day at the eleventh hour on the eleventh day of November 1918 signaled the halt of World War I and the start of a new era of peace, said Stan Parker, Army veteran and a member of the Veterans for Peace Board of Directors.
The Bellingham celebration was organized by the Veterans for Peace Chapter 111. Among them was Gene Marx, a Vietnam Navy veteran and Veterans for Peace local communication coordinator.
“I’d like people to realize Armistice Day’s original intent was to venerate peace; this was supposedly the war to end all wars,” Marx said. “And as it turns out, it was the war that ended all peace.”
Parker said he came to the rally in remembrance of those who lost their lives in war and also those affected by war. His call-to-action: war is not the answer to the problems of the world.
“There was a time in the world’s history when we really believed we could have world peace, where war was not the answer, and world peace was possible,” Parker said.
Today, Armistice Day is celebrated in countries across the world. Across the Canadian border on Sunday, crowds of citizens wore red poppy pins as they gathered. The flower is a symbol of remembrance of the emotional and physical expenses of war. The United States made the decision to replace Armistice Day with Veterans Day in 1968, even moving the holiday to a Monday to encourage commerce, according to the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Lisa Distler, whose late husband, Bill Distler, was a Vietnam veteran and a founding member of Veterans for Peace, said the message of Armistice Day is one simply of peace; to put one’s arms down and come to an agreement that we as humans shouldn’t kill one another to solve our issues. She believes the newer U.S.-coined holiday has lost that message.
She said Veterans Day glorifies the act of going to war which is counterproductive to having a more inclusive and peaceful world, or recognizing the trauma that violence can inflict.
Daniel Kirkpatrick describes himself as a lifelong pacifist who comes from a long line of pacifists. His father was a conscious objector to World War II – his brother, an objector to the Vietnam War.
“We need a shift in a big way, we need a huge shift in our patterns of funding and supporting militarism and we need to shift towards a peace orientation that will bring prosperity to people across the world,” Kirkpatrick said.
The community remains optimistic.
“Until we get to the point where we want to have peace and our congressional representatives worry more about having peace, more than they’re concerned with their profits, then we will have an end to the fighting,” Marx said. “I wouldn’t be doing this if I didn’t believe peace couldn’t be attainable.”
Veterans for Peace meets on the third Friday of each month at the Community Connections building, part of the Community Food Co-op downtown. More information can be found on their website, www.vfpbellingham.org.
The first Armistice Day at the eleventh hour on the eleventh day of November 1918 signaled the halt of World War I and the start of a new era of peace, said Stan Parker, Army veteran and a member of the Veterans for Peace Board of Directors.
The Bellingham celebration was organized by the Veterans for Peace Chapter 111. Among them was Gene Marx, a Vietnam Navy veteran and Veterans for Peace local communication coordinator.
“I’d like people to realize Armistice Day’s original intent was to venerate peace; this was supposedly the war to end all wars,” Marx said. “And as it turns out, it was the war that ended all peace.”
Parker said he came to the rally in remembrance of those who lost their lives in war and also those affected by war. His call-to-action: war is not the answer to the problems of the world.
“There was a time in the world’s history when we really believed we could have world peace, where war was not the answer, and world peace was possible,” Parker said.
Today, Armistice Day is celebrated in countries across the world. Across the Canadian border on Sunday, crowds of citizens wore red poppy pins as they gathered. The flower is a symbol of remembrance of the emotional and physical expenses of war. The United States made the decision to replace Armistice Day with Veterans Day in 1968, even moving the holiday to a Monday to encourage commerce, according to the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Lisa Distler, whose late husband, Bill Distler, was a Vietnam veteran and a founding member of Veterans for Peace, said the message of Armistice Day is one simply of peace; to put one’s arms down and come to an agreement that we as humans shouldn’t kill one another to solve our issues. She believes the newer U.S.-coined holiday has lost that message.
She said Veterans Day glorifies the act of going to war which is counterproductive to having a more inclusive and peaceful world, or recognizing the trauma that violence can inflict.
Daniel Kirkpatrick describes himself as a lifelong pacifist who comes from a long line of pacifists. His father was a conscious objector to World War II – his brother, an objector to the Vietnam War.
“We need a shift in a big way, we need a huge shift in our patterns of funding and supporting militarism and we need to shift towards a peace orientation that will bring prosperity to people across the world,” Kirkpatrick said.
The community remains optimistic.
“Until we get to the point where we want to have peace and our congressional representatives worry more about having peace, more than they’re concerned with their profits, then we will have an end to the fighting,” Marx said. “I wouldn’t be doing this if I didn’t believe peace couldn’t be attainable.”
Veterans for Peace meets on the third Friday of each month at the Community Connections building, part of the Community Food Co-op downtown. More information can be found on their website, www.vfpbellingham.org.
VFP-111 Pays Tribute to Armistice Day Centennial
Silent Tribute During Annual Ringing of the Bells at the Church of the Assumption
Bellingham's Veterans For Peace, with more than twenty other supporters of peace, gathered on a brisk, sunny morning last Sunday in solemn commemoration of the 100th year anniversary of the end of the First World War. At 11 am - the 11th hour of the 11th month - the bells of the Church of the Assumption slowly tolled, along with thousands across the country. Heads were bowed in tribute in remembrance of the millions slaughtered needlessly in the "War to End All Wars".
An annual observance by VFP-111, this year's observance was part of the VFP International Reclaiming Armistice Day campaign This education effort was initiated to call attention not only to end of hostilities in 1918 but also to the fact that Armistice Day, originally designated to the cause of world peace, was co-opted by the US government and renamed Veterans Day, now a national holiday venerating not peace but military service in our endless wars.
True words of inspiration that resonated on this solemn occasion came from founding member Bill Distler's widow, Lisa:
I feel, this Armistice Day anniversary is a most profound moment, for us to stop for even one moment, a possible, sacred sixty seconds, that might allow us to silence the cyclonic, squall of insanity that portends our own Manchurian reality.
So for this weekend, give us peace. Lay down the fear of all that desperately conspires to destroy our peace of mind, sanity, and courage. Ring the Bells!!! That is the only sound I think most of us might be able to really hear, right now.
To VFP - Thank you kindly for making this happen.
Silent Tribute During Annual Ringing of the Bells at the Church of the Assumption
Bellingham's Veterans For Peace, with more than twenty other supporters of peace, gathered on a brisk, sunny morning last Sunday in solemn commemoration of the 100th year anniversary of the end of the First World War. At 11 am - the 11th hour of the 11th month - the bells of the Church of the Assumption slowly tolled, along with thousands across the country. Heads were bowed in tribute in remembrance of the millions slaughtered needlessly in the "War to End All Wars".
An annual observance by VFP-111, this year's observance was part of the VFP International Reclaiming Armistice Day campaign This education effort was initiated to call attention not only to end of hostilities in 1918 but also to the fact that Armistice Day, originally designated to the cause of world peace, was co-opted by the US government and renamed Veterans Day, now a national holiday venerating not peace but military service in our endless wars.
True words of inspiration that resonated on this solemn occasion came from founding member Bill Distler's widow, Lisa:
I feel, this Armistice Day anniversary is a most profound moment, for us to stop for even one moment, a possible, sacred sixty seconds, that might allow us to silence the cyclonic, squall of insanity that portends our own Manchurian reality.
So for this weekend, give us peace. Lay down the fear of all that desperately conspires to destroy our peace of mind, sanity, and courage. Ring the Bells!!! That is the only sound I think most of us might be able to really hear, right now.
To VFP - Thank you kindly for making this happen.
Reclaiming Armistice Day: A Day to Perpetuate Peace
As a veteran, I will not be misled and victimized once more by the militarists and war profiteers.
By Camillo Mac Bica
September 30, 2018
As a veteran, I will not be misled and victimized once more by the militarists and war profiteers.
By Camillo Mac Bica
September 30, 2018
Following World War One, up until then the bloodiest and most destructive war in the history of humankind, many of the beleaguered belligerent nations resolved, at least temporarily, that such devastation and tragic loss of life must never happen again. In the United States, on June 4, 1926, Congress passed a concurrent resolution establishing November 11th, the day in 1918 when the fighting stopped, as Armistice Day, a legal holiday, the intent and purpose of which would be to “commemorate with thanksgiving and prayer and exercises designed to perpetuate peace through good will and mutual understanding between nations.”
In accordance with this resolution, President Calvin Coolidge issued a Proclamation on November 3rd 1926, “inviting the people of the United States to observe the day in schools and churches or other places, with appropriate ceremonies expressive of our gratitude for peace and our desire for the continuance of friendly relations with all other peoples."
Disappointingly, despite its designation as “the war to end all wars,” and the intent of Armistice Day to make November 11th a day to celebrate peace, the resolve of nations to ensure that “good will and mutual understanding between nations” prevail, all too quickly faltered. Following another equally “destructive, sanguinary, and far reaching war,” World War Two, and the “police action” in Korea, President Dwight D. Eisenhower issued a Proclamation that changed the designation of November 11th from Armistice Day to Veterans Day.
“I, Dwight D. Eisenhower, President of the United States of America, do hereby call upon all of our citizens to
observe Thursday, November 11, 1954, as Veterans Day. On that day let us solemnly remember the
sacrifices of all those who fought so valiantly, on the seas, in the air, and on foreign shores, to
preserve our heritage of freedom, and let us reconsecrate ourselves to the task of promoting an enduring
peace so that their efforts shall not have been in vain.”
Though some continue to question Eisenhower’s decision to change the designation, upon analysis, his motivation and reasoning become apparent. Though far from being a pacifist, as the Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force during World War II, he knew and abhorred the destruction and tragic loss of life that war entails. Eisenhower’s Proclamation, I would argue, is an expression of his disappointment and frustration with the failure of nations to follow through with their Armistice Day resolve to avoid war and seek alternative means for conflict resolution. In changing the designation, Eisenhower hoped to remind America of war’s horror and futility, the sacrifices of those who struggled in its behalf, and the need to reassert a commitment to an enduring peace. Though the name was changed, the promise to promote friendly relations between all nations and all people of the world remained the same.
Finish the article on Common Dreams.
In accordance with this resolution, President Calvin Coolidge issued a Proclamation on November 3rd 1926, “inviting the people of the United States to observe the day in schools and churches or other places, with appropriate ceremonies expressive of our gratitude for peace and our desire for the continuance of friendly relations with all other peoples."
Disappointingly, despite its designation as “the war to end all wars,” and the intent of Armistice Day to make November 11th a day to celebrate peace, the resolve of nations to ensure that “good will and mutual understanding between nations” prevail, all too quickly faltered. Following another equally “destructive, sanguinary, and far reaching war,” World War Two, and the “police action” in Korea, President Dwight D. Eisenhower issued a Proclamation that changed the designation of November 11th from Armistice Day to Veterans Day.
“I, Dwight D. Eisenhower, President of the United States of America, do hereby call upon all of our citizens to
observe Thursday, November 11, 1954, as Veterans Day. On that day let us solemnly remember the
sacrifices of all those who fought so valiantly, on the seas, in the air, and on foreign shores, to
preserve our heritage of freedom, and let us reconsecrate ourselves to the task of promoting an enduring
peace so that their efforts shall not have been in vain.”
Though some continue to question Eisenhower’s decision to change the designation, upon analysis, his motivation and reasoning become apparent. Though far from being a pacifist, as the Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force during World War II, he knew and abhorred the destruction and tragic loss of life that war entails. Eisenhower’s Proclamation, I would argue, is an expression of his disappointment and frustration with the failure of nations to follow through with their Armistice Day resolve to avoid war and seek alternative means for conflict resolution. In changing the designation, Eisenhower hoped to remind America of war’s horror and futility, the sacrifices of those who struggled in its behalf, and the need to reassert a commitment to an enduring peace. Though the name was changed, the promise to promote friendly relations between all nations and all people of the world remained the same.
Finish the article on Common Dreams.
WCAA Site destroyed, intimidation and a "revenge flight"
WCAA Contributors
September 10, 2018
This account is long and disturbing, but so is the story.
The West Coast Action Alliance’s extensive web site was taken down and completely destroyed in July 2018 without our knowledge or consent. It contained more than four years’ worth of legal analysis, reporting, and whistle blower materials on the US Navy’s unprecedented expansion of warfare activities that are affecting communities in western Washington’s Whidbey Island, the San Juans, and the Olympic Peninsula.
While some readers who are Navy personnel or Navy supporters may rejoice, we remind you that the First Amendment is among the freedoms that many Americans have defended with their lives.
The good news is the web site can still be found (minus many of the large files) by going to the Wayback Machine, typing in westcoastactionalliance.org, clicking on “browse history,” and choosing the most recent version from July 2018.
The West Coast Action Alliance is part of a large citizen network, but we are also part of a small cadre of people who for years have been doing the tedious detective work of analyzing the Navy’s thousand-page Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) and Environmental Assessments (EA), all of which claim none of the Navy’s extraordinarily loud and disturbing activities in our region will have any “significant impacts” on wildlife, habitat, our communities, our drinking water, or our economies. Analysis, commentary and suggestions for letter-writing are the kinds of information we shared on this web site. It also served as a law library on this issue.
1. What we know about how the web site was destroyed: Despite our annual subscription fee for web hosting being fully paid with six months left on it, not only was the entire web site destroyed, the backup file was also quickly dispatched. When asked for an explanation, a web host company representative said the reason, despite our fully paid subscription, was because of a separate, overdue “support” charge of $7.19, of which we were not aware. The company has still not coherently explained what this additional “support” charge was for, nor why we weren’t notified that it was due.
In early 2018, this web host, 1and1.com, reduced by 75% the amount of time a backup would be made available, from thirty days to seven. In addition to failing to notify us of this, they also failed to notify us that the destruction of our web site was imminent because of this overdue $7.19 “support” charge. Despite thorough searches of our files, no email or other notifications of termination of service from 1and1.com have ever been found.
Read complete account on West Coast Action Alliance.
WCAA Contributors
September 10, 2018
This account is long and disturbing, but so is the story.
The West Coast Action Alliance’s extensive web site was taken down and completely destroyed in July 2018 without our knowledge or consent. It contained more than four years’ worth of legal analysis, reporting, and whistle blower materials on the US Navy’s unprecedented expansion of warfare activities that are affecting communities in western Washington’s Whidbey Island, the San Juans, and the Olympic Peninsula.
While some readers who are Navy personnel or Navy supporters may rejoice, we remind you that the First Amendment is among the freedoms that many Americans have defended with their lives.
The good news is the web site can still be found (minus many of the large files) by going to the Wayback Machine, typing in westcoastactionalliance.org, clicking on “browse history,” and choosing the most recent version from July 2018.
The West Coast Action Alliance is part of a large citizen network, but we are also part of a small cadre of people who for years have been doing the tedious detective work of analyzing the Navy’s thousand-page Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) and Environmental Assessments (EA), all of which claim none of the Navy’s extraordinarily loud and disturbing activities in our region will have any “significant impacts” on wildlife, habitat, our communities, our drinking water, or our economies. Analysis, commentary and suggestions for letter-writing are the kinds of information we shared on this web site. It also served as a law library on this issue.
1. What we know about how the web site was destroyed: Despite our annual subscription fee for web hosting being fully paid with six months left on it, not only was the entire web site destroyed, the backup file was also quickly dispatched. When asked for an explanation, a web host company representative said the reason, despite our fully paid subscription, was because of a separate, overdue “support” charge of $7.19, of which we were not aware. The company has still not coherently explained what this additional “support” charge was for, nor why we weren’t notified that it was due.
In early 2018, this web host, 1and1.com, reduced by 75% the amount of time a backup would be made available, from thirty days to seven. In addition to failing to notify us of this, they also failed to notify us that the destruction of our web site was imminent because of this overdue $7.19 “support” charge. Despite thorough searches of our files, no email or other notifications of termination of service from 1and1.com have ever been found.
Read complete account on West Coast Action Alliance.
Micro Militarism
Michael Schwalbe
My ATM receipts now tell me, beneath my checking account balance, that the North Carolina State Employees’ Credit Union SUPPORTS THE TROOPS! The classical music station I listen to runs a dedication to “the men and women of our armed forces, who work so hard to protect us; without their sacrifices, none of our freedoms would be possible.”
When I browse for information about public universities in North Carolina, an ad pops up showing a young man in camouflage combat fatigues, holding a laptop computer. The text of the ad reads, “Advance Your Military Career with an MBA.” The ad is for an online MBA program at the University of North Carolina.
A few months ago the home page of my university, NC State, greeted viewers with an image of a young man in the cockpit of a U.S. air force fighter jet. The text, as I recall, was to the effect that NC State is training tomorrow’s leaders today. The fall issue of the university’s alumni magazine ran an adoring profile of army general Ray Odierno, a 1986 graduate.
The local weekly independent newspaper, which fashions itself as alternative and leftish, runs a feature called the “social activist calendar.” Events are grouped under headings such as Community, Environment, Politics, Government, and LGBTQ. In a recent issue, four events were listed under Troop Support.
Though the requests have abated lately, for a time earlier this year cashiers in grocery stores and gas stations consistently asked if I wanted to donate a dollar to support the troops.
The above are examples of what can be called micro militarism: pro-military practices squeezed into small cultural spaces. Any one such practice might seem trivial. Yet on the whole micro militarism does much to normalize militarism on a large scale.
Militarism on a large scale is what the U.S. is all about. This is militarism on the scale of foreign invasions and occupations; on the scale of maintaining hundreds of military bases around the world; on the scale of drone fleets used to carry out political assassinations wherever the enemies of empire might roam; on the scale of spending half of our nation’s collective wealth every year to pay for weapons and war; on the scale of an economy in which the profits of nearly every major corporation, and many small ones, derive in part from military contracts.
From the standpoint of political and economic elites, militarism on a large scale is a fine thing. It is how wealth is transferred from the working class to the capitalist class via taxes to pay for “defense systems.” It is also how U.S. corporations maintain access to raw materials, cheap labor, and markets around the world. The problem is that, absent the fever of war, large-scale militarism generates popular resistance.
After a while, people begin to wonder why their sons and daughters are being killed and maimed in countries half a world away, countries that have not attacked us and with which we are not at war. People begin to wonder about the competence and morality of politicians who engage in imperial adventures that seem to have no clear purpose, no clear endpoint, and no clear benefits for anyone who doesn’t stand to make a profit on weapons, military supplies, mercenary services, or someone else’s natural resources.
People begin to wonder why there is not enough money for schools, public transportation, libraries, parks, and health care. They begin to wonder where our collective wealth is going, and why there is always enough money for the tools of war but not enough for the things that give regular people security and prosperity at home.
Read entire article on Counterpunch.
Michael Schwalbe
My ATM receipts now tell me, beneath my checking account balance, that the North Carolina State Employees’ Credit Union SUPPORTS THE TROOPS! The classical music station I listen to runs a dedication to “the men and women of our armed forces, who work so hard to protect us; without their sacrifices, none of our freedoms would be possible.”
When I browse for information about public universities in North Carolina, an ad pops up showing a young man in camouflage combat fatigues, holding a laptop computer. The text of the ad reads, “Advance Your Military Career with an MBA.” The ad is for an online MBA program at the University of North Carolina.
A few months ago the home page of my university, NC State, greeted viewers with an image of a young man in the cockpit of a U.S. air force fighter jet. The text, as I recall, was to the effect that NC State is training tomorrow’s leaders today. The fall issue of the university’s alumni magazine ran an adoring profile of army general Ray Odierno, a 1986 graduate.
The local weekly independent newspaper, which fashions itself as alternative and leftish, runs a feature called the “social activist calendar.” Events are grouped under headings such as Community, Environment, Politics, Government, and LGBTQ. In a recent issue, four events were listed under Troop Support.
Though the requests have abated lately, for a time earlier this year cashiers in grocery stores and gas stations consistently asked if I wanted to donate a dollar to support the troops.
The above are examples of what can be called micro militarism: pro-military practices squeezed into small cultural spaces. Any one such practice might seem trivial. Yet on the whole micro militarism does much to normalize militarism on a large scale.
Militarism on a large scale is what the U.S. is all about. This is militarism on the scale of foreign invasions and occupations; on the scale of maintaining hundreds of military bases around the world; on the scale of drone fleets used to carry out political assassinations wherever the enemies of empire might roam; on the scale of spending half of our nation’s collective wealth every year to pay for weapons and war; on the scale of an economy in which the profits of nearly every major corporation, and many small ones, derive in part from military contracts.
From the standpoint of political and economic elites, militarism on a large scale is a fine thing. It is how wealth is transferred from the working class to the capitalist class via taxes to pay for “defense systems.” It is also how U.S. corporations maintain access to raw materials, cheap labor, and markets around the world. The problem is that, absent the fever of war, large-scale militarism generates popular resistance.
After a while, people begin to wonder why their sons and daughters are being killed and maimed in countries half a world away, countries that have not attacked us and with which we are not at war. People begin to wonder about the competence and morality of politicians who engage in imperial adventures that seem to have no clear purpose, no clear endpoint, and no clear benefits for anyone who doesn’t stand to make a profit on weapons, military supplies, mercenary services, or someone else’s natural resources.
People begin to wonder why there is not enough money for schools, public transportation, libraries, parks, and health care. They begin to wonder where our collective wealth is going, and why there is always enough money for the tools of war but not enough for the things that give regular people security and prosperity at home.
Read entire article on Counterpunch.
Another Option for the Table: Dialogue with Pyongyang
Gene Marx
February 15, 2018
Gene Marx
February 15, 2018
Olympic.org
By now most of the world has stopped caring about the panic that gripped Hawaii one Sunday last month for all of 38 minutes. The false missile alert after all was just that. No harm done. Americans have even managed to settle back into their comfort zones watching Korean American snowboarder Chloe Kim conquer the halfpipe at the PyeongChang Winter Olympics. In spite of a core message of peace and reunification an undercurrent of US and North Korean hostility continues to run below the surface. And while overtures of dialogue from both sides of the 38th parallel may have raised hopes since the Opening ceremony, harsh rhetoric could easily return when the Olympic flame is extinguished and the athletes return home.
OK. So where are we now?
First of all the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a nuclear state. We need to get over it. Outside of the collapsing apartheid government of South Africa in 1989, NO nuclear power has ever unilaterally, much less voluntarily disarmed. And the Hawaiian chaos could have easily been misread by North Korean leaders as a cover for an attack by the US military. With little or no room for error and nothing to lose at that point, officials in Pyongyang might have easily opted for an immediate counterattack based on its limited, ground-based early warning detection assets, setting off a spiraling thermonuclear holocaust in a worst case.
The atomic age is replete with near nuclear catastrophes, and billions of lives still hang in the balance seven decades after the Trinity detonation. In a recent article in The New Yorker, Sidney D. Drell a groundbreaking researcher and physicist who served for nearly half a century as a top adviser to the United States government on military technology and arms control, considered it a miracle – “so far beyond my normal optimism” - that no other city since Nagasaki had been destroyed by a nuclear weapon. Given all the close calls and mistakes since then our species continues to exist on borrowed time.
It would seem that the time for talking, diplomatic dialogue, is long overdue.
The United States has appeared to endorse a closer post-Olympics engagement between South and North Korea with an eye to eventual US-North Korean talks, but has agreed with Seoul that sanctions must be intensified to push Pyongyang to negotiate an end to its nuclear weapons program. U.S. Vice President Pence said Washington would keep up its maximum pressure campaign against Pyongyang, but at the same time would be open to talks without pre-conditions.
Clearly, however, insisting that North Korea disarm is a non-starter. The Kim Jong Un regime, understandably, equates survival with nuclear weaponization.
In fact believing that further sanctions and Security Council pressure will break the DPRK commitment to the bomb is a risky naiveté. With no reasonable threshold anticipated in either case, the Trump administration might well take a lesson from the Richard Nixon template of normalizing relations with a future, legitimate atomic adversary. The nuclear rise of a bellicose outlier like “Red” China in 1972 demanded resolution. A time-line of deliberate negotiations - Track 2, followed by more open discussions - arguably eliminated that nuclear stress.
A Sino-Soviet dispute, coupled with China’s willingness to talk, certainly paved the way for Nixon, but that effort rewrote history. It started and concluded with dialogue, an option that should always be “on the table” but is rarely, if ever, a first consideration since war and military intervention have been the foreign policy solutions of choice for the 21st century.
As a first step toward a diplomatic solution with Pyongyang, please encourage Senators Murray and Cantwell, and Representatives Larsen and DelBene to support S.2047 / S.2016 and HR 4837.
The author of this piece is Veterans For Peace Past VFP Board Secretary and Naval Aviation Veteran Gene Marx. He is also an active member of the CPL Jonathan Santos Memorial Veterans For Peace Chapter 111 and lives in Bellingham, Washington with his wife, Victoria.
OK. So where are we now?
First of all the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a nuclear state. We need to get over it. Outside of the collapsing apartheid government of South Africa in 1989, NO nuclear power has ever unilaterally, much less voluntarily disarmed. And the Hawaiian chaos could have easily been misread by North Korean leaders as a cover for an attack by the US military. With little or no room for error and nothing to lose at that point, officials in Pyongyang might have easily opted for an immediate counterattack based on its limited, ground-based early warning detection assets, setting off a spiraling thermonuclear holocaust in a worst case.
The atomic age is replete with near nuclear catastrophes, and billions of lives still hang in the balance seven decades after the Trinity detonation. In a recent article in The New Yorker, Sidney D. Drell a groundbreaking researcher and physicist who served for nearly half a century as a top adviser to the United States government on military technology and arms control, considered it a miracle – “so far beyond my normal optimism” - that no other city since Nagasaki had been destroyed by a nuclear weapon. Given all the close calls and mistakes since then our species continues to exist on borrowed time.
It would seem that the time for talking, diplomatic dialogue, is long overdue.
The United States has appeared to endorse a closer post-Olympics engagement between South and North Korea with an eye to eventual US-North Korean talks, but has agreed with Seoul that sanctions must be intensified to push Pyongyang to negotiate an end to its nuclear weapons program. U.S. Vice President Pence said Washington would keep up its maximum pressure campaign against Pyongyang, but at the same time would be open to talks without pre-conditions.
Clearly, however, insisting that North Korea disarm is a non-starter. The Kim Jong Un regime, understandably, equates survival with nuclear weaponization.
In fact believing that further sanctions and Security Council pressure will break the DPRK commitment to the bomb is a risky naiveté. With no reasonable threshold anticipated in either case, the Trump administration might well take a lesson from the Richard Nixon template of normalizing relations with a future, legitimate atomic adversary. The nuclear rise of a bellicose outlier like “Red” China in 1972 demanded resolution. A time-line of deliberate negotiations - Track 2, followed by more open discussions - arguably eliminated that nuclear stress.
A Sino-Soviet dispute, coupled with China’s willingness to talk, certainly paved the way for Nixon, but that effort rewrote history. It started and concluded with dialogue, an option that should always be “on the table” but is rarely, if ever, a first consideration since war and military intervention have been the foreign policy solutions of choice for the 21st century.
As a first step toward a diplomatic solution with Pyongyang, please encourage Senators Murray and Cantwell, and Representatives Larsen and DelBene to support S.2047 / S.2016 and HR 4837.
The author of this piece is Veterans For Peace Past VFP Board Secretary and Naval Aviation Veteran Gene Marx. He is also an active member of the CPL Jonathan Santos Memorial Veterans For Peace Chapter 111 and lives in Bellingham, Washington with his wife, Victoria.
Veterans For Peace rally in Washington, less than a month after 9/11. Credit: Elvert Barnes/Flickr
“Imagine there’s no heaven…and no religion too.”
A more useful line when it comes to our current wars may be “Imagine there’s no duopoly.” It’s hard to fault John Lennon for his idealism, of course. In his day, many blamed religion on the wars of history. But a much bigger obstacle right now, at least in the U.S., is partisanship. The two major political parties, in power and out, have been so co-opted by the war machine that any modern anti-war movement has been completely subsumed and marginalized—even as American troops and killer drones continue to operate in or near combat zones all over the world.
Aside from the very early days of the Iraq war, the anti-war movement has been a small, ineffectual pinprick on the post-9/11 landscape. A less generous assessment is that it’s been a bust. After liberals helped elect the “anti-war” Barack Obama, the movement all but disappeared, even though the wars did not. By putting a Nobel Peace Prize-winning Democratic face on his inherited wars, Obama expanded into new conflicts (Libya, Syria, Yemen) with little resistance, ultimately bombing seven different countries during his tenure. By 2013, Code Pink founder Medea Benjamin lamented, “We’ve been protesting Obama’s foreign policy for years now, but we can’t get the same numbers because the people who would’ve been yelling and screaming about this stuff under Bush are quiet under Obama.”
Read the rest of the article in the The American Conservative.
A more useful line when it comes to our current wars may be “Imagine there’s no duopoly.” It’s hard to fault John Lennon for his idealism, of course. In his day, many blamed religion on the wars of history. But a much bigger obstacle right now, at least in the U.S., is partisanship. The two major political parties, in power and out, have been so co-opted by the war machine that any modern anti-war movement has been completely subsumed and marginalized—even as American troops and killer drones continue to operate in or near combat zones all over the world.
Aside from the very early days of the Iraq war, the anti-war movement has been a small, ineffectual pinprick on the post-9/11 landscape. A less generous assessment is that it’s been a bust. After liberals helped elect the “anti-war” Barack Obama, the movement all but disappeared, even though the wars did not. By putting a Nobel Peace Prize-winning Democratic face on his inherited wars, Obama expanded into new conflicts (Libya, Syria, Yemen) with little resistance, ultimately bombing seven different countries during his tenure. By 2013, Code Pink founder Medea Benjamin lamented, “We’ve been protesting Obama’s foreign policy for years now, but we can’t get the same numbers because the people who would’ve been yelling and screaming about this stuff under Bush are quiet under Obama.”
Read the rest of the article in the The American Conservative.
Whatcom Peace & Justice Looking for AMS Volunteers
Interested in joining the Whatcom Peace & Justice Alternatives to Military Service volunteer crew? WPJC could really use veteran perspectives. The time commitment is up to you -- some folks volunteer for 2 hours per semester, and others put in more than 20.
Come and learn how to table with AMS and then sign up for shifts that work for you.
Thursday, January 18, 2018 at 10 - 11:30 AM
Whatcom Peace & Justice Center
1220 Bay St
Interested in joining the Whatcom Peace & Justice Alternatives to Military Service volunteer crew? WPJC could really use veteran perspectives. The time commitment is up to you -- some folks volunteer for 2 hours per semester, and others put in more than 20.
Come and learn how to table with AMS and then sign up for shifts that work for you.
Thursday, January 18, 2018 at 10 - 11:30 AM
Whatcom Peace & Justice Center
1220 Bay St
VFP-111 Co-Sponsors Human Rights Film Festival
The BHRFF is an annual film festival that screens independent films concerning global issues. All films are selected by a volunteer committee. The festival is free to all. Films are followed by discussions facilitated by the film director or a community resource affiliated with the film topic.
Billy D Memorial Lager at Menace
The long wait is over. The Billy D Memorial Lager at Menace is ready! This update from
VFP-111's James Gillies:
"Well, my friends, the beer that I brewed with Menace Brewery and the Bellingham Beer Lab is finally on tap at Menace! It is the Billy D Memorial Lager. It is a tribute to my dear friend, Bill Distler, who passed this year. 10% of what you pay is donated to the local chapter of Veterans For Peace. We will have a release night next Monday at Menace Brewery. I'm not sure of the time yet but will post it after Thanksgiving. On that night we will toast Bill and share fond memories. Save the date attend please show up, if you can! Cheers!"
Where: Menace Brewery, 2529 Meridian, Bellingham
When: 5:00 to 7:00 PM
Join us. Lift a pint to Billy D...and PEACE!
VFP-111 Supports Original Intent of Veterans Day
|
|
Veterans For Peace calls for the observance of November 11 to be in keeping with the holiday’s original intent as Armistice Day, to be “a day dedicated to the cause of world peace," as it was celebrated at the ending of World War I when the world came together to recognize the need for lasting peace. That desire for peace led ten years later to the General Treaty for the Renunciation of War (Kellogg-Briand) which made war illegal. The U.S. ratified the treaty and is bound by its terms pursuant to Art. 6 of the Constitution. After World War II, the U.S. Congress decided to rebrand November 11 as Veterans Day. Honoring the warriors quickly morphed into honoring the military and glorifying war. Armistice Day, as a result, has been flipped from a day for peace into a day for displays of militarism.
This year with a rise of hate and fear around the world it is as urgent as ever to ring the bells of peace. We in the U.S. must press our government to end reckless rhetoric and military interventions that endanger the entire world. Instead of celebrating militarism, we want to celebrate peace and all of humanity. We demand an end to all forms of hate, patriarchy and white supremacy and we call for unity, fair treatment under the law and equality for all. We call for a tearing down of walls between borders and people. We call for an end to all hostilities at home and around the globe. |
Chapter Reaches Out, Again, Fostering Hope in Vietnam
Since 1998, Children of Vietnam has been serving the children in Vietnam whose futures are stifled by poverty: educating minds, mending bodies, sheltering families and nurturing their development. There are thousands of children just like this year's beneficiary of our donation, Vo Van Quang, who deserve access to a better life. Children of Vietnam is working diligently to make this a reality through its innovative program Hope System of Care.
Since 1998, Children of Vietnam has been serving the children in Vietnam whose futures are stifled by poverty: educating minds, mending bodies, sheltering families and nurturing their development. There are thousands of children just like this year's beneficiary of our donation, Vo Van Quang, who deserve access to a better life. Children of Vietnam is working diligently to make this a reality through its innovative program Hope System of Care.
Marines marching in Danang in 1965.
Merely an Empire
David Thomson
Roger Harris is from Roxbury, in Boston. For decades he taught in the school system there. He wears a grey pinstripe suit; his smart bow-tie has a purple streak. He looks patient yet tough, as durable as a former athlete. But he had days in 1967 as a young Marine near the DMZ in Vietnam – the demilitarised zone, aka the ‘dead Marine zone’ – that he can’t talk about:
You go over there with one mindset and then you adapt. You adapt to the atrocities of war. You adapt to killing and dying, whatever … When I first arrived in Vietnam there were some interesting things that happened and I questioned some of the Marines. I was made to realise that this is war – and this is what we do.
Harris gives the camera a funny look, half shy, half guilty, all of him doubtful that we can understand. It reminded me of the opening of Hiroshima Mon Amour (1959), where the French woman talks about all she has seen in Hiroshima and the Japanese man responds: ‘You saw nothing in Hiroshima.’
Is it a sign of civilisation that we want to tell the story of our disasters without breaking down? Isn’t it human to remain brave and lucid in the face of catastrophe? Will we find mercy in the particular stories of men and women, soldiers and onlookers? If we insist that these disasters happened to humans, because of humans, can humanism be persevered with? Or is a faith in humanism now wishful thinking? Perhaps our best chance of advancing through the minefield is to be a fool, to kid ourselves, and try to think of courage.
The Vietnam War, a film made by Ken Burns and Lynn Novick, comes in ten parts, with beginnings, middles and end credits; and lasts 18 hours altogether, which some may feel is a lot to ask of busy, anxious wrecks who have their own troubles to patrol. Not that 18 hours on your couch, attending to war, is really so much if you need courage and history in your life. The film took ten years to make, at a cost of $30 million. That’s a lot of money by documentary standards, but it was done in the Burns tradition: there was a seeding deal with PBS, but the greater part of the money was raised by Burns himself, a visionary documenter of America’s past and a model businessman too. Even as he was launching the Vietnam series, he was working on another show, about country music.
The Vietnam War starts at the end of the Second World War, with the Japanese finished in Indochina, the uneasy resumption of French control, and their attempts to ignore the pressures of nationalism and the push for independence. And you follow it through to the end of the era called ‘Vietnam’, knowing that that time did not end in 1975, but will last as long as the walking wounded trudge on, and for as long as there is anyone left who understands the remark, made in the film, that ‘Vietnam drove a stake in the heart of this country’ – and knows that the country spoken of here is not Vietnam, despite its three million lost lives. In the course of the film you hear all the reasons there were for being in Vietnam, and how inadequate and confounding they were, because no one had a better explanation than was latent in every bright blade of grass in the paddy-fields, where the greens could be so pretty.
Read the rest of the review on the London Review of Books.
David Thomson
- The Vietnam War directed by Ken Burns and Lynn Novick
- PBS, ten episodes, from 17 September
Roger Harris is from Roxbury, in Boston. For decades he taught in the school system there. He wears a grey pinstripe suit; his smart bow-tie has a purple streak. He looks patient yet tough, as durable as a former athlete. But he had days in 1967 as a young Marine near the DMZ in Vietnam – the demilitarised zone, aka the ‘dead Marine zone’ – that he can’t talk about:
You go over there with one mindset and then you adapt. You adapt to the atrocities of war. You adapt to killing and dying, whatever … When I first arrived in Vietnam there were some interesting things that happened and I questioned some of the Marines. I was made to realise that this is war – and this is what we do.
Harris gives the camera a funny look, half shy, half guilty, all of him doubtful that we can understand. It reminded me of the opening of Hiroshima Mon Amour (1959), where the French woman talks about all she has seen in Hiroshima and the Japanese man responds: ‘You saw nothing in Hiroshima.’
Is it a sign of civilisation that we want to tell the story of our disasters without breaking down? Isn’t it human to remain brave and lucid in the face of catastrophe? Will we find mercy in the particular stories of men and women, soldiers and onlookers? If we insist that these disasters happened to humans, because of humans, can humanism be persevered with? Or is a faith in humanism now wishful thinking? Perhaps our best chance of advancing through the minefield is to be a fool, to kid ourselves, and try to think of courage.
The Vietnam War, a film made by Ken Burns and Lynn Novick, comes in ten parts, with beginnings, middles and end credits; and lasts 18 hours altogether, which some may feel is a lot to ask of busy, anxious wrecks who have their own troubles to patrol. Not that 18 hours on your couch, attending to war, is really so much if you need courage and history in your life. The film took ten years to make, at a cost of $30 million. That’s a lot of money by documentary standards, but it was done in the Burns tradition: there was a seeding deal with PBS, but the greater part of the money was raised by Burns himself, a visionary documenter of America’s past and a model businessman too. Even as he was launching the Vietnam series, he was working on another show, about country music.
The Vietnam War starts at the end of the Second World War, with the Japanese finished in Indochina, the uneasy resumption of French control, and their attempts to ignore the pressures of nationalism and the push for independence. And you follow it through to the end of the era called ‘Vietnam’, knowing that that time did not end in 1975, but will last as long as the walking wounded trudge on, and for as long as there is anyone left who understands the remark, made in the film, that ‘Vietnam drove a stake in the heart of this country’ – and knows that the country spoken of here is not Vietnam, despite its three million lost lives. In the course of the film you hear all the reasons there were for being in Vietnam, and how inadequate and confounding they were, because no one had a better explanation than was latent in every bright blade of grass in the paddy-fields, where the greens could be so pretty.
Read the rest of the review on the London Review of Books.
VFP to Launch Vietnam Full Disclosure Campaign Opposing
Probable Ken Burns' Airbrushing of Vietnam War
Probable Ken Burns' Airbrushing of Vietnam War
This is a video clip of Veterans For Peace Co-Founder Doug Rawlings that Maine Public Television plans to air several times before the airing of Ken Burns' The Vietnam War. VFP chapters plan to counter the documentary with our voices.
VFP-111 Founding Member Bill Distler Dead at 70
Glioblastoma, an aggressive, malignant brain tumor kills long-time peace veteran on Monday, June 5
Glioblastoma, an aggressive, malignant brain tumor kills long-time peace veteran on Monday, June 5
Yesterday morning from Bill's wife, Lisa, on The Friends of Bill Distler Facebook page:
My sweet husband, Bill, " walked on" this morning at around 7:00 a.m. I'm so grateful to have had slept by his side for one last night. What a beautiful spirit he has. What a loving, brilliant, difficult, and inspired husband and lover I have had! 26 years of loving Bill Distler and having his baby, I have been richly blessed.
Now to cope, while you're letting that sink in.
Peace now, my friend. Presente!
On Saturday, June 10, graveside services will be conducted at Bayview Cemetery at 12 noon, followed by a celebration of Bill's life at Westford Funeral Home, 1301 Broadway, Bellingham, at 1 pm.
Courtesy of Ash Woolson
The Hidden Tragedy of the Vietnam War with Investigative Journalist Nick Turse
On Contact's Chris Hedges discusses the hidden tragedy of the Vietnam War with author of Kill Anything that Moves: The Real American War in Vietnam.
On Contact's Chris Hedges discusses the hidden tragedy of the Vietnam War with author of Kill Anything that Moves: The Real American War in Vietnam.
|
|
Waging Peace
Since 2004 |
