I don't read the op-ed columns in the New York TIMES very often (beyond Krugman's column) but I was surprised to find Kristof and Friedman sounding remarkably dovish (for them) on the subject of the US war in Afghanistan. Kristof says "we" should build schools, etc., there rather than putting more military force in; he quotes Matthew Hoh, the state department guy who quit to protest US policy there. Friedman writes: > We need to be thinking about how to reduce our footprint and our goals there in a responsible way, not dig in deeper. We simply do not have the Afghan partners, the NATO allies, the domestic support, the financial resources or the national interests to justify an enlarged and prolonged nation-building effort in Afghanistan.< Then, the equally establishmentarian US National Public Radio interviews not only Hoh but (horrors!) Bob Naiman. Of course, conservative George Will called for a pull-out a couple of months ago.
It looks like the establishment may be splitting. During the Viet Nam war, it was significant when "America's Uncle Walter" Cronkite decided that the war was unwinnable -- it weakened LBJ's war effort. It's true that none of the media sources listed above has as much influence with the people in the US as he did, but they can influence elite decision-making. Especially before an escalation (when the government hardens its plans and becomes dogmatic), a split in the elite undermines the war effort. This is especially true after the Bush period, which undermined support for adventurism. So maybe... -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
