Speaking Our Peace The Lilliputians
& the Giant
By Paul Olson, NFP President Global Warming Copenhagen: Games People Play
By Professor Bruce E. Johansen Volunteer Nebraska Peace Stratcom
The Most Dangerous Place on the Face of the Earth Whiteclay
Updates on Nebraska's tiny reservation border town. Goin' Broke Essay Winners
 Goin' Broke The Cost of War
 NFP Sticker Get Your FREE
NFP Bumper Sticker!
Just send us an Email.

Revolution in the Voting Booth, 2008 Style

Paul Olson
UNL Professor Emeritus

During the ‘war elections’ of the late ’60s and early ’70s, the cry of student groups was, “Revolution is in the streets.” And at the tumultuous 1968 Chicago Democratic Convention, the streets were indeed bloodied. (Police violence at the 2008 conventions was pretty bad also). Forty years ago though, the response of establishment commentators to the street revolution mantra was, “If you want change, work on the election.” And sure enough, tens of thousands of students worked in the 1968 Election, even though they had no clear peace presidential candidate. In 1972, they worked ferociously for George McGovern. In Nebraska at the time, local leaders preaching reform emerged in the legislature (e.g. Steve Fowler and Ernie Chambers), and anti-war leaders like Joe Biden got elected to the U. S. Senate. The dialogue between movement organizing and smart electoral politics produced results.

Today, ‘change’ talk again fills our air. Movement organizing fills the streets. But for many activists, the economy — not the war — is the issue. We believe the war is getting short shrift.

Our Stand: Our positions may be informal, but Nebraskans for Peace has consistently opposed the war in Iraq and called for an expeditious withdrawal of our troops. We favored Interpol, regional-style police action to control the Afghan Taliban (an approach recently endorsed by the Rand Institute). We did not address northwest Pakistan, but following Joe Volk of the Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL), called for full and multilateral negotiations with Iran. (These negotiations now seem likely to happen since American intelligence agencies have confirmed that Iran has not worked on developing nukes since 2004). We criticized the arming on Georgia and move to include it in NATO.

Most of all we have called for controls on StratCom and a massive reduction in the cost of the 3 trillion dollar war — a foolish expenditure that has made us less secure and helped create our massively unstable economy.

The Presidency: We know how the candidates stand in relation to our issues. At the presidential level, John McCain and Sarah Palin have indicated that, for them, the war in Iraq could go on for a hundred years. They wish to ramp up the fighting in Afghanistan, and they have released an attack ad criticizing Obama for not taking the Iran threat seriously enough. However, unlike George W. Bush, McCain has objected to any bombing of northwest Pakistan. In contrast, Obama has called for a 16-month withdrawal of America’s Iraq troops and favors a transfer of troops to Afghanistan. He favors military intervention in northwest Pakistan, and calls for tough negotiations with Iran.

On the Georgia question, Sarah Palin has called for us to go to war against Russia in behalf of Georgia; both Palin and McCain have emphasized that Georgia on the Russian border should be allowed to join the American-European military alliance, NATO. Obama has emphasized that Russia must observe the cease-fire in the region and endorsed UN intervention there to protect the peace.

Neither McCain nor Obama has been clear about cutting the military budget. Neither has spoken clearly about what he would do with the enormous cost of corruption in the war and the slush money in the billions that goes to private contractors and mercenaries. However, on the major war and peace issues facing the nation, Obama seems closer to the NFP position than does his rival.

Importantly, Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District is in play in the presidential election, and it wields an important electoral vote. NFP supporters should make up their minds soon and work hard in this campaign, especially in District 2.

The Senate: Johanns and Kleeb: In the senatorial races, the Nebraskans for Peace Political Action Committee did not receive replies to its questionnaires, save for that from Green Party candidate, Steve Larrick (reproduced in full on Page 4). The following positions have been assembled from their public statements.

Johanns: Former governor Mike Johanns favors the Iraq War and argues that Nebraska’s troops believe in it:

Radical Islamic terrorists, who have proven they hate America and have no regard for human life, have declared war on the United States…I do not agree with those who advocate surrender and retreat in Iraq. As Secretary of Agriculture, I traveled to Iraq. I had the opportunity to sit down with Nebraska men and women in uniform and they told me they believe in their mission, that they were seeing progress and that the situation was getting better. They were right then and they are right today.

1. We must support their mission and provide them with the tools to get the job done.

2. Troop levels should continue to decline in Iraq as the situation improves… I will oppose attempts to seek artificial deadlines for the precipitous withdrawal of our troops. All this will do is signal to the terrorists that they only need to hold on until we leave.

3. Iraq should use its oil money to pay for a greater and greater share of reconstruction and security.

4. Our nation must respect and support our military and work for a lasting and stable resolution to win the war against terrorists and extremists who threaten free people and seek to do our nation harm.

5. I will support the current missions at Offutt Air Force Base and will work to expand its importance in fighting the War on Terror.

6. We must stand strong against terrorism, and we can do so while also protecting the civil liberties that are at the core of our Constitution.

Mike Johanns apparently believes that somebody advocates surrender. Who? Obama? Kleeb? al-Maliki? He does not mention that Iraq had no al-Qaida until we invaded it, that sectarian conflict creates most Iraqi violence, and that getting our mitts on their oil is ‘Job #1.’ He does not mention the U.S. declining reputation abroad, the suicide and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder among our troops in Iraq, and does not say when — if ever — we should get out.

He supports StratCom’s present mission, with its hair-trigger mechanisms for launching nuclear and conventional war and igniting an arms race in space.

Kleeb: Kleeb argues for a “responsible end to the Iraq war,” a multilateral diplomatic approach to a political solution, and setting of proper benchmarks for future work. Benchmarks were part of the original surge ideology that no one remembers; and almost none of the benchmarks for surge success have been met. Kleeb would remove permanent military bases from Iraq and refocus the “War on Terror” to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

In the Middle East, Kleeb believes that we must lead the peace process there while committing to Israel’s right both to exist and to defend itself from threats from Hamas and Hezbollah. He has nothing reciprocal to say about Israel’s settlements in Palestinian sovereign territory or its incursions into Gaza and the West Bank.

As for Iran, he apparently would pursue a diplomatic route now that our intelligence says Iran is not making nuclear weapons. He wants diplomacy with Iran and its inclusion in the World Trade Organization if it foregoes nuclear weapons.

Kleeb also promises to work on fair trade and fair environmental rules constraining that trade, but he makes the protection of StratCom a cornerstone of his policy.

Peace activists will have to decide whether to vote for Larrick, the pure peace candidate, or Kleeb, who’s less hawkish than Johanns. The decision will depend on the closeness of the race in November.

The House Races: Lee Terry is locked in rematch with Jim Esch for the District 2 seat. In 15 votes analyzed by the Friends Committee on National Legislation, Terry voted only once with the FCNL — against more dollars for nuclear weapons. He supported the resolution authorizing the Iraq War and all later resolutions endorsing and funding it, the removal of Saddam Hussein and opposed any schedule for withdrawal. He still argues that we struggle against terrorists there — not against sectarian fighters or those who hate us as an occupying power.

In contrast, Jim Esch argues that our incompetent politicians mismanaged the war in Iraq, hurting our international credibility, and that the Iraqis themselves have to decide about democracy: “I will demand that this administration define victory, account for all of the money being spent (and misspent), and bring our troops home. We must regain our status as responsible leaders so that we can effectively work for peace and stability not only in the Middle East, but also in North Korea, Afghanistan, India and Pakistan.” Esch also has a good platform concerning alternative energy. What candidate peace people should work for here is clear, and the race is close enough to command energy.

Fortenberry-Yashirin: Fortenberry voted with the FCNL’s stand only four times — two of them non-military issues. He did vote against more money for nukes and against reducing U.S. support for the United Nations. The rest of his record on Iraq, Iran, and military spending is dismal.

Yashirin, an Iraq veteran, concentrates on that country in his statements about the military. He calls for removal of all of our troops in a phased withdrawal, a surge of diplomatic activity, and a surge of donors to provide the resources to rebuild Iraq. Obviously, Yashirin, who has seen the war as a soldier, is closer to NFP’s position. But this race does not appear to be close.

Smith-Stoddard: Adrian Smith, the incumbent, believes that “Iraq was not a mistake because it freed millions of people,” believes “terrorism will succeed if we ignore the problem,” and touts bromides like “the country should defeat terrorists.” In 15 votes, he voted only once with FCNL.

Jay Stoddard, on the other hand, says that he opposes the construction of our vast embassy building in Baghdad, regrets Halliburton’s huge base contracts in Iraq, and does not like any continued American occupation of Iraq. He also says that the war is for oil, and circumvents both congressional authority and the Constitution. He opposes American unilateralism and the rise of untrammeled presidential power in this country. This race is not close.

In summary, we do have elections where change is up for grabs: not radical change but change that may pull us back from the abyss. Peace voters in the Second District have three likely important elections: the presidential, the Senate and the House. For the rest of us, the Senate race is probably the crucial one.