Becoming the Communitarian Middle

A + B = Z
anti-war versus war equals
peaceful nuclear war

Rainmaking in Afghanistan
by Amitai Etzioni

The reports from our generals in Afghanistan—trying to convince the public to support extension of the war, to be shortly reviewed by the President-- remind me of a study by anthropologist E. E. Evans-Pritchard. He wondered how rain makers could stay in business, given that they hardly produce rain on demand. The shamans, he found, had well-honed explanations that kept them in business. Our generals are using the same rationales to keep going. When no raindrops followed the rain makers’ dance, they would claim that the dance was not properly performed. Our generals argue that we did not fight right in the first six years of our engagement in Afghanistan—but now they have found a better way: it is called counterinsurgency. So far, though, it has not produced any better results.

If still no rain was coming the rain makers in Africa would argue that some external force interfered, and it is to be blamed for their failings. Our generals are employing a similar argument . Indeed, they name the external force. They call it Pakistan—which provides a safe haven for the Taliban—and the ISI is said to arm them and provide them with intelligence and training. True enough, but this “external” force is not going away.

And if countering the external force with a new dance still did not do the trick, the shamans held that the dance had to be done over again, and that it will rain—only later. The generals argue that they need more time; they assure us they will prevail by 2014 or by 2015, or—some say—it will take even longer.

Indeed, the generals have a rationale they can add to the rain makers’ repertoire. They say that they did not have enough “dancers”. And whatever additional numbers they get is never enough.

There is one very telling difference. Eventually, it would rains and “validate” the shamans. I am far from sure that our generals will be able to keep us supporting their “dances” for long enough for them to win in Afghanistan, if only because what winning means is changing all the time.

We first were in Afghanistan—in wake of the 2001 attacks on our homeland to ensure that it did not harbor terrorists. Indeed, as late as 2009 President Obama defined our mission there as “to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda,” period. Since then, the mission has been expanded to include building a legitimate and effective government in this 12th-century country, in order to prevent future terrorists from making it their home, a very tall order, at best. We recently added that we cannot leave unless the Taliban agree to abide by the Afghan constitution that guarantees women’s rights. We are now also told that we must stay there to avoid a civil war.

The most recent twist, in this ever changing –and growing—rationale is that if we leave, it would “be a big shot in the arm to different militant groups in the region, groups that are not just Taliban insurgents—and they are diverse—but groups such as the Lashkar-e-Taiba that are fighting into Kashmir and want to attack India, and groups in Tariqi Taliban in Pakistan that are fighting the Pakistanis,” according to Caroline Wadhams, Director for South Asia Security Studies at the influential Center for American Progress. Still others argue that India will be troubled if Pakistan can unduly influence the post–U.S. Afghanistan, and—that Pakistan will be upset if India gains more influence after we leave. Some even argued that our retreat could lead to a regional war.

Those of us who opposed the war in Vietnam and the 2003 invasion of Iraq, find all this all too familiar. Generals are wisely very reluctant to go to war, but once they do, they hate cutting their losses and calling it a day. This is why we must raise our voices. We cannot build a legitimate, effective government in Afghanistan. We should let the people of Afghanistan figure out what kind of government they want. And it is up to Pakistan and India to work out their differences, curb terrorist groups that aim to undermine their regimes. We never could be the world’s policeman, and we are less equipped to do so now than we were in more affluent days. Above all, never mind the shamans’ excuses. Look at the result, here and now.

Amitai Etzioni is a professor of international relations at the George Washington University and the author of Security First (Yale 2007).

http://blog.amitaietzioni.org/2010/11/rainmaking-in-afghanistan.html

For more information, please visit:
-The Institute for Communitarian Policy Studies at www.icps.gwu.edu
-The Communitarian Network at http://communitariannetwork.org/

If you do not wish to continue receiving mailings from us, please send a message to icps@gwu.edu with the subject line "unsubscribe."

The Institute for Communitarian Policy Studies
The George Washington University
1922 F St. NW, Rm. 413
Washington, DC 20052
ph: 202.994.8190
fax: 202.994.1606
icps.gwu.edu

Where does Iranian opinion fit into Etzioni's dialectic? It doesn't.

The Mafia Principle that drives U.S. foreign policy means that the power elites cannot tolerate the slightest open defiance from any entity, even when that entity is not a serious threat to their global interests. This mafia principle is the overwhelming driver for the U.S. war preparations against Iran. The possibility of gaining effective control over Iran's vast hydrocarbon resources, educated workforce, and substantial market, however remote, is but an added bonus that could turn the ruling elites' wildest wet dream into reality. Failing that, there is always the exciting prospect of breaking up the country into more managable pieces. Bomb Iran Back to the Stone Age: U.S. Army Journal Cover Story by BabakSabzevari
24-Jun-2010 http://www.iranian.com/main/blog/babaksabzevari/bomb-iran-back-stone-age-u-s-army-journal-cover-story

HAARP Technology, Etzioni, and Ron Paul

Somebody arrived at the ACL after doing a keyword search for: "HAARP Etzioni." Sometimes I can't resist going to see what our visitor's search returns were, and these two words together really grabbed my interest. Following search terms is also one way I keep up on what's being published in my "field." For instance, following "HAARP Etzioni" led me to this academic paper:

Technology, Power, Polictics, Outer Space, and Ethics: Notes Toward a New Paradigm, by Richard W. Chadwick

Richard Chadwick, professor? of Political Science, University of Hawaii presented this as a draft for an ISA panel. This is a great introduction to the communitarian ideology of merging and blending of everything into a new Paradigm that's the neo-science of global politics. Chadwick explains the ultimate challenge now, to us ("as a species"), is whether or not we can transcend our current identities so that we can "see collectively."

Many American university professors and politicians speak frankly of their support for Etzioni's ideas in their published academic presentations. If our Anti-communitarian thesis exposes Etzioni's ideas as unoriginal and treasonous, then what are we to make of authors who promote his ideology throughout their calls for a "new theory?" Chadwick explains his position as an international communitarian at the bottom of page 18. As a fan of Dr. Etzioni, I wonder if he is familiar with the new term: neo-communitarian?

RE: Requests to show our support for the Ron Paul "rEVOLUTION" -
I've included a link to Ron Paul from the ACL Links page since we built the site. Even though my Democratic adviser/friend Nancy Rising advised me against him, I always liked him. I liked his speeches and I learned important aspects of American political thought from him.

As the co-founder of the Anti-Communitarian League, I cannot endorse any candidate who does not openly discuss communitarian political issues, by name. I've heard many excuses for why Dr. Paul does not use the term when he's discussing his platform, but none of them satisfy my need to know his bottom line on the theory of communitarianism. His article on the Third Way made me very happy when I found it several years ago... because he was one of the only people in the Congress who I found to know what the 3rd Way was designed to accomplish.

Hillary Clinton used the term communitarian to describe a political ideology in an interview last month (somewhere in my blog archives). That was the perfect opportunity for Paul to ask, in the press (or the press could ask it if it were really free), "What is a communitarian? What did Ms. Clinton mean when she used that term to describe how she views Iowan political society?"

If anyone can show me a direct citation of Ron Paul using the actual term "communitarian" to identify which unconstitutional programs and treaties he will disentanle us from, or anything about whether he will fire the eleven identified advisers named as "Communitarian thinkers" in the White House, I will put Ron Paul banners (and the quotes) ALL over my websites. Why can't the Paul campaign answer my questions? Does Ron Paul have an opinion on communitarian law? I'm almost positive he knows what the term means, but maybe he doesn't, I really don't know.

I know many Americans blow communitarianism off as tin-foil hat theory. Maybe after 14 years in Congress Rep. Ron Paul never even met Dr. Etzioni and never sat on any comittees with any of the hundreds of U.S. Congressmen and women who have signed or endorsed the Third Way/communitarian platforms. Maybe nobody told him the U.N. Earth Charter, according to a Harvard Law professor, is a communitarian document. Maybe he never heard from a Berkely law professor that the Kelo decision was a "benign communitarin decision." Maybe he doesn't know WTO ruling are ALL based in EU Communitarian/Community Law. And maybe I don't want to endorse anybody for president who doesn't know and speak about these things.

Iran stops selling oil in U.S. dollars-Reuters-UK

I get a lot of unsolicited email forwards from people who find our work and think they have permission to fill my inbox with whatever they decide I need to see. I've gotten into the habit of sending most all of it to my spambox. But sometimes I open ones from Anon, who sent this:

Iran stops selling oil in U.S. dollars -report

Reuters-Sat Dec 8, 2007 10:10am GMT
http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKDAH83366720071208

"For nearly two years, OPEC's second biggest producer has been reducing its exposure to the dollar, saying the weak U.S. currency is eroding its purchasing power.

"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who often rails against the West, has called the U.S. currency a "worthless piece of paper.""

So many things we all need to consider now, and decisions that have to be made quickly.

According to MSNBC, it's not a done deal..

"A day earlier, Saudi Arabia opposed a move by Iran on Friday to have OPEC include concerns over the falling dollar included in the summit’s closing statement after the weekend meeting. Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister even warned that even talking publicly about the currency’s decline could further hurt its value.

"But by Sunday, it appeared that Saudi Arabia had compromised. Though the final declaration delivered Sunday did not specifically mention concern over the weak dollar, the organization directed its finance ministers to study the issue.

"OPEC will “study ways and means of enhancing financial cooperation among OPEC ... including proposals by some of the heads of state and governments in their statements to the summit,” OPEC Secretary General Abdalla Salem el-Badri said, reading the statement."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21870271/

We are in the final stage of the coup against the American system, and the international bankers who run the private banking cartel called the "federal" reserve have planned our economic collapse for over a century. What will we do when the curtain drops and we see the grand finale in all its horrible manifestations? Will we put our faith in the same people who brought us to our knees?

There IS a reason why the federal government and many states have passed laws granting them the power to confiscate all people, property, and supplies during a "national emergency."

I can't help thinking about Congressman McFadden's "tirade" against the fed where he accused them of "causing the Great Depression." The official response was that yes, the fed DID cause the Great Depression in 1929, but they didn't mean to do it, so McFadden was wrong in accusing them. He wasn't wrong in accusing them of DOING it, but in doing it WILLFULLY. When the Rothschild's Bank of England took Germany off the gold standard, the mark became "worthless" as a currency and unemployment skyrocketed to 5 million within six months. Then along came Herr Hitler (funded by the Rothschilds?), who rose to power by rebuilding a national bank and the German economy. This is why many people still see Hitler as a good guy. History shows us that any well-financed murderer who comes along and "restores" the system can be viewed as a "hero." Will Americans keep falling for the same line of b.s. as the German people did?

Hmm. Isn't Hillary Clinton funded by the Rothschild's Bank of England? How well does she know Lynn Forrester de Rothschild (the American who helped turn the Democratic Party into a Third Way communitarian party in 1990, and then married the president of the Bank)?

How long before our people are told the seriousness of our situation? Are we like children who are never included in the grown-up's plans and discussions? Yeah, when the time comes for us to move out of the way of global social progress, all we will be told is what to do and where to go.

And don't go thinking you can run to the forest or the mountains when they start rounding people up in the urban centers... our enemies began locking up our forests a hundred years ago. Nearly all the American wilderness is under the "protection" of the internationalists. The good news is, the greenies in the forests don't carry firearms ('cause the bears are their friends). The bad news is, all our U.S. forest rangers are sniper trained by the Israelis.