- CSFilm’s "Compassionate Campaign for Afghan Civilians" seems to be closely associated with the U.S. Institute of Peace and cites The Institute of Peacein several places as references for further understanding. This fact has is concerning to us as the U.S. Institute of Peace’s Board of Directors consists of neocons who have been working for years to further U.S. wars of aggression.
- "Progressive" Journalism's Legacy of Deceit
- NATO's Presence Does Not Benefit Afghan Women
- Sanctions: Diplomacy’s Weapon of Mass Murder
Mary Beaudoin, Evergreene Digest
This article is made possible with the generous contributions of Evergreene Digest readers like you. Thank you!
Women Against Military Madness (WAMM) received a recent request to sponsor a documentary about Afghanistan, along with a lobbying request. Ostensibly, the film promotes peace, human rights, women's rights, getting troops out, autonomy for Afghans, all the things we believe in. However, NGO and cultural
projects now require closer scrutiny, as hegemonic, pro-war neo-cons create a facade, or attempt to co-op groups or use cultural vehicles to win our hearts and minds, keeping US and NATO military domination and expansion going. It
can be part of psych-op propaganda machine, but no doubt those who espouse it also have a sincere belief in their agenda. They appeal to not abandon Afghans--but say nothing about the fact that reparations could be made, without outside control and military involvement. The same vocabulary of true peace and justice adherents is used, but military force and control is a component of their agenda. Parts of this documentary and project sound very good, but WAMM member Margaret Sarfehjooy researched The U.S. Institute of Peace, which this project cites as sources of information on Afghanistan, and here is what she found in the background. We are sharing this with you so that you can decide for yourselves.
Caution: Benign sounding documentary backed by neo-cons
CSFilm’s "Compassionate Campaign for Afghan Civilians" seems to be closely associated with the U.S. Institute of Peace and cites The Institute of Peace in several places as references for further understanding. This fact has is
concerning to us as the U.S. Institute of Peace’s Board of Directors consists of neocons who have been working for years to further U.S. wars of aggression. (The Institute of Peace is NOT the same “Department of Peace” that Dennis Kucinich and others have been striving for).
From csfilm’s website: "Support peace for Afghans, and thereby regional stability and security at home. This requires slowly removing US-led offensive military forces, replacing them with a large international peacekeeping force (with a ‘right to kill’ mandate), increasing diplomatic pressure to resolve regional conflicts and funding long-term (30-50 year) Afghan led and implemented economic, social, political and security development programs (For further insight read the United States Institute of Peace's: The Future of Afghanistan)."
I (WAMM member Margaret Sarfehjooy) researched the U.S. Institute of Peace and was quite alarmed that such a hawkish organization is associated with this film project. From The United States Institute of Peace (USIP): The United States Institute of Peace (USIP) was created by Congress in 1984 (ironically it was attached to the 1985 Defense Authorization Bill) as an institution concerned with peace and the processes leading towards peace. USIP has been under criticism since its inception as being a research arm of the government. The USIP board of directors is a who's who of rightwing academia and government which challenges the institute's credentials as a nonpartisan and nonideological organization. The legislation that established USIP states that "the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, Director of the Arms Control and disarmament Agency, and President of the National Defense University, shall... be ex officio voting members of the Board." The USIP is a publicly- funded private institution which by mandate will research and come up with solutions to current policy problems of the U.S. government.
As such, it is a tool of the government and those working for it must pass the scrutiny of those in power.
The current Board of Directors on the U.S. Institute of Peace include:
- Eric S. Adelman-- a career U.S. diplomat and former advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney who serves on the boards of a number of hawkish policy groups, including the Foreign Policy Initiative, an advocacy group founded in 2009 by neoconservative figures William Kristol, Robert Kagan, and Dan Senor.
- Jeremy Rapkin--Rabkin is a member of the Council of Academic Advisers at the American Enterprise Institute.
- Michael Posner--The wikileaks documents reveal that Michael Posner traveled to Israel after the Israeli attack on Gaza between Dec. 2008 and Jan. 2009.
- Kathleen Christison, a former CIA-analyst and writer, commented that Posner's visit was mainly with coordinating a means with the Israelis of undermining the Goldstone Report.
- Richard Solomon- served as director of policy planning at the Department of State and as a senior staff member of the National Security Council.
- Stephen D. Krasner-- was appointed as Director for Policy Planning bySecretary of State Condoleezza Rice on February 4, 2005.
"Progressive" Journalism's Legacy of Deceit, James Tracy, Global Research
- Given the backdrop of progressive-left journalists’ lengthy and ardent opposition to the Bush-Cheney policies of Nazi-like atrocities and plunder, venues such as Democracy Now are poised to serve as platforms for disseminating the necessary disinformation to make the Obama administration’s color revolutions and "humanitarian" policy of military interventions seem palatable to the very audiences whose sensibilities are most opposed to violence and imperialism.
- When War Is in the Air on PBS
- NATO's Presence Does Not Benefit Afghan Women
NATO's Presence Does Not Benefit Afghan Women, Jodie Evans, AlterNet
- Amnesty International-USA's Executive director Suzanne Nossel appears to be taking a major human rights organization in an inhumane direction.
- Why I Had to Challenge Amnesty International-USA's Claim
Sanctions: Diplomacy’s Weapon of Mass Murder, Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich, AntiWar.com
The United States has successfully blackmailed other nations to be its accomplice in suffering and mass murder — diplomacy’s weapon of choice. Believing that Iran (or Syria) is the only target of these sanctions is as naive as believing that sanctions are diplomacy put in place to avoid war. The global impact of the lethal weapon — sanctions — is simply cushioned in diplomacy, a brilliantly and ruthlessly executed diplomatic coup.