|
Antiwar Activists Have Scored an Apparent Victory on Yemen. It's Time to Keep Pushing. |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=58330"><span class="small">Shireen Al-Adeimi and Sarah Lazare, Jacobin</span></a>
|
|
Friday, 12 February 2021 13:40 |
|
Excerpt: "Joe Biden is sounding the right notes about halting US participation in the Saudis' catastrophic war in Yemen. But now, more than ever, it is vital to hold a firm line about what ending support for the war means: an end to all US assistance, no exceptions, before one more Yemeni dies."
Joe Biden on February 26, 2020. (photo: Logan Cyrus/Getty)

Antiwar Activists Have Scored an Apparent Victory on Yemen. It's Time to Keep Pushing.
By Shireen Al-Adeimi and Sarah Lazare, Jacobin
12 February 21
Joe Biden is sounding the right notes about halting US participation in the Saudis’ catastrophic war in Yemen. But now, more than ever, it is vital to hold a firm line about what ending support for the war means: an end to all US assistance, no exceptions, before one more Yemeni dies.
he February 4 announcement by National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan that President Biden would end US support for “offensive operations” in Yemen was understandably met with celebration by those opposed to the war. Almost six years of the US-Saudi?UAE war on Yemen have left the country devastated by humanitarian disaster and famine. Anti-war activists have spent these years?—?first during the Obama-Biden administration, then the Trump-Pence administration, and now the Biden-Harris administration?—?agitating to end US participation in the onslaught. It has been an organizing effort that often seemed like shouting into the wind, as the bombings of hospitals, factories, and weddings piled up. The countless people who have been toiling in obscurity to end this war, and those in Yemen who have joined in this effort while surrounded by hardship and death, certainly deserve praise and gratitude for the fact we’ve gotten this far.
But Biden’s foreign policy speech, delivered just hours after Sullivan’s teaser, unfortunately underscored that we must not celebrate the end of the war until we verify that it has actually, materially ended. That is because Biden’s remarks leave just enough room for the president to gesture toward ending the war without actually halting all US participation in it.
Biden first noted that the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) will reach Yemeni civilians who have suffered “unendurable devastation” (the Trump administration suspended aid to much of Yemen in 2020) and declared “this war has to end.” He then added, “We are ending all American support for offensive operations in the war in Yemen including relevant arms sales.” Biden said he is appointing career-long diplomat Timothy Lenderking as a special envoy to Yemen. But the president continued, “At the same time, Saudi Arabia faces missile attacks and UAV strikes and other threats from Iranian supplied forces in multiple countries. We are going to continue to help Saudi Arabia defend its sovereignty and its territorial integrity and its people.”
Unfortunately, qualifiers like “offensive” and “relevant” do not signal a clear commitment to ending all forms of support for the US war in Yemen, which includes targeting assistance, weapons sales (the United States is the largest supplier of arms to Saudi Arabia), logistics, training, and intelligence sharing with the Saudi-led coalition. Labeling Yemen’s Houthis as “Iranian supplied forces,” and making a commitment to defending Saudi Arabia’s “sovereignty,” echoes President Obama’s initial pretense for entering the war on Yemen in 2015. The White House statement that signaled Obama’s illegal entry declared, “In response to the deteriorating security situation, Saudi Arabia, Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members, and others will undertake military action to defend Saudi Arabia’s border and to protect Yemen’s legitimate government.” In other words, from the outset, this onslaught was framed by the United States as defensive.
Importantly, Sullivan noted that ending the war in Yemen “does not extend to actions against AQAP,” or al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. While sanctioned by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), it’s important to oppose this parallel US-led war in Yemen that has also led to the killing of civilians.
One day after these February 4 declarations, Biden announced that he is removing the Houthis from the list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations, a positive move, given that this designation is being used to cut off critical aid to northern Yemen and significantly escalate the crisis of mass starvation. Also, on February 5, Pentagon Press Secretary John Kirby said at a press conference, “As a result of the President’s order yesterday, DOD had been providing some limited non-combat assistance for coalition operations, and that would include intelligence and — and some advice and best practices, and that all has been terminated. But Saudi Arabia remains a — a partner in terms of combating terror in the region.” Kirby’s statement vastly understates the role of the United States, which has played an important part in the war effort, and it’s not immediately clear what “noncombat” intelligence sharing and “advice” he is referring to. We must ensure these steps culminate in a full and permanent withdrawal from complicity in the war on Yemen.
Now, more than ever, it is vital to hold a firm line about what a real end to US participation in the Yemen war means: an end to all US assistance, including all forms of intelligence sharing, logistical help, training, providing spare parts transfers for warplanes, bomb targeting, weapons sales, and support for the naval blockade (we still don’t know the full extent of US support for the latter). It is critical to keep up the pressure until we verify, perhaps through a congressional hearing or other means, the war has really ended. As much as we might welcome positive messaging?—?no doubt a result of the pressure exerted by dogged organizers?—?we must not rest until we have won actual material relief.
Ending the incredible harm being unleashed on Yemen should only be the beginning. Real justice demands accountability for the US role in the mass killing and starvation in Yemen through — at the very least — reparations to the people of Yemen.
This is not to sow nihilism: it is significant that President Biden, whose own Obama-Biden administration first initiated US involvement in the war, feels that he has to answer to anti-war activists. A global day of action to end the war on January 25 saw people mobilize from streets to online forums demanding an immediate halt to the war, reflecting the growing power of an international movement to end the onslaught.
And the Biden administration has taken some steps before the February 4 announcements. In the twenty-four hours before leaving office, Trump’s final act of war on Yemeni civilians involved signing a $23 billion arms sale to the UAE, in addition to the designation of the Houthis as an FTO. Two days after taking office, Biden’s State Department launched a review of the FTO designation, citing “deep concern about the designation that was made is that at least on its surface it seems to achieve nothing particularly practical in advancing the efforts against the Houthis and to bring them back to the negotiating table, while making it even more difficult than it already is to provide humanitarian assistance to people who desperately need it.” And one week after taking office, Biden temporarily froze the sale of F-35s included in the Trump deal, as well as precision-guided munitions destined for Saudi Arabia.
But arms sales to Saudi Arabia and UAE. have not been canceled. Indeed, a celebrated Wall Street Journal report from January 27 about the Biden administration “pausing” arms sales to Saudi Arabia subtly noted in paragraph three that the pause “isn’t unusual for a new administration” and “many of the [arms] transactions are likely to ultimately go forward.” Still, these steps could indicate a willingness by the Biden administration to end US involvement in the war on Yemen.
But rhetoric and positive signals are not enough. We need a material end to all US assistance now, before one more Yemeni dies, and we need to verify that this assistance has ended before we declare victory. The Trump administration claimed, at various points, that it was working toward the end of the war via a “political solution.” Of course, the Trump administration horrifically escalated the war?—?rhetoric to the contrary did not shield Yemenis from US-manufactured bombs, or the assault on the port city of Hodeidah.
Rep. Ro Khanna (D?CA), in his January 25 address at the World Says No to War on Yemen global online rally, noted his commitment to ending the war in Yemen by reintroducing the War Powers Resolution that Trump previously vetoed. “Senator Sanders and I will be advocating and introducing again a War Powers Resolution to stop any logistical support .?.?. any intelligence support, any military support to the Saudis in their campaign in Yemen,” he said. Congressional oversight through another War Powers Resolution with these provisions would provide additional and significant pressure on the Biden administration.
The Obama-Biden administration made numerous announcements in 2012 and 2013 that it would end the US war in Afghanistan by 2014. But we saw that declarations do not, in themselves, end US aggression. This principle especially applies when declarations are loaded with red-flag-raising qualifiers like “offensive operations” and “relevant weapons systems.” We should know in a matter of weeks what the details of Biden’s plans for Yemen are. The job in the meantime is to maintain pressure, to ensure the Biden administration brings about a real end to the war that the president helped start?—?and says he wants to bring to a close.

|
|
FOCUS: How to Turn Your Red State Blue |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=58327"><span class="small">Stacey Abrams and Lauren Groh-Wargo, The New York Times</span></a>
|
|
Friday, 12 February 2021 13:10 |
|
Excerpt: "We met and became political partners a decade ago, uniting in a bid to stave off Democratic obsolescence and rebuild a party that would increase the clout of regular, struggling Georgians."
Sen. Raphael Warnock, Stacey Abrams and Sen. Jon Ossoff. (photo: Patrick Semansky/AP)

How to Turn Your Red State Blue
By Stacey Abrams and Lauren Groh-Wargo, The New York Times
12 February 21
It may take 10 years. Do it anyway.
e met and became political partners a decade ago, uniting in a bid to stave off Democratic obsolescence and rebuild a party that would increase the clout of regular, struggling Georgians. Our mission was clear: organize people, help realize gains in their lives, win local races to build statewide competitiveness and hold power accountable.
But the challenge was how to do that in a state where many allies had retreated into glum predictions of defeat, where our opponents reveled in shellacking Democrats at the polls and in the Statehouse.
That’s not all we had to contend with. There was also a 2010 census undercount of people of color, a looming Republican gerrymander of legislative maps and a new Democratic president midway into his first term confronting a holdover crisis from the previous Republican administration. Though little in modern American history compares with the malice and ineptitude of the botched pandemic response or the attempted insurrection at the Capitol, the dynamic of a potentially inaccurate census and imminent partisan redistricting is the same story facing Democrats in 2021 as it was in 2011. State leaders and activists we know across the country who face total or partial Republican control are wondering which path they should take in their own states now — and deep into the next decade.
READ MORE

|
|
|
RSN: Disappointed in Some Democrats |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=15102"><span class="small">Bernie Sanders, Reader Supported News</span></a>
|
|
Friday, 12 February 2021 12:14 |
|
Sanders writes: "Democrats promised the American people that if we won both races in Georgia and took control of the Senate, we were going to pass a very popular COVID relief bill, including its most popular provision: ,000 checks for the working people of this country."
Sen. Bernie Sanders. (photo: Getty)

Disappointed in Some Democrats
By Bernie Sanders, Reader Supported News
12 February 21
emocrats promised the American people that if we won both races in Georgia and took control of the Senate, we were going to pass a very popular COVID relief bill, including its most popular provision: $2,000 checks for the working people of this country.
Democrats won, and now it’s time to deliver.
But, unfortunately, we have some Democrats in Congress who believe that we should first lower the annual income threshold for those eligible to receive the full benefit from $75,000 per individual and $150,000 per couple to $50,000 per individual and $100,000 per couple.
A lot of people have said they don’t want rich people to get the full $2,000 benefit, and I agree. But to say to a worker from Vermont or California, or a single parent working 40 or 50 hours a week and making $60,000 a year in West Virginia that they are too rich to receive the full benefit during this time of economic crisis...it is absurd.
It is not just terrible policy, it is even worse politics.
Because if we water down this relief, we are telling working class people in this country that when Donald Trump was president they could get a full benefit if they made $75,000 per year, but now that Democrats are in power if they make $52,000 a year they are too rich for that benefit.
If Joe Biden and a Democratic-controlled Congress do not provide the full benefits that Donald Trump and the Republicans did, it would be a political and policy disaster. We have got to do what we promised to the American people and help working families who are struggling right now.
This is not just a question about helping the working people of this country during a time of crisis, this is a question about the future of the Democratic Party and whether we will show the middle class of this country that we are on their side.
Republicans pit people against each other. They try to divide us up based on race, gender and ethnicity in an attempt to appeal to working class voters.
The way Democrats become the party of the working class is by fighting for social justice, economic justice, and by bringing people together.
But you do not bring people together when you say someone making $52,000 a year is too rich.
A recent national poll shows that there is overwhelming support for President Biden's $1.9 trillion COVID relief plan, and the vast majority of Americans are in favor of raising direct payments to $2,000. It is by far the most popular of the provisions in the plan.
I would like to congratulate the House Leadership and the Progressive Caucus for keeping the existing income thresholds. It is absurd to create an income eligibility cap that would mean 40 million Americans who got support under Trump wouldn’t get checks under Biden.
We must act urgently to provide relief to working people. That is why today I am counting on you to make your voice heard on this important issue:
Sign my petition – tell Democratic leadership to stand tall for the working class of this country and have the courage to take on the powerful special interests. We must keep the income threshold for direct payments at $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for couples.
Working people are struggling during the worst economic collapse in a century, and I intend to do everything I can to ensure they receive the $2,000 payments they were promised.
Thank you for adding your name today to join me in that effort.
In solidarity,
Bernie Sanders

|
|
A Moment for Reckoning |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=58324"><span class="small">Dan Rather, Steady</span></a>
|
|
Friday, 12 February 2021 09:32 |
|
Rather writes: "I am shaken, and I like to think I don't shake easily."
Dan Rather. (photo: The New York Times)

A Moment for Reckoning
By Dan Rather, Steady
12 February 21
am shaken, and I like to think I don't shake easily.
I am moved to a deep and profound sadness, and I don't like to think I am prone to melancholy.
But I am also emboldened and determined that what we saw today, the overwhelming evidence presented by the House Managers in the impeachment trial of Donald Trump, shall not, must not, be a portent for where this country goes. Rather it must be a wake-up call to centuries of injustice and false grievances that a would-be despot, bolstered by no shortage of confederates, weaponized and catapulted into an assault on American democracy. As I write these words I still cannot quite believe what really happened. Nevertheless, there can be no denying the reality.
I have tried to get into a rhythm for these Steady posts with a morning publishing schedule. But I feel strongly that the events of today warrant an evening edition.
January 6 was a coordinated attack. It was built atop a foundation of lies doled out with precision over days and weeks. From a different perspective, you might say this was months, years, and even generations in the making. Will it be the last gasps of a discredited white supremacy and the other forces of intolerance that weaken our nation? Will we be able to successfully fight off the lies and propaganda? Or will this be part another major strike of the sledgehammer that’s fracturing our democratic experiment?
I firmly believe that the vast majority of American citizens will see this clearly for what it is. But our voices are on the sidelines for now, other than the pressure of conscience we can bring to bear on the 100 senators who will stand in judgement. That these same women and men were also in the crosshairs of the murderous mob and that the trial is taking place at the scene of the crime, makes the events transpiring today on Capitol Hill even more surreal.
- For the senators, there can be no hiding from this historic decision... silence or procedural excuses equal complicity.
- For the rioters, there can be no leniency... terrorists are inspired by weakness.
- For the instigators, there can be no immunity... to drum up a mob hellbent on violent injustice is to encourage insurrection.
- For those in the right-wing media who aided and abetted the lies, there can be no normalizing... their role in setting the stage for the insurrection is cemented by hours of television and thousands of tweets.
- For those who have dabbled in the false equivalence framework so prevalent in Washington, this must be the end of that... there can be no comparison between the actions of the previous president and his enablers, abetters, and cheerleaders, and any "other side." Thankfully, I think many in the press have long ago realized this and have reported accordingly.
Some might argue that this is a rush to judgement, that the president's counsel has a right to present their case. That is indeed true. But you would have to be willfully ignorant, or cynical to the point of malevolence, to not see and hear with clarity the evidence as it stands.
I have seen my country brought low before. I have reported on the injustices and inequalities that have weakened our national purpose since its inception. I witnessed cowardice and complicity. But never before have I seen all of these undercurrents so focused in a single event.
We have clarity. We have proof. We need accountability. And we need a justice that will ring forth for the generations that follow. We cannot speak of unifying this nation without reckoning with all that is tearing it apart.
—Dan

|
|