A little ofver four decades ago Martin Luther King came to the conclusion that that the Vietnam War was a moral issue and a civil rights issue.

To my knowledge, you are the first gay leader to acknowledge that the war in Afghanistan is a moral issue and a queer issue.

Thank you David Mixner!!

Posted by: Dean Van de Motter | Dec 4, 2009 10:54:35 AM

Thank you once again for reminding us that we have a moral obligation to put ourselves in the shoes of those who pay the ultimate price of war. Too often it is someone else's children and the immediate impact is unknown to us. The hallmark of a true liberal is that ability to walk in the shoe's of others. Bravo.

Posted by: Al Strasburg | Dec 4, 2009 12:31:52 PM

I regret that I am one of those who has a family member in Afghanistan, a very young cousin in the Army. And I have another young cousin in the Marines in Iraq. Last week, I sent them a video montage of the Thanksgiving get together we shared 15-years ago in Indiana when they were just innocent, little boys who couldn’t get enough of mugging for my camcorder, and the only guns they knew were toys, and death, too, only make believe. So every time those two war zones are mentioned pinches a raw nerve of perpetual anxiety that the morning, the day, the night will come when I hear that they will be coming home but in the worst way possible.

There is no question in my mind that our invasion of Iraq was a war crime, and I am sickened every time mainstream media reports on "progress" there rather than "improvement on cleaning up the mess WE created." I wish that I believed in a Hell where the likes of Bush and Cheney and Perl would eternally suffer for the deaths and destruction they caused. Which is why I thought I was hallucinating when I read normally unusually sane "Newsweek" editor Jon Meacham's suggestion, essentially ignoring the man’s history, that it would be a good thing for Cheney to run for President in 2012, as if the polarization in America that has been purposesly ignited by thugs like Cheney is no more serious than disagreements between two boys on the playground that can be settled by a polite boxing match after school, and then Life go merrily along.

“Newsweek” is rolling in ignominious swill, lately: check out their arrogant pig Michael Isikoff, the reporter who felt it was so important for America to learn about the stained blue dress of a naïve young woman being exploited less by a President than two disturbed right wing women, and his out pigging his own self with a published fantasy about Al Gore being impeached, too, if he’d become President [read, the Supreme Court had not imposed a political coup]. As the real point of his irrelevant fiction is to again, after more than a decade, attack Clinton, me wonders if Mickey doesn't have some sexual issues with Willy himself.

I admit to more mixed feelings about Afghanistan but these things lead me to agree with David.

1. David was a leader on the national stage of the anti Vietnam War movement, while I was only a local organizer who was indicted for refusing to be inducted, as we witnessed a President totally mislead by generals for whom a day without war is a day without sunshine: LBJ, who was persuaded to keep increasing the troop levels again and again in Vietnam because "then we can win."

2. The fact that the main general "advising" Pres. Obama is General Stanley A. McChrystal…picked BY OBAMA to take over in Afghanistan despite the fact that, in addition to being “alleged to have been at the center of the cover-up of Pat Tillman's [‘friendly fire’] death, he was ultimately responsible for commanding special operations groups in Iraq with members who were found guilty by the Pentagon itself of committing torture during interrogations in multiple places set up for just that, including one of Saddam Hussein’s former torture centers. At least two people died under interrogation. I actually could not stomach reading all of this NY Times report:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/international/middleeast/19abuse.html?pagewanted=2

3. Obama’s shameful continuing of the charade of Bush Inc. of masking the real scope [and cost] of the war by bragging about, e.g., withdrawing troops from Iraq and “limiting” the increase of American troops in Afghanistan at the very same time he has quietly increased the tens of thousands of armed mercenaries [29% more this year in Afghanistan], such as those run by the infamous Blackwater group owned by an avowed “Christian supremacist,” that are not accountable to military rules of engagement or conduct. They have been accused of murder, child prostitution, etc. "The fact is that I think most Americans are not aware that just under 50 percent of their dollars being spent in Afghanistan are, in fact, going to for profit corporations in both Iraq and Afghanistan.” - “Blackwater” author Jeffrey Scahill. Discussion at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GgIXyTPRkE

4. The plain fact that, contrary to his campaign promises to the contrary, Obama has allowed himself to be intimidated by the military in ways very similar to those involving Bill Clinton.

“For all the criticism from the left and right about President Obama, no one can argue that, so far, he hasn't deferred to military leaders on most issues. From the early days of his administration when he approved a troop increase for Afghanistan, to his ordering a study rather than a quick repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, to keeping pictures of Abu Ghraib under wraps, the President has heeded the advice of military minds, and has been backed up by the most senior retired officer in his inner circle, General James L. Jones.” – The Huffington Post.

No less an expert on such wars and Pentagon political tactics than Pentagon Papers-famous Daniel Ellsberg says Obama is going against his own instincts because he is afraid of a “public military revolt” before next year’s midterms [much as Clinton had his legs cut off by the public opposition of Chair of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Colin Powell to lifting the military ban on gays].

Ellsberg says that it's hopeless for a foreign nation to prevail in such a situation, but there is no way we could even imagine controlling Afghanistan without injecting hundreds of thousands of troops.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGVHUMhWdpE

Such Pentagon vs. President gamesmanship was evident in October when Gen. McChrystal gave a number of interviews emphasizing his own insistence that more troops be sent. Cong. Nancy Pelosi: "His recommendation to the President should go up the line of command [privately]. They shouldn't be in press conferences."

CONCLUSION: bring ‘em home.

Posted by: Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com | Dec 4, 2009 5:11:33 PM

i totally agree with you, David. and that's an amazing comment by Michael. i sincerely hope that terrible morning, afternoon, or night never comes for Michael, or any one else.

Posted by: casey | Dec 5, 2009 12:31:34 AM

I like to make my way through complex thoughts by looking at the opposite. Imagine if Obama has just ended the killing; exchanged the war on terror for the hunt for radicals by special forces; made a commitment to bring our military home to care, education and jobs. That is what I want. The distance between what I want to what I got tells me who Obama is. He is not a man I trust.

Posted by: Zoe Nicholson | Dec 5, 2009 2:10:05 AM

I am not sure what you are all surprised about? President Obama 100% campaigned on the premise that the "true" war for our future security is in Afghanistan and not Iraq. This is one promise he has kept - and I'm praying he has CIA security information etc and reasons for doing this. I pray the President, his National Security Team, and the Generals on the ground....have a true plan to reduce worldwide terror, help the Afghan people, and truly minimize harm to our soldiers. I don't wan't another Vietnam.......all those deaths/injuries etc - for a war we could not win, nor had any true goal.

Posted by: Bruce Miller | Dec 6, 2009 5:49:31 PM

We have already lost 2 young men from our extended family. I read an article about the revenge for 9-11. How many more need to die? How many will satisfy the extremists?

Posted by: rp | Dec 8, 2009 3:04:42 PM