These comments give me hope.
Thank you!
Our numbers grow.

norman michael harman:  What responses do you get when you send out articles?  It’s a very interesting idea.  So far, out of the hundreds of letters I have written over the last 40 years I have only a very few personal responses. Hundreds of canned responses, however.  One of my main beefs about politicians is, all they are interested in is money contributions.  It is almost impossible for ordinary people to gain any meaningful access at all to the elites in government, industry, entertainment or media.
  I have to keep reminding myself that it was not always so. Once I wrote a famous newscaster about the Cuban Missile Crisis.  He referred to “a lady in California”  in his program two days later saying:  “Don’t belabor the President about the Missile Crisis.  You are as much to blame as he because you let it happen when you did nothing!”  I was both amazed, gratified and insulted!  But of course he spoke the truth.

In light of these cables as well as Obama’s Nixonian interlude at West Point last month, he should be promptly impeached.

Of course, American soldiers must die so that that bastard can get re-elected.

Johnston didn’t want to end the Vietnam fiasco either.  It took years, but finally he was forced to do so by public opinion and protest. That, plus the sheer agony of failure, lying and violence.
Leaders can neither deny nor jail nor kill millions of protesters.  Public opinion is a tried agent of change and often of improvement. “I need you to help me,” says Obama.  “I can’t do it without you, etc.” 
  “Gimme access!” shout the online commentators like us.  “Speak truth to power!” 
  Some of are speaking some truth.  Others not so much, perhaps, but sooner or later the gap between the top and the bottom will close, somehow, somewhere, sometime.  Or else . . . .?

Obama doesn’t want good foreign policy.  He wants to be re-elected.  He wants to shut up the Republicans by proving he’s even more manly than they.

If Malia and Sasha were older, he might even send them to be immolated in the illegal Afghan adventure in order to get re-elected.

I am not particularly hopeful either at this moment. But every moment offers an opportunity for realization of truth and a chance to learn frome experience.  Certainly the highest officials are worried about failure in Afghanistan.  In all probability they do not look to places like Truthdig for enlightenment.  But one never knows how words wind their way from here to there, or what power they may have to inspire a return to the spirit of
resistance among the fat, lazy and outraged victims of ignorance and greed. It took fully ten years from the beginning of protests before the Vietnam insanity was stopped at last.

Dear gerard, you are far too hopeful. Empires don’t realize sudden truths or see any *good* outside their own continued existence. The empire has determined that Afghanistan MUST BE KEPT. Only Vietnam era style uprisings of this malnourished, fat and lazy population could possibly avert total disaster. I am not hopeful.

It would appear from these memos that the main difficulty lies with the naive mindset of the majority of our government authorities, whether military or civilian.  Eikenberry is arguing for an approach that is based on the experiences of many private aid groups—that is, whatever aid sent or efforts made by the U.S., whether financial or material, must build within the receiver country an infrastructure based on the local culture.  It must be received willingly and must be able to assume local cooperation and understanding. It must emphasize civilian benefits and refuse to project indications of dominance, either military or cultural.

American foreign policy is made from a dictatorial point of view:  We will help you to become like us, whether you want to or not, because we know what is best for your (our) future “development.”  This attitude is part and parcel of “American exceptionalism” and the so-called “culture wars.”

In my opinion, amateur though it is, I think it unlikely that any American drive for dominance—even under the guise of “aid” or “development”—can succeed without a thoroughgoing reform of the fundamental goals and methods of American foreign policy. It is obvious that what we have now is not succeeding in anyone’s terms. Time for a fresh look at more realistic possibilities.