Overwhelmingly wars end in negotiations except wars the US fights. France left Algeria without chaos or French equipment being seized despite a totally bitter war. An exception is that the Khmer Rouge just seized Cambodia.

Since Hitler’s claim to power was that Germany was sold out by traitors in World War I, no one thought a negotiated end was appropriate. The US at first wouldn’t let Japan keep the Emperor, which blocked a far quicker end to the war with Japan, but General MacArthur let him stay.

Vietnam wanted friendship against China and diplomatic relations. But the US left by helicopter from the embassy roof for actually no good reason at all, since Vietnam wanted an embassy with the US not US hostages. One recent time that the US negotiated was due the UN being in charge in Korea, and that armistice gave negotiations a bad name.

The US could quickly leave Afghanistan under the precondition that the Taliban not immediately seize Kabul, and let China or some other country guard Kabul for a while. Martin Luther King, Gandhi, and Bishop Tutu negotiated, the Transnational Foundation met with Gen. Musharraf in pursuit of peace, Why is that Swedish peace group not repeating its efforts?
Why is the peace movement different now?

Suddenly far fewer Americans are mad at the Taliban since they weren’t harboring bin Laden after all. Can’t there be some other proposal by Congressional peace Reps., than a funds cut off in six months? Enough time for Americans to get mad again.

For some more immediate peace suggestions see, “The War is Over, It ended May 2 . . .”




I'm retired in Philadelphia. Non religious but there seems to be a life force that I see as more personal than is usually expressed.

I was raised a Quaker (common with Christian Jewish intermarriage back them) But my father was a total pacifist and during World War II, at the time that being so was difficult.

Upbringing included father trying not to get physical, yet still defend us kids from my harsh stepmother until she got her citizenship papers, after which they could get divorced. Been involved in peace issues since the anti-fallout shelter protests through Vietnam and Iraq.

I wrote "Greedy Little Squirrels and Lifeboat ethics,” 1977, when the Moonies were coming to America and got heavily harassed by them. I also think bin Laden is extremely dangerous like the leader of a barroom brawl, who has been manipulating this country into using the US to get Muslims angry enough to join his suicidal permanent war group. Before 9/11 young Muslims rebelled by wearing by covering their hair a little less than expected and at least winking at each other, now he changed rebellion into being militancy. The Northern Alliance would have been legitimately in charge long ago had he not baited the US into entering Afghanistan.

Obama is making a mistake in my mind with how to stop bin Laden’s dream of permanent war in a divided world but less of a mistake than most anyone else would. If due to currency collapses from out ever more expensive weapons the US stops fighting al Qaeda, then other counties will. If it ends up being Iran, the Sunni Shiite divide will be enormous. Al Qaeda is already convinced that the atheist China is a serious enemy,
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=al9wM3k5zjLQ and the Russians have fought for brutally and inadvertently convinced far more Muslims than the US did that they considered Islam itself to be the enemy.

I never stopped supporting Jimmy Carter when everyone turned on him and I support Obama as well, but think he will have to use a lot more persuasion and less force if they aren’t going to succeed at bankrupting us. However Obama has tried less force and al Qaeda has started to respond in kind trying to limit the victim’s in the way of their primary attacks.

Back up reference to above link, http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/082209a.html

Richard Kane (Philadelphia)
(More information if you google RichardKanePA