A Misunderstanding on Iraq

Naomi Klein and Jeremy Scahill are valued contributors to The Nation. Their writing and reporting are essential to the magazine's journalistic work and impact. However, their Huffington Post column, "Players, Not Cheerleaders" reflects a serious misunderstanding of The Nation's role in this election when it comes to ending this disastrous war.

Klein and Scahill suggest that The Nation, along with "some of the most prominent anti-war voices" has decided that we should "simply pick a candidate who is not John McCain and help them win: we'll sort out the details after the Republicans are evicted from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave."

Nowhere have we stated or even implied that this is our philosophy. It is true that The Nation has endorsed Barack Obama. But as we have explained, that does not mean that The Nation endorses every one of his Iraq-related policies. Obama's plan to end the war falls short in some important respects. We have been critical of the size of the embassy he plans to maintain, his ambiguous stance on private contractors and his plans for a sizable "follow-on force" (concerns raised in Scahill's March 17, 2008 Nation piece, "Obama's Mercenary Position".

In the remainder of this presidential campaign, and no matter who wins the Democratic nomination, the very definition of withdrawal will be repeatedly contested. We will continue to publish articles and editorials like Scahill's that strive to sharpen and clarify the terms of that debate. Moreover, we will continue to oppose the commitment of both Clinton and Obama to increasing the size of the military and to spending more on our military than the rest of the world combined. We believe, as Klein and Scahill do, that progressives must use the continuing primary race to challenge these policies.

However, contrary to Klein and Scahill's assumption, there is no reason to think withholding our endorsement would have given us greater leverage over both of the Democratic candidates, on the war or any other issue. To the contrary, progressives who are backing Barack Obama have chosen to do so in order to exert pressure on him to represent their values.

The Nation endorsed Obama as the better choice in this election, in part because we believe that the new energy he is calling into electoral politics will push the limits of his own politics. We welcome his commitment to grassroots organizing and mobilization for unleashing this new energy. But we also recognize that this is no time to cheerlead. It will be our task -- and the task of activists, of writers like Klein and Scahill and of others to across the country -- to keep pushing beyond the limits that Barack Obama or any candidate for president would define.

Comments

[DietrichMoody]

"Hate McCain but vote for either Clinton or Obama because, blah blah blah", at least is that is what Naomi Klien and Jeremy Scahil are saying. Great that you were able to reply and talk nuances. But be direct Katrina - Naomi Klien and Jeremy Scahil don't speak for the Nation. That is what you are saying, at least I think. For reals, NO one can expect someone that endorses a candidate to endorses every one of that candidate's policies. You might not succeed in the greater goal of trying to exert pressure, but at least there is room there. That's the whole point - a little slack is their to try to find balance. And its refreshing after 8 years of a candidate that Ignores and says "So" to everything the electorate believes and one candidate McCain that is lost and Clinton that is rigid.

[PioneerKing]

Dear Ms. vanden Heuvel :


The dynamic duo is merely pissed that The Nation did not support Sen. Clinton.


p.s.
Their writing is pedantic; The Nation can do better.

[Veeve]

Nah, man. They are just ultra idealistic, and hyper principled. The kind of folks that would vote Nader on principle regardless of the stakes. I made the pragmatic choice that Obama was the most progressive candidate with the strongest chance of winning and I'm pretty happy with my deecision. Check out this great article by Spencer Ackerman in TAP. Obama truly understands the fundamental flaw in our foreign policy.

http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_obama_doctrine

[Singha]

What an interesting article. No wonder the war-mongering repuds don't want to see BO as president.

Thanks for the link!

[JacobSinger]

You, I suspect, have no clue as to what constitutes exceptional writing.

[joanndarc]

Don't you all agree that people don't change without a good reason? (Most) Americans has been living by propaganda since Truman, the end of 1940s. How low should US sink to change it's Imperialistic habits?

[JacobSinger]

We've sunk too low already...but unfortunately, most Americans are too easily distracted and are perpetually self-absorbed....

[backhandpath]

Why were Bush/Chaney allowed to assume the presidency? Where was your magazine? Were you standing down as did Hillary Clinton in 2000, along with the rest of the Democrats, when they obviously stole the election? Where were you during the fraudulent elections of 2004? You have grossly over estimated your own effectivness as a member of what is left of our fourth estate: The Press. It just seems that you folks in the press are not getting Anything changed. Nothing. You are not acting to check the balance. You are not getting to the bottom of the issue, to wit the legitamacy of this Presidency.
And now you back a candidate that supports mercenaries? Come on...
Like Chaney says, "So".

[kikiva]

Since when has any president listened to the Nation. Other than the far left, no one reads your magazine or cares what you say. And Obama won't listen to you once he gets into office, he won't need you at all anymore.

[rovezaleeker]

Yeah, just like the morons who said there was no difference between Gore and Bush. You're wrong. Barack will listen. By the way, is Vicki Iseman here? We've been looking for Ms. Iseman. She seems to have vanished. What has happened to Ms. Vicki Iseman? Abramoff is to DeLay as Iseman is to McCain. We need to find Vicki Iseman. How does McCain get away with this one? This story went underground faster than the Paul Wellstone plane crash investigation.

[Scarabus]

I liked the post, and I like the fact that it acknowledges progressives can debate openly and don't have to parrot the "talking points" distributed by Grover Norquist, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, or whomever. That's what democracy is supposed to be about. The issue is not whether we progressives should or should not disagree in public discourse. It's about the decorum, the standards, the way the discourse should be expressed.

And I agree that we should push the candidates we support. Really, regardless of putative party affiliation, we should never automatically endorse any specific incumbent. And for first-timers, as in this presidential election, endorsement should never be unconditional. The door swings both ways. He or she who has been endorsed can also be "un-endorsed." Ours should be a government of laws, not of persons. And ours should be a campaign of values and policies, not of deals with individual persons. Endorsements can be withdrawn as well as profferred. That fact provides leverage.

BTW, lots of the preceding comments are just ho-hum knee-jerk boilerplate parroting. Can't we promote a system to save bandwidth? Let's have a list of options for folks to check off: Great post. Awful post. You're brilliant. You're stupid. Progressives are wonderful. Progressives are morons. Obama supporters are great. Obama supporters are awful. Clinton supporters are enlightened. Clinton supporters are benighted.

[TheShadow]

I believe that the handwriting is on the wall in plain sight for all to read.

We need to get behind a single candidate now, and target the efforts and brainpower to expose McCain and the failed Republican policies since Reagan. The candidate I favor is Barack Obama. My first choice candidates have long since dropped out, and I cannot say that I agree with Obama's stand on many topics (healthcare, energy, and medical health care), but I do believe that the people who vote can make a difference in the direction the president will take, especially if it is a person with the intellect, and maturity of Obama's.

I believe that a new thought process will be ushered in along with a more progressive, and mature administration when the Obama cabinet is finalized, and in place in their respective appointments. I respect the opinions of Ms. Klein, and Mr. Scahill, and I enjoy reading their writings a great deal, but I also feel that they missed the mark on just what the editorial people of The Nation, and citizens such as myself feel in making a difference in the direction of our country by exerting pressure in representing progressive values; especially when we have a candiate such as Barack Obama.

[rixhex56]

I think the important point in the Klein/Scahill post was this: if they already have your vote, then you have NO leverage. Withholding your support may not necessarily INCREASE your leverage, but it at least maintains whatever (very little) leverage you may have had. On a purely intelluctual, logical level, this seems pretty clear-cut -- not debatable. They are pandering for votes -- if they have your vote, they stop pandering. Right?

Now, on a more practical level, I don't see that voters have any leverage anyway. If we did, we would be in a very different place as a nation at this point in time. Bush/Cheney would have been subjected to investigation, and some kind of real oversight, but instead they have been allowed to continue on their merry way continuing their destruction of our nation's integrity.

So, my question is, "What leverage?"

[garcohsf]

I understand your point but respectfully disagree with the premise. In politics, especially Presidential campaigns, it's the people who supported you early, when you really needed the support, who get invited to sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom. If you wait until the race is won or all but won, your support means very little.

[GoreyFantod]

I don't hold anything against progressives who choose to trust Senator Obama's intentions on the war (I'm a leftist because I still have hope, after all), but I wasn't a big fan of the Nation's endorsement. It seems to me that it bolstered Obama's progressive credibility without really requiring anything of him.

Why is it always the conservatives/centrists who expect a quid pro quo from lending their support and/or good name? They're giving each other ambassadorships, control of federal agencies, cash - I don't want to run FEMA, I just want a firm commitment to end the war & the insane militarism that fuels it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XavGKA9kr6M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbmkQy8cU3M

[texpine]

Katrina, let's suppose for a moment that Blackspeare is wrong about Iran. (I do believe he is 100% correct though) What then? Have you or anyone else ask Sen. Obama? If anyone has, I've not heard about it. Come to think of it, I can think of a lot of questions Sen. Obama has not answered. Like where he will get the money to fund the Universal Health Care Program he proposes. No, I'm not against either Obama, Clinton or McCain as President but they still have a "Long-Way" to go before they get my vote. Here's a novel idea; How 'bout some answers?....Push those limits!

[richsmith]

If you are not against McCain in the election, then you probably shouldn't even engaged in this discussion.

[PapaJim]

Katrina:A very refreshing post. We all need to clarify and define our own role in this election. Just exactly what is it that we are trying to accomplish?

End the war overnight? Not going to happen. Bring all of the troops home in January/February 2009? Not going to happen.

End the racial divide in our nation all in one fell swoop? Not going to happen?

Immediately introduce some fairness and equity into the nation's skewed wealth distribution? Not going to happen.

Eliminate the gender gap in wages and opportunity by executive fiat? Not going to happen.

Restore the Constitution as the law of the land? Now here is an objective that we all can share and do something about. The direct consequence of restoring the Constitution is that all of the other progressive goals immediately become much easier to achieve.

It is way past time for us to get past the personal destruction crap being slung. If we don't get past it right now, WE will be electing McCain.

[Mutex]

I understand the philsophy that says we need to be practical and choose the lessor of evils but somehow I can't get past the luxury that allows those living in the clouds to be practical while those suffering and dying in the xenite mines...well, maybe not so much.

We can obtain universal health care, improved education and a great economy but what does it matter if we don't end the war.

Katrina, what does it profit a man if he should gain the whole world but lose his own soul?

Jeremy Scahill is a great journalist and is absolutely right on the War on Iraq. His only fault is that he won't condemn the entire 'war on terror'. Still we need many more people like him and Cindy Sheehan and far less of the deal makers.

[1dogs2]

"We can obtain universal health care, improved education and a great economy but what does it matter if we don't end the war."

Please tell me how we're going to do ANY of that UNLESS we end the war?

[Blackspeare]

Both Naomi Klein and Jeremy Scahill as well as Katrina vanden Heuvel are no doubt quite intelligent, but their smarts leave them flat when it comes to the war in Iraq. No candidate, no matter how much they rant and rave about ending the war and bringing the troops home, does not and cannot act in a vacuum. The realities on the ground in Iraq dictate that a substantial expeditionary force will remain in Iraq for a very long time. McCain knows this and his candidness on this subject will probably cost him the election! The US military organization will not accept another Vietnam and the president elect will have to accede to that reality. Also, another reality is that Iran will fill any vacuum left by anyone abandoning Iraq and no president will ever allow that to happen!!

[Arleang]

It is true that the US has been sucked into the swamp that is Iraq and Bush & Co may very well deepen the swamp with strikes on Iran before leaving office. And the military may very well object to leaving Iraq with anything less than a conclusion that can be called "victory".

However, can anybody tell me how we continue to fund our involvement by reducing taxes? Can anyone tell me how a country not on a true war footing might continue to prosecute the war/occupation?

We have been led to this spot untenable by the rats that will now leave office. A pox on them all.

[Economike]

Really to me the reality on the ground dictates leaving would be wiser.

[MinuteMan]

> It will be our task -- and the task of activists, of writers like Klein and Scahill and of others to across the country -- to keep pushing beyond the limits that Barack Obama or any candidate for president would define.

That's why I don't have a problem with the fact the Obama's published health plan is much less than I would like: I don't think we have to settle for either Clinton's or Obama's, but can get out in front and push them to a plan that is what we want.

[Thorn]

Wow. I bet I can think of two writers who feel like shit right about now.