Players, Not Cheerleaders
"So?"
So said Dick Cheney when asked last week about public opinion being overwhelming against the war in Iraq. "You can't be blown off course by polls."
His attitude about the the fact that the number of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq has reached 4,000 displayed similar levels of sympathy. They "voluntarily put on the uniform," the Vice-President told ABC news.
This brick wall of indifference helps explain the paradox in which we in the anti-war camp find ourselves five years into the occupation of Iraq: anti-war sentiment is as strong as ever, but our movement seems to be dwindling.
Sixty-four per cent of Americans tell pollsters they oppose the war, but you'd never know it from the thin turnout at recent anniversary rallies and vigils.
When asked why they aren't expressing their anti-war opinions through the anti-war movement, many say they have simply lost faith in the power of protest. They marched against the war before it began, marched on the first, second and third anniversaries. And yet five years on, U.S. leaders are still shrugging: "So?"
There is no question that the Bush administration has proven impervious to public pressure. That's why it's time for the anti-war movement to change tactics. We should direct our energy where it can still have an impact: the leading Democratic contenders.
Many argue otherwise. They say that if we want to end the war, 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. Some of the most prominent anti-war voices--from MoveOn.org to the magazine we write for, The Nation--have gone this route, throwing their weight behind the Obama campaign.
This is a serious strategic mistake. It is during a hotly contested campaign that anti-war forces have the power to actually sway U. S. policy. As soon as we pick sides, we relegate ourselves to mere cheerleaders.
And when it comes to Iraq, there is little to cheer. Look past the rhetoric and it becomes clear that neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton has a real plan to end the occupation. They could, however, be forced to change their positions--thanks to the unique dynamics of the prolonged primary battle.
Despite the calls for Clinton to withdraw in the name of "unity," it is the very fact that Clinton and Obama are still fighting it out, fiercely vying for votes, that presents the anti-war movement with its best pressure point. And our pressure is badly needed.
For the first time in 14 years, weapons manufacturers are donating more to Democrats than to Republicans. The Dems have received 52 percent of the defense industry's political donations in this election cycle--up from a low of 32 per cent in 1996. That money is about shaping foreign policy, and so far, it appears to be well spent.
While Clinton and Obama denounce the war with great passion, they both have detailed plans to continue it. Both say they intend to maintain the massive Green Zone, including the monstrous U.S. embassy, and to retain U.S. control of the Baghdad Airport.
They will have a "strike force" to engage in counterterrorism, as well as trainers for the Iraqi military. Beyond these U.S. forces, the army of Green Zone diplomats will require heavily armed security details, which are currently provided by Blackwater and other private security companies. At present there are as many private contractors supporting the occupation as there are soldiers so these plans could mean tens of thousands of U. S. personnel entrenched for the future.
In sharp contrast to this downsized occupation is the unequivocal message coming from hundreds of soldiers who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq Veterans Against the War, who held the historic "Winter Soldier" hearings in Silver Spring, Md. earlier this month, are not supporting any candidate or party. Instead they are calling for immediate, unconditional withdrawal of all U.S. soldiers and contractors. Coming from peace activists, the "out now" position has been dismissed as naive. It is distinctly harder to ignore coming from hundreds who have served--and continue to serve--on the frontlines.
The candidates know that much of the passion fueling their campaigns flows from the desire among so many rank-and-file Democrats to end this disastrous war. It is this desire for change that has filled stadiums and campaign coffers.
Crucially, the candidates have already shown that they are vulnerable to pressure from the peace camp: When The Nation revealed that neither candidate was supporting legislation that would ban the use of Blackwater and other private security companies in Iraq, Clinton abruptly changed course. She became the most important U. S. political leader to endorse the ban, scoring a point on Obama, who opposed the invasion from the start.
This is exactly where we want the candidates: outdoing each other to prove how serious they are about ending the war. That kind of issue-based battle has the power to energize voters and break the cynicism that is threatening both campaigns.
Let's remember: unlike the outgoing Bush administration, these candidates need the support of the two-thirds of Americans who oppose the war in Iraq. If opinion transforms into action, they won't be able to afford to say, "So?"
Courtesy of the New York Times Syndicate
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I would caution everyone: remember George McGovern. I don't mean to criticize Senator McGovern. I supported him and voted for him. He seemed like a God-send: a genuine peace candidate, who pledged to end the Vietnam War (and bear in mind: even if the Iraq occupation follows a McCain timetable, it'll never be as unpopular as the Vietnam War was). You knew back then - you just knew - that McGovern meant it when he pledged to end the War. Yet he lost in the greatest electoral rout in US history. Lesson to be learned: please don't anyone be so foolish as to ever take the American people at their word when they say they oppose a war and want it to end. It's a death trap. And I'm quite sure that's precisely why none of the major Democratic candidates have made ending the Iraq debacle the centerpiece of their campaign. The American people are totally fickle about wars: it's a love-hate thing. One day it's "Oh I hate this war!" Next day it's "Oh I'm so sorry, I don't hate you, war, I wuv you! I do, I do: I wuv you!" Just imagine where we'd be today if the voters had followed their "conscience" and put George McGovern in the White House. A George W Bush presidency in the kind of world that would have ensued would simply be unthinkable. So, please, don't force any candidate to accept American opinion at face value. It's a no-win situation.
Americains are for winning wars, not loosing them. The horse race narratif is pretty much all the audience can witstand as info. A good war, you win, a bad one you loose. A false flag induced one ... who cares, too complicate
What's to win in an illegal war? The last nail in our children's coffin?
I think that it is magical thinking for most of you to think that MOST US citizens want an immeadiate withdrawl from Iraq. I've heard quotes from 2/3 to 3/4s. This is just not true - if it were it would most likely happen. Take Connecticut for example - a VERY liberal state. They had a chance to elect Lamont (get out of Iraq NOW!) or Lieberman (stay the course-leave when appropriate). They chose Lieberman - puzzling!. Just because you "peace at any price" folks are more vocal than us, doesn't mean that you are in the majority. Lets face the reality of war - WWII was the last war that was fought the way a war should be fought - quickly, decisevly, and horrificlly. The wars since then have all been restrained. Try to limit civilian casualties, try not to inflame neighbors, try not to make it horrific- all very noble but in the long run prolongs and induces more destruction. Look at the first gulf war - the highway of death caused GHB to end it after 100 hours, had Schwartzkolf been allowed to finish we would not be having gulf war 2.
Jack
Its magical thinking to dismiss away years of polls that have shown the majority of Americans wanting out of Iraq. There is also serious denial or forgetfulness of recent events that would led one to conclude the Bush Administration would listen to the American people. The American people gave the Democrats a majority in both houses of Congress in the November 06 to get the US out of Iraq. A timeline for Iraq withdrawl has been stalled by Republican obstructionism in the Senate and Presidential veto time and time again. Secondly, Lieberman's victory has nothing to do with how the majority of Americans feel about Iraq. The reason Lieberman won in Connecticut was due to Republicans crossing over to vote for him. Lastly the reason that George Bush Sr. refused to go into Iraq in Gulf War 1 has been proven correct by the failure of his sons war in Gulf War 2. You don't invade and occupy a nation as complex as Iraq, particularly when the people of that nation don't want you there. That is the reality on the ground. I don't understand after 5 failed years of this war and occupation how any American can continue to make excuses for the Bush Administration.
Polls are worthless when it comes to national security and decisions to go, not go, or end a war. Do you really think that you know as much as the government when it comes to these matters? Like I said before - if the majority of you and the majority of government wanted this to end, then it probably would. Look at that worthless piece of crap McCain- Kennedy bill on comprehensive immigration. We the people were heard loud and clear! So please don't try to buffalo us with worthless polls! Get your elected officials to put it on the ballot this November.
Jack
BTW - by your logic - republican or democrat - regardless!!! Lamont should have won by at least 2/3 rds of the vote. Crossover voters shouldn't of mattered!!
Unless one thinks there is an underlying agenda - BTW Swartzkopf was pushed by Powell, because of pressures from up top - The Real Gen. S., wanted to wait out the UN timeline. Further more, if we did a "Ghengis Khan", back with Daddy Bush - we'd be talking about the 15th yr. of occupation, with the average age of fighting forces at 45yrs., 'cause the kids would rightly just walk away from this ignorance. This isn't a just war(Iraq). So we don't have morality on our side, though I wish we did, then our "unilateral Peace Keeping force" would consist of two entities. This thing is bigger then just the two Bushes - and it's about the needy/greedy. History is only uesful when the lessons from it are LEARNED.
You mean like the 63rd year of occupation in Germany and Japan? When did we close the recruting stations because of no enlistments? You think it is not a "just" war - thats fine, others disagree. At this point only in the future will it be judged correctly.
I'm afraid everyone has been so freaked by the stresses of this campaign that it's made it difficult to focus on your excellent advice, but there are many who fully appreciate its importance. Obama has already taken steps toward holding contractors accountable, and I will use my energies to push this much further as the candidates get occasional respites from one form of sniper fire or another.
Anything that constitutes a continued "presence" in Iraq, however small, threatens to destroy any hope for real reconciliation in the Middle East and neighboring areas, and we are well served by the knowledge we've gained from Ms. Klein's and Mr. Scahill's journalism. Battles are being fought on multiple fronts, however, and sometimes important input is greeted by the overstressed with an angry "Now what?" I only ask that you folks keep saying it, because we're listening to you, we really are.
Why would you be heartened that Clinton pandered to what you wanted to hear? It means nothing, that's what Clintons do.
New York Times on Bill: "Clinton means what he says when he says it, but tomorrow he will mean what he says when he says the opposite. He is the existential President, living with absolute sincerity in the passing moment."
Me on Hillary: "Clinton calculates what she says when she says it, and tomorrow she will calculate what she says when she says the opposite. She is the existential candidate, living with absolute insincerity in the passing moment."
The thing about vision is that it is an excellent political convenience. I am allowed to expound on my vision for change in vague generalities while I remain a steadfast supporter of the occupation of Iraq, while I refuse to take any position that would offend the military industrial complex, and while I simultaneously claim to be the agent of change, the Great Black Hope. What am I going to change, the color of the White House?
Klein and Scahill have it exactly right.
"... the Great Black Hope. What am I going to change, the color of the White House?"
That's your vision? Not too good.
"Where we have lessons to learn, the universe conspires to teach us. At first, the lessons are easy enough, even pleasant to learn. We’re given the opportunity to learn, with joy, how to live our lives with more integrity and love. Yet whatever lesson we refuse to learn, comes round again until we do — each time appearing in a more sobering form, with more serious implications should we refuse to learn it. We do have free will, but we do not have the freedom to slow down the universe. Our learning fuels the momentum of the universe, which will not be allowed to stop. One way or the other, we will learn what we need to learn … even if we have to learn it through suffering.
I have been a member of the so-called “peace movement” since 1967.
The “peace movement” of today is little old ladies in pink shirts. It’s transsexuals struggling to get into the live shot on C-Span. It is a thousand superficial things that betray it’s noble purpose, but worst of all it has become it’s own enemy.
By making war on politicians it has become it’s own rogue nation and failed state. The so-called “peace movement” SELFISHLY refuses to let the idea of SOCIAL CHANGE take over.
The one tactic the “peace movement” has never tried is LOVE and inclussion.
If it could just “let go” the reigns of power and embrace this movement for CHANGE, there is a greater possibility that peace will appear. Not all at once. Not even in eight years, perhaps. But, the longer we fight the enemy, the more we become him.
Jimi Hendrix said it best, “When the power of love is greater than the love of power, the world will know peace.”
We don’t need to take our candidates hostage, we need to turn peace into the ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL JUSTICE issue that it actually is. We need to educate ourselves, and those around us. We need to stop marginalizing our cause by letting “personalities” brand our ideas.
The “peace movement” is dead.
Long live the rights of man!
Obama-Webb ‘08
What is far more likely is that instead of withdrawl, much less a complete end to the war, will be that either SEN Obama or Clinton, if either are elected, will find a whole other realm of information and counsel from those of us in uniform. The nature of the conflict, the stated goals and thus the strategies, would almost certainly change. I'm certain that the level of micromanagement will increase and the Rules of Engagement will be dangerously restricted. And just as in the Carter and Clinton Administrations, Force Protection will trump mission accomplishment. I doubt that any of that is anything that those who regularly read here, and certainly not Ms. Klein and Mr. Scahill, but it is what I beleive is more liekley than any withdrawl, phased or otherwise.
How come the media refuses to play clips of Clinton on the stump before or after Iowa, I believe it was after, saying that she vows to get the troops out of Iraq in 60 days.? Am I the only one who remembers her saying she would do that?
I do not agree with this post at all.
With 2 out of 3 Americans against the war do you really think that a democrat elected over a pro war republican like McCain is going to side with the 1 out of 3 Americans - basically Republican faithful at that - and maintain "green zones" etc.??
Puleeeeze!
It is not just the war that is a problem, it is the entire Bush foreign policy which has alienated us from our allies and the rest of the world who don't understand what we are doing.
Protesting the war in the streets just provides the news media with footage and we know what the footage is going to look like - freaks and more freaks, because that is what sells in the news hour.
Obama's position on the war should basically come down to: "I really need to get in there, into the White House, into the situation room, sit down with the players and start controlling the process in a way that will be advantageous to American interests and take matters forward in a fresh direction, not just as far as Iraq is concerned but as far as the whole area is concerned because we are not profiting from the violence in that region of the world."
That would be good enough for me and I dare say it is good enough for the 2 out of 3 americans who are dissatisfied with the Iraq war - an electoral landslide.
It is not a war! It is an occupation !
i agree it is time to remove the troops!
There are eight months until the election to replace the evil empire. that is enough time for red alerts and various other attempts to change the american opinion on the situation. What Bush/Cheney does best is play the fear card. I can easily for-see an enormous "threat" ,real or invented, by the purveyors of this insane situation.
Obama and Clinton are politicians. They will not commit to a policy that can come back to bite them before the election.
They , unfortunately , have to hedge their bets.
What a sad world we are living in.
Why don't we call the movement pro-peace instead of anti-war which will probably manifest into more war? It's all about the law of attraction. When we refer to the candidates let's change our verbiage and stray away from words like "attacking" and "fighting.
A page from the book of Frank Luntz!. You yogablu are correct. Let's change the language. Its a peace march not an anti war protest. Or instead of peace, how about saying we are interested in non violent resolution of conflict. That way the opposition can't simply say they are for peace but only an honorable peace, like Nixon did. A demonstration for nonviolent conflict resolution. What a mouthful.
What if it's a violent conflict that has to be resolved?
Dudes:
What type of pyschotropic drugs are you two on? You assessment gives the impression that you do not really know politics. Your vapid comments are without merit and, without foundation. If your therey had any bearing in reality Ross Perot would have won when he ran and Ralph Nader would have won in 2000. Your post is trite.
Bravo, bravo, bravo!!!
Presidential 'celebrity' politics is bad enough... but I also feel disheartened to watch 'progressive' minded folks fall neatly into TV-shaped false paradigms, candidate pandering, and the rest of it. REAL progressive folks, not just 'democratic' voters, know the truth - the TRUTH is that ANY real change is led by the people, NEVER by a candidate. Richard NIxon passed the EPA, OSHA, some of 1st affirmative action programs, etc.... because he had NO CHOICE!!!
This article points out the problems concerning the war, but similar thoughts could be applied to issues like health care, trade policies, and other foreign policy issues. I also think that in 2008, the "democratic voter" had a real chance to send a MESSAGE - VOTE OUT Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Ried, and about a couple dozen other prominet dem's...ju
amen.
Politics lags the people.
and dont expect much change on the war front. if people are really committed to ending it, then use less oil. cheney et al are convinced they are doing you a favour because you use oil in a bachanallian fashion. its a status quo they are only too happy to maintain. but if people change their attitudes to oil at grassroots, everyone else will follow.
take it as this, its going to happen anyway, and happen likely well inside two decades*. so true progressives should be looking beyond the purely political vista and start looking at it from a local perspective. using less oil and energising the local community to do the same will have much more profound effects on foriegn policy than any (compromised) 'protest' movement could ever hope to acheive.
*i personally think oil production is on the verge of peaking already and the next 5 years will be crucial.
My sincerest thanks go to both of you for your courageous reporting and insightful analyses. I know you're frustrated by all the nonsense of the elections, and so am I. But my first priority right now is to help Obama get the nomination and the presidency. Things being as they are in today's media and elsewhere, I think some aspects of the Iraq situation are politically radioactive, and I expect we'll need to continue pushing very hard to achieve all our goals. I believe we have a much better chance of achieving them with Obama in office, but I think cleaning up all the contractor corruption, etc., in Iraq is going to require much more than just one politician who takes a stand.
I'll be anxious to hear your reports over the coming months, and I'm with you 100%. I strongly urge both of you to support Senator Obama, not because you agree with everything he's saying, but because you believe, as I do, that he's going to listen to the American people, and will never respond with a callous "So?"
Are Naomi Klein AND Jeremy Scahill supporting Sen Obama for president of the US in '08?
What is your source of information.
I have nothing but the highest respect for both of these individuals. If they are supporting Obama then I have to respectfully disagree with them on their choice. Now that I think about it some more, if your information is correct, this is probably the first time that I can think of-in years- where I strongly disagree with them
They're not supporting Obama, as far as I know (no pun intended). That's why I urged them to do so.
We have not had a Peace Candidate strong enough to take the presidential nomination. And, while getting Clinton or Obama to take tis or that stand is great, it's still a piecemeal approach. However, Obama has stated the most as far as getting troops out: a brigade per month (although there seems to be an indication of some wiggle room, in case 'commanders on the ground' advise against it). So -- the two leading Democrat candidates are somewhat hawkish, they're still all we've got, as close to what we really want to Peace Leaders. And who knows, maybe Obama will go a long way in the Peace direction.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
