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

Comments

[realistic2008]

You know they called Reagan "the teflon president" nothing did stick to him and he was not as bad as Bush, except when it came to know what in the hell they were, is doing while we are precupied with all kind of sex and what drugs or stupid things celebrities? are doing. Like the comedian said "what a country"

[wu]

....
Thanks for all that you two do for us, your investigations burn the eyes. I think we have to get out now, screw "whose got the best plan,?" this have a "plan" idea is such garbage. Like planning a picnic, there is no way to tell what the weather will like be not to mention all the other variables. Just get out, say so and do it... Also these elected officials tell us over and over what they're gonna do and never do what they said they will do. Look at Bush/Cheney. Once they get in they do as they please, lie, cover-up. soil the constitution and with no responsibility for any of the out comes. Since we haven't held these guys responsible, people notice that, (polititans too) the next crew might be worse, whatever they are saying now......

[websmith]

After electing a Democratic Congress that promised to end the war and did not, there is a sense of hopelessness and bitterness in the public. Learning that Pelosi has attached a contract for her husband to war funding and Feinstein has allocated millions to her husband's companies only adds to it. We learn that they are pumping oil in Iraq but not water. People are realizing that they have been set up and screwed. Seeing Bush ignore the wishes of the American people on a daily basis, as you struggle to survive, only make it worse.

Something is needed to re-instill hope. We are gasping for straws and just about anything will do. Perhaps Hillary and/or Bill will be arrested for their crimes against the country. Perhaps one of the people who own and operate the Federal Reserve will be indicted for treason. Perhaps a governor will activate the National Guard to seal the borders along his state. Perhaps the MSM special interest groups will cover a Congressman that goes public with his statements that Congress is giving away money that is not theirs to give.

In the meantime, they gave $25 million that they didn't have and was not theirs to give to the Egyptians to help seal their border. Is it also the job of Congress to do what the Israelis want them to do?

Someone step up.

[Larry Kegel]

Websmith: The only ones that should go to Jail ic Bush & Chenney.. President Bush is the only President that got jobs for this Country & got the budget in the red... It will take another Clinton like Hillary to make good the mess this Bush has made for us...

[mayrose]

Unfortunately it is all too possible for the current administration to pull a bunch of dirty tricks between now and the time they leave/are forced out. Promising to get all the military out immediately presupposes that the current situation is the same then as now.
I wouldn't count on it.

[athy]

Naomi, Jeremy
Your article should serve as a call for people to get more involved. I agree. Opinion must transform into action to make things happen however...

Who controls opinion?
. We are being either kept totally ignorant or are being misinformed by the consolidated corporate owned news media, dumbed down in school, and being kept very busy in life by either working 2 jobs to pay our bills (including health expenses, gambling debts, credit card bills) or -if we have money- being told to spend money and free time seeking entertainment. This is why so many good people fail to respond more strongly to what's happening they dont know the truth.. Urgent need in our country for unbiased media-media that understand its MAIN role in our society is to inform (not manipulate) the citizens so that they can be self-governing. The framers of our constitution relied heavily on the role of the fourth estate (media) as another way to promote checks and balances.You are highly respected advocacy journalists-you have specific opinions on issues based upon what you have learned-Some of our greatest change agents have been advocacy journalists (Upton Sinclair, David Graham etc...). We need independent journalists like yourselves- not afraid to speak truth as you see it, backed up with strong facts, to support positions. Thank you so very much for what you are doing.

[nellie]

Thank both of you so much for the important work you do. Respectfully, I think the peace movement needs to direct its efforts in ways that bypass the corporate media. The reason we have lost our faith in protest is because protest has stopped working. The major media outlets refuse to cover it. And without coverage, there is no validation of the movement—and hence no pressure on politicians. The best weapon we have against bad policy is our vote. The media is supposed to be carrying the implicit threat contained in a protest to people in office. But it won't. So we've gone in a different direction. A lot of us are working through vote vets, moveon, pfaw, common cause, courage campaign, and other organizations that translate public opinion into meaningful political action. And it's working pretty well. Opposition to the war is still strong.—even if the media won't say so.

[PauCK]

"If it bleeds it leads" Market protests the way news anchors market their shows.

Stop talking about 4,000 American's dead and start talking about the real picture.

Almost 1.2 Million dead. After all none of those Iraqi dead likely volunteered as did our brave soldiers. Soldiers who are really fodder in support of the theft of Oil.

Bush and Cheney screwed more than Americans with their little "liberation". They are screwing Iraq, the middle east and the world in support of their buddies at Exxon, BP, Shell etc.

[Billiam]

"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. "

1.) The country is overwhelmingly against the war.
2.) Democrats stand to win big if they come out in favor of ending the occupation.
3.) If neither of the Democratic candidates has a real plan to end it, please add 2 + 2.
4.) They have no plan to end it because they have no real say in the matter, and are being controlled, just like Bush and the rest of them.

This isn't rocket science.

[TankerRat]

"What? Me Worry" to quote Alfred E. Neuman. Neither Billary or Obamarama needs any type o f Iraqi exit strategy because neither one will get elected. The Dems will not come up with a strategy as well. "Not good for bidness" as Molly I. would say. Sorry suckers but you've been had.

[Dulce]

"Look past the rhetoric and it becomes clear that neither" Naomi Klein nor Jeremy Scahill "has a real plan on how to end the occupation."

LOL... All joking aside (and I do have the greatest respect for Naomi Klein and Jeremy Scahill), what would YOU have, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or the would be "perfect candidate" say, as a candidate, on ending the occupation?

"Players not cheerleaders" is a catchy title. Very well, then! Let's walk our talk, and be, maybe a little bit more, say, constructive about this, shall we?

[misspeach2008]

I agree. Protesting before the war began and on each anniversary? If that's all of the protesting that happened in the 60's and 70's, we'd still be in Vietnam! It takes constant in your face protests to grab the attention of the media. Working to elect a President who says he or she will get us out of a war isn't enough either. What if that person isn't elected? You need to put pressure on the President you have. The Obama campaign is too busy blaming Hillary for starting the war, and Hillary is too worried about defending her vote for either of them to have time to come up with a real plan. In the end it was Richard Nixon, hardly a dove, who brought the troops home from Vietnam. I think that the problem lies in a current culture that requires instant gratification. It's hard work to end a war, even an unpopular one. I see a lot of effort going into campaigning for the next President, but not much real effort into stopping the war. It's been over a year since I've even seen a sign inviting people to a anti-war discussion let alone a full-blown rally, and I live in an area where people carry picket signs to protest the cost of dump sticker going up. Whining isn't enough. My dad kept bail money in his nightstand just in case the phone rang in the middle of the night.

[heavyrunner]

In a way the Democratic nomination conversation is about both who do you believe and who do you not believe.

But in actuality it's over. Clinton lost in Iowa and has been behind ever since and her campaign lost all chance of winning when Bill played the race card in South Carolina.

But I don't believe anything Clinton says that is progressive. So what if she claims she will fire Blackwater when she gets in. I would have a hard time believing it was real even if she did it, let along believe her now.

Whereas with Obama I am not sure if I believe all the reactionary rhetoric. His bs may be directed to the other side. He says he will keep the embassy so he won't be called weak, but when he gets in office he may well surprise the right wing in the same way that Clinton is trying to deceive the left.

[pdsimdars]

HuffPost's Pick

I have such respect for both of you. I remember all those brave reports from Jeremy over in Iraq, with real Iraqi families at the start of the war. I hate disagreeing with you, but I do. While the points you make are good, I do think we know enough about both candidates to know where our support should be.
I mean, if you have Spiderman and the mafia. If the mafia tells you what you want to hear, do you really think they are going to deliver, or even seriously fight anyone to deliver on what they said? And while spiderman may not know the inner workings like the mafia does, he will try to do the right thing.
I think we have seen the character of each of these candidates. And while you may be right about this being a good time to press, I see 2 problems. The first is above, whatever the promise, who might best follow through. And the second problem is that you are further forcing them to be more and more specific and therefore more able to be attacked by the right. That is, you are weakening them.
I'm afraid I have to chose the best candidate with the best character and not force him to commit so that he can be most flexible for the general campaign. It is a little faith, but I feel there is a candidate who has proven to have enough integrity to merit some little faith.

[JacobSinger]

Being involved in the political process is a positive thing, and should be encouraged and applauded.

On the other hand, having faith in politicians is a fool's folly that leads to mere disappointment in a best case scenario, and should be discouraged in the name of common sense.

[Dulce]

Let's also keep in mind that those are "candidates" that we are speaking of, not a “President Elect”: when dealing with foreign policy a candidate has to be careful how he or she speaks as he or she is also speaking to the world. There are things a President can say and things which he or she definitely cannot say, if he or she is worth his or her salt as a diplomat on the international scene.

[josephjsalas]

Guess it comes down to who is more accountable to the public.

[Dulce]

Accountability is good, and Naomi Klein and Jeremy Scahill do raise an interesting question, a question then, by that standard, that belongs, perhaps, as much with us as a people as it does with the candidates:

Let's hear it from the people, then:

This is America 2008, YOU are one of the candidates: what do you say?

And for that matter, what does candidate Klein would say? Or candidate Scahill?

[jabee]

Regret the plain speaking, but here it is: Hillary Clinton will never get troups out of
Iraq. Her senate seat, her main contributors, are very much keeping troops there for the seam reason they wanted them in: Israel.
Her trusted representative to a meeting of Jewish Org. leaders last week, Ann Lewis, told them, and this is a quote from Dana Millbank in the Post.: "...the president's job is to support whatever Israel
decides...."
She was trying to out do McCain. Go read it. God help us.

[SamThornton]

One of those classic, Freudian slips, also known as the "misspoke moment." Here's a link to the Dana Mills column (page 2 about halfway down for the quote): http://tinyurl.com/2exzhs

[Nonamnesiac]

At least some people understand that the role of progressives is not to become two-bit Democratic Party sycophants supporting candidates who are committed to continuing the war -- who oppose single-payer, universal health care and support the NAFTA and its progeny (as both did when they supported extension of NAFTA to Peru recently). There is no way to influence the debate if they know you're going to act like Pavlov's dogs and salivate by voting for them hen they ring the Nader-baiting "we must unite so that "Ds" can kill our kids and grandkids and Iraqis instead of "Rs".

Alot of people are going to vote independent this time, because they oppose remaining in Iraq and have no outlet through either major party for getting out and know that neither Hillary nor Obama intend to end the occupation quickly, despite rhetoric to the contrary. Despite the stomping feet of the Democratic Party and so-called progressives. that independent vote will be large this year, unless the Dems commit to immediate, safe withdrawal of all US troops and contractor forces.

Excellent post by Jeremy Scahill and Naomi Klein.

[darcy]

I agree, nonamnesiac. Why should I vote for a candidate that has NO PLAN to end the war and NO PLAN to provide government sponsored health insurance.

Screw them all. I'm voting for Nader.

[Larry Kegel]

Darcy: That is why the only one there is to vote for is Hillary... Obama talks but says nothing about what he will do... McCain knows nothing about Economics & wants to keep up the Bush War!!! I think we should let the United Natins & Nato deal with it... thats wat they are there for... That way we can use Our own money to get Our Own Country back where it should be... We are hated by everyone because of the War... So why bother wasting Our money on it???

[compassionone]

ANTI-WAR ??? ANTI-WAR ??? ANTI-WAR ???

If I are against war that could leave about 1000+ other things I might be for that are still not what we or they really want!

I'm not in favor of what the US government is doing in Iraq. That we are stealing the oil from the local government and not letting them make their own decisions. That daily we directly or indirectly support killing innocent people every day. That US is disrespected all over the world. Etc, Etc, Etc...

What do we want though?

Mother Theresa is reported to have said that when somebody holds a "Peace" rally she will be there, but she is not interested in supporting Anti-WAR.

How about our goal being to support *Freedom* for the Iraqi people and government, and stability for them to independently run their own affairs. This was supposedly one of the stated goals when we started.

But could we please talk about what we want, not what we don't want.

Could we please stop the use of "Anti-War" in our rhetoric.

[misspeach2008]

Unfortunately, Mother Theresa died in 1997. But I'm sure there are other people of stature who would join in your rally.