The War Election

Maybe it sounded good when politicians, pundits and online fundraisers talked about American deaths as though they were the deaths that mattered most.

Maybe it sounded good to taunt the Bush administration as a bunch of screw-ups who didn't know how to run a proper occupation.

And maybe it sounded good to condemn Donald Rumsfeld and George Bush for ignoring predictions that several hundred thousand troops would be needed to effectively occupy Iraq after an invasion.

But when a war based on lies is opposed because too many Americans are dying, the implication is that it can be made right by reducing the American death toll.

When a war that flagrantly violated international law is opposed because it was badly managed, the implication is that better management could make for an acceptable war.

When the number of occupying troops is condemned as insufficient for the occupying task at hand, the White House and Pentagon may figure out how to make shrewder use of U.S. air power -- in combination with private mercenaries and Iraqis who are desperate enough for jobs that they're willing to point guns at the occupiers' enemies.

And there's also the grisly and unanswerable reality that Iraqis who've been inclined to violently resist the occupation can no longer resist it after the U.S. military has killed them.

If the ultimate argument against the war is that it isn't being won, the advocates for more war will have extra incentive to show that it can be won after all.

If a steady argument against the war maintains that it was and is wrong -- that it is fundamentally immoral -- that's a tougher sell to the savants of Capitol Hill and an array of corporate-paid journalists.

But by taking the political path of least resistance -- by condemning the Iraq war as unwinnable instead of inherently wrong -- more restrained foes of the war helped to prolong the occupation that has inflicted and catalyzed so much carnage. The antiwar movement is now paying a price for political shortcuts often taken in the past several years.

During a long war, condemned by some as a quagmire, that kind of dynamic has played out before. "It is time to stand back and look at where we are going," independent journalist I. F. Stone wrote in mid-February 1968, after several years of the full-throttle war on Vietnam. "And to take a good look at ourselves. A first observation is that we can easily overestimate our national conscience. A major part of the protest against the war springs simply from the fact that we are losing it. If it were not for the heavy cost, politicians like the Kennedys [Robert and Edward] and organizations like the ADA [the liberal Americans for Democratic Action] would still be as complacent about the war as they were a few years ago."

With all the recent media spin about progress in Iraq, many commentators say that the war has faded as a top-level "issue" in the presidential race. Claims of success by the U.S. military have undercut precisely the antiwar arguments that were supposed to be the most effective in political terms -- harping on the American death toll and the inability of the occupying troops to make demonstrable progress at subduing Iraqi resistance and bending the country's parliament to Washington's will.

These days, Hillary Clinton speaks of withdrawing U.S. troops, but she's in no position to challenge basic rationales for war that have been in place for more than five years. At least Barack Obama can cite his opposition to the war since before it began. He talks about changing the mentality that led to the invasion in the first place. And he insists that the president should hold direct talks with foreign adversaries.

The best way to avoid becoming disillusioned is to not have illusions in the first place. There's little reason to believe that Obama is inclined to break away from the routine militarism of U.S. foreign policy. But it's plausible that grassroots pressure could pull him in a better direction on a range of issues. He seems to be appreciably less stuck in cement than the other candidates who still have a chance to become president on January 20, 2009.

The documentary film "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death," based on Norman Solomon's book of the same name, launches its New York City theatrical premiere with an engagement at the Quad Cinema starting March 14.

Comments

[OrganizersWin]

The Nixon example...
Nixon imposed wage and price controls, indexed Social Security for inflation, and created Supplemental Security Income (SSI). He created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), promoted the Legacy of parks program and implemented the Philadelphia Plan, the first significant federal affirmative action program. ETC.

He didn't do this because he "loved us"... it was the political environment he had to speak to. Nowadays, people are too busy rationalizing some pandering candidates lies, or analyzing the politicking of our votes... YAWN! That is, when they aren't eating garbage and staring at some sort of electronic screen all day.

So when people who "say they care" are too busy bashing Ralph Nader (and the 100's like him who fight for us every day), and too busy playing soap opera celebrity gossip politics over 'corporate' candidates in rigged elections and a media that would have made Stalin blush... what do we expect? Eight years of Clinton... where is Single-Payer ? What happened to the Telecom industry and industrial regulation of pollution and collusion? What happened to financial regulations, and workers' rights? This is old news. The DEM party sold out the people 30 years ago. They allowed "liberal" to become a dirty word, and they helped cement into the American psyche they ideals of apathy, fear, and corporate worship.

Unless people are willing to 'threaten them electorally" they will NEVER, nor will they HAVE TO, care about you, me, or the country's progressive ideals. If the facts hurt, sorry, get over it. Voting for President is a good thing, yes- just like "not beating your children"... it is nothing to brag about... it is expected. What 'real' progressives do, is shirk the religious allegiance to a party that 'uses' them, and they put pressure at every level to achieve real change... it is ALWAYS grassroots up, not the President down.

[Nonamnesiac]

Well stated. Obama and Hillary intend to continue the war, oppose single payer and support unbridled NAFTA and its progeny. And so-called progressives partake in Nader-baiting and salivate like Pavlov's dogs and vote Democratic every time the corporate Democrats ring the Nader-baiting bell.

You're not going to get a progressive agenda by voting for a corporate agenda, especially when this crop of so-called liberals are far to the right of what Nixon was.

[researcher]

in their hearts and minds most americans are imperialists and many are war mongers. this will not change until the economy goes into the tank and the middle class sinks to new lows. years of conditioning has created a society of war mongers for profits as it did in germany.

when the chinese credit card runs out here comes the economic pain. americans dont have a clue they are war mongers or supporting war mongering with a military budget like the world has never seen.

we have been a arrogant self rightous nation and the rest of the world smiles as we slide down the path of self destruction while our politicans tell us that everything is fine or they can fix what is wrong with america. in a dumb downed society americans will believe these politicans.

even europe is getting in on our militry industrial complex by air bus building tankers. now americans dont forget to look for that socilaist under your bed tonight like your parents looked for that commie.


"A nation that spends more year after year on military offense (and I mean offense) than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death". (Gunnels)

[DoninJoisey]

Which candidate said "It's time Americans were patriotic about something besides war".
I remember is was a democrat - Biden? Kucinich? I applaud that sentiment.

I'm a Vietnam veteran, came home and was vocal against the war - the Cheneys of this world are cowards and deserve no respect, and have no right to call anyone else unpatriotic.

Hillary wants to show how "tough" she can be, and therefore imitates cowboy Bush, who regards being stubborn in the face of contradictory facts as being resolute. Her Iraq vote says it all - Edwards admitted he was wrong - she won't, still spins it.

McCain is getting close to "Dr. Strangelove" and gets the wrong message from history.

Obama has the only sane approach - recommended by the Iraq study commision, Colin Powell, and common sense.

[EspritDeVoltaire]

Iraq will NEVER stabilize with a foreign occupation force there. The military and the administration know this, if they don't they're even bigger fools than we suspected. The US policy is to promote destabilization in the region to promote US/Israeli hegemony in the Middle East. The real target remains Iran.

[Clinton]

This is an excellent post that clearly articulates the reasons why this criinal war in Iraq was misconceived from the start. The Iraq war is nothing more than yet another act of US imperialism in the name of 'our sacred lifestyle'. We reserve the right to bathe in relative luxury while millions live a nightmare, all because of a totally misguided sense of superiority. The main beneficiaries are, as usual, the war industrialists.

This will not go away, collectively we have a lot of soul searching to do. The very meaning of what it is to be an American is at stake here. It shouldn't mean a callous, ignorant, lying slob who will do anything for another chance to consume goods while others pay with their own misery.

[desmirl]

McCAIN - depend on him to be a WARMONGER.
HILARY - depend on her to be a CHICKENHAWK and a WARMONGER.
OBAMA - might be less inclined than either of them.

[DoninJoisey]

Couple that with the lobbyists funding Hillary and on McCain's campaign staff, and which candidate comes out ahead again?
Same-old, or let's try to change.

[mouselion]

You are saying We The People are powerless when it comes to war and militarism -- but not about other issues. Considering that war and militarism effects these other national issues in obvious and not-so-obvious ways, it behooves us to figure out how to empower the grassroots efforts to be able to effect change. Otherwise, we are actually living in a military dictatorship that only has the veneer of being a free democratic society. We can not accept powerlessness in the face of militarism.

[Clinton]

Yes, we are living in a military dictatorship (albeit a relatively comfortable one). It's friendly fascism.

[hopeless277]

War is the spectator sport of the new century. The U.S. will never again be a peace. We are a barbaric country led by barbaric people who believe that WE are god's chosen people and anything we do must be good. This country is doomed and my advise for anyone who can is to GET OUT NOW before all hell breaks loose. Think about it for a minute. Do you REALLY believe that BushCheney will just walk away from their trail of crimes? No! They will destroy the earth before they let anyone else into the White House. Just wait and see.

[magen]

Use the argument:

"Ok, neo-CONS, you WON!!!!!!!! Now let's go home and watch an episode of "24".

You're using logic and facts to argue with people who disregard these things.

Liars cannot deal when confronted by the truth of their wickedness, ya gotta just lie right back to them.