Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Protest the War in September, and October, and ...
The remark of a friend with an abiding interest in the Holocaust was still ringing in my ears as I attended my first meeting of the San Francisco chapter of Iraq Moratorium. She had recently said that what struck her most on seeing "The Lives of Others," last year's Academy Award-winning film about an East German secret police officer stricken with scruples over his work, was that it reminded her of "Schindler's List" in that once again she was watching a story about the one "good German." All I could think when I heard her was, "What will they say about us?" Will people one day wonder what all the 'good Americans' were doing during the Iraq War? Will they ask why we remained largely mute as our government sent soldiers to Iraq, year after year, to fight an unwinnable battle against an unnameable enemy in a war based upon fraud?
Certainly the good Americans haven't been making a lot of noise about the war recently. It's almost seems as if people just hoped they could simply turn the matter over to Congress once they voted the Republicans out last November. This would have been nice, of course, but for the fact that the numbers never added up to any genuine possibility that Congress would extricate us from the war. The Democrats are predominantly antiwar, yes, but they are far from unanimously so. And given that congressional Republicans have been virtually all pro-war, the votes to get out of Iraq have just never been there in Congress, particularly when you factor in the presidential veto power.
So, while I might have wished that the meeting I was at were a little more organized and I might have hoped that the group were somewhat more broad based, it really didn't matter all that much. What was important was that the people in the room were committed to finding ways to activate all of those people the polls say oppose this war in order to create an actual antiwar majority in Congress.
Modeled loosely on the Vietnam Moratorium, the Iraq Moratorium represents the simplest of programs: A pledge to publicly oppose the war in some way on the third Friday of every month until the war ends. That's it. You can stand in a vigil, go to a rally, wear an armband, write a letter, or make a phone call, so long as you don't let the day go by without some public expression of your opposition to the war. Unlike its predecessor, the Iraq Moratorium will not gather half a million war protestors in Washington, D.C. in the second month of its existence as the Vietnam Moratorium did on November 15, 1969, but what it does hope to emulate is the persistence of those who continued holding antiwar events on the 15th of each subsequent month.
Certainly we would not wish to repeat everything about the anti-Vietnam War movement, even if we could. It was, after all, often misguided, sometimes shrill and off putting, occasionally violent, and perhaps inflated in the glow of memory. But it had one aspect that we badly need - relentlessness. Over time there came to be few corners of American society where you could avoid the question of the Vietnam War; we need to make the Iraq War similarly inescapable.
Many factors contribute to the current diminished level of protest, to be sure. The war in Iraq (as well as the relatively seldom-mentioned war in Afghanistan) is smaller than the Vietnam War, affects fewer people and, perhaps crucially, it has been conducted without resort to a draft. But, if anything, this relative ease with which the government now conducts its wars (even if not terribly successfully) only increases our responsibility to stop them.
Perhaps the silence of "good Americans" stems from frustration. The largest worldwide, prewar, antiwar rallies in history didn't prevent the invasion, so some think it doesn't matter what we do. And who knows, maybe the pessimists are right. We can't be sure that anything we do will stop the war. But what we do know is that the current absence of protest guarantees that the war will continue. If we remain silent, the terrorists in Washington win.
***
Contact the Iraq Moratorium at www.iraqMoratorium.org
Tom Gallagher can be contacted through his email.
15 Comments so far
Show AllAnd particularly in November 2008 and precedent primaries to beat Clinton, who lets US all know it takes rape, plunder and pillage to raze a Middle Eastern child. Billary's atomic bombo eruptions match the monstrous atrocities inflicted by her corporate Bush masters. Stop her becoming Hitlery! SWITCH TO KUCINICH, NOW!
"The Democrats are predominantly antiwar, yes," or so sayeth the author. Wrong. The Democrats wholeheartedly support the war. They only object to Bush's handling.
And don't pin your hopes on Kucinich. in 2004 he betrayed his supporters and volunteers when he abandoned his pledge to fight for an antiwar plank in the party platform at the DNC in Boston. He went back on his promises and backed a pro-war loser.
http://www.isreview.org/issues/37/kerry_bagman.shtml
http://www.socialistworker.org/2005-1/538/538_08_DebatingthePDA.shtml
If we're going to end war we must stop supporting the democrats. They are not our allies and we cannot expect them to *lead* a struggle for change--because they are defenders of the status quo and materially benefit from their positions of power.
Only a grassroots movement can win change from the outside, but only if we remain independent from the Democratic party: the graveyard of social movements.
What is most upsetting to me is that the Democrats are not impeaching Bush and Cheney. This is negligence of the highest order. And even if the votes are not evident now, they should be helping to build the consensus by signing onto Kucinich's resolution and speaking publicly about the crimes to educated the public. My future votes may never be for a Democrat again except at the local levels in order to replace all of them with some with spine. My letter to the editor here in Hawaii was published last week:
Dear Editor:
I went to the Honoka'a Town Hall meeting today to hear and speak to Congresswoman Mazie Hirono. I have never been so disappointed. She already talks like a 30 yr DC congressperson. Another Akaka/Inouye in the making who will bring home the pork for years.
I was the last person to ask a question and I asked: "Given that this President has lied to congress and the American people, tortured prisoners of war, continues to disappear people off the streets anywhere in the world, has violated the Geneva conventions, and has illegally wiretapped US citizens, why is impeachment off the table." Her reply was: We don't have the votes. When I pressed her on this, that police don't get to turn a blind eye to crimes because it's not popular to stand up to the criminals, she admonished me that she was with me on this issue but these things take time and 'it' hasn't reached the 'tipping point' yet. Well, how about that? Until it's popular, Mazie's gonna sit on the sidelines. Next year, the complaint will be that there are elections and we can't do it then. Every month, she will line up her reasons for not doing her constitutional duty. Her advisors are wrong on this. Her instincts are right but she won't follow them. If she truly feels like we do, she will get rid of these advisors who tell her to follow the party line. We will fight hand and fist to support her if she stands up for what is right. If not, we should retire her at the next election and get a new one. If we keep trying, we may eventually get one with the sense to follow their instincts, not their handlers.
Mazie is no Patsy Mink.
Stephen Wheat
Kukuihaele, HI
Good Americans are working to impeach the criminals in the White House, knowing that simply ending the Iraq war isn't good enough.
Senators Liberman and Levin along with the Brookings Institute's Saban Center are backing a plan to fracture Iraq into 3 states—a frightening idea. See the link here:
http://www3.brookings.edu/fp/saban/analysis/june2007iraq_partition.pdf
Until the US populace gets the courage to take to the streets and follow the example of Gandhi's non-violent marches and demonstrations nothing will change. The people have got to WANT the Constitution restored enough to ACT accordingly. If there is no such desire, there will will be no more US Constitution (except in name only).
What a shame to let cowardice bring down such a noble experiment of human governance!!
For those interested in a psychological analysis of warmongering, I have recently completed a 10-minute online video entitled "Resisting the Drums of War." It examines how the Bush administration has promoted the misguided and destructive war in Iraq by targeting five core concerns that often govern our lives--concerns about vulnerability, injustice, distrust, superiority, and helplessness. Looking ahead, the continuing occupation of Iraq--or an attack on Iran--will likely be sold to us in much the same way. The video examines these warmongering appeals and how to counter them. It's available for viewing HERE.
nickhart wrote: The Democrats wholeheartedly support the war. They only object to Bush's handling.
I humbly suggest that the Dems are decidedly pro-war despite their BS rhetoric. After all, they got us into Vietnam.
The Dems voted to authorize both the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq.
The Dems have voted in favor of every supplemental budget bill that's funded these wars.
Now when the Dems have control of the Congress, they still vote to fully fund the wars.
The Dems have voted in favor of every bloated Pentagon budget request during the Bush years.
The Dems deliberately pulled any language that might restrict Bush from attacking Iran earlier this year.
All the leading Dem presidential candidates have supported attacking Iran.
Why on earth would anyone think at any time that the Democrats opposed these wars?
And actually, other than a brief burst in the McGovern era at the end of the Vietnam war, can anyone cite a time when the Democrats were EVER opposed to war? Kennedy and LBJ attacking Vietnam. Clinton attacking Yugoslavia and funding terrorists in Colombia. To name just a few examples. What exactly is there at any point in history (besides McGovern) that leads anyone to think the Democrats opposed war?
BTW, in my mind the American people have correctly divined that the street protests of the last few years have absolutely no chance of ending the war. It was obvious that Bush isn't listening. And its obvious the Democrats aren't listening. The failure of any significant Democrats to even show up and speak at some of the big DC antiwar protests earlier in the decade is striking.
So, the American people make the sensible decision and don't bother with that. Why spend all the time and money to travel to DC and participate in a protest when you know its a waste of time that won't accomplish anything. None of our politicians give a damn, and the corporate media won't even put it on the news. So why bother? At best it only would inflate the egos of the people with the salary jobs at the permanent anti-war groups. And just showing up probably gets your picture in a secret police data base.
Give the American people an effective way to act to end the war, and they will act. If you tell them to go out and repeat the same actions that have proven to be useless, don't be surprised if they have other things to do to survive in these difficult times.
Take a look at what happened in the Soviet Union and the eastern bloc when communism collapsed. For years there had been dissident groups mounting small protests. And for years, many people might have told you how bad the system was if they had thought it safe to talk to you. But beyond that not much happened. Until the end, when it became obvious that having the people come out into the stets might really change things. At that point, almost without warning, there were millions of people in the streets.
When it reaches the point where the American people know they can change things, they will. But they are also smart enough to realize that today's political system just isn't listening to them.
COMarc does have a point. The only way we will be able to get such massive numbers (millions) of people protesting in the streets is when things economically go so bad that it directly hits their pocketbooks. Then it will stir the masses and perhaps, promulgate them to protest. Until then, as long as they have their jobs, a flatscreen television to watch the NFL, a manicured yard and swimming pool, who the hell cares? Life is swell. If it does not directly affect them, they do not give a damn! Or, if they are facing hard times, it is true that they have plenty of other things to do than waste their money if only 500,000 people show up to protest. Again it is a numbers game.
nickhart August 24th, 2007 12:55 pm
"The Democrats are predominantly antiwar, yes," or so sayeth the author. Wrong. The Democrats wholeheartedly support the war. They only object to Bush's handling.
And don't pin your hopes on Kucinich. in 2004 he betrayed his supporters and volunteers when he abandoned his pledge to fight for an antiwar plank in the party platform at the DNC in Boston. He went back on his promises and backed a pro-war loser.
----------
Agree... completely
What do you do when you don't have enough money to go to the protests. I have opposed the war since before Bush was selected the first time but I live in Indiana - the state who has only voted against a republican presidental candidate one time in its history and that was in 1975.
Mike Pence is my Congressman. He sat behind me in english class my junior year in highschool. He is Bush-Lite. He supports everything that I oppose.
Bush makes me sick sick sick. There is nothing I can do because I don't have the funds to do anything except try to get my friends to vote. I write my congressman and senators. I call them but what good does it do? I think Lugar is starting to listen to us but will he stand up to Bush? Why are people so scared of him? Who is supporting Bush and where are the democrats? Why aren't they stepping in and making a fuss over his stupidity?
I did buy a lottery ticket today so if I win, I will put my money where my mouth is. I will support either Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich. They are the only ones with any sense.
Vic Anderson, I have to complement you on your assessment of Hillary and her philosophy!! Anyone wanting a good laugh about a serious subject needs to read Vic`s first post. It makes good sense also. Keep it up, Vic!
While I agree that the Democratic Party has been completely pathetic on the invasion of Iraq and Impeachment, I do not agree with those who put down Kucinich. He is the only one of the candidates who has a clear anti-war position and a plan for getting us out of Iraq. He has shown leadership on Impeachment as well. If there is a Socialist or third party candidate running for president I would like to know who he or she is?
Also the media must also take its share of the blame for not informing the public about what is really going on in Iraq. In fact according to a recent study there is less and less coverage of Iraq and more and more about the upcoming election. And of course, most of that is drivel like whether Obama is black enough instead of about the real issues.
If you want a very informative update about what is going on in Iraq go to www.democracynow.org for 8/21 and read the interview about how "Iraq Does Not Exist Anymore": Journalist Nir Rosen on How the U.S. Invasion of Iraq Has Led to Ethnic Cleansing, a Worsening Refugee Crisis and the Destabilization of the Middle East".
If you can get them to read this article, even apathetic and right wing types who don't give a damm about the monstrous suffering we have inflicted on the people of Iraq may become aroused when they realize how much the Iraq invasion has done to harm our interests as well.