Stopping the War with the Congress We’ve Got…
Talk to antiwar friends nowadays and the word “Congress” is likely to produce a frustrated diatribe about how spineless and shortsighted the Democrats have been as they squander the opportunities offered by their new majority. And that’s the charitable view. Others are convinced that the Democrats are deliberately prolonging the war in order to reap electoral advantage in 2008. Whichever narrative holds sway-whether spineless and shortsighted or cynical and calculating- a common conclusion is that dealing with Congress is a hopeless enterprise.
While there is no lack of evidence for these diverse complaints, the daunting reality is that until the Congress of the United States acts, the war in Iraq will continue. Some insist this “this war will only be settled by events on the ground.” Yet barring a miraculous upsurge in which Iraqis literally drive American troops out of their country, these soldiers are staying until the politicians bring them home.
Others maintain that nothing will change until there is a new President in 2009. But in the absence of a strong Congressional mandate, it is difficult to imagine a Chief Executive reversing the policy. Who besides Ron Paul, among that dismal group of Republican contenders, is prepared to orchestrate what will inevitably appear as an American defeat? And, as for the Democrats, which of the leading candidates is prepared to take on their own shoulders such a burden? Certainly not Hillary Clinton, who has already demonstrated that “military toughness” is central to her political persona.
One way or other, this problematic crew of people on Capitol Hill or their successors will have to be moved from their present equivocations to a strong, clear insistence that all U.S. troops must leave Iraq. It is for this reason, that pressuring the Congress remains a priority for much of the organized peace movement.
However this emphasis elicits understandable exasperation. Many feel that, “we have already tried everything,” that although the American people gave a “clear verdict on the war” during the 2006 elections, the “Congress isn’t listening.”
These are, however, only partial truths. For one thing, many members of Congress are listening and there has been a dramatic evolution in their attitudes and voting behavior. Some of that change has come about because of the hard work of thousands of peace activists across the country.
This past spring, 171 members of the House of Representatives voted for a bill introduced by Representative James McGovern that would have required a redeployment of US troops and contractors within 90 days and a complete withdrawal six months later. The previous year, less than 30 representatives were prepared to support such legislation. As for the 2007 Supplemental funding bill, by the time the blank-check version came to the House floor, 142 members voted “No,” more than doubling the number of legislators who had taken this stand previously. The votes in each instance were preceded by a substantial mobilization at the grassroots.
With people dying in Iraq every day and the President obtaining all the money he asked for, it is hard to be exuberant about these results. But in our sorrow and impatience, it is worth noticing that organizing and pressure has made a difference and that we now have more allies on Capitol Hill, who are genuinely committed to bringing the troops home.
To gain perspective on the Congressional situation, the Vietnam comparison is instructive. Despite the fact that “the loss” of that country posed no significant threat to any substantive national interest, it was extremely difficult to halt the war. Iraq has become a more formidable problem precisely because the Bush Administration has been so reckless and incompetent in a region of exceptional importance to American imperial fortunes. Its foolhardy actions have destabilized the Middle East, undermined U.S. authority and strengthened an Iranian adversary. Yet to many in positions of power, as well the mainstream pundits, these very consequences have become a further argument for maintaining a military presence. The operative concern here is not about “new bases for terrorists” but about losing control of the world’s oil supply.
The midterm elections notwithstanding, getting the United States out of Iraq is no simple chore. Yet it can be accomplished, if we develop ways to generate more pressure than we have done so far. It is no small problem that the media has consistently underreported the breadth and energy of grassroots activism. Yet if we are candid, we can also acknowledge that given the urgency of the task, and the number of profoundly disaffected Americans, there are still too few people visibly engaged in protesting the war, or leaning on Congress to exercise its Constitutional responsibility.
This partly reflects the paradoxical effects of the Internet, which has facilitated organization on an unprecedented scale, but also keeps people in their homes. As useful as it can be, clicking a finger is no substitute for a personal presence. Elected officials need to see the signs of dissent -in posters, newspaper ads, marches, visits to their offices, town halls, statements by community leaders and direct action. And to the extent that these initiatives are larger rather than smaller, they can pry lose the votes we need to get the troops home.
Moreover, the daily dose of Iraqi carnage that appears on television cannot substitute for the educational work and outreach efforts we need to expand. Since the mid-term elections, it is reflexively asserted that the American people gave the politicians “a clear verdict” Yet this is not entirely accurate The elections made manifest a widespread discontent and a desire that the war be over. But there is also ambivalence about the remedy. The polls have consistently shown that most Americans do not want Congress to simply cut off the funds. And while the majority of people favor a timeline for withdrawal, there is great variation about how rapid and complete they believe this timeline should be.
When members of Congress express reluctance about looking “defeatist,” it is easy enough to scoff and complain of their cowardice. Yet there are still millions of their constituents, who truly reject the idea of walking away from the battlefield, as a matter of morality, self-interest, or both. And there are still millions of Americans, who perceive the US role in Iraq as beneficent and do not recognize that the occupation is feeding the violence and polarization there. It remains the work of a vibrant peace movement to address those attitudes and change them.
As we pass another anniversary of September 11, the tragedy of the Bush Administration’s response looms ever larger. Yet as disappointing as this Congress may be, lamenting its weakness is less useful than creating the conditions that will compel it to move.
Carolyn Eisenberg is the co-chair of the Legislative Working group for United for Peace and Justice and a professor of U.S. foreign policy at Hofstra University.
“Yet as disappointing as this Congress may be, lamenting its weakness is less useful than creating the conditions that will compel it to move”
Right.
Framing it as simply lamenting is dishonest. The conclusion gradually reached by growing numbers is based in reality–not simply frustration.
Here is a clue. While the author suggests continuing to pressure congress to withdraw from Iraq, the congress occupies itself banging the drums on Iran….now, what was it that Israel-AIPAC, who own our congress, wanted again? You know, the taboo subject even the peace activists dare not broach (See Michael Lerner, Nation support attacking ANSWER–se the Progressive instrumental in targeting Finkelstein). Meanwhile the activist and peace movement is defines as “looney” or “nuts” or marginalized as unpatriotic, etc. And “Grassroots” fall prey to this conditioning–just look at the attacks on the activists on sites like Democratic Underground.
Don’t insult us. Get real.
Pelosi could take a stand and not even bring the measure to the floor!Tony
The “war” may eventually end, but American troops and military bases will remain in Iraq for decades to come.
American economic interests demand it. And since economic interests drive America policy and control American political discourse no President nor the two current political parties will change this outcome.
No excuses for the Democrats! There was plenty they could have done, but Nancy Pelosi set the agenda when she took impeachment off the table, and after that Bush got everything he asked for, funding to continue in Iraq, permission to attack Iran, permission to continue warrantless wiretapping, etc. ad nauseum. If the Democrats are starting to stir now because they’re afraid about the 2008 elections, it’s a little late. If they’d acted on the mandate they were given in the 2006 elections, they’d be overwhelmed with votes in 2008. But they didn’t.
Don’t believe me? Let’s watch what they do.
This piece is very hard-headed and practical — and I think the US anti-war movement should take sober note of it. Nobody is leaving Iraq until that oil bill is signed and the last coat of paint is dry on the US “Embassy” (code word for super-fortified military base from which an assault on virtually any Middle East target can be waged). Moreover, this problem is linkt to that other one: Israel isn’t leaving Palestine until some future American president says “Leave, or we’re cutting off the 3bn dollars a year you’re getting from the American taxpayer.”
That’s the “bottom line” which the US peace movement hasn’t faced up to. Instead, it’s goal is “to bring the troops home” — as if that is gonna fix anything. You’ll only be faced with this situation again in a year or two or three — this time in Iran, or Syria, or Lebanon, or wherever.
It’s high time you started coalition building. Eighty percent of the American Jewish community wants Israel out of the occupied territories. Seventy percent of all Americans want the US out of Iraq. Both those constituencies don’t just want a ceasefire; you want out of imperialism. That has to be your ultimate goal. Figure out what links those two ugly imperialist projects and focus on that.
Otherwise, you’re all just wasting your time.
Congress? What Congress? There is no Congress anymore. There hasn’t been for some time. Oh there’s some guys in suits that sit around and shoot the s&^t. You think that’s a Congress? I hope you don’t.
We’ve been hoodwinked. Constitutional government is G O N E gone. If we want that again we’ll have to take it back.
HOW?
Brace yourself.
To do that we need the Republicans. Yes the Republicans. We need EVERY US Citizen, not just half or 3/4. Only TOGETHER as one people can we hope to resist the current administration. Abraham Lincon said “A house divided cannot stand.” It’s true. We will have to win over the nutballs throwing water balloons, thumping bibles, and putting Bush/Cheney stickers on their cars. There’s our battle. As a united group of Americans we will win flat out. Call me crazy but I don’t have a better plan yet.
All of our spending for criminal atrocities (Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine etc.) start with the House. If they don’t vote the money for never ending child slaughter then it won’t happen. The Great Terrorist is about to demand more blood money from our lawmakers. Should congress vote any more money for this genocide then I’ll never vote for any of them again.
whatfools
Since the ratings for Congress are below the ratings for Bush, you’d think they’d wonder why and do something to show Americans that Congress recognizes the mandate they were given when they vote.
But Bush usually gets all the blame because he’s so visible (Congress as Bush’s equal sort of fades into the wallpaper) and thinks he can outsmart everybody. Bush actually distracts from Congress because he’s set himself forward as a dictator.
The greatest problem of Congress is that they REFUSE to deal with him as they would with a bully, trying to placate him and give him what he demands.
I’m very disillusioned with Congress, particularly the Democrats, who were SUPPOSED to be different from the Republicans in their support for Bush’s murderous agenda. Turns out, they aren’t.
“…if we develop ways to generate more pressure than we have done so far.”
The only pressure these creatures will really respond to is the pressure of money. If we can find a way to buy them from the lobbyists who now own them we might be able to get some action out of them. What do you suppose the odds are on that?
I’d say the odds on this petition accomplishing something are actually better, as slim as they are.
http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/unsanam2
“…if we develop ways to generate more pressure than we have done so far.”
Like Cindy Sheehan does and then gets roundly attacked for doing?
Vern,
You’d rather roll over and let anything happen?
Cindy Sheehan faces what all protesters face, and she deals with it very well. There’s no easy way out for anybody when the government doesn’t listen to its citizens.
No argument with you there.
I am just responding to the prattle about doing something, without taking into account that the dynamics involved suppress the actual doing of anything.
Ask UFPJ about working with International ANSWER in common cause.
Folks, it would take 41 senators to end the funding for this illegal, immoral war and the humanitarian catastrophe we visit on the Iraqi civilian population every day. FORTY-ONE: not the 51 required to pass a bill; not the 60 required for cloture; not the 67 required to override a Bush veto. A mere Forty-One to filibuster any bill that continues funding for this war. We don’t need a miraculous conversion experience for Joe Lie-berman or the Blue-dog Democrats or frightened anti-war Republicans or anyone else.
41 one who have the will, which they obviously do not.
Vern
Okay, I understand. There are many ways to nonviolently protest a government’s actions, public protest being one of them. There needs to be something that works long-term and something that stops the most egregious acts very quickly, and all kinds of things in between — so there’s usually a place to fit anyone’s comfort and commitment level. I’ve no doubt that Cindy quite expected a lot of verbal and attitudinal flak when she began and was not thrown off-balance by it.
I believe that until the commitment level is ratcheted up by several magnitudes, nothing is going to happen. Patrick Henry said “Give me liberty, or give me death!” There were people during the Vietnam Era that had this level of commitment, and some did pay with their lives while peacefully protesting.
So it’s risky, but then the government’s actions are even more so. They’ve sent military troops off to die for a lie, plan to attack Iran now, and that’s brutal.
The ongoing Democratic excuse for continuing the war is that they cannot get 60 votes to override the presidents veto. This is a lie. To deny further funding, they only have to not pass the legislation which means they need 51 to vote no. What a bunch of debased cowards the Democrats are!!!
anney–
It is “our” side that is the problem- not the commitment of the activists. The author (from UFPJ) is arguing to essentially work within the system as the only option, but the years of Democratic capitulation and compliance only demonstrates how futile it is. The DLC dictates policy that echoes…Reagan–while the Right has ventured into even more extreme territory–without accountability–without oversight. The Democrats have been propping Bush up like a paper tiger when the slightest breeze could send him crashing. Instead we hear constant attacks on the activists from the Democrats - but it is they who have enabled a Right that by all proper accounts should be powerless. The Democrats and their henchmen and their partisan goons and their corporate lackeys seek to destroy any alternative and keep voters hostage. Don’t say there can’t be an alternative–Dean came out of nowhere and look what they did to him–but it was a real and viable alternative to that Clinton stranglehold. Still they tell us all other choices are unelectible and people buy into that–and then when one opts out of the vice they are blamed for enabling a Republican –when the Democrats have been enabling the Republicans all along.
Ask any of these Democratic party cheerleaders where they stand on the issues and chances are they more closely reflect Kucinich, but they embrace the rejection of him when they buy into party propaganda.
Where does it end? How do we free ourselves?
United for Peace and Justice is 0 for 3 — they unite with no one except those who oppose the most forceful antiwar advocates, like Adam Kokesh, the Iraqi vet who gave one of the most militant speeches I’ve ever heard (I couldn’t make it to DC but watched the early-morning broadcast on C-SPAN).
What’s UFP’s plan? A fast for peace on October 8.
“When members of Congress express reluctance about looking “defeatist,” it is easy enough to scoff and complain of their cowardice. Yet there are still millions of their constituents, who truly reject the idea of walking away from the battlefield, as a matter of morality, self-interest, or both. And there are still millions of Americans, who perceive the US role in Iraq as beneficent and do not recognize that the occupation is feeding the violence and polarization there. It remains the work of a vibrant peace movement to address those attitudes and change them.”
Well, that should take just another decade or two.
To believe that it’s immoral to ‘walk away from the battlefield’ makes one a war criminal — you can’t condone the presence and then cluck your tongues at the crimes committed. To believe still that the US occupation is beneficient means that one is indifferent & even hostile towards any truth or any humane feeling.
Continuing to put any hope on influencing the corporate partys is delusional. We need to organize a unifed effort at an independent party that can run respected well known leaders of our movement for president. Suh a party would democratically develop and adhere to a progressive program and we would have something to rally behind and support (once we shake off the Dim loyalists). What else can we do? What are we waiting for? If we don’t do this, what will we tell ourselves and our children?
“politics is the art of preventing people from participating in events which properly concern them.”
—paul valery, french poet and critic, 1871-1945
Vern/Dichterfreund
Back in the 70s I worked in civil rights law enforcement. One of my cases involved getting several large insurance companies to even out their rates for men and women. At that time, men had to pay more for life insurance than women, and women had to pay more for health insurance than men.
I was exceedingly frustrated at the negotiations because the insurance company representatives were being so resistant to the idea of charging everybody the same. About a year before that, they’d changed their policies that required their Black insurers to pay more for life insurance, so I asked. “Why are you guys so resistant to this idea? You changed the policy for Blacks — why not women?”
The answer flabbergasted me. One of the VPs said, “But women aren’t out rioting on the streets.”
As long as I live, I won’t forget that lesson — if you want real political change, you really have to go to it hammer and tongs, make the status quo uncomfortable.
Riot on the streets?
I hope it doesn’t come to that. But people are getting fed up. Look at the comments on the blogs. There’s a lot of frustration and anger since the Democrats have failed to do what they were elected to do — and that was to be a voice for us, even if they couldn’t win every fight. The frustration and anger are going to come out one way or another. The best thing to do is provide nonviolent but effective outlets for it that bring about the changes needed if Democracy and the US are to survive. America’s life is at stake.
Maybe, but now, we the people are just a “special interest group” and not a particularly powerful one despite our numbers. It isn’t about us. Deregulation has created a climate where winner takes all is the name of the game–the American sucess story–the American dream–not hard work or ingenuity, that is myth–but by wholesale looting, bullying and selfish entitlement as virtue.
anney 12:12 pm says:
“The greatest problem of Congress is that they REFUSE to deal with him as they would with a bully, trying to placate him and give him what he demands.”
You may be giving Congress even more credit than they deserve. They are implicit in the crime, or so all the evidence suggests.
But with respect to any pathetic stinkin unthinkin bully what you say seems so true. Hasn’t history shown us that the only way to stop a bully is by persistent, direct, and principled confrontation. Bullies cannot be “placated”. That just reinforces their self-absorbed, overbearing, overextending, pompous, arrogant, and un-empathetic pathetic behavior. Sometimes bullies need a swift left hook to help them understand. “Mano-a-Mano” sort of thing or “women-to-women” if you know what i mean.
Nonethelss, isn’t it apparant that time is truly running out on Congress? It seems that way to me and as far as i’m concerned now, i say: good riddance. Good riddance to the house of congress and to the non white house. Good riddance for the good of us all. Honestly, this is not a joke.
Real changes are on the way and thank goodness becuase we need em.
Peace,
Ken Hausle
* I suppport impeachment of DC
Carolyn:
I’m sorry - you had your chance. You give no rationale as to why being suckered again will produce any different results.
The American people voted in the Democrats to end the war. Do they now have to get tear gassed, tasered, and trampled, in order for the Democrats to keep their promise? Is that what you are asking of Americans? While you help draft worthless house resolutions in the comfort of a Capitol Hill office?
Beware Sheep in Progressive clothing.
Jaded Prole:
You are absolutely correct. And the process towards a new party is already beginning. It can be seen in comments such as yours and TheLorax, and a growing number of others, who are aware that Democracy in America has been hijacked by corporations and foreign governments.
However, it’s too soon, a few essential ingredients are missing.
1. The economy needs to collapse. The fed is going to lower interest rates to try and keep this dead horse of an economy limping till the end of Bush’s presidency. But the economy will still go down over the next few months. Until the “It’s the economy, stupid!” goes into recession Sheepish Americans will be unwilling to change anything. It’s only a few months away though.
2. It’s as “TheLorax” (my favorite book)says in his post up above. It can’t be a progressive party. Sorry. It has to be an American Party. That includes conservatives. If you pay attention, you can see that their is on the other side, a growing number of conservatives who have become disillusioned as well. When the American people unite, and agree to put aside their stupid intentionally distracting culture wars,then you can really effect change.
As far as creating a new Party, it’s very simple, and costs nothing. I came up with an idea, a year ago, that takes advantage of an overlooked flaw within our rigged political system. But I’m holding off presenting it for now. I need to see some indication that progressives and conservatives can unite and work together - otherwise it’s a wasted effort.
United we Stand Divided we Fall.
Ramsay
Hey Ramsay Mameesh - Maybe, maybe not. I’m not sure i give a crap about “america” just now (or at least the federal DC aspect), but i do care about the neighborhood i live in —- you know.
I think the whole “federal” concept is going to need to be seriously examined. If this country wants to stay “united” it may only work as a “Confederacy” where most day-to-day decisions are made at the local level and where Education of Youth is propelled above and beyond military shenanigans.
I basically concur with your projection on the economy, but who really knows what is going to happen in the future? What i know for myself is that the “american myth” needs to be recognized for what it is.
Peace,
Ken Hausle
I remember when the war with Iraq began, many people said that the time to debate the merits of going to war was before the decision had been made, but that once we were in a state of war, we should all go along with our Commander-In-Chief. As Bush ignored all of the peace activists, we eventually came to realize, if we hadn’t before then, that his decision had been made in isolation. The only question was not whether to launch the war, but how and when. And once we had embarked upon such a course, many in Congress and across America argued that this course should continue indefinitely.
Largely because of this, the one thing that simultaneously depresses me and pushes me to a sense of desperation is the brewing escalation toward war with Iran in the background while we argue about whether and how to end the war in Iraq. I find myself asking what it will take to get the Americans to rise up and demand an end to a policy of death and destruction.
The Bush Administration is the immovable object. Will we see the irresistable force emerge from the people, or will we simply roll over and allow ourselves to be led like lambs to collective slaughter? The experts predict that war with Iran would be somewhere between disastrous and catastrophic, but whether or not an exasperated public and a passive Congress can stop the Bush Administration from going from the edge right into the middle of chaos is the question all of the peace activists live with each day.
For me, I consider that if we the people can’t stop another war from a failed regime in the United States of America, there is no America anymore, because there are then no boundaries between the US and the THEM. We can expect the last shreds left of our torn democratic system to crumble into the full-fledged police state toward which we have been inching for decades. The Prison-Industrial Complex, which has already grown into monstrous proportions, will become the modus operandi, and the only people with any sense of freedom left will be those with overwhelming money and power.
And then what? Normally, I try not to ask that question, because the answer is a one-way ticket into an existential void. But to me, if we can’t rise up against this last, greatest brewing threat to world peace, we might as well blow up the entire planet, ourselves included.
www.raycarlson.com
Ken:
I know how you feel. In 2003, during shock and awe, and after having marched and demonstrated, I looked into the eyes of my countrymen and women, and saw nothing but fear. I moved to Costa Rica.
I practiced complete ignorance for one year. No t.v., no newspapers, no conversation about America. I thought I had made a good choice. I picked a country with no oil and no army. But “No man is an island”, I would soon find out, as the empire found me, crushed my dream, and forced me back.
If I could not find peace in a foreign country, you will not find it in your neighborhood, ignorance will not save you either.
I understand everyones frustration, I feel it myself, impatience is a nasty American trait. While I was in Costa Rica, I comforted myself with the thought that, “when the American people learn the truth”, they will rise up. It didn’t happen. Why?
Because the “Truth only matters when the truth makes a difference.” As long as Americans, stay in their economic comfort zone, it makes no difference what horrible crimes are committed in their names.
The test comes when the Truth makes a difference. Will Americans unite and save their country? Or will they allow people like Carolyn, the author of the column, to keep them divided?
Ramsay
Ramsay,
I hear you. Years ago I realized that the only way that a third party could come to power would be if its positions ignored the culture wars. Wall Street and the corporate media try to make every election about the culture wars in order to distract and divide the voters. What kills me is people on the left who say “Those darn righties, all they have to do is surrender on the culture wars, agree with us on everything, and then we can unite,” while people on the right are equally stubborn, all the while we drift into economic polarization and fascism.
It looks like in the next presidential election we may get to choose a female fascist, if we are tired of the same old same old, and after that we will probably get to choose a male African-American fascist, then a New Age lesbian fascist, then a vegetarian transgendered Mexican-American fascist, …
“Elected officials need to see the signs of dissent -in posters, newspaper ads, marches, visits to their offices, town halls, statements by community leaders and direct action.”
Well, this weekend’s march went unnoticed, it would seem. So scratch “marches” off the list above.
Then, what about newspaper ads? Do you realize how much ammunition MoveOn’s ad added to the Republican arsenal, and how many “middle” supporters they lost?
I’m not trying to be a naysayer, but if we could nail down just what is effective, because office visits (to Conyers), the many demonstrations, newspaper ads … have not been effective at all. These congress people are glued to their positions … they don’t appear to be moving anywhere. I must admit, I don’t get it.
Yada, Yada, Yada
All talk & bluster.
In the meantime, planes being loaded with missiles and bombs, Target coordinates in the command systems are being verified, ‘common folk’ are wringing our hands.
If we do not stop this madness, all the blood and terror unleashed will be on our individual heads.
We as citizens are directly culpable for turning a blind eye to the transgressions of this group of thieves/madmen/tyrants when there was still time to prevent their takeover of the power structures(including the Pentagon,Justice Dept, Homeland Security,etc.)
I feel stupid for making the following suggestion AGAIN, but I feel it is a possible tactic - but I could be wrong.
The average citizen is distracted from the consequences of our upcoming attacks that will use Darth Vader like tactics to initiate an Armageddon, the likes of which we may not survive. The very UnConstitutional acts carried out by our elected (and unelected) leaders of all persuasions is beyond any and all comprehension and is morally dumbfounding.
Americans need to demonstrate their utter disgust with these policies of aggression and thirst for power and complete control of the world.
It has happened here - to paraphrase Sinclair Lewis.
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 and to WANT collective sanity restored enough to ACT accordingly. If there is no such desire, there will will be no more US Constitution (except in name only) and death and destruction.
Things will change only when the populace is alienated and hopeless.
Then they may :
STAND UP - for what they beleive to be right.
SIT DOWN - in the nearest street to bring transportaion, retail, everything to a standstill.
FIGHT - I hope like Gandhi’s Pathan friend Badshar Khan(Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan) (check him out)a Pashtun nonviolent Muslim
FIGHT - Even if it means sacrifice to themselves to totally repudiate the oligarchy
FIGHT - As if their lives depend on active resistance - which they do
When people realize that they cannot ignore the actions of the government and relaize they themselves are the governmet, only then is change possible.
What a shame to let cowardice bring down such a noble experiment of human governance!!
Here are some comments by a man who stood by Gandhi - Badshah Khan, who led a 100,000 person army of non-violent Pashtuns from the Khyber pass region. He was a Pashtun (Afghan) political and spiritual leader known for his non-violent opposition to British Rule during the final years of the Empire on the Indian sub-continent. He was a lifelong pacifist and a devout Muslim. He was known as Badshah Khan (sometimes written as Bacha Khan), the `King of Chiefs’, and `Frontier Gandhi’.
“To me nonviolence has come to represent a panacea for all the evils that surround my people. Therefore I am devoting all my energies toward the establishment of a society that would be based on its principles of truth and peace.” –
Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan
“Today’s world is traveling in some strange direction. You see that the world is going toward destruction and violence. And the specialty of violence is to create hatred among people and to create fear. I am a believer in nonviolence and I say that no peace or tranquility will descend upon the people of the world until nonviolence is practiced, because nonviolence is love and it stirs courage in people.” – Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan to an interviewer in 1985
His story is contained in ‘Nonviolent Soldier of Islam: Badshah Khan, A Man To Match His Mountains’, by Eknath Easwaran (Published by Nilgiri Press).
Also see NPR highlights:
http://www.npr.org/programs/musings/2003/jan/khan.html?sc=emaf
The place to start, legislatively, is to repeal the 2002 Iraq Authorization for Use of Military Force resolution (ie., debate and pass the Robert Byrd/Hillary Clinton Senate bill).
Not only will debating repeal of that dreadful statute focus public attention back upon the illegitimacy of the reasons originally advanced to invade Iraq, but it also opens an easy way for Congress to publicly oppose escalating the border incursions and the Persian Gulf naval ballet into the feared big air attack upon Iran.
Repeal the use of military force in Iraq and Bush can’t claim he’s attacking Iran based upon that prior Congressional authorization. And he can’t use the 2001 Afghan AUMF either, unless he has proof (after six years!) that it was really Iran (not Saddam) that was in cahoots with Osama on the 9/11 attacks.
In fact, if Little George plowed ahead and attacked Iran anyway, that would be a high crime worthy of impeachment, just like Trick Dick’s invasion of Cambodia was.
First things first. Repeal the AUMF.
Bill from Saginaw
the Demorats are Dr. Jekyl to the Repuglicans Mr. Hyde, both working within corporate Americans lab.
There is only one solution, a two pronged approach
1) fight to get anti-war democrats nominated over the por-war encumbents
2) start a 3rd party.
I wonder how the present Congress would respond if a level of violence, similar in nature to that which the Iraqis have experienced, and continue to experience, existed on the streets of the United States?
Would they be worried about the next election?
Would they decide American lives were more important than Iraqis lives?
Would they fight for the oil? Would they fight for the people? Would they fight at all?
Just wondering. . .
Bill FS
I think that’s a good idea. Since, at the time, it pertained only to Iraq, it could be repealed now on the basis that its objective has been achieved. Or, more upfront, nobody wants it to be used as a legal basis for invading Iran. Congress needs BADLY to take back its Constitutional duty of declaring war or not.
The professor writes a nice essay stating the problem when the solution is there for all to see but never mentioned. Frustrated commentators hint at it but never quite get there. Our next leader will rise above partisan politics with an enlightened win-win strategy that nobody can oppose. It’s there.
The tragedy here is that the longer U.S. troops stay in Iraq, the closer Cheney is to his goal of attacking Iran.
And when that happens, our cowardly Democrats will immediately close ranks behind Cheney.
“The polls have consistently shown that most Americans do not want Congress to simply cut off the funds. And while the majority of people favor a timeline for withdrawal, there is great variation about how rapid and complete they believe this timeline should be.”
The latest Fox News poll has 22% in favor of bringing home all troops immediately, and 42% more in favor of bringing all troops home gradually over the next year. That’s ALL troops, NOT “troops”, “the troops”, “our troops”, “combat troops”, “most troops”, “all troops except…”, or any of the other dodges used by the Democratic leadership.
If we want the Democrats to fight the Republicans we will have to fight the Democrats first. The leadership is corrupt and compromised. The DLC and AIPAC are in charge. The Presidential candidates (excepting DK) are revolting.
It would take a lot of time, effort, organizing, media skill and money to “take over” a powerful institution that does not want to be taken over. If you think the Dems won’t fight just try and make the Dem party a Progressive one. You will witness such a whirlwind of opposition you won’t know what hit you. Too bad they don’t fight Bush and the Repubs as hard as they would surely fight us!
That’s the point. It’s not that they won’t fight. They just won’t fight for us.
We certainly don’t have the money to match the corporate dollars that flow to them, so we can’t buy them off. They would sell, but we just can’t afford them. Remember the old joke: A pricipled politician is one who, when he’s bought, stays bought.
I believe we should take what energy, skills etc we have and just build a 3rd, 4th and 5th party! Democracy is about choice and we certainly don’t have enough choices with the present system.
I can hear the Democrat apologists already: “But that would help the Republicans and WE’RE NOT THEM.”
You’re not “US” either.
Cindy Sheehan for Congress !!!
The article basically recommends trying to “pressure” the Democrats to oppose the war. This entire concept ignores all the deeply-rooted institutional & sociological factors that make the Democrats the contemptible Bush-collaborators that they are. There is precisely zero chance that this notion of “pressuring” the Democrats is ever going to work, because the “strategy” amounts to pleading with the politicians from a position of weakness. This kind of entreaty is very easy to ignore.
The politicans don’t listen out of the goodness of their hearts. They would listen if someone spoke to them from a position of strength — for example, they listen very attentively to big donors. (Unfortunately, the big donors are profiting nicely from the Iraq war, so their influence doesn’t help us.) And they would listen if there was rioting in the streets, or a threatened revolution, or massive civil disobedience, or a general strike. Other than that, they will smile and thank the antiwar petitioners for their input — then go back to work and do exactly what the big lobbyists want them to do.
With due respect, focusing anti-war efforts on legislation repealing the 2002 force authorization resolution against Iraq is a really stupid idea. It would be essentially non-binding (since the Commander-in-Chief is currently engaged in a real on-going war which the Constitution certainly gives him considerable leeway to manage) and would produce nothing of substance other than a political platform for the use of Presidential candidates in the already launched and seemingly endless “2008″ election campaign. Meanwhile, more multitudes of human beings will continue to be killed, maimed and/or driven from their miserable homes. The Democratically controlled House can cut off further war funding at any time and under any conditions it chooses — like now, no more war operational funding, period. Maybe we can’t pressure the House to do that, but at least it’s a possible, practical and potentially speedy solution. I don’t see any other efficatious alternative.
I agree with the author, and I think most of the people in here are lamenters.
I challenge you: take some action. Get out of the house and do something. Work for your candidate (Ron Paul or whomever) and work to change things. Getting old and bitter and hating life is no way to go.
Some people used to believe a single act would set off the masses and start a rebellion. If you can’t come up with an idea at least that good, then you might as well stick with that. Stop complaining. Take action.
The author of this article describes her ideas on tactics for ending the occupation of Iraq, yet some readers are hurling verbal grenades at her. I think it is normal and healthy to have a discussion on what will or won’t work and I think we could do it without insulting one another. I think the quickness to insult others and the overwhelming negativity often displayed on the Common Dreams message boards is indicative of problems among antiwar people in general. It diminishes our ability to organize effectively and makes us complicit with Congress, Bush, and the economic powers that be in perpetuating the occupation in Iraq. We need to get over ourselves a little.
There are some wishful thinkers masquerading as cynics on this page. I am also a little surprised by the talk of ignoring the “culture wars” to build some kind of mythical conservatives and progressives together third party. While perhaps things like the whole Merry Christmas vs Happy holidays melee are designed by Fox news to keep us divided, much of what is referred to as the culture wars is serious business to me. Yes, I do actually care about my continued access to birth control. Yes, I do care about the rights of gay citizens. Yes, I do care about the separation of church and state. I doubt we are going to permanently put aside these issues as a way to get out of our imperialistic mess in Iraq.
These comments prove we need a plan, if that was ever in doubt. Not ideas, not plans, A PLAN; not some fluky synergy of a thousand uncoordinated bodies sharing a common dream, but the orchestrated product of a Resistance.
In desperate enough situations people are not so pre-occupied by pet-theories as to overlook the need for a Resistance or what it entails, like the following. A resistance involves an efficient (ergo heirachical) temporary concentration of power and intelligence within a network of commited persons and syndicates.
It grows from the bottom-up, yet ultimately elevates an individual or small group to a position from which the ever-shifting means to execute the will of the people can be clearly surveyed and definitely enacted.
Once the need becomes unmistakable to individuals and groups “on the ground”, they provide mandate or consent for others in their immediate circle to represent them in higher circles with representatives, to a few orders culminating with an effective executive.
It doesn’t entail violence or facist mentality, simply earnest and serious organisation, with preciousness and over-sensitivity left to wither.
Is the need apparent on the ground yet? Good: time to get messy with the realpolitic of making non-fantasy changes.
Use the congress you’ve got for the tiny amount it’s worth.
Ken Hausle September 18th, 2007 3:44 pm
You may be giving Congress even more credit than they deserve. They are implicit in the crime, or so all the evidence suggests.
More than most people realize. Anyone who wants to find out why the Democrats are not working harder to get us out of Iraq should take the time to read the article at the link below
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/090607J.shtml
Lobo Gris
CURMUDGEON99
“the average citizen is distracted from………..”
now to me the operative word here is ‘average’. we are not the ‘average’ citizen or we wouldn’t be posting here. we’d be watching some silly rubbish on tv. and i understand the need for the majority of people to become involved for there to be any use. so we need to find a way to target that ‘average’ citizen. that’s going to be nigh on impossible i would say without the help of, dare i say, msm. and we know what propaganda they push. so they are not about to turn tail and help. what’s the solution?? i fear there is none. people are complacent. as long as it’s not affecting them directly they don’t care.
i totally agree with the concept of peaceful demonstrations and non-violence. but it has been shown that the u.s. government (and the u.k. for that matter and indeed the whole world) don’t give a fig for your marches or protests. times have changed since gandhi and his followers did things peacefully. violence is the order of the day now for your ‘average’ citizen. i don’t mean they are violent, but that violence is all they see around them. and until they WANT to change things then nothing will happen. but i fear that when they do want, the change will come by violent and not peaceful means.
“….getting the United States out of Iraq is no simple chore. Yet it can be accomplished, if we develop ways to generate more pressure than we have done so far”
Such as?
Bigger signs?
Sing louder?
Political pressure is predicated upon the threat that if you don’t do the job, we won’t re-elect you. With unverifiable touch-screen voting ( a system that would have delighted Stalin) and all the rest of the electoral follies, those days may be gone.
What now?
liberty & justice,
sj
www.spartacusjones.com
Lobo Gris
That’s a very interesting report. It appears Emmanuel Rahm has gotten a bit too big for his britches and wants to handpick Democratic candidates himself. It would certainly be fairer for the DCCC to evenly apportion their support money to all Democratic candidates and let the voters choose the candidate they want in the primaries.
The Truthout report plainly says his maneuvering is a result of the Democratic party’s decision about the position they want Democratic candidates to have on issues, not on what the voters decide.
It’s pretty sickening.
Our country needs to hold ALL the Officials who “lied” and went along with “Cheney/Rummy Co” to get us into this mess, from the lowest to the highest, with loss of their federal pensions which in-turn would deny them access to future government leaders. Without punishment, they WILL be back. When the world sees that we will not allow these types of shenanigans in our elected government, then respect will come back. Until that happens we are lumped into the perception that Americans are ALL greedy and only care about ourselves and to hell with other nations. Investigate, trial, judgement, render punishment where due!
Here is a classic example:
“I agree with the author, and I think most of the people in here are lamenters.
I challenge you: take some action. Get out of the house and do something. Work for your candidate (Ron Paul or whomever) and work to change things. Getting old and bitter and hating life is no way to go.
Some people used to believe a single act would set off the masses and start a rebellion. If you can’t come up with an idea at least that good, then you might as well stick with that. Stop complaining. Take action”
The demand to “DO SOMETHING!” and then when someone actually does something and makes a stand or rocks the boat, like Sheehan–the most recent example, they are heaped with scorn. And, you see, pointing out these realities is “lamenting” or whining or complaining. There is no reasoning with this mindset–they are essentially whining by accusing others of whining in addition to demanding something be done–but not really offering anything other than the vote-for-work-for candidate of your choice.
That is the damn problem–old approaches don’t work to the present scenario. People aren’t complaining–they are reporting that it isn’t working.
JOHN KERRY vs. JOHN F KENNEDY as a representative of democracy: How the democrat Congress is supporting fascism in Iraq and at home, including the Patriot act. They are doing nothing against it. That’s how.
Go to youtube and watch this video of JFK to see how he handles a difficult question from a hostile reporter:
The Video can be found at youtube under this title:
John F. Kennedy 1960 WV Primary
The URL for the video is as follows:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJyb9R_TL8M
Watch the whole video and you will see the difference between the Democratic Party represented by Kennedy, and what it has become today.
Kennedy wouldn’t have missed his chance to answer the young student, Andrew Meyer, at the public forum in Florida. He would have made sure that the student got his chance to speak, and he would have had a brilliant, accurate and heartfelt response to give the world. Beyond that his words would have been more than just words, but indicators of his real positions and future policies.
Here now is the video of Kerry at the UF forum, where his questioner is attacked by police, wrestled to the ground and electro-schocked with a taser gun:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgrFSHZfD1o
einstein
While I think Kerry was a wimp with that student who wanted to grandstand, Kerry didn’t have an ounce of “gravitas” or authority or conviction to deal with him directly. Kerry seemed to be willing to talk to the kid and allowed the kid to run roughshod over him.
To be fair, it wasn’t Kerry or the Democratic party who did that to the guy. It was the campus police. They should never have used a stun gun on the kid (he wasn’t tasered) since they’d gotten him nearly out of the room anyway. He was down, pretty much controlled except for his “f*** you” curses. Bad bad cop move.
That said, yes, the Democrats have fallen far from a standard of integrity, shall we call it. America needs politicians who appeal to our best, not the worst we can be.
What Kerry demonstrated is either that he isn’t quick on his feet, wasn’t prepared to deal with the situation as it unfolded, or, most likely, found the proceedings beneath him. None bode well for a particularly effective politician with leadership ability or social diplomacy.
As Paul Craig Roberts makes clear in his perceptive CounterPunch essay today, Kerry’s cowardice in the incident with the tasered Florida student was of a piece with his cowardice as a candidate in 2004, when he a) failed to condemn torture, despite the Abu Ghraib outrages which became world news 7 months before the elections 2) failed to protest electoral irregularities in Ohio & Florida, despite the fact that he might very possibly have actually won the election, & c) failed to defend himself against the Swift-boat slimeballs. Not to mention the incredible hypocrisy of running as a “Vietnam War Hero,” when actually, back when he served in Vietnam, he won public attention for opposing the war!
Anyone who looks at the Florida video can hear Kerry repulsively trying to make a humorous quip from the stage: “After they take him out of here I’ll answer his question. Unfortunately, he’s not available to come up here and swear me in as president.” Isn’t it stunning that Kerry saw the opportunity of joking about the kid’s being manhandled by the cops — but failed to see the opportunity of defending the kid’s civil rights?
The student was actually intensely interested in putting to Kerry several questions of burning importance that our gutless lapdog journalists should be asking every day, but aren’t — for instance, “If you’re so against (invading) Iran, how come you’re not saying, ‘Let’s impeach Bush now’? Impeach Bush now before he can invade Iran!” It’s almost as if the kid’s real crime was that his questions were too good, & thus made Kerry uncomfortable!
“I was exceedingly frustrated at the negotiations because the insurance company representatives were being so resistant to the idea of charging everybody the same. About a year before that, they’d changed their policies that required their Black insurers to pay more for life insurance, so I asked. “Why are you guys so resistant to this idea? You changed the policy for Blacks — why not women?” The answer flabbergasted me. One of the VPs said, “But women aren’t out rioting on the streets.” As long as I live, I won’t forget that lesson — if you want real political change, you really have to go to it hammer and tongs, make the status quo uncomfortable.”
Dick Gregory was interviewed for a recent documentary on George McGovern’s campaign & his career leading up to it; he remarked on the Kent State killings with his usual mournful wryness with words to the effect was “We said ‘welcome to the club’ ” . Wehave to recognize what strikers & their families knew all too well, what the standard practice is in the US — intimidate; whenyou can’t intimidate, assault; when that’s not good enough, imprison; when that’s not enough, kill. And there is never any point at which the police forces, backed not only by the FBI but now by paramilitary mercenaries, will stop.
Our freedom and that of the world depends on our willingness to accept the casualties and the deaths which the regime will inflict on us in order to maintain their power.
Democrats? Republicans? Same shit, different flies.