As we have progressed over the course of the past several months much of our own ideas about politics and their practical application in our day-to-day lives have altered a great deal. While many of us were radicals coming into the organization, the over-all political climate of the group has shifted significantly to the left since November. In response to this leftward shift, new points of unity are being considered. While the original goal of creating an open and independent radical political organization will be maintained, the new points are much more percise than the earlier draft.
The new points are as follows:
1. The two party system is broken, and a radical political alternative is needed.
2. More than electoral politics, real change comes from mass action from below.
3. Food, housing, healthcare, education, the right to organize, and a living wage are basic human rights.
4. Real political equality is not possible without economic eqaulity.
5. Democracy means popular rule from below.
6. The right of all nations to self-determination must be the basis of any just and democratic global order.
7. Terrorism is morally reprehensible and must always be condemned without reservation.
8. War is the highest, most well-organized form of terrorism.
9. As humanity is faced with extinction, immediate international action is necessary to address global climate change and work towards a sustainable environment.
10. Solidarity with and active support for the liberation of all those oppressed based on their race, nationality, religion, gender, or sexuality must be the cornerstone of any movement fighting for social justice.
-SSD
Sunday, February 25, 2007
The Coming Attack on Iran
The spring of 2007 is increasingly feeling like the fall of 2002. The steady drum beat of charges against Iran bares a striking resemblence to the bipartisan fear mongering in the lead up to the Iraq war. While the case against Iraq was transparently false from the start, the fact that the charges levied in the drive to war were false is now a matter of record. That, barely four years later, the same type of strategy could be used against Iran should be generating uncomfortable laughter at the audacity of our elected leaders. The widening bipartisan consensus behind another war of agression is troubling, but, given US policy in the region, not surprising. Like Iraq, the US stance against Iran has more to do with its oil resources and sucessful defiance of the US than with an imagined military threat that it poses. While Republicans and Democrats may differ on tactics, concern over the control of the major oil producing region of the world is an issue that transcends party lines.
While the question of nuclear power has maintained a center piece of the case against Iran, more recently charges that it is funding and arming the Iraqi resistance have dominated coverage. The urgency implicit in much of the pro-intervention rhetoric is consistently undercut by assertions by the International Atomic Energy Agency and various American intelligence agencies that, even under the most favorable conditions, Iran is several years away from developing a nuclear weapon. The fact that little to no evidence that it is seeking such a weapon combined with its religious leaders condemning nuclear weapons as a crime against Islam futher undermines the case. The fact that it is supporting elements of the Iraqi resistance somewhat plausible, but, again, there is no evidence that demonstrates official support. Members of the Bush Administraiton have even had to concede this point. It also must mentioned that full-scale support for the resistance would, from the Iranian perspective, be completely counter-productive because the resistance is engaged in battle with an Iraqi government dominated by pro-Iranian Shiite parties.
Debunking the charges that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons or intervening in Iraqi political affairs should not, however, be taken to mean that intervention is justified if the charges are true. Iran is bordered by nuclear-armed Pakistan and US-occupied Afghanistan and Iraq with Israel and the US, both nuclear powers, openly threatening an attack. While nuclear weapons should not be tolerated anywhere, Iranian efforts at a nuclear deterent would make sense. As if it needs to be pointed out: wars, occupations, and open threats are not condusive to peaceful, non-nulcear coexistance. Like much of the case against Iran, the fact that American politicians can complain about Iranian interference in the internal affairs of Iraq with a straight face is astonishing. The US, not Iran, has nearly two hundred thousand troops occupying the country right now.
The charge that Iran represents a threat to Israel is also plausible, but not in the way that it is presented in the American media. The fact that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a beligerant racist has been repeatedly confirmed. Sadly, much of his rhetoric does not represent a distinct break from past Iranian leaders. In the early years of the Islamic Republic, anti-Israeli rhetoric, much of it quite racist, dominated the official discourse on the Palestinian issue. At the same time Iranian leaders publicly blasted Israel, they were buying weapons from them to help in their war against Iraq. While Ahmadinejad is making his comments, the Iranian government has also made it quite clear that they would be willing to recognize Israel and even end support for Palestinian militants. These proposals were found in a 2003 Iranian offer for talks that was rejected by the Bush Administration. Iran is a threat to Israel in the same way that it is a threat to the US. It is able to undermine US hegemony in the region both by being able to sucessfully buck US power via Israel and by the fact that it exists outside the US sphere of influence. Last summer, Iranian support for Hezbollah in its defeat of the Israeli assault on Lebanon undermined the notion of Israeli invincibility. In doing this, it was able to undercut the coersive power of Washington’s number one enforcer in the region.
Like Iraq in 2003, the arguments made against Iran in 2007 are baseless. Also like Iraq, the primary reason for American beligerence is its oil resources. Many of the members of the Bush Administration, before coming to power, laid out a detailed strategy for maintaining and extending the American Empire. The paper, written under the auspices of The Project for the New American Century, was signed by such men as former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton, Vice President Dick Cheney, and former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Building on ideas and arguments made over the course of the previous decade, the men argued that the only way that the US could secure its place as the world’s only superpower was to reassert control over the Middle East, by any means necessary, and use the region’s oil reserves to force other nations to submit to American leadership. This overall strategy was made official policy in 2002, and has since come to be known as the Bush Doctrine. The basic tenents of this strategy have sense become more or less internalized by the political elite in Washington, shaping their world view and the parameters of official debate. Speaking of the nature of US-Iran policy the dissident academic Noam Chomsky commented, “Dick Cheney declared in Kazakhstan or somewhere that control over pipeline is a ‘tool of intimidation and blackmail.’ When we have control over the pipelines it's a tool of benevolence. If other countries have control over the sources of energy and the distribution of energy then it is a tool of intimidation and blackmail exactly as Cheney said. And that's been understood as far back as George Kennan and the early post-war days when he pointed out that if the United States controls Middle East resources it'll have veto power over its industrial rivals. He was speaking particularly of Japan but the point generalizes.”
RP
While the question of nuclear power has maintained a center piece of the case against Iran, more recently charges that it is funding and arming the Iraqi resistance have dominated coverage. The urgency implicit in much of the pro-intervention rhetoric is consistently undercut by assertions by the International Atomic Energy Agency and various American intelligence agencies that, even under the most favorable conditions, Iran is several years away from developing a nuclear weapon. The fact that little to no evidence that it is seeking such a weapon combined with its religious leaders condemning nuclear weapons as a crime against Islam futher undermines the case. The fact that it is supporting elements of the Iraqi resistance somewhat plausible, but, again, there is no evidence that demonstrates official support. Members of the Bush Administraiton have even had to concede this point. It also must mentioned that full-scale support for the resistance would, from the Iranian perspective, be completely counter-productive because the resistance is engaged in battle with an Iraqi government dominated by pro-Iranian Shiite parties.
Debunking the charges that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons or intervening in Iraqi political affairs should not, however, be taken to mean that intervention is justified if the charges are true. Iran is bordered by nuclear-armed Pakistan and US-occupied Afghanistan and Iraq with Israel and the US, both nuclear powers, openly threatening an attack. While nuclear weapons should not be tolerated anywhere, Iranian efforts at a nuclear deterent would make sense. As if it needs to be pointed out: wars, occupations, and open threats are not condusive to peaceful, non-nulcear coexistance. Like much of the case against Iran, the fact that American politicians can complain about Iranian interference in the internal affairs of Iraq with a straight face is astonishing. The US, not Iran, has nearly two hundred thousand troops occupying the country right now.
The charge that Iran represents a threat to Israel is also plausible, but not in the way that it is presented in the American media. The fact that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a beligerant racist has been repeatedly confirmed. Sadly, much of his rhetoric does not represent a distinct break from past Iranian leaders. In the early years of the Islamic Republic, anti-Israeli rhetoric, much of it quite racist, dominated the official discourse on the Palestinian issue. At the same time Iranian leaders publicly blasted Israel, they were buying weapons from them to help in their war against Iraq. While Ahmadinejad is making his comments, the Iranian government has also made it quite clear that they would be willing to recognize Israel and even end support for Palestinian militants. These proposals were found in a 2003 Iranian offer for talks that was rejected by the Bush Administration. Iran is a threat to Israel in the same way that it is a threat to the US. It is able to undermine US hegemony in the region both by being able to sucessfully buck US power via Israel and by the fact that it exists outside the US sphere of influence. Last summer, Iranian support for Hezbollah in its defeat of the Israeli assault on Lebanon undermined the notion of Israeli invincibility. In doing this, it was able to undercut the coersive power of Washington’s number one enforcer in the region.
Like Iraq in 2003, the arguments made against Iran in 2007 are baseless. Also like Iraq, the primary reason for American beligerence is its oil resources. Many of the members of the Bush Administration, before coming to power, laid out a detailed strategy for maintaining and extending the American Empire. The paper, written under the auspices of The Project for the New American Century, was signed by such men as former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton, Vice President Dick Cheney, and former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Building on ideas and arguments made over the course of the previous decade, the men argued that the only way that the US could secure its place as the world’s only superpower was to reassert control over the Middle East, by any means necessary, and use the region’s oil reserves to force other nations to submit to American leadership. This overall strategy was made official policy in 2002, and has since come to be known as the Bush Doctrine. The basic tenents of this strategy have sense become more or less internalized by the political elite in Washington, shaping their world view and the parameters of official debate. Speaking of the nature of US-Iran policy the dissident academic Noam Chomsky commented, “Dick Cheney declared in Kazakhstan or somewhere that control over pipeline is a ‘tool of intimidation and blackmail.’ When we have control over the pipelines it's a tool of benevolence. If other countries have control over the sources of energy and the distribution of energy then it is a tool of intimidation and blackmail exactly as Cheney said. And that's been understood as far back as George Kennan and the early post-war days when he pointed out that if the United States controls Middle East resources it'll have veto power over its industrial rivals. He was speaking particularly of Japan but the point generalizes.”
RP
Thursday, February 22, 2007
VFP Tour Coming to Columbus
Veterans for Peace, working with Military Families Speak Out, Iraq Veterans Against the War, and other similar antiwar groups, have organized a tour of Southeastern military towns next month. SSD, working with the newly formed Columbus Peace and Justice Coalition, will be holding an intersection vigil that afternoon and hosting a formal event on campus that evening. The exact details of the event are, as of now, unclear, but will be posted as they become available.
As of right now, SSD will be engaged in fundraising efforts for the event. We hope to raise at least a couple hundred dollars to donate to the VFP-lead tour to help with gas and other expenses.
-RP
As of right now, SSD will be engaged in fundraising efforts for the event. We hope to raise at least a couple hundred dollars to donate to the VFP-lead tour to help with gas and other expenses.
-RP
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Iraq in Slow Motion: Resources on the coming war with Iran
After the vigil last night several of us from the Columbus Peace and Justice Coalition met up at Dennys to talk about our next step. One of the issues that was raised was local actions in the event of an invasion or bombing of Iran. I think that it would be useful to discuss the issue in light of both much of the mainline Democratic Party politicians openly calling for such a campaign and several of the speakers last night mentioning their support for the war on Afghanistan. While the Iranian government is a charter member of the Bush Administration's "axis of evil," recent months have seen a dramatic escalation of beligerent rhetoric from Washington and a concentration of US forces in the gulf seemingly poised to launch some sort of assault. The experience of the Israeli siege of Lebanon was seen in many circles as a trial run for an Iranian campaign. The US fought a proxy war against Iran via Iraq from 1980 until 1988, so using Israel in 2007 should not be simply dismissed.
In the links below I have listed several articles that, I think, captures the current situation.
I hope that this can, more than it has been in the past, become a forum for the discussion of politics and history as well as strategy and tactics.
Iran: a Chronology of Disinformation, Gary Leupp
http://counterpunch.org/leupp02172007.html
IED Lies, Milan Rai
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=67&ItemID=12139
Blaiming Iran, Salah Hemeid
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/832/re73.htm
The Iran Plans, Seymour Hersh
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact
Targeting Iran, Saman Sepehri
http://www.isreview.org/issues/50/targetiran.shtml
-RP
In the links below I have listed several articles that, I think, captures the current situation.
I hope that this can, more than it has been in the past, become a forum for the discussion of politics and history as well as strategy and tactics.
Iran: a Chronology of Disinformation, Gary Leupp
http://counterpunch.org/leupp02172007.html
IED Lies, Milan Rai
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=67&ItemID=12139
Blaiming Iran, Salah Hemeid
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/832/re73.htm
The Iran Plans, Seymour Hersh
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact
Targeting Iran, Saman Sepehri
http://www.isreview.org/issues/50/targetiran.shtml
-RP
Saturday, February 17, 2007
WRBL Article on Peace in the Park
Peace in the Park Rallies Anti-War Support
Heather Jensen
WRBL News 3
February 18, 2007
While senators were making their voices heard in Washington, so were people in the community.
Saturday night, a group known as the Columbus Peace and Justice Coalition met at Lakebottom Park.
The Peace in the Park event was to remember those lost on both sides of the war, and to speak out about current action being taken on the war in Iraq.
The gathering was one of many going on across the country Saturday.
“I think the time has come for the fence-sitters and the people who have otherwise just sort of stood by the sidelines to get out and have their voices heard as well,” says Brett Johnson.
The group plans to take their message to Washington.
A march on the Pentagon is planned for the fourth anniversary of the war.
The caravan will leave Columbus Friday, March 16th, hop aboard a Washington-bound bus on the 17th, and return to Columbus on the 18th.
For more information, contact the Columbus Peace and Justice Coalition at cpjc.ga@gmail.com
**The article is available at:
http://www.wrbl.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WRBL/MGArticle/RBL_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1149193263931&path=%21frontpage
Heather Jensen
WRBL News 3
February 18, 2007
While senators were making their voices heard in Washington, so were people in the community.
Saturday night, a group known as the Columbus Peace and Justice Coalition met at Lakebottom Park.
The Peace in the Park event was to remember those lost on both sides of the war, and to speak out about current action being taken on the war in Iraq.
The gathering was one of many going on across the country Saturday.
“I think the time has come for the fence-sitters and the people who have otherwise just sort of stood by the sidelines to get out and have their voices heard as well,” says Brett Johnson.
The group plans to take their message to Washington.
A march on the Pentagon is planned for the fourth anniversary of the war.
The caravan will leave Columbus Friday, March 16th, hop aboard a Washington-bound bus on the 17th, and return to Columbus on the 18th.
For more information, contact the Columbus Peace and Justice Coalition at cpjc.ga@gmail.com
**The article is available at:
http://www.wrbl.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WRBL/MGArticle/RBL_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1149193263931&path=%21frontpage
Friday, February 16, 2007
Soldiers' Resistance
“General, man is very useful,” wrote the great German playwright Bertolt Brecht. “He can fly and he can kill. But he has one defect: He can think.” People are not machines and this “defect” has made itself apparent throughout the history of warfare. The case of America is no exception. There is evidence of signifcant resistance from rank-and-file soldiers in the virtually every major American war with the exception of World War II and Korea. While there are instances of major, open soldiers’ resistance, as in the Filippino-American or Vietnam Wars, there are far more instances of quiet protest and insubordination. In the current war, a growing American soldiers, both active duty and veterans, are engaged in active resistance against US policies in Iraq. More and more soldiers are going public with their resistance, joining organizaitons like Iraq Veterans Against the War, or signing petitions calling for an end to occupation. While public resistance may be limited at this point, a Zogby poll in early 2005 found that the vast majority, 72 percent, of American troops in Iraq wanted a complete withdrawal by the end of 2006.
The issue of soldiers’ resistance is a story generally left out of conventional history books. Like the victims of a particular war, most of the attention given to the role of soldiers in a conflict is a list of numbers. They are treated like passive objects, not historical actors capable of rational thought. Objects do not raise questions, but people do. Antiwar Iraq veteran Kelly Dougherty observed, “The way that the military are portrayed in the media is that we’re just faceless, patriotic drones who go along and do whatever we’re ordered to do… The fact is that the men and women in the military are real human beings. They have families, they have children, a lot of us are going to school and have careers, and we’re not just blindly patriotic.”
A recent USA Today report found that at least 8,000 soldiers have refused deployment to Iraq. That same report found that 400 have fled to Canada seeking refugee status. While the numbers in the current war do not, by any means, rival that of earlier wars, it must be taken into acount that US forces are, more or less, an all-volunteer military. These numbers must also be viewed in light of the declinng number of new recruits, the relaxation of recruitment standards, and the increasing use of the Individual Ready Reserves (IRR). Last year military recruitment was even suspended for a day for a period of retraining after several public revelations of widespread recruiter misconduct. The actual numbers of war resisters is almost impossible to know because, other than simply discharging them, the military has not done much to persue soldiers resisting deployment in the IRR.
While most of the soldiers resisting the war have done so quietly, an increasing number have gone public with their opposition. Sgt. Camilo Mejia, the first US soldier to publicly resist deployment, had been in the miltary for seven years and spent eight months in Iraq before he made his decision. He was court-martialed and served nine months in prison. Speaking after his release, Mejia argued, “When I turned myself in … I did it not only for myself. I did it for the people of Iraq, even for those who fired upon me – they were just on the other side of a battleground where war itself was the only enemy. I did it for the Iraqi children, who are victims of mines and depleted uranium. I did it for the thousands of unknown civilians killed in war… those who called me a coward, without knowing it, are also right. I was a coward not for leaving the war, but for having been a part of it in the first place. Refusing and resisting this war was my moral duty, a moral duty that called me to take a principled action. I failed to fulfill my moral duty as a human being and instead I chose to fulfill my duty as a soldier.”
After Mejia, dozens of other soldiers have followed their conscience and refused to fight. Darrell Anderson, a Purple Heart recipient speaking from exile in Canada, told journalist and author Peter Laufer that he became a war resister after his experiences convinced him to refuse redeployment. After seeing his friend die after an insurgent attack, he said that he became disheartened by the feelings that came over him. Recalling his thoughts, Anderson said, “When I first got there, I was disgusted with my fellow soldiers. But now I'm just the same. I will kill innocent people, because I'm not the person I was when I got there.” Another war resister, Joshua Key told Laufer that he holds the Bush Amdinistration responsible for the war. “I blame them because they made me do it. You can lie to the world; you can't lie to a person who's seen it. They made me have to do things that a man should never have to do, for the purpose of their gain – not the people's – their financial gain.” Steven Casey said that while he was still in the Individual Ready Reserve, he would never return to Iraq. “You'll see me on the news,” he said. “I won't be back.” He said that he was going to use the money that was promised to him for school, but that “there are a lot of things that came with this that are irreparable and I'm going to have the rest of my life.” Looking back on his decision to join, he lamented, “I should have worked at McDonalds and found a way to pay for my tuition.”
As indicated by the Zogby poll mentioned in the beginning of this column, the depths of the antiwar sentiment in the ranks cannot necessarily be measured by the number of those engaged in active resistance. The nature of the soldiers’ revolt is complex to say the least. Kelly Dougherty, discussing the dynamics of the reistance, explained, “I think most of the people in Iraq right now in the U.S. military are there fighting for the people to their left and their right. They’re fighting for their brothers and sisters, who are really like their second family. That’s why they go over there, and that’s why they go back again and again. We have members in Iraq Veterans Against the War who are very opposed to the war, and they’re thinking of reenlisting – because they feel like their friends are going back, and they can’t let them go by themselves.”
As long as people fight in wars, the war machine will always have one “defect.” Throughout the modern age wars have been sold to domestic populations on defensive or humanitarian grounds. Leaders do not simply tell people to send their sons and daughters to fight and die for money or territory or resources. If they did, no one would fight. Even when they do fight, the enemy has to be dehumanized, transformed into subhumans who do not even value their own lives. The “enemy” can’t be a person. As soon as the “enemy” becomes a person with feelings and parents, an act of war becomes an act of murder. The “defect” in the war machine is the very thing that wars seek to destroy: humanity. Speaking at an antiwar rally on Jan 27 in San Franscisco, Lt. Ehren Watada, the first commissioned officer to refuse deployment, said, “To stop an illegal and unjust war, the soldiers can choose to stop fighting it.... If soldiers realized this war is contrary to what the Constitution extols – if they stood up and threw their weapons down – no President could ever initiate a war of choice again.”
-RP
The issue of soldiers’ resistance is a story generally left out of conventional history books. Like the victims of a particular war, most of the attention given to the role of soldiers in a conflict is a list of numbers. They are treated like passive objects, not historical actors capable of rational thought. Objects do not raise questions, but people do. Antiwar Iraq veteran Kelly Dougherty observed, “The way that the military are portrayed in the media is that we’re just faceless, patriotic drones who go along and do whatever we’re ordered to do… The fact is that the men and women in the military are real human beings. They have families, they have children, a lot of us are going to school and have careers, and we’re not just blindly patriotic.”
A recent USA Today report found that at least 8,000 soldiers have refused deployment to Iraq. That same report found that 400 have fled to Canada seeking refugee status. While the numbers in the current war do not, by any means, rival that of earlier wars, it must be taken into acount that US forces are, more or less, an all-volunteer military. These numbers must also be viewed in light of the declinng number of new recruits, the relaxation of recruitment standards, and the increasing use of the Individual Ready Reserves (IRR). Last year military recruitment was even suspended for a day for a period of retraining after several public revelations of widespread recruiter misconduct. The actual numbers of war resisters is almost impossible to know because, other than simply discharging them, the military has not done much to persue soldiers resisting deployment in the IRR.
While most of the soldiers resisting the war have done so quietly, an increasing number have gone public with their opposition. Sgt. Camilo Mejia, the first US soldier to publicly resist deployment, had been in the miltary for seven years and spent eight months in Iraq before he made his decision. He was court-martialed and served nine months in prison. Speaking after his release, Mejia argued, “When I turned myself in … I did it not only for myself. I did it for the people of Iraq, even for those who fired upon me – they were just on the other side of a battleground where war itself was the only enemy. I did it for the Iraqi children, who are victims of mines and depleted uranium. I did it for the thousands of unknown civilians killed in war… those who called me a coward, without knowing it, are also right. I was a coward not for leaving the war, but for having been a part of it in the first place. Refusing and resisting this war was my moral duty, a moral duty that called me to take a principled action. I failed to fulfill my moral duty as a human being and instead I chose to fulfill my duty as a soldier.”
After Mejia, dozens of other soldiers have followed their conscience and refused to fight. Darrell Anderson, a Purple Heart recipient speaking from exile in Canada, told journalist and author Peter Laufer that he became a war resister after his experiences convinced him to refuse redeployment. After seeing his friend die after an insurgent attack, he said that he became disheartened by the feelings that came over him. Recalling his thoughts, Anderson said, “When I first got there, I was disgusted with my fellow soldiers. But now I'm just the same. I will kill innocent people, because I'm not the person I was when I got there.” Another war resister, Joshua Key told Laufer that he holds the Bush Amdinistration responsible for the war. “I blame them because they made me do it. You can lie to the world; you can't lie to a person who's seen it. They made me have to do things that a man should never have to do, for the purpose of their gain – not the people's – their financial gain.” Steven Casey said that while he was still in the Individual Ready Reserve, he would never return to Iraq. “You'll see me on the news,” he said. “I won't be back.” He said that he was going to use the money that was promised to him for school, but that “there are a lot of things that came with this that are irreparable and I'm going to have the rest of my life.” Looking back on his decision to join, he lamented, “I should have worked at McDonalds and found a way to pay for my tuition.”
As indicated by the Zogby poll mentioned in the beginning of this column, the depths of the antiwar sentiment in the ranks cannot necessarily be measured by the number of those engaged in active resistance. The nature of the soldiers’ revolt is complex to say the least. Kelly Dougherty, discussing the dynamics of the reistance, explained, “I think most of the people in Iraq right now in the U.S. military are there fighting for the people to their left and their right. They’re fighting for their brothers and sisters, who are really like their second family. That’s why they go over there, and that’s why they go back again and again. We have members in Iraq Veterans Against the War who are very opposed to the war, and they’re thinking of reenlisting – because they feel like their friends are going back, and they can’t let them go by themselves.”
As long as people fight in wars, the war machine will always have one “defect.” Throughout the modern age wars have been sold to domestic populations on defensive or humanitarian grounds. Leaders do not simply tell people to send their sons and daughters to fight and die for money or territory or resources. If they did, no one would fight. Even when they do fight, the enemy has to be dehumanized, transformed into subhumans who do not even value their own lives. The “enemy” can’t be a person. As soon as the “enemy” becomes a person with feelings and parents, an act of war becomes an act of murder. The “defect” in the war machine is the very thing that wars seek to destroy: humanity. Speaking at an antiwar rally on Jan 27 in San Franscisco, Lt. Ehren Watada, the first commissioned officer to refuse deployment, said, “To stop an illegal and unjust war, the soldiers can choose to stop fighting it.... If soldiers realized this war is contrary to what the Constitution extols – if they stood up and threw their weapons down – no President could ever initiate a war of choice again.”
-RP
Thursday, February 15, 2007
"From A German War Primer"
AMONGST THE HIGHLY PLACED
It is considered low to talk about food.
The fact is: they have
Already eaten.
The lowly must leave this earth
Without having tasted
Any good meat.
For wondering where they come from and
Where they are going
The fine evenings find them
Too exhausted.
They have not yet seen
The mountains and the great sea
When their time is already up.
If the lowly do not
Think about what's low
They will never rise.
THE BREAD OF THE HUNGRY HAS
ALL BEEN EATEN
Meat has become unknown. Useless
The pouring out of the people's sweat.
The laurel groves have been
Lopped down.
From the chimneys of the arms factories
Rises smoke.
THE HOUSE-PAINTER SPEAKS OF
GREAT TIMES TO COME
The forests still grow.
The fields still bear
The cities still stand.
The people still breathe.
ON THE CALENDAR THE DAY IS NOT
YET SHOWN
Every month, every day
Lies open still. One of those days
Is going to be marked with a cross.
THE WORKERS CRY OUT FOR BREAD
The merchants cry out for markets.
The unemployed were hungry. The employed
Are hungry now.
The hands that lay folded are busy again.
They are making shells.
THOSE WHO TAKE THE MEAT FROM THE TABLE
Teach contentment.
Those for whom the contribution is destined
Demand sacrifice.
Those who eat their fill speak to the hungry
Of wonderful times to come.
Those who lead the country into the abyss
Call ruling too difficult
For ordinary men.
WHEN THE LEADERS SPEAK OF PEACE
The common folk know
That war is coming.
When the leaders curse war
The mobilization order is already written out.
THOSE AT THE TOP SAY: PEACE
AND WAR
Are of different substance.
But their peace and their war
Are like wind and storm.
War grows from their peace
Like son from his mother
He bears
Her frightful features.
Their war kills
Whatever their peace
Has left over.
ON THE WALL WAS CHALKED:
They want war.
The man who wrote it
Has already fallen.
THOSE AT THE TOP SAY:
This way to glory.
Those down below say:
This way to the grave.
THE WAR WHICH IS COMING
Is not the first one. There were
Other wars before it.
When the last one came to an end
There were conquerors and conquered.
Among the conquered the common people
Starved. Among the conquerors
The common people starved too.
THOSE AT THE TOP SAY COMRADESHIP
Reigns in the army.
The truth of this is seen
In the cookhouse.
In their hearts should be
The selfsame courage. But
On their plates
Are two kinds of rations.
WHEN IT COMES TO MARCHING MANY DO NOT
KNOW
That their enemy is marching at their head.
The voice which gives them their orders
Is their enemy's voice and
The man who speaks of the enemy
Is the enemy himself.
IT IS NIGHT
The married couples
Lie in their beds. The young women
Will bear orphans.
GENERAL, YOUR TANK IS A POWERFUL VEHICLE
It smashes down forests and crushes a hundred men.
But it has one defect:
It needs a driver.
General, your bomber is powerful.
It flies faster than a storm and carries more than an elephant.
But it has one defect:
It needs a mechanic.
General, man is very useful.
He can fly and he can kill.
But he has one defect:
He can think.
-Bertolt Brecht
It is considered low to talk about food.
The fact is: they have
Already eaten.
The lowly must leave this earth
Without having tasted
Any good meat.
For wondering where they come from and
Where they are going
The fine evenings find them
Too exhausted.
They have not yet seen
The mountains and the great sea
When their time is already up.
If the lowly do not
Think about what's low
They will never rise.
THE BREAD OF THE HUNGRY HAS
ALL BEEN EATEN
Meat has become unknown. Useless
The pouring out of the people's sweat.
The laurel groves have been
Lopped down.
From the chimneys of the arms factories
Rises smoke.
THE HOUSE-PAINTER SPEAKS OF
GREAT TIMES TO COME
The forests still grow.
The fields still bear
The cities still stand.
The people still breathe.
ON THE CALENDAR THE DAY IS NOT
YET SHOWN
Every month, every day
Lies open still. One of those days
Is going to be marked with a cross.
THE WORKERS CRY OUT FOR BREAD
The merchants cry out for markets.
The unemployed were hungry. The employed
Are hungry now.
The hands that lay folded are busy again.
They are making shells.
THOSE WHO TAKE THE MEAT FROM THE TABLE
Teach contentment.
Those for whom the contribution is destined
Demand sacrifice.
Those who eat their fill speak to the hungry
Of wonderful times to come.
Those who lead the country into the abyss
Call ruling too difficult
For ordinary men.
WHEN THE LEADERS SPEAK OF PEACE
The common folk know
That war is coming.
When the leaders curse war
The mobilization order is already written out.
THOSE AT THE TOP SAY: PEACE
AND WAR
Are of different substance.
But their peace and their war
Are like wind and storm.
War grows from their peace
Like son from his mother
He bears
Her frightful features.
Their war kills
Whatever their peace
Has left over.
ON THE WALL WAS CHALKED:
They want war.
The man who wrote it
Has already fallen.
THOSE AT THE TOP SAY:
This way to glory.
Those down below say:
This way to the grave.
THE WAR WHICH IS COMING
Is not the first one. There were
Other wars before it.
When the last one came to an end
There were conquerors and conquered.
Among the conquered the common people
Starved. Among the conquerors
The common people starved too.
THOSE AT THE TOP SAY COMRADESHIP
Reigns in the army.
The truth of this is seen
In the cookhouse.
In their hearts should be
The selfsame courage. But
On their plates
Are two kinds of rations.
WHEN IT COMES TO MARCHING MANY DO NOT
KNOW
That their enemy is marching at their head.
The voice which gives them their orders
Is their enemy's voice and
The man who speaks of the enemy
Is the enemy himself.
IT IS NIGHT
The married couples
Lie in their beds. The young women
Will bear orphans.
GENERAL, YOUR TANK IS A POWERFUL VEHICLE
It smashes down forests and crushes a hundred men.
But it has one defect:
It needs a driver.
General, your bomber is powerful.
It flies faster than a storm and carries more than an elephant.
But it has one defect:
It needs a mechanic.
General, man is very useful.
He can fly and he can kill.
But he has one defect:
He can think.
-Bertolt Brecht
Monday, February 5, 2007
Jan-Feb New Left Review
The Jan-Feb edition of the New Left Review is up on the web now, and for any of you who isn't familiar with it, it's a goldmine of information! Two really excellent articles in the latest issues about domestic politics in the US are worth reading. The first is Mike Davis' "The Democrats After November" and the other is Robert Brenner's "Structure vs. Conjuncture."
RP
RP
Sunday, February 4, 2007
Drug War, USA: Peace Needed
Most anywhere one goes in modern America, drug advertisements, whether alcohol, tobacco, or perscription, are ever present. While being bombarded with advertisements, we hear a steady drumbeat of headlines about busts on inner-city crack houses and backwoods meth labs. Each election cycle and on the evening news, amidst coverage of the “war on terror,” we hear updates on the “war on drugs.” Politicians talk of getting “tough on crime” and “zero tolerance,” always promising to crack down harder than their opponent. Like much of anything discussed by our elected leaders or in the mainstream media, the “war on drugs” is done so in a manner devoid of context. Quite openly, it is discussed as a problem of epidemic proportions, but, from this point, a social explanation of drugs stops. While described as a social problem, only individualized solutions are offered. The questions of the role of race and class in the war are seemingly apparent, but never raised. Borrowing from the dissident academic Noam Chomsky, even the concept of a “war on drugs” could, in many ways, be more aptly described as a “war on certain drugs.” When examined closely, this war could also be deemed simply a war on certain people that has little to do with drugs.
In modern America, drugs, in their various forms, are almost everywhere. Of these drugs, alcohol and tobacco are, by far, the most prevalent and socially acceptable. While the deaths caused by alcohol are difficult to gauge, tobacco related deaths total close to 440,000 each year in the United States alone. This number, dwarfs any death rate caused by cocaine, heroin, marijuana, or any other socially unacceptable, illegal drug. Recent efforts to deal with this health problem have restricted the use of cigarattes through high taxes and indoor smoking bans. Despite all of this, tobacco remains a major US export. At the same time the US is putting pressure on countries like Columbia and Bolivia to crack down on drug production, US-based cigarette companies are reaping billions in profits from those same countries. The deaths caused by this lethal export far excedes that caused by illegal drugs. Tobacco is frowned upon, but accepted. Despite the fact that it is the drug leading the pack in the number it kills, it has not been criminalized. While I’m not advocating making smoking illegal, it’s certainly a double standard that is often taken for granted. It indicates that the war on drugs is not necessarily based on health concerns.
Selectivity in the enforcement further deconstructs the war. Poor people of color disproportionately suffer most of the casualties in this war. In its most recent report, the Office of National Drug Control Policy stated that of those put on trial for drug-related crimes, “more than a quarter (27.2%) [were]… white, 29.1% were black, and 40.5% were Hispanic.” Of those actually convicted and sentenced, black people out numbered white people 64,800 to 133,100; a factor of more than two to one. More than anything else, such numbers indicate institutional racism. While racism is an issue, the quesiton of class must also be factored into the equation. A key component of a “fair trial” is competent legal representation, and, by and large, financial concerns determine the ability of a good defense. In addition to this, the Reagan-era “hundred to one rule” madates that, as far as sentencing goes, one gram crack cociane is the same as a hundred grams of the same drug in its powdered form. Crack is typically a drug of the poor, while the more expensive powdered cocaine is typically for the rich. The class bias is obvious.
The basis of the drug war, with its selectivity in both targets and enforcement, is further undermined when one considers other ways in which it is being conducted. Criminalization and the increasingly stiff penalties for the violation of drug laws have lead to both an intensification of the criminal activities associated with the trade as well as a surge in the prison population. With criminalization of drugs comes the emergence of organized crime and gangsterism on both a domestic and international scale. This vast network leads to a proliferation of other types of crime and, at the same time, making the drugs themselves even less safe because of nonexistent regulations. LSD, for example, is commonly cut with floor stripper and cocaine with powdered glass. It has also brought the US into a situation in which it maintains six percent of the world’s population and more than 25 percent of its prison population. In a study conducted by the conservative think-tank RAND Corporation on the nature of the drug war, tactics such as education and rehabilitation were found to be, by far, the most cost-effective means of combating the problem.
Addressing these sorts of inconsistencies, Chomsky argues that the basis of the drug war is about social control. Crime rates are generally higher in the US than in most other industrialized countries, but the disparity between the instance of crime and prison population in the US as opposed to its peers is completely disporportinate. The social paranoia about drugs and crime are, he argues, “stimulated by state and business propaganda.” He further argues, “The Drug War is an effort to stimulate fear of dangerous people from who we have to protect ourselves. It is also, a direct form of control of what are called ‘dangerous classes,’ those superfluous people who don't really have a function contributing to profit-making and wealth… in the U.S. you don't kill them, you put them in jail…[With the economic polices of the past few decades] you're getting a large mass of people who are insecure, suffering from difficulty to misery, or something in between. A lot of them are basically going to be arrested, because you have to control them.”
With looking at the problem of drugs, one should not fail to pose the question as to why people feel compelled to do drugs in the first place. Chomsky’s argument about the drug war being a form of class war starts to address it, but falls short. While each case differs based on the individual in question, one can make the generalization that people tend to use drugs to escape from a reality that they find themselves unable to cope with. With declining or stagnating wages for the bulk of the population over the course of the past three decades, it is no wonder that many people are turning to drugs. In addition, with the costs of healthcare so high, it should be no surprise that people are self-medicating. Financial stress leads to problems in relationships and families that also create a fertile ground for escapism. In the case of men, the drug problem is likely made worse by a macho culture that views emotion as a sign of weakness. For women, an unreal sense of “beauty,” as defined by the fashion industry, has also further complicated the problem. Far from looking to address these social causes of America’s drug problem, current policy is more directed at punishing users and addicts. Furthermore, instead of looking at addiction as a disease and treating it as such, it is condemned as a crime. Instead of treatment, addicts get prison sentences and many emerge from prison only to commit the same crimes over again. With such policies, it makes perfect sense that two-thirds of the people that get out go right back for the same problem.
While billions are pumped each year into maintaining the world’s largest prison system, millions of people in this country suffer and thousands die from addiction each year. Though hundreds of thousands of people die each year from socially acceptable, legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco, drugs like marijuana and cocaine, killing far less people, are criminalized. This criminalization leads to violence, crime, and drugs more dangerous than before. The prosecution of the war is inefficient and racist. It attacks the victims of drugs. It puts people in cages with the money that could be used to deal with the social conditions that created the drug problem in the first place. All drugs should be decriminalized, taxed, and heavily regulated. The money previously used to wage the war, combined with the new tax revenue, could be used to build treatment centers, promote education, and work to address the social conditions that make people turn to drugs in the first place. Addiction is a disease and treating it like a crime only makes it worse. The “war on drugs” is a war on people, and a just peace is needed.
RP
In modern America, drugs, in their various forms, are almost everywhere. Of these drugs, alcohol and tobacco are, by far, the most prevalent and socially acceptable. While the deaths caused by alcohol are difficult to gauge, tobacco related deaths total close to 440,000 each year in the United States alone. This number, dwarfs any death rate caused by cocaine, heroin, marijuana, or any other socially unacceptable, illegal drug. Recent efforts to deal with this health problem have restricted the use of cigarattes through high taxes and indoor smoking bans. Despite all of this, tobacco remains a major US export. At the same time the US is putting pressure on countries like Columbia and Bolivia to crack down on drug production, US-based cigarette companies are reaping billions in profits from those same countries. The deaths caused by this lethal export far excedes that caused by illegal drugs. Tobacco is frowned upon, but accepted. Despite the fact that it is the drug leading the pack in the number it kills, it has not been criminalized. While I’m not advocating making smoking illegal, it’s certainly a double standard that is often taken for granted. It indicates that the war on drugs is not necessarily based on health concerns.
Selectivity in the enforcement further deconstructs the war. Poor people of color disproportionately suffer most of the casualties in this war. In its most recent report, the Office of National Drug Control Policy stated that of those put on trial for drug-related crimes, “more than a quarter (27.2%) [were]… white, 29.1% were black, and 40.5% were Hispanic.” Of those actually convicted and sentenced, black people out numbered white people 64,800 to 133,100; a factor of more than two to one. More than anything else, such numbers indicate institutional racism. While racism is an issue, the quesiton of class must also be factored into the equation. A key component of a “fair trial” is competent legal representation, and, by and large, financial concerns determine the ability of a good defense. In addition to this, the Reagan-era “hundred to one rule” madates that, as far as sentencing goes, one gram crack cociane is the same as a hundred grams of the same drug in its powdered form. Crack is typically a drug of the poor, while the more expensive powdered cocaine is typically for the rich. The class bias is obvious.
The basis of the drug war, with its selectivity in both targets and enforcement, is further undermined when one considers other ways in which it is being conducted. Criminalization and the increasingly stiff penalties for the violation of drug laws have lead to both an intensification of the criminal activities associated with the trade as well as a surge in the prison population. With criminalization of drugs comes the emergence of organized crime and gangsterism on both a domestic and international scale. This vast network leads to a proliferation of other types of crime and, at the same time, making the drugs themselves even less safe because of nonexistent regulations. LSD, for example, is commonly cut with floor stripper and cocaine with powdered glass. It has also brought the US into a situation in which it maintains six percent of the world’s population and more than 25 percent of its prison population. In a study conducted by the conservative think-tank RAND Corporation on the nature of the drug war, tactics such as education and rehabilitation were found to be, by far, the most cost-effective means of combating the problem.
Addressing these sorts of inconsistencies, Chomsky argues that the basis of the drug war is about social control. Crime rates are generally higher in the US than in most other industrialized countries, but the disparity between the instance of crime and prison population in the US as opposed to its peers is completely disporportinate. The social paranoia about drugs and crime are, he argues, “stimulated by state and business propaganda.” He further argues, “The Drug War is an effort to stimulate fear of dangerous people from who we have to protect ourselves. It is also, a direct form of control of what are called ‘dangerous classes,’ those superfluous people who don't really have a function contributing to profit-making and wealth… in the U.S. you don't kill them, you put them in jail…[With the economic polices of the past few decades] you're getting a large mass of people who are insecure, suffering from difficulty to misery, or something in between. A lot of them are basically going to be arrested, because you have to control them.”
With looking at the problem of drugs, one should not fail to pose the question as to why people feel compelled to do drugs in the first place. Chomsky’s argument about the drug war being a form of class war starts to address it, but falls short. While each case differs based on the individual in question, one can make the generalization that people tend to use drugs to escape from a reality that they find themselves unable to cope with. With declining or stagnating wages for the bulk of the population over the course of the past three decades, it is no wonder that many people are turning to drugs. In addition, with the costs of healthcare so high, it should be no surprise that people are self-medicating. Financial stress leads to problems in relationships and families that also create a fertile ground for escapism. In the case of men, the drug problem is likely made worse by a macho culture that views emotion as a sign of weakness. For women, an unreal sense of “beauty,” as defined by the fashion industry, has also further complicated the problem. Far from looking to address these social causes of America’s drug problem, current policy is more directed at punishing users and addicts. Furthermore, instead of looking at addiction as a disease and treating it as such, it is condemned as a crime. Instead of treatment, addicts get prison sentences and many emerge from prison only to commit the same crimes over again. With such policies, it makes perfect sense that two-thirds of the people that get out go right back for the same problem.
While billions are pumped each year into maintaining the world’s largest prison system, millions of people in this country suffer and thousands die from addiction each year. Though hundreds of thousands of people die each year from socially acceptable, legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco, drugs like marijuana and cocaine, killing far less people, are criminalized. This criminalization leads to violence, crime, and drugs more dangerous than before. The prosecution of the war is inefficient and racist. It attacks the victims of drugs. It puts people in cages with the money that could be used to deal with the social conditions that created the drug problem in the first place. All drugs should be decriminalized, taxed, and heavily regulated. The money previously used to wage the war, combined with the new tax revenue, could be used to build treatment centers, promote education, and work to address the social conditions that make people turn to drugs in the first place. Addiction is a disease and treating it like a crime only makes it worse. The “war on drugs” is a war on people, and a just peace is needed.
RP
Friday, February 2, 2007
The South May Rise Again
With the intensifing of anti-Iranian rhetoric in Washington and a major offensive against resistance fighter and miltias in Iraq, the Bush Administration’s new policies may plunge the occupation deeper into the bloody abyss. Very explicitly in his speech announcing the escalation of the war, Bush argued that part of the new offensive would be against Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and his movement. The announcement also included a thinly veiled threat against Iran and Syria for allegedly interfering in Iraq’s internal affairs. The irony of Bush denouncing foriegners for interfering in Iraq aside, recent actions by US forces in Iraq and the resurgence of anti-Iranian rhetoric indicates that his earlier statements were not simply idle threats. If the US pursues a direct offensive against the Sadrists in Baghdad and throughout Southern Iraq while launching an attack on Iran, the flood gates could be opened for a possible full-scale uprising by the Shiite majority. Aside from being a bloodbath, this sort of development, combined with the various forms that an Iranian retaliation could take, would further undermine the US position in the region.
The US position on Sadr, a radical religious nationalist, and his movement have shifted over the course of the occupation. While engaging in two full-scale battles with Sadrist militias in 2004, the past two years have seen Sadrists joining the political fold and moving away from direct, open confrontation with occupation forces. Currently, the Sadrists hold about thirty seats in the Iraqi parliament and form a key component of the ruling coalition of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. While they have been formally involved in Iraqi politics, the movement remains concerned more with street politics and maintains its nationalist, anti-occupation credentials. Last fall, they boycotted parliament to protest a meeting between Malaki and Bush in Jordan, but have recently made an effort at reconciliation in what appears to be an effort to avoid an open confrontation.
In recent interviews, both Sadr and Maliki have expressed distrust of one another, an open attack on the Sadrists would mean a collapse of the Shiite ruling bloc in the Iraqi parliament and likely lead to Maliki’s fall. This senario would not be entirely undesirable for the US, as it now views the ruling coalition as somewhat sectarian in nature with ties too close to Iran. The removal of the Sadrists would necessarily lead to the inclusion of Kurdish or Sunni elements.
The direct assualt on the Sadrists and the planned “battle of Baghdad” will likely backfire in a number of different ways, including an erosion of any remnants of popular support for the Iraqi government. The offensive will, in all probability, turn into a blood bath and Maliki may likely follow in the footsteps of the discredited former Prime Minister Ilyad Allawi after he supported the destruction of Falluja in the winter of 2004. The notion of a siege of Sadr City, the sprawling Shiite slum in Baghdad, being a repeat of Falluja may, however, be misleading. Falluja marked the last time that geurillas engaged in an open, semi-conventional battle with US forces. In later sieges, especially in Tal Afar in the spring of 2005, US forces entered the city to find that the guerillas had vanished. Due to the nature of the population concentration and the power of the Sadrists in Sadr City, the offensive will likely have elements of both the Falluja and Tal Afar operations.
The preparations for battle against the Sadrists has come in the midst of an increasingly belligeent stance against Iran. With the repositioning of US forces in the Persain Gulf, seemingly poised for war, and the Iranian government replacing al Qaeda as the adminstration’s scapegoat for its disasterous policies, the posibility of an expansion of the war is all the more real. Over the course of the past several weeks, the US has attempted to highlight alleged Iranian involvement in the Iraqi resistance, even going so far as to authorize its troops to capture or kill Iranian operatives discovered in Iraq. While Iranian support for elements of the Iraqi government is quite open, the case that it is directly supporting the resistance is a bit of a stretch. A recent attack on US forces in Karbala that involved guerillas speaking English and dressing up like American soliders, has been chalked up to the Iranians because of its sophistication. As Iraq expert Juan Cole notes that while there is no evidence of such involvement, “Announcing that the US is investigating such a thing is a lazy media way of smearing someone without having to provide any evidence of the charge.”
An attack on Iran, combined with an attack on the Sadrists, could send the Shiite majority in Southern Iraq into open revolt against the occupation. An escalation of 22,500 troops will do nothing in Iraq more than aggravate existing problems, putting more Iraqis and US troops in danger. The administration’s decision to escalate the war and possibily expand it could be seen as a sort of last grab at power in a failing occupation and, in many ways, a rapidly declining American empire. By highlighting the pitfalls of the new policy and its ramifications for Iraqi politics, it is not to suggest an alternate approach other than an immediate withdrawal.
Much of the opposition to the escalation has been on the grounds of its shere irrationality, and, like much of the official debate, has centered around different tactics about how to best “win” in Iraq. A cornered beast fights the hardest, and, if nothing else, the current course of action indicates as much. The US is operating in a country in which the overwhleming majority of the population opposes it, and nothing that it can do at this point will alter that point. The US went into Iraq with the objective of pursuing its own interests at the expense of the local population, and as long as the US remains there, this basic fact will not change. Its current course of aciton will fail at the expense of thousands of Iraqis and hundreds of US soldiers. It will achieve nothing but an intensification of the violence already engulfing the country.
RP
The US position on Sadr, a radical religious nationalist, and his movement have shifted over the course of the occupation. While engaging in two full-scale battles with Sadrist militias in 2004, the past two years have seen Sadrists joining the political fold and moving away from direct, open confrontation with occupation forces. Currently, the Sadrists hold about thirty seats in the Iraqi parliament and form a key component of the ruling coalition of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. While they have been formally involved in Iraqi politics, the movement remains concerned more with street politics and maintains its nationalist, anti-occupation credentials. Last fall, they boycotted parliament to protest a meeting between Malaki and Bush in Jordan, but have recently made an effort at reconciliation in what appears to be an effort to avoid an open confrontation.
In recent interviews, both Sadr and Maliki have expressed distrust of one another, an open attack on the Sadrists would mean a collapse of the Shiite ruling bloc in the Iraqi parliament and likely lead to Maliki’s fall. This senario would not be entirely undesirable for the US, as it now views the ruling coalition as somewhat sectarian in nature with ties too close to Iran. The removal of the Sadrists would necessarily lead to the inclusion of Kurdish or Sunni elements.
The direct assualt on the Sadrists and the planned “battle of Baghdad” will likely backfire in a number of different ways, including an erosion of any remnants of popular support for the Iraqi government. The offensive will, in all probability, turn into a blood bath and Maliki may likely follow in the footsteps of the discredited former Prime Minister Ilyad Allawi after he supported the destruction of Falluja in the winter of 2004. The notion of a siege of Sadr City, the sprawling Shiite slum in Baghdad, being a repeat of Falluja may, however, be misleading. Falluja marked the last time that geurillas engaged in an open, semi-conventional battle with US forces. In later sieges, especially in Tal Afar in the spring of 2005, US forces entered the city to find that the guerillas had vanished. Due to the nature of the population concentration and the power of the Sadrists in Sadr City, the offensive will likely have elements of both the Falluja and Tal Afar operations.
The preparations for battle against the Sadrists has come in the midst of an increasingly belligeent stance against Iran. With the repositioning of US forces in the Persain Gulf, seemingly poised for war, and the Iranian government replacing al Qaeda as the adminstration’s scapegoat for its disasterous policies, the posibility of an expansion of the war is all the more real. Over the course of the past several weeks, the US has attempted to highlight alleged Iranian involvement in the Iraqi resistance, even going so far as to authorize its troops to capture or kill Iranian operatives discovered in Iraq. While Iranian support for elements of the Iraqi government is quite open, the case that it is directly supporting the resistance is a bit of a stretch. A recent attack on US forces in Karbala that involved guerillas speaking English and dressing up like American soliders, has been chalked up to the Iranians because of its sophistication. As Iraq expert Juan Cole notes that while there is no evidence of such involvement, “Announcing that the US is investigating such a thing is a lazy media way of smearing someone without having to provide any evidence of the charge.”
An attack on Iran, combined with an attack on the Sadrists, could send the Shiite majority in Southern Iraq into open revolt against the occupation. An escalation of 22,500 troops will do nothing in Iraq more than aggravate existing problems, putting more Iraqis and US troops in danger. The administration’s decision to escalate the war and possibily expand it could be seen as a sort of last grab at power in a failing occupation and, in many ways, a rapidly declining American empire. By highlighting the pitfalls of the new policy and its ramifications for Iraqi politics, it is not to suggest an alternate approach other than an immediate withdrawal.
Much of the opposition to the escalation has been on the grounds of its shere irrationality, and, like much of the official debate, has centered around different tactics about how to best “win” in Iraq. A cornered beast fights the hardest, and, if nothing else, the current course of action indicates as much. The US is operating in a country in which the overwhleming majority of the population opposes it, and nothing that it can do at this point will alter that point. The US went into Iraq with the objective of pursuing its own interests at the expense of the local population, and as long as the US remains there, this basic fact will not change. Its current course of aciton will fail at the expense of thousands of Iraqis and hundreds of US soldiers. It will achieve nothing but an intensification of the violence already engulfing the country.
RP
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
First Film Screening
SSD’s first film screening last night went very well, and the discussion period, generally speaking, could not have gone better. Around twenty or so people turned out for the film, and most everyone stuck around afterwards to drink coffee and participate in the discussion. While a considerable section of those in attendance were there for extra credit, the fact that many people stayed afterwards, I would think, indicates an interest that moved beyond bonus points.
The discussion covered the issue of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the roots of terrorism, and the role of the US in the Middle East. A lot of really interesting points were raised and I think that there’s a potential that we were able to get some serious contacts.
One of the most important things that we need to be able to do in organizing events like this is presenting people with a concrete, practical way to put what they learned into action. As several of us discussed last night, once we get a permanent meeting place set up and our film screenings finalized that sort of practical suggestion will be a bit more readily accessible.
-RP
The discussion covered the issue of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the roots of terrorism, and the role of the US in the Middle East. A lot of really interesting points were raised and I think that there’s a potential that we were able to get some serious contacts.
One of the most important things that we need to be able to do in organizing events like this is presenting people with a concrete, practical way to put what they learned into action. As several of us discussed last night, once we get a permanent meeting place set up and our film screenings finalized that sort of practical suggestion will be a bit more readily accessible.
-RP
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Paradise Now at CSU
Tomorrow night, SSD will show the Palestinian film "Paradise Now" in Room 254 at the Davidson Student Center. While the film starts at 8, it would be great if some people could get there a bit early to help set everything up. We have the room reserved from 6 to 11, so after the movie we will have time for coffee and discussion.
We are also need to begin to plan for Feb 17 and for the "Dissident Dinner" after the film tomorrow night.
Hope to see everyone there!
-RP
We are also need to begin to plan for Feb 17 and for the "Dissident Dinner" after the film tomorrow night.
Hope to see everyone there!
-RP
Why Palestine Matters
Much of the information presented in the mainstream media is done so in such a manner that avoids context. It is presented in a manner that paints global affairs as a collection of disparate events with no history or precedent. Nowhere is this more true than with the coverage of the conflict in and over Palestine. US support for Israel is not presented in the context of its wider policies in the region. Each policy decsion in the region and each relationship is viewed independently and not part of any sort of grand strategy. The situation in Palestine is doubly worse than the other instances because the conflict there is presented in such a way as to make it almost mystical, like some sort of cosmic battle. US support for Israel is not considered in the context of its geographic location at the heart of the oil producing region of the world. It is also not considered in the context of the historical role that it has served as a broker for US power in the region. Furthermore, those who criticize Israel and its policies are either ignored or, as in the case of former President Jimmy Carter, villified.
US support for Israel exists within the context of American imperial interests in the Middle East. The same is true for its relationship with any of the other states in the region. This includes its occupation of Iraq and belligerence towards Iran and Syria. Despite the claims made by US leaders and their apologists, American activity in the region has little to do with humanitarian issues and more to do with economic and political concerns. The US is a state that acts in its own interest, just like any other state. When these interests coincide with the needs of a particular population, that is all fine and well, but when they don’t, it is simply not an issue. Morality is not a part of the equation. Put simply, this is the nature of international relations and it is within this framework that US policy towards Israel must be understood.
Historically, Israel has served as a crucial ally to the US in the region. A 1953 editorial in the Israeli daily Ha’aretz articulated its position in the region, “Israel helps the Western powers maintain equilibrium and stability in the Middle East. Israel is to become the watchdog… Israel [can] be relied upon to punish one or several neighboring states whose discourtesy to the West went beyond the bounds of the permissible.” Still in the process of proving it’s value, in 1967 it helped to put down a nationalist movement that was sweeping the Arab world. The Arab nationalists sought to break away from both sides in the Cold War and chart their own independent path. In helping to crush this rebellion, Israel helped to secure continued American dominance. It was also at this time that it occupied several territories, most importantly the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, that made up what was left of Palestine. Viewed as an imperial outpost from the start, Israel’s existance provided a key motivation that allowed the nationalist movement to develop, and its expansion into new territories only furthered the anger in the region. The value of Israel as a strategic ally would mean, however, that its expansion would be supported despite its destabilizing influence. The exploitation of the issue of Palestine would also continue to serve as a means in which despotic rulers in the region could win support at home and abroad.
The criminal, racist treatment of the occupied population in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip continues to this day, giving lie to the myth of US benevolence and enflaming passions in the region. The importance of Israel as a strategic ally of the US in the region has, however, created a political culture in the US in which criticism of this support is akin to political suicide. Indeed, this past summer, as Israeli bombers, in the words of Defense Minister Dan Halutz, “set Lebanon back 20 years,” leading liberal politicians in the US lined up behind the war. Congress even voted to send emergency military aid to assist in the assault after the Israeli Defense Forces announced that they were in danger of running out of bombs. Deviation from this sort of blind support, as has been seen with the recent denunciations of Jimmy Carter, is greeted with jeers and ironic accusations of bigotry.
While one could raise issue with the conduct of his presidency, in the past several months Carter has helped to thrust the issue of Palestine and the realities of life under the occupation into the national spotlight. His best-selling book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, has made him a target more of mean-spirited personal attacks than of actual criticisms of his work. The mainstream media has lined up in this attack. For example, many of the recent articles about the former president tout the fact that fourteen members of the board of the Carter Center resigned in protest of the book. The articles regularly fail to mention that the board has nearly three hundred members and membership is largely a symbolic gesture of gratitude for financial contributions. Commenting at a recent speaking engagement, he lamented, “This is the first time that I've ever been called a liar and a bigot and an anti-Semite and a coward and a plagiarist.” Explaining the thesis of his book, he argued, “The alternative to peace is apartheid… And there [under the occupation], apartheid exists in its more despicable forms, that Palestinians are deprived of basic human rights. Their land has been occupied and then confiscated and then colonized by the Israeli settlers.”
The dubious nature of the occupation of Palestine, accepted because of the role that Israel serves for US interests in the region, is part of the same regional policies that lead to the war on Iraq and US threats against Iran and Syria. With Israel functioning as a s a “watchdog” for US power in the region, the fate of the people of Palestine and those of Iraq are intimately linked. The repressive policies enacted against them are connected. It is part of the drive for US dominance in the region. Just as Iraq was not invaded because it was a threat, US support for Israel does not continue because of humanitarian concerns, but because of what the US can get out of the deal. Talk of an Israeli assault on Iran further illustrates this point. Despite the seemingly disjointed picture of world affairs presented in the media and by our political leaders, reality is far different. For those of us concerned about the conduct of the US in Iraq, we must understand that it is part of a wider policy. We must understand that the hand behind the violence in Baghdad is the same that is behind the repression in Jerusalem or Gaza City.
-RP
US support for Israel exists within the context of American imperial interests in the Middle East. The same is true for its relationship with any of the other states in the region. This includes its occupation of Iraq and belligerence towards Iran and Syria. Despite the claims made by US leaders and their apologists, American activity in the region has little to do with humanitarian issues and more to do with economic and political concerns. The US is a state that acts in its own interest, just like any other state. When these interests coincide with the needs of a particular population, that is all fine and well, but when they don’t, it is simply not an issue. Morality is not a part of the equation. Put simply, this is the nature of international relations and it is within this framework that US policy towards Israel must be understood.
Historically, Israel has served as a crucial ally to the US in the region. A 1953 editorial in the Israeli daily Ha’aretz articulated its position in the region, “Israel helps the Western powers maintain equilibrium and stability in the Middle East. Israel is to become the watchdog… Israel [can] be relied upon to punish one or several neighboring states whose discourtesy to the West went beyond the bounds of the permissible.” Still in the process of proving it’s value, in 1967 it helped to put down a nationalist movement that was sweeping the Arab world. The Arab nationalists sought to break away from both sides in the Cold War and chart their own independent path. In helping to crush this rebellion, Israel helped to secure continued American dominance. It was also at this time that it occupied several territories, most importantly the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, that made up what was left of Palestine. Viewed as an imperial outpost from the start, Israel’s existance provided a key motivation that allowed the nationalist movement to develop, and its expansion into new territories only furthered the anger in the region. The value of Israel as a strategic ally would mean, however, that its expansion would be supported despite its destabilizing influence. The exploitation of the issue of Palestine would also continue to serve as a means in which despotic rulers in the region could win support at home and abroad.
The criminal, racist treatment of the occupied population in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip continues to this day, giving lie to the myth of US benevolence and enflaming passions in the region. The importance of Israel as a strategic ally of the US in the region has, however, created a political culture in the US in which criticism of this support is akin to political suicide. Indeed, this past summer, as Israeli bombers, in the words of Defense Minister Dan Halutz, “set Lebanon back 20 years,” leading liberal politicians in the US lined up behind the war. Congress even voted to send emergency military aid to assist in the assault after the Israeli Defense Forces announced that they were in danger of running out of bombs. Deviation from this sort of blind support, as has been seen with the recent denunciations of Jimmy Carter, is greeted with jeers and ironic accusations of bigotry.
While one could raise issue with the conduct of his presidency, in the past several months Carter has helped to thrust the issue of Palestine and the realities of life under the occupation into the national spotlight. His best-selling book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, has made him a target more of mean-spirited personal attacks than of actual criticisms of his work. The mainstream media has lined up in this attack. For example, many of the recent articles about the former president tout the fact that fourteen members of the board of the Carter Center resigned in protest of the book. The articles regularly fail to mention that the board has nearly three hundred members and membership is largely a symbolic gesture of gratitude for financial contributions. Commenting at a recent speaking engagement, he lamented, “This is the first time that I've ever been called a liar and a bigot and an anti-Semite and a coward and a plagiarist.” Explaining the thesis of his book, he argued, “The alternative to peace is apartheid… And there [under the occupation], apartheid exists in its more despicable forms, that Palestinians are deprived of basic human rights. Their land has been occupied and then confiscated and then colonized by the Israeli settlers.”
The dubious nature of the occupation of Palestine, accepted because of the role that Israel serves for US interests in the region, is part of the same regional policies that lead to the war on Iraq and US threats against Iran and Syria. With Israel functioning as a s a “watchdog” for US power in the region, the fate of the people of Palestine and those of Iraq are intimately linked. The repressive policies enacted against them are connected. It is part of the drive for US dominance in the region. Just as Iraq was not invaded because it was a threat, US support for Israel does not continue because of humanitarian concerns, but because of what the US can get out of the deal. Talk of an Israeli assault on Iran further illustrates this point. Despite the seemingly disjointed picture of world affairs presented in the media and by our political leaders, reality is far different. For those of us concerned about the conduct of the US in Iraq, we must understand that it is part of a wider policy. We must understand that the hand behind the violence in Baghdad is the same that is behind the repression in Jerusalem or Gaza City.
-RP
Friday, January 19, 2007
Mass Politics or How to End a War
As the occupation of Iraq enters its fourth year, the Bush Administration and the supporters of the war in Washington are finding themselves increasingly isolated. While the presidential election in November 2004 saw an electorate split on the issue of the war, a decisive shift occurred in the intervening two years. In the fall of 2006, the so-called “Republican Revolution” ended. Given the limitations of the two-party system, the Democrats reaped the benefits of public’s rejection of the war. While the election demonstrated a firm sense of opposition, the newly elected leaders have given little indication that they will act on the wishes of their constituents. The Bush Administration responded to the election first by sacrificing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, then by rejecting much of the findings of the Iraq Study Group (ISG) Report and announcing an escalation of the war. The newly triumphant Democrats have relied more on pushing for a new approach to winning the war based on the ISG prescriptions than calling for an end to the occupation.
Both parties have an interest in seeing the occupation succeed, and, baring pressure from below will not budge on this point. Public opinion is solidly against the war, but so long as this is just the opinion of isolated individuals, it can be safely ignored. Only when this opinion becomes crystallized and channeled into organized, collective opposition that those in power can be compelled to act. Writing in the aftermath of the selection of George W. Bush as president in the fall of 2000 the radical historian Howard Zinn observed, “[T]he really critical thing isn’t who is sitting in the White House but who is sitting in--in the streets, in the cafeterias, in the halls of government, in the factories. Who is protesting, who is occupying offices and demonstrating--those are the things that determine what happens.” Even a brief look at American history indicates this much. The basis of any sort of meaningful reform has come on action from below, from ordinary people organizing and taking to the streets to demand their rights. Women’s right to vote and an end to Jim Crow was not brought about by decree; it was won through mass action, through collective struggle. This same sort of movement is what will be needed to bring about an end to the Iraq war.
The invasion of Iraq was launched nearly four years ago on what has been shown to be wholly false pretenses. The administration, leaders of both parties, and the media argued that the Iraqi regime possessed banned weapons and had links with al-Qaeda terrorists. They said that Saddam Hussein represented a direct, imminent threat to the US, and ignored or vilified all those who voiced their dissent. From their posh offices in the capital, they sent hundreds of thousands of men and women our age to fight and die to defend America from this “threat.”
Since 2003, more than 3,000 Americans have died with more than 20,000 maimed. Iraqis have fared far worse. Publishing their report last fall, a study conducted by teams from Johns Hopkins University and Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad estimated that 650,000 people died violent deaths because of the occupation. Tens of thousands of soldiers who escaped the physical scars of the war have come home with the emotional wounds of combat. Millions of Iraqis will bare the emotional scars of the daily horrors that they endure and their children grow up in.
The damage done by the invasion and occupation has not meant improved conditions for the Iraqi people. A recent poll conducted by the Iraq Center for Research and Strategic Studies found that only five percent of the population thought that they were better off than in 2003. Unemployment ranges from an average of 30 percent to as high as 70 percent in some areas. Electricity also remains a rarity with an average of eleven hours per day in much of the country with Baghdad lagging behind at around six. On top of its economic problems, the country has descended into civil war combined with the guerilla war. A recent United Nations report found that more than 34,000 civilians were killed in 2006. The sordid state of affairs has also lead to a massive, if ignored, refugee crisis with the UN reporting an estimated 1.6 million refugees with a 100,000 people fleeing the country each month. With such a grim situation, even people like former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, a sort of foreign policy guru, have called the war unwinnable.
As Bush announced his decision to escalate the war, many soldiers were preparing for a second, third, or even fourth tour of duty while others were gearing up for an extended stay. While supporters of the war often tout the slogan “Support the Troops,” one might ask whether a more effective way of showing this support would be working to ensure their safety rather than sending them into harm’s way again and again. Echoing this point, antiwar writer Anthony Arnove argued, “A clear majority of active-duty U.S. troops want to come home, as a much-ignored Zogby International poll found in early 2005, with 72 percent saying they wanted to be out of Iraq by the end of 2006. Groups like Iraq Veterans Against the War are pushing for immediate withdrawal, as well as reparations.” Commenting from Iraq on the situation of US soldiers, Sgt. Ron Cantu said, “It’s a belief of the soldiers I’ve talked to that any troop increase over here, it’s just going to be more sitting ducks, more targets. Everything we’re doing is reactive.”
The vast majority of the Iraqi people want all foreign troops out of their country. They are very clear on this point, and virtually every poll conducted there since the start of the occupation has indicated as much. Any meaningful commitment to democracy must mean allowing the people of Iraq the right to determine their own future. The US did not invade out of self-defense or to liberate the Iraqi people. It invaded to secure its own interests at the region, and, in this case, those interests are not the best interests of either the people of Iraq or the US. Far from being a stabilizing force in the country, the occupation is the principle source of instability. The US has destroyed Iraq, and it must leave immediately before it does more damage.
The American people voted against the war and the Bush Administration last November. The message sent to both parties and the administration was a clear rejection of the war. On that same note, seven out of ten people oppose the administration’s escalation. Both parties, however, are in the process of snubbing their noses to American public opinion. The Democrats were elected to oppose the war and with their control over its finances, they could end it if they wanted to. Despite their criticisms of the administration’s plans, they are not making any real effort to oppose them. They will continue to ignore American public opinion so long as people remain quiet and isolated from one another. Like the movement against the Vietnam War or for civil rights, it is only when people organize themselves and make public opinion impossible to ignore that those in power will act. Sharing the stage with Martin Luther King Jr. during the 1963 march on the capital, John Lewis of the Student Non-Violent Organizing Committee passionately articulated the case for mass politics. While he was instructed to tone down his speech, the points argued forcefully in his original draft hold true today. He wrote, “We cannot depend on any political party, for both the Democrats and the Republicans have betrayed the basic principles of the Declaration of Independence. We all recognize the fact that if any radical social, political and economic changes are to take place in our society, the people, the masses, must bring them about. In the struggle we must seek more than more civil rights; we must work for the community love, peace, and true brotherhood. Our minds, souls, and hearts cannot rest until freedom and justice exist for all the people.”
-RP
Both parties have an interest in seeing the occupation succeed, and, baring pressure from below will not budge on this point. Public opinion is solidly against the war, but so long as this is just the opinion of isolated individuals, it can be safely ignored. Only when this opinion becomes crystallized and channeled into organized, collective opposition that those in power can be compelled to act. Writing in the aftermath of the selection of George W. Bush as president in the fall of 2000 the radical historian Howard Zinn observed, “[T]he really critical thing isn’t who is sitting in the White House but who is sitting in--in the streets, in the cafeterias, in the halls of government, in the factories. Who is protesting, who is occupying offices and demonstrating--those are the things that determine what happens.” Even a brief look at American history indicates this much. The basis of any sort of meaningful reform has come on action from below, from ordinary people organizing and taking to the streets to demand their rights. Women’s right to vote and an end to Jim Crow was not brought about by decree; it was won through mass action, through collective struggle. This same sort of movement is what will be needed to bring about an end to the Iraq war.
The invasion of Iraq was launched nearly four years ago on what has been shown to be wholly false pretenses. The administration, leaders of both parties, and the media argued that the Iraqi regime possessed banned weapons and had links with al-Qaeda terrorists. They said that Saddam Hussein represented a direct, imminent threat to the US, and ignored or vilified all those who voiced their dissent. From their posh offices in the capital, they sent hundreds of thousands of men and women our age to fight and die to defend America from this “threat.”
Since 2003, more than 3,000 Americans have died with more than 20,000 maimed. Iraqis have fared far worse. Publishing their report last fall, a study conducted by teams from Johns Hopkins University and Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad estimated that 650,000 people died violent deaths because of the occupation. Tens of thousands of soldiers who escaped the physical scars of the war have come home with the emotional wounds of combat. Millions of Iraqis will bare the emotional scars of the daily horrors that they endure and their children grow up in.
The damage done by the invasion and occupation has not meant improved conditions for the Iraqi people. A recent poll conducted by the Iraq Center for Research and Strategic Studies found that only five percent of the population thought that they were better off than in 2003. Unemployment ranges from an average of 30 percent to as high as 70 percent in some areas. Electricity also remains a rarity with an average of eleven hours per day in much of the country with Baghdad lagging behind at around six. On top of its economic problems, the country has descended into civil war combined with the guerilla war. A recent United Nations report found that more than 34,000 civilians were killed in 2006. The sordid state of affairs has also lead to a massive, if ignored, refugee crisis with the UN reporting an estimated 1.6 million refugees with a 100,000 people fleeing the country each month. With such a grim situation, even people like former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, a sort of foreign policy guru, have called the war unwinnable.
As Bush announced his decision to escalate the war, many soldiers were preparing for a second, third, or even fourth tour of duty while others were gearing up for an extended stay. While supporters of the war often tout the slogan “Support the Troops,” one might ask whether a more effective way of showing this support would be working to ensure their safety rather than sending them into harm’s way again and again. Echoing this point, antiwar writer Anthony Arnove argued, “A clear majority of active-duty U.S. troops want to come home, as a much-ignored Zogby International poll found in early 2005, with 72 percent saying they wanted to be out of Iraq by the end of 2006. Groups like Iraq Veterans Against the War are pushing for immediate withdrawal, as well as reparations.” Commenting from Iraq on the situation of US soldiers, Sgt. Ron Cantu said, “It’s a belief of the soldiers I’ve talked to that any troop increase over here, it’s just going to be more sitting ducks, more targets. Everything we’re doing is reactive.”
The vast majority of the Iraqi people want all foreign troops out of their country. They are very clear on this point, and virtually every poll conducted there since the start of the occupation has indicated as much. Any meaningful commitment to democracy must mean allowing the people of Iraq the right to determine their own future. The US did not invade out of self-defense or to liberate the Iraqi people. It invaded to secure its own interests at the region, and, in this case, those interests are not the best interests of either the people of Iraq or the US. Far from being a stabilizing force in the country, the occupation is the principle source of instability. The US has destroyed Iraq, and it must leave immediately before it does more damage.
The American people voted against the war and the Bush Administration last November. The message sent to both parties and the administration was a clear rejection of the war. On that same note, seven out of ten people oppose the administration’s escalation. Both parties, however, are in the process of snubbing their noses to American public opinion. The Democrats were elected to oppose the war and with their control over its finances, they could end it if they wanted to. Despite their criticisms of the administration’s plans, they are not making any real effort to oppose them. They will continue to ignore American public opinion so long as people remain quiet and isolated from one another. Like the movement against the Vietnam War or for civil rights, it is only when people organize themselves and make public opinion impossible to ignore that those in power will act. Sharing the stage with Martin Luther King Jr. during the 1963 march on the capital, John Lewis of the Student Non-Violent Organizing Committee passionately articulated the case for mass politics. While he was instructed to tone down his speech, the points argued forcefully in his original draft hold true today. He wrote, “We cannot depend on any political party, for both the Democrats and the Republicans have betrayed the basic principles of the Declaration of Independence. We all recognize the fact that if any radical social, political and economic changes are to take place in our society, the people, the masses, must bring them about. In the struggle we must seek more than more civil rights; we must work for the community love, peace, and true brotherhood. Our minds, souls, and hearts cannot rest until freedom and justice exist for all the people.”
-RP
Monday, January 15, 2007
Petition on Ending the Occupation
The following is a petition that is being circulated by the antiwar movement articulating a call for an immediate withdrawal of foriegn forces from Iraq. It might be something that we could work into our tabling on campus, and something we could organize around.
RP
--
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/OutNow/
--
Why we stand for immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq
THE U.S. occupation of Iraq has not liberated the Iraqi people, but has made life worse for most Iraqis.
Tens of thousands of U.S. service people have been killed or maimed, and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis have lost their lives as a result of the U.S. invasion in 2003, the ongoing occupation, and the violence unleashed by them.
Iraq's infrastructure has been destroyed, and U.S. plans for reconstruction abandoned. There is less electricity, less clean drinking water, and more unemployment today than before the U.S. invasion.
All of the justifications initially provided by the U.S. for waging war on Iraq have been exposed as lies; the real reasons for the invasion — to control Iraq's oil reserves and to increase U.S. strategic influence in the region — now stand revealed.
The Bush administration has insisted again and again that stability, democracy, and prosperity are around the next bend in the road. But with each day that the U.S. stays, the violence and lack of security facing Iraqis worsen. The U.S. says that it cannot withdraw its military because Iraq will collapse into civil war if it does. But the U.S. has deliberately stoked sectarian divisions in its ongoing attempt to install a U.S.-friendly regime, thus driving Iraq towards civil war.
The November elections in the United States sent a clear message that voters reject the Iraq war, and opinion polls show that seven in 10 Iraqis want the U.S. to leave sooner rather than later. Even most U.S. military and political leaders agree that staying the course in Iraq is a policy that is bound to fail.
Yet all the various alternative plans for Iraq now being discussed in Washington, including those proposed by House and Senate Democrats, aren't about withdrawing the U.S. military from Iraq. Rather, these strategies are about continuing the pursuit of U.S. goals in Iraq and the larger Middle East using different means.
Even the proposal to redeploy U.S. troops outside of Iraq, a plan favored by many Democratic Party leaders, envisions continued U.S. intervention inside Iraq.
With former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger insisting that a military victory in Iraq is no longer possible and (Ret.) Lt. Gen. William Odom calling for "complete withdrawal" of all U.S. troops, the antiwar movement should demand no less than the immediate withdrawal of the U.S. military — as well as reparations to the Iraqi people, so they can rebuild their own society and genuinely determine their own future.
We call on the U.S. to get out of Iraq — not in six months, not in a year, but now.
RP
--
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/OutNow/
--
Why we stand for immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq
THE U.S. occupation of Iraq has not liberated the Iraqi people, but has made life worse for most Iraqis.
Tens of thousands of U.S. service people have been killed or maimed, and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis have lost their lives as a result of the U.S. invasion in 2003, the ongoing occupation, and the violence unleashed by them.
Iraq's infrastructure has been destroyed, and U.S. plans for reconstruction abandoned. There is less electricity, less clean drinking water, and more unemployment today than before the U.S. invasion.
All of the justifications initially provided by the U.S. for waging war on Iraq have been exposed as lies; the real reasons for the invasion — to control Iraq's oil reserves and to increase U.S. strategic influence in the region — now stand revealed.
The Bush administration has insisted again and again that stability, democracy, and prosperity are around the next bend in the road. But with each day that the U.S. stays, the violence and lack of security facing Iraqis worsen. The U.S. says that it cannot withdraw its military because Iraq will collapse into civil war if it does. But the U.S. has deliberately stoked sectarian divisions in its ongoing attempt to install a U.S.-friendly regime, thus driving Iraq towards civil war.
The November elections in the United States sent a clear message that voters reject the Iraq war, and opinion polls show that seven in 10 Iraqis want the U.S. to leave sooner rather than later. Even most U.S. military and political leaders agree that staying the course in Iraq is a policy that is bound to fail.
Yet all the various alternative plans for Iraq now being discussed in Washington, including those proposed by House and Senate Democrats, aren't about withdrawing the U.S. military from Iraq. Rather, these strategies are about continuing the pursuit of U.S. goals in Iraq and the larger Middle East using different means.
Even the proposal to redeploy U.S. troops outside of Iraq, a plan favored by many Democratic Party leaders, envisions continued U.S. intervention inside Iraq.
With former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger insisting that a military victory in Iraq is no longer possible and (Ret.) Lt. Gen. William Odom calling for "complete withdrawal" of all U.S. troops, the antiwar movement should demand no less than the immediate withdrawal of the U.S. military — as well as reparations to the Iraqi people, so they can rebuild their own society and genuinely determine their own future.
We call on the U.S. to get out of Iraq — not in six months, not in a year, but now.
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Revenge, Not Justice
The execution of Saddam Hussein in the early morning hours of December 30 had nothing to do with justice. Like so many other killings in Iraq, it was just another act of sectarian violence. With farcical legal proceedings under the guise of a foreign occupation and a hasty execution by masked Shiite militiamen at the start of the Sunni Eid al-Adha holdiay, the US succeeded in doing what Saddam tried for nearly three decades to do. They made him into a hero in the eyes of millions throughout the Arab world. The reaction in Iraq was, however, mixed. As the head of a regime that they saw destroy their country and torture and murder hundreds of thousands of their compatriots, many Iraqis likely felt relief when they heard he was dead. A feeling of relief does not necessarily imply a sense of justice served. Revenge is not justice. Even the revenge, however, was sectarian in nature. Saddam was put to death for the murder of 148 men in 1982 while he was beginning a trial for the gasing of 5,000 Kurds. If justice was a serious concern, then every effort would have been made both to have an impartial trial, address all of his crimes, and launch procedings his co-conspirators, including foreign backers. The execution was both a rejection of justice and an assertion of dominance by Shia radicals.
Putting former leaders on trial and organizing truth commissions are an important part of a transition from dictatorship to democracy. It acknowledges and condemns past crimes, bringing those responsible to justice. In doing so, it provides the basis for a new government based on the rule of law. The trial and execution of the Iraqi dictator met none of these critera. The trial was roundly condemned by human rights groups and international legal experts.
Few outside of the US believe the trial to have been anything more than a farce. One judge resigned in protest of interference, while another was forced from the case after he openly announced his bias. Three members of the defense team were assassinated, while the occupation forces and Iraqi government refused to provide them with security. The use of secret testimony from anonymous witnesses prevented the defense from effectively challenging evidence against their client. Citing a report by Human Rights Watch, independent journalist Nir Rosen argues, “the Iraqi judges and lawyers involved in prosecuting Saddam were ill prepared and relied on their American advisers. American minders shut off the microphones and ordered the translators to halt whenever they disapproved of what was being said by the defendants.” Furthering this point, author and journalist Patrick Cockburn wrote, “The US made every effort to portray the trial of Saddam as an Iraqi-run affair, but the former leader was right in seeing it as orchestrated by Washington. If confirmation of this were needed, it came when the date for announcing his death sentence was moved to November 5, so it could be the leading item on the news the day before the US midterm elections.”
The execution of Saddam at the start of Eid al-Adha for the murder of 148 Shiites when he was on trial for the murder of 5,000 Kurds was an assertion of dominance by the newly triumphant Shia radicals. In Sunni Islam, Eid al-Adha, a holiday traditionally marked with celebrations and temporary truces, begins on December 30, while for the Shia it begins on the 31. The timing was a diliberate affront, confirmed by anti-Sunni chants during the execution. With Sunni being the denomination of the vast majority of people in the region, this affront transcended national borders and helped make him into a martry. The decision to begin a series of trials with the crimes committed at Dujail was also a sectarian move. The murders in 1982 came following an attempt on Saddam’s life by Dawa activists. Dawa is now one of three major political parties in the United Iraqi Alliance, the Shiite political bloc that dominates the Iraqi government. The murders in Dujail, while serious, pale in comparison to the dictator’s other crimes. His hanging after this one trial also prevents other groups of Iraqis from, albiet in a rigged trial, feeling like their grievances were being addressed.
The prevention of future trials also precludes any hope of bringing Saddam’s collaborators to justice. While noticeably absent from the coverage of the trial and execution, the bulk of the dictator’s most serious crimes came at a time when he was a staunch US ally. Indeed, in 1982 the US removed Iraq from the State Department’s list of nations that sponsor terrorism. Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld served as President Ronald Reagan’s special presidential envoy to Iraq to renew diplomatic relations with Saddam over the course of the next several years. Throughout the 1980s the US also provided Iraq with funds and logistical support both in its war against Iran and later in the genocidal campaign against the Kurds from 1988-9. The first President Bush even went so far as to veto a bill that would have cut funding to Iraq in protest of the genocide. Saddam’s execution therefore may also serve as to avoid a series of inconvinient trials that would implicate former and current US officials. Commenting on this point, Iraq expert Michael Swchartz recently wrote, “Given a chance to defend himself, Saddam made it clear that his defense would include fully documenting American complicity in his use of chemical weapons, the tacit (or maybe explicit) endorsement by the Bush Sr. administration of his invasion of Kuwait, and the general complicity of all manner of foreign governments in his various crimes.”
The execution of Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with justice, and will do nothing to improve the situation in Iraq. It is merely one of an ever increasing number of “turning points” in the occupation. The Bush Administration has argued that the death of Saddam will help to difuse an important section of the Iraqi resistance and help the occupation forces in their fight against al-Qaeda. The reality of the situation is far different and much more complex than the adminstration admits. Saddam has long been irelevant to the resistance movement and while their domination of the headlines may indicate a different picture, al-Qaeda fighters, by virtually all accounts, number in the hundreds and only represent a tiny faction of the anti-occupation forces. The Iraqi resistance is predominantly native in origin with varrying degrees of nationalist and religious motivations. The execution of Saddam will not undermine the movement against the occupation. It will only serve to inflame sectarian tensions and anti-American sentiment both in Iraq and the region as a whole.
-RP
Putting former leaders on trial and organizing truth commissions are an important part of a transition from dictatorship to democracy. It acknowledges and condemns past crimes, bringing those responsible to justice. In doing so, it provides the basis for a new government based on the rule of law. The trial and execution of the Iraqi dictator met none of these critera. The trial was roundly condemned by human rights groups and international legal experts.
Few outside of the US believe the trial to have been anything more than a farce. One judge resigned in protest of interference, while another was forced from the case after he openly announced his bias. Three members of the defense team were assassinated, while the occupation forces and Iraqi government refused to provide them with security. The use of secret testimony from anonymous witnesses prevented the defense from effectively challenging evidence against their client. Citing a report by Human Rights Watch, independent journalist Nir Rosen argues, “the Iraqi judges and lawyers involved in prosecuting Saddam were ill prepared and relied on their American advisers. American minders shut off the microphones and ordered the translators to halt whenever they disapproved of what was being said by the defendants.” Furthering this point, author and journalist Patrick Cockburn wrote, “The US made every effort to portray the trial of Saddam as an Iraqi-run affair, but the former leader was right in seeing it as orchestrated by Washington. If confirmation of this were needed, it came when the date for announcing his death sentence was moved to November 5, so it could be the leading item on the news the day before the US midterm elections.”
The execution of Saddam at the start of Eid al-Adha for the murder of 148 Shiites when he was on trial for the murder of 5,000 Kurds was an assertion of dominance by the newly triumphant Shia radicals. In Sunni Islam, Eid al-Adha, a holiday traditionally marked with celebrations and temporary truces, begins on December 30, while for the Shia it begins on the 31. The timing was a diliberate affront, confirmed by anti-Sunni chants during the execution. With Sunni being the denomination of the vast majority of people in the region, this affront transcended national borders and helped make him into a martry. The decision to begin a series of trials with the crimes committed at Dujail was also a sectarian move. The murders in 1982 came following an attempt on Saddam’s life by Dawa activists. Dawa is now one of three major political parties in the United Iraqi Alliance, the Shiite political bloc that dominates the Iraqi government. The murders in Dujail, while serious, pale in comparison to the dictator’s other crimes. His hanging after this one trial also prevents other groups of Iraqis from, albiet in a rigged trial, feeling like their grievances were being addressed.
The prevention of future trials also precludes any hope of bringing Saddam’s collaborators to justice. While noticeably absent from the coverage of the trial and execution, the bulk of the dictator’s most serious crimes came at a time when he was a staunch US ally. Indeed, in 1982 the US removed Iraq from the State Department’s list of nations that sponsor terrorism. Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld served as President Ronald Reagan’s special presidential envoy to Iraq to renew diplomatic relations with Saddam over the course of the next several years. Throughout the 1980s the US also provided Iraq with funds and logistical support both in its war against Iran and later in the genocidal campaign against the Kurds from 1988-9. The first President Bush even went so far as to veto a bill that would have cut funding to Iraq in protest of the genocide. Saddam’s execution therefore may also serve as to avoid a series of inconvinient trials that would implicate former and current US officials. Commenting on this point, Iraq expert Michael Swchartz recently wrote, “Given a chance to defend himself, Saddam made it clear that his defense would include fully documenting American complicity in his use of chemical weapons, the tacit (or maybe explicit) endorsement by the Bush Sr. administration of his invasion of Kuwait, and the general complicity of all manner of foreign governments in his various crimes.”
The execution of Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with justice, and will do nothing to improve the situation in Iraq. It is merely one of an ever increasing number of “turning points” in the occupation. The Bush Administration has argued that the death of Saddam will help to difuse an important section of the Iraqi resistance and help the occupation forces in their fight against al-Qaeda. The reality of the situation is far different and much more complex than the adminstration admits. Saddam has long been irelevant to the resistance movement and while their domination of the headlines may indicate a different picture, al-Qaeda fighters, by virtually all accounts, number in the hundreds and only represent a tiny faction of the anti-occupation forces. The Iraqi resistance is predominantly native in origin with varrying degrees of nationalist and religious motivations. The execution of Saddam will not undermine the movement against the occupation. It will only serve to inflame sectarian tensions and anti-American sentiment both in Iraq and the region as a whole.
-RP
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)