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