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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)