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
Monday, February 5, 2007
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)