[Peace-discuss] What does it mean to be anti-war now?

[patton paul]

A few weeks ago at the AWARE meeting, Carl posed the question "What does
it mean to be anti-war now?".  I think this article has some good answers.
-Paul P.

Hope Out of Quagmire -- New Peace Movement Opportunities
by Paul Loeb


In the glow of the Iraq war's initial military success, most American
peace activists felt profoundly demoralized. Between the war's portrayal
as a glamorous spectacle and Bush's seemingly overwhelming support, many
who'd recently marched by the millions felt isolated, defensive, and
powerless, fearing their voices no longer mattered.

Now, as Bush's occupation faces a deepening quagmire, shifting public
sentiment opens up major new opportunities for activism. Just two months
ago, the national mood felt so resistant that it was hard to raise the
most cautious dissenting questions. But polls now suggest the beginning of
a very different national mood, where large numbers of Americans are
having significant doubts. This gives us a chance to challenge the core
fallacies of Bush's foreign policy, revitalize peace movement activism,
and perhaps change our national direction. We can do this by launching a
grassroots campaign to replace the US control over Iraq with an
international transitional authority under United Nations command--an
authority that would control not only military operations, but also Iraq's
political and economic affairs, including its oil-fields. We can work to
transform a beachhead for American empire into an interim government that
would actually have a shot at bringing democracy.

The shifts in the polls are staggering, even if most peace activists
haven't yet noticed them. Driven by the steady US casualties in Iraq and
continuing chaos, a July Gallup poll found 43 per cent of Americans
believing things are going badly in Iraq, up from just 13 per cent in
early May. In a mid-July Washington Post-ABC News poll, six in ten of
those surveyed said the war damaged the image of the United States abroad,
half said the conflict permanently damaged U.S. relations with key allies,
and 52 percent considered the level of US casualties "unacceptable." A
Zogby poll around the same time found a one percent majority actually
saying it was time for someone new in the White House. These shifts all
emerged before Congress's recent questioning of the occupation's
political, economic and human costs.

Before the war, we had a clear goal in trying to stop it. Once it started,
this drastically limited the peace movement's options. We could bear
witness for the future, but it was hard to influence the war's immediate
outcome. Now the landscape has shifted again, to one far more hospitable
toward dissenting views. Americans are developing significant reservations
despite what until recently has been scant critical media coverage,
minimal questioning by Democratic leaders, and little presence from the
peace movement since late February. If we can begin coalescing public
concern around an alternative to US troops remaining indefinitely in Iraq,
we have a real chance to influence national debate.

Although the war has created precisely the kind of mess we predicted, we
need to do more than just repeat, "I told you so." Or gloat about how
Bush's imperial dream is unraveling. It's important to keep pushing on the
ways Bush lied to Congress and the American public. We also need to offer
our own vision of what needs to be done. We can do this by supporting
European initiatives to end US control over Iraq's political and economic
future, and instead place the country under UN charge, policing it with a
multinational force with significant Islamic representation.

To most Iraqis, US troops have become symbols of colonialism and chaos.
The longer they stay, the more they become targets, and the more Iraqis
will resent the US for imposing our will and grabbing for oil while
failing to secure basic needs like electricity, clean water, and physical
safety. Because the UN represents the entire international community,
including eighteen Arab states, a UN administration, in contrast, would be
far less likely to be seen as a foreign military occupation. Although the
new forces would probably still face some opposition, both armed and
unarmed, they won't be tarred with the same neocolonial agenda. Iraqis
wouldn't view them as simply in it to dominate their country or project
American power. Without the disruption of a growing armed insurgency,
efforts at restoring basic services, maintaining stability, and setting up
a democratic and representative Iraqi government would be far easier. A UN
Mandate might even allow a similar transition to when UN forces finally
ended Indonesia's bloody occupation of East Timor and supervised that
country's return to democracy.

A shift away from unilateral US control already has broad potential
support. In a late-June Knowledge Network poll, 64% of Americans wanted
the UN to take a leadership role in Iraq, up from 50% in April. Pushing
for such a shift will also let us reach out to American soldiers who are
increasingly frustrated at being given a mission with neither a defined
end nor any clear boundaries between friend and foe. And to military
families angry that they see no clear timetable for the return of their
loved ones. We could contrast Bush's chickenhawk bluster of "Bring them
on," with our own call to "Bring them Home," and include a vision that
demands more than just abandoning Iraq to chaos.

Ideally, this campaign would be as broad-based as possible, encouraging
citizens to reach out both in our communities and to elected officials.
We'd circulate petitions, table, canvass, and vigil in local
neighborhoods, write letters to local papers, pass civic resolutions, and
resume all the other kinds of outreach we began so successfully on the eve
of the war. We'd build to more visible rallies and marches. We'd work to
ensure the Iraqi quagmire remains a front-and-center issue, so the Bush
administration can't just move on and ignore it.

With enough grassroots momentum, we could begin pressuring key elected
officials to take a stand in favor of a shift to full UN control.
Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich has recently spoken out in favor of
major US troop withdrawals. John Kerry has spoken more generally about the
need for greater UN control. It will take work to get the more
conservative Democratic candidates and elected representatives to follow
suit (and maybe even some independent minded Republicans) to take as
strong a stand as is needed. But given the shifting polls, if we muster
enough citizen pressure, at least a few will decide that the political
risk is worth it. We'd want to offer even those who supported the war the
opportunity to say: "I backed Bush in good faith and I'm glad Saddam
Hussein is out. But now the WMD evidence still hasn't surfaced. We've
alienating the rest of the world by going in alone. And I don't like
having been lied to. Since the Iraqis want us out, it's time to stop
putting our brave young soldiers at risk."

Could this campaign actually force Bush to turn Iraq over to UN
administration? Assuming that the situation continues to be a morass, Bush
will face increasing pressure to cut his losses, declare victory, and
leave. Although some in his administration are ideologically opposed to
any major UN role whatsoever, with enough pressure and media debate the
pragmatist wing might actually view withdrawal as politically preferable
to facing an election year with American soldiers continuing to come home
from Iraq in body bags.

This raises a difficult question. Is it the job of the peace movement-or
the global community--to help Bush clean up the mess that he's created?
Shouldn't we simply let him stew in it?

If Bush quickly shifted Iraq to UN administration, it might raise his
re-election prospects. But it's extremely unlikely that his administration
will readily accede to this demand. Powerful economic, strategic and
ideological motivations led to them to attack this oil-rich nation to
begin with. These motivations make it extremely unlikely that they'll give
up the opportunity to try to control Iraq's political and economic future
without a fight. And the more they dig in their heels and resist, the more
time the peace movement will have to expose the ways in which this war was
not about bringing freedom and democracy to a long-oppressed people, but
about controlling the future of Iraq's natural resources and projecting
American power in the world. Forcing the US genuinely to release control
over Iraq would be a major setback for the politics of empire.

Working to bring the troops home will also give us a chance to address
related questions, like the missing WMDs, America's long tradition of
arming dictators, the key role of oil politics, and the lies and
manipulations that fueled our rush to war-including the notion that we'd
be universally hailed as liberators and the attacks on generals who
accurately warned of massive post-war troop deployments. Raising these
issues will lead to larger questions about the dangers of Bush's
belligerent unilateralism, and the contrast between the four billion
dollars a month he's spending in Iraq and his total neglect of a sinking
domestic economy. The more we succeed in this task, the more we have a
chance to breach Bush's image as national protector.

If Bush does withdraw after sustained citizen pressure, his administration
will have been significantly tarnished. And we'll have a major peace
movement victory, which will itself empower further action. A key value of
this campaign would be its ability to help recover activist momentum and
morale-giving people a concrete focus for their actions. There's a huge
reservoir of citizens who became active in the opposition to the war, but
who've since melted back to private life. If we can get them re-engaged at
this point, they have a chance to become long-term activists. They may not
yet have taken up the particular issue of troop withdrawal, but that's
because most were so demoralized by the war's quick initial progress and
seemingly overwhelming support that they felt that what happened was
totally out of their hands. Now it isn't. Citizens once again can begin to
have a voice, in a far more potentially receptive environment.

During the countdown to the war, the clock was running against us. Our
movement grew at an amazing pace, but ran out of time before we could
become powerful enough to reverse the administration's course. Now time
should work in our favor. Unless Iraq suddenly becomes miraculously
pacified, the longer our troops are there, the more casualties they'll
take, and the stronger the case for withdrawal. As we continue to raid
houses, round up civilians, and generally stoke resentment, Iraqi
resistance is unlikely to die down. Bush is already calling for increased
military deployments. Although we'd want to launch a campaign for
withdrawal well before the November 2004 election (to avoid diverting
resources and energy), if we do our work well, it could play a major role
helping unseat George Bush.

If we build sufficiently broad coalitions for this effort, we have a
chance to make a major impact on national debate. Whether or not we can
actually convince the administration to pursue a wiser course, taking up
this issue gives us the chance to get people moving again, challenge the
core politics of empire, and support policies that would actually make for
a safer world. It gives us the chance once again to do more than watch
from the sidelines as passive spectators.

Paul Loeb, is the author of 'Soul of a Citizen: Living With Conviction in
a Cynical Time', and board chair of Peace Action of Washington. For a more
detailed version of how a shift to UN control could proceed, click here.
To receive Loeb's articles directly, send a blank message to
paulloeb-articles-subscribe at onenw.org