[Peace-discuss] The future of P4P (and a new P4P idea)

[C. G. Estabrook]

I find myself saying both yes and no to Randall's thoughtful attempt to
suggest how we should proceed with our public protests.

I think first of all that our "Prospect for Peace" demonstrations are even
more important now that the invasion has begun.  It would not have made
sense for those few who were opposing what the Kennedy administration was
planning to do, to say after the invasion of South Vietnam in 1962 that
"energy spent trying to stop this particular war will become increasingly
pointless as the invasion and occupation is completed."  To say that now
is to argue a qualitative difference between what the US was doing in
Southeast Asia and what it is doing now in Southwest Asia.  In both cases
we're confronted with inhuman imperial wars.

I find it difficult to imagine circumstances -- although they may be
possible -- in which it would "actually be worse for the Iraqi people (and
the rest of humanity as well) if the U.S. stopped in its tracks, pulled
out and came home."  That's exactly what we should be demanding -- "Stop
the killing / Bring the troops home."

Suppose -- it's difficult to imagine, I admit -- that the US should
declare a cease-fire, announce its intention to withdraw its troops from
all of Southwest Asia (as the British did), and convene under UN auspices
a general peace conference for the region (which the Iraqis asked for and
the US rejected just before the 1991 Gulf War).  To that end it would
direct the Israelis to withdraw from the occupied territories and begin
dismantling their vast arsenal of weapons of mass destruction -- under
threat of the suspension of the massive US subventions.  The goal would be
regional disarmament (which UN SC Resolution 687, ending the Gulf War,
calls for) and reconstruction -- the US undoubtedly being liable for major
reparations to Afghanistan and Iraq for launching aggressive wars.  (This
would follow from, say, the election of the Green party candidate for
president...)

Although it's certainly true that a great deal of "damage is already
done," I don't see how "pulling out to let Saddam take over again ...  
would only make things worse."  US policies have kept Saddam in place for
a dozen years.  The US wanted a strongman in Baghdad after the Gulf War --
a functioning democracy might not follow our wishes and might give other
Arab states dangerous democratic ideas -- and the brutal sanctions regime
of the Clinton years rallied the Iraqis to the dictator.  As we've seen in
Eastern Europe, allowing domestic politics to work -- not launching
external attacks -- is what brings dictators down.

The terrorists of 9/11 were motivated by three grievances, shared by very
many people in the Middle East who are not terrorists: (1) the corruption
of Arab governments by the US, insisting on controlling Middle East oil;
(2) the near genocidal sanctions against Iraq, directed by the US; and (3)
the oppression of the Palestinians by Israel, allowed to do so by the US.  
The Bush administration sells its Iraq war at home by whipping up fear of
terrorism while making it more likely.  We have to insist that the US
remove the grievances that lead to terrorism.

What does this situation mean for our local efforts?  I think Randall is
absolutely right when he says our public protest is "more relevant than
ever," in part because
	"1. protesting in large numbers may have a positive effect on how
the war is prosecuted...
	"2. ... just because the killing has started [in a vastly expanded
way], that's no time to give up trying to show people this war was wrong
...  this will not necessarily stop with Iraq [certainly not, unless we
stop it] ... [and]
	"3. ... the much bigger issue at stake remains -- the outrageously
aggressive official U.S. policy of unilateral 'pre-emption' ('prevention'
being the more accurate term) that laid the foundation for this war..."

Randall's also correct in saying that "The primary reason Americans
support the war ... is that they put faith in the administration's
unproven justifications [but he's being gentle -- they're lies]: Saddam's
links to Al-qaeda and 9/11, weapons of mass destruction, 'liberation' of
Iraqi people, decrease of terrorism, beneficial spread of democracy in the
middle east, a relatively short and easy war with few civilian
casualties..."  I think he agrees that "it's important for us to use
events like P4P" to expose those lies.  And we can do that.

Which leads me to a disagreement.  I don't think our public demonstration
should focus exclusively on even principally on the deaths of Americans.
We should insist that the administration's war policy is a crime, in
general and in particular, and explain why it's wrong morally, legally and
politically.  And we should insist that "Another world is possible"  --
and that, in the short run, another US policy is possible: "End the war /
US out of Iraq."

Regards, Carl


On Tue, 25 Mar 2003, Randall Cotton wrote:

> As the war proceeds, some may wonder whether P4P (our weekly "Prospect
> for Peace" demonstration) is still relevant now that the war has
> started. I think it's fair to say that the major thrust of P4P in the
> months leading up to the war was to try to educate and rally others in
> an effort to prevent the war from ever starting. At this point I would
> argue that energy spent trying to stop this particular war will become
> increasingly pointless as the invasion and occupation is completed.
> Indeed, beyond some point in the progress of the invasion, it may
> actually be worse for the Iraqi people (and the rest of humanity as
> well) if the U.S. stopped in its tracks, pulled out and came home.
> Beyond some point, the damage is already done and pulling out to let
> Saddam take over again (or, worse yet, to see the birth of a new
> Afghanistan) would only make things worse.
> 
> That does not mean, however, that P4P will become increasingly
> pointless. I would argue it's more relevant than ever for several
> reasons.
> 
> 1. protesting in large numbers may have a positive effect on how the
> war is prosecuted (in terms of politically acceptable civilian
> deaths).
> 
> 2. Though we all saw long ago that this war was a "really bad idea",
> there are obviously still many Americans (perhaps even most at this
> moment in time) who don't yet "get it". Just because the killing has
> started, that's no time to give up trying to show people this war was
> wrong. It's more urgent than ever. We are informed enough to know that
> this will not necessarily stop with Iraq. This could easily only be
> the first war of many unless America wakes up and "gets it".
> 
> Granted, at the moment, it's hard to change minds because the war has
> just begun and how it will unfold remains uncertain, but I would argue
> time is on our side. The primary reason Americans support the war
> right now (beyond equating it with support for the troops) is that
> they put faith in the administration's unproven justifications: Saddam
> links to Al-qaeda and 9/11, weapons of mass destruction, "liberation"
> of Iraqi people, decrease of terrorism, beneficial spread of democracy
> in the middle east, a relatively short and easy war with few civilian
> casualties, and so on. At the moment, all these justifications are
> unproven or unprovable, but in time their validity (or lack thereof)
> will emerge with more clarity. As events unfold, the truth comes to
> light, and these justifications start to evaporate, it's important for
> us to use events like P4P to help drive that truth home to the public.
> 
> 3. While stopping this particular war is less relevant now, the much
> bigger issue at stake remains - the outrageously aggressive official
> U.S. policy of unilateral "pre-emption" ("prevention" being the more
> accurate term) that laid the foundation for this war. And, of course,
> the smug, imperialist, morally-bankrupt hawks surrounding the
> president who clearly formulated this policy and are undoubtedly
> pushing for the even more extreme policies they have already publicly
> advocated in the past. The start of this war should be an alarm call
> to action, not a sign of defeat.
> 
> New P4P Idea --------------- As I mentioned above, it's tough to
> change minds right now because indisputable proof invalidating the
> justifications for the war isn't yet available (at least proof that's
> easily understood by those who haven't quite caught on yet). I'm
> confident this proof will emerge in time, but for the here and now
> there is one new indisputable fact which sheds doubt on this war and
> becomes more clear as each day passes - many people are dying. The
> first step in convincing the rest of America that this war was wrong
> (and that others should not follow) is to make damn sure they know
> that. In particular, the most effective strategy (and this goes double
> for those that are hopping on the bandwagon to "support the troops")
> is to make damn sure they know *Americans* are dying - the very troops
> they profess to support. I propose large, durable foamboard signs
> (similar to the size we commonly use already - 40" x 30") each with a
> photo of a different American killed (at least 20 so far) with their
> name, rank, hometown and date they were killed and a caption along the
> lines of: "Bush CHOSE this war! He didn't need to die." or "Bush CHOSE
> this war! Ask yourself why." The effect would be greater if we could
> line up people wearing black, each carrying one of these signs
> (perhaps right next to the "Pro-America" demonstrators =8-). Not only
> does this force passers-by to face an irrefutably devastating cost of
> this war, it also works to counter the false generalization that
> anti-war people are "anti-troops". As the war progresses, the cost in
> blood and treasure mounts, and the justifications fall away, we can
> add other signs to illustrate all that, all the while keeping the
> portraits of those killed in prominent view as a damning exclamation
> point.
> 
> I've created a sample of what I'm talking about (showing Capt. Ryan
> Beaupre, from Illinois, who was one of the first few killed) at:
> 
> http://salty.ncsa.uiuc.edu/beaupre.pdf
> 
> (Thanks to John Fettig for posting this on the web). Please respond
> with comments, suggestions and whether you're interested in helping
> put this together. Depending on interest, I'll make up a few of these
> on my own (at my cost). If there's sufficient interest, I can present
> this at the next meeting.
>