[Peace-discuss] here's an opinion that might interest

Sat Sep 18 23:49:22 CDT 2004

And as Jacobs implicitly points out, let's not forget about the war in 
Afghanistan. It isn't any more just and hasn't gone any better than the war 
in Iraq.

----Original Message Follows----
From: Ricky Baldwin <baldwinricky at yahoo.com>
To: Susan Davis <sgdavis at uiuc.edu>,peace-discuss at lists.cu.groogroo.com
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] here's an opinion that might interest
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 13:51:02 -0700 (PDT)

Thanks for posting this Susan-

I think Jacobs makes an important point here, and one
that the left seems to forget every four years.  That
is, the election isn't going to solve this problem, so
let's focus on the problem (in this case, the war).
Vote, yes; put up yard signs, yes; but spend our time
and money on the movement.

I will quibble with him on a couple of points:

1. I don't think it's necessarily capitalism that the
US wants to impose in its imperial pursuits (instead
of or in spite of democracy).  The goal is to impose a
subservient relationship to US power (economic and
political), and if that means funding the Communist
Party (as in Nicaragua), fascists, or whoever, then US
Administrations can be flexible on the rest.

2. I'm not sure what he means by "all those Iraqis
involved" inviting foreign troops in.  Presumably,
"all" Iraqis will never do any particular thing, any
more than "all" of any other people will.  But maybe
I'm missing something here.

But basically I think this is a valuable discussion
for us in the antiwar movement.  I think we might want
to consider how many folks we might have turned out to
Prospect, for example, if it had been Gore invading
Iraq -- or if Bush had been seen as more legitimate
(winning the election fairly, not pulling out of the
Kyoto Accords, the International Criminal Court, etc.)
-- and how much of the support for our movement (it
pains me to say it) was a result of so many millions
already distrusting Bush.

I suppose if Bush wins, we may never really know.  But
if Kerry wins, we may find out.

Ricky

--- Susan Davis <sgdavis at uiuc.edu> wrote:

 >
 > Here's an opinion that might be of interest.  Thanks
 > to all doing such good
 > work on the  UPTV issue.  I was out of town Monday
 > and was shocked to read
 > about the mayor's behavior in the newspaper.
 >
 > SD
 >
 >
 > September 15, 2004
 >
 >
 > A Movement in Disarray
 >
 >
 > Oppose War, Not Just Bush
 >
 > By RON JACOBS
 >
 > It's time the antiwar movement got off its tail. The
 > lackluster organizing
 > currently going on will insure nothing but more war
 > and greater
 > frustration. While one would be a fool to think any
 > antiwar movement can
 > force Washington's hand into pulling US forces out
 > of Iraq and Afghanistan
 > before Inauguration Day 2005, I can guarantee that
 > unless we start
 > organizing again right now to stop this war, it will
 > be like starting all
 > over again the day after the inauguration, no matter
 > who is the US president.
 >
 > Why is the antiwar movement in disarray? The most
 > obvious answer is the
 > Anybody But Bush phenomenon. The personalization of
 > the war around George
 > Bush has created a misguided belief among many
 > people who oppose the war
 > and the imperial drive it represents that this war
 > will somehow end if Bush
 > and his cohorts are given their walking papers.
 > Unfortunately, this is not
 > the case. This war, as has been said many times
 > before, is more than Bush's
 > war; it's a war for total US domination of the
 > world. That domination
 > project is a project held dear by the leadership of
 > both the Democrats and
 > Republicans and is guided not by party politics but
 > by the economic
 > realities of the world capitalist system. This
 > system is dominated by the
 > United States.
 >
 > Why is it dominated by the United States? To be
 > brutally frank, the US
 > dominates the world because of its military
 > superiority. Sure, it got to
 > where it is today through a combination of economic
 > and military strength,
 > but it sits at the top of the pile now solely
 > because its military is
 > larger, better equipped with the most deadly
 > weapons, and trained to
 > brutalize its opponents into total submission,
 > Geneva conventions be
 > damned. This fact does not change when a Democrat is
 > in the White House.
 > One need only look back to the bombing of Serbia and
 > Kosovo in 1999 if they
 > desire proof of this.
 >
 > The Republicans have their Project for a New
 > American Century (PNAC). The
 > Democrats have their own take on how to maintain and
 > expand the Empire. It
 > is a plan that they call Progressive
 > Internationalism: A Democratic
 > National Security Strategy. Its only discernible
 > difference from the GOP
 > approach is a greater emphasis on using
 > international organizations like
 > the United Nations and strategic alliances like NATO
 > to keep those opposed
 > to the US's
 > []
 > dominance suppressed. Utilizing a Wilsonian
 > moralism, the Democrats'
 > document places the war on the world in terms that
 > are not much different
 > than the GOP's Project for a New American Century.
 > This one quote from the
 > forward says it all: "Democrats will maintain the
 > world's most capable and
 > technologically advanced military, and we will not
 > flinch from using it to
 > defend our interests anywhere in the world."
 >
 > So why are at least two of the primary antiwar
 > organizations in the United
 > States-MoveOn and United for Peace and Justice
 > (UFPJ) promoting the idea
 > that John Kerry in the White House will mark a
 > significant change in US
 > foreign policy, especially as it regards the war in
 > Iraq? Furthermore, why
 > are they joined by dozens of activist spokespeople,
 > antiwar entertainers
 > and other from the media world? Whether these groups
 > and people state
 > openly that US voters should vote for anyone but
 > Bush or whether they
 > tacitly encourage such an action, they are setting
 > up the millions of US
 > residents who sincerely oppose the war in Iraq and
 > want the troops out of
 > there now, not tomorrow.
 >
 > What to do, then? To me, the answer is actually
 > quite obvious. We need to
 > organize around a clear set of demands that reflect
 > a conscious
 > anti-imperialism. This means that we should not get
 > bogged down in
 > discussions about the United Nations or NATO, nor
 > should we fall for the
 > argument that a US presence in Iraq or Afghanistan
 > will bring democracy to
 > those countries. After all, it isn't democracy that
 > the United States wants
 > to install, it's capitalism. Why else is Washington
 > so keen on privatizing
 > every industry and service in Iraq that was
 > previously state-owned? If I
 > were to present a potential set of organizing
 > demands to a national antiwar
 > organization, they would read something like this:
 >
 > We demand:
 >
 > The US must begin the immediate and total withdrawal
 > from Iraq, and must
 > publicly set the date by which all US military
 > forces will be removed.
 >
 > An immediate cease-fire between US forces and those
 > in the Iraqi Resistance.
 >
 > An end to the imposition of Allawi and other
 > US-picked administrators on
 > the people of Iraq in order to insure their right to
 > self-determination,
 > and so that all political prisoners currently
 > incarcerated by the US and
 > its client regime can be released.
 >
 > We support:
 >
 > Elections in which all Iraqis can participate freely
 > without the presence
 > of any foreign troops, unless invited in by all
 > those Iraqis involved.
 >
 > The discussion of procedures to guarantee the safety
 > and political freedom
 > of those Iraqis who have collaborated with the US or
 > with the US-supported
 > regime.
 >
 > The incorporation of the freely elected Iraqi
 > government into the
 > international community on terms freely negotiated
 > by that government and
 > the appropriate international institutions.
 >
 > A similar set of demands could be applied to
 > Afghanistan, with some
 > tailoring to the situation in Afghanistan written
 > in.
 >
 > It is only when we in the antiwar movement decide to
 > go beyond the stunted
 > thinking of those in the US political and economic
 > leadership that we will
 > create the opportunity to end this murderous and
 > destructive war. The
 > politicians are unable to think in terms that
 > transcend their paymasters,
 > no matter how much they would like to. If we allow
 > the agenda to be set by
 > their politics and elections, we will fail. It is up
 > to us to create a
 > popular momentum that those in power cannot ignore.
 > Only then will they
 > feel secure enough to look beyond their corporate
 > masters and actually do
 > what the people want them to.
 >
 > Ron Jacobs is author of
 >
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1859841678/counterpunchmaga>The
 > Way
 > the Wind Blew: a history of the Weather Underground,
 > which is just
 > republished by Verso. Jacobs' essay on Big Bill
 > Broonzy is featured in
 > CounterPunch's new collection on music, art and sex,
 >
 >
<http://www.easycarts.net/ecarts/CounterPunch/CP_Books.html>Serpents
 > in the
 > Garden. He can be reached at:
 > <mailto:rjacobs at zoo.uvm.edu>rjacobs at zoo.uvm.edu
 >
 >
 > _______________________________________________
 > Peace-discuss mailing list
 > Peace-discuss at lists.cu.groogroo.com
 >
http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
 >

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.cu.groogroo.com
http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss

_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to 
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement