[Peace-discuss] When is now?

[C. G. Estabrook]

[During Clinton's administration, he asked us to consider
"what the meaning of 'is' is."  During the Bush
administration, we're apparently supposed to consider what the
meaning of "now" is now.  The following is from the
interesting blog <lefti.blogspot.com>.  The Tom Hayden
referred to was the principal author of the Port Huron
Statement, the founding document of Students for a Democratic
Society, more than forty years ago.  --CGE]


I just got an email from the Progressive Democrats of America
urging me to sign "A People's Petition for an Iraq Peace
Process", something Tom Hayden wrote(?)/has been advocating. I
won't be signing it.

Here's point two of the petition:

    "The U.S. government must set goals for ending the
occupation and bringing all our troops home - in months, not
years, beginning with an initial withdrawal of troops by the
end of this year."

The "end of this year" is 4 1/2 months away, and that's when
they propose an "initial" withdrawal of troops"? When they say
"months, not years" to bring "all our troops home," what do
they have in mind exactly? 36 months? 48 months? 96 months?

Much of the rest of the petition is of a piece with that.
Let's take a look:

"First, as a confidence-building measure, the U.S. government
must declare that it has no interest in permanent military
bases or the control of Iraqi oil or other resources." Only
someone with unjustified faith in the goodness of the U.S.
government would care a fig what the U.S. government
"declares." The U.S. government breaks treaties whenever it
suits it, its invasion of Iraq in contravention of the United
Nations Charter being perhaps the most relevant example. A
"declaration" isn't even worth that much.

"Third, the U.S. government must request that the United
Nations monitor the process of military disengagement and
de-escalation, and organize a peaceful reconstruction effort."
Unfortunately, since the U.N. has shown no inclination to get
involved, and since other countries are decommitting forces to
Iraq rather than committing them, the likelihood of this
happening is small, and certainly is in direct contradiction
to the "month, not years" proposal.

"Fourth, the U.S. government should appoint a peace envoy
independent of the occupation authorities to underscore its
commitment to an entirely different mission." Sure, how about
John Bolton? Again, the PDA shows that its illusions in the
U.S. government know no bounds. If you want a "peace envoy
independent of the occupation authorities" (with what
authority is entirely unclear), how about letting Switzerland
appoint the person? Or Norway? Or anyone in the world except
the U.S. government. Not that it would amount to anything anyway.

"Fifth, the peace envoy should encourage and cooperate in
talks with Iraqi groups opposed to the occupation, including
insurgents, to explore a political settlement. The settlement
must include representation of opposition forces and parties,
and power-sharing and the protection of women's rights as core
principles of governance and economic and energy development."
No "U.S.-appointed envoy", or anyone in the world other than
the Iraqis themselves, has the slightest right to be telling
the Iraqis that "representation of opposition forces" and
"protection of women's rights" etc. must be included in any
"settlement." Of course I am for those things. But what I am
for doesn't matter. The U.S. should just get out now, period.
It didn't have the right to determine Iraq's future in the
first place, and having begun to do so (by overthrowing its
government) doesn't give it a continuing right to do so; it
has no more rights in Iraq than it ever did.

What a crock.

[Interestingly, as I'm writing this critique, I'm suddenly
listening to Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! interviewing Tom
Hayden pitching this nonsense. Unfortunately no one was on to
debate these "principles" with Hayden. Goodman asked listeners
to send their reactions to Hayden's proposals to
mail at democracynow.org. Feel free to join me in doing so.]

...

When "Now" means "Now"

I wrote this morning about Tom Hayden and his "People's
Petition for an Iraq Peace Plan." As I was finishing that
post, he was just coming on Democracy Now! Here's one of the
things Hayden had to say:

    AMY GOODMAN: Tom Hayden, just one question on the issue of
withdrawal, for clarification. In terms of a timetable, again,
just reiterate what it is that you're saying. There are those
who are saying now, withdraw now. What is your stance?

    TOM HAYDEN: We went around and around on this. We think
we're being stuck by the President and by the media on this
issue of now, because it implies, like, in five minutes. It's
absurd. The whole point about now is now make a decision to
get out.

So, Tom Hayden thinks that it's "absurd" for "now" to mean
"now," and that really "now" means "let's decide now," not
"let's leave now."

Earlier tonight I was at an ANSWER meeting, watching a video
filmed by Gloria LaRiva at a rally at "Camp Casey" in
Crawford, Texas on Saturday. At that rally, Cindy Sheehan
delivered a rousing speech to 600 or so supporters,
culminating in a call for troops to be withdrawn "now." And
for Sheehan, "now" means "now" - before one more American
soldier is killed, before one more Iraqi is killed by an
American, before one more mother joins her in a lifetime of
grief. The crowd, who responded to Sheehan's cry of "out now"
with a series of loud "nows" of their own, clearly agreed.

Let me briefly talk about "why now?" before I return to answer
Tom Hayden's question of "how now?" I've explained my
reasoning in words before, as in the linked post below, so let
me try an analogy. When you have a bull in a china shop
breaking all the china, the proper response is not to ask the
bull to repair the damage! The first thing to do is to get the
bull out of the shop (not "make a decision" to get the bull
out sometime in the future!). After you do that, you worry
about repairing the damage, and getting the bull's owner to
pay for them.

Now let me turn to the other question - is it "absurd" to
think that "now" means "now"? Hayden uses the figure of five
minutes. Yes, all American troops cannot be physically off the
soil of Iraq five minutes from now. But here's something they
could do five minutes from now, or five seconds from now -
stop firing! Cease all offensive actions, all bombing, and
tank firings, and so on. Interestingly enough, that simple
proposal is not one of the five points in Hayden's petition.

Now after that, how quickly could 140,000 or so American
troops leave Iraq? Let me pose a simple, if somewhat morbid,
question. What if a nuclear bomb exploded over Iraq tomorrow,
and a mushroom cloud of dangerous radiation was spreading over
the whole country? How soon do you suppose the U.S. could get
its troops out of harm's way? (Assume they're not concerned
about the Iraqis - oh wait, it's not an assumption) Do you
suppose they would be talking about "months"? I shouldn't
think so. The fact is, every single member of the coalition
forces, and every single mercenary in their employ, could be
living in Kuwait in a tent by the end of this week, if they
chose to do so. Sure, it would take a few weeks, or maybe a
few months, to ferry them all home by boat or plane, although
surely all those coalition partners and others like Russia
could pitch in with their own ships and planes to help the
task. Let's ask another question -- how long did it take
140,000 (or whatever the number was) of American and British
soldiers to enter Iraq? Days is the answer, not months. And
it's not "absurd" to think they could leave in exactly the
same time. Cindy Sheehan, who hasn't been politically active
for her whole life like Tom Hayden, understands that
completely. It's too bad Tom Hayden doesn't, and chooses to
call those of us who do "absurd".

   ###