[Peace-discuss] Obama and the anti-war movement

[Ricky Baldwin]

OK, so that subject line's a little ambitious, but it
is the topic of the following comment I added to Jan's
article on our presence at Obama's visit.  

Jan thought my interaction with Obama's aide (below)
might be interesting for some folks because of
tonight's discussion, which I'm sorry I missed (I
think).  It sounds like the question of AWARE's
anti-racism work came up tonite - and I think part of
this conversation touches on that.

Also, I want to say that when I walked in (late as
usual) to AWARE's ongoing discussion last week, I had
mixed feelings.  On the one hand, I thought, why does
Tim Johnson (of all people) get off easier than Obama,
who was after all very critical of the war when it was
a plan that Johnson was supporting?  On the other
hand, everything in Carl's leaflet was true and needed
exposing if we are to stand on the principle that we
claim defines us: we oppose the war and think it
should stop now.  

But after seeing, hearing, talking to Obama and to his
aide, I was convinced that we had done the right thing
by being there.  I don't know if my reasons come
across...

Comment on Jan's article at www.ucimc.org:

This was a very educational event. Our senator has
obviously been at great pains to agree with the
growing anti-war sentiment in the country, even
identify with it, while backing away from the one
thing that we ask for: troops out now.

He has met with anti-war protesters at a few stops
now, including his recent birthday bash, and he seems
willing to spend quite a bit of time talking with us.
In public and in private. He says the invasion was
'stupid', he uses the word 'torture', and then he says
it's actually elements in the Democratic Party holding
him back -- which I don't doubt at all -- but he
opposes immediate withdrawal. And yes, even one of the
country's most famous peaceniks Tom Hayden, agrees.

Maybe electing these guys is tantamount to easing them
out of the peace movement.

But I also had a very enlightening conversation with
one of Obama's aides, who stayed after the senator had
to go in and give his speech.

I told the aide we have to get out of Iraq now, which
he said was "impossible." Of course it isn't
impossible - we just pack up and go. But then he asked
me if I would like to be "one of the last 100 guys
[sic]" in Iraq.

Of course I would not - but neither would I like to be
one of the dozen or more who may get blown up tomorrow
(or the next day, or the next, ...), or one of the
thousands who have already been killed there, or the
thousands more who are likely to die there, nor would
I like to be a poor truck driver from Mississippi
getting my head sawn off on the Internet... but what I
asked Obama's aide was, "Then how can we ever leave?
Someone would always be last."

And here is the crux of the whole dispute between the
out-nows and the wait-and-sees. The aide assured me
that we could leave once we have "stabilized" the
country. Yeah, the way we've "stabilized" it so far?
Man, if this is stabilizing, what the hell would
instability look like?

But here comes another good one. I argued that the
longer we stay, the more fire we draw. We can't set up
a "democratic" government, because everything we touch
in Iraq will have the taint of collaboration with
foreign occupation. (Even the Iraqis who were glad to
see us topple Saddam overwhelmingly reject the
occupation.) That's why they're blowing up Iraqi cops
-- because WE trained them... So the aide says,
somebody's got to train the police. I say, let the
Iraqis train them, they have facilities, they're a
civilized country.

"No they're not," he says.

I asked him again, just to be clear. "They are not a
civilized country," he said.

So this is the whole problem, the basic common ground
with the Bush Administration: they are not civilized,
that is, barbarians, and our job -- our CRUSADE -- is
to civilize them. Kipling called it "the white man's
burden". I don't what we call it now. The American
burden, I guess.

Would I rather have Obama in the Senate than that
nutcase they flew in to test the Illinois waters for
the GOP pollsters? Sure. And I have no doubt he'll do
a lot of good things there. But he won't stop this
idiotic war. He won't even speak up for calling it
off. Why?

"We have to win elections," he said. Which elections?
He won his hands down. He must be referring to a
higher calling...

But what's the point of winning elections? I kept
asking, as the aide walked away. If you choose your
positions in order to win elections, instead of the
other way around -- [instead of] running for office in
order to push for what's right and sane and important
as life and death -- then what is the point?

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com