[Peace-discuss] Almost anti-war...

[C. G. Estabrook]

The point is, Dan, that those opposed to the war are *not* on
the same side as some self-styled "progressives" like
MoveOn.org, Barack Obama, etc.  These latter are not really
opposed to the war -- they're just opposed to Republicans'
running the war.  

As Cindy Sheehan has pointed out, you're either for the end of
the war or for its continuance (or even for its expansion into
Iran, as both Obama and MoveOn are).  She makes it clear that
groups like MoveOn are not just "moving too slowly and
cautiously" but are going in the wrong direction, and that
should be exposed and rejected.  That's not a matter of
"purity" but of course.

There was at least one local incident when MoveOn folks tried
to prevent the large AWARE casualty photos from being
displayed at a demonstration.  These people and liberals like
Obama are not allies -- they're Trojan hobby-horses, perhaps.
We'd do much better to notice that many people opposed in
principle to war (and not just expediently) consider
themselves to belong to other parts of the political spectrum
(the paleo-conservatives, for example). 

Towards the end of the Vietnam War, it was fashionable in the
academy for faculty to proclaim themselves "anti-war
radicals," when of course they never had been.  As public
opinion in the US turns firmly against this war, we're seeing
something of the same phenomenon.  But what MoveOn and Obama
are doing isn't that innocent.  

Regards, Carl


---- Original message ----
>Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 10:08:14 -0500
>From: "Dan Schreiber" <dan at sourcegear.com>  
>Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Almost anti-war...  
>To: "'C. G. Estabrook'" <galliher at uiuc.edu>, "'Peace
Discuss'" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>
>It baffles me why energy is spent fighting and attacking
organizations that,
>in the end, are mostly on the same side.  Shouldn't that
energy be spent on
>making the case to the wider public against attacking Iran?
>
>This essay is angry and vitriolic about MoveOn because they
are ... moving
>too slowly and cautiously?  Not democractic enough for the
author?  How in
>the world does this translate into the possibility that they are
>intentionally subverting the anti-war movement?  That's crazy.
>
>If we spend our time attacking each other for not being pure
enough in our
>causes, we dilute our effort in affecting the change we want
to see.
>
>Dan
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net
[mailto:peace-discuss-
>> bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C. G. Estabrook
>> Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 7:44 PM
>> To: Peace Discuss
>> Subject: [Peace-discuss] Almost anti-war...
>> 
>> [Hesitancy at best (subversion at worst) in the anti-war
movement is
>> described by <http://amleft.blogspot.com/>.  --CGE]
>> 
>> ... as Norman Solomon observes, MoveOn.org remains unwilling to
>> oppose anything other than a nuclear attack. Here's the
weak response
>> that Solomon received when he inquired about it:
>> 
>>      "A response came on April 13 from Eli Pariser,
executive director
>> of MoveOn. Here is his three-paragraph reply in its entirety:
>> 
>>      'As you know, our focus is on bringing people together
around
>> points of consensus. We build our advocacy agenda through
dialogue with
>> our members. Since we haven't done any work around Iran
thus far, we saw
>> the prospect of a nuclear attack as a good way to begin that
>> conversation -- something everyone can agree was nuts.
>> 
>>      'As I mention in the ["Don't Nuke Iran"] email, a
conventional
>> attack poses many of the same risks as a nuclear one. But
just as our
>> Iraq campaign started with a position that attracted a
broad membership
>> -- "Ask Tough Questions," in August 2002 -- and then
escalated, so we're
>> trying here to engage folks beyond the "peace" community in
a national
>> discussion about the consequences of war.
>> 
>>      'We wouldn't have had the membership to be able to run
ads calling
>> for an Iraq exit today if we'd confined our Iraq campaign
to the true
>> believers from the very beginning.'"
>> 
>> In other words, MoveOn.org had to wait until thousands more
Iraqis were
>> killed, thousands more detained and tortured, while corporados
>> associated with the Bush Administration looted the country
for billions
>> before it could take a stand in support of ending the
occupation, and
>> should pursue a similarly ponderous discussion about Iran
without
>> urgency. But such an analysis naively takes a disingenuous
reply at face
>> value. Solomon asserts, probably accurately, that the
overwhelming
>> majority of MoveOn.org members oppose military action
against Iran.
>> 
>> So, what we really have here is the effort of the
self-described
>> MoveOn.org Political Action Team to stall, to avoid taking
a principled
>> stand, as a means of relieving pressure on congressional
Democrats,
>> until it can no longer be avoided, as they previously did
to evade an
>> open declaration against the occupation. It was a rather
strange
>> coincidence, they apparently came out against the occupation as
>> congressional Democrats began to openly consider a phased
withdrawal
>> from Iraq. Indeed, I can't even confidently say when it
happened, the
>> announcement gently brushed the public consciousness, most
assuredly
>> lacking the Zen-like prospect of transformation associated
with a
>> butterfly moving its wings.
>> 
>> Yet again, instead of providing leadership, the "action
team" is
>> actually an impediment, a barrier that MoveOn.org members
must overcome
>> to have their true opinion expressed. There is an old
saying, "History
>> repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce." In this
instance, we
>> can more accurately say, "History repeats itself, ever more
>> ludicrously." People with even longer memories about the
mendacity of
>> MoveOn.org recall how it created a safe harbor for
congressional
>> Democrats before the Iraq war, by stating that the war was
wrong, unless
>> authorized by a UN resolution.
>> 
>> By doing so, MoveOn.org accomplished two critical
objectives: (1)
>> allowing congressional Democrats to support the war in the
unlikely
>> event that Bush obtained a UN resolution; and, more
importantly, (2)
>> allowing congressional Democrats to engage in the
hypocritical display
>> of supporting the occupation as a purportedly grim
necessity while
>> parading their pre-war credentials of opposition. As
already noted,
>> MoveOn.org members eventually rebelled against such
transparently
>> cynical politics, but it took a long time for them to
overcome the
>> political manipulation of the "action team", if they did so
at all,
>> given the yellow light of cautious approval from
congressional Democrats
>> for a change in policy.
>> 
>> Hence, with Iran, we hear the same nonsense, MoveOn.org
needs to educate
>> and consult. A national discussion is needed. Nonsense, because
>> MoveOn.org is clearly an organization run from the top
down, purveying
>> the illusion of mass participation. Liberals love to bash
ANSWER as some
>> kind of Maoist/Stalinist/Trotyskite vanguardist
organization (an
>> organization with which I have had no personal experience,
being
>> philosophically more of an anti-globalization, direct
action type), but
>> isn't it odd that they have no problem with MoveOn.org, an
organization
>> that actually operates consistent with such an approach?
Meanwhile,
>> let's hope that we don't live through the entirety of an
>> incomprehensibly violent war in the Middle East, provoked by
>> conventional airstrikes upon Iran, before MoveOn.org
completes the
>> charade of a "national discussion".
>> 
>> 	###

---- Original message ----
>Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 10:08:14 -0500
>From: "Dan Schreiber" <dan at sourcegear.com>  
>Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Almost anti-war...  
>To: "'C. G. Estabrook'" <galliher at uiuc.edu>, "'Peace
Discuss'" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>
>It baffles me why energy is spent fighting and attacking
organizations that,
>in the end, are mostly on the same side.  Shouldn't that
energy be spent on
>making the case to the wider public against attacking Iran?
>
>This essay is angry and vitriolic about MoveOn because they
are ... moving
>too slowly and cautiously?  Not democractic enough for the
author?  How in
>the world does this translate into the possibility that they are
>intentionally subverting the anti-war movement?  That's crazy.
>
>If we spend our time attacking each other for not being pure
enough in our
>causes, we dilute our effort in affecting the change we want
to see.
>
>Dan
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net
[mailto:peace-discuss-
>> bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C. G. Estabrook
>> Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 7:44 PM
>> To: Peace Discuss
>> Subject: [Peace-discuss] Almost anti-war...
>> 
>> [Hesitancy at best (subversion at worst) in the anti-war
movement is
>> described by <http://amleft.blogspot.com/>.  --CGE]
>> 
>> 
>> On Thursday, I observed how United for Peace and Justice
was sponsoring
>> a major antiwar rally without mentioning Iran. On Friday, I
received an
>> e-mail message from UFPJ, as did many others. It explained
UFPJ's
>> position on the proposed war against Iran, as set forth on
the UFPJ
>> website:
>> 
>>      "United for Peace and Justice opposes any military
action against
>> Iran, as well as covert action and sanctions. We reject the
doctrine of
>> 'preventive war.'  All diplomatic solutions must be pursued.
>> 
>>      "Send a clear message to the Bush Administration:
Don't Attack
>> Iran! As a first and immediate step, we urge you to add
your signature
>> and comments to AfterDowningStreet's petition to President
Bush and
>> Vice-President Cheney opposing an attack on Iran.
>> 
>>      "Many UFPJ member groups, including
AfterDowningStreet, Gold Star
>> Families for Peace, CodePINK: Women for Peace, Progressive
Democrats of
>> America, Democracy Rising, and others, are all promoting
this petition.
>> UFPJ encourages you to circulate this message and help
expand the
>> growing list of signers.
>> 
>>      "Efforts to resolve any dispute with Iran should
include promoting
>> negotiations -- including Israel -- on a Weapons of Mass
Destruction
>> Free Zone in the Middle East. We call for the global
elimination of
>> nuclear weapons. The United States should stop blocking
negotiations on
>> abolition and demonstrate leadership by taking steps to
fulfill its own
>> nuclear disarmament obligation. We call for the development and
>> promotion of sustainable energy alternatives. We need to
stop going to
>> war for oil. And we need to address climate change. But
nuclear power is
>> not the answer: Every nuclear power plant is a potential
bomb factory
>> and a source of radioactive waste that will remain deadly
forever.
>> Additional Iran resources and action items will be
available shortly on
>> the UFPJ website. And, be sure to join us in New York on
April 29 in the
>> national March for Peace, Justice and Democracy."
>> 
>> And, UFPJ confronts some of the underlying assumptions that
are used to
>> justify a "preemptive attack":
>> 
>>      "An attack on Iran would be an act of aggression,
barred by the UN
>> Charter and prosecuted at Nuremberg. If executed, U.S.
military action
>> would apply the Bush doctrine of 'preventive' war in an
unprecedented
>> way that would set the template for years or decades of
regional and
>> global violence, unrestrained by law. U.S. use of nuclear
weapons
>> against Iran would be an atrocious act violating the
existing near taboo
>> that has held since the U.S. devastation of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki. That
>> would in turn make it far more likely that the weapons will
be used
>> elsewhere as well -- including against cities in the U.S.
>> 
>>      "While Washington accuses Iran of seeking nuclear
weapons under
>> cover of a civilian nuclear power program, in violation of its
>> obligations as a non-nuclear nation under the Nuclear
Nonproliferation
>> Treaty (NPT), the U.S. is itself in blatant violation of
its own NPT
>> obligation to eliminate its vast and sophisticated nuclear
arsenal.
>> There is no evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons
program. The U.S.,
>> however, retains a nuclear arsenal of more than 10,000
weapons, some
>> 2,000 on hair-trigger alert. With nearly 500 tactical
nuclear weapons
>> deployed in 6 NATO countries, the U.S. is the only country
with nuclear
>> weapons deployed on foreign soil. And the U.S. is
modernizing its
>> existing nuclear weapons and publicly making plans to
develop and
>> produce new ones."
>> 
>> Meanwhile, as Norman Solomon observes, MoveOn.org remains
unwilling to
>> oppose anything other than a nuclear attack. Here's the
weak response
>> that Solomon received when he inquired about it:
>> 
>>      "A response came on April 13 from Eli Pariser,
executive director
>> of MoveOn. Here is his three-paragraph reply in its entirety:
>> 
>>      'As you know, our focus is on bringing people together
around
>> points of consensus. We build our advocacy agenda through
dialogue with
>> our members. Since we haven't done any work around Iran
thus far, we saw
>> the prospect of a nuclear attack as a good way to begin that
>> conversation -- something everyone can agree was nuts.
>> 
>>      'As I mention in the ["Don't Nuke Iran"] email, a
conventional
>> attack poses many of the same risks as a nuclear one. But
just as our
>> Iraq campaign started with a position that attracted a
broad membership
>> -- "Ask Tough Questions," in August 2002 -- and then
escalated, so we're
>> trying here to engage folks beyond the "peace" community in
a national
>> discussion about the consequences of war.
>> 
>>      'We wouldn't have had the membership to be able to run
ads calling
>> for an Iraq exit today if we'd confined our Iraq campaign
to the true
>> believers from the very beginning.'"
>> 
>> In other words, MoveOn.org had to wait until thousands more
Iraqis were
>> killed, thousands more detained and tortured, while corporados
>> associated with the Bush Administration looted the country
for billions
>> before it could take a stand in support of ending the
occupation, and
>> should pursue a similarly ponderous discussion about Iran
without
>> urgency. But such an analysis naively takes a disingenous
reply at face
>> value. Solomon asserts, probably accurately, that the
overwhelming
>> majority of MoveOn.org members oppose military action
against Iran.
>> 
>> So, what we really have here is the effort of the
self-described
>> MoveOn.org Political Action Team to stall, to avoid taking
a principled
>> stand, as a means of relieving pressure on congressional
Democrats,
>> until it can no longer be avoided, as they previously did
to evade an
>> open declaration against the occupation. It was a rather
strange
>> coincidence, they apparently came out against the occupation as
>> congressional Democrats began to openly consider a phased
withdrawal
>> from Iraq. Indeed, I can't even confidently say when it
happened, the
>> announcement gently brushed the public consciousness, most
assuredly
>> lacking the Zen-like prospect of transformation associated
with a
>> butterfly moving its wings.
>> 
>> Yet again, instead of providing leadership, the "action
team" is
>> actually an impediment, a barrier that MoveOn.org members
must overcome
>> to have their true opinion expressed. There is an old
saying, "History
>> repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce." In this
instance, we
>> can more accurately say, "History repeats itself, ever more
>> ludicrously." People with even longer memories about the
mendacity of
>> MoveOn.org recall how it created a safe harbor for
congressional
>> Democrats before the Iraq war, by stating that the war was
wrong, unless
>> authorized by a UN resolution.
>> 
>> By doing so, MoveOn.org accomplished two critical
objectives: (1)
>> allowing congressional Democrats to support the war in the
unlikely
>> event that Bush obtained a UN resolution; and, more
importantly, (2)
>> allowing congressional Democrats to engage in the
hypocritical display
>> of supporting the occupation as a purportedly grim
necessity while
>> parading their pre-war credentials of opposition. As
already noted,
>> MoveOn.org members eventually rebelled against such
transparently
>> cynical politics, but it took a long time for them to
overcome the
>> political manipulation of the "action team", if they did so
at all,
>> given the yellow light of cautious approval from
congressional Democrats
>> for a change in policy.
>> 
>> Hence, with Iran, we hear the same nonsense, MoveOn.org
needs to educate
>> and consult. A national discusssion is needed. Nonsense,
because
>> MoveOn.org is clearly an organization run from the top
down, purveying
>> the illusion of mass participation. Liberals love to bash
ANSWER as some
>> kind of Maoist/Stalinist/Trotyskite vanguardist
organization (an
>> organization with which I have had no personal experience,
being
>> philosophically more of an anti-globalization, direct
action type), but
>> isn't it odd that they have no problem with MoveOn.org, an
organization
>> that actually operates consistent with such an approach?
Meanwhile,
>> let's hope that we don't live through the entirety of an
>> incomprehensibly violent war in the Middle East, provoked by
>> conventional airstrikes upon Iran, before MoveOn.org
completes the
>> charade of a "national discussion".
>> 
>> 	###
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Peace-discuss mailing list
>Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss