[Peace-discuss] Peace Gauntlet @ Main & Neil Saturday August 4th

[C. G. Estabrook]

[The flyer to be distributed in the "Peace Gauntlet" is attached; the 
text is below.  --CGE]


AUGUST 4, 2007
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE WAR AND OCCUPATION

[1]  THE VOTERS GAVE THE DEMOCRATS CONTROL OF THE CONGRESS LAST FALL. 
WHY HAVEN'T THEY DONE SOMETHING TO END THE WAR, WHICH MOST AMERICANS OPPOSE?

	Our Senator Durbin is a member of Democratic party's leadership in the 
Senate.  He has been sympathetic on some domestic social issues, but he 
has not been out front on crucial matters of foreign policy. In 2005 he 
tearfully retracted his initially courageous statement about despicable 
U.S. treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo.  He is a team player on 
liberal wing of the Democratic party: his recent public statements have 
been an apology for the Senate Democrats' inaction on the war in Iraq. 
He has blithely dismissed the growing calls for the impeachment of the 
Cheney/Bush administration, as well as the demands that the Senate 
withhold funds for the launching of aggressive wars and a continuing 
occupation.
	He rejects these two steps, which could really end the Iraq war -- and 
reverse our nation's march towards militarism and empire. He and his 
Democratic colleagues have advocated only a modification of Bush's 
agenda, a policy which will only continue the bleeding of the war, in 
Iraq and elsewhere. He and the other Senate Democrats  claim they lack 
the votes to do anything more now, but that isn't so.  They can do much 
more that merely hope for a change, as the next election approaches, and 
more Republican senators come to see the light.
	In fact, both parties in Congress go along with the implications of 
Bush’s "war on terror” and both want American forces in Iraq to 
"stabilize" the situation, however much they seem to be embarrassed by 
American  behavior in the Middle East.  Both parties are staunch 
defenders of what are seen to be Israel's interests in the Middle East 
and all that entails. As for Iran, many Democrats like Clinton and Obama 
are belligerent, while others like Durbin are mute -- displaying either 
an astonishing nonchalance concerning possible plans by the current 
administration for an attack on Iran, or an unwillingness to oppose such 
plans.

[2]  WHAT, THEN, IS TO BE DONE?

	What Senator Durbin and others like him need to be told is that we're 
fed up with self-serving statements criticizing the administration.  We 
need a serious opposition with leaders who will raise hell about what's 
occurred -- a murderous invasion and occupation by a rogue American 
administration. The present desperate predicament and the crimes of this 
administration -- notably torture and illegal spying -- demand 
impeachment, demand stopping military appropriations for war and 
occupation, and demand that our representatives speak up to condemn this 
government's behavior. The Democrats who in the last fall's election 
were entrusted with the task of getting us out of the quagmire in Iraq 
are betraying their electorate.
	Norman Solomon has written, "A big media lie is that members of 
Congress are doing all they can when they try and fail to pass measures 
that would impose a schedule for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. 
The Constitution gives Congress the power to pay for war -- and to stop 
a war by refusing to appropriate money for it. Every vote to pay for 
more war is soaked with blood."
	What is holding congressional Democrats back from effective action to 
stop this war and occupation is that they agree with the administration 
and their supporters that it is in “our” national interest to control 
the Middle East -- despite the wishes of almost three-quarters of 
Americans (and the vast majority of Iraqis) that the occupation be 
brought to an end.  Yet the Democratic party wishes to paint itself as 
anti-war in order to pacify a clearly anti-war electorate. The result is 
a striking failure of our democracy -- the expressed will of most of the 
American people is being hypocritically flouted.

[3]  SO, WHAT CAN WE EXPECT?
	
	The cards seem to be stacked against true progress in ending the 
American occupation and our government's general belligerence on the 
world scene. There may be cosmetic changes to our policy in Iraq and 
some corrections to the most conspicuously repressive domestic actions 
of this administration, such as the denial of habeas corpus and the 
Patriot Act, but we can expect to be saddled with some form of the 
current policy into the indefinite future, unless there is some truly 
vociferous international opposition. Otherwise, it will take a strong 
and serious outpouring here at home, a kind of revolution, to change the 
present direction of the administration.  The organized anti-war 
movement alone is not sufficient to threaten our government's 
viciousness.  That will require millions protesting in the streets 
across America.
	Furthermore, there is a deeper, systemic problem: the structure of our 
government and its electoral processes, and the pernicious influence of 
corporations and other financially powerful lobbyists, perpetuate a 
Congress beholden to their interests.  Aside from lonely voices such as 
Rep. Dennis Kucinich, essentially ostracized among the Democrats, and 
Rep. Ron Paul, treated similarly by the Republicans, real opposition to 
the war has not been heard in Congress.

[4]  BUT CONGRESS SEEMS TO BE MOVING TOWARDS WITHDRAWAL .

	[From Mahir Ali.]  One is tempted to view this as progress. It 
seemingly feeds into the assumption that even if the occupation is 
maintained for the remaining eighteen months of the Bush-Cheney regime, 
it will be dismantled shortly afterwards. But a closer look at the 
position of the Democratic Party and the supposedly antiwar Republicans 
proves disconcerting, because almost no one among the political class 
favours a complete withdrawal. They want the Iraqi army to take over 
combat operations, with a smaller contingent of U.S. forces providing 
training and back-up, and keeping Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia at bay.
	This isn’t all that different from what appears to be the Bush 
administration’s Plan B: cutting the U.S. presence in Iraq by about half 
and retreating into well-guarded bases, from where air strikes and 
ground missions can be launched at will. This belated semi-exit strategy 
cannot work, not least because the remaining troops will continue to be 
perceived as an occupation army.
	The American desire for permanent military bases in the region has 
widely been recognized, since the Kuwait crisis led to the first Gulf 
war sixteen years ago, and the Australian defence minister, Brendan 
Nelson, recently offered official confirmation of a primary premise of 
the Iraq invasion when he stated that his country backed the U.S. 
because of the need to secure energy supplies. Most Arabs have never 
been under any illusion on this score. As enduring symbols of a hated 
occupation, long-term bases will inevitably be targeted. The Americans 
will retaliate, and after a few months the question of a surge will rear 
its grotesque head once more.

[5]  WHAT WILL IT TAKE TO END THE OCCUPATION?

	[From Anthony Arnove.]  I think it will take much more pressure at home 
and also within the rank and file of the U.S. military in Iraq.  We have 
to take advantage of the cracks that are opening within the 
establishment to campaign vocally and publicly against the war, 
involving greater numbers of the people and communities affected by the 
war at home -- which has gone hand in hand with the war against the 
Iraqi people.
	We need to put pressure on both the Democrats and Republicans, and not 
simply collapse into a lobbying wing for the Democratic Party.  There 
will be immense pressure on the antiwar movement to give up its 
independence and get behind whatever candidate the Democrats put forward 
in 2008, no matter what their limitations. People will tell us this is 
how we can be relevant.
	I think the antiwar movement would be irrelevant, though, if we did 
this. We’ll be much more effective if we articulate our own principles 
and demands -- including immediate withdrawal -- and fight for them.
	And we also need to defend and support those soldiers who in greater 
numbers are speaking out, refusing service, declaring conscientious 
objection and, at great personal risk, organizing against the war...

This flyer was prepared by members of AWARE (Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort 
<http://www.anti-war.net/>), a local Champaign-Urbana peace group.  We 
meet every Sunday 5-6:30pm in the basement of the old post office in 
Urbana. Visitors and new members are welcome.

	* * *

A national “March for Peace” will bring two young cross-country walkers 
through Champaign-Urbana on Friday, August 10. Their protest against the 
war began in San Francisco; Washington DC is their destination.  Join 
the walk through our cities.  Video of the marchers explaining their 
trip is at <http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=588335>; a map of the 
route is at < http://www.marchforpeace.info>.

	###
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: flyer-aug4.rtf
Type: text/rtf
Size: 15942 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20070803/870ff742/flyer-aug4-0001.rtf