[Peace-discuss] Re: ... Cost of Iraq War
C. G. Estabrook
galliher at uiuc.edu
Wed Aug 15 22:49:12 CDT 2007
Bob, didn't you organize a demonstration protesting Bush's veto of the
Democrats' bill funding the war?
My memory is that at that demonstration you and I discussed supporting
that bill. I said that we should urge our representatives not to vote
for any further funding for the war, and you said that you'd like to do
that -- but couldn't for reasons of effectiveness: that it was more
effective to attach timelines, etc. to funding bills.
I don't think it's one argument. There are many reasons for opposing
the Iraq war, some good, some bad. The latter would include the Richard
Clarke/Barack Obama arguments that the troops should be used for killing
different Muslims.
I nevertheless agree that it can be worthwhile to work with groups and
individuals whose views on the war you don't entirely agree with. But
at least some of those differences should not be ignored, just for the
sake of a united front. Given the vast forest of lies that is the
American political landscape, we should try to tell the truth about our
politics. I hope trying to do that is the source of my "inevitable
attacks."
The author of amleft.blog.com this week discusses "Michael O'Hanlon and
Kenneth Pollock, those purported Brookings Institution critics of the
war who discovered that, gosh golly, the surge is really working, and
the war is turning in our favor." He notes that, "contrary to the public
reaction, the purpose here is not to legitimize Bush policy, but rather,
to justify the hawkish Iraq views of nearly all of the Democratic
presidential candidates, with the exception of Kucinich and Richardson
[and Gravel]. In other words, as bad as Bush has been, the US is on the
verge of victory if we just follow the wiser counsel of a Democratic
president like Hillary or Obama. Hence, the creation of a phony antiwar
advocacy group by MoveON.org and the Service Employees International
Union, Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, to forestall calls for
immediate withdrawal."
I think the well-funded MoveON/AAEI campaign ($6.9 million from DNC
contributors for "Iraqi Summer" alone I understand) is much more an
attempt to make the war go away as an issue for the Democratic party
than it is to end the war (much less to effect a complete withdrawal).
But that doesn't mean that real antiwar groups shouldn't have anything
to do with them. (AWARE got some good signs from AAEI for free.)
I also agree that "Making a small contribution to ending the war is the
most we can usually expect of any particular action that we might take."
Whether a given action does that is of course a prudential decision,
but I'm not sure the "moral choice" is as "simple" as you suggest. "Will
attending this event likely contribute, in some small way, towards
ending the war" in the sense that Clinton and Obama are now talking of
"ending the war" -- i.e., continuing the US policy of occupation and
control of the Middle East?
If so, I don't think we should contribute. But it may be even more
important to talk openly about what the anti-war movement should be
doing and why. --CGE
Robert Naiman wrote:
>
> Nothing in the event tomorrow will argue for, or in any way support,
> funding the war. I have never done so, and will never do so in the future.
>
> I harbor no belief that invoking the cost is the "best" argument, either
> in a moral or a practical sense. Nor, in fact, do I harbor a belief that
> there is any "best" argument. It is one argument. Different arguments
> for ending the war many move different people, either to opposition, or
> to intensify opposition, or to take more action on opposition. Different
> arguments may, at different times, capture the attention of news media,
> which is an important objective, although obviously not the only one.
>
> I don't feel I have to support or defend every word, image, metaphor, or
> argument that comes out of MoveOn, or any other organization, in order
> to make the decision to help organize an event sponsored by MoveOn or
> any other organization. For me, it's a simple moral calculation. MoveOn
> sets up these events across the country. One can help them happen or
> not. More events are good. More people find out about opposition to the
> war as a result of these events, and may be moved to take more actions.
> Press may come tomorrow. They may not. New people may feel addressed -
> we're holding the event at King School, a place where no such event has
> been held in the past, to my knowledge. One has to try, it seems to me,
> without guarantees of spectacular success - that seems obvious.
>
> Similarly, it seems to me, most folks receiving my appeal to attend the
> event tomorrow - if they are not otherwise obligated by a job or
> something - face a simple moral choice. Will attending this event likely
> contribute, in some small way, towards ending the war? Making a small
> contribution to ending the war is the most we can usually expect of any
> particular action that we might take.
>
> In general, I've thought it was not in the best interest of humanity to
> respond to Carl's attacks - it takes time and energy, time and energy
> which I think I could more productively spend elsewhere - and I intend
> to generally ignore Carl's apparently inevitable attacks in the future.
> But I decided to make an exception to my rule in this case. I may very
> well regret it - live and learn.
>
> On 8/15/07, *C. G. Estabrook* <galliher at uiuc.edu
> <mailto:galliher at uiuc.edu>> wrote:
>
> It's certainly worthwhile to organize opposition to the war, but is this
> the best argument to use? Are people really going to change their minds
> about the war because it's costing too much?
>
> More importantly, if the war is just, then the US (which can afford it)
> should be paying the price to wage it. But if it's not, then we
> shouldn't be paying for at all.
>
> I don't think the problem is that the US is caught in an "unwinnable
> civil war." It's that we committed a great crime by launching the war
> (the same crime for which the German leaders were hanged after WWII) and
> that we continue the crime by continuing the war.
>
> The solution is not to urge our representatives to vote for a bill that
> continues funding the war while "forc[ing the president] to accept real
> timelines to bring our troops home quickly," even if such a thing is
> possible. It's to demand that our represetnatives not vote for any
> funding for this war or for the larger policy of which it is a
> part. --CGE
>
> Robert Naiman wrote:
> > Just Foreign Policy is co-sponsoring this event together with the
> > National Priorities Project.
> > Please come and spread the word.
> > ----
> > Dear MoveOn Member,
> >
> > Did you know that we've already spent more than $456 BILLION on
> the war
> > so far?1 And that it's cost each American household more than
> $4,100?2
> > We've learned that when we remind voters of the costs of the Iraq
> > war--and all the important priorities that we can't afford because of
> > it--they're more likely to push Congress to end the war quickly.
> >
> > So MoveOn members are holding a news conference on Thursday in
> Urbana to
> > release a new report on what the war has cost your area. They
> still need
> > a few more folks to come. Can you make it?
> >
> > Host: Bob N.--fellow MoveOn member
> > Where: King School, Fairview at Goodwin, Urbana
> > When: Thursday, Aug 16 2007, 12:00 PM
> >
> > Sign up here:
> > http://political.moveon.org/event/reportrelease/39971
> > < http://political.moveon.org/event/reportrelease/39971>
> >
> > At a news conference like this, it really helps to have a crowd
> of 5-10
> > people--so it's clear in the TV coverage that folks are really
> concerned
> > about the cost of the war. We still need a few more folks to come
> to the
> > event in Urbana (because it's during the day, it's a little
> harder for
> > some people to make it). If you're free, the MoveOn members
> organizing
> > this event could really use your help.
> >
> > At the events, MoveOn members will hold a press conference for
> reporters
> > where we'll release the report, hear from speakers and take questions
> > from the media. Then, we'll deliver the report outlining what the
> war is
> > costing us to our representative's office so that Congress gets the
> > message: We want an end to this unwinnable civil war in Iraq and
> we want
> > it now.
> >
> > In September, General Petraeus is going to issue his report on Iraq.
> > Congress will then decide whether they're going to give the president
> > another blank check for endless war or whether they'll force him to
> > accept real timelines to bring our troops home quickly.
> >
> > So we're going all out this month to make sure Congress takes a stand
> > against this war and votes to bring our troops home in September.
> >
> > * First, we'll release these reports to remind Congress and the
> > media how outraged we are that we're dumping billions of dollars
> into a
> > religious civil war that just can't be won.
> > * Then, throughout the month, we'll work with our coalition
> partners
> > at Americans Against Escalation in Iraq to turn up the heat on
> pro-war
> > members of Congress in their home districts.
> > * We'll finish the month off strong right before Congress
> heads back
> > to D.C. On August 28th--National Take a Stand Day--we'll hold vigils
> > across the country.
> >
> > These events are just the first step--and we want to start out
> with a
> > bang. Can you make it on Thursday?
> >
> > Sign up here:
> > http://political.moveon.org/event/reportrelease/39971
> > < http://political.moveon.org/event/reportrelease/39971>
> >
> > Thanks for all you do.
> >
> > --Nita, Matt, Anna, Natalie and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team
> > Tuesday, August 14th, 2007
> > ...
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list