[Peace-discuss] Middle ages

[C. G. Estabrook]

A little attention to history might be a good idea, especially when the 
Republicans and Democrats want us to ignore the real history of the US 
in the Middle East.

In regard to what the Democrats are doing right now, there's an 
historical parallel that's instructive -- the election of 1968.  The US 
wars in SE Asia then and SW Asia now are quite different (for one thing, 
Iraq is far more important to the US than Vietnam ever was), but the US 
political parties are behaving now somewhat as they did forty years ago 
(in reversed positions).

As the 1968 election approached, US soldiers were killing and dying in a 
war that had begun with a US invasion five years before, and there was a 
vigorous anti-war movement, largely outside of (and a threat to) the 
party structure. (In fact, more Americans had died, and the anti-war 
movement wasn't as large, in 1967 as compared with 2007.) In the 
election, the candidate of the incumbent party (Democrat Hubert 
Humphrey) half-heartedly tried to distance himself from his party's war, 
because his opponent (Republican Richard Nixon) drew on opposition to 
the war by saying that it had been mismanaged and that he had a plan to 
end it.  When the "out" party was elected in 1968, they withdrew combat 
troops, redeployed, and called on the South Vietnamese government (which 
the US had installed) to live up to its responsibilities 
("Vietnamization") -- essentially the Democratic party plan for Iraq now 
-- and the killing went on at an even more horrendous rate for five more 
years.

The Democrats today are working quite hard to draw the anti-war movement 
back into "normal politics" (which will necessarily mean "critical 
support for US policy") -- co-options from the multi-million dollar 
"Iraqi Summer" to Durbin's phone call the other day.  There is a 
distressing number of people who seem to think that if we can just elect 
a "relatively good guy" president (Obama or Clinton, certainly not those 
nuts Kucinich or Gravel), instead of that megalomaniac in the While 
House, things will get better.  I remember that being said about Lyndon 
Johnson.

Anthony Arnove, in the article Mort suggested, seems to me to have some 
better advice:

"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."

--CGE


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.


n.dahlheim at mchsi.com wrote:

> Ordinary Democrats have been the backbone of the U.S. peace movement;
> Washington Democrats have had little to do with opposing the Bush
> agenda.  Heck, the Military Commissions Act which eviscerated HABEAS
> CORPUS was passed with substantial support from Democrats in
> Washington!!  Anti-war gestures by Washington Democrats are mere
> ploys and gestures without meaning.  Let's be slow to pat Dick Durbin
> on the back.  Carl is most definitely right in his harsh criticism
> of the Democrats.  Bush should have been impeached a long time ago,
> and a real 911 investigation would have been launched if the
> Democrats were a real opposition party (look what they did to Cynthia
> McKinney for speaking out).
> 
> 
> ----------------------  Original Message:  --------------------- 
> From:    <illyes at uiuc.edu> To:      peace-discuss at anti-war.net 
> Subject: [Peace-discuss] Middle ages Date:    Fri, 20 Jul 2007
> 04:30:23 +0000
> 
>> Yikes, we're back to the Middle Ages again, when Latin was king in
>> the universities. I am possibly as guilty as Carl, having snuck "ad
>> nauseam" into my comments on the mayhem on the peace list regarding
>> the CPRB, but a few things have happened since then, such as John
>> Locke, the American Revolution, and I guess you all can fill in the
>> rest.
>> 
>> I am more concerned with Carl's repeated condemnation of Democrats.
>> If you removed Democrats from the peace movement in America, you
>> wouldn't have a peace movement. If you removed Democrats from
>> Washington, the Constitution would be dead. Not that they defend it
>> admirably, but that the neocons and theocons have destroyed the
>> Republican party, and we need someone to throw up the barricades 
>> while we regroup. I have a lot of differences with Buchanan, but he
>> sees much of this clearly. I respect Durbin's efforts in
>> particular. He has been a strong voice against the excesses of the
>> Patriot Act. He is trying to get, and likely will get, hard
>> withdrawal deadlines. The rest is substantially up to us, citizens.
>>