[Peace-discuss] Draft for flyer for August Main Event

[C. G. Estabrook]

[The text below is from a draft by Mort. A slightly formatted version is 
attached. Suggestions are welcome.  We'll try to avoid the unseemly 
hassle over whether the last flyer was an "official" AWARE statement by 
noting on this one that it was "Prepared by members of AWARE" -- which 
(in the words of Henry Kissinger) has "the added advantage of being 
true." --CGE]


		QUESTIONS ABOUT THE WAR AND OCCUPATION

[1]  THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY WON CONTROL OF THE CONGRESS LAST FALL.  WHY 
HAVEN'T THEY DONE SOMETHING ABOUT THE WAR, WHICH  A LARGE MAJORITY OF 
AMERICANS OPPOSE?

Our Senator Durbin is a member of Democratic party's leadership in the 
Senate.  He has been sympathetic on many domestic social issues, but he 
is not one to be out front on crucial issues. His tearful retraction 
some time ago from an initially courageous statement concerning 
despicable U.S. treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo can be cited as 
evidence. He is a team player on more liberal wing of the Democratic 
party. Recent public statements by the senator essentially amount to an 
apology for the Democratic positions in the Senate relative to the Iraq 
war. He has tended blithely to cast aside suggestions that impeachment 
initiatives against the Cheney/Bush administration are warranted --  or 
that the Senate has the power to withhold funds for military 
expenditures and the launching of aggressive wars.

He in effect rejects the two steps which could really end the Iraq war, 
not to speak of our nation's march towards militarism and empire. He and 
his Democratic colleagues have advocated only an incremental policy to 
slow Bush's agenda, a policy which will only continue the bleeding of 
the war, in Iraq and elsewhere. He and the Democratic leadership claim 
that the votes in Congress are lacking to do anything more now -- they 
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 -- but they do seem to be somewhat embarrassed 
by our behavior. Both parties are staunch defenders of Israel's 
interests in the Middle East and all that entails. As for Iran, as 
advocates of Israel, many like Obama and Clinton are belligerent, while 
others like Durbin are mute. We have here either an astonishing 
nonchalance concerning possible plans by the current administration or a 
lack of will to oppose such plans. In reassuring us that an attack on 
Iran would not be tolerated by Congress, they  grossly underplay the 
ability of the administration to sidestep Congress' ambiguous actions.

What is needed -- and what 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 militant opposition with leaders who will 
raise hell about what's occurred -- a murderous invasion and occupation 
by a rogue American administration. The present dire predicament and the 
actions of this administration demand impeachment, demand stopping 
military appropriations dedicated to war and occupation, and demand that 
our representatives condemn this government's behavior. The Democratic 
leadership which in the last  congressional election was entrusted to 
get us out of the Iraq quagmire is 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, with the administration and 
their supporters, see it to be  in “our” national interest to control 
the Middle East.  There is therefore little incentive to end the 
occupation of Iraq. Yet the Democratic party wishes to paint itself as 
anti-war in order to assuage 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.

[2] SO, WHAT CAN WE EXPECT?
	
	The cards seem to be stacked against true progress in ending the 
American occupation and its general belligerence on the world scene. 
There may be cosmetic changes to our policy in Iraq and some corrections 
to the most egregiously 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 massive and militant 
outpouring here at home, a kind of revolution, to change the present 
trend, and that is not likely unless some catastrophe intervenes to 
awaken the public, even fed up as it is. The organization of the 
anti-war movement is not sufficient to move our populace to really 
effective action so as to threaten the status quo. That would require 
millions protesting in the streets across America.
	
Furthermore, there  is a deeper, systemic problem: the structure of our 
government and its electoral processes, the pernicious influence of 
corporations and other financially powerful lobbyists, perpetuates 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.

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

One is tempted to view this as progress. It seemingly feeds into the 
assumption that even if the occupation is maintained for the remaining 
18 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 US 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 US 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 
16 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 US 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.
	--Mahir Ali, 
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=13321

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

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...
	--Anthony Arnove, 
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=13327


This flyer was prepared by members of AWARE (Anti-War Anti-Racism 
Effort), a local Champaign-Urbana peace group.
AWARE meets every Sunday 5-6:30pm in the basement of the IMC (the old 
post office in Urbana).
Visitors and new members are welcome.
http://www.anti-war.net/
August 4, 2007

	###