[Peace-discuss] Neocon triumph
Morton K. Brussel
brussel at uiuc.edu
Thu Oct 25 23:16:10 CDT 2007
The antiwar movement represented by UFPJ, ANSWER, and other sponsors
would be happy if everyone protested and showed up at the regional
demonstrations, all ≈70% of the public who in polls indicated that
they were against the war. That would indeed make a necessary big
splash. If Democrats show up and speak and say that they are against
the war/occupation and for the removal of all US forces in Iraq
"now", that is good; I for one would not reject them. Would you? If
they equivocate, I expect that they will be repudiated. UGFJ, ANSWER
and other sponsors (not the Democratic party) have had unequivocal
positions against the wars/occupation/withdrawal, although they have
differed on strategy and had some ideological differences. I hope
this is an opportunity for Dem politicians who speak to be put on
notice…
It seems to me Carl that you take inordinate relish ofttimes in
condemning the "antiwar movement" because you claim it includes
Hillary, Pelosi, Obama, Edwards and other Dems. They may say they are
anti-war; we know their meretricious motives. I call that conflating…
On Oct 25, 2007, at 5:59 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> Uh, what about the substantial Democratic party presence in the
> Oct. 27 demo? The organizers have cast a wide net, but it's more
> inclusive to the right: adherents of the second side are cheerfully
> included.
>
> My point is not to conflate but distinguish the two. The work of
> the media and political establishment is to co-opt the anti-war
> movement for
> the "reasonable position." That's what the Clinton, Obama and
> Edwards campaigns are about. --CGE
>
>
> Morton K. Brussel wrote:
>> From my perspective, the major parties [UFPJ, ANSWER, Peace-
>> Action,…] in the real anti-war movement do /not/ include your
>> second "side", which in fact now seems to include most of the
>> American public. I do not consider the Dem leadership to be in the
>> anti-war movement. It seems as if your inclination is to conflate
>> the two. --mkb
>> On Oct 24, 2007, at 10:58 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>>> The important point about this article is that it properly
>>> descries, from a pro-war viewpoint, the fundamental split in what
>>> we far too hastily call the antiwar movement.
>>>
>>> On the one side are those who are saying (a) that the war is
>>> fundamentally wrong and immoral, not a mistake; (b) that the
>>> resistance is justified; and (c) the US military (and
>>> mercenaries) must be removed. On the other are those (including
>>> most of the Democrats) who say (a) the war was a blunder and was
>>> mismanaged, but (b) we can't allow the terrorists a victory, and
>>> so (c) the US military must withdraw only as some stability is
>>> achieved.
>>>
>>> These opinions are not diverse but contradictory. The real
>>> political argument in the country is over which one Americans
>>> will come to believe.
>>>
>>> Ricky quite rightly writes, "Nobody asks a mass murderer if he is
>>> 'winning' his killing spree. And nobody says, when someone breaks
>>> into their house and starts smashing up things and hurting
>>> people, well, he was dead wrong to invade, but now that he's
>>> there he can't just leave. No, we want the troops out now, and we
>>> should not support any candidate on the other side." --CGE
>>>
>>>
>>> Morton K. Brussel wrote:
>>>> ... The antiwar movement is aware of its weaknesses. Its diverse
>>>> elements suggest diverse solutions, which cannot be readily
>>>> effected. The "analysis" of the article is no help.
>>>>> ...
>>>>> This piece is intended to deflate the anti-war movement, and is
>>>>> written from the perspective of those who support present
>>>>> government policies. Its affirmations as to what the "people"
>>>>> want, and would accept may, /or may not,/ be valid. On Oct 24,
>>>>> 2007, at 10:31 AM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [The upmarket New York Sun assesses the antiwar movement. --CGE]
>>>>>
>>>>> End of a Movement
>>>>> BY ELI LAKE
>>>>> October 24, 2007
>>>>> URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/65135
>>>>>
>>>>> The People. United. Can in fact be defeated. Well not exactly,
>>>>> but this must be what America's anti-war movement is thinking
>>>>> as Congress and the president iron out the funding for the war
>>>>> with no danger of the Democrats attaching a withdrawal date to
>>>>> the bill. The Dems don't have the votes.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's enough to deflate the spirits of our nation's most
>>>>> hardened pacifists. Take Medea Benjamin, the leader of Code
>>>>> Pink, an association of mainly senior citizen women who dress
>>>>> up and shout slogans at Congressional war hearings. In an
>>>>> interview in the current issue of Mother Jones, Ms. Benjamin
>>>>> said that she doubted that the troops would be withdrawn even
>>>>> within a year's time. "Well, I think it's kind of silly to talk
>>>>> about it because it's just not going to happen," she said. Code
>>>>> Pink now is hoping to end the war by the end of 2008.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's an extraordinary statement for the leader of an
>>>>> organization that produced a YouTube ad last month featuring
>>>>> women in pink jockey outfits riding Democratic leaders of
>>>>> Congress like they were horses. The narrator tells the viewer:
>>>>> "With your help we can dominate Congress with peacemakers and
>>>>> finally end this illegal, immoral and unconstitutional
>>>>> occupation." Apparently the plan for peacemaker domination has
>>>>> run into some snags.
>>>>>
>>>>> As the Hill newspaper reported on October 19, the legislative
>>>>> representative of American Against Escalation in Iraq, John
>>>>> Bruhns, a former Army Sergeant who participated in the 2003
>>>>> invasion, has left the organization. "I feel I've done all I
>>>>> can," he told the newspaper. "I can't continue to attack
>>>>> members of Congress to pass legislation that isn't going to get
>>>>> passed."
>>>>>
>>>>> Mr. Bruhns had worked on something the anti-war movement called
>>>>> "Iraq Summer," an initiative aimed at getting 50 Republicans to
>>>>> break with the president on the war. That goal seemed plausible
>>>>> in July when the former chairman of the Senate Armed Services
>>>>> Committee, John Warner, was threatening to vote with Democrats
>>>>> on withdrawal dates. But in September Mr. Warner said that
>>>>> arguing for some troops to come home by Christmas barely
>>>>> changed the ayes and nays in the senate.
>>>>>
>>>>> The anti-war movement has not even managed to get any of the
>>>>> big three Democrats running for president to embrace their goal
>>>>> of an immediate withdrawal. Gone are John Edwards' rhetorical
>>>>> excesses of the spring, promising not to leave even Marines to
>>>>> guard the new American embassy in Baghdad.
>>>>>
>>>>> Today Mr. Edwards, like Senators Obama and Clinton, concede
>>>>> that in their administration there will still be some troops in
>>>>> Iraq in 2009, probably between 50,000 and 70,000. Also, the
>>>>> Democratic party's professional agitators must know that Mrs.
>>>>> Clinton will sprout wings and talons and screech for the blood
>>>>> of every Iranian terrorist as soon as she receives her party's
>>>>> nomination, faster than you can say, "Sistah Souljah."
>>>>>
>>>>> The peaceniks need only blame themselves for their failures.
>>>>> They are asking Americans to believe not that the war was a
>>>>> blunder, so much that the war was a sin; that the decapitators
>>>>> and car bombers of innocents are a resistance; that the army
>>>>> seeking to prevent ethnic cleansing today is in fact
>>>>> responsible for it. [That is what the "peaceniks" are saying,
>>>>> and they're right. --CGE]
>>>>>
>>>>> In 2006, writing about how the antiwar movement was conducting
>>>>> its own diplomacy in London and Amman to meet members of the
>>>>> "Sunni Resistance," anti-war writer Robert Dreyfuss summed up
>>>>> the moral equivalency that afflicts so many in his quarter.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Who are the good guys and who are the bad guys in Iraq?" he
>>>>> asked. "Are the good guys the U.S. troops fighting to impose
>>>>> American hegemony in the Gulf? Are the good guys the American
>>>>> forces who have installed a murderous Shiite theocracy in
>>>>> Baghdad? Are the good guys the Marines who murdered children
>>>>> and babies in Haditha in cold blood?"
>>>>>
>>>>> Leaving aside the deficient moral reasoning of the case the
>>>>> protestors make, their story of the war also makes for terrible
>>>>> politics. Most Americans do want to end a war they believe
>>>>> America is losing, but they don't suffer from the delusion that
>>>>> Iraqis would be better off if the Shiite and Sunni death cults
>>>>> took power after our soldiers left.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is a prospect the activists for now would rather not broach.
>>>>> Kevin Martin of Peace Action in Mother Jones said it wasn't
>>>>> even for the "peace community" to come up with a contingency
>>>>> plan to prevent competitive genocide after a withdrawal. "In my
>>>>> organization and the umpteen antiwar coalitions that I am in,
>>>>> this is in no way a priority that we think about or talk
>>>>> about," he said.
>>>>>
>>>>> Later on he added, "We are not responsible for dreaming up a
>>>>> perfect world. We are responsible for trying to end the damn
>>>>> war and putting the political pressure on our government, which
>>>>> is extremely difficult when you have a feeble Congress and a
>>>>> dictator president."
>>>>>
>>>>> He is right that his current struggle is "extremely difficult."
>>>>> It is extremely difficult to expect most Americans to believe
>>>>> that their president is a dictator and that their soldiers are
>>>>> no different than terrorists. The fact that Congress is not
>>>>> buying this pack of lies however is evidence not of the
>>>>> legislature's feebleness, but of the nation's strength.
>>>>>
>>>>> elake at nysun.com <mailto:elake at nysun.com>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net <mailto: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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20071025/2c704b8f/attachment.htm
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list