Democrats and the Antiwar
Movement--an opinion
Why
a Patriotic protest?
Although polls show that most Americans now oppose the occupation,
many still feel that in time of war, the patriotic thing to do
is pull together behind the President and keep your opinions to
yourself. More importantly, the men who brought us this war, and
who continue to profit from it, have made a point of questioning
the patriotism of anyone who opposes it--not to mention calling
them weak, freedom-hating terrorist lovers.
In reality,
there is nothing patriotic about supporting an unjust and unnecessary
war. A true patriot is someone who loves his country; its accomplishments,
its people, and the ideals that it stands for. Someone who just
wraps himself up in the flag and tries to fool people is something
else entirely. Deceiving Americans into supporting a war, and
smearing the character of those who oppose it, are not acts of
patriotism.
We take
to the street to exercise our freedom of speech because that is
what America is all about. We intend to show that, as citizens
of the world’s greatest democracy, we will not be intimidated.
We will not give up our constitutional rights for anyone, under
any circumstances. As far as we’re concerned, that’s
about as American as it gets.
Why
the emphasis on supporting the troops?
We protest the war, not our men and women in uniform. Our troops
went to Iraq for the right reasons. They were told they were going
to fight terrorists, and prevent a nuclear 9/11. They were lied
to, as we all were. But that doesn’t change the fact that
they were willing to fight for us, and if need be, to die for
us. The dishonorable actions of their Commander in Chief in no
way diminish their heroism, or the sacrifices they’ve made.
What
about claims that antiwar protests “embolden the enemy”
and hurt troop morale?
Implying that people who disagree with Bush are somehow helping
the enemy is a standard propaganda technique designed to silence
the opposition. To buy into it is to risk falling for the oldest
trick in the book. The fact is there is no correlation at all
between antiwar protests and enemy activity. It is simply a myth,
promoted by the architects of this war to get us protesters to
shut up and go away.
The Iraqi
insurgents have a variety of motivations. Some are religious fanatics.
Some believe they are fighting for their country. Some want revenge
for families killed in the invasion, or by other Iraqis. Some
support Hussein. A few are foreign terrorists who came to Iraq
specifically to kill American soldiers. But it’s a safe
bet that none of them ever decided to become a martyr because
of an antiwar protest in Nevada.
Unfortunately,
the insurgents may have enough ordnance to fight a guerilla war
for decades, thanks to an ill-planned invasion that left Iraqi
weapons facilities wide open to looters, while U.S. forces were
guarding the Oil Ministry. At this point, the best thing for our
troops’ morale would be to get them out of that mess.
Bush now claims that even though Iraq had no weapons of
mass destruction, in a post 9/11 world, we just couldn’t
take the chance. This
is a flat-out lie. It’s a good sounding lie, as no sane
person wants to take unnecessary chances with the safety of his
family or his country. But in reality, our government deals with
a myriad of potential threats to our security every day, without
charging off to war and getting 100,000 people killed--and without
lying to the people about the nature of the supposed threat. Framing
the situation as a choice between doing nothing or going to war
was a dishonest manipulation. As the world’s richest and
most powerful nation, we have many other options when it comes
to national security. In this case, for example, no-holds-barred
weapons inspections, backed by the threat of military force, had
actually succeeded in getting Iraq to disarm. Bush took us to
war not because he had to, but because he wanted to.
Plus,
let’s not forget that Bush didn’t tell the American
people that there was a “chance” Iraq had weapons
of mass destruction. He said he knew it for a fact. Moreover,
this business of constantly trying to associate Iraq with 9/11
is deliberately misleading. And equally false is the notion that
our world is more dangerous since 9/11. It’s true that after
Sept. 11, 2001, Americans no longer felt that U.S. soil was impervious
to attack. But it never really was--we just didn’t realize
it. The attacks of Sept. 11 simply forced us to face reality.
Of course, the threat of terrorism is still very real, but we
should also try to keep things in perspective. Many of us grew
up during the Cold War, when we lived with the constant threat
of nuclear annihilation. Our parents faced the Nazis and the great
depression. It would be completely irrational to regard these
terrorists as the greatest danger America has ever faced.
Wasn’t
removing Saddam the right thing to do? Isn’t the world better
off without him?
This is a clever way to spin the war, but a reality check is in
order. Bush did not simply “remove” Hussein. He launched
an unprovoked invasion of an oil-rich Islamic nation, under false
pretenses, and killed 100,000 innocent people. He lost the respect
of our allies, gained the hatred of the Muslim world, and created
a new breeding ground for terrorists, as Iraq descended into lawlessness
and civil war.
The use
of generalities like “the world is better off” is
a subtle propaganda technique. Its intent is to give people a
vague feeling that Hussein somehow menaced the entire world, without
providing them any evidence that he actually threatened anyone
at all. The same can be said of comparing him to Hitler, who really
was a threat to the world. But the threat that Hussein was supposed
to have posed, with his weapons of mass destruction and links
to 9/11, was a complete fabrication. As a result, the world outside
of Iraq is about the same as it was before, with one notable exception:
it has become a more dangerous place for Americans, especially
those who travel abroad.
The world
inside of Iraq may one day get better. We hope so, but so far
it doesn’t look so good. As decorated veteran and U.S. Representative
John Murtha points out, the main beneficiaries of this war so
far have been Iran and al Qaeda. And even many old hawks like
Murtha are now saying that the military has done all it can do,
and that it is not in America’s best interest to stay in
Iraq.
What
about establishing democracy in Iraq?
For the first couple of years of this war, the rationale for it
changed every time George Bush opened his mouth. As all the previous
justifications have fallen apart, supporters have taken to describing
Bush’s war as the noble act of removing a brutal dictator
and bringing democracy to Iraq. After all, Americans love democracy.
But holding an election under martial law imposed by a foreign
power does not constitute democracy or create freedom. Democracy
is a complex and fragile process. The success of “government
by the people” rests entirely with the people. They cannot
merely want it, they must demand it, and indeed, be willing to
fight and die for it. Otherwise, the next political strongman
comes along, throws out the constitution, and that’s that.
The U.S.
can certainly encourage democracy in Iraq, as it did in Turkey.
But we can’t simply hand it to the Iraqis, nor can we force
it upon them. It is highly unlikely that the Iraqi people will
recognize as legitimate any government that is elected under foreign
occupation. On top of that, there is no good reason to believe
that Iraqis will elect a moderate, secular government that leans
to the West. In fact, recent elections in the Middle East have
tended to favor radical Islamists. The notion that we can impose
a friendly democracy at gunpoint in a country where the people
hate us is an absurd fantasy. It also happens to be a repeat of
the failed policies of Vietnam. Sadly, Americans and Iraqis are
now dying for this fantasy, just as they did for the fantasy of
weapons of mass destruction.
Ultimately,
it would be naïve to believe that the Bush administration
is truly concerned about democracy in Iraq. It is far more likely
that Bush seeks a relatively stable government that will sort
of look like a democracy, but which will bow to U.S. economic
and military interests.
To believe
that we are in Iraq for humanitarian reasons, we have to selectively
forget all the lies that led us there. We have to forget how our
government supported Hussein in the past, using our Navy to protect
his oil, and even letting him buy anthrax from the U.S. We have
to forget that Ronald Reagan sent Donald Rumsfeld to meet with
Saddam to discuss oil ventures, even as the dictator was actively
using poison gas against his enemies.
As Americans,
we would love to believe that we are in Iraq to fight “evildoers”
and spread democracy. But this is a comic book version of the
war. It has nothing to do with reality. At the end of the day,
it is impossible to conclude that this war is really based on
anything other than that black stuff that comes up out of the
ground.
Is
Iraq hopeless?
Absolutely not. There are people out there who have proposed intelligent,
workable approaches to the disaster in Iraq. See, for example
“Broken Engagement” in the links page. But they are
not military solutions.
What
is the AWOL protest about?
George Bush (who we obviously don’t like very much) was
given a coveted spot as a pilot in the Texas Air National Guard
during the Vietnam War, complete with an officer’s commission,
despite mediocre test scores and the fact that there was a long
list of other people waiting to get in. By joining the Guard,
he avoided having to go to Vietnam. Then, in 1972, he stopped
flying fighter jets under mysterious circumstances. He then failed,
oddly, to take a required physical, and was grounded. Soon after,
he got a transfer to Danelly Air Force Base in Alabama, and simply
stopped reporting for duty. No credible witness recalls seeing
him at Danelly, including the Commanding Officer and the small
group of pilots there who he was supposed to be drilling with.
The lack of documentation of any service indicates he was Absent
Without Official Leave for six months to a year, or more. Bush
claims he did serve, but can’t remember much about what
he did. No official investigation or penalty appears to have resulted
from his actions.
The AWOL story is a long one, but the bottom line is that Bush
used his family’s wealth and connections to shirk his military
duty, and get away with it. And he continues to lie about it.
Most of the people who started the war in Iraq--people like George
Bush and Dick Cheney--were never willing to go to war themselves.
The sons and daughters of working class people went, and are still
going.
For over
three years, Bush’s people have been attacking the patriotism
of anyone who criticizes the President, including decorated veterans
who went to war for this country when George Bush wouldn’t.
No President,
especially one who calls himself a “war President”
has a right to lie to the American people about his own military
record.
There are
tens of thousands of National Guardsmen in Iraq right now, a fact
we all became acutely aware of during Hurricane Katrina. If we’re
going to let Guardsmen take a year off in the middle of a war, let’s
let everyone do it, not just the sons of millionaires.
For the record, these people got it right:
From the memoirs of the first President Bush, on why he
did not occupy Iraq:
“Trying to eliminate Saddam would have incurred incalculable
human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible.
We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule
Iraq. There was no viable exit strategy we could see, violating
another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously
trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold
War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding
the United Nations mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of
international response to aggression that we hoped to establish.
Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably
still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land.”
From Colin Powell’s autobiography My American Journey,
p. 148:
"I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed...
managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units...Of
the many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes
me as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created
equal and owe equal allegiance to their country."
Over three years ago, one national labor union produced this resolution
in response to Bush’s plan to invade Iraq. Sadly, everything
it warns against has since come to pass.
RESOLUTION OF THE GENERAL EXECUTIVE BOARD OF UNITE! ON IRAQ
Our union, UNITE, represents working men and women across this continent.
But we are also soldiers, reservists and veterans. We have served
honorably in each of our nation’s wars in the past century,
and we understand the need for sacrifice and security. The United
States has been attacked and remains vulnerable to international
terrorism, and we stand ready to protect our country and our loved
ones.
But we,
the elected leadership of UNITE, strongly oppose any preemptive
unilateral attack against the state of Iraq.
It is
clear that Saddam Hussein is an oppressive and totalitarian ruler.
He has committed serious violations of human rights and international
humanitarian law.
Saddam
Hussein is a brutal dictator, but he is not an imminent threat
to our country. Nor has convincing evidence of Iraqi ties to al-Qaeda
or to the events of September 11th been presented to the American
people.
There
is, therefore, no justification for a unilateral preemptive war
with Iraq.
Moreover,
we believe a unilateral preemptive war with Iraq would serve to
aggravate the problem of terrorism, rather than reduce it. Such
a war would jeopardize our relations with allies, intensify hostility
in the Arab world, and entangle us in further conflicts in that
region.
This war
is a cynical attempt to distract attention away from the real
concerns of American citizens -- a faltering economy, declining
education budgets, state and local fiscal crises, increasing unemployment,
inadequate social services, the erosion of civil liberties, and
a federal government that is giving massive tax breaks to the
rich.
We know
first-hand that if there is a war with Iraq, we will do the fighting
and we will suffer the consequences. Our families will be changed
forever.
And for
what?
This war
is not about security for Americans. It is about George Bush’s
reelection campaign. It is about oil.
February 13, 2003
For
questions, comments, or to get on our email list, email
lasvegasantiwar@cox.net
or call (702) 241-8578.
