First, click here for a reality check from Amy Goodman
The Case For Peace
Topics on this page:
1. Debunk the "we must have this war" myth.
2. Consider what happened and learn to see better.
3. Consider ALL US options in Iraq.
4. Listen to US returning soldiers who have been fighting in Iraq.
Video for this page:
(If you do nothing else here, check out these flash videos.)
Former US National Security Advisor to President Carter, Zbigniev Brezenzski makes the case for "out now", (in fact we don't have a choice).
1. Debunk the "we must have this war" myth.
In my opinion, the big myth of the 2004 presidential election is that we must have this war. It's been thrust upon us, there is no way out. Of course there is a way out, in fact there are ways out. The myth of this election is a myth of omission. Many learned people agree, many nations agree, US veterans returning from Iraq agree, (see below). But in this election, it's common for voters to feel that the war is just necessary, and as much as they dislike it, they must proceed from there.
It's my opinion Bush is reliant on war because US policy requires occupation, 14 US bases, and the infusion of US corporate into Iraq, and their economy. In order to do that, one must put the army on the ground and take over. To simply topple Saddam (to save us here at home from his imminent threat of WMD), it could have been a coup. We only need to invade and occupy if we need control, which is what is going on right now.
It is my opinion that Kerry slipped in quietly through the door that Bush kicked open because he has the same agenda. Quietly, as in we voters never heard about the option to correct Bush's assault, to reject the occupation attempt. The presupposition that this war is a necessary is advantageous to both sides.
It seems odd that just a short two years ago we didn't have an ongoing war in Iraq, (nor were our contractors proliferated through their economy). We didn't need the war two years ago, but we must spend hundreds and hundreds of billions on it now. Two short years ago many voters were desperately looking for senators and representatives to vote against the invasion. Now 95% of us are going to vote for war itself, what are we telling Bush and Kerry? And in the election of 2008, the two controlling parties are going to do not only what the 20,000 lobbyists paid them to do in 2004, but also what won in 2004, more war.
The problem with this second and a half attempt at a "US friendly" government in Iraq is that in Iraq it is hated. Nothing happens in Iraq without US approval. Nobody likes to be occupied.
After the Iraqi's watched us entrench Saddam, they saw our next leader for them, Ahmed Chalabi. This man, a convicted embezzler on the lamb from a 22 year prison sentence in Jordan, (for making people's pensions disappear, sound familiar?), was flown in from Andrews AFB shortly after the invasion. Chalabi finally got thrown out, he was too hated. So in we went with the next least hated (sound familiar again?), Prime Minister, "ex"-CIA, serial killer, British citizen Iyad Allawi, (I'm not making this stuff up, check him out for yourself). And the purpose of all the bombing now is to make Allawi's government stick. Because he's going to guard the contractors, and the businesses opening up offices in the green zone.
Let's digress for a paragraph to get a better perspective. According to a recent Al Jazaera poll of more than 37,000, 94% of the Iraqi people believe this is an occupation, 4% are undecided, and only 2% feel this is a liberation. Let's say the situation was reversed and a foreign government came into the USA, overthrew Bush, and began installing a government of their buddies that 94 % of us hated. Not only that, but the invading army and it's government locked down our resources with their troops, and brought in their own companies to make profits, locking our US companies out of the jobs. And as a last insult, this invading government started dropping bombs to force their government on us where we resisted, killing 300 Americans a week. How many Americans would sit still for that? Why should we expect the Iraqis to be any different?
2. Look at what happened and learn to see better.
What happened to the antiwar movement in the US? It is my opinion that something took the wind right out of it's sails. I feel this must be brought up for discussion so we see it coming next time.
It is my opinion that this is an election predominantly controlled by fear. Many Bush supporters appear to be terrorized by "the terrorists", and Kerry voters are terrorized by Bush. This second segment of voters needs further exploration (because I think they will be where the next level of support comes from in the anti war movement). Simply put, I believe the peace movement largely died because the Anybody But Bush movement.
Well, the peace movement is not completely dead, "Drop Bush, drop Kerry, not bombs.")
I have not found an ABBer yet who could answer the question "How do you justify the escalation of violence under Kerry," while showing them aggressive military positions of Kerry in mainstream press. Many Democrats I've asked start to squirm and distract when I try to pin them to answering the question, one actually said "you're implying that I'm taking a position on Kerry and the war, which I haven'tr and will not." A true ABBer's response is "Look, I only know one thing, beat Bush." But in truth, we have to know more than one thing to make good decisions. Here is an interesting article.
That last paragraph above is important because we have two war candidates running for the job of commander in chief of the US military, IMHO, we can't let that happen again, (unless we want to continue war, that is).
Think about it. When the current election cycle was looking to nominate a Democrat, we had fairly popular antiwar Democrats in Dennis Kucinich, and Howard Dean, and a pro war Democrat John Kerry. By the time we got to the New Hampshire primaries, Kucinich had raised $7 million dollars, and Kerry has raised $42 million. Kucinich had voted against the (unconstitutional), delegation of authority to declare war to be transferred to the President. (Bush), and Kerry voted for this unconstitutional manuver. The thought processes that revolve around Kerry's stance brings money, and Kucinich's peaceful ways don't bring money. It should become obvious after a look at this years primary's, that we're all done getting antiwar candidates from the Democrats. It's over, (and we know the war stance we're getting from the Republican leadership).
So let's have a look at the early dynamics of this election cycle, and of how we got into this fix. Whatever one's political views are, we all need to recognize what happened.
Ralph Nader had previously endorsed Dennis Kucinich in hopes Dennis would get the Democratic nomination. Nader liked Kucinich for many more reasons than his anti war stance. But Kucinich didn't get the nomination (see paragraph above). When it became obvious during the Democratic primaries that Kerry was going to get the nomination, and not the antiwar candidate Kucinich, Nader entered the race.
At this point in time (around April of 2004), we had three candidates, the pro war Republican, the pro war Democrat, and the anti war Independent.
The Bush voters know what they are getting with Bush, but many Democrats hadn't looked it up what they were getting with Kerry, and and therefore didn't know he was pro war just like Bush, (remember, this is April 04). A lot of Democrats hated Bush for invading Iraq because of their (wise), anti violence views. So they automatically went with their next Democrat, whomever that was going to pan out to be, in the belief that only the Democrats have a chance of beating the Republican).
And in that last sentence above, we sealed our (and a lot of soldiers and Iraqi's), fate.
A lot of Republicans liked Nader for his responsible financial views. A lot of both Democrats and Republicans liked Nader for his antiwar views. And a lot of Democrats, tell me they wish they could vote for Nader, but they just can't because they have to stop Bush.
So all the money has to do is keep their hooks in both the Republican and Democratic leadership, and we're permanently trapped.
But here's the Achilles heel, the way out. We don't have to vote only for one of the two moneyed candidates with a half a billion dollars to inundate us with TV commercials, we have free choice. Having hundreds of millions of dollars for TV ad's can no longer be what defines a viable candidate. In fact as we're seeing in this election, we get ourselves jammed up when we think this way nowadays.
So way back in April Ralph Nader was defeated, even before he started because one voter does not trust the other voters good judgment not to be a deer in the headlights of a half billion dollars of TV ad's, (roughly put).
IMHO, we can't be hereditary or tactical voters anymore, not unless we want to keep this state of permanent war.
So, it's too late for us this time, few seem to be going for the peace candidate, 95% are goin for war, so we're going to get war. But next time, we are either must take that leap of faith, and depend on the peaceful heart of our neighbors, or we're going to have to sign up for the next for years (08 to 12), of war in Iraq with the next "choice" between the Republican and Democrat pro war candidates, (if you still think Kerry will end the war and don't believe me that he won't, I commend you for being skeptical, but read below for former U.S. National Security Advisor to Carter's outline of why the war is not going to end under either Bush or Kerry).
This all means the next antiwar candidate in 2008 is going to by nature require a good hard look by all of us Americans to see if he is a good candidate in many ways (not just anti war). And if he is a solid candidate, we should not mistrust our neighbor voters to do the right thing, instead we should talk to them freely about voting for peace. And have faith in them when they agree that "I will vote for the peace candidate if you do."
I believe this is not only necessary, but possible. For example, in this election cycle, 57% of Americans wanted Nader in the debates, (but since the debates are controlled by the Democrats and Republicans, Nader was locked out against the wish of the large majority of Americans), 57% wanted the antiwar candidate in the debates (latest Zogby poll, the previous CNN poll had it at 64%). Besides 60% being a virtual political "landslide", it's also more support that either Bush or Kerry get on their own. That says a lot for the fundamental peaceful desires in the hearts of the American people.
The hope for 2008 is that the 57% will remember what happened in 2004, and have the courage early in the election cycle to see how they can effect the polls, to see if their neighbor really will vote for the antiwar candidate if they do. They can do it early so they have the knowledge that they can change their vote back if their neighbors don't keep their word. Not that that will happen, but they need to know the option exists in order to have the courage to do it.
Or, we can just keep having war, causing a lot of death and suffering, and pay for it with half our taxes so we've no money left to fix things at home. Being antiwar makes one an multi-issue voter by default, because war is so expensive that it excludes the possibility of having money to fix things at home...imho.
3. Consider ALL US options in Iraq
OK. I'm going to turn you over to Former US National Security Advisor to President Carter, Zbigniev Brezenzski on some flash files of his recent interview on PBS's, "The Charlie Rose Show", (you're probably getting tired of my writing anyway, and are ready for a little interesting TV watching). I am very closely aligned with our former national security advisor that you'll see in the videos. Where I am not precisely aligned is in how to handle the situation after troop and corporate withdrawal, (corporate will come out of there pretty darn quick without our troops guarding them).
Before the video's, here is a brief outline of the options Brezenzski examines in the interview.
Options in Iraq:
You can actually skip the next nine paragraphs if you'd like to scroll down to the green video links, but if you'd like a rough overview first, read on.
1. "Stay the course," and keep on fighting. In this option, we keep on doing what we're doing with or without minor alteration. Brezenzski points out that we need to look at what is happening on the ground. He has us look at Fallujah for example, and the options for this city. One option he points out is to level Fallujah, "killing thousands" as he puts it, and then having to deal with the proportional increase in hate and counter attacks, (which is pretty much what is going on now). If we don't level Fallujah, then we have to tolerate it as a refuge for the resistance which is not an acceptable solution either. Brezenzski goes on to point out that Fallujah is an example of the reality we're up against in Iraq on the whole, and he points out that there are also about 550 million Muslims in nations that are directly connected with Iraq.
In that there is no end to the "keep on fighting" option, Brezenzski rejects it. There's more detail in the video, but that's the general overview of the "keep on fighting" option.
2. Bring other nations into the fight. This option is covered in straight talk and common sense in the interview. Basically, Brezenzski lays out that the US must do absolute 180's in the three areas of Israel, Iran, and most importantly Iraq, if there is any chance of bringing any other nations in. He goes on to point out that he is sure that Bush is not going to make these major changes in policy, that he thinks there is little chance that also Kerry will make these reversals of US policy. Brezenski continues in pointing out that even if one of them could reverse positions on Israel, Iran, and US control of Iraq, that he thinks that the chance that other nations would join in are "very small."
So option number two, bring other nations in to the fight with us, is not going to happen. I would very respectfully request that Kerry fans watch the video for further detail on this option as I think some campaign promises are made that cannot be met on this point. Several controlling factors are looked at in the video with plain old fashioned common sense.
I also want to point out something interesting that relates to corporate money and influence being deep into many (not all, there are some real hero's), Republicans and Democrats. That is that the two controlling party candidates are going to "stay the course" (option 1), in Iraq, and they are avid on their convictions on Israel, and Iran also. These are the very reasons that are keeping other nations well clear. However, Ralph Nader's plans for disengagement released six months before the interview, follows very closely along Brezenzski's ideas on getting other nations, including Arab nations, to help the Iraqi people...not help with the fight, but help the Iraqi people after their liberation and the US has given up control of Iraq. Nader also called for a schedule for disengagement for everyone to know, (as suggested in Brezenzski's interview). The difference between corporate foreign policy, and civilian foreign policy.
3. Disengage. In that option 1, fight on choosing between leveling cities or eternal guerilla war is not going to work, and option 2 other nations coming in is not going to work, we are left with the only other option, disengagement. I agree with this option, we need to stop escalating the violence. I have some differences with Brezenzski on how to view disengagement, and additional things to do which he doesn't mention during and after disengagement, but check out the video's, and decide for yourself.
One view I disagree with Brezenzski on is that disengagement is 'unpalatable'. To give help and aid after the military / corporate disengagement, after their TRUE liberation, and draw in other nations to help because they will come now, and to give the Iraqi's a stake in their future (as opposed to a common enemy to fight), is difficult yes, but it's not 'unpalatable'. And equally important, to correct the mistake of allowing Bush to invade, and attempt to occupy Iraq is the honorable thing to do. Reconstruction will not be easy for the Iraqi people, everything is up in the air now for them, but it is far preferable to option 1 where life means so little, and option 2 which is not realistic. There many real ways we can help, it's lot cheaper than war, and we owe them for helping entrench Saddam, rounds of bombing, and twelve years of siege.
They're people, they will respond to getting their country back. There is a feeling of Iraqi national unity within the Iraqi peoples, and even above hereditary differences in how to view it, they are all Muslems. They will work it out when it's all on the line and controlled by what THEY do.
This paragraph is also not from the video, it's just my commentary: When the IRAQI people control their economy and destiny, and it's no longer a "USA deal", THEN other countries will come and help. In this case, other nations will not be coming to a fight. Right now all the US can offer other nations is a cut of Iraqi resources if they'll come joining the fight. If we truly liberate them (even from us), we can always go back later and buy the oil from our new friends we just liberated. Heck, in a liberation, American companies could even return and bid with everyone else (including Iraqi's this time), for development contracts there.
Okay, that's a rough overview, here are the video files. it's roughly twenty minutes all together. Nice to hear his clarity, instead of political hype.
Video: Former US National Security Advisor to President Carter, Zbigniev Brezenzski, (September, 2004)
Clip 4, the chance to bring Europe in.
If you don't already have a free flash player, you'll need
one:
4. Listen to US soldiers who have been fighting in Iraq.
It's to listen to US soldiers who are just returning from the fight. They bring back an uncensored first hand knowledge. We don't have to depend on what we saw on CNN, or what our neighbors told us they saw on CNN.
American media tells us we need the war while they hold back the casualty images, and the candidates, and the contractors, are happy to go along with it, but the four groups below of returning veterans all say the same thing, immediate withdrawal. That doesn't mean after Bush or Kerry gets done installing the government and making sure all the contractors and corporations are all in there safe and secure, it doesn't mean sometime later in a year, four years or ten. Immediate withdrawal means these returning veterans say do it now.
It's difficult to tell a returning veteran that you know more about the war than he or she does, and that his or her demand for immediate withdrawal unrealistic.
They make a compelling statement, we should to listen to them.
Here is a typical statement from one of these groups, they say "immediate withdrawal" and that's quite clear. It doesn't mean sometime down the road, after Bush or Kerry get done with political objectives.
"Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) is a group of veterans from Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. "We are committed to saving lives and ending the violence in Iraq by an immediate withdrawal of all occupying forces."
Here are links to four of these groups.
Veterans For Peace
Support our troops, listen to them.
Support our troops, get them out of there now.
5. Links (in no particular order, more will be added later).
Democracy Now!: Radio and TV news.
Project Vote Smart -Research candidate voting records.
Opensecrets.org -Follow the money trail.
Visits to this page since October 17, 2004:
webmaster: antiwar@znakomi.com