Commentary
No need to go into heavy analysis here. Old imperialist American Commander-in-Chief and same old same task for anti-warriors for a couple more hours of this administration. Immediate Unconditional Withdrawal of United States Troops From Afghanistan and Iraq!
Showing posts with label bush administration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bush administration. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
*Where Have All The Anti-War Protesters Gone?
Commentary
October 11, 2008 marked the sixth anniversary of the United States Senate’s signing off on authorization for President Bush’s war on Iraq. That date and March 20th (the date of the start of the actual invasion of Iraq in 2003) seem to be the focal points for the spring and fall “anti-war” campaign seasons each year. As such one would have expected a huge outpouring of anti-war sentiment on Saturday to “keep fire” under the feet of the various so-called ‘anti-war’ Democrats in the struggle to end the war. Or, at least, to end the funding of the war that so many of them had promised to stop in the Congressional campaign of 2006.
Not so, at least at the local gathering here at the Boston Common. At most a few hundred protesters showed up, mainly the tried and true veterans of the movement. I found myself talking mostly to old anti-warriors from past campaigns. The rather ‘shocking’ part of this sad spectacle was that in the very first lead up action in opposition to the war in the summer of 2002, when the Bush Administration started seriously beating the public tom-toms for war, there were actually more (and varied) people present at the first local demonstration. What has happened to that vaunted ‘street’ anti-war movement?
Well, the short answer, as always in a presidential election year, is that the focus shifts to parliamentary politics. Especially true this year, as year Barack Obama, the Democratic standard bearer, is “committed” to ending the war in Iraq (and shifting the forces and resources to Afghanistan, as the small print of his position reads. But who are we to quibble over such a detail). Moreover, the main anti-war coalitions like Troops Out Now and United For Peace and Justice (or is it justice and peace?) have purposefully, as they do in every presidential fall season, refrained from mass demonstrations in Washington and other major cities so as not to upset people (read, mainly Democrats) with such wild and outlandish slogans such as immediate withdrawal from Iraq AND Afghanistan.
That is the real nub of the matter. The vast majority of the “movement”, such as it is, really believes that one of the lessons that should have been learned from the vast Vietnam War-era protest was to keep off the streets and let the parliamentary road work its ‘magic’ as the way to end the Iraq war. We know now, painfully, the results of that strategy- almost six years of non-stop war. And if we are at all honest no end is in sight. Of course, to be fair there are other reasons for the dwindling number of protests and protesters but let’s address the one reason that we have control over. A new anti-war leadership has to be thrown up and a new strategy of serious opposition has to be embarked on (The odd thing is that even the vaunted current commitment to the parliamentary road has not been seriously organized). In any case- until that day- Immediate Unconditional Withdrawal of All U.S./Allied Troops and Their Mercenaries from Iraq and Afghanistan is still the order of the day. Forward.
October 11, 2008 marked the sixth anniversary of the United States Senate’s signing off on authorization for President Bush’s war on Iraq. That date and March 20th (the date of the start of the actual invasion of Iraq in 2003) seem to be the focal points for the spring and fall “anti-war” campaign seasons each year. As such one would have expected a huge outpouring of anti-war sentiment on Saturday to “keep fire” under the feet of the various so-called ‘anti-war’ Democrats in the struggle to end the war. Or, at least, to end the funding of the war that so many of them had promised to stop in the Congressional campaign of 2006.
Not so, at least at the local gathering here at the Boston Common. At most a few hundred protesters showed up, mainly the tried and true veterans of the movement. I found myself talking mostly to old anti-warriors from past campaigns. The rather ‘shocking’ part of this sad spectacle was that in the very first lead up action in opposition to the war in the summer of 2002, when the Bush Administration started seriously beating the public tom-toms for war, there were actually more (and varied) people present at the first local demonstration. What has happened to that vaunted ‘street’ anti-war movement?
Well, the short answer, as always in a presidential election year, is that the focus shifts to parliamentary politics. Especially true this year, as year Barack Obama, the Democratic standard bearer, is “committed” to ending the war in Iraq (and shifting the forces and resources to Afghanistan, as the small print of his position reads. But who are we to quibble over such a detail). Moreover, the main anti-war coalitions like Troops Out Now and United For Peace and Justice (or is it justice and peace?) have purposefully, as they do in every presidential fall season, refrained from mass demonstrations in Washington and other major cities so as not to upset people (read, mainly Democrats) with such wild and outlandish slogans such as immediate withdrawal from Iraq AND Afghanistan.
That is the real nub of the matter. The vast majority of the “movement”, such as it is, really believes that one of the lessons that should have been learned from the vast Vietnam War-era protest was to keep off the streets and let the parliamentary road work its ‘magic’ as the way to end the Iraq war. We know now, painfully, the results of that strategy- almost six years of non-stop war. And if we are at all honest no end is in sight. Of course, to be fair there are other reasons for the dwindling number of protests and protesters but let’s address the one reason that we have control over. A new anti-war leadership has to be thrown up and a new strategy of serious opposition has to be embarked on (The odd thing is that even the vaunted current commitment to the parliamentary road has not been seriously organized). In any case- until that day- Immediate Unconditional Withdrawal of All U.S./Allied Troops and Their Mercenaries from Iraq and Afghanistan is still the order of the day. Forward.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Anti-War Political Realities- American Iraq Troop Withdrawals
Commentary
Over the past couple of months, as the tenure of the Bush Administration has started to wind down it has attempted to put a better face on its legacy than historians are likely to give it (and frankly than it deserves), there has been some movement on the question of a timetable or ‘time horizon’ for American troop withdrawal from Iraq. Part of this reflects the ‘successes' of the troop surge of January 2007 which the Bush Administration is happy to gloat over. It also reflects the political realities on the ground in Iraq as the Al-Maliki government has stabilized and, responding to its base, has argued for a timetable in order to enhance it own political power and credibility. The net effect of all of this maneuvering is that there appears to be something like general agreement, as of today at least, that American combat troops will be withdrawn by 2010 and all troops will be out by 2013. Sadly, and this is the real subject of today’s commentary, the American (and world) Iraq anti-war movement had virtually no impact on these developments. Not the parliamentary opposition (which I had expected little of, in any case) nor the street opposition.
Over the past five years or so I have gone back and forth over the comparisons between the American war of my youth in Vietnam in the 1960’and the American war now in Iraq of my old age. A couple of years ago I was arguing for a close comparison. As events have unfolded over the past couple of years though, I have backed away somewhat from those comparisons. Mainly, this reflects the hard political fact that the Iraqi anti-war movement of which I am a member has had virtually no impact on the pace or, for that matter, the fact of American troop withdrawal from Iraq. While there have been extravagant claims made for the impact of the American (and world) Vietnam anti-war movement in affecting governmental policy and troop withdrawals that movement did have some impact. Of course, it did not hurt that the North Vietnamese and South Vietnamese Liberation Front took high casualties, had a plan like the Tet offensive of 1968 and were steadfastly determined to win against the odds. The same cannot be said for the forces on the ground in Iraq.
Moreover, the international Iraq anti-war movement has been, frankly, weird in another way. The greatest burst of fervor and determination on the streets was before this war began in 2003. Since then, despite sporadic mass demonstration of marginal political significance, there seems to be a tacit assumption that that was all that could be done and that once the war started the political landscape changed. In contrast, during Vietnam (up to a point) the opposition got stronger and more furious. Today, we anti-war militants should reflect on the implicit strategy this time that has consumed the bulk of the movement- keep it off the streets and in narrow parliamentary forms. If that is the lesson taken from the Vietnam anti-war movement no wonder we have been mired down in over five years of forlorn opposition. It is time to go back to the anti-war history books. Pronto. Immediate, Unconditional Withdrawal of All American/Allied Troops and Their Mercenaries from Iraq and Afghanistan!
Over the past couple of months, as the tenure of the Bush Administration has started to wind down it has attempted to put a better face on its legacy than historians are likely to give it (and frankly than it deserves), there has been some movement on the question of a timetable or ‘time horizon’ for American troop withdrawal from Iraq. Part of this reflects the ‘successes' of the troop surge of January 2007 which the Bush Administration is happy to gloat over. It also reflects the political realities on the ground in Iraq as the Al-Maliki government has stabilized and, responding to its base, has argued for a timetable in order to enhance it own political power and credibility. The net effect of all of this maneuvering is that there appears to be something like general agreement, as of today at least, that American combat troops will be withdrawn by 2010 and all troops will be out by 2013. Sadly, and this is the real subject of today’s commentary, the American (and world) Iraq anti-war movement had virtually no impact on these developments. Not the parliamentary opposition (which I had expected little of, in any case) nor the street opposition.
Over the past five years or so I have gone back and forth over the comparisons between the American war of my youth in Vietnam in the 1960’and the American war now in Iraq of my old age. A couple of years ago I was arguing for a close comparison. As events have unfolded over the past couple of years though, I have backed away somewhat from those comparisons. Mainly, this reflects the hard political fact that the Iraqi anti-war movement of which I am a member has had virtually no impact on the pace or, for that matter, the fact of American troop withdrawal from Iraq. While there have been extravagant claims made for the impact of the American (and world) Vietnam anti-war movement in affecting governmental policy and troop withdrawals that movement did have some impact. Of course, it did not hurt that the North Vietnamese and South Vietnamese Liberation Front took high casualties, had a plan like the Tet offensive of 1968 and were steadfastly determined to win against the odds. The same cannot be said for the forces on the ground in Iraq.
Moreover, the international Iraq anti-war movement has been, frankly, weird in another way. The greatest burst of fervor and determination on the streets was before this war began in 2003. Since then, despite sporadic mass demonstration of marginal political significance, there seems to be a tacit assumption that that was all that could be done and that once the war started the political landscape changed. In contrast, during Vietnam (up to a point) the opposition got stronger and more furious. Today, we anti-war militants should reflect on the implicit strategy this time that has consumed the bulk of the movement- keep it off the streets and in narrow parliamentary forms. If that is the lesson taken from the Vietnam anti-war movement no wonder we have been mired down in over five years of forlorn opposition. It is time to go back to the anti-war history books. Pronto. Immediate, Unconditional Withdrawal of All American/Allied Troops and Their Mercenaries from Iraq and Afghanistan!
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Hands Off Iran!
Commentary
U.S. Out Of Iraq And Afghanistan Now! Hands Off Iran!
Correct me if I am wrong but I smell gunpowder in the air these days and it is not clear who is getting ready to ignite the fuse. No, I am not talking about any old wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hell, those efforts are old hat and, according to the putative Republican presidential candidate John McCain , at least in Iraq, will last about 100 years-so it is way too early to even worry about ending that little beauty. I assume by his lights we are to let our great- grandchildren end it. Moreover, President Bush is playing the eternal optimist on Iraq, a role that he has perfected to a tee in his disastrous presidency, by being authoritatively reported as saying that it would only take forty years to straighten out things there. His scenario would permit our grandchildren to conclude the war. Again, that is music for the future. Nothing to get nervous about now, right? What exercises me today though is that little recent buildup of talk pointing toward some off-the-wall adventure aimed at Iran either by American imperialism itself or, I believe, more probably by air strikes from the American surrogate in the area, Israel.
I have been harping on Iran, off and on, for a couple of years now ever since reading Seymour Hersh’s informative April 2006 article in the New Yorker (and later additions and updates to the core of that argument by Hersh and others). Nothing since that time has led me to believe that the White House, the American military or Israel has given up the dream of smashing Iran’s future capacities to develop nuclear weapons. Capacities, by the way, even some hostile conservative critics have recognized that Iran needs in order to defend itself in an increasingly hostile world, especially as it remains in the cross hairs of American imperialism.
Certainly it was not the little ‘diplomatic’ maneuver over the weekend of July 19th where a high ranking American diplomat actually sat in on the six nation talks, despite previous American disdain for such efforts, on the question of what the international response to Iran’s alleged nuclear buildup should be. And certainly it was not any rhetoric on the part of the cowboys who control the inner sanctum in Washington about trying to find non-lethal ways to curb Iran. The minute they start with that talk in Washington, hold onto your wallets- you are about to be fleeced.
The events of the past several weeks have brought my concerns into some focus. Israel’s air strikes against a target in Syria, the American drumbeat campaign to denigrate any finding that Iran is not within striking distance of being capable of making at least one nuclear bomb and, of course, the defiant, if comical, attempt of Iran to saber rattle with the testing of short-range missiles. Six months, for a Bush Administration that has nothing to lose, is a long time in politics, a long time to prepare and launch surgical attacks and a long time to create an American ‘public opinion’ committed to nipping Iran’s buildup in the bud. Every militant leftist in the world, while holding his or her nose at the political regime in Tehran, better prepare now to defend Iran’s right to have nuclear weapons in this crazy old world. That said, we better dust off those old posters- U.S. Hands Off Iran- And Keep Them Off!
U.S. Out Of Iraq And Afghanistan Now! Hands Off Iran!
Correct me if I am wrong but I smell gunpowder in the air these days and it is not clear who is getting ready to ignite the fuse. No, I am not talking about any old wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hell, those efforts are old hat and, according to the putative Republican presidential candidate John McCain , at least in Iraq, will last about 100 years-so it is way too early to even worry about ending that little beauty. I assume by his lights we are to let our great- grandchildren end it. Moreover, President Bush is playing the eternal optimist on Iraq, a role that he has perfected to a tee in his disastrous presidency, by being authoritatively reported as saying that it would only take forty years to straighten out things there. His scenario would permit our grandchildren to conclude the war. Again, that is music for the future. Nothing to get nervous about now, right? What exercises me today though is that little recent buildup of talk pointing toward some off-the-wall adventure aimed at Iran either by American imperialism itself or, I believe, more probably by air strikes from the American surrogate in the area, Israel.
I have been harping on Iran, off and on, for a couple of years now ever since reading Seymour Hersh’s informative April 2006 article in the New Yorker (and later additions and updates to the core of that argument by Hersh and others). Nothing since that time has led me to believe that the White House, the American military or Israel has given up the dream of smashing Iran’s future capacities to develop nuclear weapons. Capacities, by the way, even some hostile conservative critics have recognized that Iran needs in order to defend itself in an increasingly hostile world, especially as it remains in the cross hairs of American imperialism.
Certainly it was not the little ‘diplomatic’ maneuver over the weekend of July 19th where a high ranking American diplomat actually sat in on the six nation talks, despite previous American disdain for such efforts, on the question of what the international response to Iran’s alleged nuclear buildup should be. And certainly it was not any rhetoric on the part of the cowboys who control the inner sanctum in Washington about trying to find non-lethal ways to curb Iran. The minute they start with that talk in Washington, hold onto your wallets- you are about to be fleeced.
The events of the past several weeks have brought my concerns into some focus. Israel’s air strikes against a target in Syria, the American drumbeat campaign to denigrate any finding that Iran is not within striking distance of being capable of making at least one nuclear bomb and, of course, the defiant, if comical, attempt of Iran to saber rattle with the testing of short-range missiles. Six months, for a Bush Administration that has nothing to lose, is a long time in politics, a long time to prepare and launch surgical attacks and a long time to create an American ‘public opinion’ committed to nipping Iran’s buildup in the bud. Every militant leftist in the world, while holding his or her nose at the political regime in Tehran, better prepare now to defend Iran’s right to have nuclear weapons in this crazy old world. That said, we better dust off those old posters- U.S. Hands Off Iran- And Keep Them Off!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)