Gordian Knot
Sep 24th, 2005 at 2:44 pm by Susie
Thoughtful piece from Democracy Arsenal. Interesting predicament, because the extremists like ANSWER are the only people calling for collective action against the war, but affiliating with ANSWER may very well undermine our effectiveness. Do read the whole thing and let me know what you think:
“The liberals were pretty much right on Viet Nam. And what did that get them? They destroyed their reputation on national security for three decades.”
This statement–coming from a thoughtful conservative journalist–was like a sucker punch at the luncheon I attended today. Especially since our nation is entering another public discussion about ending a painful bout of warfighting. This weekend, a massive anti-war march is coming to Washington. I’m not sure yet if I’m going, as I have mixed feelings about the whole thing. I think protesting the Bush administration’s strategic blunder is right-on. I also think demanding a policy on how we’re going to transition from a combat mission to a peace support role is vital.
My interactions with peace organizations have been encouraging in the sense that they are willing to entertain complex policy ideas instead of “Out Now” slogans. This rally has the potential to be a positive step forward in encouraging liberal Members of Congress to agitate for an exit strategy. The rally could be an on-message, problem-solving American exercise in participatory democracy. But the left has its own strategic blunders to worry about. Which leads me to the question:
Is the organization ANSWER working for Karl Rove? Only he could hatch a plot to offer up a message muddling “Palestine Tent” on the mall coupled with an anti-Israel march to the ellipse in front of the Capitol. So now every elected leader who comes to show support is going to have to bear the wrath of the Israeli lobby and fend off right wingers who love to paint liberals as anti-semitic. [...]
Like the military itself, the average American citizen’s notion of national security is in transition. The Cold War framework of the nineties has given way to a new era defined by less discernable threats: terrorism, climate change, global pandemics, and a growing energy crisis. Because increasing numbers of Americans are aware of the need to do things differently, and are unhappy with the polarization of our political system, there presently exists a window of opportunity to reframe the public conversation away from antagonism and toward cooperative problem solving. In my opinion, this is what a true progressive should focus on.
The military and peace activists have much more in common than meets the stereotype. Both seek cooperation over conflict. Besides the pacifists, both want force to only be used as a last resort. These are long term strategies that can be dashed by the tactics of groups like ANSWER.
Instead of decrying American imperialism, why not fight for our civilian agencies to have the ability to create international networks of democratic peers like the US military does?
I know it’s not emotionally satisfying to carry a sign that says “more judges for Nigeria” OR “Do we really want to be so in hock to China?” But translating the energy of the peace movement toward these ends is the monumental progressive challenge.
Bull-oney. The radicals and weathermen and hippie peace protesters were right about the war. The liberals kept electing labor-friendly politicians who represented workers in war industries. The waffling on the war made it possible for Nixon to run his “silent majority” scam when in fact most Americans wanted peace.
In ‘72, when the precincts were allowed to choose the nominee, they chose peace. Handing the party over to big money in the panic that followed hasn’t solved anything, and quite possibly has made matters worse.
The usual uspects are going to link you to ANSWER no matter what you do, fer gawdssake. Don’t start to worry until you’re sounding like the U.S. Labor Party.
Big difference between then and now -
the Vietnam war was started and run into the ground by the Dem’s.
Bush and the Repub’s are responsible for the Iraq debacle and still have not found Usama bin Laden.
PS to Dem’s: stop worrying so much about what others think.
The democrats did not start losing on “national security”, they lost on internal security. The issue was “law and order” as the Republicans helped connect all forms of mass demonstration, both the peace demonstrations and civil rights demonstrations, to the riots in Watts, Newark, Detroit, etc..
Society was in crisis and changing quickly. Republicans proposed themselves as the ones most willing to use force to put down movements for change. A big factor in the change had to do with race. Another factor was the assumption that America was the rightful force to dominate in the world and that we could never allow ourselves to not prevail in any conflict with another nation.
Both of those factors are running wild right now and producing anxiety like crazy. Wait til it sinks in that 100,000 homeless black people are going to be moving around the country looking for places to settle down.
The Democrat party was not behind the peace movement then, and it won’t be now. If a peace candiddate should get nominated, most democrats, leaders and rank and file, will go fishing during the campaign and then vote Republican on election day. Ask George McGovern. He didn’t lose on peace, he lost on the riots and demonstrations.
They will be out of town or looking the other way, just as Dean, Clinton, Feingold, Atrios and Kos are today.
Its like that woman I call and send emails to who never writes back. She’s just never going to.
The problem with this “thoughtful” piece is that “out now” is the only policy which has a remote chance of avoiding further bloodbath in Iraq. All this demand for nuanced positions starts with the assumption that we should take a middle road (of some nature, to be determined later) between staying in Iraq permanently and leaving immediately; of course, the a priori assumtion that both extremes are unworkable never needs to be substantiated, because the appeal to moderation will do nicely. But in truth, the middle road is the most unworkable strategy of them all. Permanent US bases in Iraq are precisely what was intended from the start, becuase they are the guarantor that any future Iraqi government will not reverse the multitude of ruinous noe-liberal policies forced upon the people of Iraq by the occupying forces. In this sense, the slogan “no blood for oil” was simlistic, but not wrong; it was not about oil alone, but war profiteering was never an optional extra for this exercise in imperialism. As such, we must demand an exit of the forces precisely because it is the only chance for a democratic Iraq, free of our control. As long as a hypothetical Iraqi governement needs our troops to prop it up, it follows that this is a government beholden to our interests. And if people are still entertaining the fantasy of “imperialism with a human face”, where we intervene for altruistic reasons, they are the ones who need a reality check.
PS More judges for Nigeria is, of course, a nonsense slogan. Why more judges? What precisely do we (speaking as a UK resident), with our secret trials, rigged elections, overt judicial cronyism and patriot/terrorism acts have to teach Nigeria about the rule of law? It is telling that this is the slogan chosen by the authors and not, for example, “Give Scalia a straitjacket!”. One generally cleans one’s own shit out before commenting on how much the neighbours yard stinks…
What bull shit, Shame on you, so disappointing.
If your car is parked facing a cliff, and the parking brake fails- why, yes, you need to fix the parking brake. But first, you have to put a brick under the wheel so the car won’t roll over the cliff.
First of all, I didn’t write it. I put the piece up for rational discussion - you know, as in analysis and rebuttal? Whether you like it or not, this is how a segment of thoughtful, well-meaning voters think. If you want to influence enough people to vote our way that they can’t steal it the next time, you’d better come up with a stronger argument than “bullshit.”
And by the way, I was loudly, publicly and unequivocably against this war since before it started. I’ve never budged from that position, and I strongly back immediate withdrawal. But we need to bring the rest of the electorate along to the same point.