Go to Original
Antiwar Campaigners Have to Change Electoral Tactics
By Naomi Klein and Jeremy Scahill
The Guardian UK
Wednesday 26 March 2008
Neither Clinton nor Obama has a real plan
to end the occupation of Iraq, but they could be forced to change position.
'So?" So said Dick Cheney when asked last week about public opinion being
overwhelmingly against the war in Iraq. "You can't be blown off course
by polls." A few days later, his attitude, about the fact that the number
of US soldiers killed in Iraq has reached 4,000, displayed similar levels of
sympathy. They "voluntarily put on the uniform," the vice-president
told ABC news.
This brick wall of indifference helps explain the paradox in which we in the
US anti-war camp find ourselves five years into the occupation of Iraq: anti-war
sentiment is as strong as ever, but our movement seems to be dwindling. Sixty-four
per cent of Americans tell pollsters they oppose the war, but you'd never know
it from the thin turnout at recent rallies and vigils.
When asked why they aren't expressing their anti-war opinions through the anti-war
movement, many say they have simply lost faith in the power of protest. They
marched against the war before it began, marched on the first, second and third
anniversaries. And yet, five years on, US leaders are still shrugging: "So?"
That's why it's time for the anti-war movement to change tactics. We should
direct our energy where it can still have an impact: the leading Democratic
contenders.
Many argue otherwise. They say that if we want to end the war, we should simply
pick a candidate who is not John McCain and help them win: we'll sort out the
details after the Republicans are evicted from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Some
of the most prominent anti-war voices - from MoveOn.org to the Nation, the magazine
we both write for - have gone down this route, throwing their weight behind
the Obama campaign.
This is a serious strategic mistake. It is during a hotly contested campaign
that anti-war forces have the power to actually sway US policy. As soon as we
pick sides, we relegate ourselves to mere cheerleaders.
And when it comes to Iraq, there is little to cheer. Look past the rhetoric
and it becomes clear that neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton has a real
plan to end the occupation. They could, however, be forced to change their positions,
thanks to the unique dynamics of the prolonged primary battle.
Despite the calls for Clinton to withdraw in the name of "unity",
it is the very fact that Clinton and Obama are still fighting it out, fiercely
vying for votes, that presents the anti-war movement with its best pressure
point. And our pressure is badly needed.
For the first time in 14 years, weapons manufacturers are donating more to
Democrats than to Republicans. The Democrats have received 52% of the defence
industry's political donations in this election cycle - up from a low of 32%
in 1996. That money is about shaping foreign policy and, so far, it appears
to be well spent.
While Clinton and Obama denounce the war with great passion, they both have
detailed plans to continue it. Both say they intend to maintain the massive
green zone, including the monstrous US embassy, and to retain US control of
Baghdad airport.
They will have a "strike force" to engage in counter-terrorism, as
well as trainers for the Iraqi military. Beyond these US forces, the army of
green zone diplomats will require heavily armed security details, which are
currently provided by Blackwater and other private security companies. At present
there are as many private contractors supporting the occupation as there are
soldiers, so these plans could mean tens of thousands of US personnel entrenched
for the future.
In sharp contrast to this downsized occupation is the unequivocal message coming
from hundreds of soldiers who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq Veterans
Against the War which, earlier this month, held the Winter Soldier hearings
in Silver Spring, Maryland - modelled on the 1971 Winter Soldier investigation,
in which veterans testified about US atrocities in Vietnam - are not supporting
any candidate or party. Instead they are calling for immediate, unconditional
withdrawal of all US soldiers and contractors. Coming from peace activists,
the "out now" position has been dismissed as naive. It is harder to
ignore coming from the hundreds who have served - and continue to serve - on
the frontlines.
The candidates know that much of the passion fuelling their campaigns flows
from the desire among so many rank-and-file Democrats to end this disastrous
war. Crucially, the candidates have already shown that they are vulnerable to
pressure from the peace camp. When the Nation revealed that neither candidate
was supporting legislation that would ban the use of Blackwater and other private
security companies in Iraq, Clinton changed course. She became the most important
US political leader to endorse the ban - scoring a point on Obama, who opposed
the invasion from the start.
This is exactly where we want the candidates: outdoing each other to prove
how serious they are about ending the war. That kind of battle has the power
to energise voters and break the cynicism that is threatening both campaigns.
Let's remember, unlike the outgoing Bush administration, these candidates need
the support of the two-thirds of Americans who oppose the war in Iraq. If opinion
transforms into action, they won't be able to afford to say, "So?"
--------
Copyright New York Times syndication
Naomi Klein is the author of "The Shock Doctrine"; Jeremy
Scahill is the author of "Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most
Powerful Mercenary Army."
-------
Jump to today's Truthout Features:
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. t r u t h o u t has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is t r u t h o u t endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
"Go to Original" links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted on TO may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the "Go to Original" links.
Print This Story
E-mail This Story