Today's Elmira Star-Gazette reports that Finger Lakes for Peace will deliver 3,000 petitions to Randy Kuhl's Bath office tomorrow. The wording of the petition can be seen on the group's website [pdf].
The gesture of delivering the petitions en masse will probably draw some media attention. But if I were to set out to design a document with less appeal to the 70% of the population that opposes the war, I'd be hard-pressed to beat the following short paragraph:
I am strongly opposed to the illegal war of aggression against Iraq. I believe the war betrays American values, violates the will of the Iraqi people, fuels anti-Americanism, and makes us all less safe. I believe the best way to stop the war is to stop its funding. I call for a formal apology to the people of Iraq and for funding to be provided by the U.S. for the rebuilding of Iraq, by the Iraqi People. I call for an immediate redeployment and phased withdrawal of our Troops. I call upon you to vote AGAINST President Bush’s Supplemental Appropriations Bill in September, and use Congress’ power of the purse to end the Iraq War.
I've been against the war from the beginning. I think it was an ill-advised, risky overreach into a country that had a peripheral (at best) role in the support of those who attacked the US on 9/11. Even so, I'd have a hard time signing this righteous document, for the following reasons:
In order to sign this document, I need to sign on to an extreme, negative view of American power. Though I'm disillusioned and ashamed of much of what we've done in Iraq, I'm just not ready to supply an abject apology, nor am I willing accept the notion that the war was solely an ill-intentioned, callous exercise of imperial power. Moreover, I can't endorse the characterization of the Iraqi people as innocent victims which seems to underly this little tract. There are too many of those purported innocents using AK-47s to shoot our troops and each other.
Some people wonder why there isn't more marching in the streets, or more vocal protests against this unpopular war. I think at least part of the reason has been the shrillness and self-regarding righteousness of the war's opponents. Members of this group seem so invested in being right that they disregard their main political aim: to organize a generally centrist majority against the war. That majority, which I believe exists, probably doesn't see a formal apology as a first step toward ending the war.
3,000 petitions will not change Randy Kuhl's vote. But thousands of letters from supporters turned opponents because of the war will. The anti-war "movement" has done little that I've seen to mobilize this latter kind of real, effective opposition.
Comments
The petition at the link you provide does not mention illegal war of aggression. Instead simply says war in Iraq.
Personally I believe it illegal because of the false reasons given to get Congress to sign on.
Sorry, there are two versions, the one on the website and the pdf for printing. The pdf includes the "illegal" accusation.
I updated the link.
My broader point on the illegality, which might or might be true, is that a group trying to get a bunch of anti-war petitions signed needn't require the person signing to agree that the war is illegal, an apology is required, etc. By including those extra, more controversial, charges, they're missing out on potential agreement from a broader segment of the population.
I have often felt that the reason Gore lost the election in 2000 was not hanging chad, the Supreme Court or anything other than left wing fringe groups turning off just enough of the undecided voters that they voted for Bush. The same thing happened to Kerry, but I'm not sure that election was close enough to change. Cindy Sheehan did not help the anti-war cause at all, probably held it back! Shrillness seems to go hand in hand with many left wing , anti-war activists and it doesn't help them.
The War is in fact ILLEGAL because it was not sanctioned by the security council and thus violates the UN Charter Treaty, which we are a signatory of.
I very much doubt any significant amount of Iraqis were with us from the beginning since they know that U.S. foreign policy is not motivated by altruism, human rights or respect for international law. And unlike here in the U.S. where people suffer from historical amnesia, the Iraqis remember that Sadaam, a former CIA asset, was propped up into power, armed to the teeth and supported diplomatically while he was committing his worst crimes by the very country that decided he was all of a sudden a bad man that needed to be removed from power.
As for an appropriate time to apologize, there have already been over half a million Iraqis killed and according to a recent OXFAM report unmasking the humanitarian crisis in Iraq (which we created) http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/30/2864/
“43 percent of Iraqis suffer from ‘absolute poverty’...Child malnutrition rates have risen from 19 percent before the US-led invasion in 2003 to 28 percent now..” they have one hour of electricity a day... I could list more but read the report for yourselves. So maybe the best time to apologize is now!
As for the civil war...we are fanning the flames of it...executing the salvador option rumsfeld talked about a few years back by actually arming and training Sunni's. And I would argue most, not some , of the reconstruction money has been squandered by criminal contractors that Kuhl protected by voting against legislation that would mandate oversight of their operations.
I could go on and would love to write an article on the subject for you, especially addressing the role and nature of american power as well as the importance of reaching out to people and pushing them to think beyond wishy-washy centrist views that will never stimulate any kind of lasting social change, but i am afraid i have already been to verbose for the comments section...anyway, i hope i added something to the discussion. Thank you. and thank you to the group that collected the signatures and organized tomorrow's action.
IS it time to leave Iraq? Maybe, but not because of the UN Charter. People better wake up because as "evil" as they think our government is, it does not come close to the evil that is China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, Syria, etc. I have no use for the UN. It is just a forum for a bunch of rag tag countries to do harm to our country, Israel and any other country that really believes in human dignity. I and many americans could care less if anything we do is sanctioned by the Security Council.
Peter: Thanks for the explanations, but my point wasn't to get into a debate about how we got into the war, or about how bad the conduct of the war has been. I put my positions out there to show why someone who has been consistently against the war can still balk at signing what looks like a simple petition.
My main point was to ask why a movement with a discrete, easily articulated aim -- ending the War -- feels repeatedly compelled to add in ideological baggage that alienates prospective supporters. The notion that you can "push" people using the war as a lever is true if your movement is the only alternative for ending the war. It isn't, so people will simply choose to go elsewhere. This may make them "wishy-washy". Even so, they aren't on your side. Successful movements emphasize the aspects of their position that are accepted by a broad spectrum of the populace. Most factions of the anti-war movement haven't done that to this point.
Elmer: There are two points that are mixed together in your comment. Let me separate them because I think we agree on one and disagree on another.
1. Is our country as "evil" as some, like perhaps Peter, thinks?
I don't think so. Specific example: Some of the evil in Iraq existed long before our occupation. The Iraq civil war has its origins in a centuries-long struggle between two different Muslim factions, and it was exacerbated by England's arbitrary creation of a country from three semi-autonomous regions. The US isn't solely, or even principally, responsible for it.
Like the Iraqi Civil War, I think a lot of the evil in the world that people want to blame on the US has a more complex origin than simply our bad acts.
2. The UN is pretty useless.
I think the UN is overall a good organization and worth having around. Any organization that has to reach consensus between bad actors (Russia, China, Syria, etc.) and the rest of us is going to have a lot of frustrating moments, and world government is no panacea for the worlds problems. Nevertheless, there's a lot of good that comes from the humanitarian arms of the UN, and the peacekeeping function has also done some good over the years. The world is better off with it than without it.
I am enjoying the conversation we are all having. R.C. Let me respond to a couple of points.first, i think that it is ok for someone like you not to sign the position if you don't believe in it. But I do think that it is a good thing for groups like this doing anti-war work to push things beyond the mainstream. I think an effective anti-war movement should have diversity in tactics, members and beliefs.
Also, there are other groups working in this district that are more in line with what you are saying and your beliefs and you have actually reported about their events. (Thank you) Americans Against Escalation in Iraq have had a series of successful events throughout the summer (which have been covered my local media) including one with veterans who were registered republicans--my favorite. This Thursday at noon in Watkins Glen in Lafayette Park they will have a bunch of priests speak out at a press conference as well.
To clarify, I DO NOT think our country is evil, but at the same time one would be hard pressed to argue that our government has don't very, very bad things like arm and support genocidal dictators such as Rios Montt in Guatemala or train and arm death squads in El Salvador (1980's)I should not have made a blanket statement about U.S. foreign policy because we do do some good, but I think more often than not motivations are guided by narrow economic and ideological interests.
Finally, we both are in agreement that the U.N overall is a good organization, but one with flaws. My main point of contention is that Washington can't use the U.N. and violation of its resolutions as pretexts for intervention (Elmer this speaks to your comments) but then turn around and violate the very same principals and laws. The hypocricy is just sickening:either we support and strengthen international law or we don't. (and of course this doesn't preclude us from defending ourselves unilaterally WHEN under attack)
Finally, as for the origins of evil in the world you are right in your analysis-its not all on the shoulders of U.S. government actors. That being said, what Washington does can be part of the problem and can stunt progress and we should always make it a point to be critical and to act in protest when appropriate.
Thank you.
Once again, I can’t agree with Elmer. Eric Massa had some interesting comments at the recent daily kos convention about the talking points of Rush Limbaugh/Michael Savage/Bill O’Reilly, etc. The ten minute clip is posted on YouTube. While I believe that Eric’s comments were directed towards O’Reilly’s attacks on the Daily Kos website, I draw parallels to what Elmer has said here. The right wing is very good at putting out simplistic and easy to understand talking points – ie ‘cut and run’, ‘tax and spend liberal’, “socialized medicine’ etc. Dim-wits out there can easily understand and remember these points, without bothering to read lengthy articles or truly understand the complexity of an issue. The right wing spokesmen on Clear Channel and Fox News have successfully used simple slogans to categorize Al Gore and John Kerry as far-out radical extremists. In my opinion, Al Gore’s main problem in 2000 wasn’t that he was too radical, it was that he was too much of a milk-toast. I furthermore believe that Kerry’s fatal flaw in 2004 was his poor communication skills. He wasn’t able to clearly and simply articulate his points in a way that the dumb-shits out there could easily understand and remember. He gave paragraph long answers to questions and thus presented an easy mark for attacks. The right wing has successfully pushed talking points like “The UN is worthless”, “US=good/rest of world=evil” , ‘liberals hate America’ , “Al Gore is a nut”. Non-readers can easily remember and regurgitate these points without bothering to really understand the issues involved.
I think an effective anti-war movement should have diversity in tactics, members and beliefs.
Agreed, and I don't see that happening. The anti-war movement that I've seen is pretty much a left-of-center movement. Even AAEI seems to be that. I think there's room for an anti-war centrist movement that (a) doesn't use protest or other, similar media events as the centerpiece of its action plan and (b) concentrates on a single aim: an orderly pullback and withdrawal from Iraq.
...one would be hard pressed to argue that our government has don't very, very bad things...
Indeed -- our government has done some bad things in Central/South America in the 80's. But we're talking about Iraq. That's what I mean by ideological baggage. The feeling that I get from the petition and from a lot of the anti-war movement is that I need to sign on to a whole raft of doctrine in order to agree about one thing: opposition to the occupation of Iraq.
Another way of saying it: A movement to end an unpopular war is not the right context for debating issues about the UN, US interventionism in the 1980's, and what the US should do in other parts of the world.
Could it be that progressive or leftist war opponents, who have been on the losing end of almost every political argument for the last 20+ years, don't know what to do when they're suddenly on the right side of a major issue that has riveted public attention?
I mean that as a serious question, not a slam or put-down.
Oxford Classicist Jasper Griffin once wrote: "We look into history from motives of two kinds. There is a curiosity of the past...and [second]there is a hope to understand the present, how to place and interpret our own times, experiences and hopes for the future."
RC wrote: "Indeed -- our government has done some bad things in Central/South America in the 80's. But we're talking about Iraq. That's what I mean by ideological baggage."
Hmmm, ideological baggage. Let me spell it out very clearly since you missed the connection: U.S. arms and trains death squads in El Salvador (yes, in the 1980's)+ (Jan. 2005)Bush Administration suggests using "Salvador Option" in Iraq (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/02/roots-of-iraq-civil-war-may-be-in-sa...)
+ U.S. military now executing "salvador Option" by arming and training Sunni militias = history repeating itself.
So, I would suggest that you are way off point by dismissing my analysis as "ideological baggage."
As for an more recent example of U.S. supporting terrorism: Micahel Chertoff ok'd Chiquita paying money to right-wing paramilitaries in Colombia
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/01/AR200708...
As for the centrist anti-war movement...by all means start it, but you shouldn't necessarily knock people who are actually walking there talk and doing something to end the war. Also, if you are not going to protest or do anything to publicly raise awareness and expand support for your goals I am not sure how effective you will be. As for AAEI, the org's stated focus is that they want to change the votes of targeted Reps and Senators so that they vote to end the war and vote for legislation that includes and enforceable timetable for withdrawal.
So when you write: "A movement to end an unpopular war is not the right context for debating issues about the UN, US interventionism in the 1980's, and what the US should do in other parts of the world" I think you are completely wrong. There is no better time because unless we address these issues we will be in the same place we are now 10 or 20 years from now...and it really won't matter if its a dem or repub in the white house.
I'll end it here, and again, I am enjoying this coversation. Thanks for taking the time to think and write about my comments.
Watkins Glen? Bath? The last time I recall such grassroots disgust with a war was during, of course, Vietnam. It took a while, but that year, 1968, at least one anti-war activist--still teaching at Corning Community College, I think; Frank Anastasio--won districtwide election as a delegate to the Demo election. I say three cheers for these grassrooters of a new generation.
Our government has made mistakes and gotten into bed with very, very bad people for a long time now. Mostly we do what we need to do to get through the present and then let the future take care of itself. The earliest I remember was the Roosevelt-Stalin relationship, but I'd be willing to bet it goes back a lot farther.
We've also pulled out of places and caused deaths of untold numbers (China after WW2).
Was it OK to use Stalin to defeat the Nazis? On the surface I would think so, but some of you might disagree with me. Kennedy used Cuban exiles to invade Cuba. I would like to think that all of our presidents had our best interests at heart, but sometimes it just doesn't work out the way they would like it to. (Stalin did kill a few dozen of his own countrymen)
The UN charter states that the use of force by any nation is illegal unless (1) in self-defense or (2) by authorization of the UN security council. Most experts in international law, as well as anyone that's been paying attention agree that neither condition (1) nor (2) have been met. Therefore the 'conflict' is Iraq continues to be an illegal war of aggression according to international law.
Article VI of the Constitution states that treaties, which this country has signed and ratified, are the "supreme law of the land."
The UN Charter is a treaty that was signed and ratified by congress and the senate.
I am not a lawyer but it seems to me that a 'supreme law of the land' written into our constitution overrides a 2/3 vote by congress. Especially since many within that 2/3 now agree their vote was based on 'faulty intelligence' or are aware that "...intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
It seems cut and dry to me that those that authorized and continue to support the conflict in Iraq are complicit in breaking both international and dometic law.
Enlighten me on what I don't understand.
Dawn, I couldn't have put it any better. Well said, or should I say written.
Cheers
Peter, that "Salvador option" quote refers to a Pentagon study that recommended using one of the oldest war tactics in the book: turning the enemy of my enemy into my ally. That's a tactic we're using in Anbar province, btw. The mere fact that it is called the "Salvador option" does not mean that there's a deep connection between the Iraq War and our exploits in Central America in the 80's.
If the term "baggage" doesn't appeal, how about another one: "distraction". Issues like the legality of the UN mandate and the connection to other acts of aggression distract from the purported aim of the anti-war movement, which is to stop this war.
From Newsweek article on 'Salvador Option': "NEWSWEEK has learned, the Pentagon is intensively debating an option that dates back to a still-secret strategy in the Reagan administration’s battle against the leftist guerrilla insurgency in El Salvador in the early 1980s. Then, faced with a losing war against Salvadoran rebels, the U.S. government funded or supported "nationalist" forces that...included so-called death squads directed to hunt down and kill rebel leaders and sympathizers...many U.S. conservatives consider the policy to have been a success—despite the deaths of innocent civilians and the subsequent Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages scandal."
The connection is very simple...as I pointed out before--we make the same mistakes over and over again. And of course this may have something to do with the recycling of politicians involved in these lat. american scandals like negroponte, abrams, reich, etc. Supporting death squads that are beyond the law should never be an option. So again, it is relevant to put things in an historical perspective and it is NOT a "distraction."
Peter - Rotten's point is that you don't need to over-complicate a petition/perspective in order to get your point across.
ElmerK- the Stalin relationship during WW2 was along the lines of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Had Hitler listened to his predecessor Bismark regarding the strategic position of Germany as either the hammer, or the anvil, the world might be wearing goofy pants with leather boots and saluting the buddhist symbol of peace (Irony defined).
As you may have read, after WW2 there was this long period of tension between the USSR and America, which thankfully did not result in open conflict.
Also Stalin killed some 40 million of his countrymen via gulags, or labor prisons, but I figure your estimate was made in jest, heh.
Sorry for the segway, but I respect the merits of history too much to see it used in such a way.
I agree completely. When I go to a demonstration, I wear a suit & tie and carry a flag! The tie-dyes, peace symbols, dreadlocks, sandals, drums, etc, do more harm than good.
That includes extreme language like "war of aggression". (might as well call them capitalist running-dogs)
Are you trying to persuade people to agree with you, or turn them off completely? Because you're acting like this is 1974. This is a battle of identity, we should be trying to get folks to realize that they're more like us than they are like them.
All that hippy stuff is no good.
Hi, it's me. One of the people who wrote the Fingerlakes for Peace statement and got arrested in Bath.
The opinions expressed in our statement are the consensus of our group, and 3000 people who signed the petition. Nobody I talked to refused to sign it because it was to lefty. But if YOU don't want to sign that one, please write your own. I'll probably sign it if I get a chance.
If you want to be part of a centrist anti-war movement, please organize one rather than busting our chops for not doing things the way you would have. Again, I'll probably support whatever you want to do.
My one critique of your centrist approach is, that if we accept the administration's false assumptions (WMD, 9-11 connection, spreading democracy, US does not torture, etc.) then our country will keep doing the same things and justifying them in the same way.
A little while back I saw a documentary about Vietnam, and it was chocking to hear government officials using the same language to bamboozle the public that they are using today.
Peace be with you.
OK, I accept your challenge. Here's my petition:
Dear Rep Kuhl,
I'm a Republican (or Conservative, or Independent) and I voted for you in the last election. I'm writing to urge you to vote for any legislation that will get us out of Iraq as soon as possible. The war has gone on long enough, and our brave warriors need to come home. If you keep voting to throw money and lives down that rathole, I just don't see how I can pull the lever for you again in 2008.
Sincerely,
A Real Person who Lives in the 29th
If Kuhl gets 3,000 of these, I guarantee that the organization that did it will have his full, undivided attention.
I'm currently watching the Bush press conference.
He's talking about why things aren't progressing in Iraq and points out the fact they Iraq is a new democracy and the current leaders are just now learning to lead.
Then he mentions that the Iraq government isn't passing the laws "we" want them to. Someone needs to give GW a lesson in what democracy is because I don't believe anyone in the US believes that forces outside of the US get to force us to pass laws, why should GW be attempting to force laws to be passed in Iraq....that is not democracy.