The Beginning of the End?

"We see this as the beginning of the end," said Tom Andrews, a former Democratic representative from Maine who is executive director of the antiwar group Win Without War. "It's the very beginning of a new wave of activism on this war. There's a real sense that something is beginning to move." --Los Angeles Times, Friday June 17, 2005

Earlier that day, a friend and longtime antiwar activist left me a voice mail message. Just ten days earlier he told me that he was more depressed about our politics than at anytime in the last 40 years. "Hello, this is..." he said. "I was in Washington yesterday at the rally and at the Conyers hearings. And since I laid a heavy statement on you last week, I just wanted to make a correction. It's finally over. My despair is over. Something has happened these last ten days that has revived the antiwar issue. It has to do with public opinion polls and casualties and Republicans like Walter Jones and more Democrats standing up. I won't say how optimistic I am. But something is coming together--you can feel it."

You can feel it.

*Every day brings news of public opinion turning against the occupation--and the President's conduct of the war. Last week, a Washington Post-ABC News poll showed that for the first time since the war began, more than half of the public believes the US invasion has not made the US more secure; and nearly 40 percent described the situation there now as analagous to the Vietnam War. A new Gallup survey finds that almost 60 percent of Americans say the US should withdraw some or all of its troops from Iraq, the largest number in that category ever. And for the first time, most Americans say they would be "upset" if President Bush sent more troops. Gallup also found that 56 percent now feel the war was "not worth it," and 73 percent consider the number of casualties unacceptable.

* Every day brings news of more Democrats coming forward, standing up and introducing "exit strategy" resolutions. (Though, as of yet, leadership isn't coming from the leadership.) Lynn Woolsey forced a Congressional vote on bipartisan legislation that would have asked Bush to submit a plan to Congress explaining the outlines of an exit strategy from Iraq. Senator Russell Feingold has introduced a nonbinding resolution calling on the Bush Administration to set specific goals for leaving Iraq.

In the House, the International Relations Committee last week voted overwhelmingly, 32 to 9, to call on the White House to develop and submit a plan to Congress for establishing a stable government and military in Iraq that would "permit a decreased US presence" in the country. Congresswomen Maxine Waters (D/CA)--along with 41 Congressional progressives, including Woolsey, John Lewis, Charles Rangel, Jim McGovern, Rush Holt, Marcy Kaptur and Jan Schakowsky--has just formed the "Out of Iraq Congressional Caucus." Its sole purpose, Waters says, "is to be the main agitators in the movement to bring our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan." And Rep John Conyers' impassioned efforts to bring attention to the Downing Street Memo--on Thursday he held hearings on Capitol Hill and then delivered to the White House letters that contained the names of more than 560,000 Americans demanding answers to questions raised by the British memo--has reenergized and refocused opposition to the war.

While the Administration and its allies in Congress are trying to make it seem as if these new initiatives merely reflect Democrats' reading of the polls, I say--bring it on. Let's welcome more Democrats--and sane Republicans--giving legislative expression and voice to the majority of Americans who want to see our Iraq policy changed. (In fact, according to the recent Gallup poll, Congress appears to be lagging behind the public on the issue: Some 72 percent of Democrats, 65 percent of independents and 41 percent of Republicans say they favor a partial or complete withdrawal.)

*Every day brings news of another Republican signing on to the bipartisan resolution introduced last Thursday by Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC)--the man who brought us "Freedom Fries"--and Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii). That resolution calls for the Bush Administration to announce a plan for the withdrawal of all US forces from Iraq by the end of the year and to initiate the plan as soon as possible. Maverick Congressman Ron Paul (R/Texas) is already a sponsor, Jim Leach (R/ Iowa) signed on Friday and Howard Coble (R/North Carolina) is considering adding his signature. (With 2006 midterms fast approaching, more Republicans will be hearing from constituents who are growing uneasy about the war. And more GOP members up for reelection may start sounding like Jones, who said in an interview with ABC's George Stephanopolous last weekend that he votes his conscience first, his constituents second, and his party third.)

But much hard and grinding organizing work remains ahead.

On Monday afternoon, Abercrombie and others are going to sit down with Congressman Jones and other House members to discuss options to advance the resolution and build activism against the war.

They'll be supported by a national coalition, that includes Win Without War, MoveOn.org, The National Council of Churches, True Majority, Sojourners, Working Assets and the National Organization of Women, which is planning a grassroots outreach campaign encouraging Members of Congress to sign onto the newly introduced bipartisan resolution.

These organizations are going to be concentrating on those members of Congress who should be particularly susceptible to constituent demand about the war. (As Tom Andrews of the invaluable Win Without War group says, "Take it from one who has been there, in Congress loyalty to one's party leaders and president stops at the 'waters edge' of the voters at home.")

"A prairie fire of activism has started," Andrews argues. "Our job now is to fan these flames and get a conflagration of opposition spreading across the country. We are working with our member groups as well as others on a range of action options to build momentum over the next several months. These will include a major action in Washington in September with what I hope will include a complementary Internet based component. Between those marching in DC and those joining through the Internet around the country I am certain that we could have a million Americans demonstrating against the Bush war in September."

The combination of dropping poll numbers, the grinding images of chaos and violence in Iraq, the daily news of young Americans dying in what seems a senseless war and the increasingly active and visible opposition of constituents is bad news for the president and his Congressional allies.

This really can be the beginning of the end of a disastrous war and a bankrupt national security strategy.

Comments (19)

1. There came a time during the U.S. war against Vietnam when the daily drumbeat of U.S. military deaths just overwhelmed the U.S. government happytalk propaganda. We are reaching that point in this Bush invasion-occupation in Iraq. And when the Democratic leadership should be leading the opposition to the occupation, instead the Biden crowd are telling us to stay the course. This illustrates again why I believe the Democratic Party is no place for progressives. They are with the Republicans as the war party. And they are on the wrong side of history. Let Iraqis decide for themselves what kind of government they want.

   Posted by philbq at 06/19/2005 @ 01:34am

2. "But by the beginning of [2005] it was precisely time that mattered to the American government in its attempt to save itself from something that might look like a defeat. Whether or not [Bush] ever had any greater ambitions, it now became clear that the original war aims as explained to the American public no longer held. What had looked like an attempt to 'save [Iraq] from [Terrorism]' was rather an attempt to save American 'prestige' around the world. But the time for that had already passed by. The leaders of other nations had already seen what a small and determined group of people could do to the United States and were in the process of drawing their conclusions. The American war effort had, then, become almost entirely solipsistic: the U.S. government was trying to save 'American prestige' for America alone, to convince itself of American superiority."

   Frances Fitzgerald, Fire in the Lake: the Vietnamese and the Americans in Vietnam, p. 503.

   "At the same time, the war was putting the American officials and politicians who favored the anti-[Terrorism] struggle in an increasingly difficult moral position [since] they had either to withdraw their support from the war or to look upon its brutality as a necessary and acceptable means to an end. As few wished to do either, the majority attempted to avoid the dilemma altogether by taking the refuge of the ostrich."

   Frances Fitzgerald, Fire in the Lake: the Vietnamese and the Americans in Vietnam , p. 503-504

   Notes:

   {2005] substituted for [1968]

   [Bush] substituted for [Johnson]

   [Iraq] substituted for [Vietnam]

   [Terrorism] substituted for [Communism]

   Posted by mrmurry at 06/19/2005 @ 02:22am

3. It's amazing that our representatives in government are now realizing what many of us knew 3 years ago! It's about damn time.

   Posted by Daniel Rubin at 06/19/2005 @ 09:39am

4. It makes one wonder then, if the evidence shows that not only was there never any "real" WMD's, and the evidence shows based on the British memo that Bush and the administration were trying to fashion the evidence around the policy, why do the majority of our leadership in congress and the house, continue to support the war and not demand immediate withdrawal. Is it pure ego? Not wanting to admit they were wrong?

   Or perhaps, just perhaps, they feel as I do that the war is just, irregardless of whether any WMD's were found, and that terrorism is a cancer that should be removed from the world, and are willing to take the criticism and the cat calls of being unethical to remove the cancer.

   Just a thought,

   Todd

   Posted by Oksportsguy at 06/19/2005 @ 10:54am

5. For me the worst was watching a befuddled Scott McClellan attempt to dodge four or five times a question by reporter the definition of what the "last throes" were from the insurgency. The reporter succinctly described that it would be very difficult for the VP to make such a sweeping claim given that the number of casualties has risen both of American and Iraqi descent.

   Posted by gregjtmarlin at 06/19/2005 @ 4:13pm

6. "Every day brings news of another Republican signing on to the bipartisan resolution introduced last Thursday by Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC)--the man who brought us "Freedom Fries"--and Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii). That resolution calls for the Bush Administration to announce a plan for the withdrawal of all US forces from Iraq by the end of the year and to initiate the plan as soon as possible. Maverick Congressman Ron Paul (R/Texas) is already a sponsor, Jim Leach (R/ Iowa) signed on Friday and Howard Coble (R/North Carolina) is considering adding his signature."

   Rep. and former presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) is also a sponsor of this legislation. Katrina, why snub Dennis? The mainstream media did that throughout his presidential campaign. Please give credit where credit is due. Dennis has been a leader in opposition to the Iraq war/occupation from the very beginning. Getting the troops out was at the top of his agenda in his presidential campaign. It started with his Feb. 17, 2002 Prayer for America [house.gov] speech, I hope everyone has heard it or read the transcript. He deserves recognition for what he has done and is doing. Check out kucinich.us [kucinich.us] for more information.

   Posted by bkind2animals at 06/19/2005 @ 6:25pm

7. "By [2005], the war had lasted longer than any foreign conflict in American [memory -- 24/7], and the [three] months that [Bush] had given himself had stretched out into three years, with [1,720] additional American casualties and the end not yet in sight."

   "All the [deals] and [Condoleeza Rice's] secret missions failed of result, essentially because the United States was trying to negotiate itself out of a war it could not win and look good at the same time."

   Barbara Tuchman, The March of Folly: from Troy to Vietnam, p. 369.

   Notes:

   [2005] substituted for [1972]

   [memory -- 24/7] substituted for [history]

   [three] substituted for [six]

   [Bush] substituted for [Nixon]

   [1,720] substituted for [15,000]

   [deals] substituted for [Paris Talks]

   {Rice] substituted for [Kissinger]

   Once again: change a few factoids, and you get the same Crusade, but only different Crusaders. Once again: the same domestic political problem arises for the presidents and prime ministers who sent the Crusaders off to unnecessary death and maiming at public expense.

   Posted by mrmurry at 06/19/2005 @ 9:01pm

8. Upon leaving Iraq after a two-year stint as a reporter there, Newsweek's Rod Nordland filed this grim summary of "progress" to date:

   "The most powerful army in human history can't even protect a two-mile stretch of road. The Airport Highway connects both the international airport and Baghdad's main American military base, Camp Victory, to the city center. At night U.S. troops secure the road for the use of dignitaries; they close it to traffic and shoot at any unauthorized vehicles. More troops and more helicopters could help make the whole country safer. Instead the Pentagon has been drawing down the number of helicopters. And America never deployed nearly enough soldiers. They couldn't stop the orgy of looting that followed Saddam's fall. Now their primary mission is self-defense at any cost--which only deepens Iraqis' resentment. The four-square-mile Green Zone, the one place in Baghdad where foreigners are reasonably safe, could be a showcase of American values and abilities. Instead the American enclave is a trash-strewn wasteland of Mad Max-style fortifications. The traffic lights don't work because no one has bothered to fix them. The garbage rarely gets collected. Some of the worst ambassadors in U.S. history are the GIs at the Green Zone's checkpoints. They've repeatedly punched Iraqi ministers, accidentally shot at visiting dignitaries and behave (even on good days) with all the courtesy of nightclub bouncers--to Americans and Iraqis alike. Not that U.S. soldiers in Iraq have much to smile about. They're overworked, much ignored on the home front and widely despised in Iraq, with little to look forward to but the distant end of their tours--and in most cases, another tour soon to follow. Many are reservists who, when they get home, often face the wreckage of careers and family."

   I don't want to reprise here the whole of Nordland's article (see "Good Intentions Gone Bad" (in Newsweek's June 13, 2005 issue), because the interested reader can find any number of such reports coming out of Iraq today now that America's print media have started to do their jobs at last -- usually risking robbery, kidnapping, and death in the process. Rather, I'd like to focus on the Orwellian Crimestop, or "protective stupidity," that keeps the factoid gatherers always on the ever-receding threshhold of drawing the repugnant though necessary conclusion. Like so many other Americans, Nordland ends his littany of dispiriting facts by incongrously stating:

   "I'm not one of those who think America should pull out immediately. There's no real choice but to stay, probably for many years to come."

   As an earnest young Crimestopper, Mr. Nordland dutifully lists the many good reasons why America should terminate its military occupation of Iraq. Then, he dutifully shrinks from concluding that America should terminate its military occupation. After carefully listing the perfectly true reasons why America's presence has made a mess of Iraq, he then concludes that America's presence in Iraq should continue. Having shown conclusively that the mess in Iraq gets worse the longer America stays, he then concludes that America should stay longer. Crimestop. Pure Crimestop.

   The late comedian Henny Youngman used to tell an old joke about the man who goes to his doctor and says: "Doctor, it hurts when I do this." The doctor replies: "Then don't do that."

   Common sense would normally kick in at this late stage in the disaster and propose: "OK, I think I'll stop hurting myself now. The masochistic pain has simply gotten too intense to enjoy any longer. Now it just hurts!" Common sense doesn't kick in though, because as H. L. Menken said, "Those who enjoy war and grow fat on it far surpass in numbers those who suffer from it." The political, economic, and social class in America that started the war in Iraq has grown fat on it, enjoys it consummately (although vicariously from a safe distance), and wants it to go on as long as possible. Since the "lower" economic and social classes in America have little political representation in the American regime, the regime can go on hurting them for as long as it possibly can, right up until the very last moment before a rebellion breaks out against the exploitation. The American regime now finds itself in the precarious position of trying to delicately manage precisely how far to push the abused working class that pays the bills and provides the cannon fodder. Naturally, to obtain the maximum fat and enjoyment from the war, they must push as hard and as far as possible. Push too far, though, and the whole rotten edifice could come crashing down in revolution. All imperial-militarist regimes face this problem and it only remains now to see how the American regime copes with it.

   When the phony "Monolithic World Communism" bogeyman ran out of gas an collapsed of its own internal contradictions, a new bogeyman had to take its place. "Terrorism" serves for the moment. Even though Iraq never committed any "terrorist" acts against America, that inconvenient truth simply has to get swept under the rug so that America's terrorism against the people of Iraq can continue. Too many Americans grow fat on it and enjoy it. Too few suffer from it. Until that inequality changes so that the enjoyers start to suffer for what they have enjoyed, then no long litany of dispiriting -- though true -- factoids will overcome the Crimestop, or protective stupidity, that misguides America today.

   Posted by mrmurry at 06/19/2005 @ 10:21pm

9. I am always amused by the wishful thinking of the Left. It doesn't surprise me to hear about the anti-war activist who was in despair, and is now floating with hope about causing democracy to fail in Iraq. That manic-depressiveness is endemic among the Left, who find reality anathema.

   Posted by Tymbrimi at 06/20/2005 @ 02:52am

10. Tymbrimi: Democracy cannot be installed at the point of a gun through an invasion and occupation. Rightwingers like you have no idea what democracy is. The attack on Iraq was not sold as installing democracy anyway-it was "protecting America from WMD". If Bush had sold his war as "spreading democracy", it would never have passed Congress. So the pro-war crowd are phonies and hypocrites, like you. If you love this war so much, ENLIST!

    Posted by philbq at 06/20/2005 @ 09:35am

11. I never cease to be struck by the combined naivete/ignorance of the left when it comes to battling evil in the world...

    First of all, this is a president who is a man of conviction and will stay the course because it is right. You all seem to ignore the point that Israel has been dealing with terrorists for decades and still cannot prevent every terrorist attack. You can only remain diligent to stay on the offense against those who do not value life. I don't remember any massive outcries for establishing "endplans" or "withdrawal plans" for WWII or even as recent as Bosnia (remember Bill Clinton and "we'll only be there for a year").

    Those who understand the only response to evil is to execute the sword of justice (see the Bible Romans 14) will work diligently to see our elected officials stand up to their responsibilities and not wimp out.

    Secondly, as to establishing democracy at gunpoint, you on the far left forget history. The United States was established through the point of a gun. As well as Japan and Germany.

    Evil is allowed to prosper when men of goodwill do nothing.

    Posted by love liberty at 06/20/2005 @ 12:57pm

12. Mr. Liberty, are you saying that if we continue on this path, we Americans can begin to share in the safety, freedom, moral stature, and international goodwill that Israel now enjoys? Oh boy!

    Posted by rvs-convener at 06/20/2005 @ 3:38pm

13. Love Liberty: Your parallel about the pointing gun that established the U.S. and the guns in Iraq today is incongruous. Then, the guns that were FOR democracy, were pointing outward, from the colonies. In our situation today, the guns supposedly FOR democracy are coming from the outside into Iraq.

    And yes evil may prosper when men of goodwill do nothing. However, the actions of those combatting evil do not ALWAYS have to be brutal and violent. In this day and age, there is much behind-the-scenes activity that could have been undertaken to fight the terrorists.

    Posted by AnneV at 06/20/2005 @ 4:55pm

14. Two years ago, in the immediate aftermath of the invasion of Iraq, all U.S. troops were quietly removed from Saudi Arabia, a story that went virtually unreported. The goal of the Iraq war wasn't to overthrow Saddam or spread democracy or fight terrorism. It was to achieve a larger and permanent American military presence in the Middle East, in a country other than Saudi Arabia because our bases there were a rallying point for those advocating the overthrow of the royal family. The Bush administration won't discuss an exit strategy because the whole point of the war was to get in and stay in, to have American troops there permanently, protecting the interests of the oil companies and the Saudis, not coincidentally the people who put Bush in office.

    Posted by dalloway at 06/20/2005 @ 6:12pm

15. (an open letter to Bob Herbert of the New York Times)

    Dear Mr. Herbert,

    As a victim/veteran of the Nixon-Kissinger Fig Leaf Contingent (Vietnam 1970-1972), I admire your work and certainly agree with the thrust of your recent column "Someone Else's Child" (New York Times June 20, 2005). Nonetheless, I would like to take cordial issue with one of your comments in particular. Please accept my remarks more in the spirit of amplification than argument.

    I cannot agree with you or anyone else who maintains that "if the United States had a draft … its warriors would be drawn from a much wider swath of the population, and political leaders would think much longer and harder before committing the country to war." First of all, the "swath," as you call it, doesn't need to get "wider;" it needs to get "narrower." America doesn't have too few warriors: it has too many wars. Less available cannon fodder means fewer cannons fired merely for the sake of using up surplus ammunition. Fewer "bullet catchers" or "Ordnance Absorption Technicians" means fewer "Ordnance Expenditure Expeditions." Pick your preferred terminology. Second, a future and narrower "swath" needs a different "class composition," not a different "size." America will have precisely the size military it truly needs when it draws its military manpower exclusively from those privileged classes that now do not serve. The other classes have done their duty already. Poor men have had enough "Rich man's war, Poor man's fight." Now the previously uninvolved classes should get their turn to save the realm from harm. If we need war at all, and we seldom do, then we need a "Poor man's war and a Rich man's fight." We haven't yet tried "unleashing" America's truly "Blessed and Brightest" against our enemies real and imagined. We should try that before even considering conscripting a "wider" swath of the "lower" and "middle" working class. In any event, as history will attest, the priviledged class lawmakers in league with their campaign contributors and Pet Press will riddle any possible form of Draft with loopholes, thereby keeping their own children, as they hava always done, safely out of the swath. No. We need a "different" and "smaller" swath to serve in our nation's military, not a "bigger" or "wider" one.

    When the Bush and Clinton daughters ship out for extended military duty in the Khyber Pass, then I'll reconsider my thoughts on this "swath" subject -- not before.

    Sincerely Yours,

    Michael Murry -- Kaohsiung, Taiwan

    Posted by mrmurry at 06/20/2005 @ 9:09pm

16. Thanks to all for some incisive, informed and spirited replies, comments. Just a few things to note today, Tuesday, June 21: A just released CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll shows that nearly six in ten Americans oppose the war in Iraq and a growing number are dissatisfied with the "war" on terrorism. And for those who don't read Juan Cole's blog --"Informed Comment" (Thoughts on the Middle East, History and Religion) at juancole.com--I recommend taking a look at his proposal regarding "The United Nations Strategy as a Resolution of the Iraq Crisis." I don't agree with some of the details--but the proposal to replace the American occupation with a UN enforcement mission is veyr much worth considering. I also appreciate Cole's bold thinking about how the American Left could not only champion the UN, international cooperation and international law--but make the institution and these ideas popular again with the US people. A small footnote...So, Chuck Hagel, Republican from Nebraska, who is widely considered a possible candidate for President in 2008,is speaking common sense in this week's US News & World Report. He says that this Adminsitration's assessments of Iraq are "disconnected from reality" adding that "the reality is that we are losing in Iraq." But these GOPsters have a hard time dealing with reality and common sense. When Hagel went on Bill Moyers' PBS news program "NOW," and raised rational questions about the White House's Iraq policy, the rightwing monitor hired by CPB Chair Kenneth Tomlinson to report on the political leanings of Moyers' guests, classified Hagel as a "liberal." How's that for a plug for liberals as people attuned to common sense, evidence-based, rational principles....being rolled back by people who don't believe in an enlightened citizenry capable of making their own decisions in a democracy. For more on the attacks on our democracy-see Bill Moyers' two page statement in today's Washington Post. Katrina

    Posted by Katrina vanden H at 06/21/2005 @ 11:55am

17. Dalloway is right on point. Most of the people I talk to in the military tell me that we are in the process of building permanent military bases in Iraq right now. The money pouring into Iraq is not to reconstruct their country, it is to construct our military installations. The reason we have no exit strategy is that we have never planned to exit.....the whole point of this war is to redefine our presence in the Middle East. This administration was very clever in the way they crafted and have carried out this plan. However, it looks as if the American public is beginning to understand the scope of the problem, and it is wonderful to finally see public sentiment against this war on the rise.

    Posted by jpolston at 06/21/2005 @ 12:03pm

18. How sad to read the commentary on this site essentially praying for American failure. Waiting with baited breath. How sad that instead of lauding the progress that is being made and the courage of ordinary Iraqis to build a new Iraq we instead talk of cutting and running.

    When will the left once again stand up for oppressed people around the world? Blind hate toward the current administration has replaced visionary and bold thinking. Sad. Pathetic.

    Posted by blauro at 06/21/2005 @ 5:34pm

19. Blauro:

    You have a point. Parts of the liberal community wouldn't mind seeing the country lose in Iraq because they hope to diffuse the time bomb of republican dominance which has further destroyed our environment and given our nation's capital to the wealthy elite who already had enough of it.

    I think the war was a huge mistake based on a series of incredibly duplicitous lies and trickery. However, I for one am a liberal who hopes that America is successful in creating a Democracy in Iraq. I'm not sure how to impose democracy, but I think if we unilaterally pull out of Iraq we will have created the grounds for genocide. Just because we went there for the wrong reasons doesn't mean leaving would be right.

    But I don't think our goal has been to "stand up for the oppressed people of the world." In fact, if we had stayed out of Iraq in the first place, maybe we would have the troop strength to stop genocide in the Sudan. Now we are stuck in Iraq and the people that truly need our powerful presence are left to beg for help from the African Union.

    LoveLiberty said: "this is a president who is a man of conviction and will stay the course because it is right." Is this just like he is convinced that global warming is a threat and will stay that course to eliminate a true danger?

    Posted by nattiebumpo at 06/21/2005 @ 6:07pm