Louisville Peace Community: 

On-going Issues & Talking Points 

Louisville Peace Web Home

LPAC Home

C-SAW

KITLAC

TWO STATES

Dissent without resistance is consent.  

---Henry David Thoreau

Dissent is what rescues the democracy from a slow death behind closed doors.

--- Lewis Lapham

TALKING POINTS

Hit Them Where It Hurts---By Michael Paine (pseudonym),  May 28, 2003

  A while ago a friend asked why I never went to public demonstrations. The

 reason, I told him, is that they don't do any good. Don't get angry - I

 understand how committed you are to change. But really, they don't do any

 good. The people with the power don't care what you think - whether you

 march in the streets or sit at home and fume.

 The same goes for the emails, petitions and articles currently bouncing around  the web on every subject from the deregulation at the FCC, to the war on  Iraq, to the Patriot Act. No one who makes policy cares or reads these things.

 Did you see Chris Matthews on Jon Stewart's show? Where he referred to the "man on the street" interviews as "peasants under glass"? That's what you're dealing with.

 I'm telling you this as a prelude to giving you the benefit of my wisdom (lucky you): liberals, progressives, Democrats, Greens - whatever – will not accomplish anything by debating the issues, or appealing to democracy, or  writing well-research articles - or anything. Because the opposition - Republicans, and their shills in the press - are not a political entity; they are a business.

 They're a business that's in the business of selling the services of the government to the highest bidder. Deregulation. Tax breaks. Access.   Contracts.  Licenses. This is what the government controls - and under Democrats, it's what the government can use to  "promote the general welfare".

 But Republicans aren't interested in "general welfare." They're interested in money. In business.  In "private welfare'. That's not just a different political party, it's a different world-view. And what they do with the power  of government is sell it. To them, the Fed is just a giant business-to-business service provider. Companies pay, they get.

They don't care about right or wrong. They don't care about democracy. They don't care about facts, or statistics, or the budget deficit. And now, they no longer care about public opinion either, because they simply bought the  means to shape it. Democracy doesn't matter - money and power matters.

 Do you really think you'll change the way they manipulate the news – and public opinion - by pointing out their lies? Good luck. FOX News doesn't care  if you catch them in lies. No more than the Bush Administration cares that it  gets caught in lies. They're not playing "democracy" or "journalism" -  they're in business to make money and accumulate power. And the sad fact is that most  Americans are too busy to question whether they get the truth when they  watch  "the news" - so the lies work.

 March in the street with signs all you want - the lies and the money keep

 flowing. Bush raised $22 million in one night this week.   If you've found yourself stunned and amazed at how bad things have got, and you  just can't fathom how it could have got this way - that's because you've  been looking at it all wrong. This is just business, and you aren't a "citizen" - you're a consumer.   And that's the only one way to beat them. Hit them where they hurt – in the pocketbook. All you are to them is a consumer, so you have to fight back as a  consumer. Think of them as "money demons" that can only be harmed by money.

 You want to hurt Fox? Boycott its advertisers. MSBNC? Boycott its advertisers.

 CNN? Boycott its advertisers. Period. Then you'll see them squirm. Just like  O'Reilly squirmed when there was talk of a boycott last year – he literally  panicked, and called would-be boycotters everything short of "communists."   He  was scared, folks.   Need more proof that this is the only way? What finally got South Carolina to take the Confederate Flag off its state flag? It was a boycott by  African-American consumers. That put more fear into the good 'ol boys than the Civil War did. And it worked - quickly.

 Here's a plan: organize, and start small. Start with an easy target on a vulnerable network: Michael Savage on MSNBC. Send a polite letter to send to all MSNBC's advertisers (not just Savage's). No long-winded political speeches, just a simple "I find his views offensive and I will not buy your  products while you advertise on that network". Tell everyone you know to do the same. Then sit back and watch the fireworks.  And what you'll get in response will blow your mind. They'll freak. They'll  call you un-American, say you're squashing free speech, claim you're putting  Americans out of work - because dying money demons make a lot of noise when  they go. But don't get sucked in.

 You couldn't - not if you boycotted from today ‘til the day you die – put  more  Americans out of work than one of these advertisers does every time it has a layoff and sends the work to Asian sweatshops.  And you'd never in a thousand years cost as many jobs as Bush already has.   So don't buy it.

 This is the only way. Remember that the $22 million Bush raised this week

 probably originally came from YOU. You gave it to a company for some

stupid  thing like a soft drink, and they gave it to their CEO, who gave it to

Bush.

 It's time to flex some consumer muscle. And you'd better get started; the

 election is sooner than you think.

* * * * * * 

AN URGENT CALL FOR REFLECTION, HOPE AND ACTION---Interfaith Summit - Chicago, Illinois, April 30, 2003

The National Interfaith Summit was sponsored by FOR with the participation of Pat Clark, National Coordinator and Rev. Patty Ackerman, Iraq Response Team

As people of faith and leaders of diverse religious communities, we recognize that we are at a moment of choice even more urgent than before the war in Iraq began. We are faced with choices between hope and courage or fear and violence; between a future characterized by global solidarity, international cooperation and multilateral action or one characterized by unilateralism and wars by choice rather than necessity; continuing terrorism; unfettered efforts to extend U.S. power, and the exploitation of fear.

Let us not forget who we are as people of faith. We need to go deeper into our religious traditions. Fear is part of the human condition and is only addressed through faith. We are challenged now to trust in God and recognize the source of true security. Our traditions teach us to envision a world of peace with justice. They promise God’s capacity to transform a broken world and God’s expectation that we are partners in the process.

As many Americans celebrate a moment of military victory, we, as people of faith, ask all people to make this a time of deliberate reflection.

As we have since 9/11 and the beginning of the war on terrorism: we call for greater understanding; we seek to dispel ignorance; we ask that this be a time of humility not arrogance; and, we hope that all can be mindful of what we have lost. We are mindful that while a repressive regime has been destroyed, a country has been left in a power vacuum. We know as well that those people experience their daily life as one of enormous needs and insecurity.

War is a blunt instrument, which provides no lasting solution but too often leads to further violence. We ask the American people to reflect now on the price of unilateralism: 

<full text>

Rosemary Ruether, "Organizing Themes for a New Stage of the Peace Movement in the Context of the US Military Occupation of Iraq."

Ben Cohen of True Majority, "Beyond War---What's Next?"

In the months leading up to the Iraq war, hundreds of thousands of people like you registered with TrueMajority to send free faxes to Congress calling for international sanity and steadfast support of the United Nations.

We didn't stop the war, but we DID become part of a network of millions of people that are building a new superpower -- the power of organized, ACTIVATED public opinion for a more just, compassionate and sustainable world.

I believe that people like us share values extending far beyond simply opposing the invasion of Iraq. We are people who believe that peace will come only from justice, both at home and abroad. This war was an outgrowth of spiritually vacant, "us versus them" thinking -- a world view that does not grasp how American well-being is inextricably tied to the well-being of all who share our planet; that maintaining the "American way of live" at the expense of other people's way of life is dangerous folly.

We must now turn our attention to this "us versus them" thinking in all its insidious forms. We must address ongoing outrages and the erosion of real American -- that is, HUMAN -- values. Now is not the time to despair but to move forward.

This is why TrueMajority continues to track important issues in Washington -- not just the Iraq war, but all issues linked to justice, compassion and sustainability.

Here are the 10 TrueMajority principles:

1. Attack poverty and world hunger as if our life depends on it. It does.
2. Champion the rights of every child, woman and man.
3. End our obstructionism to world treaties.
4. Reduce our dependence on oil and lead the world to an age of renewable energy.
5. Close the book on the Cold War and end the nuclear nightmare.
6. Renounce "Star Wars" and the militarization of space.
7. Make globalization function for, not against, working people.
8. Ensure equal treatment under the law for all.
9. Get big money out of politics.
10. Close the gap between rich and poor kids.

If you're like most of our members, you're probably thinking, "Well, I agree with most of that, but I just don't have time to stay informed on all those issues." That's where TrueMajority comes in.

When your voice counts, we will send you a short email alert with our position. If you agree with it, just click "Reply" and we will automatically send a free fax from you to your member of Congress, the President or another leader.

So when the next email alert from TrueMajority rolls into your inbox, know that HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE LIKE YOU across America are reading the short message and clicking "Reply" so we can send a free fax to their representatives in Washington.

You are not alone, and that's why your easy, "one-click" activism with us will make a difference in the long run. We will make your voice be heard. We've shown the power of integrated organizing with a tremendous outpouring of opposition to the war. What used to take years to organize now takes days, or even minutes. That's why we are going to win. Now that we've come together, we're going to STAY together.

Mother's Day Proclamation

Arise all women who have hearts, whether your baptism be that of water or of tears! Say firmly: "We will not have great questions decided by irrelevant agencies, our husbands shall not come to us, reeking with carnage, for caresses and applause. Our sons shall not be taken from us to unlearn all that we have been able to teach them of charity, mercy and patience. We women of one country will be too tender of those of another country to allow our sons to be trained to injure theirs."

From the bosom of the devastated earth a voice goes up with our own. It says "Disarm, disarm! The Sword of murder is not the balance of justice." Blood does not wipe out dishonor nor violence indicate possession.

As men have often forsaken the plow and the anvil at the summons of war, let women now leave all that may be left of home for a great and earnest day of counsel. Let them meet first, as women, to bewail and commemorate the dead. Let them then solemnly take counsel with each other as to the means whereby the great human family can live in peace, each learning after his own time, the sacred impress, not of Caesar, but of God.

In the name of womanhood and of humanity, I earnestly ask that a general congress of women without limit of nationality may be appointed and held at some place deemed most convenient and at the earliest period consistent with its objects, to promote the alliance of the different nationalities, the amicable settlement of international questions, the great and general interests of peace.

- Julia Ward Howe, 1870

In Praise of Matriotism:  A Mother's Day Manifesto
By Lucinda Marshall, @2003

Forgive my cynicism about Mother's Day. After all, what kind of ungrateful
mother wouldn't want to be honored with pesticide-laced flowers, chocolate
that depends on children in slavery for its production and cards that
deplete our forests and litter   Mother Earth?  Truly, it is the ultimate
insult to honor life-giving with such toxic offerings.
Mothering in a world where damaging behavior is the revered norm is an
oxymoron.  Here in the US, we are guilty not only of damaging our own
children's lives, but the lives of children everywhere.  We have signed off
on a value system that funds smart bombs but not schools.  We cut school
lunches in order to scrape up money for cluster bombs* that look like food
packets.  We have money to destroy homes, but not to shelter the homeless.
We pollute our land, air and water with all manner of poisons and despair
when asthma and cancer rates rise, and sperm counts go down.  And all the
while,  health care becomes more and more inaccessible; health itself,
impossible. **
In the United States alone, millions of children are abused each year.  On a
global basis, the number is uncountable.  Children are neglected, as well as
sexually and physically abused. They are subjected to sexual slavery,
genital mutilation and starvation. They are rounded up in Palestine,
detained in Guantanamo*** and exposed to depleted uranium in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
In "The Price of Motherhood", Ann Crittenden makes the point that raising
children is an investment in the future.  It is our responsibility to wisely
nurture our children. In this, we are failing miserably.
In the U.S. on May 11, as we celebrate Mother's Day, let us refuse the false
offerings.  There is an urgent need to protest U.S. duplicity/complicity in
this sorry web of atrocities that endangers the lives of our children.  As
mothers, we have the awesome right and responsibility to  firmly say no to
the life-destroying ethos that has hijacked our future and to demand that
nurturing become a national and global priority.  Indeed, it is our
matriotic duty.

*It is worth noting that cluster bombs consist of a 'mother bomb' that
carries more than 200 bright yellow bomblets the size of soda cans (a good
size and color to catch the interest of a curious and/or thirsty child).
**All the billions spent on military machinery cannot eradicate the fact
that there are some 9.2 million children without health insurance and more
than 11 million children living in poverty in the U.S. alone.  Is this the
freedom we are fighting for?
***This is in direct violation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the
Child which the U.S. has signed and to which it is therefore bound.

A Letter about Loss: In Memory of Sgt. Troy Jenkins

I just learned that a friend of mine, Sgt. Troy Jenkins, who was stationed
at Ft. Campbell, has died. Troy was ONLY 25 years old. He died in a German
hospital very late Wednesday night, after being critically injured near the
Iraqi capital on Saturday (4-19-03). While on patrol, troops in Troy's unit
noticed an Iraqi child, who appeared to be about 7 years of age, playing
with the unexploded ordnance. Troy recognized the ordnance and went to get
the bomb away from the child so she would not be injured. As Troy was
getting the bomb it detonated and he threw himself on top of it to shield
the child and three other members of his squad. The blast severed his left
leg and the fingers on his right hand. On Wed. (4-23-03) morning Troy had to
have his right leg amputated and was air lifted to Germany where he died
late Wed night/early Thursday morning. Troy saved the lives of the child and
his soldiers nearby and should forever be remembered for his act of bravery.

But, there is a far greater message I am sending to you. This was another
death that did not have to happen. While some argue that casualties of war
are inevitable, I fail to see war as an inevitability. What is the point in
this war? What is the point of war period? I do not feel safer because a
person that I knew died. I do not feel safer because the President of the
United States has 200,000 American troops in Iraq fighting for his blood
greed, oil hunger, and desire for global domination and controller. I do not
feel safer because the government says we are now at code yellow, or
whatever the hell that damm color is this week. What I feel is PISSED. I am
pissed that another person had to die. And for what???? I am pissed that
someone so young with so much life and promise had to die. I am now stronger
in my convictions that war is wrong and now more than ever see that we must
not see this as a war that is over. We are very much still at war, the
government has just tried to divert our attention away from the truth and
ordered the news media to stop reporting that we are at war. I believe we
are now cleaning up and rebuilding Iraq...well that is what we are suppose
to believe. HA.

As those who continue to struggle for peace and equality and to make this a
better world through peaceful resolve, we need to remember why we are
against this and all wars. Troy is but one of many reasons. What kind of
world are we living in when we have bombs where 7 year old little girls can
find them? What kind of world lets 25 year olds die in a senseless war? I
hope Bush is reaping the benefits of this war that he so desperately wanted.
And I hope he knows just how many lives he has screwed up by his thirst for
power and control.

I am 31 years old and am too young to remember Vietnam so Troy is the first
person I have ever really known who has been killed in war. I do however
remember being a very young child when a friend of my mother's came to visit
after he was released from a rehab hospital after being in Vietnam. It was the
mid-1970's:  what I remember was a man in a wheel chair who did not have
any legs. I remember people talking about how he was in Vietnam and stepped
on a land mine. I guess I was about 4. Because he was the first person I had
ever been around who was physically challenged it really made an impression
on me. I guess in some way I was trying to understand why he was in Vietnam
and why he had to lose his legs. The naivete involved in being a child, the not
understanding, left an impression on me. I guess I never did outgrow those questions:  I still don't understand and probably never will. I DON'T UNDERSTAND. I simply don't understand!

Please keep fighting for PEACE so there are no more needless deaths. Fight
to bring our troops back while they are alive.

Peace to all, Renea Ryan

* * * * *

Which War Are You Watching?  -- The View from Spain

The American media's portrayal of the routing of Saddam Hussein as a great military victory and a step toward world peace is almost  incomprehensible outside of the U.S., for the rest of us have been watching a very  different war.  Here in Granada, I regularly watch the Spanish, French, and British television news and then occasionally look at the CNN and New York Times webpages.  It is often hard to believe they are covering the same events and the gap between American and global perceptions of this war
will certainly have significant repercussions for some time to come.

 In the eyes of non-American media it took the world's most powerful and wealthiest nation months of planning, the deployment of hundreds of thousands of troops, and the launching of thousands of missiles at a cost of tens of billions of dollars to topple one
dictator in a country already crippled by two earlier wars and ten years of international sanctions, defended by a third- rate army almost entirely bereft of advanced armaments who put up no coordinated resistance.  Not an impressive feat.  But--to the astonishment of the world--America sees itself as heroic and triumphant (Vice President Cheney has
termed it "one of the greatest military campaigns in history"). Everyone is happy that Saddam is gone, but to portray this as an impressive feat of arms seems to many people here a mind-boggling act of self-deception.

 The campaign itself, as viewed outside the U.S., was constantly marred by misjudgments and bad leadership: Brits and Americans killed themselves and each other
in a rash of "friendly fire" incidents; America's "smart weapons" proved not to be so smart and instead caused horrifying destruction in marketplaces, buses, maternity wards, and civilian neighborhoods; the Tomahawk missile system had to be taken offline not
because it was missing its targets but because it was missing the entire country of Iraq(!) and instead landing in Saudi, Jordanian, and Syrian territories; the quick advances and welcoming crowds predicted by the Rumsfield cabal did not materialize and a panicked
American military had to call for reinforcements of 120,000 new troops after only a few days of fighting.   The American military was portrayed here as unprepared and badly managed, without contingency plans for even the most predictable of situations such
as sandstorms, suicide bombers, and lengthening supply lines.  The flaws in this performance were only made more obvious when European news broadcasts over and
over again placed headline stories of various mishaps and civilian deaths next to the typically immodest statements of Rumsfield that American missiles were "the most precise ever seen in human history" or that "everything is going exactly as planned," or Tommy Franks announcing the infamous "shock and awe" campaign.   More than one European commentator took advantage of America's hubris to state that the only
"shock" in this war was how badly it was waged and how inured to human suffering the American people seem to have become.

 In one particularly poignant moment on Spanish television, after a series of unrelenting images of civilian wounded and dead (far more graphic than would ever be allowed in the U.S.), we were shown a Pentagon spokesperson referring to understandable levels of "collateral damage."  The Spanish commentator simply looked directly into the camera, shook his head sadly and mused: "One wonders what type of human being can
refer to the death of a child as collateral damage.'"   The disinformation campaign waged by the U.S. government also went badly awry and European commentators openly began to compare Iraqi and American sources as being equally tendentious and
unreliable: Tariq Aziz has defected (oops, no he hasn't); Saddam Hussein is dead (oops, no he isn't), an Iraqi division has surrendered (oops, only seven soldiers have surrendered), we've captured an Iraqi general (oops, he's not a general or even a ranking
officer) . . . When Saddam's media showed footage of Arab volunteers flocking to Iraq to become suicide bombers, European TV channels showed that footage back to back with the U.S. military's latest recruitment ads on American television along with commentary about the increased militarization of both societies. News programs began to note how many times the Coalition had to reannounce its gains  "for the sixth day in a
row, Coalition sources have announced that Nasiriyya has fallen," "once again the Coalition has announced that resistance in Basra is under control," etc.   The credibility of the American government all but disappeared and that of the American media crumbled.  
When Iraq showed footage of its American hostages, European channels showed the footage (not shown in the United States) back to back with Bush's angry denunciations and his statement that this violated the Geneva Convention< followed immediately by American footage from earlier that same week of its Iraqi POWs and then images of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.  The audience scarcely needed the commentator's remarks afterwards about double-standards and hypocrisy in order to draw the intended conclusions.  When Pulitzer-prize winning reporter Peter Arnett was fired after his statements critical of the war, the English newspaper the Daily Mirror sported a headline
something like: American Reporter Fired for Telling the Truth. News programs in several European countries carried features that night, and for several days following, about the state of the American media: How could a reporter be fired for expressing criticism of
a government in an interview? Commentary by multiple political and academic figures made it clear that America no longer has a "free press" in the true meaning of the term, for in America one is not free to express criticism of the war or of the Bush regime.
           
 Toward the end of the military engagement, American troops fired directly upon the hotel which housed many of the international journalists still remaining in Baghdad.  That night the rest of the world watched in horror the film footage of an American tank rolling
into position in front of the hotel, the turret turning to aim directly at the camera, the flash as the shell was fired, and the destruction and dust as the shell hit just to one side of the camera.  We then watched as people, screaming for help, began to dig bodies out from the rubble.  One of those wounded was a Spanish cameraman followed him as he was
carried out of the building in a blanket, placed in a vehicle and transported to the hospital, and then we watched as he died.  The Spanish media was in an uproar.

 In a series of badly calculated press releases, the Pentagon first claimed that a sniper had fired from the hotel and that the Americans were defending themselves.  Journalists who had been in the hotel for the previous 48 hours said that this was untrue: "Another of a seemingly endless series of American lies meant to justify their stupid and senseless war."  The Pentagon then announced that there had been an unidentified explosion, perhaps a missile. Finally, a day and a half later, the Pentagon admitted that American troops had indeed fired directly upon the hotel and killed the journalists. For every European who had watched the unmistakable and shocking footage of the American attack two nights earlier on the news,  the prevarications of U.S. authorities were infuriating and they were certainly not alleviated by the eventual, partial admission of responsibility.

 The day the statue of Saddam was torn down, the great divide between America and the rest of the world was briefly suspended, and millions watched to see if America would be wiser, more competent, and more humane in peace than it had been in war.  But within hours the chaos began to spread and for the next few days one American spokesperson after another got up in front of the cameras to say that America had no
responsibility for maintaining law and order or for protecting the civilian population (despite the Geneva Conventions).  In a truly shocking development, Coalition troops did not even move to secure hospitals (see the Geneva Conventions).  Finally, after intense international pressure, first the Brits and then the Americans admitted that, having launched thousands of missiles at Iraq, having crippled much of the infrastructure of the country, and having toppled the previous regime, the occupation forces did indeed bear
some responsibility for maintaining order. But even after that admission, it became clear that there was no plan of action and the sacking and burning of many of Iraq's -- and humanity's -- most precious treasures took place, while American soldiers stood by aimlessly passing the time.  Newspapers and news programs throughout Europe are openly comparing America's role in Iraq to the burning of the great Library of
Alexandria, the Goths' sacking of Rome, and the Mongols' sacking of Baghdad in the 13th century.  In the end, it was only a matter of hours from the images of the crowds cheering the arriving American troops to those of the first public demonstrations against the American occupation.  CNN had an interesting spin on this, their headline ran: Iraqis exercise newly won freedom of expression to protest against Coalition Forces. In the end, I think, the difference between the two views of the war (that of America & Israel
versus that of the rest of the world) boils done to a single question: Were there alternatives? 

Americans were told by their media that there were no alternatives and that the only option was for Americans to get in there and get the job done (= war) and let the rest of the world be damned.  The rest of world was told by their media that there were numerous other options (diplomatic, economic, etc.) that would have involved less death and destruction.  So for most people in the world, every civilian death in Iraq has been an unwarranted murder.  For Americans (or at least some), those deaths have been an acceptable means towards a rather poorly defined goal: What exactly ARE American forces doing there?  Disarming weapons of mass destruction?  Eradicating terrorism?
Stabilizing Iraq's oil resources? Toppling Saddam Hussein?  Establishing a democracy?

 As several editorials here have recently pointed out, if America is aiming to establish a democracy, it will be doing something that it has not done for nearly 60 years.  For six decades the United States has supported and maintained dozens of dictatorships, a
host of military regimes, a collection of monarchies, and the Israeli military occupation of the Palestinian West Bank and Gaza Strip alone establishing them, is dismal indeed.  Afghanistan, the nation mostly recently the target of American interventionism, languishes forgotten, scarcely funded by the Republican regime in Washington, and certainly a long
way from possessing a stable, democratically elected government.

 In short, there were two very different wars to watch: one almost entirely military in nature (the American version) and another portrayed in unrelentingly human terms (the global version).  Spain is nominally a member of the coalition, but 91% of the
population here opposes the war and the largest and most impressive demonstrations against the war have been held here, massive marches of millions upon millions of people in nearly every city and town throughout the country.  The coverage we watched in
Spain was unflinching in its portrayal of the violence and pain of war.  Here the demonstrations against the war continue and have now been transformed into protests against the military occupation of Iraq.  And, in a development that may have far-reaching ramifications, more and more of the placards in the marches say: BOYCOTT AMERICAN PRODUCTS.

 This week everything is on hold since it is Semana Santa (Holy Week), Spain's biggest holiday.  The day before the holidays began, however, was a general strike by university students and labor unions across the country protesting the war.  Other activities that
continue to take place are: protest marches, concerts for peace, marches on the American military bases in southern Spain, resignations by politicians in the ruling Partido Popular in protest of Aznar's position, almost daily attempts to hold "No Confidence" votes or votes condemning the war in the parliament (but the ruling party holds an absolute majority so these never actually make it to the floor for a vote, though they
are reported over and over again in the news), the opposition members of parliament have "No a la Guerra" signs in front of them at their desks and have called for the closure of American military bases in Spain, one group has tried to file a suit against Aznar in
the European High Court, high school kids have been holding "die-ins" at their schools and other public places, there are thousands upon thousands of NO A LA GUERRA signs fluttering from windows and spray painted on buildings, and many people wear pins or t-shirts with that message every day.

 As a result, Spain never actually fought in the war, it only offered verbal support and air space for American fly-overs.  A Spanish hospital ship is functioning in the Gulf and treating Iraqi wounded and now that the fighting has all but stopped, Spanish soldiers have actually landed for the first time to take part in the policing actions.   So such is the view from here in Spain.  I will write more about other aspects of life in a separate
message, this one is already too long.  Despite it all, though, on a person-to-person level, Americans are treated well and no one need fear traveling here. Spaniards are divided and more than a bit confused when it comes to interpreting the public opinion polls
that show that the majority of Americans support the war: some simply say that Americans are a violent people (as demonstrated by their love of guns and their astonishing rates of murder, violent crime, and imprisonment); others say that Americans are famous for their lack of knowledge about the world and their low level of education and that their support comes mainly from not having suffered themselves the tragedy
of war on their own soil.  A third school of thought was expressed to me rather succinctly the other day by the owner of the music shop where I take my guitar lessons: "I don't believe the polls.  I don't think Americans really do support the war, no people can be in favor of war-- but they don't really see the war, do they?  They just believe what the American media tell them."

 Let us hope there are better days ahead for all of us.

 Un abrazo,
  Dwight F. Reynolds, Director
 Centro de Estudios de la Universidad de California
 Colegio Mayor Isabel la Católica
 Universidad de Granada
 c/ Rector López Argüeta, 8
 18001 Granada, Spain

See Dowd, Friedman, Herbert & Krugman.

Directions for the Peace Movement: "What we do now? A Peace Agenda" --- with responses--1,2,3 ---from The Nation and other commentary from Common Dreams; Foreign Policy in Focus: "Nine Theses on Moving the Peace Movement Forward," International Answer as well as the following from  IPT, United for Peace and Psychologists for Social Responsibility. 

Where Now, America? by Ramzi Kysia

Ramzi Kysia is an Arab-American peace activist and writer who has spent 7 months in Iraq over the last two years. He is currently in Amman, Jordan with expelled members of the Iraq Peace Team.
 
There are no words to describe this disaster. When I close my eyes, an apocalypse rolls on in rough flashes: the as-Sheb marketplace bombing, the Karadat Miryam neighborhood bombing, Nahrawaan Farm, an-Naser marketplace, Palestine Street. Scores of human beings killed, scores more injured, a wealth of human misery
deposited at al-Kindi and al-Yarmouk - Baghdad's two, major trauma hospitals. Across all of Iraq, thousands murdered, at least ten-thousands maimed.
The scenes flicker faster: Baghdad's skyline filled with collapsed buildings bellowing plumes of dirty smoke. Massive looting in Umm Qasr, in Nassirya, in
Basra. The Damascus-line bus bombings. The Hilla City cluster bombing. Revenge killings. Suicide bombings. U.S. soldiers executing entire families out of fear.
Al-Jazeera's offices bombed. Abu Dhabi TV's offices bombed. Reuters bombed. The Red Cross announcing that Baghdad's hospitals are overrun with more than 100
casualties arriving every hour. Over 1 million people in Basra without water for a week, then for two weeks, then...
A dog and pony show in Paradise Park briefly interrupts the panorama: flanked by American tanks and soldiers, surrounded by absolutely empty streets, in a
city of five million, two or three hundred Iraqis dance and cheer as Americans pull down a statue of Saddam: Baghdad is liberated! The tanks quickly move
to guard the Ministry of Oil, as all other government buildings are looted and destroyed. UN buildings are looted, Red Cross headquarters looted, stores looted, schools looted, museums looted - al-Kindi hospital stripped bare.
Liberation has a sting to it.
This is not an accident. It is not a mistake. War is a deliberate thing, carefully crafted and intentionally executed. And there is a word missing from our lexicon of liberation: Responsibility.  America, we bombed the civilian infrastructure in Iraq in 1991, and blockaded its repair for twelve long years. We forcibly impoverished an entire nation. Hundreds of thousands of human beings died as a result. We started another war on March 20th for no other reason than to further U.S. supremacy over the world. Thousands were killed. We are now occupying a devastated nation, and moving to collect the spoils that to "victors" always go. Iraq will spend a hundred years paying off odious debt incurred by Saddam Hussein and much multiplied by our sanctions. How many more will die? How much further impoverishment will we impose? As we privatize Iraq's former, spirit-crushing bureaucracy, will free public education through
University be erased as well? Will the free, universal health care Iraqis formerly enjoyed be denied? 
I am frustrated, I am angry, and I don't know what to do.
I was in Iraq for the first two weeks of the war before being expelled, along with 8 other members of the Iraq Peace Team. I broke a curfew, and spent too much time with journalists at the Palestine hotel. Paranoia raged. The Iraqi secret police were
suspicious of everyone and everything, and the block-long walk from our hotel to the Palestine became an impassible excursion.
I think of my time in Palestine/Israel last year, and how huge a country Palestine seemed to be, with countless miles between every town. But the eight-hour journey between Ramallah and Jenin is but 50 miles on our poor maps that show only the distance laid upon the land by God, and not by men.
Today, the Palestine hotel is a "secure" facility, and our team in Baghdad are still prevented from approaching the media - this time by American soldiers, and their fears.
I think of the violence of September 11th, the loss of life, and the loss of our liberties imposed by a security-obsessed government, wielding the massive power of panic and paranoia. I think of the fear Arab-and Muslim-Americans today feel, that they will be
summarily persecuted, arrested, expelled, or even killed. I think of the fear "White" America feels, wrapping their homes in ridiculous plastic sheeting against the possibility of terrorist attacks, wrapping their hearts against the misery their fears have wrecked upon Afghanistan, upon Iraq. 
Where now, America?
When will realize that we are not the only real people on this planet, and that our security cannot depend on the insecurity of everyone else?
It is unsafe for our team still in Baghdad to visit our Iraqi friends, the families we've come to love. Where Iraqi government paranoia confined us during the last days of the war, street violence confines the team today. A short walk is now a death-defying expedition. People have been shot short yards from our team's hotel. Violence has strained the ties we've worked so hard to maintain. Beyond its physical misery, the loss of those you love, the destruction of community is violence's most devastating consequence.
I think of streets incredibly full of cars, during "shock and awe's" day and night bombings: marketplaces still open, soccer games still being played. It's frightening how quickly incredible levels of violence become normalized within our lives. But it's also
quite beautiful - the heartfelt attempt to continue community in the middle of war.
Iraq is not a war-zone. Baghdad is not a war-zone.
Baghdad is a city of shops and restaurants, homes, hospitals, museums, schools, parks and playgrounds - Iraq is a place of human devotions. War is a thing that was brought to Iraq, imposed by amoral and irresponsible governments, in our names. In our names.
Iraqis are not our enemies. Iraqis are our allies against the destruction of our common lives, the devastation of our common world. They are our common allies against the violence resident in every human heart.
This has not been a short war. It has been storming since Aug. 6th, 1990, the day we first imposed sanctions on the Iraqi people. Hundreds of thousands are already dead. Millions are already devastated. 
This will not be a short war. The Six-Day War in 1967 became a 36-year war. It brought Israel military supremacy over the West Bank and Gaza, and ruined both
nations, both peoples. It rages on today. 
Saddam Hussein devastated Iraq. But Saddam is gone now. America devastated Iraq as well - and now we remain.
The peace movement must not constrain itself to what happens in Iraq. We must advocate for the absolute right of Iraqis to create and inculcate their own destiny, as they define it for themselves, without interference, intimidation, or control. But we must do
more than talk. We must take Iraq with us, as an example, as a call. We must work as hard as the war makers do.
If there is any hope at all, then we ourselves must overcome the institutions within our own society which further violence. We must overcome our own militarism, and the materialism that drives it. We must stop paying taxes, we must risk arrest, we must shut down a government in Washington D.C. that is illegitimate and absolutely out-of-control.
And we must overcome our anger at the mass killers of the world, the Saddam Husseins and George Bushes, even as we overcome their tyrannies. That anger is playing itself out today in the streets of Iraq - further wrecking lives already crushed by violence. 
Please God, we must learn how to heal ourselves of all our delusions.
Where now, America? As the jubilations over the downfall of one tyrant are replaced by bitterness toward another, as thousands of modern-day carpetbaggers - good- and ill-willed foreigners alike - descend on Iraq to impose their versions of reality,
as the corporatization of Iraq maintains the impoverishment of sanctions, as U.S. occupation increasingly becomes governed by fear and resentment-- where now? Where now? Where now? 

Gunther Grass (The Tin Drum): The U.S. Betrays Its Core Values

A war long sought and planned for is now underway. All deliberations and warnings of the United Nations notwithstanding, an overpowering military apparatus has attacked preemptively in violation of international law. No objections were heeded. The Security Council was disdained and scorned as irrelevant. As the bombs fall and the battle for Baghdad continues, the law of might prevails.

And based on this injustice, the mighty have the power to buy and reward those who might be willing and to disdain and even punish the unwilling. The words of the current American president -- "Those not with us are against us" -- weighs on current events with the resonance of barbaric times. It is hardly surprising that the rhetoric of the aggressor increasingly resembles that of his enemy. Religious fundamentalism leads both sides to abuse what belongs to all religions, taking the notion of "God" hostage in accordance with their own fanatical understanding. Even the passionate warnings of the pope, who knows from experience how lasting and devastating the disasters wrought by the mentality and actions of Christian crusaders have been, were unsuccessful.

Disturbed and powerless, but also filled with anger, we are witnessing the moral decline of the world's only superpower, burdened by the knowledge that only one consequence of this organized madness is certain: Motivation for more terrorism is being provided, for more violence and counter-violence. Is this really the United States of America, the country we fondly remember for any number of reasons? The generous benefactor of the Marshall Plan? The forbearing instructor in the lessons of democracy? The candid self-critic? The country that once made use of the teachings of the European Enlightenment to throw off its colonial masters and to provide itself with an exemplary constitution? Is this the country that made freedom of speech an incontrovertible human right?   <full article>

Psychologists for Social Responsibility---Iraq War Statement 4/11/03

    In August 2002, Psychologists for Social Responsibility (PsySR) expressed deep concern about President Bush's plan to use military force to disarm Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power.  PsySR and its members worked hard with the broad coalition in the peace movement to prevent the US invasion from happening.  We were saddened and worried when the US-led coalition began waging war in Iraq on March
17th.  We recognize the prowess and commitment of the young men and women serving in the armed forces of the United States and are most concerned for both their physical
and psychological safety as they carry out the orders they are pledged to follow.

    Now that the Bush administration has implemented this so-called preemptive strike on Iraq, PsySR has reviewed the situation and still considers the war unjust and provocative.  While military action appears to have liberated the Iraqis from Saddam's rule, it was done at a tremendous cost without exploring nonviolent strategies for accomplishing the same ends with less damaging means. It is falsely assumed that this was the only way. While military action in Iraq may be successful in the short run, it has the potential to reduce the security of the United States, erode our basic freedoms and
civil rights, and ultimately hasten the decline of US influence for good in the world.

    Looking to the future, PsySR supports these concrete steps with regard to post-war Iraq:
·   Full UN control of the post-war rebuilding process in Iraq should be pursued to thwart claims that the US has imperialist intentions in the Middle East.  This may also begin to reverse the images of the US as a country that is unable to cooperate
with other countries, threatens force when it doesn't get its way, and breaks its word in international agreements.  While no one who has been part of Saddam Hussein's regime should have anything to do with reconstruction, the humanitarian aid provided
should be organized and led by Iraqis, with the support of UN peacekeepers.
·   Future conflict areas should be approached with sincere and creative diplomacy, and techniques of tension reduction and conflict transformation.  The threatened use of preemptive and unilateral military force sends an undemocratic image of the US
to the rest of the world and fuels the efforts of those that seek to do us harm.  US leaders should meet tirelessly with allies and with other countries in person and on multiple occasions before US troops are put in harm's way again.  The fine arts of persuasion, problem solving, and negotiation and finding ways to address the
real interests of the United States and all the stakeholders in future conflicts should be employed so that democratic values are implemented as an integral part of US policy and action. 
·   The Bill of Rights must be restored and protected, or else the US is in danger of becoming that which it is fighting against.  The disconcerting trend to take away our civil liberties must be reversed.  Immigrant groups and international visitors should be
treated fairly and respectfully. 
·   Members of Congress should never again shirk from their constitutional duties in the declaration of war.  The responsibility of declaring war rests with the US Congress and members should be held accountable for their actions.  If troops are to be sent into combat, that decision needs to be legally made and not passed off to the executive branch. 
·   Serious attention needs to be paid to reducing the conditions in other countries that spawn terrorist thinking and commitment to terrorist acts.  We need to invest in humanitarian aid, increase efforts toward resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and
stop supporting governments that violate the rights of their citizens. 

    We encourage all citizens to work to ensure that the United States consistently employs democratic and legal means to address its security needs. 
________________________________________________________

United for Peace---The Day After the Statues Fell

It is not surprising, and like everyone else we anticipated that some Iraqis would welcome U.S. troops and cheer their arrival. Many have already tempered their welcome with urging the U.S. not to stay in Iraq for long. Most Iraqis are almost certainly relieved and thrilled at the imminent end of a terribly repressive regime and an end to crippling sanctions. But if yesterday was the party -- today the hangover begins. There are already reports of Iraqis saying the Ba'athist regime was bad, but that the current lack of authority and its resulting looting and chaos are worse -- "at least before we had security," one said.

The fact that many Iraqis are pleased with the destruction of the regime does not mean the U.S. war was legal, justified or appropriate. All of the violations of the UN Charter inherent in this war are still violations. All of the human costs paid by Iraqi civilians and unwilling conscripts alike -- death, grievous injury, loss of family members, destruction of property -- are still being paid. We don't have any idea yet -- and may never -- of the human toll from this war. <full article>

See C-SAW's collection  of news, commentary, and other information.

Joseph Cirincione, Director, Non-Proliferation Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: Speech at American University (March 22, 2003 Veterans Against The Iraq War-sponsored "Teach-In & Speak Out Against Iraq War,"):

I love America.

Italy is a beautiful country, but I'm glad my grandparents came here 100 years ago. I truly believe America is one of the best countries the world has every known. That is why it is so tragic what the policies of this administration have done to the image and reputation of United States of America.

Seventeen months ago, there were demonstrations around the world in support of the United States in the wake of September 11. Thousands of people gathered in hundreds of cities to express their support for the US. There were one million people in the streets of Tehran -– in favor of the US. It is appalling how quickly this administration has squandered this support and sympathy for the United States. <full text> <video link>

The Reason Why by George McGovern 

Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die.
      --Alfred, Lord Tennyson
      "The Charge of the Light Brigade"
      (in the Crimean War)

He treads carelessly on the Bill of Rights, the United Nations and international law while creating a costly but largely useless new federal bureaucracy loosely called "Homeland Security." Meanwhile, such fundamental building blocks of national security as full employment and a strong labor movement are of no concern.

The nearly $1.5 trillion tax giveaway, largely for the further enrichment of those already rich, will have to be made up by cutting government services and shifting a larger share of the tax burden to workers and the elderly. This President and his advisers know well how to get us involved in imperial crusades abroad while pillaging the ordinary American at home. The same families who are exploited by a rich man's government find their sons and daughters being called to war, as they were in Vietnam--but not the sons of the rich and well connected. (Let me note that the son of South Dakota Senator Tim Johnson is now on duty in the Persian Gulf. He did not use his obvious political connections to avoid military service, nor did his father seek exemptions for his son. That goes well with me, with my fellow South Dakotans and with every fair-minded American.)

The invasion of Iraq and other costly wars now being planned in secret are fattening the ever-growing military-industrial complex of which President Eisenhower warned in his great farewell address. War profits are booming, as is the case in all wars. While young Americans die, profits go up. But our economy is not booming, and our stock market is not booming. Our wages and incomes are not booming. While waging a war against Iraq, the Bush Administration is waging another war against the well-being of America.

<full article>

Metaphors can kill by George Lakoff, March 18, 2003

   That's how I began a piece on the first Gulf War back in 1990, just before the war began. Many of those metaphorical ideas are back, but within a very different and more dangerous context. Since Gulf War II is due to start any day, perhaps even tomorrow, it might be useful to take a look before the action begins at the metaphorical ideas being used to justify Gulf War II.

   One of the most central metaphors in our foreign policy is that A Nation Is A Person. It is used hundreds of times a day, every time the nation of Iraq is conceptualized in terms of a single person, Saddam Hussein. The war, we are told, is not being waged against the Iraqi people, but only against this one person. Ordinary American citizens are using this metaphor when they say things like, "Saddam is a tyrant. He must be stopped." What the metaphor hides, of course, is that the 3000 bombs to be dropped in the first two days will not be dropped on that one person. They will kill many thousands of the people hidden by the metaphor, people that according to the metaphor we are not going to war against.                                                                         (complete article)

Support Our Troops by Michael Albert; March 17, 2003

If war comes even despite the historic, tenacious, and comprehensive opposition now raging across the planet, the U.S. government will proclaim triumphantly that everyone who isn’t a traitor needs to rally around Washington to “support our troops.” Opponents of the war could opt for many possible replies.

We could point out that our troops in Iraq are barely in danger at all because they are assaulting a tenth-rate opponent that has no serious means to defend Iraq much less to attack the world’s sole superpower.

We could point out that while perhaps a few hundred U.S. troops will die in this war, way over 50,000 U.S. citizens will die in the next 12 months due to workplace accidents and death by industry-caused diseases and automobile accidents (not to mention the impact of pollution and unsafe products). We could then query why this massive yearly blight on our population, roughly 15 times as devastating as 9/11, doesn’t provoke a war on corporations’ profit-seeking violations of their employees’ and consumers’ health and safety.

Or we could point out that the lives of American troops are no more worthy of compassionate support than the lives of Iraqis, and that we didn’t kill Hussein a million times over with our decade-long sanctions but we instead killed a million Iraqis once each -- with Hussein getting stronger as each new corpse was added to the carnage.

And of course we could explain how unleashing a campaign to “shock and awe” a country is unjust and immoral, how it is an archetype example of the terrorism we say we are against.

But for myself, I think that perhaps a different approach might work better, and so if war does come, I intend to reply to the demand to support our troops by saying that yes, I too “support our troops.”

I will reply that I support our troops not having to kill people in Iraq . <full text>

Myths And Facts About The War by Rahul Mahajan and Robert Jensen; March 20, 2003

Last night, our president announced a war to the nation and the world. Let us be clear about what this war is and what it is not:

This war is not the result of a failure of diplomacy.

This war is not a pre-emptive war.

This war is not about weapons of mass destruction.

This war is not about terrorism.

This war is not about the liberation of the Iraqi people.

<full article>

Arrogance of Power  
'Today, I Weep For My Country... ' Senator Byrd's Speech, March 19, 2003

 I believe in this beautiful country. I have studied its roots and gloried in the wisdom of its magnificent Constitution. I have marveled at the wisdom of its founders and framers. Generation after generation of Americans has understood the lofty ideals that underlie our great Republic. I have been inspired by the story of their sacrifice and their strength.

But, today I weep for my country. I have watched the events of recent months with a heavy, heavy heart. No more is the image of America one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper. The image of America has changed. Around the globe, our friends mistrust us, our word is disputed, our intentions are questioned.

Instead of reasoning with those with whom we disagree, we demand obedience or threaten recrimination. Instead of isolating Saddam Hussein, we seem to have isolated ourselves. We proclaim a new doctrine of preemption which is understood by few and feared by many. We say that the United States has the right to turn its firepower on any corner of the globe which might be suspect in the war on terrorism. We assert that right without the sanction of any international body. As a result, the world has become a much more dangerous place.

We flaunt our superpower status with arrogance. We treat U.N. Security Council members like ingrates who offend our princely dignity by lifting their heads from the carpet. Valuable alliances are split.

After war has ended, the United States will have to rebuild much more than the country of Iraq. We will have to rebuild America's image around the globe.

The case this administration tries to make to justify its fixation with war is tainted by charges of falsified documents and circumstantial evidence. We cannot convince the world of the necessity of this war for one simple reason. This is a war of choice.

 (complete text)

Statement of the Louisville Legal Community for Peace in Iraq

As members of the legal community in Louisville, we condemn President George Bush’s... preemptive strike and war against Iraq.  Our group contains attorneys and law students from the Louisville area. While there are differing views among our members as to whether this ...war could ever be justified, we are all convinced that this war is neither legally nor morally justified at this time.

We have two major legal objections to the...invasion of Iraq.  First, a war against Iraq would be inappropriately based upon an interpretation by the Bush administration that the Congressional resolution of September, 2002 authorized the use of military force.  This resolution does not declare war on Iraq, but grants to the President the right to make the decision whether to commit U.S. troops to combat against Iraq.  Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution grants to Congress the exclusive power to declare war.  As chief commanding officer of the armed forces, the President has vast powers as the executive in making decisions about how force is employed.  But he is limited by the requirement that Congress declare that the United States is at war.  The Constitution prohibits the abdication of this role to the President.

The second major argument against an invasion at this point is grounded in international law, which has been incorporated into the law of the United States.  The U.N. Charter, which was signed by the U.S. Senate and President in 1945, is part of “the supreme law of the land” according to Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution, along with acts of Congress and the provisions of the Constitution.  Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter states that nations “shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state….”  Under the U.N. Charter, there are only two exceptions to the use of force: when used in self-defense or when authorized by the U.N. Security Council.  Neither of these exceptions applies in the current situation.

Article 51 of the U.N. Charter says that a nation can employ force in self-defense only “if an armed attack occurs,” or, arguably, in response to an imminent attack.  None of the reasons given by the Bush administration, including the desire to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, to end global terrorism, or to overthrow Saddam Hussein, constitutes self-defense under the U.N. Charter.  Our President has presented no evidence that Iraq currently presents an imminent threat of attack against the United States.  There has been absolutely no evidence presented to the public that proves that Iraq has the ability or even the intention to attack the U.S.  The Bush administration is making the unprecedented attempt to stretch the self-defense exception to allow for preemptive strikes against a country for acts of terrorism undertaken by individuals who are not even affiliated with that country.
 
President Bush has made it clear that he intends to willfully disregard the U.N. Charter by introducing the radically new doctrine of pre-emptive strikes. Under this principle, a nation that perceives a threat from another nation is free to attack first. This is an outright public renunciation of the Charter.  The U.N. Charter was designed to make the world safer.  Advocating preemptive strikes only makes the world more dangerous for all.  We find this policy not only illegal and immoral, but also counterproductive; it will surely result in more violence, whether from rogue nations, terrorists, or anyone else bent on the use of violence to solve problems.

The only legal option under the U.N. Charter, aside from invoking self-defense, is to obtain U.N. Security Council authorization for a war.  The U.S. claims that Iraq has materially breached Resolution 687—the cease-fire resolution that ended the 1991 Gulf War.  The President’s position is that this allows the U.S. to attack without further authorization from the Security Council.  A majority of the members of the Council have consistently rejected this position.  On November 8, 2002, after almost eight weeks of negotiation and intense pressure by the U.S., the U.N. adopted Resolution 1441, which set a new timetable and a new round of inspections for Iraq.  This Resolution clearly did not authorize any country to use force against Iraq. The United States must, as a matter of law, go back to the U.N. Security Council for authority to use force.  Any decision otherwise would be in clear violation of the letter and spirit of the Resolution.

Resolution 1441 requires that any breach by Iraq be reported to the Council for assessment, after which the Security Council must reconvene to determine what further action is recommended.  No member state may use any Iraqi violation, whether material or otherwise, as legal justification for an attack.  The Bush Administration’s arguments to the contrary are unjustified and unprecedented. If it believes that a violation has occurred, it must obtain a new resolution authorizing action before it attacks Iraq.

The...invasion of Iraq will result in the deaths of innumerable civilians and soldiers.  It will undermine the international rule of law, threaten security and peace for the U.S. and other nations, and undoubtedly result in further terrorism directed against the U.S.  
This committee condemns the Bush Administration’s disregard of international law and international opinion.  As such, we intend to express our concerns and to facilitate representation for those who do the same.  We are concerned about the illegal and unprecedented exercise of unchecked power by our government.  But we are also concerned about the moral implications of this proposed war. Military action against Iraq will devastate an already impoverished civilian population.  Years of sanctions in Iraq have already caused hundreds of thousands of deaths due to starvation, inadequate medical care, and lack of clean drinking water.  War will result not only in further deaths and injuries but also in the forced relocation of untold numbers of displaced refugees.  Without credible evidence that we are ourselves at risk of attack by Iraq, such consequences are indefensible.  This war [should] not take place.

Chris Harrell, co-chair
John D. Borders, Jr., co-chair

From Mother Jones 3/14/03: "It's Not about Iraq."

Will they or won't they?

As of late Thursday, it was still unclear if the United States would force a UN Security Council vote on its war-making resolution. Administration officials were pre-emptively waging a recrimination-filled campaign on two fronts, dismissing the UN as irrelevant, and rejecting Iraq's latest signs of cooperation as subterfuge.

What has become increasingly clear, however, is that the struggle within the Security Council is less about Iraq or the UN than it is about the US and the Bush administration's agenda of domination. As William Pfaff writes in The International Herald Tribune, that agenda is now threatening the very heart of the post-war diplomatic system.

"The international system rests on the principle of absolute sovereignty of states, which has nothing to do with the merits or morality of governments. By trial and error, this has been found the least bad of international diplomatic and legal systems. The United Nations is the agent of this system for exercising international authority.

The United States, in the Iraq crisis, is proposing to break the system. This is what the current crisis is really about. The Bush administration says that unless the Security Council gives the United States what it wants, America will ignore the United Nations and from now on do whatever it thinks right. In this, a different international order is implicitly proposed. The United States making a claim to the sovereign right to intervene in, disarm, and carry out 'regime change' in other countries, subject to no external restraint."

That unchecked interventionism is exactly what France, Germany, Russia, and so many other countries around the world find so disturbing. Despite the charges of 'appeasement,' none of the war party's biggest critics are excusing Saddam Hussein....(article continues)

Jimmy Carter on "Just War — or a Just War?" NYT, March 9, 2003

Profound changes have been taking place in American foreign policy, reversing consistent bipartisan commitments that for more than two centuries have earned our nation greatness. These commitments have been predicated on basic religious principles, respect for international law, and alliances that resulted in wise decisions and mutual restraint. Our apparent determination to launch a war against Iraq, without international support, is a violation of these premises.                                           (the full article)

Bill Moyers on Patriotism and the Flag, February 28, 2003:

I put the flag in my lapel tonight. First time. Until now I haven't thought it necessary to display a little metallic icon of patriotism for everyone to see. It was enough to vote, pay my taxes, perform my civic duties, speak my mind, and do my best to raise our kids to be good Americans. Sometimes I would offer a small prayer of gratitude that I had been born in a country whose institutions sustained me, whose armed forces protected me, and whose ideals inspired me; I offered my heart's affections in return. It no more occurred to me to flaunt the flag on my chest than it did to pin my mother's picture on my lapel to prove her son's love. Mother knew where I stood; so does my country. I even tuck a valentine in my tax returns on April 15.

So what's this flag doing here? Well, I put it on to take it back. The flag's been hijacked and turned into a logo -- the trademark of a monopoly on patriotism. (Full text).

 * * * * * *

Senator Byrd's Floor Speech, February 12, 2003:

To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war.

Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.

We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war.

And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world. (text of the speech)

* * * * * *

PRESIDENT BUSH HAS NOT MADE HIS CASE!!!

In Response to the State of the Union Address, Jan. 29, 2003

“Trusting the restraint of Saddam Hussein is not an option.”

We don’t rust the restraint of Saddam Hussein. We DO trust the U.N. and the inspection team.

“Peace must be defended.”

Peace is not defended through the use of military force.  This is the based on “then ends justify the means” argument.  Peace is not achieved by using force and violence. 

 “War is being thrust upon us.”

 We are acting as the aggressors using explanations to justify our proposed aggression against another nation.  War is not being thrust upon us, we are thrusting war upon Iraq.

 WHY NOW? – WHAT’S THE RUSH?

 In his state of the union speech last night, President Bush gave no real evidence why we need escalate to using military force.  He also offered no real justification for the rush to escalation.  Why is there such a need now?  There appears to be no real evidence that Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi people are any greater a threat to the U.S. now than they were 3 years or 10 years ago.  President Bush offered no evidence that Iraq poses an imminent threat to the U.S. or the rest of the world.

 ON THE INSPECTIONS

 “The inspectors…are not on a scavenger hunt.  It is up to Iraq to display the weapons they do have, to destroy them, and to offer evidence that they’ve been destroyed.” 

 While Saddam Hussein certainly has an obligation to provide information about the Iraqi development of weapons of mass destruction under U.N. resolutions, the role of the inspectors is, in fact, part scavenger hunt – to ensure that Hussein is complying, and to enforce the U.N. resolutions.

 Given the support and time that they need, coupled with the U.N and international resolve to ensure that Iraq’s weaponry is found and destroyed, suggests that we allow the inspections to continue – perhaps escalating them – rather than using military action. No matter what the inspectors find or don't find, inspections are still the best and least damaging way of containing Saddam Hussein.  We don't have inspectors in North Korea and those countries hardly have comparable arsenals.

 If President Bush is serious about disarming Iraq, then that is all the more reason to use the Inspectors rather than military force.  And the fact that we assume that Saddam Hussein has biological and chemical weapons that are hidden (mostly likely civilian locations) is perhaps the strongest argument yet why not to use military action (such as the “saturation bombing” which is apparently being considered).

 If the Bush Administration has real evidence of Saddam Hussein’s development of weapons of mass destruction, why has he been so hesitant to share that with the U.S. public and more importantly, with our allies and with the U.N.?  Why is in only now that he is willing to allown Colin Powell to report what we have uncovered to the U.N.?

 ON THE LINK TO AL QAEDA

 President Bush made allegations that Saddam Hussein hides and protects terrorists, including terrorists linked to Al Qaeda.  But these are simply allegations at this point.  As a nation, have pride ourselves on believing in a justice system that does not try and convict people based on allegations alone.  If there is link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, let us (or at least our allies and the United Nations) see that evidence.

 THE U.S. PUBLIC DOES NOT BELIEVE THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION HAS MADE THE CASE FOR WAR

 63% of the U.S. public according to a recent Pew poll (as published by the Associated Press, Jan 17, 2003) does not believe that the U.S. is justified in going to war even if Iraq fails to prove that they do not have weapons of Mass Destruction.

 More than half (according to the same poll) say that President Bush has not yet “explained clearly” the justifications to use military force to oust Saddam Hussein.

 Going to war is a serious matter with serious consequences.  War requires approval of the U.S. public and the Congress.  Because war is such a serious matter, it is not something that should be initiated based on 1 or 2 percentage points.  Only overwhelming support should be the basis for War. 

 OUR ALLIES DON’T THINK THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION HAS MADE THE CASE FOR WAR

 “The will of the international community must be obeyed” stated Secretary of State Colin Powell (Jan. 27, 2003 upon the release of the UN Weapons Inspectors Report).  We agree – at it seems patently clear that at best the international community is ambivalent about the use of increased military force against Iraq, and at worst, is opposed.  The United States, particularly as the most powerful nation in the world, has a greater obligation to hold itself to the standards that it places on the rest of the world.  If we maintain that Saddam Hussein must “obey the will of the international community,” than so must we.

 France and Germany, as represented by French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, have stated that the U.S. has failed to justify military action against Iraq at this point.  Given the terrors both nations were subject to during World War II, we think that there call should be listed to particularly closely.

 Russia, China and Canada have also spoken out against the use of Military force at this time. 

 IRAQ’S NEIGHBORS DON’T THINK THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION HAS MADE THE CASE FOR WAR

 Although living most closely to Saddam Hussein and therefore presumably much more at risk by Saddam Hussein than the U.S., the countries closest to Iraq do not seem as concerned, or anxious about disarming Iraq as the U.S. does.

 Turkey, who is perhaps the U.S.’s closest ally, has indicated their strong hesitancy to support the escalation of U.S. military action against Iraq.  In part, they are the northern border to Iraq and as such, are more likely to face a direct military response if Iraq fights back against the U.S. and our allies. But in addition, they know the costs of war in the region.

 In addition, Saudi Arabia, Iran and even Kuwait have indicated that they are at best ambivalent, and in some cases outright opposed to U.S. military action.  We should listen to those who are closest to the area that we are considering bombing who may have the most at stake.

 USING MILITARY ACTION TO OUST A NATION’S LEADER SETS A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT

 What’s the standard to deciding that one nation acting on it’s own or under the auspices of the United Nations, can use military force to oust another nation’s leader? 

 There is ample evidence that Saddam Hussein in an evil leader and acts in grossly oppressive ways against his own people.  But there are plenty of others who are evil to their own people, oppressive to minority groups (eg:  China in Tibet, Russia in Chechnya) or who have weapons of mass destruction in violation of international law (EG:  north Korea).  One could argue, in fact, that the US itself violates these principles.  The point is what is the standard that we are setting to allow one nation to engage in military action to cause the down fall of that nation’s leader?  There should be one standard – and one standard that is applied to all, by all, of the nations of the world.  The U.S. is not the world’s police officer, not the world’s prosecuting attorney, defense attorney, judge, and appellate court.

 WITHOUT UN APPROVAL, THIS WAR IS ILLEGAL

 According to the UN charter, a nation has the right to react militarily only to protect itself.  Although President Bush has claimed that Saddam Hussein and Iraq pose a threat to the United States, there is no evidence to support this claim.  There is, in actuality, ample evidence that Iraq does not and cannot pose a threat to the U.S.  The United States has been systematically bombing Iraq for over 10 years – an average of 5 – 10 bombings a week.  These bombing have largely targeted Iraqi missile systems.  It stretches the imagination to claim that Saddam Hussein has the capabilities in term of missiles or launching equipment to reach the U.S.

 A WAR WILL COST CIVILIAN LIVES

 Estimates are that the US led attacks in Afghanistan killed more than 3,767 civilians[i] between Oct. 7 and Dec. 10, 2001.  All evidence suggests that a war against Iraq will be “urban warfare” much of which will occur at night.  The risk to civilian life of such warfare is extremely high with estimates as high as 50,000 Iraqi civilians killed[ii].  This is far more lives than were taken by the attacks on 9/11/2001.  Are we becoming what we hate?

 Last night, President Bush use the liberation of the Iraqi people as part of the justification for using military force to oust Saddam Hussein.  We are left to ask, how many innocent Iraqi civilians will it cost to liberate them?

 WHERE WILL THE MONEY COME FROM – AND WHERE WILL IT GO?

 The U.S. economy continues to be in a recession.  In the current Administration budget, the only budget items to see a real increase in dollars is the Defense Budget and the Office of Homeland Security.  All other areas are seen a real-dollar decrease in spending:  health care, education, social security, welfare, etc.  In fact, there are effort to take money away from battered women, rape crisis services and abused children in order to pay for this war and the increased U.S. militarization.  This is a misguided and inappropriate use of our resources and will not work to build our economy.

 Estimates are that a war against Iraq would cost the U.S. economy $ One hundred billion dollars.  This is money taken away from a struggling U.S. economy and one that will cost the Kentucky economy an estimated $782 million.[iii]  This is money taken away from services for the poor, for the elderly, education and health care.

 In order to win over support from some of our allies – especially in and around the Gulf region, the US will have to pay hundreds of billions of dollars.  The agreement with Turkey to buy support of the Turkish Government ( in spite of the Turkish people’s opposition to allowing the U.S. to use Turkey as a base than the government is) at a time when the Turkish economy is in a deep recession, amounts to bribery.  The reported agreement with Turkey alone will also cost the U.S. tens of Billions of dollars.

 The amount of money that Bush proposes to spend on the attack on Iraq alone (never mind the rest of the military budget) dwarfs his entire domestic spending plan.  This seems a misguided use of resources and we believe that the priorities should be reversed.

 * * * * *

Kentucky's own Wendell Berry: Statement about US Foreign Policy (NYT full-page ad 2/9/03):

A CITIZEN'S RESPONSE TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

HE NEW NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY published by the White House in September 2002, if carried out, would amount to a radical revision of the political character of our nation. Its central and most significant statement is this:
While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self defense by acting preemptively against such terrorists... (p. 6)