Hi. Cutting back to one message per day is harder than I thought. I have to think everybody has much of the information I might have sent and is interested in essays which assume the same thing, and that people will do something about it all. I have three such, including this one. But UPJ does not have major presence in LA and many of us have real problems with the two coalitions that do. Nonetheless, Bennis' essay has great merit and there's always the hope that a UPJ force will assemble here. Tarik Ali's Iraq informative, cogent analysis adds a lot, brilliantly as usual.
About the information. Unless I forget, I include my sources and how you can subscribe to them at the bottom of these emails. They're invaluable and indispensable for any reasonable view of today's world. I strongly suggest you subscribe to Portside and Rad Green. The biggie is NY Transfer, but only if you're prepared for 20 or more articles per day - I've now transfered to their daily digest - one menu at midnight. I'll list some contacts tomorrow. Ed The U.S. Peace & Justice Movement Facing 2005 by Phyllis Bennis Institute for Policy Studies "Widen political deficits into large gaps" [Distributed to the United for Peace Justice (UFPJ) milaing list. <http://www.unitedforpeace.org/> In the piece below Phyllis Bennis identifies key developments making the war and occupation more difficult for the U.S. to fight. She argues that these developments create openings for the peace movement to reach and expand its support among specific constituencies, and that our job is to widen those fissures into large gaps. These notes were the basis for a talk she gave at UFPJ’s Steering Committee meeting in New York City on December 18, 2004. - Hany Khalil http://www.unitedforpeace.org/] === The U.S. Peace & Justice Movement Facing 2005 by Phyllis Bennis Institute for Policy Studies Movement responsibilities: we continue to make Iraq the centerpiece of our broader campaign for peace and justice because the Iraq war is now the centerpiece of U.S. policy and its drive towards empire. Our job in the peace & justice movement is to identify and be prepared to exacerbate the pressures that are making the war and occupation more difficult for the U.S. to fight. Then we must work to expose and/or strengthen those factors. * Certainly the single most important component of things undermining the US war is the Iraqi resistance. We recognize the RIGHT of the Iraqi people to resist as a point of principle, even if we do not endorse specific resistance organizations or tactics. But we don't have the information or the ties to influence the resistance. And further, we should not call for "supporting the resistance" because we don't know who most of them are and what they really stand for, and because of those we do know, we mostly don't support their social program beyond opposition to the occupation. * Do we support Iraqi elections? Our position is based on principle: We support the idea of elections, but not THIS election: elections held under occupation, elections designed to put in place a U.S. puppet government and to legitimize an illegitimate occupation, cannot be legitimate elections. Regardless of whether there is some support in Iraq for these elections, our job is in the U.S., and we need to expose the U.S. goals for these elections, and work to delegitimize them. * U.S. military strategy: Conditions in Iraq are worsening; the U.S. is clearly committed to trying to wipe out the resistance before the January 30th elections; that means continuing escalation of U.S. military attacks. This escalation will not likely look like what we've seen over the last few months, with the large-scale assaults on Fallujah and elsewhere. It will likely not take the form of huge, escalated attacks in one place that can grab the world's attention. Rather, it will likely take the shape of smaller attacks in different places. We must identify deficits in U.S. war policy, and especially the fissures within sectors of support for the war. Our job is to widen those fissures into large gaps. The military personnel deficit: Rising casualties among U.S. military means that morale is sinking, recruitment & retention are more difficult. Huge percentage of U.S. military forces are now tied up in Iraq. Growing anger regarding poor preparation, inadequate equipment, insufficient capacity among troops. A 70 year old dentist was recently called back to military service. Huge reliance on Guard and reserves. Militarily, the Pentagon is seriously understaffed. Our work: counter-recruitment and GI organizing and undermine stop loss. We're not a nation at war -- this was a war of choice. Need to rebuild GI and GI coffeehouse movement (coffeehouses in Vietnam antiwar movement-just off the military bases were storefronts where you could get coffee, hang out, and military lawyers would provide draft counseling, became kind of protection, they would leaflet with do you know you have rights). So far most military people, even those questioning Pentagon policy about the military itself but not yet questioning the legitimacy of the war, don't see the peace and justice movement as a force that can provide protection they need. We have to work to undermine the Pentagon's ability to keep people in the military, how they talk to family when they go home. It's long-term, but we could see significant results quickly. Key constituencies: military families, veterans' organizations, counter-recruitment activists. Financial deficit: The costs of war are mounting. Going back to Congress with $100 billion request when the reality of problems in how the money is spent is on front pages creates a huge problem for the White House. U.S. corporations close to the Bush administration are increasingly seen as getting the bulk of the money. The U.N. is criticizing U.S. diversion of Iraqi oil funds to pay U.S. contractors (Halliburton, Bechtel, others) while ignoring the needs of Iraqi contractors and workers (and failing to actually reconstruct anything). The lack of reconstruction, the insufficient personal protection for U.S. soldiers, the impact on other government programs and the huge overall deficit as a result of the high spending on Iraq war, are all important in challenging the appropriation of more funds. Implication: Should focus on pressuring congress against the appropriations bill [likely to come up in February]. Work should be locally-based, but create joint materials to show existence of national movement speaking with one voice. Look at how money being spent. Note how Rumsfeld was vulnerable-money didn't go to armoring humvees to protect GIs, only to more and better bombs to kill Iraqis. Key constituencies: Congress, anti-corporate organizations, broad American people, especially with new polls indicating Bush's approval rates down, disapproval of the war up (57%). Deficit in protection and real support for U.S. troops: Administration more and more vulnerable as military community speaks out. Issues include lack of protective gear, stop-loss laws, forcible returning to service of veterans leading to "back-door draft," long deployments for reservists and national guard, high percentages of mental & emotional disorders in returning vets, lack of sufficient veteran health care. To maximize, we need to keep organizations like Military Families Speak Out, the new Iraq Veterans Against the War, and others at center stage of our mobilizations. But also need to provide concrete support to those organizations, particularly with help in funding and staff to bolster their work. We should note that U.S. concern about human costs in the war has not yet focused on the huge numbers of Iraqi civilian casualties, despite the short-lived flurry around the 100,000 estimate of the Johns Hopkins study published in the British medical journal The Lancet. [See section on "moral deficit" below for more on this issue.] Political and Credibility deficit: So far we are not seeing much effort from the Democrats in undermining the Bush policies, don't know if we can have much effect on them yet. But within the Republican Party, there's a growing division: Some right-wing Republicans are saying they have lost confidence in Rumsfeld, a few (including some neo-cons like William Kristol) are even calling for Rumsfeld to be fired. Rumsfeld has become the key personification of the war; Bush can't get rid of him because would admit that war itself has become a liability. (So far one of the only right-wingers to come out in clear defense of Rumsfeld has been Richard Perle, arch neo-con and former Pentagon adviser, who has been virtually silent since corporate-related scandals forced him out of Rumsfeld's Defense Policy Board earlier this year.) May be different with changing public opinion (even without the Democrats). December 21 Washington Post poll indicates 56% think Rumsfeld should be fired, 49% disapprove of Bush as president, 57% disapprove of the war in Iraq, 70% believe the level of U.S. casualties in Iraq is unacceptable, and 56% believe the war was not worth fighting. We need to figure out how to strengthen this popular opposition, perhaps linking it with growing elite and particularly right-wing opposition. Key constituencies: Democrats, who so far have failed to raise serious critique, and peace movement sectors with ties to Democrats. The international deficit: Appointment of Condoleezza Rice to replace Powell means end of popular illusions (in Europe and Middle East in particular) that Bush administration has separate views, that there is a rational semi-multilateralist voice within the administration. Clarifies reality of unified unilateralist thrust of U.S. policy. Key constituencies: global peace movement, European and other governments, UN. Moral deficit: Lack of concern in Pentagon over GI's especially being killed. Rising casualties among Iraqi civilians ignored by Pentagon, but demonstrates fallacy of "Iraqis better off today" argument. Likelihood that elections will be widely seen as illegitimate because of occupation-linked violence making it impossible for large numbers of people to vote. Challenge of raising issue of Iraqi civilian casualties, both direct casualties of occupation forces, and those that are occupation-related (when civilians are attacked by resistance, in most cases -though not all - seems to be targeting civilians viewed as collaborating with the occupation). Key constituencies: We need sharper strategy for reaching faith-based communities, particularly mainstream churches (peace churches are with us but need to broaden campaigns). Many mainstream churches have taken positions, but aren't mobilizing their base. How about coordinating national day for local coalitions of religious leaders to do simultaneous preaching on same weekend? The democracy deficit: Destruction of civil liberties in U.S. under increasing scrutiny, undermines claims to be fighting "for democracy" in Iraq. Key constituences: civil liberties, immigrant rights, people of color organizations. What does our movement need for this work? * Internationalism: serious networking, engagement and intersection with global peace movement. * Linkage with Israel/Palestine question: crucial issue of dual occupations; peace movement has accomplished important initial educational and mobilization work in normalizing the issue within the broader peace and justice movement, but needs to do more to make links. * Organizing strategies: beyond giant national actions, we must figure out ways of exacerbating the deficits/challenges facing U.S. strategy, and educating on those rising costs and deficits. March 19th mobilization will be key. * Grassroots media and training -- we can look at the model of the U.S. Campaign to End Israeli Occupation in organizing regional training sessions in five-six state regions. Provides basic skills training in media, outreach/education and advocacy, but simultaneously mobilizes and energizes movement activists still paralyzed with post-election depression. * Speaking tours probably good idea -- but have to be linked with outreach and media strategies, not just educational. Our national movement, centered in UFPJ, needs to play the role of linking local and regional organizing efforts into a national peace movement able to speak with one voice, one message. portside (the left side in nautical parlance) is a news, discussion and debate service of the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism. It aims to provide varied material of interest to people on the left. To subscribe: http://lists.portside.org/mailman/listinfo/portside *** http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1407210,00.html The Guardian Monday February 7, 2005 Out with the old, in with the new The Iraqi elections were designed not to preserve the unity of Iraq but to re-establish the unity of the west By Tariq Ali The US, unlike the empires of old Europe, has always preferred to exercise its hegemony indirectly. It has relied on local relays - uniformed despots, corrupt oligarchs, pliant politicians, obedient monarchs - rather than lengthy occupations. It was only when rebellions from below threatened to disrupt this order that the marines were dispatched and wars fought. During the cold war, money was supplied indiscriminately to all anti-communist forces (including the current leadership of al-Qaida); the 21st-century recipients are more carefully targeted. The aim is slowly to replace the traditional elites in the old satrapies with a new breed of neo-liberal politicians who have been trained and educated in the US. This is the primary function of the US money allocated to "democracy promotion". Loyalty can be purchased from politicians, parties and trades unions. And the result, it is hoped, is to create a new layer of janissary politicians who serve Washington. This most recent variant of "democracy promotion" has now been applied in Afghanistan and Iraq, and it will hit Haiti (another occupied country) in November. Create a new elite, give it funds and weaponry to build a new army and let them make the country safe for the corporations. The 2004 Afghan elections, even according to some pro-US commentators, were a farce, and the much vaunted 73% turnout was a fraud. In Iraq, the western media were celebrating a 60% turnout within minutes of the polls closing, despite the fact that Iraq lacks a complete register of voters, let alone a network of computerised polling stations. The official figure, when it comes, is likely to be revised downwards (according to Debka, a pro-US Israeli website, turnout was closer to 40%). The "high" turnout was widely interpreted as a rejection of the Iraqi resistance. But was it? Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani's many followers voted to please him, but if he is unable to deliver peace and an end to the occupation, they too might defect. The only force in Iraq the occupiers can rely on are the Kurdish tribes. The Kurdish 36th command battalion fought alongside the US in Falluja, but the tribal chiefs want some form of independence, and some oil. If Turkey, loyal Nato ally and EU aspirant, vetoes any such possibility, then the Kurds too might accept money from elsewhere. The battle for Iraq is far from over. It has merely entered a new stage. Despite strong disagreements on boycotting the elections, the majority of Iraqis will not willingly hand over their oil or their country to the west. Politicians who try to force this through will lose all support and become totally dependent on the foreign armies in their country. The popular resistance will continue. Many in the west find it increasingly difficult to support this resistance. The arguments for and against it are old ones. In 1885, the English socialist William Morris celebrated the defeat of General Gordon by the Mahdi: "Khartoum fallen - into the hands of the people it belongs to". Morris argued that the duty of English internationalists was to support all those being oppressed by the British empire despite disagreements with nationalism or fanaticism. The triumphalist chorus of the western media reflects a single fact: the Iraqi elections were designed not so much to preserve the unity of Iraq but to re-establish the unity of the west. After Bush's re-election the French and Germans were looking for a bridge back to Washington. Will their citizens accept the propaganda that sees the illegitimate election (the Carter Centre, which monitors elections worldwide, refused to send observers) as justifying the occupation? The occupation involved a military and economic invasion as envisaged by Hayek, the father of neo-liberalism, who pioneered the notion of lightning air strikes against Iran in 1979 and Argentina in 1982. The re-colonisation of Iraq would have greatly pleased him. Politicians masking their true aims with weasel words about "humanity" would have irritated him. What of the media, the propaganda pillar of the new order? In Control Room, a Canadian documentary on al-Jazeera, one of the more disgusting images is that of embedded western journalists whooping with joy at the capture of Baghdad. The coverage of "elections" in Afghanistan and Iraq has been little more than empty spin. This symbiosis of neo-liberal politics and a neo-liberal media helps reinforce the collective memory loss from which the west suffers today. Carl Schmitt, a theorist of the Third Reich, developed the view that politics is encompassed by the essential categories of "friend" and "enemy". After the second world war, Schmitt's writings were adapted to the needs of the US and are now the bedrock of neocon thinking. The message is straightforward: if your country does not serve our needs it is an enemy state. It will be occupied, its leaders removed and pliant satraps placed on the throne. But when troops withdraw, satrapies often crumble. Occupation, rebellion, withdrawal, occupation, self-emancipation is a pattern in world history. At the Nuremberg trials, Ribbentrop, the German foreign minister, was charged for providing the justification for Hitler's pre-emptive strike against Norway. Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Jack Straw in a dock of the future? Unlikely, but desirable. • Tariq Ali's latest book is Bush in Babylon: the Recolonisation of Iraq [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Rad-Green mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Give the gift of life to a sick child. Support St. Jude Children's Research Hospital's 'Thanks & Giving.' http://us.click.yahoo.com/lGEjbB/6WnJAA/E2hLAA/7gSolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Digest: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
