randomWalks

There's no question that this was an incredibly courageous action and seeing Rumsfeld squirm is a pure delight, but I actually think that inspections are not the message antiwar folks should have. Calling for inspections, for one, ignores the hypocrisy of the U.S. government, which has more weapons of mass destruction than anyone else. What right does it have inspecting other countries? The U.S. not only has admitted that it has weapons, it is also openly threatening Iraq with "pre-emptive strikes." Moreover, calling for inspections entails that the UN is a neutral body. Repeatedly this has been shown not to be true. During the 1991 Gulf War antiwar activists took up the call of sanctions, not war. That was obviously the wrong demand.

Bush probably will let in weapons inspectors, but in an incredibly cynical way. He'll use it to make his case for war, even if the inspectors find nothing. But then he'll also be able to say that he's listened to the "opposition" and taken our message to heart. We would be thoroughly disarmed. What happens if the demand for inspections are met and the U.S. goes after Iraq anyway? I think it's necessary to have a clear assessment of what the U.S. agenda is (imperialism). We have to say no to war, no to sanctions and no to inspections.

Calling for inspections makes it clear that Iraq is a trumped-up threat, and that this administration won't take yes for an answer. This is a very important point in terms of swaying public opinion.



And we're trying to win over converts, right? We're trying to drown out the drums of war. We're trying to convince middle-class people in Orange County, CA to oppose the bombing other countries without cause.



At least, Medea is. And I am.

well said, judlew. Me too. (and thanks for the post!)

I think calling for inspections, though, ends up being a back door to giving tacit approval to the U.S. bombing "with cause." Right now, the U.S. is going after Iraq, no matter what. They'll do inspections if they have to. But how can we trust the U.S. government or the UN to run these honestly? Less than a year ago the U.S. was trying to pin the Anthrax attacks on Iraq. They'll find a case to go after Iraq with inspections if they have to. We need to push the demands further and demand No to War. Period.



The call for inspections also comes with the assumption that the UN is a neutral body that can be trusted to run the inspections in an unbiased way. Can we really trust it? Is the UN really a solution? I don't think it is and we need to be able to answer that question.



I think calling for inspections is a defensive argument and is akin to antiwar movement's call for sanctions in 1991. That demand was eventually "won," but at what price? The price for Iraqis has been incredibly severe and it ended up thoroughly disorienting the activists who opposed the Gulf War on that basis. We could very well win inspections from this administration, but that does nothing to challenge what they are fundamentally trying to get away with or the rights they are attempting to win. I think we should be shooting for more than swaying public opinion to inspections. We need to win people to an outright antiwar position and to be providing people with an analysis of what U.S. imperialism is all about.



P.S., why the focus on the middle class?



P.P.S., To be clear, this is not meant to be an attack on Medea Benjamin. I think she's an incredibly courageous individual who's politics I agree with much of the time, just not all of the time. But I did appreciate her standing up to the withering attacks of Dems and her support of Nader during her Green Party run in 2000. I saw the footage of yesterday and deeply admire what they did. I just wish the message had not been inspections.

No, the United States cannot take, "Yes, BUT..." for an answer.


http://slate.msn.com/?id=2071086



And what's so courageous about this woman's actions? That she stood up and shouted while Ashcroft was speaking? That's her right, because she lives here. Had she been an Iraqi who shouted at Hussein, she'd have been killed.



Speaking of Iraqis, here's an opinion piece from one. Maybe you can take your head out of your ass for long enough to read it while you sip your fair-trade coffee and imagine how wonderful it would be if the airspace above Berkely is a no-fly zone and we'll all live happily if only we could just get along.



Hamid Ali Alkifaey: Throw out Saddam and free my nation

19 September 2002





I left Iraq 22 years ago. There was no way I could live any longer under the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein. The Iran-Iraq war was just beginning and I, luckily, managed to get a visa to come to Britain as a student. I remember thinking that I would have gone anywhere, India, Rwanda, even Afghanistan, to get away from Saddam. It was a huge struggle, financially and mentally. I know that many people tried to leave after me; few succeeded. Saddam Hussein has destroyed my family and effectively sent me into exile.



When I was recently asked by the Fabian Society to give a talk about the nature of the threat that Saddam Hussein represents, I didn't know where to start. Should I begin by describing how Saddam committed his first murder at the age of 15? Should I talk about how he and his party took over Iraq in 1968, killing innocent businessmen and confiscating their property, before moving against the ethnic and religious minorities?



Maybe the place to begin was his launching of a chemical attack at Halabja in March 1988 that slaughtered at least 5,000 civilians? What about the the time when he killed 180,000 Kurds in the infamous Anfal operation, many of whom were buried alive?



Perhaps the best place to start is with the present threat of weapons of mass destruction, which the world now fears, and to explain why the United Nations' plans for weapons inspection will never work.



The threat does not stem from the possession of these weapons alone. Many countries in the world possess these weapons, but few people feel threatened by them. The threat comes from the nature of Saddam Hussein himself. Since his rise to power he has had three obsessions: secrecy, security and weapons. He was lucky to have been able to achieve all three, but at a huge cost to Iraq's people, to its neighbours and to the environment. History stands as a witness to this cost.



Saddam's ultimate solution to any problem is physical elimination. And that does not stop at Iraq's borders. When he didn't like the Algerian foreign minister mediating between him and Iran in 1982, he ordered his airplane to be shot down over northern Iraq, killing the Algerian minister and everyone else with him.



When an Iraqi airplane was hijacked in 1986, instead of trying to sort out the problem by peaceful means, he ordered the plane to be destroyed, killing the innocent passengers as well as the hijackers, of course. When Iran occupied Iraqi territory at the tip of the Gulf and took Iraqi soldiers as prisoners of war, he ordered the army to use chemical weapons, killing thousands of Iraqi and Iranian soldiers indiscriminately.



He orders executions on a daily basis and carries out many executions personally. He once killed his minister for health at a cabinet meeting and carried on with the meeting afterwards, with the minister's body lying next door.



Two weeks after he took over the Iraqi state in a military coup, he ordered the arrest of his partners in the coup and expelled them, only to hunt them down later, one in London and the other in Kuwait. When he felt that his brother-in-law, whom he had appointed as defence minister, was getting a bit too popular among army officers, he ordered that his plane be shot down.



The list of crimes goes on and on. He signed an agreement with Kurds under the leadership of the late Mustafa Barzani, in 1970. A year later he sent Barzani a "religious" delegation, and one of the "clergymen" concealed a bomb under his clothes. The bomb exploded and some of the innocent clergymen died — but Barzani survived, by sheer luck.



When Saddam is weak he becomes a dove, and signs agreements; when he feels strong, he tears them up claiming they were unjust and signed during the time of weakness.



He hates anyone he thinks is better than him in any way, with revenge being visited upon them even after a long time has passed. That vengeance is not limited to individuals; it extends to towns such as Halabja, which was wiped out by chemical weapons, and Addijail, which he had demolished after someone shot at his motorcade as it was passing by the town.



The prominent Iraqi writer and intellectual, Hassan al-Alawi, who was part of Saddam's inner circle for 12 years, wrote a book called Iraq: The State of the Secret Organisation. The book stated that Saddam runs Iraq's affairs in total secrecy, not wanting anyone — not even those in the party leadership — to know what he is doing. What we think we know about Saddam and his weapons is by no means the full story.



Saddam will never give up two things: his weapons and the secrecy in which he conducts his own affairs. That is why inspection won't work. He will never co-operate fully. The Iraqi people have been suffering in silence for over three decades. The West has always sought to befriend dictators and despots in the Middle East in the past; now it has an opportunity to gain the friendship of a whole people for a change.



Almost every Iraqi I meet in exile here in Britain wishes to return to Iraq one day. Personally, I will be on a plane the day after Saddam falls.



alkifaey@hotmail.com



The writer is an Iraqi writer and journalist living in Britain

I changed my mind about intervention in the Balkans when I made some friends who were Serbs and Bosnians. But I don't think the same applies here.



The focus on the middle class, Zagg, is because that people with comfortable incomes believe they have the most to lose, and are therefore fearful and defensive, and likely to support a war for the sake of the economy. These are the people we have to persuade if we want to achieve peace.

Growler, I've got another date for you: Dec. 20, 1983.



"The last time Donald Rumsfeld saw Saddam Hussein, he gave him a cordial handshake. The date was almost 20 years ago, Dec. 20, 1983; an official Iraqi television crew recorded the historic moment."


http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/09.18A.neswk.us.iraq.htm



The fact is that Hussein is a terrible dictator. The fact also is that the U.S. government really does not gives a damn whether he's a saint or the devil himself. They are in this for themselves and their own sick plans to rule the world: http://www.sundayherald.com/print27735



The fact is the people of Iraq deserve liberation and democracy, but that will not come with U.S. bombs. It never has. It never will.

So, Rumsfeld shook his hand. He was sent as a special envoy. I don't know about you, but if I were in that position, I'd probably shake the guy's hand too, regardless of what I thought of him.



The fact is, we didn't give a shit about him or the other Islamofascists until they killed people on our soil.



The fact is, we probably could have liberated them during the Gulf War, after we'd encouraged the people to rise up against Saddam. That is, if we had stuck around to back them up. Bombs and bullets would have worked then. And they will work now.

So, Rumsfeld shook his hand. He was sent as a special envoy. I don't know about you, but if I were in that position, I'd probably shake the guy's hand too, regardless of what I thought of him.



The fact is, we didn't give a shit about him or the other Islamofascists until they killed people on our soil.



The fact is, we probably could have liberated them during the Gulf War, after we'd encouraged the people to rise up against Saddam. That is, if we had stuck around to back them up. Bombs and bullets would have worked then. And they will work now.

So, Rumsfeld shook his hand. He was sent as a special envoy. I don't know about you, but if I were in that position, I'd probably shake the guy's hand too, regardless of what I thought of him.



The fact is, we didn't give a shit about him or the other Islamofascists until they killed people on our soil.



The fact is, we probably could have liberated them during the Gulf War, after we'd encouraged the people to rise up against Saddam. That is, if we had stuck around to back them up. Bombs and bullets would have worked then. And they will work now.

(Sorry about the triple post there.)

I think you're over-crediting. The "you've got inspections, so why do you want to fight?" meme has been percolating since Saddam "gave in". I'm all for protest, but this didn't do much more than provide a "hey, look! wacky news!" moment for the tv stations tired of Rummy droning on.

5 Ways to Lose an Argument about Iraq via Kuro5hin.

Not sure what gives "dachshund" the authority on this issue, but I'd disagree with about four of those. I think of lot of what's said is invalidated in point 3 where they admit they are "scared silly" of Saddam.

Judlew, dj,



Upon further introspection, I do think some of what I said originally is actually wrong.



The demand, "No to war, no to sanctions, no to inspections" sets the bar too high if we're trying to build a broad movement. At the same time, arguing for inspections actually, I think, will end up turning away radical people. The broad demand of any antiwar group, I think, should simply be "No to war."



Within the movement itself we should really talk this stuff out. I still think my position is correct, but that comes from several factors. One factor is in looking at the big picture of what the Bush administration is trying to accomplish, I think that what's going on is not simply about the individual case of Iraq. We need to be able to challenge whatever myths they put out there, but at the same time their determination to go after Iraq will not go away if there are inspections or if no weapons are found. They'll find another reason. We need to understand that and be prepared for that and be able to explain what the real agenda is about a revival of U.S. imperialism and how ordinary people in this country have nothing to gain by it.



Secondly, though, is that I think targeting the middle class in the strictest sense is also not the best strategy. I think the audience now is primarily students (who mostly are middle class) and to a lesser degree, workers. For one I think workers actually have more to lose (they're already losing it) and many working people I've talked to already are against the war, if not sure exactly why. We have to realize that support for going after Iraq has dropped off considerably since last October. We're not operating from a position of absolute weakness right now.

You worry about the students and "workers," Zagg -- and the radicals, whom you're unlikely to "lose." I mean, it's not like they're going to turn pro-war just because someone's raising the issue of inspections.



I'll worry about persuading my friends and family who fear that Hussein will nuke us tomorrow if we don't do something fast. Their fear is real, even if the facts they've got -- and the solutions they support -- are wrong. They represent, sorry to say, the vast majority of the country, as even the most up-to-date poll shows. We dismiss them at our peril.

I'm not saying radicals will adopt a pro-war position. What I was saying is that we'd end up with two anti-war movements, one of radicals and one of more liberals. That's what happened around Afghanistan and I don't think it was a good thing.



But that's actually a secondary reason that we should not be calling for inspections. The prime reason is that it is simply not a solution. How can we trust the U.S. or the U.N. to be a fair broker in this deal? This administration has said again and again that it's going after Iraq. That means they'll do the inspections if they have to. Any inspections will be a sham. If we're trying to build an anti-war movement it has to be just that. It can't be an anti-war-unless-you-meet-our-conditions movement. That's what calling for inspections entails. It entails tacit *support* for U.S. intervention in Iraq.



In terms of talking to your friends, give them the real picture, the facts of what Iraq looks like! Isn't that also part of what an antiwar movement should do? Should it not educate people and address these fears? I've found that one powerful way to convey what the U.S. has done to Iraq is to have samples of the kinds of goods that are prohibited under the "dual-use" guidelines. You know, things like diapers, pencils and baby food.



And, admittedly, polls are not 100 percent accurate, but overall support for going after Iraq has eroded by 20-30 percent from a year ago. Once you start talking about ground troops or the U.S. acting unilaterally, support drops even lower. And this has happened without any real sustained opposition being voiced from the Left.



Lastly, I disagree with you on one other point. The middle class is *not* the vast majority of this country. That may simply come from how we are defining working class vs. middle class in that some people that you might define as middle class, I would not. In addition, though, people in this country very much tend to underestimate how large the working class really is.



An excellent book on this topic: http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/cornellpress/cup3_catalog.taf?_function=detail&Title_ID=3369

Hey, I agree -- I am thinking that in 2004 the Greens ought to nominate her, and have Ralph run for Senate somewhere. Medea has the courage, the experience, and the savvy to run a solid and credible campaign without risking the "spoiler" effect.