Naomi Klein and Jeremy Scahill: Anti-war Campaigners Have To Change Electoral Tactics

[laststeamtrain]

Anti-war Campaigners Have To Change Electoral Tactics

Neither Clinton nor Obama has a real plan to end the occupation of Iraq, but they could be forced to change position

By Naomi Klein and Jeremy Scahill


25/03/08 "The Guardian" -- -- 'So?" So said Dick Cheney when asked last week about public opinion being overwhelmingly against the war in Iraq. "You can't be blown off course by polls." A few days later, his attitude, about the fact that the number of US soldiers killed in Iraq has reached 4,000, displayed similar levels of sympathy. They "voluntarily put on the uniform," the vice-president told ABC news.

This brick wall of indifference helps explain the paradox in which we in the US anti-war camp find ourselves five years into the occupation of Iraq: anti-war sentiment is as strong as ever, but our movement seems to be dwindling. Sixty-four per cent of Americans tell pollsters they oppose the war, but you'd never know it from the thin turnout at recent rallies and vigils.

When asked why they aren't expressing their anti-war opinions through the anti-war movement, many say they have simply lost faith in the power of protest. They marched against the war before it began, marched on the first, second and third anniversaries. And yet, five years on, US leaders are still shrugging: "So?"

That's why it's time for the anti-war movement to change tactics. We should direct our energy where it can still have an impact: the leading Democratic contenders.

Many argue otherwise. They say that if we want to end the war, we should simply pick a candidate who is not John McCain and help them win: we'll sort out the details after the Republicans are evicted from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Some of the most prominent anti-war voices - from MoveOn.org to the Nation, the magazine we both write for - have gone down this route, throwing their weight behind the Obama campaign.

This is a serious strategic mistake. It is during a hotly contested campaign that anti-war forces have the power to actually sway US policy. As soon as we pick sides, we relegate ourselves to mere cheerleaders.

<more>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/mar/26/antiwar.iraq

[proud2BlibKansan]

1. This is an excellent editorial

Thanks for posting.

[ben_meyers]

2. "Re-create 68"

It worked so well in Chicago, gave us Nixon.

http://www.recreate68.org/

[AX10]

3. kick

[texshelters]

4. Obama and Clinton want to keep a force in Iraq

Tell them that's not acceptable!

Tex Shelters

[eridani]

5. Yes. Make them compete to propose serious antiwar policies n/t

[DCKit]

6. It's not about the race for Resident...

We need to take back both houses of Congress - and they, in turn, will take back their power.

No more DINOs, Republics, DLCers, and Corporatists.

[AdHocSolver]

7. Correct. Latest polls show greater concern for the economy. It is important to get Democratic...

majorities in both houses of Congress and pressure THEM to push for winding down the Iraq occupation.

I have proposed early on that the best way to withdraw from Iraq, AND reduce the sectarian violence in Iraq is to cancel all the war-profiteering contracts with Halliburton and its ilk, and contract out the rebuilding of Iraq to Iraqi people.

In other words, put Iraqis to work to fix their country's economy and rebuild Iraq's infrastructure, and they will probably stop fighting each other and start working together.

It is a win-win for Iraq AND the U.S. They get their country back, and the money we save by stopping this miltary/industrial complex boondoggle can be used to rebuild our country's infrastructure.