Peace Candidates
My friend Paul was recently featured in an article at The Nation. The article is about only supporting "Peace Candidates" and here is an excerpt explaining what this means:
This is a good policy to keep in mind when you vote on Tuesday.
"In general, ‘peace candidate' means wanting to bring our troops home from Iraq," says Peace Action's Organizing and Policy Director, Paul Kawika Martin. "Although some also believe in cutting military spending, diplomacy for Iran, nuclear disarmament and other important peace issues."
This is a good policy to keep in mind when you vote on Tuesday.
Labels: Politics
15 Comments:
So, a "Peace Candidate" would remove U.S. troops from Iraq even if an Iraqi civil war escalated as a result (thus causing power-balance problems with Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia)?
Isn't there a more accurate term to use than "peace"?
It's not like staying there is making it any better. All evidence points to that it's making it worse. There is already a civil war.
Huh?
If the U.S. leaves, expect an incursion from Turkey into northern Iraq. Then you'll see how much better things will be.
After that, you can watch in glee as Iran increases its influence in southern Iraq. Don't worry, though. Iran is an utterly peaceful nation. They're just joking around when they say that nuking Israel might be a good idea.
Don't fool yourself that sectarian violence couldn't get far worse than what it is, Da5id. "All evidence"--sheesh. Name one piece of evidence that isn't an opinion poll.
Don't forget to look at the high incidence of attacks on Iraqi targets compared to attacks on U.S. targets (and realistically, the targeting of U.S. forces is probably higher because of impending U.S. elections--our enemies have learned how to use the media, taking one of the lessons of Vietnam).
As an outsider (I can't vote for US elections 'cos I'm not from USA) I would be inclined to vote for a 'peace candidate', but I think Bryan has a few good points. In response, however, I think that the US forces have an UNpeaceful tact in Iraq, that is, shoot first, shoot later.
The USA stirred up a hornets nest a few years ago hoping* to construct a peaceful nation.
A peaceful nation grows from mutual concession and total conquer (eg Japan, Germany). The US seems to have the second appraoch, but it seems improbable in Iraq due to the querilla warfare. The war seems to get uncleaner and uncleaner.
Having seen media reports of a few months of war and 3 years of "policing", I don't think the USA govt/forces have the inclination to, nor the aptitude for helping Iraq being peaceful. Part of that peace process would be an acceptance that it can't all be your own way. There's plenty of other partys who need to accept that too, however the most important is the group who is expanding freedom and democracy (and capitalism, yay).
Based on that, I'd vote the current meatpole out.
*I hope USA went there for peace
"Emperor Fabulous",
If anything, the guerilla warfare exists in its present state because U.S. forces allowed Iraq to self-govern and self-police too quickly. For example, the early looting which occurred with virtually no opposition may have served to encourage an attitude of resistance.
The Arab mindset holds weakness in low regard. Shooting looters would have provoked international outrage (so what else is new?), but ironically it probably would have helped lead to a more peaceful Iraq today.
The problem here is Iraq itself. It was known going in that Iraq contained factions that would be difficult to reconcile. Civil war was mentioned as a possibility before the first coalition boot touched ground taking part in OIF.
It is the swift move toward autonomy in conjunction with the militia-friendly policies of the government that have gotten us to the present point--but make no mistake--there never was a clear strategy that would have been fool-proof.
Japan and Germany had far less early autonomy than Iraq. Iraq is more comparable to the early U.S. and France during their democratic revolutions. The U.S. trashed its first government after a number of years (see "Articles of Confederation), and France endured a horribly bloody revolution that visited revenge on the former elites.
Hi Bryan, like you say, Iraq has much more autonomy than Germany and Japan did post war, which was necessary at the time. There are too many factions fighting who can support, and can be supported by, foreign interests. Self-governance, or the illusion of, was important to the US for a number of reasons, such as, 1, the world was watching, and 2, the coalition found Iraq to be an unconquerable land. The more people voting, the fewer shooting, and the more difficult it is for another party to seize the initiative in the future.
But the current regime smacks of US influence. American officials land every month unannounced and the President drops everything to meet with them. And the cops have no rule of law over the US troops. That, to me, suggests who has power, or who wants it. And that’s why I think this US-led coalition is flawed in it’s pursuit of Iraq.
To consider that governance is an allowance given to Iraqis is a major problem, as, like you say, they were never in the same situation as Japan or Germany. The current US govt is halting any progress with it’s version of a peace plan through it’s dogmatic approach.
And Bryan, I doubt Arab people would’ve considered shooting unarmed looters, starving or otherwise, as strength. More like the replacement of one tyrannical regime for another. It wouldn’t have changed much as, from what I can tell, that’s what many of them are rebelling against now.
That, to me, suggests who has power, or who wants it.
Ever heard of Ockham's razor?
The facts you mention above should suggest to you that over 100,000 U.S. troops are in Iraq and that the Iraqi government depends on the U.S. for stability at present.
Announce visits by U.S. officials to a government that has yet to consolidate as a unified state, and you put those visiting officials in danger.
You have a better way? Greater independence of the Shiite-dominated government with greater independence for local militias?
I don't think so--but I'd love to see your suggestion.
The current US govt is halting any progress with it’s version of a peace plan through it’s dogmatic approach.
And the way forward is what, you would say?
And Bryan, I doubt Arab people would’ve considered shooting unarmed looters, starving or otherwise, as strength.
Why not?
Why didn't the Shiite majority throw Hussein out of power long ago?
Address that question, and you have your answer.
Hi Bryan. My first inclination is to say I don't know the answers, but my second is to say what I think.
My solution for peace is, firstly, for the USA to apologise to every single Iraqi for implicating them with Al Qaeda and for calling them part of the axis of evil. Secondly, apologise for the 4 billion ammunition casings spent by US forces on their land. Third, apologise for the sanctions imposed between 1991 and 2003 that led to famine. Fourth, ask what is their bidding for the US to gain forgiveness.
I'm not saying the USA hasn't done some good there. I'm saying continuing to justify the actions of the US govt isn't going to lead to peace.
I believe peace in Iraq is being thwarted, firstly by the people of Iraq, and secondly, by the US govts tactics. The US took sides, and the people of Iraq know it. I doubt those people will expect to be treated fairly if peace talks come around due to the history of the, as you say, stabilising forces.
You ask "Why didn't the Shiite majority throw Hussein out of power long ago?" Don't confuse fear with respect. Saddam was feared. Does the USA seek fear or peace?
I'm saying continuing to justify the actions of the US govt isn't going to lead to peace.
Neither is apologizing.
The US took sides, and the people of Iraq know it.
Whose side did the U.S. take? No independence for the Kurds. No outright domination of the new govt. by the Shiites. No revenge on the Sunnis as a class.
You tell me which side the US took.
You ask "Why didn't the Shiite majority throw Hussein out of power long ago?" Don't confuse fear with respect. Saddam was feared. Does the USA seek fear or peace?
Both.
We were talking about the perception of strength. A nation with a strong military that is unwilling to act is a weak nation. You can respect the strong military all day long, but if it doesn't act then it is a non-factor and does nothing to serve the cause of peace.
Nations and organizations bent on killing civilians and setting up autocratic governments should fear the U.S.
If they do not fear the U.S. then what will stop them? The mighty French? Their own conscience?
Not too many other options, AFAICS.
In my opinion, apologising could help take the USA out of the equation regarding power-brokering in the country, hence help take steps towards peace. You asked me my answer, and you got it.
No people "should" fear the USA. Plenty of countries do due to its own autocratic global behaviour, but paradoxically, the people who fight US troops on a daily basis do not. Ockham's razor would therefore suggest that the tactics you purport don't work.
I doubt many people truly respect a strong military. Inaction due to fear is not peace. It's learned helplessness. When people have options, they don't learn helplessness.
Bryan, YOU were talking about the perception of strength. I was talking about peace.
regarding taking sides: I base that comment on the Sunni's bad, Shiites good media-comment I saw between 2003 and 2005. I can't prove a think of a comment to combat the good points you've made, so I humbly eat those words.
You asked me my answer, and you got it.
Of course, albeit there's nothing to recommend your answer above the suggestion of sending every Iraqi a pink carnation along with a box of chocolates.
No people "should" fear the USA.
Okay, then, why shouldn't Kim Jong il refrain from launching a ground invasion of California?
I want him so afraid of the U.S.A. that he wouldn't even think about obtaining nuclear arms.
In your view, he should not fear the USA? Arm to his heart's content? Threaten Japan without any concern over the US response?
Plenty of countries do due to its own autocratic global behaviour, but paradoxically, the people who fight US troops on a daily basis do not.
They do fear the U.S. military, but on the other hand they trust the media to appeal to the people (a la Vietnam) to diminish the American will to sustain its support of the Iraqi government.
They're certainly glad when people in the U.S. push for observance of Geneva Conventions for unlawful combatants, so that the people who cut people's heads off will not have to face uncomfortable conditions in confinement.
That sort of thing assures them of eventual victory. They perceive a weak enemy.
Inaction due to fear is not peace.
It most certainly is when the particular inaction consists of threatening or making war.
It's learned helplessness.
Why do you think that nations without a viable option for attacking their neigbors (for example) are helpless?
When people have options, they don't learn helplessness.
Is an option to threaten and attack neighbors necessary to avoid this horrible helplessness?
Bryan, YOU were talking about the perception of strength. I was talking about peace.
You were talking about the perception of strength:
"I doubt Arab people would’ve considered shooting unarmed looters, starving or otherwise, as strength."
Dude,
I think you and I will disagree continuously because I doubt I have the knowledge to offer a decent reason to challenge your opinion.
I think the USA is in the position to be a great peaceful force. The actions of the past few decades by US forces and govts, plus your view, are not indicative of the peaceful force I invisage.
In my view, theres a paranoia and fear of the world that sustains the view that the world must fear "the USA", and that's swelling over onto the streets of Iraq. That's not to say the USA is at the heart of the problem, just that it's fuelling the rage.
I hope the US govt does something altruistic for Iraq (whether soldiers lost in combat counts is a debate in itself), and if that includes pink carnations and a box of chocolates to all the Iraqi families, it actually sounds quite nice. Of course, without the apologies, I think it'll be a waste of time.
You heard my opinion. Do you have any answers for peace there?
I think you and I will disagree continuously because I doubt I have the knowledge to offer a decent reason to challenge your opinion.
Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?
Either arm yourself with some knowledge or start making your opinion more like mine. Find a position you can justify.
Of course, without the apologies, I think it'll be a waste of time.
It would be a waste of time in any case. Try to think of one even moderate world issue in which an apology figured prominently. Take as much history as you like.
Do you have any answers for peace there?
Yes. Democratize.
That's a declaration of war in the ears of Muslim radicals, of course. They'd kill to stave off cultural imperialism.
It will be a slow process, and it's going to take bloody military action.
Shy away from that action and eventually (barring some extremely surprising cultural shifts that--without apparent rhyme or reason--neutralize Islamic radicalismJ) Islamic radicals are going to kill untold numbers of others (US, India, Russia, EU) using dirty bombs, poisons, an explosives.
That's the war of the future, and it's here today.
I'm not saying the end of the conflict will arise from the apology. What I'm saying is it could take the USA out of the conflict, which is a current stumbling block. How can you say an apology would be fruitless if nobody has ever tried it?
The way you're talking, it sounds like there's no two ways around it, the people in Iraq are just gonna have mass bloody war, no matter what. Is that correct?
Would the best thing to do, then, be to isolate the country from outside weapon importation? That'd be a massive operation, but surely with plenty of countries with an interest in the situation, the UN could run a peacekeeping force doing that. What that would take, however, is USA giving up military control, I assume.
What I'm saying is it could take the USA out of the conflict, which is a current stumbling block.
For whom is it a "stumbling block," other than al Qaeda?
How can you say an apology would be fruitless if nobody has ever tried it?
It's been tried, hasn't it? Or are you admitting you're trotting out an entirely experimental idea as a solution?
The way you're talking, it sounds like there's no two ways around it, the people in Iraq are just gonna have mass bloody war, no matter what. Is that correct?
Kind of. I think they'll have less war and less bloody with coalition forces assisting a unity government to the point of self-sufficiency. That's going to take time and people will undoubtedly die.
Absent coalition forces, Iraq will have a harder time sustaining a unity government. The Shia majority will probably start to flex its muscles and either oppress the Sunni minority or partition the country. Partitioning the country will make Turkey very unhappy (Kurdish neighbors), place the Sunni section in a terrible position (ringed by enemies and without the oil resources of the two other sections). The southern portion (Shiite) will be ripe for Iran to pull into political orbit, giving Iranian Muslim radicals a handle on a bigger share of oil reserves. A nice potential bargaining chip for one of the most dangerous regimes on the planet.
I'm saying the conflict as it is probably averts bigger conflict later. But there are no guarantees. Things might go sour either way.
Would the best thing to do, then, be to isolate the country from outside weapon importation?
You're funny. They've got Iran and Syria for neighbors. How would that work without sending more troops?
Though I suppose we could apologize to Iran and Syria? Maybe that would do it (or has it already been tried?).
That'd be a massive operation, but surely with plenty of countries with an interest in the situation, the UN could run a peacekeeping force doing that. What that would take, however, is USA giving up military control, I assume.
I beg your pardon--you did have a plan of sorts.
France couldn't even provide a peacekeeping force in Lebanon. Europe is weak militarily and has no inclination to do the dirty work of keeping Europe safe (the British excepted, though I think they're in the process of waffling).
The UN doesn't have anybody to draw on. Russia's too poor to carry out that operation, and China gets its kicks by seeing the U.S. have to deal with this kind of thing.
There's no real alternative to the U.S. for the plan you propose. Don't even think of Germany. Europe showed how they deal with civil wars by the way they handled Bosnia (called the U.S. for help).
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home