Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
ANSWER supports "the Iraqi anti-colonial resistance." Military Families Against the War wants to bring their loved ones home safely. Others who rallied Saturday just hate Bush. Can this antiwar movement be saved?
Oct 27, 2003 | Allan Johnson, a high school English teacher and debate coach from Fairfax, Va., held a sign saying "U.S. Troops Out of Iraq. Bring Them Home Now!" at Saturday's "End the Occupation" rally in Washington. In fact, though, Johnson isn't sure he wants to bring the troops home now, or to end the American occupation of Iraq. At least, not yet.
"We've made a giant mess," said Johnson, a handsome man who wore his long snowy hair in a ponytail and had a sparkling stud in one ear. "I would hate for the Bush administration to halfway fix things and then leave, and then blame the Iraqis if things go wrong. Once you go to somebody's house and break all the windows, don't you owe them new windows?"
Why, then, was he marching at an End the Occupation rally? "I don't agree with all the people here, believe you me," he said. But his own sign? He glanced at it, startled, and explained that someone had handed it to him. "I didn't even look at it," he said. "I was just waving it."
Many of the thousands of people who traveled from across the country to march on Washington Saturday were afflicted by a similar disconnect between the slogans they were rallying behind and their own sentiments about the situation in Iraq. Some said they recognized that a unilateral American departure from the country could be as destructive as a unilateral American invasion, but they wanted to demonstrate their opposition to the Bush administration's policies in the Middle East. The End the Occupation rally, co-sponsored by ANSWER, a front group for the Stalinist Workers' World Party, and the more moderate United for Peace and Justice, seemed the only game in town. Many apparently decided to pretend that "end the occupation" really means "bring in the U.N.," despite ANSWER's blunt and repeated avowals that it means nothing of the sort.
It was a day full of purposeful misunderstandings. Members of Military Families Speak Out, a group of soldiers' relatives who oppose the war their loved ones are fighting, shared the stage with members of ANSWER, a group that's aligned itself with the guerrillas who are killing American troops and those Iraqis who cooperate with them. Both want to end the occupation, but for quite different reasons.
The rally was just the latest example of liberal confusion and mixed messages over postwar Iraq, as progressives try to figure out how to oppose Bush's policies in a way that doesn't punish the Iraqi people for the administration's mendacity. Angry at the way Iraq's reconstruction has turned into a bonanza for Bush's corporate cronies, powerful Democrats along with some Republicans have tried to block grants to rebuild Iraq, and progressive groups have adopted nativist arguments insisting that Americans' money should be spent in America. What's lost in such reasoning, of course, is any sympathy for beleaguered Iraqis, whose misfortune it was to live under Saddam Hussein, and be liberated by a president who lied to his own people and alienated the world.
Held on a dazzling autumn day, the rally didn't draw the masses that demonstrated against the war before it began, but the crowd was impressive nonetheless, given that much of the prewar urgency has dissipated in the postwar slog. ANSWER claimed an unlikely 100,000 marchers, while police estimates ranged between 10,000 and 20,000. Either way, the event showed that the antiwar movement has been able to sustain some of its passion, even after the war itself became a fait accompli.
Meanwhile, the influence of the antiwar movement, which has done much to catapult Howard Dean to the front of the Democratic primary pack, continues to be felt in the party. On Oct. 17, 11 Democratic senators, including presidential candidates John Kerry and John Edwards, and a majority of House Democrats voted against an $87 billion spending package for Iraq and Afghanistan. Previously, Democrats tried to split the funding bill in order to provide for the troops while subjecting reconstruction money to further scrutiny and cuts.
Some who voted no objected to the lack of administration accountability. But much of the rhetoric coming from liberal Democrats suggested a strangely conservative resistance to the whole idea of aiding foreigners when Americans are in need.
"We cannot afford to give this president another blank check to spend on his Iraq adventure when so many people are suffering through a recession here at home and when our nation's critical infrastructure needs are being neglected," said Rep. Diane Watson, D-Calif., explaining why she voted no on Bush's request for $87 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan.
Watson's viewpoint is one encouraged by antiwar groups. MoveOn.org, the online progressive fundraising powerhouse, has been running isolationist commercials against the $87 billion appropriation. Over shots of sad-looking Americans, a voice-over says, "We could have built 10,000 new schools, or hired almost 2 million new teachers. We could have rebuilt our electric grid. We could have insured more of our children. Instead, George Bush wants to spend that $87 billion in Iraq. If there's money for Iraq, why isn't there money for America?"
This position resonates with Americans. In a CBS News Poll taken on Oct. 20 and 21, 59 percent of respondents opposed spending $87 billion in Iraq and Afghanistan. And it's clearly popular with activists. At Saturday's rally, presidential candidate Al Sharpton, dapper in a cream-colored jacket and black turtleneck, drew some of the event's loudest cheers when he roared, "Don't give Bush 87 billion! Don't give him 87 cents! Give our troops a ride home!"
And yet liberals who reluctantly backed the war continue to argue that their antiwar colleagues are forgetting about the people of Iraq. "Pulling out of Iraq now would be calamitous for the Iraqis, and everyone knows it, except for the Baathists, the most extreme Islamists, and the nincompoops," says Paul Berman, author of the recent book "Terror and Liberalism."
Nor is turning all occupation duties over to the U.N. a realistic option. Even if authority for the occupation is turned over to the United Nations, as many believe it must be, America will still be expected to foot most of the bill and provide most of the troops.
George Packer, editor of "The Fight is for Democracy," a collection of essays about America and its role in the world after Sept. 11, would like to see progressives put pressure on the administration to do more for the people of Iraq, rather than less. But Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, says, "I see little evidence of any such liberal alternative that is serious and constructive for the people of Iraq, unfortunately." Liberals who care about the welfare of Iraqis, he says, must "start to distinguish between their dislike of Bush and their recognition that the mission must succeed. That would be a big start, and the crucial one."
"Hatred of Bush and the opportunism of Democratic politicians has created a tactical alliance between mainstream Democrats and the fringe," says Packer, who writes about his own six-week trip to Iraq in a forthcoming New Yorker article. "It's disappointing to see both presidential candidates and leading members of Congress really fail to see the importance of what's going on in Iraq right now. You can object to no bid contracts, you can object to cronyism and waste as I do, without undermining the basic understanding that we are committed to this and we have an enormous obligation to the Iraqis. I don't see why you have to choose between disliking Halliburton and supporting the Iraqis in their efforts to create a decent society."
