Ending the War

Farewell to Ambivalence

From the start of the Iraq War until now, many peace-loving people have been ambivalent about "bringing the troops home now." They fear that immediate withdrawal could worsen the already terrible situation of the Iraqi people, and that domestic political concerns in the U.S. (e.g. the war's growing unpopularity) could trump concern about the humanitarian crisis in Iraq. After all, the decision to invade Iraq had nothing to do with the Iraqi people - beyond their "liberation" serving as justification - and everything to do with the ambitious agenda of political forces within the U.S. The decision to withdraw troops should be informed by more than domestic concerns, even including concern for U.S. soldiers. We must consider Iraqis.

Yes, war proponents have disingenuously claimed concern for Iraqis to legitimize their position. But the trepidation is real for many people who originally opposed the war. We need to engage people who are sitting on the fence out of genuine concern for other human beings.

Clearly the anti-war movement shares this concern and has from the start publicly affirmed it without allowing it to prevent decisive action and a clear position on withdrawal. However, this question has had a neutralizing effect on anti-war mobilization. The complexity, intensity and messiness of the situation "on the ground" have left many conscientious people feeling like there is no good direction forward. It follows that many of these folks have felt ambivalent about a demand to bring the troops home immediately. Not surprisingly, it has been difficult for the anti-war movement to mobilize people under the banner of a demand that they could not fully get behind.

From the start of the occupation, I have been inclined toward demanding immediate withdrawal. However, until recently I have been conflicted about it, mostly based on conversations with people who share my values but who frankly have a much deeper knowledge about Iraq than I have. During my time organizing with the Lancaster Coalition for Peace & Justice (LCPJ) in Lancaster, Pennsylvania we opted to mobilize instead under the slogans "Two Years, Too Long," then "Three Years, Too Long" and "Stand for Peace and a Sane Foreign Policy." We did use "Bring Them Home," but not as our main mobilizing message. Additionally, we printed diverging opinions on the matter in our bimonthly coalition newspaper, and did not come to an official coalition position, for which we received some criticism.

I stand by our approach, with consideration for timing and context. First, we met our allies and potential allies where they were at, rather than where many of us wanted them to be. We opened a substantial public dialogue (through articles, forums, town hall meetings, etc.), allowing for people's opinions and collective analysis to evolve at their own pace, rather than trying to prematurely force a party line. At the time it was more important to open a public dialogue, to make popular discontent visible, and to mobilize a broader base than to arrive at a clearly defined line about a timetable for withdrawal. I believe that this open and inviting approach was one reason why, despite Lancaster being one of the most conservative counties in Pennsylvania, we were able to attract the highest per capita turnout in the U.S. for our events on both the two-year and three-year anniversaries of the war.

While I believe that the LCPJ's initial dance around this question served us well, I also think that the time has come for a different strategy. The situation in Iraq has changed considerably; it has tragically deteriorated. There is now ample evidence that the presence of U.S. troops cannot prevent an all-out civil war, as one is undeniably raging. The U.S. presence has no moral authority in Iraq, is popularly resented and resisted - with a majority of Iraqis supportive of attacks against occupying forces¹ - and has no realistic hope of preventing a further escalation of violence.

If it was not clear before, it is now undeniable: people concerned about the situation in Iraq must unequivocally demand an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces.

Will the situation improve for Iraqis, or will it worsen? We have no crystal ball to tell the future. But it is no longer the place of Americans, including progressives, to feel like it is up to us to answer this question. With a strong majority of Iraqis now favoring immediate withdrawal,² it is time for concerned people in the U.S. to see this as a question of self-determination. We must not allow our thinking to be infected by the Bush Administration's imperialist mindset. It is not up to us to determine the best system or solution for Iraq. A solid majority of Iraqis want the U.S. to leave immediately. This should serve as a referendum to inform all progressives' demands on our government.

Bush's Bigger, Stronger Military

Another recent development makes the demand for immediate withdrawal all the more pressing. Last month Bush pressed for a significant increase in our military's size in order to continue the "War on Terror." What he means is that he led the country into a now lost war of choice that never had anything to do with protecting Americans from terrorist attacks, and in the process he has, in the words of Colin Powell, nearly broken the active army. The neo-con agenda, quite plainly, requires a bigger military to run an effective empire, with all the wars of aggression that empire calls for. Bush is, quite ironically, leveraging his own strategic failure in Iraq as an argument for more military might at his fingertips. However, we should not underestimate the shrewdness of Bush's latest line. It's one of the cleverest things he's said in some time.

The argument attempts to shift blame for the Iraq debacle from incompetent leadership and bad policy to structural limitations. And by claiming we need a bigger military to wage the "War on Terror" Bush is again trying to frame the Iraq War as a response to 9/11. His only mistake, according to this story, was underestimating what it would take to stop "the terrorists." Anyone who questions his request will be attacked for hindering the military's effectiveness, thereby endangering soldiers.

The story is clever but its success is far from guaranteed - especially considering the weakened credibility of its number one spokesman, George W. Bush. If we are to judge by his administration's record - which many people will be inclined to do - then the purpose of a bigger military is to wage more wars of aggression. This would be a reckless endangerment of soldiers' lives and an abuse of their commitment to defend our nation and constitution.

Unfortunately the story of a bigger and stronger military will resonate with many people who oppose the war more for its failure than out of any ethical qualms. This category is loaded with opportunistic politicians who will be determining policy, including some of the most prominent Democrats. New House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is parroting Bush by equating continued funding for the war with support for our troops. Pelosi should be refuting this manipulative frame, not reinforcing it.

However, many rank and file Democrats and progressive leaders like Representatives Jim McGovern (MA) and Dennis Kucinich (OH) are pushing to end the war by cutting off the Administration's funding. Bush's proposed military increase is an attempt to pre-empt what could become a serious threat. The new congress, under mounting pressure from a well-organized popular movement (which we have yet to achieve), could force a military withdrawal by cutting off funding. By requesting a bigger, stronger military, Bush wants to frame the debate in his terms: whether to increase the military's capacity (to protect Americans from terrorists) or not (thereby setting our soldiers up for failure). If his frame fails, the debate may very soon become whether to withdraw from Iraq immediately or to set a clear timetable.

If we allow an increase in the military's size in this context, we further enable the neo-cons, with likely dire consequences. A bigger military is not needed to defend the nation, but rather to expand the empire - a task our soldiers did not sign up for. If Bush succeeds in expanding the military, then the anti-war movement's next ten years are even more likely to resemble the last twenty-five: a ceaseless series of mostly defensive battles.

We can stop this. We have a window, but it's not going to open itself. With some work we can end the occupation, and in the process begin to shift the terms of debate on broader subjects like spending priorities (e.g. Iraq War vs. New Orleans) and the United States' role in the world. But we have to keep Bush in the hot seat, defensively reacting to a popular demand for immediate withdrawal.

Making the Case, Building the Movement

With 67% of Americans now opposing the war,³ the slogan "bring the troops home now" has more resonance than ever. Even so, we need to go deeper than the slogan. We still need to make the case .. that immediate withdrawal is now in the best interests of both Iraq and the United States.

In doing so it is critical that we neither be nor appear callous about this still-unfolding tragedy - the escalating suffering of the Iraqi people and continuing U.S. casualties. It is also critical that we place responsibility for this catastrophe squarely where it belongs: on the administration that drove the war, the congress that enabled it, and the elite interests that supported it. We have to effectively refute the story that the U.S. can only lose in Iraq by quitting, and the cynical implication that if and when the U.S. officially loses, the sting of defeat can be pinned upon advocates of withdrawal. The war is already lost, and it is not the fault of the people who recognize it.

We need to make a solid case, but that's only the beginning. This is much more than a war of words. It is not enough to debate the administration. According to polls, we've already won much of the debate. Popular sentiment against the Iraq War has reached a record high. Pundits from across the political spectrum tell us that the midterm elections were a referendum on the war. But beyond the vote, where is popular mobilization against the war? While many dedicated individuals and groups continue anti-war efforts, still, the movement is remarkably weak considering how firmly the public now opposes the war.

Make no mistake: to end this war..and to prevent future ones..we still need a mass movement. Passive progressives will be gravely disappointed if they continue to sit idly waiting for the new congress to deliver on a symbolic and undefined referendum. Active opponents of the war will likewise be disappointed if they continue their efforts, however noble, as if they might somehow, someday stop the war without first activating a mass base. Truth, unfortunately, is not its own arbiter. The neo-con cabal determining our country's foreign policy is not swayed by appeals to logic, values or truth. Our problem is not truth, but power. They have it. We don't. Yet.

Another perhaps more hopeful way of putting it: their power is kinetic, already in motion. Ours is still largely potential, in need of activation. The task of anti-war change agents is to organize and activate a political force strong enough to enact a vision of justice and peace.

Our obstacle is not public opinion, but public resignation. Activists often talk about how bad things are. We sometimes talk about what a better world might look like. But without a compelling story about how to get from where we are to where we want to be, we will continue to mobilize relatively few people. We have to articulate a viable plan. We have to map the political machinery and explain specifically how we can leverage power to end the war.

Reaching a broad progressive consensus on the demand for immediate withdrawal is a critical step in a winning trajectory. It is a precondition to formulating a common overarching strategy for action to end the war. With the new congress starting we must be unequivocal in our demand to bring the troops home now. We can all do our part to turn out our communities to greet the new congress at the January 27 March On Washington, organized by United for Peace & Justice, and the January 29 lobby day. Through such events, and beyond them, we need to build the capacity of an anti-war movement by developing analysis, skills, leadership and investment in anti-war work in our local communities. This is our task: to turn popular anti-war sentiment in our communities into an active, potent and coordinated political force to end the war.

Matthew Smucker is an organizer and trainer for Beyond the Choir, a grassroots analysis, strategy and training organization. For more information, or to comment on this essay, visit beyondthechoir.org.