13 Comments so far

1. MountainMike February 22nd, 2007 4:05 pm

   While I appreciate the thought of moving public opinion in order to move Congress, I see the impasse as not partitioning Iraq. The Bush administration doesn’t want separate countries because (1) it doesn’t fit the neo con design for the Iraq invasion, and (2) it would make permanent military bases and long term US military presence more difficult.

   Why the American people should want partition is that it addresses the primary issue, Sunnis and Shi’ite Muslims are incapable of living peacefully with each other. There have never been true Sunnis-Shi’ite coalition governments in the mid east. The only way Saddam ruled Iraq was brutal oppression of the Shi’ite Muslims. The other mideast countries are either Sunnis or Shi’ite.

   Sectarian violence has been going on that region for hundreds of years, and the expectation that we somehow can change that is extremely unrealistic. We don’t have to continue with the borders as set artificially by the British after World War I.

2. Steve February 22nd, 2007 4:18 pm

   Thank you, Ira, for this article. Those of us in the peace movement need to make peace with everyone, including those we disagree with, while fervently opposing this war. What good does it do to work to end the conflict in Iraq if we do nothing about the conflict here at home? Peacemaking, especially in the religious traditions, means honoring even those points of view we completely disagree with and the people who hold them. We can’t “win” by beating down those we disagree with. We have to make peace with everyone.

3. jjohnjj February 22nd, 2007 5:00 pm

   Wow! Chernus scores a bullseye!

   Yes, Congress will oppose the war only when we show them that it is safe to do so.

   Those who complain about “feckless” Democrats have no idea how vulnerable elected officials are to the “attention” of the right-wing media.

   What they did to Howard Dean they can do to anyone. Rush Limbaugh will go after an outspoken Senator by name, but he can’t get to you and me.

   I’ve been trying to get through to my “Yellow Ribbon” neighbors since the war began… and I’m usually dismayed by the harsh slogans my fellow dissidents bring to the peace demos.

   Here’s a couple of mine.
   Spread them as far and wide as you can.

   1.
   They lied to me
   They lied to you
   They lied to our troops

   2.
   Iraq is Fighting for Independence
   Not Freedom,
   Not Democracy,
   Not Sovereignty.
   What Are We Fighting For?

   The first one is more effective than “Bush is a liar”, because it creates a common bond between me (the guy holding the sign) you (the guy driving by with a flag on your bumper) and the troops. We’re all victims of the same scam.

   The second one is - like Chernus says - about an American (and conservative) value. Bush has talked about Iraq’s,”sovereignty”, repeatedly, but never uses the word,”independence”.

   We don’t call our national holiday,”Democracy Day”, do we? Kinda shows what we’re really up against over there.

   Good work Chernus. I’m gonna Email this essay to everyone I know.

4. PJD February 22nd, 2007 5:57 pm

   Sorry, but I have made all those arguments that prof. Chernus suggests. Many or most USAn’s sense of self-worth hinges on the belief of the USA as uniquely benevolent force in the world and best living standard in the world, everyone dearly wanting to be just like us - all wrapped in an insularity that seems to prevent them from ever actually putting themselves in a foreigner’s shoes. Anything that counters these cherished notions, no matter how politely presented, is going to be vigorously resisted.

   I have attempetd to point out that it would be our patriotic duty to resist a foreign invader, including capturing and killing any spies and collaborators, so why are they suprised if Iraqis are doing likewise?

5. PJD February 22nd, 2007 5:59 pm

   “Not Freedom,
   Not Democracy,
   Not Sovereignty.
   What Are We Fighting For?”

   ummm.. Actually, I suspect that they are fighting, first and foremost, for sovereignty.

6. Bill from Saginaw February 22nd, 2007 8:03 pm

   MountainMike, like Les Gelb, Joe Biden, and others may be right that some form of federal devision of Iraq is wise under the circumstances, but since when is that our call?

   To me, that’s no more an American decision to make than it was okay for the Brits and the French to huddle around a big map of the Middle East at the end of WWI as the Ottoman Empire collapsed, drinking toasts and drawing lines where they (and just maybe some of the locals) might want to draw them.

   On the wider question Ira Chernus raises - how most effectively to shift the domestic public dialogue about Iraq - I agree that repeated villification of the Bush/Cheney administration’s hidden motives and past falsehoods is something to talk about eventually, but at the end of the discussion rather than the beginning.

   It’s far more constructive to reach out towards independent or even conservative voters who are potentially “reachable” with comments about Iraq’s right to self determination and our military involvement there as pouring gas on the sectarian bonfire.

   A few variations on those themes:

   The longer we stay, the deeper the anti-Americanism will inevitably get. That’s what happens when you raid people’s houses, frisk them at checkpoints, kill them in crossfires, and try to manipulate their internal political factions’ disputes. We Americans have never been any good at administering colonies anyway. Small wonder why they hate us more and more, and blame us for everything that goes wrong.

   If we just set a date to complete the process of bringing all our troops home - let’s just say in 6 months - think of all the constructive things Iraqi politicians could do in that same time frame, once they’re freed up from being accused of being collaborationists and puppets.

   Maliki or his replacement could call for all foreign fighters to leave Iraq in the same time frame. The Iraqi public would overwhelmingly endorse this idea.

   Maliki or his replacement could call all the neighbors (Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, Kuwait) for a conference to cooperate in relocating refugees, and to pledge mutually not to interfere in Iraq’s internal difficulties. The Iraqi public would overwhelmingly endorse this idea.

   Maliki or his replacement could pull together all of the militia factions to tamp down the violence and try to start a ceasefire among themselves to coincide with the American troops’ departure. The Iraqi public would overwhelmingly endorse this idea.

   Maliki or his replacement could announce that the “el Salvador option” death squads and the detention/interrogation practices of Abu Ghraib were being ended, and a genuine national reconciliation Commission formed to deal with leftover crimes of the Saddam era and crimes and corruption committed during the American occupation. The Iraqi public would overwhelmingly endorse this idea.

   None of this will ever happen if we stay. All of it can happen - and happen fast - if we as taxpayers direct the American government to take control over the deployment of American forces overseas, set a time frame, and stick to it. We should end this occupation (and a military occupation is what it is) on our own terms. We should stop trying to link our withdrawal to actions by others, and events lying wholly beyond our control (like benchmarks for the Iraqi police and army security forces), that can be manipulated by our real enemies and those Iraqis who claim to our “pro-American” allies.

   Lyndon Johnson genuinely believed he was doing the right thing when he waded us deep into the quagmire of Vietnam. But LBJ was tragically wrong. And George Bush also is tragically wrong, if he believes staying on in Iraq somehow makes us less likely to be attacked again by international terrorists.

   Continuing the occupation, and fighting a long, drawn out urban guerilla war in Baghdad, plays right into Osama bin Laden’s hands. We’ve got to work together to get the politicians in Washington to understand this, so they will stop playing partisan games with other people’s lives.

7. orbit7er February 22nd, 2007 9:16 pm

   I do not agree with Ira Chernus’ premise on a number of counts. First off, I live in the Republican stronghold of Morris County New Jersey in a small town stacked with lifelong moderate Republicans. Democrats are gaining here and almost all of my neighbors are against this War. I work for a bank amongst very highly paid professionals. Not a single one I have talked to supports the War. In fact I was surprised when I went to the coffee shop and one of them was spouting at the TV when Bush was giving one of his press conferences.
   Moreover I also do not believe most people are so gullible as to believe this War was not abou oil and Haliburton and a gigantic ripoff.
   Sure you have people who are stubbornly naive.
   But then the Flat Earth Society still exists also.
   Yes one should use arguments backed by facts.
   But one must present reality as shocking as it is. Sooner or later more and more people are getting the picture.
   It is time for alleged leaders to lead or get out of the way!
   Baloney with the “we need to change the polls” so “leaders” will follow them.
   There is a very simple answer anyway in which the Democrats could bring this Occupation to a blinding halt - if 34 Republicans (with 10 running scared and afraid to even vote!) can filibuster the non-binding resolution against Bush’s escalation - then 34 Democrats could filibuster any bill funding this War.
   Very simple. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

8. panamahead February 23rd, 2007 8:16 am

   Dear Professor,

   Thanks. I think its a great article.

   Asking skeptics, especially those still in Lala Land about or “right” to be there or who think its the best thing for America, to do a little critical thinking is a great idea.

   Most Americans still in favor of this war are being super patriotic. Nothing wrong with that, except as the saying goes “if your looking for a sunset and your headed east, you got a problem!”. Yes, even the US can be off track sometimes.

   If it was mandatory for every voting American to study the facts about Iraq or had to take Iraq War 101 with the top military and geopolitical scholars (with zero political bias!), its more than likely that they’d see the obvious. That is was a huge mistake.

9. lastdregs February 23rd, 2007 1:43 pm

   Ira Chernus makes a great point on how to engage someone that has a different belief in discussion. Interpersonal Communication 101 will offer the same advice. I also agree that many Americans believe in American benevolence and moral superiority as a rationalization for policy enacted by our government. That being said, the idea that a major public opinion shift toward an anti-war stance would result in a change of foreign policy goals just doesn’t fly with me. That is because representative democracy does not exist here. Remunerative representation allows policy construction to be determined by the financially elite who generally take a corporatist view of the world. It is no accident that our attention is focused on the Persian Gulf and Caspian Sea basin as it is one of the most concentrated resource regions in the world. Domination of this region has been a goal for many administrations for geo-political advantage as well as resource security. I think that the current administration has chosen to link the corporatist/geo-political goal with a pro-Israel/anti-Islam ideology creates an easier sell to the American public for using extreme methods. This is not to say that a major public opinion shift has no impact on our elected officials; it will influence tactics and not really strategy. All bets are off with this administration, but I look to a softer approach toward the Middle East with future administrations. Even if we were to rid ourselves of dependence on the Middle East for resources the policy of dominating the resource-rich regions of the world would not change. Controlling these regions means we can control our international competitors and continue to fill the corporate coffers. It also means that, as a nation, we can maintain our super-power status and not become a second-rate player on the wrong side of the planet. I am not against people making money; it is the accompanying theft, death and suffering that I find repulsive. I do not want to minimize the effect that the anti-war movement can achieve; I just think we will remain in the Middle East until the last drop of oil is gone. In closing, greed and predation, unfortunately, will remain and so will current goals and strategies; maybe the execution can be altered. Thanks for the space.

10. rtdrury February 25th, 2007 6:53 pm

    The dialog between Lefty and Neighbor is extremely important. If lefties are truly for the people, then lefties should stand with the people and help them exorcise the empire demons from their bodies.

11. bnsirosyzuxe December 11th, 2007 11:25 pm

    titsysaxavixa…

    exkezezovuzi…

12. bnxaworinyxi December 12th, 2007 9:04 am

    titnotipanewa…

    exzykyzapeku…

13. bnzucesupece January 1st, 2008 6:02 am

    titcokohitine…

    exnizarepary…

Join the discussion:

You must be logged in to post a comment. If you haven't registered yet, click here to register. (It's quick, easy and free. And we won't give your email address to anyone.)