What
You're Missing in our subscriber-only CounterPunch newsletter
THE INSIDE HISTORY OF THE ISRAEL
LOBBY
Former top
CIA analysts Kathleen and Bill Christison give CounterPunchers
the real scoop on the Israel lobby and precisely how powerful
it is. Read
how US presidents from Wilson, through FDR to Truman were manipulated
by the Zionist lobby; how Israel bent LBJ, Reagan and Clinton
to its purpose; how Bush's White House has been the West Wing
of the Israeli government; how Washington's revolving doors send
full-time Israel lobbyists from think-tanks to the National Security
Council and the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans. For all who want a
true measure of the Lobby's power, the Christisons' 8-page dossier,
exclusive to CounterPunch newsletter subscribers, is a MUST read. CounterPunch
Online is read by millions of viewers each month! But remember,
we are funded solely by the subscribers to the print edition
of CounterPunch. Please support this
website by buying a subscription to our newsletter, which contains
fresh material you won't find anywhere else, or by making a donation
for the online edition. Remember contributions are tax-deductible.Click
here to make a donation. If you find our site useful please:Subscribe
Now!
Have you ever heard someone try to argue
that the Iraq War was a mistake but that now the proper course
is to continue the mistake a bit longer or to carefully end it
in a long and complicated way that could take months or years?
Have you ever wondered how such a position, if examined in detail,
could possibly make any sense?
Wonder no more. Such a position,
in various forms, actually makes no sense. In fact, such a position
requires a stunning degree of illogic.
There's an important book at
called "Iraq:
The Logic of Withdrawal" by Anthony Arnove. The book
has a Foreword and an Afterword by Howard Zinn, who in 1967 published
"Vietnam: The Logic of Withdrawal." Arnove's book
is important because it refutes all the major claims against
immediate withdrawal.
Arnove begins with some historical
background, and then lays out an overwhelming case for the following
points. I'll list them here, but you'll need to read the book
(it's only 100 pages) for the arguments:
1. The U.S. military has no
right to be in Iraq in the first place. It turns out the Iraq
war was not a mistake at all, and so the mistake cannot be continued
even for an hour. The Iraq War was and is a crime.
2. The United States is not
bringing democracy to Iraq. Spreading democracy had nothing
to do with why this war was launched or why it is being continued.
As Arnove writes, "The U.S. government opposes genuine
democracy in the Middle East for a simple reason: if ordinary
people controlled the region's energy resources, they might be
put toward local economic development and social needs, rather
than going to fuel the profits of Western oil companies."
Does that sound outrageous or paranoid or "anti-American"?
Read the historical context that Arnove provides and then explain
to me how you can see it any other way.
3. The United States is not
making the world a safer place by occupying Iraq. In fact, this
war has made the world much less safe. We've set a precedent
for other nations to attack each other. We've driven other nations
to invest in weaponry to try to hold off a U.S. attack. We've
heightened anti-U.S. sentiment and significantly increased the
incidents of terrorism each year.
4. The United States is not
preventing civil war in Iraq. This is the same myth the British
spread in 1920, when they didn't want to stop occupying Iraq.
Our occupation, and the constitution we've imposed on Iraq,
deliberately pit ethnic groups against each other in an effort
to direct violence away from the occupiers. Still, the bulk
of the violence is directed at the occupying army and its collaborators.
And it is getting worse, not better.
5. The United States is not
confronting terrorism by staying in Iraq. Al Qaeda arrived in
Iraq AFTER the invasion.
6. The United States is not
honoring those who died by continuing the conflict. That thinking
is a recipe for compounding the tragedy without end.
7. The United States is not
rebuilding Iraq. Halliburton and Bechtel are looting, not repairing.
It is a racist and imperialist frame of mind that allows us
to imagine that Iraqis could not best rebuild their own country.
We owe them financial support in that effort. At present we
are draining their resources, not adding to them.
8. The United States is not
fulfilling its obligation to the Iraqi people for the harm and
suffering it has caused. We are making things ever worse for
the Iraqi people. Our first obligation is to stop harming them.
We should then pay reparations.
Arnove does not make his case
for immediate withdrawal contingent on persuading the United
Nations or any other group to take over. He argues, and argues
well, that the Iraqis themselves can best handle the rebuilding
assuming we liberate them from our liberation:
"In demanding an end to
the U.S. occupation, we do not need to call for some other occupying
power to replace the United States. The United Nations, the
most likely candidate in such a scenario, has shown through the
years of the sanctions it imposed, the buildup to the war, and
its endorsement of the U.S. occupation that it is not able or
willing to confront U.S. power Any outside power will not be
accountable to the people of Iraq. And the United States is
hardly alone in bearing responsibility for the suffering of the
Iraqis. The United Nations is deeply implicated. The Arab League
countries did nothing to protect the people of Iraq. Indeed,
a number of its member states provided support for the invasions
of Iraq in 1991 and 2003 while seeking to profit from the war
and from the sanctions. Many countries besides the United States
also supported Saddam Hussein, armed him, and protected him."
Recognizing that being right
is not always enough, Arnove offers advice to the anti-war movement
based on what worked during Vietnam. Among other ideas, he suggests
making civil disobedience part of mass demonstrations rather
than smaller efforts the next day (as was done in DC last September).
Arnove also points to electoral
politics and suggests that we will never end the war as long
as we support pro-war candidates. "The U.S. left made a
terrible mistake," Arnove writes, "in supporting the
presidential campaign of John Kerry, giving up its independence
and political principles to support a prowar candidate. Kerry
called for sending more troops to Iraq, insisting that 'it would
be unthinkable now for us to retreat in disarray and leave behind
a society deep in strife and dominated by radicals.' Kerry also
asserted that he would still have voted to authorize President
Bush to invade Iraq even if he knew [as of course he DID] Iraq
did not have weapons of mass destruction, a position that he
only clearly retracted after losing [that is, coming close enough
to have it stolen] the election."
Arnove believes, and I agree,
that we will not turn the anti-war movement into a powerful enough
force to end the war unless we oppose the war for the right reasons,
the reasons that compel us to demand immediate withdrawal and
to sacrifice until we've achieved it:
"Some liberals have staked
their opposition to the war in Iraq on the idea that Iraq is
a 'distraction.' The problem with this line of argument is that
it accepts that Bush is now waging an otherwise legitimate war.
The stronger the consciously anti-imperialist current in the
anti-war movement, the stronger the movement to end the war will
be, and the greater the chance we will have to bring about the
fundamental change needed to stop future wars."
CounterPunch
Speakers Bureau Sick of sit-on-the-Fence speakers, tongue-tied and timid?
CounterPunch Editors Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St Clair
are available to speak forcefully on ALL the burning issues,
as are other CounterPunchers seasoned in stump oratory. Call
CounterPunch Speakers Bureau, 1-800-840-3683. Or email beckyg@counterpunch.org.