Scott Reynen wrote:
>
> > To support Kucinich is to support
> > an unending occupation of (and hence war with) Iraq and the Iraqi
> > people.
>
> Isn't it somewhat of a jump from "fix it" to "occupation of (and hence
> war with) Iraq"? That clearly isn't the preferred methodology of the
> UN, with which Kucinich suggested cooperation in the same sentence:
>
> > Guilherme (quoting Kucinich):
> >
> > we broke the country,now we have to fix it -- with the UN of course.
>
> I'm curious who you would support if not Kucinich. The Green Party?
> Many Green candidates have expressed support for Kucinich.
>
> Peace,
> scott.
>
In answer to the question posed in your subject line. The U.S. is involved in a quagmire now in Iraq. Any government chosen by the Iraqi themselves will be bitterly anti-american. Hence if the U.S. is to stay n Iraq it can only do so by continuing to kill Iraqi civilians, and continuing to endure u.s. casualties. The troops carrying out that task are human, and they will inevitably come to hate that unseen enemy that constantly harasses them. That will trigger atrocities, which will trigger more hatred, which will lead to more "terror attacks," which will probably involve increasing "tension" (a mild word) between the U.S. and the remainder of the Arab and/or Muslim world. There will at the least be serious civil unrest in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Jordan, Indonesia. The U.S. will leave, ultimately, for one reason and one reason alone (regardless of who is in the White House): because its military situation has become unsustainable. It will not matter how well-intentioned the U.S. is, the results are going to be only increasing bloodshed and misery as long as U.S. troops remain in the mideast.
My fundamental view is that the peace movement cannot have any short-range effect on u.s. policy. Whether we can have an effect over a longer course is to be determined. In any case, such effect, if achieved, will be indirect. Haldeman in his memoirs explained that in the fall of 1969 the Nixon administration had decided to use The Bomb on the Chinese-built and staffed railroad yards in North Vietnam through which Vietnam received military supplies from China and the USSR. The huge turnout for the Moratorium in Washington D.C. in November of that year caused them to change their mind. A friend, an attorney in Chicago, suggested to me that those of us who worked to build that Moratorium may have saved the world. Probably an exaggeration, but not utterly fantastic.
That Moratorium did not come from nowhere. It was the culmination of the work of years by thousands of people all over the U.S. Work like we have been doing in BNCPJ for nearly two years now. And most of those thousands did not spring from nowhere: most of them, to begin with, had had some connection to AFSC, the CPUSA or the civil-rights movement in the South, which also did not come from nowhere. Rosa Parks was a long-time activist in the Birmingham NAACP, and they had been discussing her planned action for several years. And she herself had attended a political school sponsored by the CPUSA. The first large demonstration against the war in Illinois was almost wholly organized by long-time peace groups (e.g.American Friends Service Committee), CPUSA cadre, or ex-CP members. The moving force in the Moratorium itself was the SWP (the trotskyist party). The national groups that have provided us with a context for our local work were all people from the anti-globalism movement, long-time peace groups, the RCP, or the WWP. A number of people who have done a great deal of work for the BNCPJ came originally from the Newman Center (under the late Father Kelley) and gained their political experience in the Central-American solidarity movement of the early 80s (which in turn was organized mostly by people with experience in the anti-war movement of the '60s). None of these various forces ever had (or for the most part tried to have) much influence on who got elected president.
And note, it was Nixon who eventually pulled the U.S. out of Vietnam, not some "peace president" elected by the anti-war movement. The main effect of the McGovern campaign was to drain off resources and personnel from the anti-war movement. And remember it was Jimmy Carter who was responsible for u.s. intervention in Afghanistan -- the deliberate purpose of which was to provoke Soviet involvement in defense of the only decent government Afghanistan ever had. Except for Jimmy Carter, 9/11 would probably have never happened. And it was William Clinton who continued the murderous bombing and sanctions in Iraq for 8 years, thus establishing the context which made the current war possible.
Just as we (BNCPJ) have deep roots in the past (actually, stretching back in a fairly unbroken line to the 8-hours struggle and the Haymarket riots -- and beyond) -- so we have a primary obligation to maintain that line. I imagine most members of BNCPJ will vote for the DP in the coming election, and will support Dean or Kucinich for the nomination. That is fine, and I have no objection. But after the election, the troops will still be in Iraq, they will still be dying there, they will still be killing (sometimes randomly) Iraqi women and children and men as they fight back against an unseen enemy. And with each American death, it will be more difficult for the President, from whichever party, to do the only thing that will finally stop this war: for the U.S. to withdraw, as it did from Lebanon and from Vietnam, with its tail between its legs. For the u.s. to stay in the Mideast until that never-to-come day when it has "fixed" Iraq -- the image is too horrible to contemplate.
We have to maintain a voice for human decency and dignity in the midst of the chaos and carnage which is coming. For individual members to work for various Democratic candidates by talking to friends and fellow workers, by ringing doorbells, may well contribute to maintaining that voice. But in January of 2005 we will have to go back to work building resistance to the U.S. presence in the Middle East. Electoral work won't do that, any more than it did in 1964 or 1968 or 1972.
As to your final question, "I'm curious who you would support if not Kucinich." No one, of course. The last time I cast anything but a blank ballot in an election was 1964. I did vote in the 1988 primary, because I was myself running as a Jackson delegate. Since then I have voted each time to maintain my registration, but it has always been a blank ballot.
Carrol