Now that resistance to the US occupation of Iraq has begun to unite Sunni and Shiite Iraqis across the allegedly deep religious divide and to show the sign that it may grow into a viable national liberation movement sooner than many outsiders -- including myself -- anticipated, US public opinions, in turn, have begun to change. According to the Pew Research Center, "Just 50% of Americans favor keeping troops in Iraq until a stable government is established there, while 44% support bringing the troops home as soon as possible. In January, the public by nearly two-to-one favored maintaining U.S. troops in Iraq until a stable government is formed (63%-32%)" ("After Falluja," April 5, 2004). In coming weeks and months, the proportion of Americans who favor immediate withdrawal of US troops is likely to become larger, as 52% of Americans are more concerned that "the U.S. will wait too long to withdraw its troops from Iraq," while only 36% say that they are more concerned that "the U.S. will leave Iraq before a stable democracy is in place" ("After Falluja"). Nevertheless, the Newsweek poll released around the same time revealed that a whopping 63% of Americans say that they would "support increasing the number of U.S. military personnel in Iraq, if necessary, in response to the recent attacks on coalition forces by Iraqi militants," more than twice the proportion (31%) of those who would not support it ("NEWSWEEK POLL: Sixty Percent Say Bush Administration Underestimated Terrorist Threat Prior To September 11," April 10, 2004). What are anti-occupation activists to make of seemingly contradictory US public opinions?
On one hand, we have good news: "'There's a lot of sentiment against the war,' said Eric Swank, who has been studying the peace movement as a sociologist at Morehead State University in Kentucky. . . .'[T]he protests respond more to the political climate [in the United States]. Republicans and Democrats are starting to challenge the president more,' Swank said. 'It gives clues that if you're doing activism, someone's listening to you'" (Sam Tranum, "Small Group in West Palm Answers National Call from Anti-war Groups," South Florida Sun-Sentinel April 14, 2004). Though the anti-war movement predictably lost its momentum after the invasion began, its core organizers never disappeared, and the movement has been steadily rebuilding itself, having already organized two sizable mobilizations (a protest in D.C. on October 25, 2003 and an international day of action on March 20, 2004) and planning more. Continued dissent at home, in addition to Iraqi resistance, has made it possible for pundits and politicians to challenge the president from left and right; and even though much of the mainstream pundits and politicians' challenges concern only how the invasion and occupation has been handled, rather than whether Washington should have invaded Iraq or should continue to occupy it despite Iraqis' resistance, the very fact that the president's wisdom is being questioned publicly, as Swank notes, validates concerns about the occupation and allows more Americans to speak out.
On the other hand, the high level of support for the idea of "increasing the number of U.S. military personnel in Iraq" to defeat the Iraqi resistance is worrisome. The US power elite -- committed to defense of the "credibility" of US imperial might and therefore unable to countenance any possibility of appearing to retreat in defeat -- may very well market the escalation of counter-insurgency by exploiting ambivalence in the public's fear of "quagmire." Their propaganda might go like this: "Without more troops to defeat Iraqi terrorists decisively, the occupation would become a bottomless quagmire. We must strengthen our military presence in Iraq, so we can support our troops, put down the terrorists, provide security to the people of Iraq, and help them establish a stable democratic government. Only by sending more troops now can we end the occupation and bring them home soon." Given that much of the questioning of the Bush administration in the mainstream media has focused only on the hows of the occupation, rather than the whethers and whys, it won't be easy for the anti-occupation movement, itself ambivalent on the question of lack of security, to counter such propaganda sharply.
How can we effectively fight the seductive propaganda that says, "Send More Troops Now to End the Occupation Sooner"? . . .
[The rest of the article is available at <http://montages.blogspot.com/2004_04_01_montages_archive.html#108297554062990189>.] -- Yoshie
* Critical Montages: <http://montages.blogspot.com/> * Bring Them Home Now! <http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/> * Calendars of Events in Columbus: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html>, <http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php>, & <http://www.cpanews.org/> * Student International Forum: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/> * Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio> * Solidarity: <http://www.solidarity-us.org/>