[lbo-talk] Tom Hayden confronts Alternet "multilateralism"

Carrol Cox cbcox at ilstu.edu
Thu Jan 13 09:42:27 PST 2005


More and more even moderate (an quite "unpure") leftists are seeing that "multilateralism" is merely a euphemism for continued aggression against Iraq. We are faced with a binary: Either, Offer aid and comfort to u.s. imperialism _OR_ Build a movement on the slogan of End the Occupation Now! Brint the Troops Home Now! There is no third.

Carrol

Read "Rethinking Iraq": http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/20902/

Tom Hayden says that the occupation itself is the chief cause of the insurgency and the upcoming elections are the cause of the impending civil war. http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/20976/

Tom Hayden Alternet, January 13, 2005.

Tom Hayden writes in response to Lakshmi Chaudhry's 'Rethinking Iraq,' posted last Thursday. Hayden was a leader of the student, civil rights, peace and environmental movements of the 1960s and served 18 years in the California legislature. He is the author of ten books, including "Street Wars" (New Press, 2004). He is a professor at Occidental College, Los Angeles.

This week a number of longtime American peace advocates, including Harvey Cox, Robert Lifton, the leaders of Global Exchange and myself, will issue a "global call to conscience" against the U.S. war in Iraq, and offer a concrete program for forcing the American occupation to end. We cannot justify any further squandering of young lives, tax dollars and moral reputation on the slaughter we have unleashed, and would like to challenge America to debate withdrawal. (For further information, contact Global Exchange).

The recent article by AlterNet Senior Editor Lakshmi Chaudhry, in my view, would take us in exactly the opposite direction.

The closely reasoned and well-written article reveals a powerful bias towards continuing the war and occupation if the alternative is U.S. withdrawal. Her first priority, rhetorically, is to "bring the soldiers home" but it turns out they will be staying until others are sent (from Europe?) or there is a "democratic and stable Iraq." This is a formula for aggression with a human face.

Does Chaudhry favor members of Congress voting no on the $80 billion supplemental coming to the floor in a few weeks? The article doesn't say, but the implication is that a no vote would be "irresponsible." If the anti-war elements of the Democratic Party wake up and call for withdrawal, would that be irresponsible too?

Should the U.S. anti-war movement be urging our European counterparts to reverse their resistance and demand that their governments send troops to join a multinational force in Iraq? That's the suggestion of Lakshmi's analysis.

[clip

The real question is not whether it is irresponsible to call for the total end of of the occupation which has caused the present war, but whether there is any point at which Chaudhry and others like her would agree that continuing the war is no longer worth the cost in lives, taxes and moral character. If not now, when?



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list