[Dialogue] After Super Tuesday, Time for Peace Movement to Get Off the Sidelines

[Harry Wainwright]

Published on Thursday, February 7, 2008 by CommonDreams.org
<http://www.commondreams.org>  

After Super Tuesday, Time for Peace Movement to Get Off the Sidelines

by Tom Hayden

With Iraq a key issue and the Democratic primaries unresolved, isn't it time
for the peace movement to get off the sidelines and become more engaged?
Shouldn't we be doing everything possible to make the candidates compete for
the peace vote? Think of the battlegrounds ahead where the peace vote is up
for grabs: Washington on February 9, Maryland and the District of Columbia
February 12, Wisconsin February 19, Rhode Island, Vermont and Ohio on March
4, and other states like Oregon and Pennsylvania through May.

On one side it appears that the pro-Democratic groups with millions of
dollars are sitting out the primaries, saving their energy for the coming
battle with John McCain. That plan just got delayed for many weeks as the
primaries go on. On the other side are the grass-roots peace coalitions that
generally forsake political engagement and busy themselves with plans for
civil disobedience while 13 more states are voting.

Meanwhile hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of voters will make up
their minds on which of the candidates is best on ending the Iraq war with
little involvement by peace activists in the debate.

There are differences that matter between Clinton and Obama, not as great as
between the Democrats and McCain, but significant nonetheless. They are
these:

Obama favors a 16-18 month timeline for withdrawing US combat troops.
Clinton favors "immediately" convening the Joint Chiefs to draft a plan to
"begin" drawing down US troops, but with no timetable for completing the
withdrawal.

Obama opposed the measure authorizing Bush to designate Iran's Revolutionary
Guard as a terrorist organization, widely regarded as an escalating step
towards another war. Clinton voted for the authorization.

Obama opposed the 2002 authorization for war that Clinton voted for. Clinton
still calls that decision a "close call" and refuses to say it was a
mistaken vote.

It's true that both candidates support leaving thousands of "residual"
American troops behind for a likely counterinsurgency conflict that we
should all oppose. Peace activists should demand a shift to peace diplomacy
beginning with a US commitment to end the occupation and withdraw all
troops.

But Obama's position is clearly better than Clinton's, and both candidates
should be encouraged to see that the strongest anti-war position wins votes.
The primaries are probably the last opportunity to push for a tougher
stance, before the debate shifts to criticizing
McCain/Lieberman/Podhoretz/Petraeus and whomever else in the general
election. If one is a Clinton supporter, she should be pressured to keep
catching up with Obama's positions. Instead, she is floating a demand to
make Bush bring any Washington-Baghdad military pact before Congress, which
is a fine idea but avoids whether and when to end the occupation. If you are
an Obama supporter, he should be pressured to connect the drain of the Iraq
War on our economy and any possibilities for funding national health care.
The point is to push the peace position forward on the promise of winning
close primaries.

If nothing is done now by the peace movement, consider this scenario: with
Bush promising to withdraw 25,000 troops this summer, Gen. Petraeus comes to
Washington in March or April to announce "progress" in Iraq with lavish
media attention. If MoveOn, perhaps understandably, avoids direct engagement
with the general, which peace advocates will step in? Will Obama or Clinton
or the Out of Iraq Caucus be prepared to confront him with an educational
counter-offensive, or will McCain obtain a polished halo for being the
Petraeus candidate? These are deadly serious questions. Is anyone discussing
them?

In the immediate context, it seems to me that a group like MoveOn has to
consider whether its endorsement of Obama now deserves a blast of anti-war
energy in places like Seattle, Baltimore, Madison, Vermont, suburban Ohio,
Providence, and Portland. Television, radio and media advertising still can
be purchased for peace voices. Progressive Democrats at the grass-roots
level might flood these decisive areas with questions to the campaigns and
informational leaflets designed to educate swing voters. Signs and banners
asking "Peace By When?" might be seen at rallies and media events.

The new reality is that the primaries will grind on, the percentages will
remain extremely tight, and the Iraq War can be made into a tipping issue
over which the candidates compete. It takes a peace movement now.

Tom Hayden is the author of Ending the War in Iraq
<http://www.amazon.com/dp/1933354453?tag=commondreams-20&camp=0&creative=0&l
inkCode=as1&creativeASIN=1933354453&adid=1JR7Z9J3MTB91ENNQSPK&>  [2007].

URL to article: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/07/6908/

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20080208/3ced26db/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 6731 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20080208/3ced26db/attachment.gif