|
Some Ideas on Building Our Movement
Michael T. McPhearson
November 2004
First, because I believe a discussion of why the United States attacked Iraq is central to our understanding of how to move forward, I will share my thoughts on why the U.S. invaded Iraq. Second, I will give a brief outline of my ideas on how to move forward the cause of peace and justice.
There is no single reason why the U.S. invaded Iraq. We invaded Iraq because a number of interests in the U.S. exploited the fear caused by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
After September 11, the U.S. found itself mired in a mix of emotions. Many people wanted revenge and others searched for answers. There was great national sorrow and bewilderment. The world grieved with us and we appreciated it. But most of all there was fear and uncertainty. An environment of fear is fertile ground for people who believe violence and domination is the answer to solve complex problems. September 11 provided an opportunity for such people to grab power.
I believe the main actors fall into three categories: business, religious and imperialist. The business interest is obvious; oil plays a key role in this equation. There is money to be made and the Western economies depend on cheap oil. Other business interests want access and control of new markets.
The religious interests are complex. Many U.S. Christians see the Middle East as central to their religious beliefs. They see Israel as the key to unlock the door to heaven. Many of these people see Bush as a kind of prophet sent by God to guide the nation. I am Christian, and millions of others like me do not hold this view, but those that do wield great power in the U.S.
Many believe that the Jewish/Israeli lobby causes unfairness in how the U.S. treats the Israeli/Palestinian issue. I disagree. Of course the Jewish/Israeli lobby wields a degree of power, but as shown by Bush’s reelection numbers, he needed to satisfy the aforementioned block of Christians to get re-elected. They constitute his most loyal followers and will continue as such as long as he shows unyielding support for Israel. Saddam's constant threats and support of the violent resistance against Israel placed him square in the cross hairs of this group we in the U.S. characterize as the Christian right.
But the group of people most responsible for our action in Iraq and the current bid for complete economic and military domination are ideologues who believe that the U.S. must maintain its position as an unrivaled power and has the right to do so. In 1997 men with these ideas formed an organization called The Project For A New American Century. Read the following quote from a position paper entitled "Rebuilding Americans Defenses, Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century."
At present the United States faces no global rival. America's grand strategy should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position as far into the future as possible. There are, however, potentially powerful states dissatisfied with the current situation and eager to change it, if they can, in directions that endanger the relatively peaceful, prosperous and free condition the world enjoys today. Up to now, they have been deterred from doing so by the capability and global presence of American military power. But, as that power declines, relatively and absolutely, the happy conditions that follow from it will be inevitably undermined.
People with these beliefs take full advantage of the fear created by the World Trade Center attacks. They tell us that September 11 identified the new enemy and we must defeat it. The U.S. is the last chance for a civilized world. We stand between those who are evil and those who are good. We must defend liberty, and the soldiers who die in Iraq are part of the price we must pay. Fundamentalist Islam is the new communism the new evil we must face.
We have been told that America must change the Middle East via the creation of the first Muslim democracy in the region. Supposedly this example of freedom will pressure the rest of the region to follow. This is our charge. This is our destiny. This is the idea of what Professor Daniel Bell has called America’s concept of its own exceptionalism. The belief the U.S. is not only special but has a divine destiny.
Is the idea of U.S. exceptionalism in and of itself a bad thing? Well, I love my country and I think it is special, but the special America espoused by this administration is similar if not the same as the ideas that led this nation into the Vietnam War and has us acting as an imperial power.
This view of the U.S. is a mixture of Christian theology and free market doctrine. This distorted Christian theology expands the belief in manifest destiny once confined to the North American continent to include the entire world. There has always been an undercurrent of protestant Christian ethic propelling manifest destiny. But now Christian proselytizing has transformed to spreading the good news of democracy. Infused into this idea of democracy is the free market system where democracy means choice in candidates and products. The word consumer is nearly interchangeable with citizen. This is American exceptionalism at its worst. It is ego and money driven. For many on the right it is sanctioned by God and for many on the left it is the fulfillment of humanities' destiny.
Muslim theocracy is a threat to the spread of this free market Christianized democracy and many Arabs leaders with their own dreams of imperialism through a kind of Pan Arab led Islamic world dominance clash with the Western ideas of nationalism and U.S. imperialist domination. Thus we have this world conflict as both sides are animated by mad men.
Notice I say men, not women. If you really want to look at a fundamental world conflict examine the relationships between men and women, because the history of male domination of women is perhaps the oldest and most costly conflict. It rages on today.
So to begin this process of democratizing the backward people of the Middle East and laying a foundation for expanded world supremacy, the U.S. has invaded Iraq a country that posed no immediate threat to our national security.
Unfortunately, this thinking is not confined to the Bush administration or the Republican Party. The belief that America has the right and a destiny to spread democracy across the globe is common ground for many Americans, both left and right. The titles “arsenal of democracy” and “protector of freedom” are intertwined in our national identity. It is part of the American myth. It is critical to remember this point as we develop ideas to address the systemic problems, which have led to this current crisis.
This is my analysis.
So what is the task at hand? The immediate task for peacemakers in the U.S. was to influence the presidential election. We had to make our demands clear to both Democrats and Republicans that a Bush defeat was not enough. Peacemakers understood that a Kerry administration did not necessarily translate into end of the occupation. Both Republicans and Democrats have imperialist tendencies. The U.S. in fact had an empire long before it became fashionable to say it.
I believe we did an exceptional job at sending that message. Due to the realities on the ground in Iraq and our collective efforts here in the U.S., the war in Iraq was a focal point of the election. If we are to believe polls, then there has always been at least a third of the public against the invasion and occupation. In a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll dated October 29-31, 2004 when asked "In view of the developments since we first sent our troops to Iraq, do you think the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, or not?" 44% made a mistake, 52% did not make a mistake, 4% no opinion. The poll’s margin of error is +or – 3%. Now public opinion is moving towards a majority against the war. So we did what we needed to do no matter who won.
Today the immediate task is to convince as many people as possible that the U.S. must end the occupation and “Bring Them Home Now.” We must outreach past ourselves and talk to people who disagree. We must acknowledge, address and help people move past their fears. We must build bridges and develop practical alternatives to war.
This leads me to one of our long-term challenges. How do we change the road our country travels from one of war to one of peace?
There are three points I believe we must work on together to ensure the long-term success of the peace movement. The basis of these three ideas is to understand that this crisis is part of a larger problem, the problem of war. The U.S. is the latest in a long line of powers that attempt to dominate and control people's lives. I doubt we can name a country in the world that was not born from war or the threat of war. No nations' hands are clean. Our country was born in a war for independence, the enslavement of African people and the near genocide of Native Americans. Both Native American and African blood run through my veins. The Germans have the Jewish holocaust. The Russians have the purges of Stalin. The Chinese killed millions in their revolution. The Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Byzantine, and all other empires no matter how accomplished are built on blood and bones. So while today we discuss U.S. aggression, the discussion is really about ourselves as people.
So first I ask us to remember that all good works begin at home. If we cannot develop non-violent approaches to solving problems with people who are most like us, what hope do we have when trying to cross language, religious and cultural divides. A basis for world peace begins within our own borders. Race, gender, class, sexuality and other forms of bigotry continue to divide all of us. Racism, the oppression of Palestinians and anti-Semitism immediately come to my mind when I think about issues of dire concern within the peace movement. And of course I spoke earlier of sexism. America has not dealt well with race. The peace movement is no exception. People are well meaning but we need new and bold approaches. Many liberals reluctance to stand firmly against the inhumane treatment of Palestinians must be examined and the refusal to acknowledge the anti-Semitism that lurks in the peace movement must be addressed. Sexism is pervasive to the point of normalcy. Our reluctance as peacemakers to acknowledge and tackle these problems as well as other issues within our ranks undermines our moral arguments for peace. Actions speak louder than words. We are in a struggle for the hearts and minds of the world. We must model our rhetoric or our words have little meaning.
Second, we must build international relationships between people. Governments cannot be trusted to do what is best for the global community. They will use national, religious, and ethnic differences to separate us. They try to make us believe we are vastly different from each other. But I believe that no matter the religion, nationality, or ethnicity we all want the same things. We want to take care of our families, we want security, and we want our lives to have meaning. These are needs we all share. We must organize across national, religious, ethnic and social boundaries. We must motivate one another. For example, the Italian peace movement’s hard work turning out millions in protest on February 15th and Turkish activist success in resisting the use of their country as a staging area for the invasion gave us hope in the U.S.
Finally, but most important, we come to economic and social justice. One of my favorite phrases is, "No Justice No Peace." This phrase is used to protest all sorts of injustices. It is a kind of warning to the establishment that the people will rebel if not treated fairly. I believe that without economic and social justice peace is impossible. If a group is treated unfairly, is abused, or their basic needs of food, shelter and clothing are not met, that group will eventually take action to change their condition. We must develop global systems whose usefulness and success are measured by how they help attain economic and social justice for all people. We must be committed to the creation and living of these systems.
I believe these are the challenges that face all of humanity and the issues we face today are the result of our failures to meet these challenges.
I want to leave you with words written by A.J. Muste, an amazing peace activist.
There is no path to peace, peace is the path.
Power to the peaceful
November 21, 2004
