Raw Politik

#2 OF 6 REASONS TO OPPOSE THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN

2009-06-15T23:06:00.001-04:00

#2 OF 6 REASONS TO OPPOSE THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN

Posted using ShareThis

"How The Vietnam War Was Stopped" presentation by Brian Lenzo

2009-05-06T14:05:00.005-04:00

The war in Vietnam may have been 40 years ago, but the parallels it draws with the United State’s current imperial wars of mass destruction are important. It was a war justified by the ‘boogeyman’ of its time, communism, and waged on the basis of gifting American democracy. Yet the ruling class’s facade could not hide the horrors of one of the most out of control and brutal conflicts of the twentieth century.

Brian Lenzo (aka. RAW Politik, author of “6 Reasons to Oppose the War in Afghanistan“) in a talk given at Nazareth College in April 2008, explains the revolutionary conditions of the 1960s, the events that shook people to take action, and the role of GI resistance against the atrocities being committed abroad.

#1 of 6 Reasons to Oppose the War in Afghanistan

2009-03-26T15:49:00.001-04:00

#1 of 6 Reasons to Oppose the War in Afghanistan

Posted using ShareThis

6 Reasons to Oppose the War in Afghanistan

2009-02-24T11:18:00.001-05:00

6 Reasons to Oppose the War in Afghanistan

Posted using ShareThis

Rochester Antiwar Movement Issues Response to Election Results

2008-11-06T11:03:00.003-05:00

Rochester, NY. Following Election Day 2008, Rochester Against War, Rochester Students for a Democratic Society, Campus Antiwar Network, Military Families Speak Out, and local Iraq and Afghanistan Veternas stand together to make the following statement:

Video by Rochester Indy Media (other media outlets didn't show up)

Article Originally appeared on Rochester Indy Media Website. Link here

The War that Dare Not Speak Its Name

2008-11-06T10:28:00.003-05:00

In recent weeks, I have joined another blogging community. Head on over and check out my friends at "The Sitch". This article appears there as well.

If you are not excited to see 8 years of Bush and 30 years of Republican ideological dominance crumble into the waste bin of history, then you are probably still rocking back and forth in tears.

The Republicans were trounced eight ways from Sunday last night, despite the racist, fear mongering, smear campaign of McCain/Palin. America, the home of slavery and Jim Crow, elected a African American president. Let that marinate for a while.

Given this historic moment, and being the insomniac political junkie that I am, I set to work. I want to know what will be the pressure points, the issues to push in order to make our government deliver on its promises. Rochester Against War just took a stand opposing the war in Afghanistan, so I went to check out Obama's stated position. I wandered on over to BarakObama.com but found a glaring issue with Obama’s “issues” section.

While you will find subjects like, “Economy, Poverty, Immigration, and even Iraq”, what you wont find is, to me, one of the defining issues of the day, second only to the economic crisis. THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN. (screen shot attached)

Check out the Foreign Policy page. Among the 2,845 word explanation of Obama/Biden’s foreign policy, you wont find mention of Afghanistan there either! Not even once. In fact, if you do a Google site search of Obama’s website, you get 12 hits, most of which are from the same 2 speeches.

Now, isn’t this a little odd considering its one of the two major wars the US Military is currently fighting?

When you CAN find the country mentioned, Obama is clearly planning to escalate the war in Afghanistan. At the end of this post you can find a comprehensive set of quotations and links from the Obama/Biden website. Here are some choice phrases to consider:

-- "The scale of our deployments in Iraq continues to set back our ability to finish the fight in Afghanistan, producing unacceptable strategic risks.”

-- “When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

-- “I will never hesitate to defend this country and our critical interests.”

-- “Above all, I will send a clear message: we will not repeat the mistake of the past, when we turned our back on Afghanistan following Soviet withdrawal.”

Those last two should make you feel pretty queasy. Is he suggesting we should have CONTINUED supporting Bin Laden through the 90's, that Bin Laden would have been a good ally if we didn't piss him off?

Why is this? Why is Obama's analysis of Afghanistan, a major war, buried so much on his website. I don't think its an accidental oversight. In fact, Obama has used his website to raise millions of dollars and connect millions of volunteers to each other during his campaign. What I think Obama and his handlers realize is that his "base" the millions who brought him to power, are under the assumption that Obama is the "peace candidate" The Democratic party is just fine with this notion and purposely downplay this seeming contradiction. And so they bury and distract, bob and weave, and allow incorrect beliefs to continue, as long as they deliver their vote on Nov 4th. Its straight out of the McCain playbook.

In fact, Obama isn't a "peace candidate", he falls more on the "Wrong War, Wrong Way." The places he plays UP his desire to escalate is among those generals, military contractors, and Washington elite that stand to benefit from US domination of the region. He is courting them by arguing he can manage the Empire better than old Bushie, who has really made a mess of things.

I think the overall point made is that far from opposing US military intervention, Obama is squarely in the camp of using the US Military to “defend this country and our critical interests.” As I started this article saying, we should be extremely excited and we should realize that sentiment is moving in a leftward, progressive, whatever word you want to use, OUR direction!

But we should remember, that politicians are bought and sold like credit default swaps. Unlike Wall St., bankers WE have something to lose and everything to gain by examining in explicit detail what is THE CONTENT of their policies, and who do those policies end up benefiting?

I can remember getting calls from my friends, trapped in downtown Manhattan as the World Trade towers fell. I also remember that Bush was reading a childrens book in Florida, and Cheney was safe in his bunker. “Our critical interests” are actually “their” critical interests. No Afghani ever gambled my life savings away. No Iraqi ever denied me healthcare, and no Pakistani ever imprisoned me indefinitely without charge.

RAW Politiko

===================

Obama by the quotes:
Lets see what the Obama/Biden ticket says about Afghanistan (ive bolded some of the most important remarks):

-- In the Iraq section, under the headings “Resurgent Al Aqaeda in Afghanistan” it says the following:

The decision to invade Iraq diverted resources from the war in Afghanistan, making it harder for us to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden and others involved in the 9/11 attacks. Nearly seven years later, the Taliban has reemerged in southern Afghanistan while Al Qaeda has used the space provided by the Iraq war to regroup, train and plan for another attack on the United States. 2007 was the most violent year in Afghanistan since the invasion in 2001. The scale of our deployments in Iraq continues to set back our ability to finish the fight in Afghanistan, producing unacceptable strategic risks.

-- In a speech given in Des Moines, IA | May 21, 2008, Obama says:

“Change is ending a war that we never should've started and finishing a war against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan that we never should've ignored.”

-- A speech given in Washington, DC | August 01, 2007 titled, “The War We Need to Win” Obama said the following:

"And so, a little more than a year after that bright September day, I was in the streets of Chicago again, this time speaking at a rally in opposition to war in Iraq. I did not oppose all wars, I said. I was a strong supporter of the war in Afghanistan."

He continues:

"When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.

The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

He continues:

Above all, I will send a clear message: we will not repeat the mistake of the past, when we turned our back on Afghanistan following Soviet withdrawal.

http://origin.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/remarks_of_senator_obama_the_w.php

-- In a speech given to some Flag Officers from the Army, Navy and Air Force in Chicago, IL | March 12, 2008 he says:

That is why I have consistently called for an increased commitment to Afghanistan, and why I called last August for at least two additional combat brigades to support our mission there. And that is why I will end the war in Iraq when I am President, and focus on finishing the job in Afghanistan.

I will never hesitate to defend this country and our critical interests.

http://origin.barackobama.com/2008/03/12/obama_receives_endorsement_of.php

Ron Paul, Libertarianism, and the Antiwar Movement

2007-12-27T10:42:00.000-05:00

This is my extended take on Ron Paul and Libertarianism. Be warned, this is a polemic, and while I personally have no beef with Libertarians (I know one who makes a mean vegetarian chili), I do have issue with their political ideas, so all in good fun, but serious debate :)

Its not what Ron Paul IS, but what he ISN'T.

Ron Paul represents the interests of small business owners and highly paid professionals. People sandwiched between big business and the unwashed masses. They resent the domination of society by large corporations, not because they desire a more equal world, but because big business (and government) present obstacles to their own individual success. The disdain for ordinary people is hardly masked if you listen to their rhetoric about immigrants, minorities, and even the rights of women.

The problem is that the libertarian (classical libertarian) world is a freeze frame of 19th century American capitalism, a utopia of rugged individualism and small competition. Problem is that

1. that world never really existed (the one that did was built on slavery)
2. it rests on the ridiculous presumption that everyone starts out on a level playing field where raw talent is the deciding factor of success, life or death.

Unfortunately, power is inheritable. A cursory look at our current inbred crop of politicians will dispel any sense that the cream rises to the top. Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton?

While romantic, the populist notion that the biggest problem is "government interference" is as Sean put it "hogwash." Some pigs just want their own spot at the trough.

I think we must reject this world view in favor of one that puts the resources of society to work for all that make it possible, not the rich that were born at the controls.

So why do progressives then support Ron Paul?

Because of the two party stranglehold, corporate control, etc. most Americans electoral choices are made through process of elimination of what is "beyond the pale" for them.

So their support for a candidate is based mostly on the positions their opponents take, not the positions their chosen candidate takes. So Ron Paul could accept a $500 donation from an open White Supremacist (which he did last week), but as long as Giuliani accepts Pat Robertson, and Huckabee rejects evolution, Paul is still in the ballpark.

For progressives, its a recognition that Kucinich (and Gravel) are not even viable enough to affect the positions of the front-runners of their own party, let alone affect the issues of the general election. Thats why I think Kucinich should leave the Democratic party like Cynthia McKinney did and run on the Green Party ticket.

The Republican party is falling apart and they don't have the apparatus to marginalize Paul like the Democrats can marginalize Kucinich. The Republicans don't fear a party revolt because the ideas Paul puts forward are pretty crazy (dissolve public education, no government control except over women's right to control the fate of her own uterus).

The Democrats fear Kucinich, because his ideas WILL appeal to the masses of people the Democrats count on for votes and that kind of party revolt would destroy the Democratic party, not pull it to the left. Corporate party, corporate rules, corporate efficiency in eliminating threats.

Finally, the "Ron Paul revolution" also flows from a mistaken (in my opinion anyways) position that leftists have to compromise their core principles in order to be "relevant" to the mainstream electoral process. Tom Hayden and Phyllis Bennis have made those exact arguments in the pages of the Nation magazine lately.

If they are willing to concede Healthcare and the War to Obama and Clinton in order to be "relevant", then why not concede abortion and immigration to a crazy old guy who speaks like a 19th century populist.

In my opinion, the solution to a 30 year assault by the right wing isn't to co-opt sections of the right wing, or to adapt to its politics, but figure out how to be firmer and better at organizing our side.

The right wing doesn't need huge numbers of regular Americans to get its message out and be effective, a small number of right wingers will have the ear of big media and the majority of politicians, because the right wing message benefits the rich and powerful (including Ron Paul). So their message is amplified and exaggerated by a media that shares their views.

The left on the other hand, needs to be extremely organized, principled, and disciplined in order to get its message out and be powerful enough to win.

The power of organized people demanding their basic rights is more powerful than any government, army, or corporation, but it is much, much harder to organize them (and the governments, armies and corporations also fear popular power and try to stop us for good measure).

So it takes a long time, much longer than a 2 year electoral cycle, and every 2 years (or 4 years) politicians tell us that we don't have to do all that hard work (or that hard work is not worth while), and you can just vote and everything will be OK. Its not that people are lazy, but people are desperate for change and will give politicians the benefit of the doubt without a strong alternative force to look to.

We need to build a core of folks to stand up to those counter-acting forces year after year, and walk along side those who agree with us on a number of issues, but don't have the confidence to put their chips in our corner yet. While walking and struggling, we should never, never be silent about the fact that this is a long-term struggle. We should figure out as best we can, who our friends are, and who our enemies are. And we should NOT think that hiding our differences is the best kind of unity. We should not aim to organize along the least common denominator, but aim to raise the level of confidence, the level of knowledge, and the level of skill.

Its not easy, but the payoff is a world worth living in.

On the justice of pointing fingers....

2007-09-26T15:00:00.000-04:00

"If you point your finger at someone else, you have three pointing towards yourself." Nigerian Proverb

Part 1. The Right Wing Response.

The recent appearance of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmenidjad at Columbia University (and at the UN the day after), came with the usual flag waving xenophobia, from Democratic and Republican politicians, the mainstream press and many pro-Israeli groups.

some quotes:
"It is unacceptable for Iranian President Ahmadinejad, who refuses to renounce and end his own country's support of terrorism, to visit the site of the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil in our nation's history," Democratic U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton (her official website)

"Obviously, there's some degree of capital support that has been provided to Columbia in the past. These are things people might take a different view of … knowing that this is that kind of an institution." NY State Assembly Speaker, Democrat, Sheldon Silver (New York Sun, 9/24/2007, http://www.nysun.com/article/63232 )

"We should be tightening our sanctions against Iran, not welcoming him to the world stage, and I've called on the Secretary-General of the United Nations to withdraw that invitation," -- former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (Republican)

"What we should be doing is indicting Ahmadinejad under the Genocide Convention." -- former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (Republican)

========

Part 2. The 10 Hypocrasies of Iran Bashing

1. Columbia President Lee Bolinger called Ahmenidjad a "petty and cruel dictator." In 1951, after Dr. Muhammad Mossadegh was popularly elected president of Iran, he promptly nationalized US and British oil fields. Under the direction of Kermit Roosevelt, Jr., a senior CIA officer and grandson of the former U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt, the CIA and British intelligence funded and led a covert operation to depose Mossadegh with the help of military forces loyal to the Shah, known as Operation Ajax. The "Shah" (Reza Pahlavi) was re-installed and created one of the most infamous secret police forces, the "SAVAK" to repress and kill any political opposition.

2. New Year's Eve, 1977, President Jimmy Carter toasted the Shah at a state dinner in Tehran, calling him "an island of stability" in the troubled Middle East. The aforementioned dictator, the "Shah", was driven from power in 1978 by mass demonstrations and strikes. In 1979, President Carter, and the behest of the CIA, State Department and officials like Henry Kissinger and George Bush Sr., allowed the "Shah" exile into New York City. Immediately after news of his entry hit the world press, the American Embassy in Tehran was taken over in protest by a group of Iranian students in reaction. The "Shah" would remain in New York City hospitals receiving treatment for terminal cancer till the end of 1979. He traveled to Egypt in December, 1979 and died there. Egyptian President Sadat, criticised for serious human rights violations, and major US ally, gave the Shah a state funeral.

3. Quoting Socialist Worker Newspaper: The unfriendly welcome was quite a contrast to the media welcome given to "U.S. allies such as Pakistan’s military dictator Pervez Musharraf; former Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, a Hindu supremacist; or Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who is out to destroy the Palestinian people."

4. Columbia University President Lee Bollinger ranted for upwards of 10 minutes against the Iranian president, he felt no such need when introducing the right-wing, anti-immigrant, vigilante group "The Minute Men" leader James Gilchrist last spring. Furthermore, such media outlets as the NY Times, NY Post, even the daily show felt the need to hem and haw about free speech rights when a pro-immigrant protest forced Gilchrist to end his presentation. There is no such response when it comes to trying to disinvite or stop Ahmenidjad from speaking.

5. The US was the first country to build nuclear weapons, is the only country to ever have used nuclear weapons in war (on civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki), and is the only country currently threatening to use them (tactical nuclear bunker busters).

6. Israel is the only country in the Middle East to possess nuclear weapons. Iran is a signatory to the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty), has never violated the terms. Israel, along with US allies India and Pakistan, are not signatories to the NPT. Despite the scrutiny of the world and the UN inspectors, no definitive evidence exists showing Iran is either developing or has nuclear weapons manufacturing facilities.

7. In response to Ahmenidjad's request to lay a wreath at "Ground Zero", US Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad told reporters, "We do not support that the tragedy that happened on a site where so many people lost their lives be used as a photo op." The irony of this quote speaks for itself.

8. Iran is criticized for allowing "foreign fighters" into Iraq and Afghanistan. The largest force of "foreign fighters" in both Afghanistan and Iraq is the US Military (note: in Iraq its disputed if Private US contractors like blackwater outnumber US troops).

9. Iran is criticized for giving aid to insurgents in Iraq, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Palestine, and the Taliban in Afghanistan. The US funds every dictator in the region, including Mubarak in Egypt, the Saudi Royal Family, the Kuwaiti royal family, the United Arab Emierates, and the "Gulf States" The US used to call the Afghani "mujahadeen", "freedom fighters" when they fought against the Russians. They supplied them with arms, money and training for years. The leaders then formed Al-Qaeda in the 1990's, headed by Osama Bin Laden. Israel funded Hamas as a counter-weight to Arab Nationalism up through the 1980's. Furthermore, the US regularly funds, arms and trains, right wing paramilitary groups in South America, Africa, South East Asia, and most every other part of the world. Many times funding the dictators that come into power such as Augusto Pinochet in Chile and Mobuto Sese Seko in Belgian Congo (Zaire) now, Democratic Republic of the Congo.

10. THE US GOVERNMENT, WITH ITS SLAUGHTER OF UPWARDS OF 1 MILLION IRAQI'S, DEPLOYMENT OF OVER 250,000 MILITARY PERSONELL ON FOREIGN SOIL IS THE BIGGEST THREAT TO DEMOCRACY AND STABILITY ON THE PLANET, HISTORICALLY AND CURRENTLY.

==============

Part 3. What should the Antiwar Movement Say?

This whole fiasco has highlighted yet again, the political weaknesses of the American Left.

When confronted with complex issues, time and time again, the mainstream antiwar groups and liberal media outlets have failed to grasp the important issue and instead let the right wing rhetoric go unchallanged, or worse, tacitly supported.

The issue is not about the Iranian government's abuse of political dissidents. The issue is not about their treatment of homosexuals, nor even their supposed development of nuclear weapons. The issue is about the US government hyping up Iranian tyranny to bolster a case for attacking and possibly invading Iran.

The "Pox on both your houses" approach misses the whole point. It gives into the claim that the transgressions of the Iranian government are EQUALLY as bad as the transgressions of the US government. When you write up that placard, "NO TO IRANIAN OPPRESSION, NO TO US IMPERIALISM!", which part of that placard do you think the media will highlight?

In fact, ramping up racism against Arabs and Muslims has been a cornerstone of the US war overseas, to convince soldiers to kill their enemy without reaction and to convince the American public to go along with it. In fact, the rhetoric calling for sanctions and agression against Iran does more to hurt movements for justice inside Iran than help them. Just think how the 9/11 attacks helped quell any legitimate criticism of American foreign and domestic policy.

In fact, I was called a traitor and a bush lackey by Antiwar movement activists for supporting Gay Marriage rights and criticising John Kerry's failure to stand up for it during the 2004 elections. You can only imagine the social effect inside Iran when someone says that Religious or sexual freedom is the MOST important issue for social justice groups in Iran after seeing a protest of thousands and a media barrage in support of toppling Iran's government. But imagine if those activists saw a counter-protest of thousands saying, "No Attack on Iran!" and "Stop the Racist Scapegoating of Arabs and Muslims", which will have more of an effect on movements in the Middle East?

The very same media who want freedom of speech for racists here in the US, roll out the gallows when a foreign leader who opposes US foreign policy struts into town, especially if they have brown or black skin. The very people who claim to support the rights of Iranians, the rights of Muslim women and the rights of minorities, are the perpetrators of banning stem cell research in Washington, Jim Crow justice in the south, massacres in the jungles of africa, military coups in South America, oppression in the Middle East, and economic strangulation in Palestine.

I think the Antiwar movement needs to put blame where blame is do. The main enemy is at home!

The Politics of "More"

2007-05-18T15:26:00.000-04:00

The Rochester alternative weekly paper, City Newspaper, recently published one of my letters. In it I engage a previous letter writer in order to make a point about the "politics of more" and going along with what our rulers tell us, but passing it off as some profound conserative insight.

The following is the unedited, full letter I submitted for publication.

The Politics of "More"

In response to Italo G. Savella's letter titled "Violence: Guns and Virginia Tech" printed in the May 1st issue:

Italo starts his letter saying he is sick of the “media-driven culture.” Never mind the fact that his letter itself slings around the same media rhetoric about "liberals", "political correctness" and even the proverbial shot at "gangsta rappers." The most glaring issue I have with his letter is that it doesn’t say anything new.

Rather, it is part of the chorus of "more." Terrorists use violence against Americans? More bombs! Two failed, unpopular wars? More troops! Crime rates on the rise? More cops! More prisons! A disturbed student kills 32 students at VA Tech in a hail of gunfire? More guns! More, More, More...more of the same.

What you never hear from the "more crowd": More diplomacy! More healthcare! More job training! Contrary to Italo's claim that "political correctness" doomed the VA student victims, an under funded and understaffed mental health system doomed them. This individual was identified, examined, but deemed not serious enough to follow up with, because our health system is so rationed and strapped for cash, they have to prioritize only the sickest of all patients.

Contrary to Italo's picture of events, the massively armed and highly trained SWAT teams could do nothing to protect the students inside the buildings. The same scenario played out at Columbine. State of the Art police forces, watching a massacre play out. I am not questioning the bravery of any of these policemen; surely they did all they could. I am questioning the logic of "more police/weapons = more safety." With the most imprisoned population in the world, by Italo's logic, shouldn't we be the most safe?

Furthermore, the VA Tech massacre would have been a relatively good day in Baghdad. There is a contradiction in a society that seems to celebrate the violence of the state (war, executions), but demonizes the violence of the individual. In either case, all we seem to get is “more” of both. Its time we get a different kind of "more", and guaging by the 2006 mid-term elections, its seems a majority of Americans agree. More action by congress to stop this war, more organizing in the communities, and more demands for aid where it is needed most, in Iraq, in Walter Reeed, in New Orleans, and in our poverty stricken cities.

---------------------------------------------
The edited, electronic version of the letter that also ran in the print edition

Islam and the Antiwar Movement (part III of III)

2007-05-02T15:50:00.000-04:00

The “Lowest Common Denominator” or “The Strongest Point of Attack”?

To conclude this 3 part series, I want to take on an immediate question that I hear posed and debated within antiwar groups, demonstrations, etc.

An argument brought forth very commonly is that taking a stand in favor of violent resistance or of talking about Palestine, or other issues such as these will divide the movement and ultimately make it weaker.

There is certainly some truth to the argument about strength in numbers, not to mention political tact and the art of politics. But the questions it purposely skips over is “Unify with whom?” and “Unity on what basis?”

I am for taking the movement forward and deepening the connection and solidarity between Arabs and Muslims and the antiwar movement, not reaching out to people who, for one reason or another, haven’t seen through Bush's lies, who haven’t come to the conclusion that the US military is the key problem and look to military solutions to combat “terrorism.” The same goes for people who have illusions in the righteousness of the state of Israel as a Jewish-only homeland.

Reaching out to the conservative section of the movement is directly counter posed to reaching out to Arabs and Muslims in the US and abroad.

Talking about Palestine, the root causes of oppression and reaction in the Middle East, and identifying with movements of resistance against US Imperialism will push away conservatives at this point.

Those that aren't pushed away are certainly welcome to join the debate. But to reach to the right at this moment in time and history is to push away Arabs and Muslims and the issues they care about AND to ignore the literally millions of people who are on our side already but not yet organized.

No one is saying people’s ideas wont change, or that we ignore people who disagree or things of that nature. What I am saying is that we should actually debate these things. We should have forums on these things, not sideline them or pretend they don’t exist because they make some people uncomfortable.

The antiwar movement will pursue a “least common denominator” strategy at the expense of reaching out to the Arab and Muslim community and to the expense of the movement’s flexibility and strength.

Arabs and Muslims are the community that desperately needs reaching out to. This is the community, and this is the dialogue that will push the movement forward and address the issues of conservative movements, poverty, desperation and terrorism in the Middle East.

And its not a small matter to continually counter the set of myths about Islam and politics in the middle east at every point if we are truly to understand and be able to explain the world in more complex and realistic terms than "Islamo-fascism", "freedom-hating", and the "War on Terror"

In my mind, it is the left's answer to "What is your solution?" What will happen if we pull troops out immediately?

We, as activists and people of conscience in the US, will only be relevant to what actually happens if we make ourselves relevant to the people directly involved. This does mean US soldiers and military families, but it also means genuinely considering and hearing the concerns of the people under the boot of US imperialism. This is building a movement on our strongest point of attack, US Empire, the prime cause of oppression and misery in the Middle East.

I hardly think that is dogmatic, ideological, or rigid. I actually think it’s a realistic approach to a problem the US ruling class seemingly has no answer to but more death and destruction.

Islam and the Antiwar Movement (part II of III)

2007-05-02T15:04:00.000-04:00

What kind of force will bring justice and peace to the Middle East?

Immediate Withdrawal

As I mentioned in my previous post, there is a debate raging within the resistance movements of the Middle East between different ideologies and generally between conservative and liberal. The particular history of movements like Arab Nationalism, the effect of Stalinism and the fight against Neo-Liberalism in Latin America, have all shaped the current terrain on which this resistance fights and this movement debates.

The main struggle that unites these competing segments is the drive to rid the Middle East of US troops and Western corporations. This undeniable fact overshadows all others. In fact, it is so overshadowing that debates about internal democracy, Arab monarchies, corruption, women’s rights, religious tolerance and issues like that, are hindered.

Put another way, genuine democracy will spread across the Middle East only when it shakes off the boot of occupation. Whether it be Israeli or US.

So I reiterate, the US Military is the chief problem in the Middle East, and it, and it alone is standing in the way of peace and real political debate among the Arab masses.

Imagine if the people of Saudi Arabia, or Kuwait, or Egypt, or Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Iran for that matter were allowed to form their movements for democracy without the interference of the US or Israel? Imagine if the Iraqi resistance saw a friend in US Antiwar coalitions, instead of a critic, about roadside bombs or beheadings? You might see the development of a secular left, you might see the kind of struggle the pundits anguish over, wishing the Iraqis or Palestinians would use instead of suicide bombing.

The US occupation poisons all of this and is the chief obstacle. It needs to be removed from Middle Eastern soil, the sooner the better. There are crazier people inside the US, one in control of the white house, to single out Islamic clerics and their sermons is to single out a people for another purpose.

The Lebanon War as Litmus Test

Here is an example of my point. During Israel’s war on Lebanon, the US media hemmed and hawed over the use of “human shields” and the firing of rockets into Northern Israel by Hezbollah. There was no shortage of commentators (usually male, usually white) talking about how Islam needs to modernize, treat women better and how Hezbollah was terrorizing the Lebanese people.

Yet the American Left was torn by this very same line of thinking. The “pox on both your houses” attitude. Neither Hezbollah nor Israel was the dominant line of thinking.

In fact, the majority of Lebanese supported Hezbollah’s resistance and condemned Israel’s state terrorism, its use of cluster munitions, bombing civilian infrastructure, causing an oil spill on the Lebanese coast, and targeting civilian convoys on the roads leading north.

Furthermore, virtually no one on the left has noticed that Hezbollah is rebuilding Southern Lebanon faster and more efficiently that the US Government is rebuilding New Orleans!

The American Left refuses to recognize these facts and it does so to its own detriment and the detriment of the people of the Middle East.

I argue the best way to support self-determination and democracy, here in the US and in the Middle East, is to link arms with the very people targeted by US Imperialism, so we can bring it to its knees in common cause.

Towards a stronger US Antiwar Movement

Terrorism as a tactic and theory of social change flourishes in an isolated, and embattled movement. The solution is to reach out to Arabs and Muslims and form an Antiwar movement that identifies with the struggles of Arabs and Muslims. A movement that makes Iraqi's feel like people inside the Empire care about what the US government is doing to them.

Imagine a day of action that happens simultaneously in Baghdad, Falljuah, Ramadi, Kirkuk, New York, Washington, LA, and Dallas. With the slogan, "Troops Out Now, Reparations for Iraqi's." If anything will marginalize terrorism it would be that scenario.

Iraqi's feel largely isolated from the American antiwar movement and it has a lot to do with Guantanamo, a lot to do with the larger movement refusing to even talk about Palestine, a lot to do with our past reliance on pro-war Democratic politicians. They were as confused about the 2004 elections result as many were here. These are unfortunate realities, but they are also real barriers that we can begin to take on and win.

More on this in Part III

Islam and the Antiwar Movement (part I of III)

2007-05-02T13:44:00.000-04:00

Recently, President Bush has taken to calling various movements in the Middle Eastern world (or more correctly, South-West Asia), “Islamo-Fascist” or “Islamo-Fascism.”

From the man who brought you the “Crusade”, the “Axis of Evil” and “Love Practicing OBGYN’s”, this clumsiness is not surprising. Unfortunately, this terminology and even worse, the framework of ideas it represents is becoming very popular among not just the right, but circles in the American Left as well.

The following series of posts is compiled and adapted from a series of exchanges I had with a fellow activist on the topic of Islamo-Fascism and how the Antiwar Movement should respond and organize. I have broken the dialogue into 3 parts for easier reading and to better organize the topics covered.

** Note: I use the term “Middle East” while being aware that such a term is quite Euro-Centric, but it is so common in the vernacular of the American Left, that I will use it for the sake of clarity.

Islamo-Fascism, Terrorism and the White Man’s Burden

The Rhetoric:

I think the term Islamo-Fascism is a red herring. It is meant more to connect Bush’s “War on Terror” to WWII than to describe the politics of Islamic Fundamentalism. For instance, would you call the right wing in this country Christian-Fascist? Christian-Fascists existed during WWII, like General Franco and the reactionary army.

I've heard plenty of sermons by Protestants calling for the Middle East to be turned into a giant crater (the kill em all mentality), but fascism it is not. Real fascism has nothing to do with "poor, ignorant masses" but a genuine economic crisis in which portions of the capitalist class look to the military to "save" society from genuine popular revolution.

The Islamo-Fascist line is about dehumanizing Arabs and Muslims plain and simple. It paints the Arab and Muslim people as "ignorant", unsophisticated, and easily duped into following fanatics. The masses of Arab people are not "poor and ignorant" they are generally more well educated than most Americans actually, that is before we bombed their universities, hospitals, and destroyed their "way of life."

Its not a compassionate worrying about the political ideologies of people in the middle east that drives the "Islamo-Fascist" rhetoric. (the usual solution proposed to deal with it is some form of military conquest).

The Iranian Revolution: A Case Study

To illustrate my point, lets look at the biggest example of Political Islam coming to power, the Iranian revolution. Since the US lead coup to topple democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh (because he nationalized the oil fields), the Shah (from the Pahlavi dynasty) was re-installed. He presided over 30 years of sheer terror with his infamous SAVAK police force massacring thousands.

In 1978, the contradictions between the oil wealth of the elites and the poverty of the masses, especially the working poor in the oil industry exploded. Mass poetry readings in the streets and mass strikes forced the Shah to flee, the US giving him sanctuary.

For a period of 8 months the future of the revolution was debated and was in flux. You had on one had the "Shoras" which were democratic councils of oil, textile, and heavy industry workers and on the other the "komitehs" which were poor people's councils, at first just community-service bodies but increasingly religious in tone.

There was no decisive leadership on either side due to both the influence of Stanlinst politics AND political inexperience from the brutality of the Shah. Khomeni returned to the country with an anti-imperialist message, which gave him passive support, but he then took advantage of the weaknesses of the secular left and destroyed them. Raiding the "Shoras" jailing activists and leading bands of poor youth from the countryside to break up socialist and leftist meetings.

Thus the fate of the Iranian revolution was not sealed from the beginning due to the "Arab Mind" or some inherent feature of Arab society, but a real political battle like every other major revolution in which one side prevailed over the other because of a combination of leadership, economic conditions, and politics.

It also must be said that in the ensuing years, Iranian society has hardly marched in lock step with the Mullah's and the Iranian government. Popular protest has broken out on many occasions, especially among Iranian youth. However, the regime is propped up by the constant threat of US Imperialism and it can play itself as a lesser-evil and a champion of the oppressed. Such factors are the real issue in Iranian society, not fundamentalism and certainly not fascism.

The reality of "Islamo-Fascism"

So what does the term “Islamo-Fascism” as Bush uses it claim to describe?

Lets take the most obvious among them, Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda is widely thought to have played a role in the bombing of the USS Cole in the Persian Gulf, the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and most notably, the 9/11 attacks.

Did the 9/11 hijackers bomb Yankee stadium, an apartment complex, or some other target with a high civilian presence? Did they bomb supposed symbols of freedom like the Statue of Liberty, the Lincoln Memorial, or the Acropolis in Greece? No, they bombed the two symbols of American imperialism, the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. (I know there are differences of opinion on 9/11, but please lets hold off on that debate for the time being).

The point of Al-Qaeda’s attacks were stated very clearly:

Humiliate the greatest super-power in the world in order to show the US was not all-powerful to the Arab Masses.
To use a dramatic event to spark a Middle East wide uprising against the US.

Both goals were partly accomplished, if not for the help of US foreign policy fanning those flames. But it is undeniable that such attacks were NOT fueled by irrational jealousy of our supposed freedoms (they can’t wait to get their own Patriot Act and Guantanamo Bay), or an act of conquest. Just the opposite, they were fueled by the acts of conquest by US and western Imperialism which have had its talons on Middle Eastern soil since the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

The difference between terrorism and resistance

Certainly Osama Bin-Laden and the hijackers justified killing civilians inside those buildings by seeing them as accomplices to US imperialism, which is a rationalization we should reject out of hand as well. But it’s not only this rationalization that is wrong with a theory of social change like Terrorism.

What is also wrong is that it takes the initiative out of the hands of the masses and puts its in the hands of a select few. I contend, the only way we will have a democratic society is to have a democratic movement, that involves people fighting for their own future, not a tiny minority (no matter how “enlightened”) acting in the interest of this or that group.

Terrorism, also assumes the only reason people don't fight back is lack of outrage. I counter pose that what is missing is organization to channel this anger into a particular direction. What is missing is a level of coordination and democratic debate about what kind of movement we want and where we want to go.

Hurricane Katrina is a great example. Plenty of outrage, plenty of anger, but virtually nothing was done to help them. Volunteers in the thousands poured and still pour into New Orleans, but without a sustained, National movement to fight for justice, it is just small band-aids. This is certainly not to diminish the amazing efforts of those volunteers, grass-roots groups in New Orleans and the fights of residents to get their homes back. (Why this movement hasn’t developed will be the topic of a future blog post.)

This Middle East is no different. There is no lack of outrage at the US and the Middle East. In fact, the problem is that there is so much outrage, but each and every organized attempt to resist has met the full force of Western power, if sometimes via Israeli firepower.

Arab Nationalism was fought tooth and nail for just this reason and in the wake of its failure to provide a viable alternative to Western Imperialism; Islamic Fundamentalism has taken its place.

But make no mistake, the resistance of Arab and Muslim people’s is by no means a cohesive political ideology, nor is it uniformly reactionary. It certainly isn’t a fascist movement.

It has its left wing and its right wing, and that battle of ideas is taking place in the Middle East as we speak. The American Left just doesn’t know about it and is far from understanding its place within that debate as well. I argue, engaging the movements of Arabs and Muslims fighting in the Middle East is crucial for the success of movements here in the US.

More on this in Part II...