Six years of war sparks hundreds of actions

Thursday marks six years since the "shock and awe" invasion rocked Iraq and the US kept the world safe from Saddam Hussein's non-existent weapons of mass destruction.

Dick Cheney continues to insist we "won" the war in Iraq because there is a new democratic government there. There's also a new Democratic government here, and that, too, is in large part a result of the invasion and occupation.

The Obama administration isn't talking about a 100-year war, as John McCain did. Right now, it's not quite three more years until all US troops leave -- and move to Afghanistan.

So why are the antiwar groups demonstrating? Are they never satisfied?

Well, I'm not, and I hope you're not, either. We need to keep the pressure on, to speed the Iraq withdrawal that currently plans to leave 50,000 troops there, and to stop the escalation in a guaranteed losing effort in Afghanistan.

Events across the country this week will mark the anniversary itself on Thursday. Friday is the Iraq Moratorium observance held on the Third Friday of every month, and Saturday is the day for marches in Washington, California -- and Milwaukee.

Wisconsin, where I live, is a hotbed of antiwar activity, and organizers have planned at least 24 events that I know of, and others that I don't.

Around the country there are hundreds of events. Many are listed on the Iraq Moratorium website and others at United for Peace and Justice or ANSWER.

Join them if you can.

It ain't over till it's over.

That's where our money goes, and it ain't buying our babies clothes

This chart represents the U.S. discretionary budget - for last year. It does not include the bailout or the massive increase Congress voted overwhelmingly to give the Pentagon for this year, according to NotMyPriorities.org.

Actions this week, marking the sixth anniversary of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, are an excellent time to make the connections and call for spending on human needs.

Organizers in San Francisco have created a postcard with the pie chart on one side and a message to President Obama on the other. They're calling for a 25 per cent cut in military spending. Here are the specifics:

Join the Iraq Moratorium Campaign. Thursday, March 19, will be the sixth anniversary of the Iraq occupation. Cut the Military Budget by 25% End the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan Now. Jobs, Education and Health Care, Not War! United for Peace and Justice of the Bay Area is coordinating broad actions on that “unhappy birthday” with a call to Congress and the President to DEFUND war and REFUND domestic programs, including very specific social needs in our own neighborhoods. The plan is to provide a strong public presence during commute and noon hours at most of the BART stations and transit hubs in the Bay Area. Many activist and social advocacy organizations are coming forward to take responsibility for a BART station; we have 18 covered. Join the Iraq Moratorium Campaign at the Montgomery BART station from 11:30 am to 1 pm Thursday March 19. We will do outreach to the public in the area, hold banners, read the names of the dead, offer postcards and petitions to passer-by to sign, and more. IMC will organize a nonviolent direct action. If you can participate, Email us.

.

An open letter to MoveOn.org

(Dennis O'Neil , a veteran of decades of antiwar work, was one of the original organizers of the Iraq Moratorium in 2007 and remains a member of the Moratorium's national core committee.)

As one of MoveOn's 3.2 million members and a participant of some years' standing in MoveOn vigils, living room events, online activities, etc., I opened yesterday's MoveOn email from Nita Chaudhary with considerable interest. It was entitled, simply, "Iraq."

My interest quickly turned to shock and then anger.

Your letter does a grave, grave disservice to the anti-war movement in this country. And it does so just when the movement, already fatigued after six years of protest, is facing a whole new set of challenges and not having an easy time adjusting.

One big problem with your letter is that it treats a Presidential promise to have all troops out of Iraq by the beginning of 2012 (almost three years from now) as a clear sign that the war is all but over, even though not a single soldier has been withdrawn yet and the killing and dying continue apace. Accompanied by a slide show of images of anti-war protest, it is valedictory in tone:

We wanted to take a moment to reflect on the work that you've done over the last six, dark years—-trying first to prevent the war before it happened and then working tirelessly to end it—-to thank you, sincerely, for all you have done.

This moment is possible because of you, and millions of people like you across our movement.

The email immediately goes on to urge us to contribute to a fund to help injured veterans, as if that was the main thing left to worry about. Yes, there's a vague cautionary note further in: "Of course our troops aren't home yet" and a grudging recognition that Congress is right to "raise questions" about the pace of withdrawal.

Which brings me to the other big problem. One reason the troops won't, in fact, be coming home any time soon is because a lot of them are being shipped to Afghanistan, 17,000 deploying directly. That's on top of the 34,000 soldiers and Marines already there. And the additional 17,000 look to be only a down payment on an expanded occupation for which no one in the government can identify a strategy. Or goals. Or an exit plan.

And this letter says not one mumbling word about it!

I don't know enough to speculate on the whys of this all. I simply observe that encouraging your millions of members to act as though the US is no longer is no longer at war, or as though there is no longer a crying need for anti-war protest, is worse than irresponsible.

The anti-war movement will continue, of course, and adjust. There are groups and projects at the national, regional and local levels that will keep up the fight until these unjust and unjustifiable occupations are ended. Just the locally-based, grassroots project I spend most of my time on, the Iraq Moratorium, will sponsor scores of events this month around the sixth anniversary of the war, mostly in rural areas, suburbs and smaller cities.

I am certain that I am not alone in hoping that MoveOn will come around and put its shoulder to the wheel. Soon. There is work to do.

Dennis O'Neil
New York City

The peace movement's job is far from over

Statement from United for Peace and Justice, the nation's largest antiwar coalition with 1,400 member groups:

President Obama is about to order the beginning of the end of the U.S. war and occupation of Iraq:

Is it really the end?

On Friday, President Obama is scheduled to announce a plan to pull all combat troops out of Iraq by 19 months from his inauguration -- August 2010 -- three months later than his campaign promise of a 16-month pullout. During his speech before Congress on Tuesday night, Obama said that he would be announcing "a way forward in Iraq that leaves Iraq to its people and responsibly ends this war."

President Obama is largely keeping to his campaign promises, and that is a good thing. We are hopeful that we now have a President who wants to act on the will of the people who elected him. Taking steps to end the war in Iraq is a reflection of the anti-war consensus among the people of this country -- a consensus that the peace movement, led by United For Peace and Justice, helped build. Numerous commentators note that Obama's early promise to "end the war" played a huge part in generating early public support for his campaign.

The country and the world need a plan to fulfill the clear and unequivocal goal of a complete withdrawal of all troops, pulling out of all the 150,000 U.S. paid foreign mercenaries and contractors, closing all the bases, and ending efforts to control Iraqi oil.

With the announcement of the 19-month withdrawal plan, there are still critical ambiguities and unanswered questions that need to be addressed. The human and the economic costs in Iraq continue to mount at a time of a global economic crisis. The security and economic needs of both the Iraqis and U.S. peoples cannot be met while the war and occupation continues.

A "partial withdrawal" will leave behind as many as 50,000 to 70,000 U.S. troops. "It will require a significant number of troops to train the Iraqi military, conduct targeted counterterrorism operations and protect American personnel and assets," according to General Ray Odierno, U.S. commander in Iraq. Other officials speak of the plan to leave behind "intelligence and surveillance specialists and their equipment, including unmanned aircraft."

Some units may be re-labeled, so those currently counted as combat troops would remain in Iraq but be 're-missioned,' their efforts redefined as training and support for the Iraqis. That is not an end to the occupation. In fact, it could lead to U.S. troops being in Iraq indefinitely.

The "status of forces agreement" agreement (SOFA) with Iraq -- signed by a reluctant and defeated White House in the last days of the Bush administration -- calls for all U.S. forces to be out of Iraq by the end of December 2011. President Obama's announcement may reflect a similar timetable as well. But sources from within the Pentagon point to the fact that the status-of-forces agreement remains subject to change, by mutual agreement, and estimates are that between 30,000 and 50,000 will remain in Iraq beyond 2011.

The SOFA agreement calls for all combat troops to be out of Iraqi cities by this summer; and by the end of 2011, for all U.S. forces to be out of Iraq and all the U.S. bases to be turned over to Iraq.

For several years now, the Congress has repeatedly said no to leaving U.S. bases behind. We need to know what the timetable is for turning the bases over to the Iraqis.

The agreement is filled with big loopholes; the biggest is that both sides can suggest changes. The Iraqi government -- from its beginnings, dependent on and accountable to the U.S. -- is certainly different now. It has created a significant domestic power base. However, is it strong enough to refuse a quiet U.S. "request" for amending the agreement to push back or eliminate the ostensibly final deadline for the withdrawal of all U.S. troops?

Alongside of the unanswered questions on troop withdrawals and U.S. bases, how will the presence of U.S. military contractors be ended? Although President Obama is the commander in chief, the oil companies and powerful contractors, whose CEOs and stockholders have made billions in war profits on Iraq contracts, remain a powerful pressure on the administration and Congress. While it is good that President Obama has promised transparency in the contracting process, our country also needs a commitment to bring home all the mercenaries and contractors.

Almost three more years of occupation is way too long. Having a date-specific to withdraw troops is a positive step in the right direction. But a 19-month partial withdrawal is not enough. Our movement has always been clear and we remain committed to this point: all of the troops must be brought home now! We are also deeply troubled by and opposed to the decision to send more troops into the senseless war in Afghanistan. The peace movement must once again press forward for a complete end to the occupation of Iraq, leaving no troops and no bases behind. The peace movement's job is to mobilize, to pressure, to continue to educate and advocate, and to agitate for a real end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

On March 19 and 20, the sixth anniversary of the war, local antiwar activities will take place in communities throughout the country. On April 4, we will march on Wall Street in New York City. We will lift up the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, on this year's anniversary of his historic Beyond Vietnam speech to say that "Beyond War: A New Economy is Possible".

Give Obama more time? While how many more die?

We were at a vigil in downtown Milwaukee last week when a young man stopped to say, with a rueful smile, "Can't you give him a little time?"

He was referring to the sign a couple of students were holding, calling for an end to "Obama's occupations."

The vast majority of the people at that vigil voted for Barack Obama. There may have been a few Green votes. I'd bet my bottom dollar there weren't any McCain backers in the crowd.

So, should we be patient?

I pointed out to the young man that while it's true Obama's only been in office a month, that's been enough time for him to decide to send 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, he's waffled on his campaign pledge to bring US troops home from Iraq in 16 months. And the report today is that he is leaning toward a 19-month withdrawal.

What's three more months when you've already been there for six years?

Not much in the grand scheme of things, right?

Unless, of course, you are one of the people who will lose their lives during those extra three months, or be wounded, or widowed, or have a loved one killed or maimed or permanently damaged psychologically.

Depending upon who's counting, more than a million Iraqis have died, several million have become refugees, and 740,000 or more women have been widowed -- almost 10 per cent of the female population between the ages of 15 and 80.

We don't know for sure how many Iraqis have been killed, because we don't even care enough to count their dead.

This is not a time to ask the antiwar movement to be patient, to quietly wait an extra three months.

It's time to ask the question John Kerry asked about Vietnam: Who will be the last one to die for this mistake?

We might add: How many will die for this mistake after Obama had said it would be over?

Grim Iraq analysis: Worst may be yet to come

While commenters on blogs and passersby at peace vigils suggest the war in Iraq, if not over, certainly will be soon, there's another, much more pessimistic and, regrettably, probably more accurate view of the situation.

Washington Post correspondent Thomas Ricks:

I don't think the Iraq war is over, and I worry that there is more to come than any of us suspect... Many of those closest to the situation in Iraq expect a full-blown civil war to break out there in the coming years. "I don't think the Iraqi civil war has been fought yet," one colonel told me... The quiet consensus emerging among many who have served in Iraq is that U.S. soldiers will probably be engaged in combat there until at least 2015 -- which would put us at about the midpoint of the conflict now.

William S. Lind, writing on Antiwar.com, warns that holding a democratic election doesn't guarantee peace, and may do just the opposite:

In Iraq, as in most of the world, the question is neither whether elections were held nor who won. The question on which social order depends is who accepts the results of an election. If elections are to substitute for war, not only the winners but also the losers must accept their outcome. Losers must give up power, patronage, one of the very few local sources of money (often lots of it), and possibly physical security as well, hoping for better luck next time, if there is a next time. I suspect the odds of that happening in Iraq are small....

In such an environment, elections do not substitute for war but rather prepare the way for it. They exacerbate differences, heighten local conflicts, and lengthen the lists of "injustices" each party uses to justify fighting.

This unfortunate reality points again to what America needs to do in Iraq: get out now, fast, while it can. If we are lucky, history will grant us a "decent interval" between our departure and the next round of (4th Generation War)in Iraq. If we dawdle until the fighting ramps up again, we may find it difficult, politically if not militarily, to leave at all.

All the more reason to intensify, not relax, our efforts to bring US troops home now.

Congress members, protesters are pen pals

This is not exactly a man-bites-dog story, but at least three members of Congress have expressed their support for a campaign to contact members of Congress and urge them to end the occupation of Iraq.

And a fourth has joined protesters at their regular vigil.

Representatives Barbara Lee, Lynn Woolsey, and George Miller -- all California Democrats -- have written the Raise Hell for Molly Ivins campaign to encourage it to continue raising hell. Meanwhile, Rep. John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat, joined a vigil in Wyandotte, MI. (He's at left in photo)

The Ivins campaign has been urging people to use the Third Friday of every month -- Iraq Moratorium day -- to contact Congresspeople in their home offices and ask them to get US troops out of Iraq.

"Please keep fighting," wrote Lee, a longtime opponent of the Iraq war.

Late last fall, Woolsey, Lee and Maxine Waters organized 92 members of Congress to sign a letter putting then-President Bush on notice that "we will only authorize funding for Iraq that is used for the safe and orderly redeployment of our troops and military contractors," Woolsey said. "We will have many serious issues to deal with in the coming months under a new President, but I will not forget that ending this occupation must be a priority for this Congress and for this nation," her letter said.

Miller cited President Obama's promise to bring the troops home from Iraq in 16 months, and said he and others will be working to accomplish that. He also "heartily endorsed" the Ivins efforts.

Miller, however, did not sign the Woolsey letter, which had its critics, too, including David Swanson of AfterDowningStreet.

The proof, of course, will be in the pudding. Letters and statements from members of Congress are encouraging, but actions speak louder. All three have a track record of opposition to the war.

Miller voted against the war to begin with, and said this in 2006:

Mr. Speaker, there is no more pressing issue in our country today than bringing an end to the war in Iraq as quickly as possible.

But Miller's recent letter reads more like a polite acknowledgement of contact from a constituent, blames everything on Bush and says Obama will change things.

So, don't set aside your skepticism, or even your cynicism.

But do try to meet with, talk with, and confront your member of Congress personally when they are back in the district. And ask them for a commitment to end the war and occupation. Not a statement saying how much they admire what you do -- a commitment about what they will do.