My guests and I are glad we participated in the Virtual Town Hall Meeting Tuesday 6 April with 2008 Presidential candidates. We appreciated the chance to hear the candidates address Iraq explicitly and answer questions raised by citizens. (Republican candidates were invited as well as Democrats, but the Republicans all declined without - so far as I know - any explanation, while the Democrats all accepted.) Another participant told me after the event that he thought he learned more about the candidates from this event that he would have gained by a month of diligent effort to learn about them from the news media.
I have to say I was dismayed with many of the candidates' answers (and by their reactions and later comments, so were my guests).
Specifically, while each candidate is now touting their credentials as an opponent of the war, most were vague to the point of bland platitudes on plans to end the war, allowing caveats like "phased" ending of the occupation, "redeployment" rather than ending the occupation, "protecting our interests", and contingent upon "progress" by the Iraqi government. No one except Denis Kucinich seemed to grasp the fundamental idea that the attempt by the US to unilaterally impose its will and vision of society onto Iraq by force - a vision that preserves a huge role for US corporations to profit - is just the brand of neocon thinking that got us into this war.
I was particularly dismayed by Governor Richardson's insistence that he would be tough on the Iraqis to ensure our interests, by Senator Biden's pontificating about how he would "sit the Iraqis down" at a table and make them behave according to his plan - the "only possible plan", and by Senator Clinton's commitment to an open-ended "residual force" in Iraq to "protect our interests." Just what do these candidates think Iraq owes the US that warrants our use of force or the threat of force against them to enact laws and political institutions we devise? What are these "interests" in Iraq that must be protected by military force? And if Iraqis do not agree to one of these would-be-President's notion of how they must behave, what then? A re-invasion and re-occupation? Another mandated set of laws imposed on Iraq by a US-appointed "administrator" accountable to no Iraqi or international authority?
On the basis of their failure to grasp the most basic fact of the criminal, immoral and self-destructive military occupation of Iraq, these candidates (Biden, Clinton, Richardson) are to my mind disqualified as acceptable progressive Democratic candidates.
Senators Edwards, Obama, and Dodd did, as I heard them, come closer to unambiguously opposing the continued occupation and at least paid lip service to international cooperation rather than unilateral dictates by the US, and expressing a more peaceful less antagonistic outlook generally, but their answers too were tempered by qualifications and implied threats of further military action if Iraq does not "progress". My hope is that we can educate and pressure these candidates into a more progressive stance that will end the occupation of Iraq, restore Iraq's assets to the Iraqis, prevent a war against Iran, and begin to express democratic values in international affairs.
-- David Bantz
It's a long and dusty road, It's a hot and a heavy load; and the folks I meet ain't always kind.... And the people that I see look as worried as can be; And it looks like they are wonderin' too.
- "I Can't Help But Wonder (Where I'm Bound)". Words and Music by Tom Paxton
Janice Golub said,
April 11th, 2007 at 12:44 PM
Hi David, The word “redeploy” can be confusing, it’s not what you would expect, and it is sometimes misunderstood and misused.
It’s a military term. Troops “deploy” out into the field and “redeploy” home. When a soldier deploys, he is processed in; when he redeploys, he is processing out. Redeployment means you go home, not that you are returning to a warzone.
Thanks for the follow-up on the candidates, I hope to see similar such forums in the future.
Seth de l'Isle said,
April 11th, 2007 at 02:04 PM
Thanks David; I’ve been a little down on (MoveOn)[http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=12413] lately so I’m not participating in their events any more, but it’s great to hear your perspective on the town hall. Disappointing to hear that Kucinich is the only real antiwar Democrat …
Joshua Holbrook said,
April 11th, 2007 at 06:15 PM
While I agree that pretending to be something you’re not (in this case, anti-war) isn’t so cool, I’m also troubled by the idea that we should pull out Right Now. Yeah, Iraq shouldn’t have happened, but now that it’s occupied and wartorn and unstable, we really shouldn’t just leave Iraq the huge mess it is without at least /trying/ to stabilize it. I’m not sure if any of the democratic candidates touched on this idea, or if it was even a problem, but I figured I might as well throw it out there.
Seth de l'Isle said,
April 11th, 2007 at 06:50 PM
That is the sentiment of our elites, both liberal and conservative. But it is not the sentiment of the majority of Americans and it is not the sentiment of the majority of Iraqi’s. It is immoral for us as a country to be in Iraq when the people of Iraq don’t want us there and it is immoral for our leaders to send our soldiers there against the will of their constituents.
Besides, we are the largest source of violence in Iraq.
Joshua Holbrook said,
April 11th, 2007 at 08:06 PM
I’m not sure I believe that most Americans would want an immediate pull-out in real life. I would believe that most Americans wish the whole thing didn’t happen (I know I do), but simply pulling out now seems worse than anything they would have had to deal with with Saddam Hussein. I mean, Taking Out Saddam Hussein kind of left a power vacuum, and if we don’t get it filled with something stronger than what we have now, then I could easily see civil war breaking out. That’s not to say that immediate withdrawal isn’t a pleasant idea–I just don’t think it’s really the smartest thing to do right now. It’s kind of like pulling out a bunch of nasty chemicals in lab for an experiment and then leaving the waste out unlabelled because you don’t like the thought of carrying around a jar of carcinogens long enough to get waste services to haul it off–yeah, everyone wishes you’d thought of a safer, better experiment to do, but they’ll still be pissed off when they find a jar of God-knows-what sitting on the counter.
I do agree on at least some of the criticisms on how the candidates plan on dealing with it–that is, forcing Iraq to do things our way seems unfair, especially since we aren’t exactly getting greeted as liberators eyeroll. Certainly a theocracy wouldn’t be ideal for us, but then again, it’s their country, and a touch of Sharia Law probably wouldn’t be the worst thing that ever happened to them (It’s better than being bombed, anyway). That, and we kind of brought this on ourselves by going Over There in the first place.
Granted, I’m not backing up anything I’m saying with actual evidence, and I admittedly haven’t been following the news very closely these last few months. I should probably point out that I’m assuming that most Americans think pretty much just like I do, since I tend to be fairly middle-of-the-road on things like this. It could be that most of them agree with Seth and David, and that I’m the weird one–who knows? Not me, anyway.
Joshua Holbrook said,
April 11th, 2007 at 08:10 PM
Also: Could FOR get a comment preview option? How about a post edit option? I would personally use both extensively.
Seth de l'Isle said,
April 12th, 2007 at 07:02 AM
According to the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey, when asked the question “Do you think the U.S. should keep military troops in Iraq until the situation has stabilized, or do you think the U.S. should bring its troops home as soon as possible?” 52% said “bring home,” 42% said “keep troops.” That poll was done 3/21-25/07.
But I notice, Joshua, that you don’t question that Iraqi’s want us there. How can you advocate doing something for the Iraqi people that they themselves don’t want? Do you know what they need better then they? If so, how do you justify that position? Do you feel Iraqis aren’t as educated as you are? Do you think their culture, or their religion, is inherently violent and self destructive?
Joshua Holbrook said,
April 12th, 2007 at 12:58 PM
You got me on the poll, though I don’t think you could really call 52% a very strong mandate. Plus, how soon is “as soon as possible?” How stable are we talking when we say “Stabilize?” Perhaps people see stabilize as meaning that Iraq is made to be the same as any Western state/ally, and I wouldn’t be too surprised if a lot of people felt it wasn’t possible to pull out yet (gracefully, anyway). Still: You got me.
As far as the Iraqis: I’m not trying to say that this is a situation of “We know what’s best for you, young man.” I think it’s more complicated than a yes/no on US occupation for them, like it is for us. I think that many Iraqis–the majority even–really didn’t like Saddam Hussein, and are glad that he’s gone. Now that he /is/ gone though, they certainly don’t want some other douchewad taking control, exacting revenge on those that went through Saddam’s reign relatively unscathed. On the other hand, we haven’t exactly been Iraq’s best friend at any point in their history, so they’re naturally suspicious. Further, they don’t like that we’re trying to push our brand of government/society on them. So, I think that Iraqis are on the fence about it–a lot of them would like to see our troops go home really soon and stop meddling, others would like to have us do a better job taking out dudes with rpg’s and ensure some semblance of stability–clean up our mess–before going.
Even if they don’t like it, though, we do still have to worry about what could come out of Iraq if we simply left. There are a lot of angry people there right now, and the last thing we need is for another country or political group with a personal vendetta against the United States. Granted, staying there could piss them off even more, (which is why we should be careful) and it wouldn’t have been a problem if we didn’t invade in the first place. It might not feel morally right to use this justification, but it is a legitimate concern for some, anyway.
Finally, I don’t think that Islam is inherently worse than Christianity, and I don’t think Iraqis are inherently less enlightened than Americans–I’ve certainly met enough examples of ignorant and mean American Christians, anyway. In general, though, I do think that strong religious fundamentalism is a negative for any society (including ours) and I think that previously oppressed people will tend to get violent in just about any society.
Seth de l'Isle said,
April 12th, 2007 at 02:55 PM
Iraqis really are not on the fence. You’ll have to cut-and-paste if you’re interested, but this article links to a bunch of polls (by respected US polling firms) of Iraqis over time:
http://www.antiwar.com/pena/?articleid=10797
A March poll, by BBC, ABC, and others, puts the number who oppose US presence in Iraq at 78%. Other polls have used stronger language and received similar results.
YOUR C.E.I. said,
April 12th, 2007 at 04:22 PM
THEY ARE NOT JUST PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES THEY ARE DEMO./LIBERAL /SOCIALIST CANDIDATES WHO LIKE ALL THE ABOVE DONT HAVE A FRICKING CLUE;I.E. COLLEGE EDUCATED IDIOTS-THIS SITE AND YOU BOZO’S MAKING THESE COMMENTS ARE HIDING BEHIND YOUR SOCIALIST FACISM WHICH YOU ALSO TRY TO THROW WHAT YOU ARE BACK IN THE FACES OF WHO IS RITE ABOUT THE WAR-YOUR JUST JEALOUS CAUSE BUSH IS AND WAS RITE ON THE MONEY FOR FIGHTING ISLAMO FACISM;AND INVADING IRAQ,AFGHANISTAN,OR DO HAVE ANY CLUE WHAT HISTORY HAS SHOWN WHAT THESE WILL AND HAVE DONE IF LEFT UNCHECKED.DONT FORGET YOUR IN THE RED STATE OF ALASKA , NOT SIMILAR IDEALOGICAL STATE/NATION ETC. OF RADICAL ISLAM/MILITANT ISLAM/OR ANY OTHER STATE OR NATION OF THE SAME THAT TURNS AROUND THE TRUTH AND DISTORTS IT TO SUIT YOURSELFS OR YOUR USA WRECKING/BUSH ADMINISTRATION HATING/LIBERAL CONTORTED IDEALOGY.
Joshua Holbrook said,
April 12th, 2007 at 05:50 PM
To Seth:
Yes, the polls you linked to do say that, but I’ve been reading the linked articles further, and I get the feeling that many of the Iraqis are just getting frustrated that the US is doing a crappy job at cleaning up its mess. The Washington Post article in particular (the one I have open) says that Iraqis feel that the US should have done more to restore utilities, take out crime, etcetera. It reminds me of when my mother asks me to do something at home, and I screw something up, and she’s like, “go away, I’ll do it myself” even when I could fix it in five minutes and she still has like ten other things to do. It also suggests that immediate pull-out is a sort of ideal, and that at least /some/ of the Iraqis recognize the possibility of more violence caused by an immediate pull-out (though many Iraqis blame us for the violence increase, at least somewhat rightfully so), and that when many of them say, “get out now!” they’re talking about an ideal, much like how we talk about having our troops come home tomorrow as an ideal. I could be wrong though–I know I’m biased on this issue, and I (like a lot of people) hate to be wrong.
I also think there might be a semantics sort of thing going on too. When I say that we should try to stabilize the country before leaving, I don’t mean that we should stick around for ten years. I mean, we should get off our asses, get the Iraqi forces trained, and start pulling out troops, hoping that the country doesn’t descend into chaos. If we do our job right, and the Iraqis really are willing to work together (and it seems like some of the sources say that Iraqis in general, regardless of background/ethnicity/whatever, will at least try), then it should be fine. If we can do that within a year, then awesome. When I think “immediate”, though, I think of President Bush issuing the order literally tomorrow morning, effective at that moment, to put every American citizen on an airplane and ship them here within a month. I think that has the potential of being disasterous.
What do you think would happen in Iraq if such an order was given, and everybody was home within a month? Do you really power can transfer to the Iraqis at this point smoothly? Importantly for us, do you think they will be more likely to be an ally if we were to leave now instead of cleaning up our mess first?
To CAPS_LOCK Dude:
a) Despite what you have heard, Casplock is not cruise control for awesome. If you’re having trouble finding it: It’s about 5 millimeters to the left of the “A” button on a qwerty keyboard.
b) the republican candidates were invited, but they didn’t want to show up. While the author is to blame for his own opinion, the fact that only the democrats showed up isn’t really his or FOR’s fault.
c) You’re entitled to have your opinion, but instead of rambling about fascists, don’t you think it would be better to try to discuss the issue intelligently, voicing logical problems you have with a position? It seems to be working with me, despite my disagreement on the issue. Hell, I’m even learning something. For example, you could say, “You know what? I actually think that the republican position makes more sense, because of blah blah blah blah.”
d) I don’t know what a CEI is.
Seth de l'Isle said,
April 12th, 2007 at 10:35 PM
Joshua: As you say, even immediate withdrawal is a fuzzy concept. Regarding trying to stabilize the country before leaving: the main reason I agree with you is that it isn’t just us and Iraq. Several European countries our almost as predatory as the U.S. and if we were to just wash our hands of the situation someone else would probably start playing a game similar to the one we are playing – stealing the oil and building military bases.
I’m no diplomat but my vision for a withdrawal would involve a lot of negotiation with Iraq’s neighbors, including Iran, on the subject of how to keep Iraq stable and a lot of negotiation with other world powers along the lines of “leave them alone and let them rebuild their country and feel free to buy their oil from them, we know it isn’t ours … oh, and sorry for the mess.”