DesperatelyObvious.com

I take it for granted that readers agree that the Iraq war, as well as all aggressive wars are illegal and immoral and should be stopped immediately. Yes, we all know by now that the war was about oil. And we all know by now that the media led a propaganda campaign to try and convince the public that invading Iraq was the right thing to do. Most realize that the media continues to support occupation all while lamenting how the war was such a costly mistake.

Even though a majority is now against the war, most of us are still left out or alienated from the anti-war movement. War is an issue that affects everyone, and working people pay the biggest price. How then can we build an inclusive movement that is accessible by working people?

What do we want instead of endless war, and how do we plan to get there? How can we build a movement that empower individuals instead of asking folks to follow marching orders?

I don’t want another good-intentioned person to hand me a flyer that details the Bush regime’s war crimes–I know these by heart now. I don’t want to go to another anti-war meeting that makes me feel like I’m in high school all over again–where I have to be quiet while the leader tells us what to think and do. I don’t want to go to another demonstration that treats it’s participants as just additional bodies to hold signs and in the end leaves us feeling more isolated and alone. I know this isn’t everyone’s experience with the anti-war movement, but I have a feeling that I am not alone.

It is clear that the peace movement is falling way short of what it could and what it must accomplish. I think we need honest discussion on how we can build a movement that can really end this war, and not just that but discussion on how to build a movement that can go further and start to address peoples needs by winning change in all aspects of life.

Most Americans are unusually privileged in having the right to speak out against our country’s illegitimate wars without fear of reprisal. Those we ask to protect our country have no such right.

Lt. Ehren Watada was the first officer to refuse deployment to Iraq, he argued his case based on legal and moral grounds:

“It is my duty as a commissioned officer in the United States army to speak out against grave injustices. My moral and legal obligation is to the constitution. Not to those who issue unlawful orders. I stand before you today because it is my job to serve and protect American soldiers and innocent Iraqis who have no voice. It is my conclusion that the war in Iraq is not only morally wrong, but also a breach of American law.”

He concluded that the Iraq war violated the U.S. Constitution, the War Powers Act, the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions, and the Nuremberg Principles. He rightfully labeled the invasion of Iraq as a “war of aggression” as defined in the Nuremberg Principles. Furthermore, Watada adhered to the Nuremberg Principles which require soldiers to disobey illegal orders.

For following supreme international law, Lt. Watada may now face up to six years in prison on the grounds of refusing orders and speaking out against the war. Earlier this year, a judge ruled that Watada could not present his defense based on the Nuremberg Principles because the legality of the war is a “nonjusticiable political question.”

The court martial of Lt. Watada which started Monday is sure to gather the military a lot of negative publicity. Evidently, the need to instill fear in those soldiers already committed to service outweighs the negative effect this press will have on recruitment. The military commanders must certainly be weary of a greater military resistance to the war, given how unpopular it is among the troops.

Americans have an obligation to stand up for Lt. Watada. We don’t live in a police state, and dissidents should not be thrown in jail, regardless of whether they are part of the military.

As various candidates are announcing their bid for the presidency in 2008, concerned citizens should begin looking now to see which candidate supports ending the Iraq war.

Recently, the two most publicized bid announcements have come from Democratic Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. It is easy to compare their respective positions on the war since they are essentially the same. Obama is introducing a bill to cap troop levels at the level they were at on January 10th, while Clinton has submitted a similar proposal that will cap troop levels to their January 10th mark.

Obama calls for “gradual and substantial reduction in U.S. forces,” while failing to mention a hard deadline in an effort to “protect American troops without causing Iraq to suddenly descend into chaos.” He calls on Congress to act now to “prevent even more mistakes and bring this war to a responsible end.”

Clinton says she doesn’t support cutting funding for the war, but instead will support “cutting funding for Iraqi forces if the Iraqi government does not meet set conditions.” On the other hand, we need more troops and military funding in Afghanistan whose government is “committed to promoting national interests over sectarian ones, is making tangible progress in governance,” and “sincerely wants more US help” unlike Iraq. The gist of her stance is that we should recognize that Iraq is a failed attempt at creating a U.S. client state, but meanwhile in Afghanistan we still have a chance to salvage some form of effective control.

John Edwards takes a similar though slightly stronger position. “You have to actually have the courage to stop the escalation. And the way Congress can stop the escalation is by not funding the escalation.” Again, he opposes the troop “surge,” thinks the war was a mistake, and we should withdrawal within some undisclosed time frame. On his own presidential campaign website the only issue that might pertain to Iraq is labeled as “Restoring America’s Moral Standing in the World.” Since he isn’t currently in office, no one can be quite sure what type of restoration Edwards has in mind.

One of the early favorites for the Republican race is John McCain. There isn’t much to say here, since McCain supports the surge. He plays his role well in using fear to shape public opinion, nothing, “If we leave Iraq, I am convinced that al-Qaida and terrorist organizations will want to follow us home.”

Dennis Kucinich is perhaps the only Democratic presidential hopeful who is pushing for cutting funding for the war and an immediate exit from Iraq. He is a cosponor of H.R. 508 that calls for withdrawal within six months in addition to paying millions to help restore Iraq. Unlike the other candidates, Kucinich actually represents the majority of the Democratic voter base who prefer a timetable for withdrawal.

Although it is uncertain who the Green Party candidate will be, if the party’s history and stated platform is any indicator of the future then any Green candidate will certainly be for the immediate end of the war.

The goal of anti-war activists should not necessarily be limited to promoting the handful of peace candidates, but instead we must work to create a climate where it is impossible for any presidential hopeful to support continued war.

Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey (D) submitted a bill into the House to withdrawal troops from Iraq within the next six months. House Bill H.R. 508 accurately states, “In the United States elections held on November 7, 2006, the American people clearly voted for a change in United States policy in Iraq and in favor of United States military disengagement from Iraq.”

Although the bill falls short of being honest about U.S. military aggression, it does in fact attempt to heed the will of both the majority in America and Iraq. The bill calls for ending funding to the war and likewise prohibiting permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq.

The bill authorizes the president to spend over a billion dollars on reconstructions funds to go towards “damage to Iraqi civil society and infrastructure as a result of Operation Iraqi Freedom,” and to fix various other problems caused by the occupation. Also the bill includes appropriations for compensating civilian casualties in Iraq. These financial efforts are necessary and should be labeled accurately as reparations not aid.

Read more about the bill at this article or at this blog.

Other bills that are receiving a lot more news coverage, fall short of actually taking a stance on the war. In the Senate, a bi-partisan group is likely to pass a “non-binding resolution… opposing the increased deployment of troops.”

Aside from the obvious point that a non-binding resolution accomplishes nothing other than saving political face for its supporters, those who oppose the surge but then fail to oppose the continued occupation are simply not diverging from the current administration’s ideology. The majority of Democrats and the handful of Republicans who support this bill are simply debating strategy over the best way to handle an illegal occupation. Supporters are ultimately complicit in the occupation and should be held accountable by citizens.

Either the war is legitimate and we should try to win it, or the invasion was illegal and we should get out as soon as possible. Anyone who takes a halfway objective look at the war and also assigns at least minimal value to the most basic principles of international justice is able to see that our invasion and continued occupation is illegitimate.

For this reason, I advocate supporting H.R. 508, the only bill currently calling for an end to this horrible war.

In the greatest democracy in the world, our divine leaders debate whether or not to send more troops to Iraq.

“The American people are skeptical about getting in deeper,” says key Key Democrat Senator Carl Levin. “But if it’s truly conditional upon the Iraqis’ actually meeting milestones and if it’s part of an overall program of troop reduction that would begin in the next four to six months, it’s something that would be worth considering.”

In America, if the majority prefer withdrawal from a war, the so-called liberal party translates that as “people are skeptical.”

On the other hand, some Democrats, like Joseph Biden think its simply the “wrong strategy.”

When you are fighting an illegal war in order to increase profits for U.S. business and secure American oil interests, what is the right strategy?

In a civilized democracy, it takes someone not under the thumb of corporate interests to point out the ridiculous hypocrisy behind our justification for invading and admit plainly that our country “launched a war to make bigger profits.”

As the Democrats take control of Congress under a Republican president, we can see that our nation is in fact a divided one. Namely, it is one divided between public opinion and public policy. On one side there’s the majority of Americans who prefer withdrawal from Iraq, healthcare for those who can’t afford it, and fair trade deals as opposed to “free trade” deals that cater to multinational corporations. And on the other side you have leaders that debate the best way to implement policies that are far to the right of those preferred by the public.