Stop the Next War Now (24 page)

In the last few years, we in the progressive movement have developed phenomenally good methods of communicating with people. A lot of ordinary Americans now receive an Internet alert from one of five organizations that tells them what to do about Sinclair Broadcasting, or how to ask Tom DeLay to step down because of his ethics violations and the way he misuses money in Congress. And I think this has to keep going—the conversations that go on between members of a community, the dialogue that happens during a political campaign—these have to remain a part of people’s everyday lives.

Today America has arrived at a huge fork in the road. One path, the one we’re leaning toward, leads to a place where major corporations speak with a stronger voice than individual citizens, where politicians are more and more reluctant to exercise the power that we give them, and where we disgrace ourselves around the world by the way we act.

And on the other track, I see enormous opportunities ahead—I see a land with more energized citizens, more voters, more people who speak their minds and who take risks to change what’s diseased about our system, to bring us closer to perfecting this experiment called democracy.

“Dissent, rebellion, and all-around hell-raising

remain the true duty of patriots.”

—Barbara Ehrenreich

GET

SMART

:A BETTER

RESPONSE TO TERRORISM

LYNN WOOLSEY

Representing the Sixth Congressional District of California, Lynn Woolsey first took office in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1992 and is the chair of the Democratic Caucus Task Force on Children and Families and the ranking member of the House Education Committee’s Subcommittee on Education Reform.

The Bush administration “has failed in the primary responsibilities of preserving national security and providing world leadership.” Those are not my words. They come from a nonpartisan group of twenty-seven former senior diplomats and military officials, men and women with broad national-security expertise. Their June 16, 2004, statement continues: “Instead of building upon America’s great economic and moral strength to address the causes of terrorism and stifle its resources, the Administration, motivated more by ideology than by reasoned analysis . . . led the United States into an ill-planned and costly war from which exit is uncertain.”

Since the war in Iraq began, the Bush administration has done everything in its power to cajole and deceive soldiers into serving longer than they want to or agreed to, resulting in a shameful, behind-the-scenes “backdoor” draft. Depending on members of the army reserve and the National Guard—who almost always serve the country only here at home—to serve in Iraq was just the tip of the iceberg. Poor young men and women from rural areas, who enlisted because the military helped them pay for a college education they wouldn’t have been able to get otherwise, have been targeted. Many soldiers have been manipulated into extending their contracts with the army, warned that if they do not reenlist on time, their brigades could be shipped to Iraq or Afghanistan.

I agree with President Bush that keeping Americans safe should be our most urgent priority. But there are more effective ways to protect America than throwing our weight around, alienating our friends and riling our enemies in the process—not to mention manipulating our young people into risking their lives.

We need to focus on preventing war, not engaging in preemptive war. It is time for change. That is why I have introduced HR 392, a smart Security Platform for the twenty-first century. “smart” stands for “Sensible, Multilateral, American Response to Terrorism.” This plan would dramatically overhaul our approach to national security. Specifically, it has five components:

Prevent future acts of terrorism
. Instead of military force, smart emphasizes multilateral partnerships and stronger intelligence to track and detain terrorists while still respecting human rights and civil liberties. For example, we would work with other nations to freeze various bank accounts of terrorist organizations and provide more adequate funding for local intelligence.

Stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction
. The smart approach calls for strengthening nonproliferation treaties, not abandoning them. smart also calls on the United States to set an example for the world by renouncing the development of new nuclear weapons. We need to work with the Russian Federation to dismantle nuclear warheads and secure nuclear materials in Russia, and we must stop selling weapons to countries like Rwanda and Uganda, who in turn sell them to the Republic of the Congo for use in armed conflict.

Address terrorism’s root causes
. This has to be the first front in the war on terrorism—confronting the despair and deprivation that foster it. smart security includes an ambitious international development agenda: democracy building, human-rights education, sustainable development, and education for women and girls. Before sending troops, let’s send scientists, teachers, urban planners, agricultural experts, and small-business loans to troubled parts of the world. We must engage actively with the international community to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; ensure the equal sharing of coveted sources of water, especially in Africa and the Middle East; and increase aid to the poorest countries like Haiti and Liberia.

Reprioritize our spending
. smart security would make stronger investments in peacekeeping and reconstruction. Energy independence—especially economic support for the development of renewable energy sources—is another centerpiece of smart security, because nothing threatens us more than reliance on Middle Eastern oil.

Find alternatives to war
. smart security would make war a very last resort, to be considered only after every diplomatic solution has been exhausted. The legislation includes more effective conflict-assessment and early-warning systems, multilateral rapid-response mechanisms, human-rights monitoring, and investments in civil society and fair judicial systems. Civilian policing and effective justice systems (like the International Criminal Court, which the Bush administration opposes) are key.

It is time we stopped equating security with military might. smart security would protect Americans without resorting to belligerence and warfare. smart security is tough but diplomatic, aggressive but peaceful, pragmatic but idealistic. What better way to show love for our country than by embracing a national-security policy that defends America by relying on the very best of America—our capacity for global leadership, our compassion for the people of the world, and our commitment to peace and freedom.

“The very least you can do in your life is to figure out what you hope for

and the most you can do is live inside that hope.”

—Barbara Kingsolver

CREATING A DEPARTMENT OF PEACE

MEDEA BENJAMIN

Our bloated, overactive Department of War (called the Department of Defense) sucks up more than $400 billion of our tax dollars, but where is the Department of Peace? Where is the government body dedicated to preventing war and violence?

Thanks to U.S. representative Dennis Kucinich, there is a piece of legislation in Congress that would create a Department of Peace.The bill establishes nonviolence as an organizing principle of American society, providing the U.S. president with an array of peace-building policy options for domestic and international use. Domestically, the department would be responsible for developing policies that address domestic violence, child abuse, mistreatment of the elderly, and the like. Internationally, the department would analyze foreign policy and make recommendations to the president on how to address the root causes of war and intervene before violence begins.

For those concerned with the costs of a new federal department, spending just 2 percent of the current defense budget (which is what the legislation calls for) would surely save billions by preventing violence before it starts. Getting this legislation passed will require sustained pressure from a grassroots movement intent on ending armed conflict. Remember, the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment abolishing slavery took many years.The Nineteenth Amendment providing women’s suffrage was a long time coming.The Civil Rights Act of the 1960s entailed much persistence and struggle. Legislation creating a Department of Peace will be a similarly historic act reflecting the deep yearnings of our generation to eradicate violence.

What you can do:

Go to the Department of Peace Web site, www.dopcampaign.org, to learn more, see the status of current legislation, and find out if your congressional representative has signed up as a cosponsor of the bill. If she has, thank him/her and focus on encouraging this member to become more active in urging her colleagues to join her, especially key committee chairs.

If your congressperson has not sponsored the bill, flood him/her with calls and letters from the community and set up a face-to-face meeting with supportive local leaders.Also, attend forums where your congressperson will be speaking, or set up your own community forum on the subject and invite him/her to speak—a community forum is also a good way to create more public support for the bill.

FINDING OUR

CONSCIENCE AGAIN

BARBARA LEE

Congresswoman Barbara Lee was the lone dissenting voice when Congress authorized President Bush to use “all necessary and appropriate force” in response to the 9/11 attack. She was one of only five U.S. Representatives to vote against a resolution supporting the December 1998 bombing of Iraq and the only member of congress to vote against a March 24, 1999, resolution regarding use of military force in Kosovo. Her continued stance for a nonviolent foreign policy has been deemed “courageous” by her constituents and by peace activists nationwide.

Not a day goes by when I do not think of the horrific attacks of September 11, 2001. I remember my sorrow and prayers for the victims and their families, whose lives were senselessly destroyed in one terrible instant.

I believed then, as I still do, that giving the Bush administration a blank check to wage war would not prevent further acts of terrorism, and that as progressives we have a responsibility not only to counsel restraint when it is needed, but also to offer alternatives to the rash policies that are only making us, and the world, less safe.

Since 9/11, the peace movement has helped this country to find its conscience. When you think back to the period immediately after the terrorist attacks, there was just so much fear. People were scared, and the Bush administration was skilled at using that fear to its advantage. The administration created the image of a president who couldn’t be criticized, and the majority of the press and politicians blindly accepted that caricature.

The peace movement has played a critical role in breaking down the right-wing campaign to shut down democracy. Many members of Congress, other elected officials, individuals, and organizations have been empowered to openly dissent and criticize the administration’s misguided policies. They also have been strengthened by people in the streets and by the public debate generated by the peace movement.

We have a lot of work ahead of us. It’s not just opposing the ideologically driven policies of the Bush administration. We need to develop both a clear vision of the future and a proactive agenda to see that vision realized, and we must reach out to build a broad-based coalition that will take action to make that vision a reality.

Protestors outside Senator Hillary Clinton’s office, New York City, March 8, 2003.

© Fred Askew

We must redefine the debate about security priorities. Currently, the debate about security and terrorism is defined by a small group of right-wing extremists who have used it to move their ideological agenda forward. The threat posed by terrorism is real. If we are going to be successful about overcoming it, we have to acknowledge the fact that the war in Iraq has made our country and the world
less
safe. After $200 billion and thousands of U.S. and Iraqi casualties, we have created a terrorist recruitment camp and fanned the flames of anti-Americanism around the world.

We need to keep building a peace movement, and that means continuing to protest. We must also continue to engage in effective political action. We must keep the pressure on our elected officials. And we must urge them not only to speak out but also to actively support legislation promoting global security and peace. Two people should be singled out for their leadership on these issues: my colleague Lynn Woolsey, who introduced a bill on smart security, and my colleague Dennis Kucinich, who introduced a bill to create a cabinet-level Department of Peace.

We have to continue to broaden our coalition. That means understanding the concerns of all Americans. We must redefine national security to encompass economic security. Economic security—through cleaner air, healthy kids, safer communities—is a cornerstone to our national security. We must reject the tired math that tells us that paying for our national defense equals bankrupting our schools.

The task is not simply stopping a war, but changing the prevailing wisdom that makes wars possible. We have to continue to broaden our movement and we can’t ever shy away from fighting in the electoral and legislative arenas. We are going to keep developing alternative policies and making sure that the debate on security priorities is redefined.

Dr. King once said that peace is not the absence of tension, but the presence of justice. Our job is to continue the fight for peace and justice.

“No pessimist ever discovered the secret of the stars, or sailed to an

uncharted land, or opened a new doorway for the human spirit.”

—Helen Keller

Chapter 8

DISARM

THE WORLD