NORMAN SOLOMON, COMMON DREAMS - The antiwar movement is now coming to
terms with measures being promoted by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi and Reid have a job to do. The
antiwar movement has a job to do. The jobs are not the same.
This should be obvious -- but, judging from public and private debates
now fiercely underway among progressive activists and organizations,
there's a lot of confusion in the air.
No amount of savvy Capitol-speak can change the fact that "benchmarks"
are euphemisms for more war. And when activists pretend otherwise, they
play into the hands of those who want the war to go on... and on... and
on.
Deferring to the Democratic leadership means endorsing loopholes that
leave the door wide open for continued U.S. military actions inside Iraq
- whether justified as attacks on fighters designated as Al Qaeda in
Iraq, or with reclassification of U.S. forces as "trainers" rather than
"combat troops." And an escalating U.S. air war could continue to bomb
Iraqi neighborhoods for years. . .
Pelosi is speaker of the House, and Reid is majority leader of the
Senate. But neither speaks for, much less leads, the antiwar movement
that we need. When you look at the practicalities of the situation,
Pelosi and Reid could be more accurately described as speaker and leader
for the war-management movement.
A historic tragedy is that the most hefty progressive organization, Move
On, seems to have wrapped itself around the political sensibilities of
Reid, Pelosi and others at the top of Capitol Hill leadership. Deference
to that leadership is a big mistake. We already have a Democratic Party.
Over time, a vibrant progressive group loses vibrancy by forfeiting
independence and becoming a virtual appendage of party leaders. . .
"We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of
our nation and for those it calls enemy," King said. And: "We are now
faced with the fact that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the
fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history
there is such a thing as being too late."
When King denounced "the madness of militarism," he wasn't trying to
cozy up to the majority leader of the Senate or impress the House
speaker with how he could deliver support. He was speaking truthfully,
and he was opposing a war forthrightly. That was imperative in 1967. It
is imperative in 2007.
http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0313-23.htm
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
terms with measures being promoted by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi and Reid have a job to do. The
antiwar movement has a job to do. The jobs are not the same.
This should be obvious -- but, judging from public and private debates
now fiercely underway among progressive activists and organizations,
there's a lot of confusion in the air.
No amount of savvy Capitol-speak can change the fact that "benchmarks"
are euphemisms for more war. And when activists pretend otherwise, they
play into the hands of those who want the war to go on... and on... and
on.
Deferring to the Democratic leadership means endorsing loopholes that
leave the door wide open for continued U.S. military actions inside Iraq
- whether justified as attacks on fighters designated as Al Qaeda in
Iraq, or with reclassification of U.S. forces as "trainers" rather than
"combat troops." And an escalating U.S. air war could continue to bomb
Iraqi neighborhoods for years. . .
Pelosi is speaker of the House, and Reid is majority leader of the
Senate. But neither speaks for, much less leads, the antiwar movement
that we need. When you look at the practicalities of the situation,
Pelosi and Reid could be more accurately described as speaker and leader
for the war-management movement.
A historic tragedy is that the most hefty progressive organization, Move
On, seems to have wrapped itself around the political sensibilities of
Reid, Pelosi and others at the top of Capitol Hill leadership. Deference
to that leadership is a big mistake. We already have a Democratic Party.
Over time, a vibrant progressive group loses vibrancy by forfeiting
independence and becoming a virtual appendage of party leaders. . .
"We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of
our nation and for those it calls enemy," King said. And: "We are now
faced with the fact that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the
fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history
there is such a thing as being too late."
When King denounced "the madness of militarism," he wasn't trying to
cozy up to the majority leader of the Senate or impress the House
speaker with how he could deliver support. He was speaking truthfully,
and he was opposing a war forthrightly. That was imperative in 1967. It
is imperative in 2007.
http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0313-23.htm
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No comments:
Post a Comment