(April 20, 2007) The peace movement has entered a new stage – the movement to end the war is now principally focused on the legislative arena.

For the first time, the House vote on the supplemental funding bill for Iraq as well as the weaker Senate bill (the Senate bill does not contain a firm withdrawal deadline) establishes a time line for the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq.

That has not been without controversy among peace activists. As widely reported, the House bill is seriously flawed. It continues to fund the war; it sets a too distant time line for withdrawal; it allows as many as 80,000 troops to remain in various capacities after the withdrawal deadline; its benchmarks, in the words of Rep. Barney Frank, won’t “prove much of an obstacle to a president who is prepared to say or do anything to perpetuate this terrible mistake of a war.” It seeks to force Iraq to accept a law that gives a major part of the country’s oil to foreign multinationals and it does nothing to prevent an attack on Iran.

 

It was fully proper for United for Peace and Justice and other groups who represent the most progressive sectors of the peace movement to urge a “no vote on the House and Senate bills. At the same time, MoveOn.org, stressing the unprecedented commitment in the bill to a withdrawal date, organized support for it, basing its position largely on an affirmative vote for support by about only five percent of its 2.5 million members.

 

Those activists who supported the bill generally did not dispute its serious flaws, but recognized that the legislation also was a break with a long-standing congressional dereliction of its constitutional duty regarding the ongoing war. For the first time in memory Congress actually offered resistance to unchecked executive power and opened the door to a cutoff of funds.

 

Ultimately, the principled stand of those members of the House who voted “no” impacted the Pelosi-led practitioners of “realistic” congressional politics. The Out of Iraq Caucus released five of its members from a commitment to vote against the bill in order to assure its passage. In commenting on the vote on the supplemental bill, Rep. Barbara Lee, co-chair of the Caucus who voted against it, looked forward to the next stage of battle to effect withdrawal of US forces from Iraq, pointing to the approved bill as a fresh starting point in the movement to bring the troops home.

 

In the next few days, the conferees in the House and Senate will reconcile differences between the two supplemental bills. At this juncture, it is essential that the commitment to a firm deadline for withdrawal remain in the joint measure.

 

Anticipating a Bush veto, members of Congress must be pressed to vote against any subsequent legislation that weakens or removes that firm commitment to withdraw US forces from Iraq. That veto should be met with even stronger resolve to stop the funding, begin withdrawal and pass the Jones Bill (H.J. Res. 14) requiring congressional approval before an attack on Iran.

 

An intensified and effective effort to pressure Congress mandates unity between the left and center in the peace movement. The differences in tactics between United for Peace and Justice and MoveOn, while important, must now be supplanted by unified efforts to demand no retreat by Congress, but rather genuine advance in meeting its constitutional duty to affect rapid and complete withdrawal from Iraq.

 

Bush Cheney War Drive

 

The Bush-Cheney Iraq quagmire worsens every day – escalating the White House’s isolation and offering opportunities for heightened pressures by the peace movement. Recent actions of Democratic Party leaders in pressing a time line for withdrawal along with House Speaker Pelosi’s visit to Syria reflect the proposals of the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group which represents a consensus of a major segment of the country’s ruling elite to be done with Bush-Cheney Iraq policies.

 

The “surge” in US forces is a failure. Decentralized “security centers” in Baghdad neighborhoods are little more than exposed flashpoints for harassing local civilians. Outside the capital, civilian deaths are up and security sweeps have resulted in a 21 percent increase in deaths of US soldiers in April over the previous two months. A suicide bombing deep inside the heavily fortified Green Zone was reminiscent of the Tet offensive in Vietnam in 1968 that dispelled all lingering illusions about “victory.”

 

After demonstrations against the occupation by hundreds of thousands in Najaf, Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr ordered his ministers to quit the Iraq government to protest Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s refusal to set a timetable to withdraw US forces. A rapidly growing movement from within Iraq now demands an end to occupation, threatening survival of the US-sponsored government.

 

Iraq and the Coming Elections

 

It is clear that Iraq, as well as threats against Iran, will be among the most crucial issues in the coming 2008 presidential campaign. Democratic aspirants are now jockeying to formulate positions on ending the occupation that can win the support of the massive majority of voters who fervently oppose the war.

 

Peace activists need to keep the pressure on. We need to dramatically impact the elections by broadening opposition to the war; by reaching communities and organizations that have not as yet had direct contact with antiwar activism. The leading role of African American members of Congress in opposing all funding for the war symbolizes the especially strong anti-war stand of black communities and should inspire efforts to build unity between peace activists and all communities of color. Growing anti-war sentiment in labor unions, women’s organizations and among students constitute essential elements of an emerging progressive majority capable of positively impacting the elections and bringing the troops home.

 

The 2008 elections will spark a range of commitments among activists. Many will work for various candidates. Others will not engage in the electoral process at all. There will be many diverging tactical lines. However, the movement should hold fast to its shared goal of ending the occupation. No matter what the particular choice of candidates may be or what arena, electoral or non-electoral, is chosen, a strong, united and independent voice for peace must be maintained and nourished.

 

In the midst of advancing a broad movement for peace, the left has a special, indispensable role. While not creating obstacles to the fullest possible involvement of diverse forces, the left should expose the long-term policies of all postwar US administrations led by both parties to dominate the Middle East and other parts of the world for resources, strategic advantage and political domination. It should stress the centrality of a just settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It should educate about plans supported by both parties to reorient US military forces to fight Iraq-type insurgencies. It should reveal the underlying imperial content of US global policy and advance a vision of fair, constructive and non-exploitative relations with the rest of the world. It should also forge the inseparable connections between peace and the need to combat racism, sexism and homophobia, between peace and economic justice, between peace and human and constitutional rights.

 

A united movement for peace and justice can accomplish great things. With determination to build and strengthen unity in the fight for peace, we will surely end the occupation and bring the troops home

---