An Exchange with My Pal Art Vatsky

I'm part of a local peace/antiwar organization in my town (Teaneck, NJ). One of my confreres in the organization is longtime Democratic activist Art Vatsky, and we exchange messages now and then. Here's one exchange from tonight that addresses some questions facing the antiwar movement........

======================

Richard: I am a history nut and the error of going into Iraq is one which will do continuing damage to the Iraqis and ourselves.

First, despite corruption, the UN had made Iraq a toothless enemy, no threat to the US and little threat to its neighbors. Had we not invaded, that would have continued, world oil prices would be lower, hundreds of thousands of now dead would have been alive. Maybe Saddam would have been assassinated or not. Certainly, the US would have focused on those responsible for 9/11 who would have been caught by now instead of being heroes to hundreds of millions of Muslims.

Because we have invaded, we have replaced the outclassed Republican Guard and Iraqi Army with extremely cruel and effective 21st century insurgents, thousands of them. These young people would not be insurgents had we not invaded. Bush spawned them. Had our nation been invaded, would we be the insurgents? As in Yugoslavia, when you remove the cruel dictator over a forced state, you eventually get an even crueler civil war. What I am saying is that the likely result of the sacrifice of our soldiers is a cruel civil war in Iraq. South Iraq is Shiite and wealthy. Northern Iraq will be Kurd - Moslem but not Arab. Central Iraq will be Sunni and poor and angry. Of course, the democracy we are trying to install may work but I don't recall if we have a good record or skill in doing this. I think the trend will replace a non-secular dictator with theocracy as Iran now has. Wow, isn't that progress?

It is rare that a US President makes such a big mistake - LBJ was the last - Vietnam - but this President has made several. The fact that his mistakes are not accepted generally as such is because we don't want to think of our Presidents as makers of mistakes, so we are all in denial.

I am not a pacifist. I think we should not let Osama and his group continue to operate. They should be brought to justice, taking the wind out of that anti-West movement. Unfortunately, thanks to Bush, we have fulfilled Osama's view of Western behavior. We'd rather have Iraqi oil than Osama's blood.

Our troops have fought well and deserve our support and respect. They are just fighting the wrong enemy.

Art Vatsky

=====================

Art,

Thanks for your message. If I can figure out the details, I sure would like to open the TPJC web site so it would support discussion and debate through "blogging," because I think your perspectives should be part of the wider discussion.

I can't really disagree with most of what you've written. You are probably quite correct in suggesting "the likely result of the sacrifice of our soldiers is a cruel civil war in Iraq." This was probably not 'inevitable' in any meaningful way - in order words, it was U.S. policy that unleashed political forces which will now probably have to play themselves out in a context where U.S. policy is only one factor among many.

Where I disagree with you is in your reference to "the democracy we are trying to install," because I think we have no good reason to believe this is a serious objective of U.S. policy and plenty of reason to think the achievement of something approximating democracy in Iraq would be regarded as a very serious danger by U.S. policymakers. I'm also not comfortable with the "we;" having been adamantly opposed to the current policy, I refuse to identify with it now. None of that "politics is adjourned/disagreements stop at the border" bullshit for me. The stifling of dissent - including through self-censorship - is not helping the situation or anyone, least of all our troops.

I want to be as specific as I can here. I think it's extremely important that facile historical analogies not be made when there is no warrant for them. We are not living in the era after World War II, when there was both more real democracy in the United States and the world was filled with pretty strong and well-organized movements favoring democratic change and/or national liberation (think of the European resistance movements in France, Italy, Yugoslavia, the Chinese and Vietnamese national liberation movements, the Indian independence movement, growing movements for independence throughout Africa, and so forth). I know the myth in this country is that U.S. policy was entirely responsible for the estabishment of democratic states after World War II, but that is pure baloney. The worldwide struggle against fascism, colonialism and militarism unleashed extremely powerful popular forces for change. To the extent U.S. policy supported these forces instead of working ONLY to repress them, it was the result of democratic forces strengthened in the U.S. (through the much-empowered labor movement and related organizations).

But of course: the temptation to make an imperial power grab was great on the part of our elites, and so U.S. policy moved toward Cold War abroad and national security hysteria/McCarthyism/repression at home.

Where are the political forces for democracy at home and abroad today? Weak, disorganized, and under the constant threat of war and repression. American "democracy" is now characterized by stolen national elections, vastly increased socio-economic inequality, and the stench of corruption in every major institutional sector. Turn on the TV or radio and you'll get (no-nutrition) bread and circuses that clearly illustrates the contempt in which our ruling class holds us.

What this regime wants in Iraq is not democracy but rather a stable client state prepared to back U.S. policy in the region and ready, willing and able to stifle any menace of popular democratic force that might object to the transfer of Iraq's wealth to U.S. business interests. A democratic regime in Iraq could not possibly be trusted because it might elect to have an independent foreign policy or to be responsive to popular pressure for economic stability by nationalizing industries or otherwise placing obstacles in the way of U.S. business interests in the country. How could Bush and his cronies tolerate that for even a second? By comparison, I think Bush would find a bloody civil war in Iraq far more palatable.

Because U.S. policy is so completely compromised by imperial imperatives I have no hesitation whatsoever in supporting the "troops out now" position within the antiwar movement. I have no illusions about our political position in the U.S. We are not making policy recommendations to a federal government that is listening to what we are saying. To our government, we are - at best - a mild annoyance and - at worst - disloyal traitors who belong in jail. To make the government listen to us, we must make its position increasingly untenable at home, using every means at our disposal that we can agree on. The only people we should be speaking to are our fellow citizens because they are the only ones who can help us achieve our goals. Bush and his gang, who have demonstrated so much disdain for democracy in the U.S., will not support its establishment in Iraq. I want the troops out now. I do not think I am morally blind in concluding that it is the only responsible position we can take.

Regards,

- RK

P.S. - Despite the war, I doubt that "hundreds of millions of Muslims" regard the 9-11 terrorists as heroes.