THE LONELINESS OF THE PACIFISTS
Joseph A. Buttigieg  

George W. Bush is determined to wage war against Iraq. Occasionally, he suggests that war is only “a last resort” and that an attack on Iraq is “not unavoidable.” Such fleeting phrases are seized upon by politicians and journalists both in the US and all across the world as evidence that conflict may yet be averted. Thus, for example, following Bush’s extremely bellicose speech of October 8th in Cincinnati, Le Monde reported that the war on Iraq was no longer inevitable and La Repubblica found reason to be believe that Bush seemed willing to make some concessions to the European allies. The foreign minister of Jordan, Marwan Muasher, found in Bush’s speech some indication that “there’s a chance for diplomatic moves to try to avert the dangers of such a war.” This optimism was based on nothing more than a couple of sentences uttered in the course of a half-hour long speech. At one point Bush stated, almost as an aside: “I hope this will not require military action, but it may.” He also said that approval of the Congressional resolution (which was pending at the time) authorizing him to use force “does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable.” Attaching any weight to such words—especially when they are accompanied, as they always are, by vituperative descriptions of the Iraqi regime as a demonic force that is about to unleash imponderable horrors on the civilized world—amounts to little more than wishful thinking. No one listening carefully to what Bush and the members of his administration have been saying over the past nine months, no one attentively observing the US political scene can possibly fail to apprehend the single-mindedness, the unwavering determination, and the political adroitness with which his administration has been pursuing its goal of destroying Saddam Hussein regime and imposing its will on Iraq. The Cincinnati speech, in fact, provides ample proof that Bush is prepared to go to any lengths diplomatically, politically, and rhetorically to bring about this war. Among other things, he asserted that Iraq is working in close alliance to Al Qaeda when, in fact, the most that can be shown is that there might have been some tentative contacts between the two. He also conjured up nightmarish visions of Iraqi “unmanned aerial vehicles” hovering over the US and showering it with deadly chemicals and germs. It is hard to believe that the President of a country as powerful as the US would stoop so low as to scare his fellow citizens by creating scenarios that belong to science-fiction movies. On the other hand, his rhetorical hyperbole and scare-tactics cannot be considered more shocking than the way in which he has manipulated the traumatized collective psyche of post-September 11th America to make its citizens overlook the fact that the “war on terror” has not yielded any significant results and to seek catharsis in the obliteration of Saddam Hussein. Nor can any of this be considered more disturbing than the muting of dissent, the restriction of civil liberties, and the general impoverishment of democracy that the Bush administration has brought about through its promotion of a vulgar patriotism epitomized by the demand that “America [must] speak with one voice.” Bush’s speeches are not animated by an honest desire to guide the nation towards a consensus, much less are they meant to generate discussion and debate. Rather, Bush and his supporters have been engaged in a relentless demagogic exercise that reduces the present crisis to a stark choice between good and evil and reviles all those who object to his doctrine of preemption as appeasers. Tragically, he has succeeded. Congress has voted to grant him the authority to use military force; and in both the House of Representatives and the Senate the resolution was approved by extraordinarily wide margins.

Within the US, at the present moment, there exists no oppositional movement, no collective dissenting voice that has any realistic chance of thwarting the Bush administration’s plans to unleash a war against Iraq. This is not to say that the US population is eager to go to war, or that forceful anti-war arguments are not being put forward. On the surface, the opinion polls suggest that support for the war is strong; but when scrutinized the same polls reveal a widespread sense of ambivalence. For example, in a New York Times/CBS News poll, conducted between October 3rd and 5th, 67% of those questioned approved of the United States taking military action against Iraq. At the same time, though, 63% thought that military action should be deferred in order to give the United Nations more time to get US weapons inspectors into Iraq. Also, 51% did not believe that Congress was asking enough questions about Bush’s Iraq policy. The leading newspapers and periodicals are full of articles and letters expressing disagreement (for many diverse reasons) with the Bush administration’s march to war. Many prominent military experts (including highly decorated former generals—among them Norman Schwarzkopf who commanded the allied forces that defeated Iraq in 1991), distinguished statesmen who served under previous administrations, highly influential intellectuals of all political stripes (including, most surprisingly, Samuel Huntington, best known for his “clash of civilizations” theory), and widely respected mainstream journalists have either publicly stated their serious reservations about Bush’s war plans or categorically declared themselves opposed to an attack on Iraq. Likewise, many religious figures, including the Catholic bishops, the heads of several Protestant denominations, and the National Council of Churches have declared their opposition to military action. (The ultra-conservative evangelical groups, of course, remain as steadfast in their support of Bush as they were two years ago when they worked so hard to put him in the White House.) A number of progressive and liberal organizations, lobby groups, and movements have been working hard to mobilize popular opposition across the country. They have been raising money, publishing full-page advertisements in the largest newspapers, encouraging citizens to write to their Congressional representatives, and organizing public demonstrations in various cities and towns all across the country. On the weekend of October 5th and 6th about ten thousand people showed up at anti-war rallies held in New York and San Francisco; sizeable demonstrations were in several other cities as well. Another demonstration is being planned for October 26th—tens of thousands are expected to march in Washington D.C. to express grassroots rejection of Bush’s pre-emptive war designs. Encouraging though this might seem, the fact remains that it will not induce the Bush administration to change course. If, as one fervently hopes, war with Iraq will somehow be avoided, it will not be because of domestic opposition to it.

The Bush administration is as dismissive and contemptuous of its domestic critics as it is of foreign ones—one might say, it is as unilateralist on its home turf as it is in the international arena. It is vitally important, of course, to continue organizing and mobilizing as massive an anti-war movement as possible, and to do so with as much vigor as can be mustered. It is just as important, however, to initiate immediately a collective project aimed at understanding why and how Bush has able to render his opponent impotent. Denunciations of Bush and condemnations of US arrogance serve a valuable and admirable purpose: if nothing else, they are expressions of allegiance to the ideals of justice and peace and a repudiation of the notion that might makes right. Yet, they do not help anyone truly comprehend the true nature of the Bush administration and the dangerous political strategies which enable it to brush aside with relative ease all the progressive forces that threaten to hinder the implementation of its grand plans for a new world order. They contribute little to our understanding of why progressive political forces have been so easily stymied. What is needed more than anything else is a sober analysis of the current situation that might result in better sense of how to confront effectively an inordinately powerful political establishment (that also commands a military force of unprecedented might) that is pushing the entire world to the brink of chaos. Such analysis could provide the basis for new thinking. There is every reason to believe that Bush’s policies will generate more dissent, his actions will heighten the sense of urgency—but none of that will necessarily result in an effective opposition that will bring desirable change. Urgency and passion, if not properly channeled, are more likely to exacerbate a crisis than to resolve it. Hence the need for a collective effort to develop some lines of clear realistic thinking on how to get out of the current impasse that the left and progressive forces in general find themselves in.

For obvious reasons, the movements, groups, and organizations opposing Bush’s policies from within the US are operating within political culture and a structure of power that are quite unique and not comparable to the conditions that prevail anywhere else in the world. Nevertheless, some of Lucio Magri’s observations about the Italian and European left (see the October issue of La Rivista del Manifesto) are applicable to the US situation. The progressive movements have thus far been unable to articulate “un progetto riformatore complessivo e ambizioso e assicurargli un consenso duraturo.” In the US, as in Europe, “I movimenti sono comunicanti ma non convergenti, il loro radicamento diffuso, la loro capacità di azione quotidiana restano limitati.” And what Magri writes about “la sinistra alternativa” in Europe, aptly describes the progressive movement in the US, namely that it “resta minoritari[o], frammentat[o], autoreferenziale.” The biggest problem for US progressive forces remains that, differently from Europe, they have almost no possibility of influencing the country’s national and international policies except through the limited pressure they can manage to exert on the Democratic Party. More often than not, however, the Democratic Party has been a source of disappointment and frustration. The frustration and disillusionment manifested themselves most glaringly in the last presidential electoral campaign. The voters who supported Ralph Nader shared the belief that the Republican and Democratic parties had become virtually indistinguishable; and many progressives honestly believed that no harm would ensue if their votes for Nader were to deprive the Democrats of an electoral victory. It is doubtful that Nader’s movement was ultimately responsible for Gore’s loss and, thus, for Bush’s victory. Nevertheless, it is now quite clear that Bush’s election has brought with it dreadful consequences that might have been averted if a Democrat were occupying the White House. At the same time, though, as we approach the next election on November 5th with war on the horizon how does one dispel the sense of betrayal? How does one forgive the leaders of the Democratic Party for capitulating to Bush? The Democratic Party was outmaneuvered by Bush’s political strategists; that is true. They believed that they would lose votes if they were perceived to be unpatriotic by resisting Bush’s crusade against Saddam Hussein. They thought they could dispense with the war issue quickly and thus conduct an electoral campaign that focussed on the economy. After all, most polls show that the overwhelming majority of voters are much more concerned about the state of the economy than the dangers of war—which, in any case, will be waged on the other side of the globe. It remains to be seen whether their acquiescence on the issue of war was pragmatically wise. There are a few Democratic candidates, most notably Paul Wellstone of Minnesota who is running for re-election to the Senate, who have remained adamant in their opposition to Bush’s war plans and they are still in a good position to win. Still, electoral victories cannot be justified as ends in themselves. The Democratic Party leadership’s behavior was, to say the least, unethical and has contributed greatly to the impoverishment of democracy in the US. And yet, could things get even worse if the progressive elements in the country withhold their votes from Democratic Party candidates on November 5th?

To be sure not all Democrats behaved reprehensibly. Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia spoke passionately and upbraided his colleagues for even considering the resolution authorizing the use of military force. And there were others, too, who spoke wisely and counseled restraint. One of them was Ted Kennedy, some of whose remarks seem prescient in hindsight. On October 3rd, speaking on the Senate floor in opposition to the resolution, Senator Ted Kennedy asked “What about North Korea? They may have nuclear weapons.” We now know that North Korea is, indeed, much closer to producing a nuclear device than Iraq—and, in all likelihood, the other member of the “axis of evil,” Iran, is not very far behind. What is more, North Korea demonstrated as far back as 1998, when it conducted a missile test over Japan, that, unlike Iraq, it already possesses the means to launch a nuclear attack. (In fact, Pakistan, now a vital US ally, obtained the missiles for its nuclear arsenal from North Korea.) We also know now that the Bush administration has had, for quite some time, strong evidence suggesting that North Korea was violating the terms of the Agreed Framework it negotiated with the Clinton administration in 1994. Yet, while fulminating incessantly against Saddam Hussein’s intentions to construct nuclear devices and make them available to terrorists, Bush refrained from drawing attention to Kim Jong Il’s advanced program to develop “weapons of mass destruction”—despite the fact that the US has thousands of troops stationed practically at Pyongyang’s doorstep. Worse still, we now know that the North Korean’s admission of cheating was communicated to Bush while the Congress was still deliberating the resolution empowering him to take action against Iraq. Bush withheld the information until after the House and the Senate voted overwhelmingly for it. Of course, one did not need to know that North Korea was well on its way to producing nuclear weapons in order understand that Bush’s doctrine of preemptive war is destructive and potentially catastrophic. Nevertheless, what kind of democracy is the US where decisions and policies that will cost thousands of lives, shatter world peace, and could plunge the world into chaos are voted on without full knowledge of vital facts?

The resolution which Bush demanded from Congress was, in reality, never debated. It was rushed through; and the outcome of the Congressional vote was predictable from the start. So eager were the Democratic Party leaders to appear patriotic that they did not even wait until after the November elections to have a real debate on such a momentous issue. If they had waited a month, they would at least have given US voters an opportunity to let their views be known. Instead, they handed Bush virtually unlimited power to wage his war. As a result, US democracy has been greatly impoverished. Other countries and other peoples may end up paying a much heavier price.