Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

What the Antiwar Movement Should -- and Shouldn't -- Do Now

By T.J. Buonomo, AlterNet. Posted November 18, 2008.


In the wake of Obama's victory, the antiwar movement must be ready to identify new pressure points or it risks losing credibility and relevance.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

The dramatic reduction in violence in Iraq over the past 18 months, along with the victory of President-elect Barack Obama, has left many in the antiwar movement wondering what will become of its momentum and potential power to effect a more fundamental shift in U.S. foreign policy. Will its largely Democratic popular support base drift away in complacency, assuming that Obama will fulfill his campaign pledge to withdraw combat troops within 16 months of taking office, or will it be prepared to hold the incoming administration's feet to the fire?

President-elect Obama will undoubtedly face serious pressure from political allies and opponents alike to stay the course despite the expectations he raised during his campaign. U.S. military field commanders will be loathe to squander hard-won security gains by withdrawing before Iraqi forces are able to defend the authority of the central government against possible flare-ups of violence generated by disaffected Sunnis, dissident Shi'a factions, and autonomy-minded Kurds, among other obstacles to stability.

For these reasons, the antiwar movement must remain vigilant and not allow campaign rhetoric to take the wind out of its sails. It must adapt to change and identify new pressure points or risk losing credibility and relevance. Above all, it must avoid making two serious mistakes: 1) taking a cookie-cutter approach to Afghanistan if it chooses to address "the good war", and 2) shifting focus to Afghanistan at the expense of Iraq simply because violence has flared up in the former and died down in the latter.

So what should be the antiwar movement's new approach as the Obama administration transitions into office? First and foremost, it is critical to identify popular undercurrents and learn to harness the energy generated by them. The global financial crisis has eclipsed both Iraq and Afghanistan as matters of public concern but is part of a more systemic accountability deficit which encompasses U.S. foreign policy. Dependence upon foreign oil has been widely cited as a major national security concern, making it an issue that has the potential to unite Americans across the political spectrum. By linking these issues together it is possible to build momentum against more specific destabilizing factors in Iraq as an intermediate goal and a way to generate greater public demand for full withdrawal.

How?

The pressure of multinational oil corporations on the Iraqi government to sign exploitive oil contracts is a major destabilizing factor that undermines the ostensible mission of our troops and comes at the expense of long-term regional stability, U.S. national security, and the welfare of the Iraqi people. The antiwar movement must understand and articulate this contradiction and emphasize that American interests are truly served when the root causes of terrorism and insurgency have been eliminated. Among them, the denial of economic sovereignty is a fundamental grievance, just as it was for American colonialists in the 18th century.

It is in the interest of the occupiers to maintain control largely outside of the public spotlight, which means pulling the strings through economic, legal and financial mechanisms rather than by primarily military means. This is how the British Empire ruled Iraq for decades and this is what the currently dominant U.S. foreign policy establishment is attempting to do. Preventing it will require the antiwar movement to delve into the nuances of the ongoing oil negotiations and other matters of political economy rather than simply reacting to major flare-ups of violence, which are only symptoms of a more complex problem that requires precise knowledge to effectively attack.

 


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: iraq, afghanistan, barack obama, antiwar movement

T.J. Buonomo is a former Military Intelligence Officer and graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy with a Bachelor of Science in Political Science and Middle East Studies. In October 2007 he was involuntarily discharged from the Army for questioning the motives behind the invasion and occupation of Iraq. He is currently an Organizer with Iraq Veterans Against the War. His views are his own and not necessarily representative of IVAW or its individual members. He welcomes discussion on the points raised above and can be contacted at tj_buonomo@yahoo.com

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from World! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Underboss
Posted by: The Underboss on Nov 18, 2008 8:20 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama is not the antiwar movement's friend.

Obama touted his antiwar record in the early run up to the elections, but according to his website he says “I will add 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 Marines to relieve the strain on our ground forces” - he wants a much bigger military.

Not sure if this is the "change" we need – we already have over 700 military bases in 130 countries around the world.

America spends more money on military and defense than the rest of the world combined. He has not offered to reduce any of that during the campaign.

He supports keeping “strike forces in Iraq”, supports war in Afghanistan (yes – that means more billion dollar bombs on cave and hut dwelling Afghans, their schools and their wedding parties) and proposed moving the war to that region and even invading Pakistan if necessary.

Is that an antiwar stance? Someone who wants peace?

Put away whatever crack you are smoking.

Peace.

The Underboss
The Audacity of Dope

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Underboss Posted by: Dboy
economic control is the issue - and knowledge of history
Posted by: gunboat diplomat on Nov 18, 2008 11:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The U.S. public needs to become better informed about the history in the region. Steve Croll's Ghost Wars can be read a page at a time, and so can Robert Fisk's War for Civilization.

The quickest way to stabilize the situation is to write off the hydrocarbon law and forget about giving U.S. and British corporations preferential access to Iraqi oil.

This is a do-not-discuss issue for the U.S. press and government PR hamsters. The closest any of them will come to it is the following, put out by Negroponte (of Central American fame): http://www.state.gov/s/d/2008/111961.htm

"The significant progress of the past 20 months does not mean our work in Iraq is over... Sustaining United States and coalition involvement—both military and diplomatic—is vital. In addition, Iraq must overcome several hurdles of its own along the road to success. They include passing hydrocarbon legislation that equitably divides oil revenues among Iraq’s regions... - Nov 17 2008"

Change that to "a law that ensures long-term control of Iraqi oil production by U.S. and British oil corporations" and you have the truth.

If the U.S. were simply to allow the Iraq government to set up their own national oil company, which would take possession of all the oil, that would solve most of the problems - however, it would mean that the Iraqi oilfields would not be booked on the sheets of Exxon, Chevron, BP, Shell, etc. That would mean that their share values would plummet, especially if they were not allowed to develop dirty oil sources like Canada's tar sands. That would mean that all the promised financial awards from the invasion and occupation of Iraq would vanish - so there goes the support of Wall Street for the whole project.

Then, the domestic Iraqi question would be how to distribute oil resource money - which would really be a state's rights vs. federal rights issue. This can be worked out diplomatically. The Kurdistan region has oil, but they're a bit like Alaska - they don't want to share their oil revenue checks with the rest of the country, do they? Why doesn't everyone in the lower 48 get a cut of oil production money too? Why is Alaska so special? Etc. You can work that out without car bombs, hopefully.

Maybe they should hold elections very soon, huh? Maybe they should get in a Cabinet that has some legitimacy with the general population?

Then, there are the giant U.S. bases - what becomes of them? These are the KBR-constructed bases - built at a cost of over $5 billion - how much over, not sure.

Finally, that puts the $700 billion Wall Street bailout in perspective, and raises the question: to what extent has the ridiculously expensive war in Iraq (trillion plus) sunk the economy? A $7 million missile package doesn't do much for the U.S. economy, compared to say, investment in low-carbon agriculture and clean energy industries at home. A $7 million dollar research lab tends to be more economically productive than a hundred Hellfire missiles, right?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NOT TO WORRY
Posted by: donl51 on Nov 20, 2008 9:47 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We'll never run out of wars to protest....I've been protesting war since I got home from Viet Nam back in mid 69,gave my country almost the agreed upon 6 year stint,serving over 3 if it in that war,,,after that,their were no shortage of wars,interferences or the drug war....so don't worry,this is America...we're always going to have our noses in someone elses business!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» WAR IS US Posted by: edgeofnowhere
WAR IS US
Posted by: edgeofnowhere on Nov 22, 2008 4:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and that's why we have over 700 garrisoned bases worldwide. Our main export is weaponry and war -- in fact, the arms manufacturing industry is really the only profitable industry that we have. Obama is part of the program or he would not be in the White House. Anyone that thinks there is a difference between DemocRATS and RepubliCONS, needs to do some serious reading of history. We are an empire based on war, not a peaceful democracy. There is, however, a catch: ALL empires have overreached and collapsed and we are no exception. It is only a question of how and when.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Privatized Contractors
Posted by: BlueBerry PickN on Nov 24, 2008 2:55 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
maybe if THE US STOPS JAMMING THE CONTACTORS down everyone's throats...

the CANADIAN GOVERNMENT will stop HIRING BLACKWATER'S associates to 'teach us how to interrogate'...

yeah, you heard me.

Bush has convinced Harper that BLACKWATER can teach CANADIAN RCMP, POLICE & THE MILITARY how to TREAT CIVILIANS.

can you say "METASTASIZE"?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]