It Takes a Peace Movement Now !!

Here's my two bits (inflation):

An Out-of-Iraq Plan – Platform Proposal

1) All U.S. troops redeploy to the 5 main bases in Iraq, as quickly as possible, but no later than 60 days;
1a) all native Iraqis who request asylum are moved to temporary camps within these bases (finish this step within the 60-day limit);
1b) all troops not necessary to support those 5 bases begin departure sequence from al Asad air base (finish this step within the 60-day limit);
2) All U.S. "contractors" redeploy to temporary camp in Saudi Arabia within 90 days, in order to organize departure from the region;
2a) all non-U.S. citizens in "contractors" role are given commercial airplane tickets to their home country;
2b) all U.S. citizens in these roles are ferried back to the U.S. via chartered flights, paid for by "contractor" companies;
3) All non-essential and low-security-listed material is left in place for local Iraqis to expropriate;
3a) all weaponry and ammunition are collected within 60 days, to be warehoused in one remote, secure corner of al Asad air base for transport to U.S. - or for destruction (deadline 150 days, but aligned with troop withdrawal);
3b) all mine-detection devices, tools, construction equipment and material, and medical equipment are left for local Iraqis to expropriate;
4) Organize council including Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraqi Sunni, and Iraqi Shi'a to discuss/negotiate political arrangement for southern provinces;
5) Organize council including Turkey, Turkomen, Iran, and Iraqi Kurds to discuss/negotiate political arrangement for northern provinces;
6) Ask U.N. to hold advisory conference on Iraq situation to obtain viewpoints of all interested parties without direct political role in region;
7) When treaties or constitutions or arrangements acceptable – as demonstrated by U.N.-monitored elections – to the 3 main ethnic/sectarian divisions in Iraq are formalized, begin the full withdrawal of all U.S. military personnel back to the U.S., to finish within agreed date-certain (not later than Sept. 1, 2009).
7a) native Iraqis who request asylum are processed for immigration to the U.S. on an expedited basis;
7b) all stored weapons and ammunition are transported to the U.S.;
7c) the U.S. bases are turned over to the authorities for the region in which they are located;
7d) the U.S. budgets for grants/reparations to the Iraq entity or entities that emerge from the agreements.

Our (Washington) precinct caucuses take place this Saturday. For those who don't know, I'm the Secretary of my county's Democratic Party organization. Fairly meaningless, except that it means that the local party folks kinda like me. I sent this 'draft' around to the main active members in my county, plus the next one east. So far, only good comments.

I'll submit this Saturday, and it will go on to the County convention uncontested. Should make it more or less intact out of that event, too. I'm going to try to be a delegate to the State convention, so that I can defend this - or something very similar - at that level. Point is, if you see this as something that we can accept, and if you're participating in the platform drafting process in your area, it would be good if we could have this - or something very similar - coming from multiple directions.

Paul Spencer


After Super Tuesday, Time for Peace Movement to Get Off the Sidelines
by Tom Hayden

With Iraq a key issue and the Democratic primaries unresolved, isn’t it time for the peace movement to get off the sidelines and become more engaged? Shouldn’t we be doing everything possible to make the candidates compete for the peace vote? Think of the battlegrounds ahead where the peace vote is up for grabs: Washington on February 9, Maryland and the District of Columbia February 12, Wisconsin February 19, Rhode Island, Vermont and Ohio on March 4, and other states like Oregon and Pennsylvania through May.

On one side it appears that the pro-Democratic groups with millions of dollars are sitting out the primaries, saving their energy for the coming battle with John McCain. That plan just got delayed for many weeks as the primaries go on. On the other side are the grass-roots peace coalitions that generally forsake political engagement and busy themselves with plans for civil disobedience while 13 more states are voting.

Meanwhile hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of voters will make up their minds on which of the candidates is best on ending the Iraq war with little involvement by peace activists in the debate.

There are differences that matter between Clinton and Obama, not as great as between the Democrats and McCain, but significant nonetheless. They are these:

Obama favors a 16-18 month timeline for withdrawing US combat troops. Clinton favors “immediately” convening the Joint Chiefs to draft a plan to “begin” drawing down US troops, but with no timetable for completing the withdrawal.

Obama opposed the measure authorizing Bush to designate Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, widely regarded as an escalating step towards another war. Clinton voted for the authorization.

Obama opposed the 2002 authorization for war that Clinton voted for. Clinton still calls that decision a “close call” and refuses to say it was a mistaken vote.

It’s true that both candidates support leaving thousands of “residual” American troops behind for a likely counterinsurgency conflict that we should all oppose. Peace activists should demand a shift to peace diplomacy beginning with a US commitment to end the occupation and withdraw all troops.

But Obama’s position is clearly better than Clinton’s, and both candidates should be encouraged to see that the strongest anti-war position wins votes. The primaries are probably the last opportunity to push for a tougher stance, before the debate shifts to criticizing McCain/Lieberman/Podhoretz/Petraeus and whomever else in the general election. If one is a Clinton supporter, she should be pressured to keep catching up with Obama’s positions. Instead, she is floating a demand to make Bush bring any Washington-Baghdad military pact before Congress, which is a fine idea but avoids whether and when to end the occupation. If you are an Obama supporter, he should be pressured to connect the drain of the Iraq War on our economy and any possibilities for funding national health care. The point is to push the peace position forward on the promise of winning close primaries.

If nothing is done now by the peace movement, consider this scenario: with Bush promising to withdraw 25,000 troops this summer, Gen. Petraeus comes to Washington in March or April to announce “progress” in Iraq with lavish media attention. If MoveOn, perhaps understandably, avoids direct engagement with the general, which peace advocates will step in? Will Obama or Clinton or the Out of Iraq Caucus be prepared to confront him with an educational counter-offensive, or will McCain obtain a polished halo for being the Petraeus candidate? These are deadly serious questions. Is anyone discussing them?

In the immediate context, it seems to me that a group like MoveOn has to consider whether its endorsement of Obama now deserves a blast of anti-war energy in places like Seattle, Baltimore, Madison, Vermont, suburban Ohio, Providence, and Portland. Television, radio and media advertising still can be purchased for peace voices. Progressive Democrats at the grass-roots level might flood these decisive areas with questions to the campaigns and informational leaflets designed to educate swing voters. Signs and banners asking “Peace By When?” might be seen at rallies and media events.

The new reality is that the primaries will grind on, the percentages will remain extremely tight, and the Iraq War can be made into a tipping issue over which the candidates compete. It takes a peace movement now.


Tom Hayden is the author of Ending the War in Iraq [2007].

Source