[News] HOWARD ZINN: What Do We Do Now?

[News at freedomarchives.org]

WHAT DO WE DO NOW?
By Howard Zinn
Published in June, 2004 issue of The Progressive

It seems very hard for some people -- especially those in high places, but
also those striving for high places -- to grasp a simple truth: The United
States does not belong in Iraq. It is not our country. Our presence is
causing death, suffering, destruction, and so large sections of the
population are rising against us. Our military is then reacting with
indiscriminate force, bombing and shooting and rounding up people simply on
"suspicion."

Amnesty International, a year after the invasion, reported: "Scores of
unarmed people have been killed due to excessive or unnecessary use of
lethal force by coalition forces during public demonstrations, at
checkpoints, and in house raids. Thousands of people have been detained
[estimates range from 8,500 to 15,000], often under harsh conditions, and
subjected to prolonged and often unacknowledged detention. Many have been
tortured or ill-treated, and some have died in custody."

The recent battles in Fallujah brought this report from Amnesty
International: "Half of at least 600 people who died in the recent fighting
between Coalition forces and insurgents in Fallujah are said to have been
civilians, many of them women and children."

In light of this, any discussion of "What do we do now?" must start with the
understanding that the present U.S. military occupation is morally
unacceptable. The suggestion that we simply withdraw from Iraq is met with
laments: "We mustn't cut and run. . . . We must stay the course. . . . Our
reputation will be ruined. . . ." That is exactly what we heard when, at the
start of the Vietnam escalation, some of us called for immediate withdrawal.
The result of staying the course was 58,000 Americans and several million
Vietnamese dead.

"We can't leave a vacuum there." I think it was John Kerry who said that.
What arrogance to think that when the United States leaves a place there's
nothing there! The same kind of thinking saw the enormous expanse of the
American West as "empty territory" waiting for us to occupy it, when
hundreds of thousands of Indians lived there already.

The history of military occupations of Third World countries is that they
bring neither democracy nor security. The long U.S. occupation of the
Philippines, following a bloody war in which American troops finally subdued
the Filipino independence movement, did not lead to democracy, but rather to
a succession of dictatorships, ending with Fernando Marcos. The long U.S.
occupations of Haiti (1915-1934) and the Dominican Republic (1916-1926) led
only to military rule and corruption in both countries.

The only rational argument for continuing on the present course is that
things will be worse if we leave. There will be chaos, there will be civil
war, we are told. In Vietnam, supporters of the war promised a bloodbath if
U.S. troops withdrew. That did not happen.

There is a history of dire forecasts for what will happen if we desist from
deadly force. If we did not drop the bomb on Hiroshima, it was said, we
would have to invade Japan and huge casualties would follow. We know now,
and knew then, that was not true, but to acknowledge that did not fit the
government's political agenda. The U.S. had broken the Japanese code and had
intercepted the cables from Tokyo to the emissary in Moscow, which made
clear that the Japanese were ready to surrender so long as the position of
the Emperor was secure.

Truth is, no one knows what will happen if the United States withdraws. We
face a choice between the certainty of mayhem if we stay and the uncertainty
of what will follow.  There is a possibility of reducing that uncertainty by
replacing a U.S. military presence with an international nonmilitary
presence. It is conceivable that the United Nations should arrange, as U.S.
forces leave, for a multinational team of peacekeepers and negotiators,
including, importantly, people from the Arab countries. Such a group might
bring together Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds, and work out a solution for
self-governance, which would give all three groups a share in political
power.

Simultaneously, the U.N. should arrange for shipments of food and medicine,
from the U.S. and other countries, as well as a corps of engineers to begin
the reconstruction of the country. In a situation that is obviously bad and
getting worse, some see the solution in enlarging the military presence. The
rightwing columnist David Brooks wrote in mid-April: "I never thought it
would be this bad," but he then expressed his joy that President Bush is
"acknowledging the need for more troops." This fits the definition of
fanaticism: "When you find you're going in the wrong direction, you double
your speed."

John Kerry, sadly (for those of us who hoped for a decisive break from the
Bush agenda), echoes that fanaticism. If he learned any thing from his
experience in Vietnam, he has forgotten it. There, too, repeated failure to
win the support of the Vietnamese people led to sending more and more troops
into Tennyson's "valley of death."  In a recent piece in The Washington
Post, Kerry talks about "success" in military terms. "If our military
commanders request more troops we should deploy them." He seems to think
that if we "internationalize" our disastrous policy, it becomes less of a
disaster. "We also need to renew our effort to attract international support
in the form of boots on the ground to create a climate of security in Iraq."
Is that what brings security -- "boots on the ground"?

Kerry suggests: "We should urge NATO to create a new out-of-area operation
for Iraq under the lead of a U.S. commander. This would help us obtain more
troops from major powers." More troops, more troops. And the U.S. must be in
charge -- that old notion that the world can trust our leadership -- despite
our long record of moral failure.

To those who worry about what will happen in Iraq after our troops leave,
they should consider the effect of having foreign troops: continued,
escalating bloodshed, continued insecurity, increased hatred for the United
States in the entire Muslim world of over a billion people, and increased
hostility everywhere.

The effect of that will be the exact opposite of what our political
leaders -- of both parties -- claim they intend to achieve, a "victory" over
terrorism. When you inflame the anger of an entire population, you have
enlarged the breeding ground for terrorism.

What of the other long-term effects of continued occupation? I'm thinking of
the poisoning of the moral fiber of our soldiers -- being forced to kill,
maim, imprison innocent people, becoming the pawns of an imperial power
after they were deceived into believing they were fighting for freedom,
democracy, against tyranny.

I'm thinking of the irony that those very things we said our soldiers were
dying for -- giving their eyes, their limbs for -- are being lost at home by
this brutal war. Our freedom of speech is diminished, our electoral system
corrupted, Congressional and judicial checks on executive power nonexistent.

And the costs of the war -- the $400 billion military budget (which Kerry,
shockingly, refuses to consider lowering)-- make it inevitable that people
in this country will suffer from lack of health care, a deteriorating school
system, dirtier air and water. Corporate power is unregulated and running
wild.

Kerry does not seem to understand that he is giving away his strongest card
against Bush -- the growing disillusion with the war among the American
public. He thinks he is being clever, by saying he will wage the war better
than Bush. But by declaring his continued support for the military
occupation, he is climbing aboard a sinking ship.

We do not need another war President. We need a peace President. And those
of us in this country who feel this way should make our desire known in the
strongest of ways to the man who may be our next occupant of the White
House.

[Howard Zinn, the author of "A People's History of the United States," is a
columnist for The Progressive.  Copyright 2004 The Progressive]


The Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
(415) 863-9977
www.freedomarchives.org 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20040505/6bfdc02a/attachment.htm>