by Stanley Rogouski, 3/30/06
‘Real Security’, the document released by the Democratic
Party’s congressional delegation is a vaguely worded, inconsequential document
that most people will ignore. But it has disturbing implications for the
anti-war movement and anybody trying to organize against the Bush regime’s
policies of torture and extrajudicial detention.
I’ll start by quoting the whole passage on the occupation of
Iraq:
Iraq
To Honor the Sacrifice
of Our Troops, we will:Ensure 2006 is a year
of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with the Iraqis assuming
primary responsibility for securing and governing their country and with the
responsible redeployment of U.S. forces.Insist that Iraqis
make the political compromises necessary to unite their country and defeat the
insurgency; promote regional diplomacy; and strongly encourage our allies and
other nations to play a constructive role.Hold the Bush
Administration accountable for its manipulated pre-war intelligence, poor
planning and contracting abuses that have placed our troops at greater risk and
wasted billions of taxpayer dollars.-“Real Security”, Page 5 (http://democrats.org/a/2006/03/real_security_t.php)
Note first the disturbingly militaristic language of the
opening.
American foreign policy is now being conducted, not in the
name of some higher, abstract morality, or ‘democracy’, or in the ‘interests of
the American people’, it’s being conducted ‘To Honor the Sacrifice of Our
Troops’. It’s no longer secular. It is
mystical, authoritarian and deeply reactionary.
Let’s pass over the first paragraph with no comment. The
Murtha plan of ‘redeployment’ is mentioned but not addressed and the policy of
having the Iraqis ‘assume primary responsibility for securing and governing
their country and with the responsible redeployment of U.S.
forces’ is not only George Bush’s plan but George Bush’s plan in almost the
exact same language Bush himself uses. Let’s also pass over the third paragraph
with no comment since it’s the most contemptible thing about the whole
contemptible document. The Democratic Party that threw Russ Feingold under the
bus for his censure motion is unlikely to hold Bush accountable for anything,
even in the unlikely event they were to take back congress in 2006. In fact,
‘ensure 2006’ (and not ‘2007’) is telling in and of itself since even in the
unlikely event the Democrats take back Congress, the Republicans will still
control all three branches of government until the new officeholders are sworn
in in January. This just bullshit being shoveled out to deal with the charge
that the ‘Democrats have no plan’.
I wouldn’t know where to begin on the second paragraph.
The Iraqis are to get full sovereignty by 2006 or 2007 or
2008 but we will still be laying down the law about how they deal with a civil
war in their own country. ‘Insist that Iraqis make the political compromises
necessary to unite their country and defeat the insurgency.’ Once again, note
that the language is mystical, vague, and authoritarian. No mention is made of
the violent sectarian and ethnic divisions in Iraq.
No mention is made of any American responsibility for the destruction of the
Iraqi oil industry. No mention is made of the war crimes committed against the
Iraqi people by the American military. A mystical Iraqi nation is somehow going
to rise up (by 2006) and beat down all sectarian, class, and national
differences in the name of ‘the sacrifices of the American troops’.
The attitude towards our ‘allies’ is similarly arrogant and cavalier
(and foolish). The Democratic Party can’t insure the cooperation of the French
or Germans or Canadians. The French or Germans or Canadians act in French or
German or Canadian, not American interests. True, the United
States government has enormous power to
twist arms but are the Democrats prepared to do this? And if they are, how? What
would the tradeoffs be? What would the Germans or Canadians want in exchange
for a few thousand troops?
The implication for the anti-war movement is pretty clear.
The anti-war side of the Democratic Party is not in control of their
congressional delegation and will be further marginalized in order to appeal to
some mythical ‘moderate’ voter somewhere in the red states.
What’s more, the progressive grassroots of the Democratic
Party is likely to interpret this document as a strongly worded ‘suggestion’
not to discuss the war in Iraq
at all. There is no opening for any position critical of the war in this
document in any way. Attempts to open a discussion on the American occupation
of Iraq are
likely to be met with either silence or outright hostility and accusations that
‘you’re trying to hurt their chances to retake the Senate’ and are, thus,
‘objectively supporting the Republicans’. Antiwar groups involved with or
associated with the Democratic Party are most likely not going to mobilize the
numbers they did for the anti-war demonstrations last September when the
position of the party was less well-defined. This document makes sense for the
party that declined to show any support for Cindy Sheehan or for the huge
numbers of Americans who participated in the September 24th anti-war
protests. And Democratic Party affiliated anti-war groups and progressives in
general are likely to take their cue from it.
We’re on our own. Let’s face up to it. The Democratic Party
is pro-war.