To help PDA continue this work, please become a Sustaining Donor.

Advocacy Training: Why Democrats Should Oppose the U.S. Occupation of Iraq

Vol. 2, No. 4--May 11, 2005

By Joe Libertelli

The U.S. occupation of Iraq continues in part because of widespread confusion among Democrats about what to do. As we have seen, Howard Dean himself supports continued occupation. And even MoveOn, despite their initial opposition to the war, continues to support the occupation through their failure to effectively oppose it.

And the body count mounts.

Democrats must figure out where they stand on this issue. Those opposing the occupation need to learn how to effectively advocate for their position. To be an effective advocate, one must both be able to state one's affirmative case in a succinct fashion AND also be able to anticipate and counter opposing arguments. What follows is an attempt first to state an affirmative case and then to list counter arguments and suggested refutations.

As you use these arguments, you will see what works best for you. I'm sure you will also find additional arguments, counter arguments and refutations. I would be very happy to hear your suggestions. Please send them to Joe@pdamerica.org

Affirmative Argument for Withdrawal

It is likely that an American withdrawal would result in eased tensions in Iraq and a lessening of violence. However, even if it is deemed likely that an American departure would cause more short term and medium term bloodshed, the U.S. should still withdraw immediately as there is an even greater evil - the likelihood that failure to oppose the occupation will encourage future non-defensive, pre-emptive wars with bloodshed and environmental destruction orders of magnitude greater than what might result from U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. Right now, the Haliburtons and the Bechtels and the Brown & Roots and so many other corporation continue to consume tens of billions of taxpayer dollars. Democrats must act now to stop them. We must deter future imperial wars by demanding that the rules of international law be followed and the illegal occupation end immediately. And profits from illicit contracts must be disgorged.

MYTH 1 - You Break It, You Own It:
One basic problem is that most Americans, and perhaps the majority of Democrats, accept Colin Powell's apocryphal Pottery Barn Rule: "You break it, you own it." But Americans should not "buy" the "we bought it" notion for several reasons.

RESPONSES:

a) For one, the idea that we can buy or "own" another country is anti-democratic and, in this case, racist. We no more "own" Iraq by virtue of our invasion and occupation than we did beforehand.

b) Secondly, while Republicans may prefer the "ownership" model, the trial lawyer-informed "damages" model is much more apropos. We do not get to "own" Iraq just because we "broke" it, but we do have to pay to make amends for the damage we've done.

MYTH 2 - Cutting and Running: Occupation supporters say that if the U.S. were to leave Iraq, we'd be "cutting and running" - in other words cowardly slinking away from our responsibilities.

RESPONSES:

a) Far from "cutting and running" the peace movement insists that the U.S. taxpayer, by virtue of his and her foolish support for this war, has earned the right to foot the bill for reparations for the damage done in our names.

b) Repairing the damage, however, cannot be the job of American troops - or American companies. U.S. troops must come out now, Haliburton, et. al, must be cut off and forced to disgorge their ill-gotten and unearned billions. The rebuilding of Iraq must be controlled by the Iraqis themselves, with full funding from the hoodwinked voter-taxpayers of the U.S., Britain, Italy and other members of the coalition of the gullible and greedy. Security during the transition to legitimate Iraqi rule must be handled by the United Nations, no the United States.

MYTH 3 - Chaos Theories: Many Americans of good will fear that a pull-out of U.S. troops will spell increased chaos for Iraq. They feel guilty about the war as it is and would feel even guiltier if that were to happen. Perhaps a full blown civil war might begin.

RESPONSES:

a) One obvious response to this concern is that much of Iraq is already in deep chaos, and while the removal of U.S. troops may make matters worse in some places for some time, it is also likely to make matters better in some places - with a prospect for long-term improvement.

b) Another reply which the militarists don't like to hear, is that while Vietnam certainly experienced a period of chaos after the U.S war there, Vietnam recovered. Left to its own devices - without any help from the U.S. or the U.N., Vietnam survived and is now prospering. There is every reason to believe that Iraq would make an equally successful transition - especially with the financial support of its invaders and the rest of the international community.

MYTH 4 - The Credibility Gap: Encouraging Global Terrorism: There is fear that U.S. troop withdrawal would encourage terrorism not only in Iraq, but elsewhere. The fear is that if the U.S. military were to leave, that would encourage the kind of gruesome mass murder of civilians that has become a routine practice in parts of Iraq, since that would be seen to have been effective.

This is linked with the concern that the withdrawal of U.S. troops will undermine U.S. credibility. The gist of this concern is that other countries may not respond as readily to our threats of invasion and occupation if they don't know that we always follow through to the nth degree. Proponents of this line of thinking would have one believe that lots of countries would be willing to suffer an invasion and occupation for a year or two if a tiny sliver of a silver lining of eventual troop withdrawal could be seen. (And absent the death penalty, many more people would commit murder, right?)

RESPONSES:

a) Does the argument that a U.S. withdrawal will undermine our credibility has a familiar ring to it? It is very similar to the argument was used to start the war, too. Once we had talked loudly enough about attacking, we were told, it would hurt our "credibility" not to follow through.

b) Of course, in both instances, proponents of the credibility gap theory fail to acknowledge that it might not be advantageous to be "credible" if our purpose is to illegally and deceitfully invade and occupy. In this larger sense, violating international law by initiating an unprovoked war upon another country has been devastating to our credibility. Using lies to justify the attack has been devastating to our credibility. Use of napalm-like weapons and depleted uranium has been devastating to our credibility. Allowing corporations with ties to our president to profit at Iraqis' expense has been devastating to our credibility. Opinion of America abroad has never been lower.

MYTH 5 - Democracy for Iraq: Bush, Inc. has told Americans that our "real" reason for being in Iraq is to foster democracy.

RESPONSE:

a) This is nice rhetoric, which most Democrats know to be a fig leaf hiding his ugly little motives. But he can't have it both ways. To the extent that we think the recent vote there had any legitimacy, it's clear that the people of Iraq want the U.S. out now. According to Naomi Klein, writing in The Nation, "The election results are in: Iraqis voted overwhelmingly to throw out the US-installed government of Iyad Allawi, who refused to ask the United States to leave. A decisive majority voted for the United Iraqi Alliance; the second plank in the UIA platform calls for 'a timetable for the withdrawal of the multinational forces from Iraq.' The Iraqis, owners of their own country, apparently want the troops out."

MYTH 6 - Bush's Strategy, Like it or Not, is Working. Proponents of the war and occupation strategy assert that the Iraqi elections and the democracy movement in Lebanon are proof that Bush's democracy at gunpoint strategy is working.

RESPONSES:

a) This argument is similar to the assertion that the Reagan buildup, on top of 40 years of arms racing, is what "won" the Cold War for the West - that the spending "broke" the Soviets economically. This argument is difficult to defeat because it is partly true! However, the question is not "did it work" but "was the strategy employed the only, best, or most cost-effective way of maintaining security?" The answer to the question phrased this way, both with regard to Iraq and the Soviet union, is no. During the Cold War, numerous opportunities for détente were ignored by the U.S., which continually advanced weapons technology and spending. During that time, the U.S. "Hawks" continually asserted that the "Soviets are ahead" and demanded more and more defense spending. Eisenhower, a Republican (and, after all, there was virtually no difference on arms-race issues between Republicans and Democrats with the exception of Kennedy's aborted - or shall we say assassinated - attempt to withdraw troops from Vietnam in Nov. '63). warned of the growing power of the military industrial complex. The fall of the Soviet Union revealed just how hollow these warnings were and begs the question, "might another strategy have worked as well or better." The one that was employed against the Soviets cost trillions of dollars. The one being employed now in Iraq may well end up costing a trillion dollars. Think of the peace that could be 'bought' for those sums? Think of what a "Marshall Plan" for the poor of Africa and the Middle East would have done for the U.S.'s reputation. If the U.S. were a real force for good in the world, the "Arab Street" and regular people everywhere would reign in our enemies and we would need far fewer physical defenses. The war and armament approach enriches the few and

b) In addition, democracy in Iraq could well be spelled "theocracy." Should American forces remain in Iraq until the Iraqi people elect a nice "Western style" government?

c) While the Soviet Union - and Sadaam - are now gone, the potential for disaster remains. In the case of the former Soviet Union, thousands of nuclear warheads still remain. In both Iraq and the former Soviet Union, the potential for civil war and economic mayhem remains. We need to ask ourselves if we had alternatives - and if there were reasons that those alternatives were not given due consideration.

d) Lebanon now seems poised to push Syria out. Doubtlessly the Bushies are claiming credit. But there were democracy movements in Lebanon and throughout the world that have been ignored by America and Bush in particular.

MYTH 7 - It's a Dog Eat Dog World - We Need to Be the Baddest Dog. Other proponents of the war and occupation don't emphasize the "democracy" arguments. They assert that it's a dog eat dog world out there, and we have to be the biggest bastards to assure we're not eaten alive by terrorists and economically, for example, if America were to lose its cheap oil supply. They see the Bush oil and power grab as realistic and necessary. If they were to be candid, they might assert that without such a grab, the American lifestyle is in some jeopardy and they might rightly assert that the American public will not let its SUVs, bigger and bigger houses, air travel, etc. go quietly. And, on this point, they might be right.

RESPONSE:

a) While there is more than a grain of truth in the "dog eat dog" perspective, and progressive Democrats and others should not advocate "unilateral disarmament," seeing the world through "dog eat dog" eyes becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. US security interests would be better served by diverting increasing sums of war money into effective anti-poverty, health-promoting and U.N. peacekeeping programs. Right now the balance is way, way off. Conclusion: Shall We Encourage or Deter Elective War?

b) While are grains of truth embedded in the aforementioned concerns about the withdrawal of U.S. forces, and the dangerous nature of the world, there is a larger and more important truth: by allowing the U.S. military to continue to control Iraq, and by allowing the Haliburtons, et al, to continue to benefit from the enormous U.S. taxpayer-funded reconstruction budget, we encourage more than mere terrorism - we encourage future bloody wars based on lies and misrepresentations on behalf of vested interest.

c) So even if there is a price to be paid, we cannot allow George Bush and corporate pals get to "take and keep" Iraq. If for no other reason than to discourage such behavior in the future, we MUST demand the troops come home now. We must demand that the monies supporting the U.S. war machine be redirected toward UN peacekeeping and to progressive development efforts.

d) We cannot know for certain in advance whether more or less Iraqi blood will be shed in the short term if the U.S. were to pull out now, but we do know that there will be fewer U.S. deaths. And the sooner the American people stop this war, the more deterrence there will be against future deceitful, murderous moves by the military-industrial-congressional complex and their executive branch allies.

Back to Table of Contents