<html>
<body>
<font size=3><br><br>
WHAT DO WE DO NOW?<br>
By Howard Zinn<br>
Published in June, 2004 issue of The Progressive<br><br>
It seems very hard for some people -- especially those in high places,
but<br>
also those striving for high places -- to grasp a simple truth: The
United<br>
States does not belong in Iraq. It is not our country. Our presence
is<br>
causing death, suffering, destruction, and so large sections of the<br>
population are rising against us. Our military is then reacting
with<br>
indiscriminate force, bombing and shooting and rounding up people simply
on<br>
"suspicion."<br><br>
Amnesty International, a year after the invasion, reported: "Scores
of<br>
unarmed people have been killed due to excessive or unnecessary use
of<br>
lethal force by coalition forces during public demonstrations, at<br>
checkpoints, and in house raids. Thousands of people have been
detained<br>
[estimates range from 8,500 to 15,000], often under harsh conditions,
and<br>
subjected to prolonged and often unacknowledged detention. Many have
been<br>
tortured or ill-treated, and some have died in custody."<br><br>
The recent battles in Fallujah brought this report from Amnesty<br>
International: "Half of at least 600 people who died in the recent
fighting<br>
between Coalition forces and insurgents in Fallujah are said to have
been<br>
civilians, many of them women and children."<br><br>
In light of this, any discussion of "What do we do now?" must
start with the<br>
understanding that the present U.S. military occupation is morally<br>
unacceptable. The suggestion that we simply withdraw from Iraq is met
with<br>
laments: "We mustn't cut and run. . . . We must stay the course. . .
. Our<br>
reputation will be ruined. . . ." That is exactly what we heard
when, at the<br>
start of the Vietnam escalation, some of us called for immediate
withdrawal.<br>
The result of staying the course was 58,000 Americans and several
million<br>
Vietnamese dead.<br><br>
"We can't leave a vacuum there." I think it was John Kerry who
said that.<br>
What arrogance to think that when the United States leaves a place
there's<br>
nothing there! The same kind of thinking saw the enormous expanse of
the<br>
American West as "empty territory" waiting for us to occupy it,
when<br>
hundreds of thousands of Indians lived there already.<br><br>
The history of military occupations of Third World countries is that
they<br>
bring neither democracy nor security. The long U.S. occupation of
the<br>
Philippines, following a bloody war in which American troops finally
subdued<br>
the Filipino independence movement, did not lead to democracy, but rather
to<br>
a succession of dictatorships, ending with Fernando Marcos. The long
U.S.<br>
occupations of Haiti (1915-1934) and the Dominican Republic (1916-1926)
led<br>
only to military rule and corruption in both countries.<br><br>
The only rational argument for continuing on the present course is
that<br>
things will be worse if we leave. There will be chaos, there will be
civil<br>
war, we are told. In Vietnam, supporters of the war promised a bloodbath
if<br>
U.S. troops withdrew. That did not happen.<br><br>
There is a history of dire forecasts for what will happen if we desist
from<br>
deadly force. If we did not drop the bomb on Hiroshima, it was said,
we<br>
would have to invade Japan and huge casualties would follow. We know
now,<br>
and knew then, that was not true, but to acknowledge that did not fit
the<br>
government's political agenda. The U.S. had broken the Japanese code and
had<br>
intercepted the cables from Tokyo to the emissary in Moscow, which
made<br>
clear that the Japanese were ready to surrender so long as the position
of<br>
the Emperor was secure.<br><br>
Truth is, no one knows what will happen if the United States withdraws.
We<br>
face a choice between the certainty of mayhem if we stay and the
uncertainty<br>
of what will follow. There is a possibility of reducing that
uncertainty by<br>
replacing a U.S. military presence with an international
nonmilitary<br>
presence. It is conceivable that the United Nations should arrange, as
U.S.<br>
forces leave, for a multinational team of peacekeepers and
negotiators,<br>
including, importantly, people from the Arab countries. Such a group
might<br>
bring together Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds, and work out a solution
for<br>
self-governance, which would give all three groups a share in
political<br>
power.<br><br>
Simultaneously, the U.N. should arrange for shipments of food and
medicine,<br>
from the U.S. and other countries, as well as a corps of engineers to
begin<br>
the reconstruction of the country. In a situation that is obviously bad
and<br>
getting worse, some see the solution in enlarging the military presence.
The<br>
rightwing columnist David Brooks wrote in mid-April: "I never
thought it<br>
would be this bad," but he then expressed his joy that President
Bush is<br>
"acknowledging the need for more troops." This fits the
definition of<br>
fanaticism: "When you find you're going in the wrong direction, you
double<br>
your speed."<br><br>
John Kerry, sadly (for those of us who hoped for a decisive break from
the<br>
Bush agenda), echoes that fanaticism. If he learned any thing from
his<br>
experience in Vietnam, he has forgotten it. There, too, repeated failure
to<br>
win the support of the Vietnamese people led to sending more and more
troops<br>
into Tennyson's "valley of death." In a recent piece in
The Washington<br>
Post, Kerry talks about "success" in military terms. "If
our military<br>
commanders request more troops we should deploy them." He seems to
think<br>
that if we "internationalize" our disastrous policy, it becomes
less of a<br>
disaster. "We also need to renew our effort to attract international
support<br>
in the form of boots on the ground to create a climate of security in
Iraq."<br>
Is that what brings security -- "boots on the
ground"?<br><br>
Kerry suggests: "We should urge NATO to create a new out-of-area
operation<br>
for Iraq under the lead of a U.S. commander. This would help us obtain
more<br>
troops from major powers." More troops, more troops. And the U.S.
must be in<br>
charge -- that old notion that the world can trust our leadership --
despite<br>
our long record of moral failure.<br><br>
To those who worry about what will happen in Iraq after our troops
leave,<br>
they should consider the effect of having foreign troops:
continued,<br>
escalating bloodshed, continued insecurity, increased hatred for the
United<br>
States in the entire Muslim world of over a billion people, and
increased<br>
hostility everywhere.<br><br>
The effect of that will be the exact opposite of what our political<br>
leaders -- of both parties -- claim they intend to achieve, a
"victory" over<br>
terrorism. When you inflame the anger of an entire population, you
have<br>
enlarged the breeding ground for terrorism.<br><br>
What of the other long-term effects of continued occupation? I'm thinking
of<br>
the poisoning of the moral fiber of our soldiers -- being forced to
kill,<br>
maim, imprison innocent people, becoming the pawns of an imperial
power<br>
after they were deceived into believing they were fighting for
freedom,<br>
democracy, against tyranny.<br><br>
I'm thinking of the irony that those very things we said our soldiers
were<br>
dying for -- giving their eyes, their limbs for -- are being lost at home
by<br>
this brutal war. Our freedom of speech is diminished, our electoral
system<br>
corrupted, Congressional and judicial checks on executive power
nonexistent.<br><br>
And the costs of the war -- the $400 billion military budget (which
Kerry,<br>
shockingly, refuses to consider lowering)-- make it inevitable that
people<br>
in this country will suffer from lack of health care, a deteriorating
school<br>
system, dirtier air and water. Corporate power is unregulated and
running<br>
wild.<br><br>
Kerry does not seem to understand that he is giving away his strongest
card<br>
against Bush -- the growing disillusion with the war among the
American<br>
public. He thinks he is being clever, by saying he will wage the war
better<br>
than Bush. But by declaring his continued support for the military<br>
occupation, he is climbing aboard a sinking ship.<br><br>
We do not need another war President. We need a peace President. And
those<br>
of us in this country who feel this way should make our desire known in
the<br>
strongest of ways to the man who may be our next occupant of the
White<br>
House.<br><br>
[Howard Zinn, the author of "A People's History of the United
States," is a<br>
columnist for The Progressive. Copyright 2004 The
Progressive]<br><br>
<br>
</font><font size=3 color="#FF0000">The Freedom Archives<br>
522 Valencia Street<br>
San Francisco, CA 94110<br>
(415) 863-9977<br>
</font><font size=3><a href="http://www.freedomarchives.org/" eudora="autourl">www.freedomarchives.org</a></font></body>
</html>