Anti-war politics

Wesleyan’s vaguely liberal atmosphere and demanding academic programs allows for a lazy, amorphous anti-war sentiment to pervade popular opinion (I think). A Blackboard site has been created (search: “Anti-War Politics”) to facilitate dialogue and critical engagement with the issue(s); you’re invited. Below I have listed some question areas; I apologize in advance for their incomplete nature—time is not mine.

Getting Out:

The war has split both liberals and (more importantly) the right in various ways; the left is joined on the right with (among others) both traditional and libertarian conservatives. It faces the opposition of not just neocons and empire-ists, but a significant number of moderate, “stay-the-course” liberals. A dialectic between anti- and pro-war discourses and within anti-war camps themselves could reveal which positions and languages are tenable and useful.

Resistance and Insurgency:

Here to investigate the strength, composition, tactics, and aims of those who fight US/UK/Iraqi government forces. How these factors have changed over time, how have ruling groups responded, and how have each side’s expectations been altered? Is Iraq really “descending into civil war?” How are identities and loyalties both shifting and being forged? Relating to the title (Resistance and Insurgency), syntax seems especially important, as either word is accompanied by a distinct set of connotations; I have purposefully included both terms, leaving this question open.

“Transfers” of Power:“ Elections, Constitution, and Government in Iraq

What is the significance of ”democracy-building“ efforts in Iraq? Underneath all the cant, what is actually happening, who is powerful, and who is benefiting? Does the U.S.’s exit strategy—built around the nucleus of the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF)—necessitate the formation of a strong state apparatus, and if so, how will it be resolved with the federalist preferences of the Kurds and Shia? Finally, in tandem with ”crushing the insurgency,“ U.S. plans for Iraq depend very much on co-opting the disaffected Sunni population into the new government; how is this being done and why will/won’t it work?

War Economics:

With the conquest of Iraq and the continued alliance with its Saudi clientele, the U.S. is sitting upon the two largest reserves of petroleum in the world; the geopolitics of oil will continue to be interesting. Beyond oil, the Iraq war and occupation have multi-dimensional economic implications.

Iraq: what will become of the productive machinery of this once rentier state? How will neoliberal economics [Briefly: 1. ”free trade,“ 2. legal ”reforms“ (i.e. degradation of environmental/labor legislation/ownership rules, regressive tax policy, enhancement of property rights) 3. privatization 4. foreign investment 5. austerity measures (on spending)] be imposed on or ”chosen“ by the new Iraq; what sources of resistance to these trends may arise? Iraq’s participation in OPEC? Reconstructing Iraq; where has the money gone? Last, if unemployment hovers around 50 percent and as the supply of electricity and clean water still remains capricious at best, how do people get by day-to-day (informal economies)?

US: What is the cost of the war(s) and where is the money coming from to pay it; how is the administration (if it really is doing this) able to rationalize the disjunct between conservative ”less spending“ ideology and the demands of aggressively maintaining empire? How much money is flowing to private contractors, including the Bechtels (Go Wes!) and Halliburtons, but also the estimated 30,000 mercenaries currently employed in Iraq; what oversight, if any, is being used to monitor these expenditures?

Torture:

Across the world, from Iraq to Afghanistan to New York, military and government intelligence agencies, and/or their international interlocutors, have detained and interrogated tens of thousands of people.

Here to investigate not only what has been brought to light in the media, but also how the ”necessity“ of torture and brutality are contested in mainstream political discourse, vis a vis the ”war on terrorism.“

Systems of Oppression within Movement Politics:

Prefigurative politics are essential to building a social movement which does not simply remake the same systems of domination and oppression already present within society at large. These considerations remain essential—not peripheral—to any anti-war politics; witness the demise of SPIN (Students for Peace in Iraq Now) during the outbreak of war, spring 2003.

Criticisms of the Movement/Visions for the Future:

American anti-war movements have (more or less) followed the same model which evolved during the 1960s. These ”repertoires of contention“ need to be reconsidered and reworked; it is questionable whether they were effective then—now, as Matt Taibbi writes, ”they don’t even make sense.“ What might new politics of disruption look like?