Politicians don’t end wars; people force politicians to end wars. Though it might smell of cliché, the above is what I, as a peace activist and organizer, urge the voter to keep in mind during this election, the next election, and more importantly, the time in between the elections.
The policies of both candidates running on an “end the war” platform, Senator Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton, are virtually identical. Both candidates fail to propose an immediate withdrawal of all troops but have instead put forth plans for the withdrawal of combat troops alone. Obama proposes to accomplish this task in 16 months, and while Clinton says she can do it in only a year, the bottom line is this: when (and if) their plans are completed, approximately 70,000 American soldiers will remain in Iraq, not to mention the 100,000 or so mercenaries, a.k.a. private military contractors (Washington Post). For those of you who are less mathematically inclined, the total number of soldiers left in Iraq comes to…170,000. (If you question the concept of a complete and immediate withdrawal, I strongly urge you to read Students for Ending the War in Iraq’s (SEWI) pamphlet entitled “No Reason to Stay: The Case for Immediate Withdrawal from Iraq” at www.wesleyan.edu/wsa/sewi/ourposition.html.) In conclusion, none of the candidates running on an “end the war” ticket have genuine plans to end the American military occupation of Iraq.
Nevertheless, just because they do not advocate total withdrawal does not mean it won’t happen; they just need a little, and when I say “a little” I mean “a lot,” of active encouragement from the grass roots level. We must remember that even peace-loving politicians are faced with a system inclined towards warfare. The influence of Wesleyan’s very own weapons contractors, General Dynamics and Raytheon Corp. (major financial beneficiaries of the war), illustrates the above assertion.
In 2006, General Dynamics spent $9,364,324 on lobbying fees while Raytheon spent $5,978,157 in the same year. Moreover, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, the man who stood before the United Nations General Assembly and told the world that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, reported owning more than $1 million dollars worth General Dynamics stock in 2000. Similarly, Donald Rumsfeld, the former Secretary of Defense, reported owning $11 million worth of stock in a company called Gulfstream Aerospace when it was bought by General Dynamics in 1999 (opensecrets.org). Obviously, a conflict of interest emerges when government officials become financial beneficiaries of war.
Standing up against this system poses a risk, and politicians have a built-in aversion to risk. But history shows that politicians have and will listen to antiwar voices in this country. Nixon eventually bowed to antiwar sentiment and withdrew troops from Vietnam. He even wrote in his memoirs that he announced a troop reduction of 150,000 to appease antiwar protesters (“Johnson, Nixon and the Doves” by Melvin Small). Therefore, we must overtly, visibly, and audibly support our elected leaders in their pursuit of peace if we expect them to act. If we fail to take action, our leaders will fail to take action, just as they did after the Democrats won a majority in Congress in 2006.
As for the current primary, I would urge you to vote for the candidate who you believe will be most responsive to a vocal grassroots peace movement. My vote is for Obama; his experience as a community organizer will hopefully render him more apt to listen to the people. Nevertheless, when it comes to bringing all the troops home, I’m electing me and you.
Leave a Reply