[Marxism] When "Now" Means "Now"

["Eli Stephens" <elishastephens@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From two recent posts at Left I on the News:

When "Now" Means "Now"

Tom Hayden and various groups (Progressive Democrats of America, Peace
Action, and others) are urging me to sign "A People's Petition for an Iraq
Peace Process." Here's why I won't be signing it.

"First, as a confidence-building measure, the U.S. government must declare
that it has no interest in permanent military bases or the control of Iraqi
oil or other resources." Only someone with unjustified faith in the U.S.
government would care a fig what the U.S. government "declares." The U.S.
government breaks treaties whenever it suits it, its invasion of Iraq in
contravention of the United Nations Charter being perhaps the most relevant
example. A "declaration" isn't even worth that much.

"Second, as a further confidence-building measure, the U.S. government must
set goals for ending the occupation and bringing all our troops home - in
months, not years, beginning with an initial withdrawal of troops by the end
of this year." Hayden is either being disingenuous, or he's guilty of
innumeracy. The "end of this year" is 4 1/2 months away, and that's when he
proposes an "initial" withdrawal of troops"? When the petitition says
"months, not years" to bring "all our troops home," what does it mean
exactly? 36 months? 48 months? 96 months?

"Third, the U.S. government must request that the United Nations monitor the
process of military disengagement and de-escalation, and organize a peaceful
reconstruction effort." Unfortunately, since the U.N. has shown no
inclination to get involved, and since other countries are decommitting
forces to Iraq rather than committing them, the likelihood of this happening
is small, and certainly is in direct contradiction to the "month, not years"
proposal.

"Fourth, the U.S. government should appoint a peace envoy independent of the
occupation authorities to underscore its commitment to an entirely different
mission." Sure, how about John Bolton? Again, Hayden and his supporters show
that their illusions in the U.S. government know no bounds. If you want a
"peace envoy independent of the occupation authorities" (with what authority
is entirely unclear), how about letting Switzerland appoint the person? Or
Norway? Or anyone in the world except the U.S. government. Not that it would
amount to anything anyway.

"Fifth, the peace envoy should encourage and cooperate in talks with Iraqi
groups opposed to the occupation, including insurgents, to explore a
political settlement. The settlement must include representation of
opposition forces and parties, and power-sharing and the protection of
women's rights as core principles of governance and economic and energy
development." No "U.S.-appointed envoy", or anyone in the world other than
the Iraqis themselves, has the slightest right to be telling the Iraqis that
"representation of opposition forces" and "protection of women's rights"
etc. must be included in any "settlement." Of course I am for those things.
But what I am for doesn't matter. The U.S. should just get out now, period.
It didn't have the right to determine Iraq's future in the first place, and
having begun to do so (by overthrowing its government) doesn't give it a
continuing right to do so; it has no more rights in Iraq than it ever did.

Yesterday Hayden appeared on Democracy Now! promoting the petition; here's
one of the things he had to say:

AMY GOODMAN: Tom Hayden, just one question on the issue of withdrawal, for
clarification. In terms of a timetable, again, just reiterate what it is
that you're saying. There are those who are saying now, withdraw now. What
is your stance?

TOM HAYDEN: We went around and around on this. We think we're being stuck by
the President and by the media on this issue of now, because it implies,
like, in five minutes. It's absurd. The whole point about now is now make a
decision to get out.

So, Tom Hayden thinks that it's "absurd" for "now" to mean "now," and that
really "now" means "let's decide now," not "let's leave now."

Last night I watched a video filmed Saturday at a rally at "Camp Casey" in
Crawford, Texas. At that rally, Cindy Sheehan delivered a rousing speech to
600 or so supporters, culminating in a call for troops to be withdrawn
"now." And for Sheehan, "now" means "now" - before one more American soldier
is killed, before one more Iraqi is killed by an American, before one more
mother joins her in a lifetime of grief. The crowd, who responded to
Sheehan's cry of "out now" with a series of loud "nows" of their own,
clearly agreed.

Let me briefly address the question of "why now?" with an analogy before I
return to answer Hayden's question of "how now?" When you have a bull in a
china shop breaking all the china, the proper response is not to ask the
bull to repair the damage! The first thing to do is to get the bull out of
the shop (not "make a decision" to get the bull out sometime in the
future!). After you do that, you worry about repairing the damage, and
getting the bull's owner to pay for them.

Now let me turn to the other question - is it "absurd" to think that "now"
means "now"? Hayden uses the figure of five minutes. Yes, all American
troops cannot be physically off the soil of Iraq five minutes from now. But
here's something they could do five minutes from now, or five seconds from
now - stop firing! Cease all offensive actions, all bombing, and tank
firings, and so on. Interestingly enough, that simple proposal is not one of
the five points in Hayden's petition.

Now after that, how quickly could 140,000 or so American troops leave Iraq?
Let me pose a simple, if somewhat morbid, question. What if a nuclear bomb
exploded over Iraq tomorrow, and a mushroom cloud of dangerous radiation was
spreading over the whole country? How soon do you suppose the U.S. could get
its troops out of harm's way? (Assume they're not concerned about the Iraqis
- oh wait, it's not an assumption) Do you suppose they would be talking
about "months"? I shouldn't think so. The fact is, every single member of
the coalition forces, and every single mercenary in their employ, could be
living in Kuwait in a tent by the end of this week, if they chose to do so.
Sure, it would take a few weeks, or maybe a few months, to ferry them all
home by boat or plane, although surely all those coalition partners and
others like Russia could pitch in with their own ships and planes to help
the task. Let's ask another question -- how long did it take 140,000 (or
whatever the number was) of American and British soldiers to enter Iraq?
Days is the answer, not months. And it's not "absurd" to think they could
leave in exactly the same time. Cindy Sheehan, who hasn't been politically
active for her whole life like Tom Hayden, understands that completely. It's
too bad Tom Hayden doesn't, and chooses to call those of us who do "absurd".

Eli Stephens
 Left I on the News
 http://lefti.blogspot.com



________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism