U.S. Out of Iraq: Forum Features Conyers, Woolsey, Lee, Ellsberg

[WilliamPitt]

http://blog.pdamerica.org/?p=20#more-20

U.S. Out of Iraq: Forum Features Conyers, Woolsey, Lee, Ellsberg
By David Swanson

A forum held in a US House of Representatives office building on April 28 brought together leaders of the movement to withdraw US troops from Iraq, including Congresswomen Lynn Woolsey and Barbara Lee, both California Democrats and Co-Chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Woolsey is the sponsor of H. Con. Res. 35, a resolution calling for the withdrawal of troops to begin immediately.

Woolsey and Lee only stayed for part of the forum, but their remarks made clear that they support the position of the events’ organizer, the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), . They want to end the occupation, right away. Congressman John Conyers spoke as well and remained for the entire second panel of a two-session event, inviting participants up to his office afterward. While he began by expressing some ambivalence about immediate withdrawal, Conyers later said that he had found those who argued for it very persuasive.

Other speakers included Daniel Ellsberg, who famously released the Pentagon Papers to the media during the Vietnam War, and Marcus Raskin and Carl LeVan, whose resumes include co-editorship of a new book called “In Democracy’s Shadow: The Secret World of National Security.” Other contributors to the book and leaders of the peace movement participated as well.

The full event will be aired on Free Speech TV and on various radio stations. The two panels are described here in reverse order.

PANEL 2:

Congressman Conyers opened the second panel and began with the idea that getting out of Iraq is going to be more difficult that getting out of Vietnam.

But Conyers quickly moved into discussing problems with the “war on terrorism.” He said that very little attention was being paid to domestic terrorism, and that removing the ban on assault weapons in the U.S. opens a huge door for terrorists. “The contradictions are ironic as always, but also really painful,” he said, “because we’re working against even our stated goals.”

Conyers said that his staff had been able to identify only four people who have been convicted of terrorism, and that he is not convinced the United States is trying to capture Osama Bin Laden.

Conyers spoke against the war, saying, “The use of force to bring peace rarely ever works on a long-term basis.” But he warned that “the day we move out (of Iraq) is the day anybody with mischief on their mind will move in.”

Conyers acknowledged that many believe the United States is the cause of much of the violence in Iraq. “If we move out, much of the violence and terror will abate. I hope that’s true and that I can be persuaded of it.”

While uncertain as to what should be done, Conyers was clear about what was needed: a people’s movement. That, he said, was what ended the war on Vietnam. “I want to invent a way to do it without using dates,” he said, arguing that setting dates had not worked in the case of Vietnam.

Next to speak was Daniel Ellsberg, who said “Is Iraq different from Vietnam? Of course it is. It’s a dry heat. And the language we don’t speak is Arabic.” But, Ellsberg pointed out, the language spoken by our collaborators, such as Ahmad Chalabi (now appointed to head the oil ministry) is English, just as in Vietnam.

Ellsberg said that Americans are seen by everyone in Iraq, and correctly, as foreign occupiers, but that Americans don’t realize that - as they didn’t in Vietnam. Because we could not see that, he said, we had no better chance to ever win in Vietnam than did the French or the Japanese or the Chinese before them. “That is true in Iraq now.”

The elections failed to bring the Sunnis into the process, Ellsberg said.

“Americans will be dying and killing in Iraq as long as they are there. The question is how long will that be?”

...more...

[WilliamPitt]

1. .

[carnie_sf]

2. John Conyers

should have a leadership role when we take back congress

[tavalon]

3. Amen to that one! n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. Good work. At last, a few politicians are beginning to see the obvious.

No, it's not exactly like Vietnam. In some ways, it is worse, and poses a larger threat.

No matter what now happens in Iraq, the US has lost. We have lost any real allies we had in the region, save Israel. The whole region is now infintely more unstable than it was when Saddam was in power. Bush's claim that "Democracy is on the move" is so loaded with unexpected consequences that they are hard to list.

There is certainly a move in the Middle-East towards more representative and responsive government, but what direction that will take is hard to gauge. But, the smug surmise that any governments that fall, or will be transformed, will be "democratic" in the western sense is naive. That they will be even more anti-American is almost certain.

And, that's not all. The war in Iraq has exposed the weakness of the American military for all to see. Other 3rd world nations are beginning to resist American hegemony all over the world. Latin America is pulling away from American overlordship. Europe is becoming more and more wary of it's ties to American policy and is saying "No" more often.

China is a looming economic giant in Asia. And, Africa, as usual, is being ignored.

Not to mention the gutting of our treasury for "defense" to protect us from the far more many enemies engendered by our invasion and occupation of Iraq. A seemingly bottomless pit into which is thrown billions in the futile attempt to "stabilize" a country that doesn't want us there.

The "war" in Iraq was lost when the first GI crossed the border from Kuwait.

[goodhue]

5. sounds like a great event

thanks for posting this

[WilliamPitt]

6. .