A more careful examination of his remarks, however, reveals a
disdain for politicians on both sides of the aisle. He decries all of
America’s political leaders as “incompetent”, “inept” and “derelict in
the performance of their duty.”
While I find much to agree
with in his contemporary criticisms, I remember well his defense of the
occupation on the basis of the weakest argument in the Bush arsenal of
lies, deceptions and evasions: We have to fight them there so that we
don’t have to fight them here.
Lt. General Sanchez is neither a
hero nor a man of particular integrity. Like the party Democrat, he
presents his argument as a means of deflecting attention from his
proposed course of action.
“America has no choice but to
continue our efforts in Iraq. A precipitous withdrawal will…lead to
chaos that would endanger the stability of the greater Middle East.”
If
Sanchez is running for office, he is positioned to sign on with John
McCain, Hillary Clinton or any other mainstream candidate.
That
anyone is even paying attention to the old war horse is disturbing.
What is the point of repeating the obvious? Were we waiting for an
official declaration from the military? Does it count now?
The
disturbing part is the disconnect between acknowledging the immoral and
aggressive nature of the war, including the deceptions used to
prosecute it, and accepting the immoral nature of the occupation.
The
disturbing part is the disconnect between diagnosing the disease
(aggressive warfare) and prescribing the obvious cure: Orderly but
direct withdrawal of our military forces. We have had more than four
years to thoughtfully consider all options. In this context, there is
no such thing as “precipitous” withdrawal.
If we have come no
further than this then we have accomplished absolutely nothing in over
five years of opposition and protest.
The media and the
candidates are seriously discussing war with Iran. Democratic
contenders for the presidency decline to promise complete withdrawal by
the year 2013. Republican contenders are allowed to pretend that the
war in Iraq is synonymous with a mythological war on terror. The only
true antiwar and anti-occupation candidates are belittled as
unrealistic and marginalized as extremists. America’s mainstream media
pointedly ignore antiwar protests and gatherings as they pretend that
the wearing of flag lapel pins is a legitimate issue.
That we have moved the debate so little with so great an effort over so many years is tragic beyond words.
What
is the next move? What can we do that we have not done that can ease
the tensions of the world and end an immoral occupation?
We
can continue to protest and engage in acts of civil disobedience
because it is the right thing to do but we can no longer pretend it
will have any effect in the near future. We can neither pretend that
supporting the mainstream Democrats will further the antiwar,
anti-occupation cause. The frontline Democrats may represent a
softening of war rhetoric but they have made it amply clear that policy
will be controlled by events on the ground. In the context of an
ongoing war, the Democrats are as likely to call for more troops, as
likely to pull the trigger on attacking Iran, as likely to support
Israel in attacking Syria, and as likely to propose a revival of
military conscription as the leading warmongers of the Republican
Party.
What can we do?
The major parties have fought
back the emergence of an independent or third party movement by arguing
that a vote for independence is a throwaway. Try as we may, we cannot
convince the electorate that voting for a Ralph Nader in the general
election is anything but a waste of time and effort.
The
people are not ignorant. They see the results and they believe that
two to three percent of registered voters made no impact – or if they
did, it was anything but the intended effect. Ralph Nader (so the
story goes) helped to elect George W. Bush.
While it is futile
to argue otherwise in a general election, the opposite is true in the
primaries. In a primary, before the nomination is sowed up, voters
have an opportunity to shape the policies of the party nominee. In a
primary, voters have a power they will not possess in any other
election.
We can assume that the party of war is beyond
redemption. Nevertheless, every vote for Ron Paul will send a message
to the others that there is a price for warmongering—even in the
Republican Party.
In the Democratic Party, everyone who is
antiwar and anti-occupation will be throwing their votes away if they
vote for the leading candidates. They will be delivering a message to
Clinton that is only prudent to authorize war with Iraq and Iran. They
will be delivering a message to Obama and Edwards that it is fine to be
antiwar but pro-occupation, that it is appropriate to balk at a
four-year deadline for withdrawal, that it is unnecessary to denounce
the Bush Doctrine of aggressive war, that it is unnecessary to demand
the dismantling of our permanent bases (including our fortified
embassy), and that the prospect of expanding the war to Iran and Syria
is acceptable.
Anyone who votes for the mainstream candidates
will become a party to what is happening in Iraq and the blood that
flows will stain their hands as well as the hands of the Neocons.
The
only way for an antiwar voter to make an impact is to vote for a
second-tier candidate with an unqualified antiwar, anti-occupation
policy.
Remember that Robert Kennedy did not break out against
the Vietnam War until Eugene McCarthy began to steal the antiwar
thunder.
It does not matter which of the antiwar candidates
you choose. If you want to make an impact on the policy of the
frontrunners, show them the way.
Every antiwar protest vote in
the early primaries is worth a hundred or a thousand votes for Clinton,
Obama or Edwards. If the true antiwar vote can reach ten or fifteen
percent, Obama and Edwards will listen and respond accordingly.
End the war by voting against it.
Jazz.
Writings 
I will not be jumping aboard the Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez bandwagon but the tenor of his criticism is informative. Clearly, the former commander is speaking for a growing number of military officials. 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
