In perhaps the greatest critique of the war in Iraq, US intelligence agencies — confirming what many critics have recognized for some time — say that the conflict is increasing the threat of anti-American terrorism. But despite the potential harm of such unintended consequences, not to mention strong opposition to the war among many Americans, even Democratic opponents of the Bush administration in Washington remain reluctant to support calls for a withdrawal.
This explains why peace activists are stepping up civil disobedience as part of a national campaign, dubbed the Declaration of Peace, intended to build support for ending the war in Iraq.
On Monday, 11 demonstrators, members of the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) and Rhode Island Military Families Speak Out, were arrested when they refused to leave after a daylong protest at the Cranston office of US Senator Jack Reed. Noah Merrill, program coordinator for the AFSC in southeastern New England, says the action was not meant as a protest of Reed, who voted against authorizing the war, but as an effort to encourage the senator — who is seen as having the ability to play a key role because of such factors as his military experience, his frequent visits to Iraq, and his respect within the military establishment.
While it’s fair to question the effect of such a protest, organizers of the Declaration of Peace (www.declarationofpeace.org) say they plan to incrementally increase their actions.
On Tuesday, roughly 200 activists were scheduled to take part in nonviolent civil disobedience at the Senate building in Washington, and a similar number of protesters were slated to do likewise at the House of Representatives on Wednesday. Merrill says local organizers of the action are focusing on planning their next steps in this ongoing campaign. (A “peace hoedown” is also on tap at AS220 in Providence on Sunday, September 30 from 5 to 8 pm.)
The ongoing war represents a quandary not just for the Bush administration, but also its Democratic critics. As the New York Times noted in a recent “Week in Review” piece, “For Democrats in Congress and those hoping to join them, the troublesome war in Iraq presents both a significant political opportunity and an exquisite dilemma.” On one hand, as the story noted, many Americans are uneasy about the Bush administration’s handling of the war, yet views are divided on the best course of action in going forward.
According to Merrill, Reed responded on September 15 that he would not be able to support the establishment of a definite timeline for withdrawal of US forces from Iraq, a key goal of the Declaration of Peace, because of his belief that a US withdrawal would destabilize the region, and that a timetable should be based on the decisions of commanders on the ground.
While some observers, like Reed, describe a US withdrawal as a recipe for a worsening spiral of violence in Iraq, Merrill notes that the amount of bloodshed has worsened there despite the best efforts of American forces. “We can see that the situation, as it stands, is not working,” he says. Although he agrees that commanders should be responsible for planning a withdrawal, he sees political pressure — and therefore public support — as a key to reaching that goal. Ultimately, Merrill believes, the best way for Iraqis to resolve the future of their country is without the presence of the American military.
