Left I on the News

I'm going to repeat something I wrote a month ago, and something which Libertarian Harry Browne said quite a bit more eloquently a year ago (in a slightly different context). There are many people, a significant percentage of those who were opposed to the invasion of Iraq before it happened, who believe that "Out Now!" is an irresponsible position, that things will get worse in Iraq (although as noted in the post just below, I don't see how that's possible myself), and that we can't leave. If that is your position, or the position of someone you are trying to convince to support the demonstrations on September 24, you need to ask just one question: whatever purpose you think the U.S. troops are now serving in Iraq, whether it's "building democracy" or "protecting Iraq from descending into civil war" or whatever, is that purpose worth your life? Would you be willing to go to Iraq, right now, and fight and die for that "cause" that you think the U.S. troops are fighting for (or, if not you, then your son or daughter, your best friend, your best friend's son or daughter, or whomever you like)? Because if that "cause" isn't worth your death, then it is the rankest hypocrisy for you (or whomever takes this position) to suggest that it is worth someone else's death, specifically the soldiers who will be serving and dying in Iraq for the next three months, or six months, or two years, or whatever it takes. And you can't avoid answering this question by saying that "well, I believe that American troops should be replaced by U.N. peacekeepers", because however wonderful that might sound, it is not happening. The reality is that, is U.S. troops don't leave, then U.S. troops will be staying, and U.S. troops will be dying.

So if you think that U.S. troops should be in Iraq for even one more day, it's time to answer that question. Because if, when you think about it long and hard, you wouldn't be willing to give up your life, then you should be out in the streets on September 24 trying to make sure that no one else has to either.

Will demonstrations on September 24 stop the war? After all, millions of people in the streets before the invasion didn't stop it, and it's quite like there will be significantly fewer on September 24. But, as I wrote in the comments to the post below, things change. Always remember the Vietnam analogy. It was the combined efforts of the Vietnamese fighting against U.S. occupation and the U.S. antiwar forces, with the major effort coming from the former, which forced the U.S. out of Vietnam. And the same is, or will hopefully be, true in Iraq. Before the invasion, the U.S. wasn't anticipating the level of resistance it is seeing. It is a combination of that resistance, plus the effect it is having on the Americans (dead and wounded soldiers, recruitment shortfalls, etc.), that will allow (at some point, if not on Sept. 24) the pressure from American (and other nationalities, of course) antiwar demonstrators to become the straw that broke the camel's back. And when that breaking point will come is simply unknowable. It is true that, given the fact that even liberal Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi couldn't bring herself to vote in favor of the Woolsey amendment calling for a "plan" for withdrawal (not withdrawal, just a "plan" for one at some indefinite time in the future), and given that the Senate just voted 99-0 to spend $81 billion more on war, it does seem unlikely that the breaking point will come on September 24. But one thing for sure. Without the mass pressure represented by events like September 24, it will never come.