She was vilified by both the right (for disagreeing with their defence of endless war and their definition of supporting the troops), and the left (for her uncompromising stance in favor of peace). After first being the darling of the media during the dog days of summer 2005, when she camped out near George Bush's vacation retreat and demanded to speak with him personally about the "noble cause" that her son and so many others had died for in Iraq, she has since faced an increasingly hostile mainstream press that can't understand how she could "trash the president" or his policies; and she did it all while retaining her composure and dignity.
She didn't care about the politics of the situation and finally she stopped supporting the Democratic Party because of its failure (so far) to end the war. For this she received scorn from leftwing bloggers that eventually was enough to cause her to rethink her commitment to the cause itself. These are certainly trying times for the movement, and she deserves a chance to rest; maybe this is a good time for her to take a step back and look at the larger picture. She has said that in the future she will return to humanitarianism, but not to peace rallies and marches. She feels betrayed by the Democratic Congress that voted to continue funding the war without timelines, and is frustrated by the lack of evidence that all of the hemming and hawing accomplished anything.
One problem is that, though the reasons given for the invasion continue to appear elusive (or illusive), there are substantial rationales in place that preclude ever completely leaving Iraq. A timetable for withdrawal would force the issue and cause us to face certain truths that many would rather see obscured. This war was started by a Bush administration determined to secure Middle Eastern oil for its corporate sponsors, and unfortunately, many Democrats are also beholden to the same lobbyists. That's why some Democratic candidates for president pay lip service to the anti-war movement, but support a continued presence in Iraq for years to come.
Fourteen bases, scheduled to revert to four permanent bases once we have obtained long-term oil contracts, and an American Embassy (the largest in the world), are entrenched to maintain control over any action perceived to threaten U.S. interests. And make no mistake, that means U. S. business interests, not the interests of the American people. It may appear on the surface that we really do need the oil, but in reality, conservation and alternative resources (solar, wind, biomass), combined with friendly trading for oil with foreign countries while we convert to them, is a far better long-term solution.
Despite all the rhetoric from presidential candidates about ending the war, until oil can be mentioned as the reason we are there, no real progress can be made. Even Cindy Sheehan fails to address this issue, while understandably focusing on the human costs. It's hard to build a case for leaving Iraq without elucidating the real purpose of our government's agenda there. Until we expose the corporate basis of our presence in the Middle East, the U.S. will never begin forming a sane foreign policy.
We could offer to build solar, wind, and biomass converters in Iraq and Iran, especially since the latter is lobbying for increased energy and we oppose their current nuclear enrichment so vehemently (while promoting it for ourselves and allies); yet not once has this been suggested by our diplomats, president, or Congress. No mainstream media source has even mentioned the possibility of using alternative energies in the Middle East, and "The U.S and it's allies believe Iran is developing nuclear weapons, while the Iranian's insist that their nuclear activities are for peaceful purposes only," line is repeated ad nauseum in virtually every news item on the subject. Ultimately, the use of nuclear energy for even "peaceful" purposes must be challenged. That is where we have the biggest failure of leadership by both our country and our allies.
The Democrats shouldn't be given up on in the face of this latest setback over timelines for many practical reasons. The Green and Libertarian parties, for instance, lack seats in Congress, and thus would be powerless in the unlikely event that they could win the presidency. Instead of playing spoiler, third parties should lobby for switching to a Parliamentary system, where all parties can share power according to their level of support. It's true, though, that Americans are probably never going to agree to changing the two-party system, both because of tradition, which reaches back to the forming of the republic, and because we tend to favor a winner take all "championship" type battle for president. Unless or until this paradigm evolves, coalitions must be formed within the existing structure to help bring about positive change.
It is counter-productive to work against those trying their best to achieve our goals, and therefore I disagreed with Cindy Sheehan when she and her group protested the Democrats at their inauguration this January. I also disagree with her and others that are abandoning the Democratic Party in favor of third parties with even less of a chance to end the war. Though they have a slim majority, Congressional Democrats currently lack the votes to override a recalcitrant executive. We must work towards increasing their majority, rather than challenging them at the ballot box in pursuit of unrealistic, though well-intentioned ideals. Change must come in increments, unfortunately, and it will take years to reverse the damage this administration has wrought. In fact, some of it can never be mended, and here I share her frustration.
Cindy can take heart that she helped make a difference when it was needed and that her sacrifices were not in vain. Achieving peace may seem insurmountable now, but it is never hopeless as long as we remain vigilant and focused on our goal. Here's hoping that she can find the strength to rejoin us at some point and bring more of her inspiration to our eternal cause.
Sources:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/31/1573/
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/05/1768/
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/014385.php
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/58/18340
No comments:
Post a Comment