Stopping the war
Several weeks ago, I was in Washington DC with 150,000
others protesting the Bush administration’s fraudulent rush to war. Surrounded
by fellow dissenters, buoyed by demonstrations taking place elsewhere across
the US and abroad, I sensed a powerful tide of public opinion against the war.
Back in Rochester, a coalition of organizations was active and committed,
sponsoring rallies of over a thousand people. Together, we could stop this
thing.
Then
came the avalanche of Bush-led victories in the midterm elections, followed by
the 15-0 vote for Bush’s UN Security Council resolution. Deflated, some of us
wondered whether our optimism was wishful thinking. Was the cause already lost,
with Congress, the UN, and most of the US population apparently behind the Bush
momentum for war?
The
answer is, resoundingly, no.
The
election was by no means a referendum on the war, since the Democrats had
conceded Bush’s war agenda before the vote. And a majority of US citizens
polled, including many of those voting Republican, continue to voice strong
opposition to a unilateral US attack on Iraq.
The
UN Security Council vote was about political appearances, backroom deals, and
tactical maneuvers to avoid war through renewed inspections, not a unanimous
endorsement of war.
So
while Bush might seem now to have an uncontested mandate for war, in fact we
have come a long way in preventing war. The massive, ongoing demonstrations,
here and elsewhere (many thousands just marched throughout Canada), have
successfully stalled Bush’s original war agenda. Recall that only a few months
ago Bush was insisting on his prerogative to go to war without any approval
whatsoever from Congress, from our allies, or from the UN.
Bush’s
appeal for Congressional approval was a retreat, as was his appeal to the
United Nations. And the Security Council resolution was itself a compromise,
requiring Bush to return to the Security Council if Iraq obstructs inspections,
rather than triggering an automatic US military response. The definition of
Iraqi non-compliance also remains controversial, with other nations vigilant
against too hasty a call to war.
Bush
has had to maintain a semblance of legitimacy in world opinion, which shows
that US superpower status has limits, that Bush cannot simply do whatever he
wants. There is room to maneuver.
So
what are we to do? Above all, we must remember that despite the veneer of
legitimacy lent by Congress, the UN, and the elections, the rationale for war
remains a fraudulent house of cards, built on layers of incoherent swagger and
shameless lies. Lies about the global importance of Saddam and Iraq relative to
other world problems. Lies, too, about the imminent danger of Iraq to the US,
about Saddam’s ties to Al Qaeda, about Saddam’s weapons capabilities, about the
demise of previous UN inspections, about the competing goals of disarmament and
“regime change,” about the prospect of Middle East postwar stability, and about
humanitarian concerns for the Iraqi people (still suffering under genocidal
sanctions).
We
must continue to call public attention to this torrent of deception and
dissembling. We must remind our neighbors that this call to war is irrational,
immoral, illegitimate, and potentially catastrophic.
We
must also signal people in other nations that our own antiwar dissent is
ongoing and growing stronger. And we must continue sending a clear message to
Bush that he will not get a free ride, that his policy must continue to carry
legitimacy in the world of public opinion.
Together
we can still stop this thing. Contract MetroJustice (325-2560) for further
information.
Douglas D. Noble, Werner Park, Rochester (Noble is a MetroJustice member.)
A better Cobbs Hill
Thanks to Rich Gardner for the piece on Cobbs Hill (“Cobbs
Hill Diaries,” November 13). What do you think of ending general public auto
traffic to the reservoir? I see several benefits:
1)
Apparently, the concrete barriers installed after 9/11 are to fend off cars
with lots of nasty chemicals crashing into the water and polluting it. End the
traffic, and the barriers can come down.
2)
Speeding traffic on the road makes walking up to the reservoir dangerous,
noisy, and decidedly un-natural. End the traffic, and you improve the quality
of the park experience.
3)
Cars are the means by which beer and much garbage is brought to the park.
People throw their empties into the woods regularly, as any walk into the
sloped woods on the east, south, and west sides reveals. End the traffic, and
you reduce this problem greatly. Most people will not lug a 12-pack up to the
top (though no doubt some still will).
4)
Build a parking lot at the corner of Highland and Monroe. People can walk up
from there, or perhaps have golf-cart trams run them to the top.
There
is precedent for ending vehicle traffic: Much of Central Park in New York City
is closed to traffic on the weekends. The park will be cleaner, quieter an
safer as a result.
Tom Pappas, Oakdale Drive, Brighton
The ‘most violent’?
Jon Popick’s review of Bowling
for Columbine mentions the “fact” that America is the most violent country
in the world. I am tired of the US being labeled this way.
There
are many forms of violence. What about the violence that occurs in other parts
of the world? In Europe, it is not rare for a bloody riot to accompany a
sporting event. In Asia, one celebration involves people piercing their bodies.
Rituals in many areas of the world would be banned as torture in the US. In
countries run by dictators, people fear painful deaths if they do not champion
the ruler.
Most
of what I have listed is sanctioned violence. The crimes that make the US seem
so violent are not sanctioned. Having said that, I certainly am appalled by the
number of gun murders in our nation and am shocked that Canada’s number is so
much smaller, despite Canadians’ having more guns per household. Focus should
be placed on the motives for these killings, and not on why this nation is
supposedly the most violent in the world.
Kieni Schneider, Honeoye
This article appears in Dec 4-10, 2002.
