THE SCATTERING: How the Left was Undone

I do not always agree with comedian-commentator Bill Maher. He seems to have a blind eye to Israeli aggression and his turn-about on the war once the bombing began was both naïve and damaging. Nevertheless, I often tune in to his program on HBO because there are times when he provides a forum for rare discourse and dissident voices.

Recent programs have featured stimulating interviews with journalist Naomi Klein (The Shock Doctrine) and Russian chess master and political dissident Garry Kasparov.

His most recent program was disrupted when a group of activists heckled and shouted the host down for his neglect of the 9-11 conspiracy theory. It was disturbing on two levels: First, Maher reacted with disproportionate rage and intolerance. Second, I had to wonder if this was the proper forum for protest.

Having learned that Naomi Klein confronted a similar challenge on her book tour in Seattle, I was reminded of the discomfort I felt when antiwar protestor and grieving mother Cindy Sheehan announced her intention to take on Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

I understand the frustration we all feel with a Democratically controlled congress that refuses to take the necessary steps (cutting off appropriations) to end the war but I am also realistic enough to know that Nancy Pelosi is not the problem. Outside the Congressional Black Caucus, Pelosi is as good as it gets in mainstream politics. If she had the votes to cut off appropriations, I have little doubt that she would lead the cause.

The problem is: The antiwar vote is divided and the opposition is scattering like dry leaves in a strong wind.

The choice that has divided us is: Immediate or phased withdrawal.

It would seem a reasonable compromise is available: Immediate initiation of a phased withdrawal. But that is not a question that has been posed.

Once again, we have allowed the warlords and their collaborators to frame the debate. The people have not been asked the question that cut the heart out of the antiwar movement in the Democratic Party: Should all forces be withdrawn by the end of the next president’s first term?

Moreover, the media have failed to ask an even more telling question: Should we continue the occupation against the will the Iraq people?

(According to a poll by the Project on International Policy cited by Vermont writer Ashley Smith – The New Lie to Justify Endless War, Dissident Voice, October 25, 2007 – fully two thirds of Iraqis believe "a US commitment to withdrawal will strengthen the Iraqi government and make a conciliation…more likely.")

The idea that immediate withdrawal (within logistical limits) would be precipitous (without thought or planning) is absurd more than four years in to the occupation. To suggest that our military has not plotted multiple contingencies of withdrawal is to accuse them of gross negligence.

While the Republicans have stuck to the president’s line (Iraq is still the front line against terrorism), it is the Democrats that have peddled the position that we cannot get out even if we want to because all hell would break loose if we did.

Despite persistent rumors to the contrary, all hell has already broken out in Iraq at our determined insistence. We have fueled the fires of civil war, exploited Iraqi divisions, changed sides by region and by neighborhood, threatened to attack Iran and cheered Israel in attacks on Lebanon and Syria. We are we three ticks away from a regional war engulfing Turkey, Kurdistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.

All this because we initiated a war of aggression, establishing an infrastructure of permanent occupation, and failed to withdraw in a timely manner.

Any student of history knows we have entered a devil’s bargain, a deepening quagmire of debt and destruction, and the only way forward is out.

That we cannot trust this administration to engage in serious diplomacy is a given. It is also a given that our presence in Iraq has only made matters worse and our continued presence will have the same effect with profoundly worse consequences.

Meantime, the opposition is moving in a dozen directions. The antiwar crowd is divided. The Green crowd and the 9-11 crowd have their own agendas and none are welcomed in the politics of the mainstream parties.

Have we come this far only to fulfill that age-old truism: The left implodes, dividing against itself, scattering into a thousand voices, sniping at natural allies, without a unifying cause or message?

Many generations before us have thought that theirs was the ultimate challenge. This time it may be real. If we cannot find common ground we will lose any chance of altering the course of the nation as it urges the world to a state of permanent war.

A world in a state of permanent war and perpetual fear is a world in which liberty is in perpetual retreat.

A world at war is a world that can do little to stop genocide or save the planet from the ravages of global climate change.

A world at war is not a world where historical truths will be revealed or acknowledged.

I do not doubt there is a great deal of evidence that what really happened on September 11, 2001, is not yet known to the general public. I do not discard the possibility of a conspiracy that would lead to the doors of government agents.

I do, however, have serious reservations about attacking Naomi Klein (whose theme of corporate dominance cuts to the core of the problem), Noam Chomsky or Bill Maher for failing to take up the cause.

Maybe they should take up the cause because it is the right thing to do or maybe taking up that cause at this time would damage their credibility and weaken their voices by marginalizing them in the mainstream media.

In an environment where complex arguments are dismissed with sound bite summations, we can hardly doubt that is exactly what would happen.

Chomsky and Klein are wrong, in my judgment, to suggest that the 9-11 conspiracy theory is somehow not important but the 9-11 crowd is also wrong to suggest that everyone must take up the cause. There is room enough on the left for all of us and at this time and place the unifying cause remains:

End the war in Iraq so that we can then move on to global climate change, international labor, democratic reform, the war in Afghanistan, civil liberties, civil rights, historical truths and other pressing issues.

Jazz.

JACK RANDOM IS THE AUTHOR OF THE JAZZMAN CHRONICLES (CROW DOG PRESS) AND GHOST DANCE INSURRECTION (DRY BONES PRESS). THE CHRONICLES HAVE BEEN POSTED ON NUMEROUS CITES OF THE WORLDWIDE WEB, INCLUDING THE ALBION MONITOR, BELLACIAO, PACIFIC FREE PRESS, BUZZLE.COM, COUNTERPUNCH AND DISSIDENT VOICE. SEE WWW.JAZZMANCHRONICLES.BLOGSPOT.COM.