Phyllis Bennis

"Support Their Troops?"

Alexander Cockburn, Phyllis Bennis — 2007-08-27T23:55:00Z

I wrote a column (http://www.counterpunch.org/cockbur...

) half way through July, called "Support Their Troops". It was about the decline of the antiwar movement here. Many people were incredulous at the suggestion that the American left express more empathy for the Iraqi resistance. What follows is a critical reaction to my piece by Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies, and then my response

- Institute for Policy Studies

The Bush Veto, Iraq Funding and Permanent Occupation

Phyllis Bennis — 2007-05-03T19:35:00Z

The anticipated Bush veto of the Iraq war funding bill should be welcomed by the peace movement. Its demand should remain "no money for war", argues Phyllis Bennis.

# The anticipated veto of the Iraq war funding bill demonstrates the extent of White House extremism. Bush is not rejecting a "bring all the troops home and end the war" bill but rather rejecting a compromise bill that would provide $100 billion to continue the war, would set only a "goal" of removing some troops by March 2008, would allow 60-80,000 troops to remain indefinitely, would not restrict a U.S. attack on Iran, would allow the 100,000+ U.S.-paid mercenaries in Iraq to continue with only insignificant restrictions, would require Iraq to accept a new oil bill, and would allow Bush to ignore suggested requirements for adequate training, equipping and rest of U.S. troops.

# Bush's veto of the $100 billion funding bill should be welcomed as a victory for anti-war forces. Congressional Democrats should declare it a recognition that the war is over, and announce that a new bill will immediately be put on the table to determine what funds, if any, are needed to bring all the troops home safely, quickly and securely.

# The anti-war movement should maintain consistency and clarity on our position: not one more death, not one more dollar. That means our demand remains that NO new funds go to the war effort, so we urge a No vote on this or any bill that provides additional funding for any part of the war other than bringing all the troops and mercenaries home as quickly as possible.

# We know that Congress is not the peace movement; Congress is an institution of compromise. Our goal is to stop funding the war. If Congress continues to insist on timetable language, Bush will continue to veto the bill. That means no funds for the war will be allocated. Our demand should remain clear and reflect our goal: no money for war. Our clarity will strengthen our friends in Congress and overall Congressional backbone.

# The current "surge" escalating the U.S. occupation of Iraq has brought an intensification of death and destruction in Iraq. U.S. military officials are increasingly acknowledging the long-term nature of the U.S. occupation.

# As the U.S. occupation of Iraq consolidates and settles in for that long-term or perhaps permanent presence, it increasingly resembles the now 40-year-old Israeli occupation of the Palestinian West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. Building walls to divide Iraqis into separate cantons is perhaps the most visible example. (...)

- Institute for Policy Studies / Institute for Policy Studies

The Baker-Hamilton Iraq Recommendations: "Stay the Almost Course"

Phyllis Bennis — 2006-12-02T23:10:00Z

According to the New York Times and Washington Post leaked versions of the Iraq Study Group's consensus position (Nov. 29 and 30), their recommendations will tinker around the edges of Bush's strategy, but not propose a wholesale alteration, let alone an actual policy reversal. They will likely add a more active diplomatic component to the current military primacy (something already underway) but will not call for ending the occupation and bringing all the troops home, not immediately and not in a phased withdrawal. Given the clear reluctance of James Baker, and the Iraq Study Group (ISG) as a whole, to challenge George Bush's stated and re-stated (again on Nov 29) commitment that he would not pull the troops out of Iraq until the “mission is accomplished" it should not be surprising that the ISG's recommendations will be rather modest. (...)

- Institute for Policy Studies / AfterDowningStreet.org

Iran: Bush Isolated, Under Pressure, Tries to Talk the Talk Without Walking the Walk

Phyllis Bennis — 2006-06-02T18:24:00Z

The Bush administration's "offer" to join direct talks with Iran reflects Washington's international isolation on the Iran issue; the offer itself is simultaneously very significant and entirely fake.

The U.S. is still trying to ratchet up international pressure against Iran - proposing an "antimissile shield" for Europe, still threatening a return to the UN Security Council and calling for a "coalition" to impose economic sanctions - but the split between the U.S. and Europe is rising, and the Bush administration looks increasingly desperate.

New threats against Iran from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert during his visit to the United States appear to be mostly designed to shore up his hard-line credentials for a domestic audience, but still cannot be dismissed out of hand. (...)

- Institute for Policy Studies / Institute for Policy Studies

Palestine: Israel's Olmert Comes to Washington

Phyllis Bennis — 2006-05-30T23:14:00Z

• Bush capped Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's visit to Washington with a cautious endorsement of Israel's plan for annexation of large swathes of Palestinian territory including major settlement blocs and about 80% of Israeli settlers in the West Bank.

• Bush hailed Olmert's "bold moves," but the visit still highlighted a potential divide between U.S. and Israeli approaches, as well as between the White House and Congressional Republicans.

• On the ground in the occupied territories, humanitarian conditions continue to deteriorate, and desperation and violence are on the rise.

• A new Palestinian initiative raises the possibility of a referendum on accepting a Palestinian state in territory occupied in 1967, implicitly recognizing Israel.

• Bush promised to defend Israel if it is attacked by Iran; Olmert pushed for international action against Iran, and said he and Bush see eye to eye on the Iran crisis.

- Institute for Policy Studies / Institute for Policy Studies

Iran: The Day After

Phyllis Bennis — 2006-04-19T19:17:35Z

The airwaves and the headlines are full of talk of a U.S. military strike against Iran. That is as it should be - the danger of such a reckless move is real, and rising, and we should be talking about it. The Bush administration claims that negotiations are their first choice. But they have gone to war based on lies before, and there is no reason to believe that they are telling the truth this time.

They have put the military - and even, horrifyingly, the nuclear - option at the center of the table. Don't worry, they say, even if a preventive military strike is needed, we're only talking about “surgical” attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities - no one, they say, is talking about invasion. It can't happen, some say. The military brass knows their troops are bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, they appear to be strongly opposed to a strike on Iran.

And we know that any military strike on Iran - ANY strike - would be a violation of international law prohibiting preventive war. And George Bush now admits that "preventive war" - not his earlier claim of pre-emptive war - is indeed his strategic doctrine. (...)

- Institute for Policy Studies / CommonDreams.org

Thinking Strategically - Challenges Facing the Anti-War Movement

Phyllis Bennis — 2006-04-07T06:16:00Z

(slightly amended 3 April 2006)

As a movement we have been extraordinarily successful in achieving our initial goal: we have helped transform public opinion to the now almost 2/3 majority opposition to the war in Iraq. Our task now is to transform that consciousness into empowerment. The administration's most useful tool - fear - remains a factor in U.S. politics, but it is now much more concentrated in congress, less so in the American people.

Our priority is to figure out how to engage with power - how do we make continuing the war more politically costly than ending the war? Where, besides congress, are the powers that might have some influence - political, economic, social, media, whatever - on decision-making in the Bush White House? How do we engage with Congress and other parts of government when an executive branch has seized and consolidated such a high degree of power with no accountability? Our goal is now beyond making our constituent organizations and the American people believe that they can be useful and important, and instead figure out how they CAN be efficacious in turning our anti-war majority into national anti-war power.

At the third anniversary of the war, the comparison with the Viet Nam quagmire becomes ever more fitting. The "victory" that President Bush is predicting is a public relations/propaganda victory. The claims that the press is "ignoring the good news" harks back to the Viet Nam-era claims that the media "lost the war" for the U.S. The difference this time around has to do with the level of violence permeating Iraq, making it difficult or close to impossible for western journalists to do their job - or at least impossible for editors to allow them to do it. As a result, reliance on al-Jazeera and other Arab satellite stations, whose material is now often used by U.S. networks, and especially Iraqi stringers feeding information and footage to U.S. media outlets, is resulting in more consistent coverage of the war's horrors. Additionally, the U.S. air war has escalated dramatically, again raising the spectre of Viet Nam, especially at the moment the U.S. is attempting to reduce the level of U.S. troop casualties, and instead move to "change the color of the corpses," as it was described in Indochina. (...)

- Institute for Policy Studies / Institute for Policy Studies

New War Dangers: Iran, the U.S. and Nukes in the Middle East

Phyllis Bennis — 2006-03-15T19:01:00Z

• Escalating rhetoric, continued losses in Iraq, Bush's political problems, and an ideologically-driven pursuit of power make the possibility of a U.S. military attack on Iran - however reckless and however dangerous its consequences - a frighteningly real possibility.

• Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has not violated the Treaty. While there appear to be unresolved issues regarding full transparency, its nuclear program, including enriching uranium, is perfectly legal under NPT requirements for non-nuclear weapons states.

• Iran does not have nuclear weapons; even if it is trying to build a nuclear weapons program, it could not produce weapons for five to ten years or more.

• There is a dangerous, unmonitored and provocative nuclear arsenal in the Middle East; it belongs to Israel, not Iran. U.S. hypocrisy and double standards in nuclear policy, accepting Israel's unacknowledged nuclear arsenal and rewarding India's nuclear weapons status while threatening war against Iran and denying its own obligations under the NPT, has undermined Washington's claimed commitment to non-proliferation.

• U.S. officials claim they are not considering an invasion of Iraq but "only" surgical air strikes against known nuclear facilities; they have not explained what their military response will be when Iran retaliates, whether against U.S. troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region, against U.S. oil tankers in near-by shipping lanes, or against Israel.

• Global suspicions remain regarding U.S. claims because of Washington's lies leading to the invasion of Iraq, but international conditions regarding Iran are significantly different; many governments appear more willing to consider Iran a "threat."

• The only solution to the crisis is to move towards a nuclear weapons-free, or even weapons of mass destruction-free zone across the entire Middle East.

- Institute for Policy Studies / Institute for Policy Studies

The Samarra Bombing and its Aftermath: A New Face on the Civil War?

Erik Leaver, Phyllis Bennis — 2006-02-28T05:27:00Z

UFPJ Talking Points #38

• It remains unclear who was responsible for the attack on the golden-domed Askariya Shi'a mosque in Samarra. In the two days following the bombing over 200 Iraqis were killed, and the country was put under a day-and-night curfew.

• The spike in sectarian violence does not reflect a sudden danger of civil war. Rather, if it continues to escalate it may lead to a shift from the existing low-intensity political civil war between supporters (reluctant or not) of the U.S. occupation and opponents of that occupation, to a civil war identified largely along sectarian lines.

• The bombing and the spike in violence afterwards provides the latest proof of the failure of the U.S. military occupation to bring security, let alone "democracy," to the people of Iraq. The declared U.S. strategy of training an Iraqi counter-insurgency military force to replace U.S. and "coalition" troops (not to mention the U.S. effort to enforce "security" in Samarra by surrounding it with a huge earthen wall) is a failure. A Congressional decision to pass the administration's latest supplemental spending bill authorizing about $62 billion for the Iraq war (especially for training Iraqi troops) would represent a complete acquiescence to this utterly failed policy.

• The presence of U.S. occupation troops in Iraq remains an aggravating provocation to all sides and continues to foment more violence. In recent polls 82% of all Iraqis want an end to the U.S. occupation; 47% of all Iraqis support attacks on U.S. troops. Much of the popular anger following the bombing of the Askariya shrine, among both Sunni and Shi'a, targeted the U.S. occupation. Shi'a cleric and militia leader Moqtada al Sadr, speaking on al Jazeera television, called on the new Iraqi parliament, which includes 32 of his followers, to vote on a request for "coalition" forces to leave Iraq.

• The undemocratic political process imposed by the U.S. occupation has exacerbated sectarian divisions in Iraq, a country with a long history (despite ethnic and sectarian tensions) of secularism and strong national identity. Negotiations over creation of a new Iraqi government have now collapsed, as has any potential interest in eliminating sectarian militias or bringing them under government control.

• U.S. military officials and the Bush administration are all eager to deny that this escalation heralds a "civil war" in Iraq because that would undermine their claim that only the presence of U.S. troops is preventing such a civil war. A top U.S. general said "we're not seeing civil war igniting.... We're seeing a capable Iraqi government using their capable forces...." President Bush said it was not a civil war, and claimed those responsible for the Samarra bombing were "not internal" to Iraq, but were those from outside who were "trying to stop the advance of freedom" in Iraq. Britain's Tony Blair, similarly, denied this was a civil war, but rather "democracy versus extremism and terrorism." Congressman John Murtha, who has called for U.S. troops to be withdrawn from Iraq, said it is a civil war, and that "our troops are caught in between."

• While the Askariya bombing has engendered a serious escalation in sectarian divisions and violence, and some sectarian militias seem to be gaining renewed power, there have also been significant cross-sectoral, unitary and secular responses. Influential religious leaders have called for calm, while urging their followers into the streets to protest the violence. In largely Shi'a Basra, for example, a large joint Sunni-Shi'a protest called for defending Iraqi national unity, opposing sectarian violence, and an end to the U.S. occupation, chanting "No to America."

• This is a new moment. U.S. and global anti-war forces should respond to the latest escalation of violence in Iraq with renewed energy for demanding an end to the occupation and bringing all the troops home now. The deteriorating conditions in Iraq and escalation in Iraqi deaths, along with the approaching third year anniversary of the U.S. invasion and especially the current congressional debate over the new multi-billion dollar supplemental spending bill, require new urgency for mobilization, education and advocacy on local, national and international levels. While incremental U.S. troop withdrawals may be announced soon after the current spike in violence subsides, we must be very clear that partial withdrawals (even if large scale) are not sufficient. Rather, our priority demand must be for a complete end to the occupation including withdrawal of all U.S. and "coalition" troops as well as foreign mercenaries, plus the closing of all U.S. military bases in Iraq.

- Institute for Policy Studies / Institute for Policy Studies

On Third Anniversary of Global Protest Against Iraq War, A Look at “Challenging Empire: How People, Governments, and the UN Defy U.S. Power”

Phyllis Bennis — 2006-02-15T15:43:00Z

Today marks the third anniversary of the February 15th global anti-war protest, the day tens of millions of people took to the streets in some 600 cities around the world to protest the Bush Administration's plans to invade Iraq. Author Phyllis Bennis talks about how the anti-war movement has evolved into a major force for global change.

Hundreds of marches and rallies took place in up to 60 countries. In Rome, over two million people marched. London, Madrid and Barcelona each saw over a million people take to the streets. In New York City, half a million rallied. In San Francisco, a quarter of a million people marched. And hundreds of other protests were held across every continent in the world. Sites included Australia, Johannesburg, Tel Aviv, Syria, Tokyo, Bangladesh, South Korea, Hong Kong, Thailand, Puerto Rico, Brazil, East Timor, India, and even the South Pole.

- Institute for Policy Studies / Democracy Now!

Hamas Wins the Palestinian Elections

Phyllis Bennis — 2006-01-27T15:31:00Z

UFPJ Talking Points #37

• The Palestinian elections, held under conditions of military occupation, are a flawed exercise in democracy. However, it is likely the results represent a reasonably accurate assessment of public opinion. Someone better tell George Bush to be careful what he calls for, because this is what democracy looks like.

• All indications are that the huge turn-out for Hamas was less a statement of support for their Islamist social agenda than it was a call for change in the Palestinians' untenable situation - it was a vote against, not a vote for.

• Israeli leaders' statements that they will not negotiate with a Hamas-led government are a red herring - Israel has not been negotiating with the existing (non-Hamas) Palestinian Authority anyway, choosing instead a strategy of unilateral action to redraw borders and impose a "solution" to the conflict. That dangerous strategy may become even easier with Hamas in leadership.

• The U.S. has accepted the unilateral, no-negotiations approach of former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, including Israel's abandonment of the U.S.-backed "road map." But an even more antagonistic U.S. position towards the Palestinians, in the context of Hamas leadership, could make conditions inside the territories, and thus the potential for greater violence, far worse than they already are.

• Hamas' large majority does not mean that it wants to or will control the Palestinian Authority government on its own; there are numerous coalition options that could involve independents and even Fatah figures in key positions.

• The election of Hamas, its inexperience and uncertain ability to engage in serious diplomacy either with Israel or with other international players, may lead to a renewed role for the Palestine Liberation Organization, largely marginalized diplomatically since the creation of the Palestinian Authority in the mid-1990s.

(...)

- Institute for Policy Studies / Institute for Policy Studies

Ending Occupation

Phyllis Bennis — 2006-01-11T15:39:00Z

UFPJ Talking Points #37

• The peace movement in the U.S. and globally has helped create the growing public consensus and rising demands to end the war and bring home the troops. The Bush administration is responding with escalating claims of Potemkin-style troop withdrawals.

• The withdrawal of even tens of thousands of U.S. and "coalition" troops will not constitute an end to occupation while tens of thousands more remain in Iraq.

• Ending occupation means complete withdrawal of ALL U.S. troops, ALL "coalition" troops, and ALL mercenaries (known as "private military contractors") from Iraq.

• Ending occupation means closing all U.S. military bases in Iraq, including removing warplanes, offensive weapons systems, etc.

• Ending occupation means ending the privatization and other outside economic controls imposed on Iraq by the United States, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund.

• Ending occupation should include negotiating a political solution for, among other things, meeting Washington's post-occupation obligations to Iraq.

• Ending occupation by withdrawing all U.S., foreign and mercenary troops will allow the people and legitimate resistance of Iraq to deal with what remains of their own occupation-fueled "terrorism problem."

(...)

- Institute for Policy Studies / Institute for Policy Studies

The Little Town of Bethlehem

Phyllis Bennis — 2005-12-28T04:41:00Z

The little town of Bethlehem isn't just still, it's dying.

On the eve of Christmas the Palestinian city is walled off, hemmed in, and virtually empty of tourists or visitors. Manger Square is barren, the few sad-looking Christmas stalls unfinished, souvenir shops bare of customers. The ancient road linking Bethlehem to Jerusalem, which is only two or three miles away, is blocked by Israel's so-called Separation Wall, whose 24-foot high concrete slabs virtually encircle the city.

The once-cosmopolitan and relatively wealthy people of Bethlehem are now isolated, increasingly impoverished, and imprisoned within a land area of only a few square kilometers. Many are leaving. (...)

- Institute for Policy Studies / ZNet

Iraqi Elections: “To Be Free and Fair...”

Erik Leaver, Phyllis Bennis — 2005-12-15T01:31:00Z

• President Bush had one thing right when he said in March 2005: “All [foreign] military forces and intelligence personnel must withdraw before the ... elections for those elections to be free and fair.” He was talking about Syrian troops in Lebanon; the same claim should be made about U.S. troops in Iraq. Elections are often important indices and instruments of democracy, but elections held under conditions of military occupation are not legitimate.

• Whatever combination of political forces claims to “win” the December 15 election, the result will likely increase the level of sectarianism in Iraq.

• The election results are irrelevant to the U.S. obligation to withdraw its troops and end the occupation - including all mercenary and “coalition” forces, evacuating all U.S. bases in Iraq, giving up all claims to control of Iraqi oil, and ending the occupation-imposed privatization and other laws.

• Official Arab voices, including Arab state governments long dependent on and allied with the U.S. as well as most factions of the interim Iraqi government, through the recent Cairo declaration are beginning to change the regional dynamic by calling for a timetable to end the U.S. and “coalition” occupation.

- Institute for Policy Studies / Institute for Policy Studies

Bush Administration on the Skids in Iraq, Palestine, at Home

Phyllis Bennis — 2005-11-18T17:05:00Z

UFPJ Talking Points #35

* The Bush administration's increasingly vitriolic and hostile attacks on anti-war and even war-questioning Democrats and others reflects stronger opposition at home and abroad as well as the beginning of the collapse of Bush's last pretext for war - "democratization" across the Middle East.

* The Senate vote calling on the Bush administration to report to Congress on "progress" in the war accomplishes nothing of substance, but clearly reflects rising public opposition to the war and dwindling respect for Bush and his policies.

* Regional and international support for the Iraq war are dropping, even while the Bush administration continues to use the United Nations to pressure governments for an international fig-leaf to disguise the likelihood of a new Iraqi parliament calling for an end to U.S. occupation.

* Secretary of State Rice's sudden immersion in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations over Rafah reflects international and regional unease but primarily represents U.S. fears of the outcome of looming Palestinian and likely Israeli elections.

The recent escalation in Bush administration attacks on anti-war critics reflects the escalation of anti-war sentiment across the country. The deepening and consolidation of the anti-war movement has led to much wider public demands for bringing home the troops now. Those demands are increasingly being answered, albeit cautiously and nervously, by congressional and other official voices calling for timetables, scaling down, and "redeployment" of U.S. troops. That language, increasingly popular in Washington policy circles and the media, is something of a weasel term; it allows the user to avoid the direct call for troop withdrawal. But sometimes it does appear to refer to real withdrawal - centrist Congressman John Murtha today called on the Bush administration "to immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces" and ended his speech with the unequivocal statement "it is time to bring them home." Murtha added the crucial language that "the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy. All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free. Free from United States occupation." (The remarks led President Bush to compare the hawkish Vietnam veteran congressman to Michael Moore.) (...)

[November 17, 2005]

- Institute for Policy Studies / Institute for Policy Studies