It’s not exactly rocket science. Former Senator George McGovern and noted foreign policy analyst William R. Polk have published a detailed exit plan in their book, Out of Iraq: A Practical Plan for Withdrawal Now. Congresswomen Lynne Woolsey, Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, and a dozen other Democrats introduced the plan in Congress. Jim McGovern (D-Mass) and Jerold Nadler (D-New York) have also proposed detailed plans.
The central question is how to build the political will to adopt these plans. Passing non-binding resolutions while continuing to fund the war is not acceptable. It’s a transparent dodge of the moral issues at hand. If, as many Democrats and Republicans both argue, going to war with Iraq was a mistake, then passing empty resolutions while continuing to approve the allocation of tens of billions of dollars to fund the war, only reinforces the popular view that liberals have no back bone, and hence can’t be trusted to stand up for what they believe in, and hence can’t be trusted with the defense of the United States. The people in Congress who oppose the war on moral grounds would be far more likely to build a popular base for their position if they acted in a principled way, did everything in their power to block funding for the war (including a Senate filibuster), and voted consistently against anything short of legislation providing for the safe withdrawal of U.S. troops.
As Paul Krugman pointed out in the NY Times on April 16, 2007, the Democratic leadership is far less courageous than the country as a whole. For many in the country, the immorality of the war and its stupidity and self-destructive character is clear. On the other hand, what exactly to do to extricate the U.S. from Iraq is more complex.
It is important to note that many who feel ambivalent about withdrawing troops do so not because they support President Bush, but because they feel that given the fact that we created the mess in Iraq and unleashed a brutal civil war between Sunnis and Shiites, it would be immoral to abandon the people of Iraq to this bloodshed that will likely escalate once the U.S. leaves. Their moral sensibilities should be honored, but their conclusions are misdirected. The continuing presence of U.S. forces and corporate power enflames those across the civil war divide, as well as the greater Islamic community in the region, and a withdrawal of both of these elements is a necessary (though not sufficient) condition for bringing the Iraqi communities together (through a democratically elected and internationally supervised and protected plebiscite) to decide their future, either as a single country that fairly allocates resources and provides safety for each community, or three separate and autonomous countries that may or may not choose to work in confederation on economic and political issues. The withdrawal of our forces should be coordinated with an international force (to provide interim safety for both Sunni and Shiite civilians) that would replace our troops once we’ve made it clear that we are totally withdrawing.
So why hasn’t the anti-war message been strong enough to force liberal Democrats to act consistently and powerfully by voting against funding for the war? Why do they continue to ignore the possibility that their own constituencies will become so frustrated by this lack of conviction that they will be forced to run anti-war candidacies against them in the 2008 primaries? Because in order for them to face this reality, their own base needs to believe and articulate that this war is wrong not only from the standpoint of the best interests of U.S. troops or the U.S. budget, but also that it is morally wrong and a fundamental offense. Now, the truth is that many Americans do already feel that way—but they rarely hear that being articulated either by the liberals they’ve elected to Congress or by the anti-war movement itself.
For that very reason, we believe that the way to end the war is to provide a spiritual/religious/ethical path that highlights the moral issues and that clearly shows that we are not seeking to disengage the U.S. from the world, but to engage it in a very different way.
The center of that is the Strategy of Generosity as opposed to the Strategy of Domination. We believe that the only way to end the war is to provide a fundamentally new paradigm for thinking about politics, both domestic and international. It is only when we convince a significant number of Americans about this new paradigm that the withdrawal from Iraq will be seen not as a defeat for the U.S., but as a move to have the U.S. play an entirely different and positive role in the world. We reject the view held by some left-wing circles that the U.S. is so tainted by its imperial past and present that the only good thing it could do is stay out of the world entirely. That underestimates the goodness of many Americans and writes off a society that has much to offer the world if it could overcome the influence of corporate capital and its desire to dominate the world, and instead insist that corporations act in concert with the highest ethical and spiritual instincts of the American people. So we are launching a campaign for a Global Marshall Plan and a Strategy of Generosity.
Our message: instead of having your taxes used for war and an imperialistic foreign policy, you and the U.S. would be safer if that money were used to fund the Global Marshall Plan and other strategies that reflect our commitment to caring for the well-being of others. Of course, the underlying message is this: our well-being depends on the well-being of everyone else on the planet, and on the well-being of the planet itself.
The Strategy of Generosity offers rational, practical, and realistic way to carry on foreign policy. When people tell you it’s “utopian,” you can respond by telling them that the military and, “get the jump on others before they get the jump on you” approach to international and domestic problems is as outdated as the gas guzzling automobiles. It is they who are out of touch with reality, no matter how much they get to legitimate their worldview by controlling the media and the political process in the United States. The people of the world want and deserve peace and that reality will prevail.
Michael Lerner is founder and editor of Tikkun, and chair of the Network of Spiritual Progressives. His book The Left Hand of God was a national best-seller in 2006 and has now been revised and published as a paperback in 2007.
Back to Center Post Contents | Home