On Oct. 27 in over a dozen cities, tens of thousands of people will hit the streets, demanding an immediate end to the Iraq war. The Sept. 15 March and Die-In in Washington, initiated by the ANSWER Coalition (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism), signaled that the people of this country are again ready to protest.
The Petraeus report—promising war without end—combined with the inaction of the Democratic-controlled Congress,
 |
But a spike in anti-war activity poses the question: what should the movement’s strategy be in the coming year?
One tendency will focus its energy and resources on strengthening the chances of the Democrats in the 2008 presidential election. They will pose this as the anti-war movement’s “next step.”
ANSWER, which includes the Party for Socialism and Liberation in its steering committee, opposes this view. It is organizing around a platform of independent mass action, rather than support for the Democrats.
The Iraq war
What is the Democrats’ real program for Iraq?
“America is ready for a leader who will end the war in Iraq,” said candidate Hillary Clinton.
Barack Obama’s website explains: “Obama has a plan to immediately begin withdrawing our troops engaged in combat operations at a pace of one or two brigades every month, to be completed by the end of next year.”
Yet at a debate on Sept. 27, all three leading Democratic candidates refused to guarantee the removal of all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the end of the next presidential term—2013.
This is the same doublespeak we are now accustomed to from Congress. In May, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi played a key role in engineering the approval of more than $100 billion in additional war funding, and then—once assured that the measure would pass—voted against it.
Pelosi and other Democratic leaders in the House and Senate promised that the real showdown over the war would come in September, when Bush and the Pentagon would seek $145 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
September has come and gone, and the promised “showdown” never happened.
The Democrats are unable to break with U.S. imperialism’s drive in the Middle East. They are in complete agreement with the Republicans on the need for the United States to dominate the world.
Party of the people?
Although they pose as the political party for the working class, the Democrats remain as hooked up to the corporate money machine as their Republican counterparts.
A study by the Center for Responsive Politics revealed that he top 10 corporate campaign contributors are giving more
 |
Among Hillary Clinton’s top 20 contributors are Citigroup, Viacom, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Ken Starr’s former law firm Kirkland & Ellis, and major subprime lender Bear Stearns.
Obama’s list includes Goldman Sachs and Lehman brothers. Nancy Pelosi gets 62.5 percent of her money from business Political Action Committees.
While Democrats talk a good game in stump speeches, the same corporations sponsor both parties. That way, the corporations’ candidate always wins.
Power to the people
Throughout history, it has not been the government that has created the political climate for major social changes.
From the labor movement to the women’s movement, to the civil rights and Black liberation movements of the 1960s, substantial gains have been won in openly hostile political climates. The mass movements created a situation in which many politicians were forced to grant concessions to alleviate social pressure.
This is especially true of the Vietnam War—which was largely prosecuted by Democratic presidents.
Congress was then, as it is now, a complete talk shop. The Democrats cut off funding for the war in 1974, more than one year after U.S. troops had already been withdrawn.
What finally ended the Vietnam War—and it took a decade-long struggle—was the resistance of the people, in Vietnam, around the world and inside the United States. A mass movement of millions of people repeatedly took to the streets of the cities of the world, employing different tactics and forms of militant struggle. The movement that arose and spread throughout the U.S. military was especially important.
It was not just at college campuses, but in high schools, in communities, and most importantly among rank-and-file soldiers that militant anti-war confrontations became a central feature of every day life. It was this growing, angry grassroots protest that changed the political climate in the country.
Real hope for ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and stopping future wars, lies in building a powerful people’s movement—independent of the capitalist parties—that stands in solidarity with those who are resisting imperialism.
