By Jeff Leys
March 15, 2006
Vigiling and fasting in front of the Capitol these past 3 weeks, it is apparent that a noxious disease has overtaken the U.S. public and those professing to be opposed to the war. It’s a disease of disdain for one’s own rights and responsibilities which come from living within a democracy. With the few exceptions of those who refuse to give up the legislative struggle, the refrain is: “I’ve marched. I’ve vigiled. I’ve voted. I’ve written letters to Congress. And still the war goes on. There is no reason to lobby or act anymore.”
It is a disservice to Iraqis who are dying in Iraq for us to give up upon the legislative process. It is a disservice to U.S. service members and their families to give up upon the legislative process. Much as I personally dislike the legislative process—and I focus most of my work upon building nonviolent resistance to the war—it is absolutely critical that we remain engaged with the legislative process. After all, if our Representative and Senators do not hear from us of our opposition to this war; if we do not make it clear to them that there will be consequences for them at the ballot box if they do not act to end this war, then they will have no reason to vote to end the war and there truly is no hope for an end to this war.
Contacting Congress is the most basic, most simple act a person can perform in this country. It is a matter of a simple phone call, a simple fax, a simple letter. It is calling the Representative and Senator repeatedly to continually press the demand for an end to this war. It is a simple act which anyone can organize their friends and neighbors to do. It is the fulfillment of one of our most basic rights and responsibilities as citizens of a democracy. And we cannot either forfeit this right or fail to exercise this responsibility.
Legislative work means using what legislation is available for organizing purposes. Each conversation or communication with a member of Congress should begin with the simple demand that they vote to end funding for the war against Iraq. They must act to end all forms of economic and military warfare against Iraq. They must act to pay full war reparations to Iraq for the damage our country caused Iraq over these past 15 years of military action, sanctions, bombing, invasion and now occupation.
Within these broad demands however, we must use those legislative items available which can be used to further educate members of Congress and to put them on record as being for or against this war. At the present time, there is not a single piece of legislation pending which would effectively end this war. However, there are pieces of legislation which can be used as organizing tools—so long as we continue to maintain and press our Congressional Representatives and Senators to accede to our ultimate demands.
The Murtha Bill is one such piece of legislation. Introduced by Representative Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania last November, this bill would require the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. It would, however, leave an “over-the-horizon” military force in the region for action within Iraq (and elsewhere).
Many antiwar activists seem to be opposed to the Murtha Bill strictly because of the “over-the-horizon” military force. Indeed, Voices for Creative Nonviolence has been contacted by some who claim to be “shocked” that Voices encourages people to contact their Representative to become a co-sponsor of the bill because of this provision.
Let us consider the opportunity presented by Murtha and the reality in which it is situated. First, there already is an “over-the-horizon” force in the region, whether it’s based in one of the Gulf States, Diego Garcia or Missouri (the B-1 Stealth bomber force). Second, the Murtha Bill provides the opportunity to put Representatives on record as, in a very real way, being for or against ending this war. Third, it is an organizing opportunity for letter writing campaigns, lobbying visits, teach-ins and, dare I say it, nonviolent civil resistance / civil disobedience.
This is not to say that the Murtha Bill should be unequivocally supported. No pending legislation should be unequivocally supported. While encouraging people to tell their Representative to support the Murtha Bill, we must always be explaining to those we’re organizing and to the Representative the shortcomings of the Murtha Bill. That is to say, all forms of economic and military warfare against Iraq must end and our country must pay war reparations to Iraq.
The McGovern Bill presents a quandary of a different sort. Last November, Representative Jim McGovern of Massachusetts introduced a bill which would prohibit any further funding for the war against Iraq. Many in the antiwar movement have grabbed onto this bill and for some good reason. But again advocating support for the McGovern Bill must be placed within the context of organizing legislatively.
Realistically, the McGovern Bill is dead in the water for two reasons. First, no new co-sponsors have signed on since the original 15 or so Representatives signed on last November shortly after it was introduced. Second, the McGovern Bill is not necessary once we build sufficient strength to block any additional funds being appropriated for the war. If the current supplemental spending bill which provides about $65 billion more for the war against Iraq were defeated and the $50 billion included in the Fiscal Year 2007 budget were deleted, there would be no need for the McGovern Bill.
But this doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t use the McGovern Bill as an organizing tool. It is another mechanism by which to approach Representatives to place them on record as being for or against the war. It is another tool for mobilizing our friends and neighbors. It provides a starting point for conversations with Representatives—again all the time keeping our eyes on the ultimate goal of ending all forms of economic and military warfare against Iraq.
Yet another piece of legislative activity worthy of pursuit as an organizing tool is the discharge petition on House Resolution _______. This resolution calls for beginning the withdrawal of U.S. military forces by the end of 2005 (yes, the year that was just completed). As such, it is a moot resolution. However, the discharge petition would force the resolution to the floor of the House for debate and consideration. 17 hours of debate would be guaranteed and the resolution could be amended once on the floor. Again, this is an organizing tool by which we can put our Representatives on record as being for or against the war. Will they or won’t they put their signature to a discharge petition?
Clearly none of these pending pieces of legislation come close to meeting our ultimate demands for ending economic and military warfare against Iraq. Each piece of legislation should be seen for what it is—fulfilling a necessary but not sufficient step in ending the war. Each piece can be used as an organizing tool, while always maintaining the clear focus upon ending all forms of economic and military warfare against Iraq. And while we use these legislative items as organizing tools, we must continue to nurture, deepen and strengthen our individual and collective nonviolent civil resistance to this war in all its manifestations.
We cannot afford to relinquish our rights and fail to uphold our responsibilities to engage in the legislative process. We also cannot afford to hold a test of moral purity which would preclude us from using legislation—insufficient and deficient as it may be—as an organizing tool to end this war. If we choose either of these options, then a curse be upon us for we will have failed in our responsibilities to the Iraqi people.
