What If We Really Wanted to Stop the Surge?
Bumped up to front. - Andrew
E.J. Graff commented here and here that today’s antiwar demonstrations don’t accomplish much. I agreed with her here. Demonstrations, no matter how massive, just have no leverage over the administration. Remember, these are people who have no problem even ignoring Congress, which does have some leverage. So what would be effective? What could we do that might possibly affect the decisions being made in the Bush White House? Boycott.
When you try to assess the real motivations behind the Bush regime’s invasion of Iraq, it seems to boil down to machismo and money. The macho part is the well-documented neocon disgruntlement with George the First’s decision to stop Desert Storm short of overthrowing Saddam Hussein. George the Lesser’s lifelong quest to outdo his dad probably falls into this category, as well. The money has to do with oil and Bush’s corporate sponsors. There was an ongoing concern about the future of Saudi Arabia and the stability of Saud family rule there. Iraq has the second-largest proven reserve of Arabian crude – cheap to drill, cheap to refine. A docile, compliant Iraqi government (probably, in the neocon fantasies, headed by Ahmed Chalabi) would insure a steady, plentiful supply. Bush and Cheney are oil men, beholden to the oil industry. They consistently act in the oil companies’ interests, as well as in the interests of their other corporate sponsors – Halliburton, Lockheed-Martin and the rest – who reap large profits from their involvement in the war.
That’s where we might have some leverage – through the money men. Bush doesn’t return our phone calls, but he returns theirs. Here’s the idea: boycott an oil company. We can’t boycott all of the oil companies; too many of us have to use cars to get to work, school and shopping. But we could boycott one of them. Just to pick one that’s been particularly repugnant with regard to pollution and global warming, how about Exxon-Mobil? If you’re against the surge, buy gas at some other gas station. Don’t buy anything from Exxon-Mobil, at least until the troops start coming home. If you feel obligated to march holding signs, to bang pots and pans in memory of Molly Ivins, do it near the entrances of Exxon-Mobil gas stations instead of on the Washington Mall.
Yeah, I know. Exxon-Mobil is sitting on profits of $39.5 billion; how much is a boycott going to affect them? Trust me: if Exxon-Mobil started losing most of its U.S. sales for a few months, the CEO would be on the phone to Incurious George. The message to the oil companies, and indirectly to the White House, would be that it’s now going to be more in your financial interest to bring the war to an end than it would be to continue it. If enough of us did it for long enough, it would make a difference. We have to speak to these clowns in terms of what they perceive as their own best interest.
DuBaun's Blog said
"We have to speak to these clowns in terms of what they perceive as their own best interest."
Until the Congress feels threatened, they won’t do anything, but be all things, to all people.
When protestors are outside the office windows screaming, or when the Congress person is driving and the protestors are outside the car window.
I would never advocate violence, but when the car is shaking, from the chanting, and the signs are right in the faces. (I think they passed a law about egg throwing, so don't do that.) Maybe our forefathers would have used tar and feathers?
Maybe we could throw cotton balls, like rice at a wedding, as a representation of what we think of them. Would this be legal or is it too threatening?
We the people, could use the same logic, Bush used in getting Congress to Authorize Force.
Bush and many others thought by sending the message that we were willing to use force to get compliance, Saddam would change his course of activity. Same thing now with Iran, threatening force seems to be the preferred method by our government, to make a person come around to our way of thinking.
Can’t we find a way to make our politicians, respond, to make them comply, to the will of the people?
Or should we just sit down and write a letter, hoping that the Senator, will find the time between fundraising events, to really, read our thoughts?
Some Senators need to know, that their (political life) is threatened. if they don’t listen we'll send them home. The loudest voices get heard first.
I’m learning this is the type of conduct, perferred by this Administration. It must be the best method,our leaders are promoting this type of conduct in foreign policy. So evidently they think it works.
February 12, 2007 3:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
this is the most shallow analysis of the Iraq War I've ever read. "Machismo and money" was why we went to war, according to the author. Even "blood for oil" had more logic to it. Maybe this Point Of View has more to do with why he's not taken as seriously than anything else.
February 12, 2007 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did you check out Exxon-Mobil's 2005 Annual Report to see how much a boycott would actually impact them? Answer: not very much.
Just a quick scan of it was revealing. Page 16 of the report helpfully breaks out Net Income from US and non-US sources. Note that they already make much more outside the US.
Then read page 7 - Energy Outlook - A View to 2030. They are projecting energy demand will increase by 50% with 80% of that coming from non-OECD countries. They don't say it but this probably means China and India. And why not, China has 4x's and India 3+x's our population. They are also promoting nuclear power as a growing option to meet electricity needs. They will probably find it easier to build a nuclear power plant in developing countries as well.
Another reason I really don't think a boycott by US consumers would bother them very much is that they could continue selling their products under other names. Racetrac probably buys in bulk from them already.
February 12, 2007 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Boycott???........A Boycott????
Let's get real, folks. There certainly are a fair share of people involved in this affair who are getting rich. Exxon is at the top of a long list. But to think that money explains, even in small measure, the majority of what has transpired over the last several years or that it even begins to scratch the surface of our debacle in Iraq, is just too naive for words.
Everything that has happened and that is going to happen, regarding Iraq, Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and anything they can even remotely link in peoples minds with the "war on terror" is about one thing and one thing only.
Consolidation of power in the executive branch.
From that will flow all those things they ever wished for in their wildest imaginations. The money, the riches, the tax cuts, the unchecked military spending and the global American hegemony they have longed for, for decades.
Haven't we learned this by now, folks? All of the side issues; corporate profits, war profiteering, privatization of government services, etc., are noble fights in and of themselves. But those are the types of side issues they want us to keep focusing on and fighting in order to keep eyes and ears averted from the larger goal. It has been said all along, on this site and many others, that 9/11 was their wished-for Pearl Harbor, their perfect storm which would deliver to them all the things they desired. They would ride the crest of that wave and it would all go unnoticed because they would be "protecting America" and people would just allow it to happen. That is still the goal here, people. Do not lose sight of that.
What will it take to stop this administration's march? Nothing short of a constitutional crisis will stop their steady push for the consolidation of power they seek. That is why it is so important that the new Democratic leaders, along with those Republicans who fear this administration's motives, band together and see this fight for what it is. It is the seminal battle for the continuation of our country as our forefathers intended it to be.
I certainly will not disparage anyone for fighting against the obscene profits of oil companies at the expense of American lives. It is a very noble cause. But we must recognize and fight the larger battle first. It is a classic case where you might win the majority of battles but yet lose the war. Don't lose sight of the macro view here, folks. Don't risk not seeing the forest for the trees. It is very easy to get caught up the issues of the day, important as they are, and forget that we are really on a very slippery slope right now, at this moment.
Be afraid, be very afraid. We need to make our representatives understand how seriously we take our Constitution. It is being slowly dismantled before our very eyes, and the majority of people don't even know it is happening.
If that does not keep us awake at night, then we truly deserve what is coming.
February 12, 2007 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
With respect, Mike, this post is somewhat hysterical. You have to evaulate the Bush administration as a whole -- meaning foreign and domestic policies. While Bush's foreign policy has shut Congress out at times, domestically Congress has had more deference from Bush than any President in modern history. No other Prez has given Congress such a free hand to run the legislative agenda for the nation.
If Bush were "trying to consolidate power" as you accuse, wouldn't he have been doing more to throw his executive weight around and using his veto more frequently?
Bush made more consessions than Europe at the Doha trade talks. That doesn't square with the global hegemon you've presented.
These accusations of Constitutional dismantlement don't square with reality.
February 12, 2007 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brook, I am sorry if my comments were perceived by you as somewhat hysterical. Perhaps some more perspective from me on your reply to my post might give a little context.
I think to say that Bush's foreign policy has "shut Congress out at times" could certainly be classified by some observers as an understatement. James Madison, in Federalist # 51, certainly saw the American democratic process as a system of checks and balances. He wrote of it as "subordinate distributions of power, where the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner that each may be a check on the other."
This administration has certainly made no secret that they see the function of Congress as simply approvers for the President's decisions, not a co-equal branch of government. Those who might have a different point of view of the administration and have the audacity to request even a simple debate or public airing of issues in the halls of Congress have been shunned, ignored and publicly ridiculed. At times, it has even been suggested, by our elected officials, that simply questioning the President's decision making is a treasonous act.
As for the deference of Congress to the President on domestic issues, there certainly is a reason that this President set the record on the longest period of time without the exercising the presidential veto. This Congress has virtually done the President's bidding on all things domestic. The rollover of the Democratic Party in the early days of this administration, when they actually thought they might be an active participant in debate, was a dark precursor to how the democratic process would be tainted.
I don't believe or mean to imply that the consolidation of power is being done in or for the personage of George Bush. The power consolidation is in the Office of the President. Again, it has been no secret that many of the President's advisers, confidantes and his Vice President wish to empower the Office of the Presidency with much greater powers than have previously been allowed. President Bush has used presidential signing statements more than any previous president. From 1817-1981, the executive branch issued a total of 75 signing statements to protect presidential prerogatives.
From Reagan's administration through Clinton's , the use of signing statements increased. After Clinton's term the total number of signing statements issued by all presidents up to that time rose to a total 322. This is over a period of 164 years.
President Bush issued at least 435 signing statements in his first term alone. And, in these statements and in his executive orders, Bush used the term "unitary executive" 95 times. His signing statements now number over 750.
As for this administration's actions pertaining to the Doha trade talks, failure in Doha would have reflected very badly on their efforts to arrange an international alliance of Western and Islamic nations jump into their recently inaugurated "war on terror". As a matter of fact, the most reluctant countries to engage in trade talks previously were now "key allies" in the "war on terror". There was a huge financial incentive with regard to economic assistance from many industrialized countries in recognition of their contributions. Failure in Doha would have raised serious doubts about the durability of this new alliance. So the Bush Administration had a big dog in a much larger fight and they certainly didn't want Doha to reflect poorly on what was to be their signature legacy, Bush's "War on Terror".
As to the "accusation of Constitutional dismantlement" in my post, I think a strong case can be made that the actions of the Bush Administration regarding constitutional issues; e.g., rescinding habeus corpus, torture, secret rendition, warrantless spying, data mining, etc., do, in fact, indicate an assault on Americans Constitutional rights. And that if we can actually get back to point where we have co-equal branches of government and the oversight that was intended from the beginning, along with open and public debate of the issues, we can then say that there is, in fact, no Constitutional dismantlement underway. Until then, I respectfully disagree with you.
February 12, 2007 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mike, would you disagree that Bush was defeated on...
1. Energy bill
2. Immigration bill
3. Social Security reform
All these were major defeats for Bush engineered by Democrats
February 12, 2007 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink