PDA Activists Spur Historic Call to Exit Iraq / By: WRP

[Kevin Spidel]

Original Link here: http://www.pdamerica.org/articles/news/exit-iraq.php

By: William Rivers Pitt

This past weekend, at the California State Democratic Party Convention in Los Angeles, the largest gathering of state-party Democrats in the nation, activists with Progressive Democrats of America led by PDA Executive Director Tim Carpenter successfully lobbied 2,000 delegates to pass a resolution calling for the termination of the occupation of Iraq. The resolution included specific language demanding the withdrawal of American troops from that country. "The California Democratic party," reads the resolution in part, "calls for the termination of the occupation.of American troops in Iraq."

This victory is a powerful statement not only to the national Democratic party but to the Republican administration and the majority in Congress.

Carpenter and his tireless crew spent the weekend working all corners of the convention to create a coalition of delegates large enough and strong enough to support the proposed resolution. Elements of the convention attempted to water down the language of the resolution, but the PDA activists successfully beat back the challenge. Meeting and overcoming this challenge was significant in and of itself, because it resoundingly demonstrated the ability of grassroots activism to overcome the go-along-to-get-along inertia of machine politics.

The resolution passed in California this weekend is more than mere words on a piece of paper. The document itself, along with the activism that created it, is a starting point, a blueprint for future action that must be taken in every state in the nation. PDA, with your help, intends to take the work from this weekend and duplicate it in legislature after legislature, until our combined voices carry our soldiers out of Iraq and home to their families.

Perhaps the most exciting aspect of this weekend in California was the emergence of so many new faces in the ranks of the PDA-inspired activism. Of the dozens of people who contributed to the effort that led to this resolution, most had never before been involved in this kind of political action. Carpenter and his crew shepherded them through the process, showed them how to get it done, and gave them the chance to be a part of positive history.

After the gavel came down and the resolution passed, most of the convention went their separate ways. Not so the PDA activists, new and old, who met in a large gathering to strategize on how to carry this great work to all points on the compass. They had completed their task for the weekend, but were not at all interested in stopping. Following this meeting, these activists committed themselves to convincing their own congress members to sign on to Rep. Lynn Woolsey's call to end the occupation.

To read Rep. Woolsey's call to end the occupation, please go here.

This is a victory to build on. If the energy and passion demonstrated by Tim Carpenter is any indication, if the energy and passion demonstrated by the activists who stood with him is any indication, if the effectiveness of PDA in overcoming all obstacles to achieve this victory is any indication, the winds of this action promise to blow great and necessary changes across this nation and the world.

Second star to the right, and straight on 'till morning.

[DemReadingDU]

1. kick, n/t

[welshTerrier2]

2. what a great achievement

we've been beaten down for so long, both inside the party and outside, that it is more than startling to see real, grassroots democracy in action ...

a great big KUDOS TO PDA ...

is the platform language published anywhere?

how strange it is indeed that this achievement comes amidst the darkness of so many Democrats poised to vote for more money for bush's "war" ...

[Kevin Spidel]

3. here is the resolution

http://blog.pdamerica.org/index.php?p=292

[welshTerrier2]

4. hmmmmm ... not sure i like it ...

the resolution states:

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the California Democratic Party calls for termination of the occupation at the earliest possible time with the withdrawal of American troops ...

the problem is, this does not challenge elected Democrats to alter their current position in any way ... here's why i say that: people like Kerry and Clinton say things like "we have to get the Iraqis trained to handle their own affairs and then we should withdraw" ... both of them will soon vote to extend the "war funding" by more than $81 billion ...

the resolution seems weak to me because it lacks two key components:

1. there is no call for a timetable ... "earliest possible time" is way too dependent on what one deems "possible" ... if one argues "we're stuck there for now and leaving is not currently possible", then "earliest possible time" could be 5 years from now ... and

2. the resolution makes no mention of cutting off funds for the "war" ... it doesn't even demand an accounting of what the proposed funds will be used for ... so the Democratic Party will once again cave in to bush by giving him more billions for empire and even PDA did not call for language that objects ...

i could use a pep talk if you've got one ...

[JohnOneillsMemory]

5. Rejoice that it doesn't call for a permanent occupation! That's new!

This is the way Dems should be addressing the New Vietnam, not by following a general who wrote 'Winning in Fallujah is Just the Beginning' for the Washington Post on 11/12/04.

There are so many contradictory messages in Clark's writing about the killing of hundreds of civilians in Fallujah to gain 'legitimacy.'

All mixed together are hints that the leadership in Washington is fucking up while at the same time Clark offers them moral cover of good intentions poorly executed. Personally, all I see are executions.-jom

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47034-2004Nov12.html
The Real Battle
Winning in Fallujah Is Just the Beginning

By Wesley K. Clark
Sunday, November 14, 2004; Page B01

>snip<

U.S. forces don't "lose" on the battlefield these days. We haven't lost once in Iraq. Nor in Afghanistan. Not in the Balkans, or in the first Gulf War. Nor in Panama. We fight where we are told and win where we fight. We are well trained, disciplined and, when we prepare adequately, exceedingly well equipped. We will take the city, and with relatively few U.S. casualties. And we will have killed a lot of people who were armed and resisting us.

But in what sense is this "winning?"

To win means not just to occupy the city, but to do so in a way that knocks the local opponent permanently out of the fight, demoralizes broader resistance, and builds legitimacy for U.S. aims, methods and allies. Seen this way, the battle for Fallujah is not just a matter of shooting. It is part of a larger bargaining process that has included negotiations, threats and staged preparations to pressure insurgent groups into preemptive surrender, to deprive them of popular tolerance and support, and to demonstrate to the Iraqi people and to others that force was used only as a last resort in order to gain increased legitimacy for the interim Iraqi government.

>snip<

Had we relentlessly destroyed the city and killed large numbers of innocent civilians, or suffered crippling losses in the fighting, we most certainly would have been judged "losers." And if we can't hold on and prevent the insurgents from infiltrating back in -- as has now occurred in the recently "liberated" city of Samarra -- we also shall have lost.

The battle plan was tailored to prevent significant destruction. It called for a slow squeeze, starting with precision strikes against identified targets, and followed by a careful assault directed at taking out the opposition and reoccupying the city, while minimizing civilian and friendly casualties.

[Auntie Bush]

6. I see you are not tired of Clark bashing yet?

Look around...you are needed elsewhere...please go there.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

7. I see you are still promoting a war criminal. Stop it. Thanks...n/t