|
October 26, 2001
Patrick
Cockburn
Northern
Alliance Attacks
US Bombing Strategy
Richard Lloyd Parry
Terrible Images
of a "Just" War
October 25, 2001
Ghassan
Andoni
Raid
on Bethlehem
N.D. Jayaprakash
From
Hiroshima to NYC
Evan Schultz
Memo
to Ashcroft:
Read Marbury
The Sunshine
Project
Assault
on the BioWeapons
Convention
Sarah
Turner
Cashing
In on Patriotism
Latin American Colloquium
on Systemology
The Meridia Manifesto
Noam Chomsky
The
New War on Terror
October 24, 2001
Michael Colby
Radioactive
Mail?
Lori Allen
Life
in an Occupied Land
During Wartime
Peter
Swire
New
Anti-Terrorism Bill
Poses Old Risks
Irina
Malenko
A
Non-Western Voice
David
Vest
Welcome
to Web Hell
Patrick Cockburn
Battle
of Mazar Gets Nasty
October 23, 2001
Steve
Perry
Anthrax,
Cipro and the Bailout of Bayer
Carl Estabrook
Just War
or
The Rule of Lawlessness?
Patrick
Cockburn
Errant
Bombs at Bagram
George
Monbiot
War
and Oil
Robert
Jensen
Crushing
Academic Dissent
October 22, 2001
Hamit
Dardagan
The
New Newspeak
Tom Turnipseed
War
on the Poor
Patrick Cockburn
Killing
Mullah Omar's Child
David
Vest
The
War on Women
Shepherd
Bliss
Advice
from a Vietnam Vet
Hani Shukrallah
Capital
Strikes Back
Resources:
100s of Links
About 9/11
CounterPunch:
Complete
Coverage of 9/11 and Its Aftermath
Five
Days That
Shook The World:
Seattle and Beyond
By
Alexander Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
Photos by Allan Sekula
(Click Here to Order from CounterPunch
Online at 20% Off Amazon.com's price!)
INSIDE
EXCLUSIVE
TO
COUNTERPUNCH
SUBSCRIBERS
Published Oct. 3, 2001
8-Page Special
Issue
Aftermath
Diary
Ashcroft's Onslaught
on Civil Liberties
Ridge Long Groomed
for Cheney's Job
Those CIA Killing
Bids Never Stopped
The Not-So-Great
Mayor Giuliani
Crop Duster
Ban
Will Save Lives
Madeleine Albright's
Deadly Legacy
How the Bin
Laden Women
Fled Bel Air
Tom Ridge's
Vietnam
Same as Kerrey's?
A CounterPunch
Journey
to Ramallah
A Word About
God
Nostradamus
Jam-maker
Search
CounterPunch
Read Whiteout and Find Out
How the CIA's Backing of the Mujahideen Created the World's Most
Robust Heroin Market and Helped to Finance the Rise of the Taliban
and Osama bin Laden
Whiteout:
CIA, Drugs & the
Press
by Alexander
Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
The New Intifada:
Resisting Israel's Apartheid
Edited by Roane Carey
Responses to 9/11:
Chomsky, Russell Banks,
Zinn, and Alice Walker
A Free ebook from
Seven Stories Press
A Pocket Guide to
Environmental Bad Guys
by James
Ridgeway
and Jeffrey St. Clair
The
Phoenix Program
by Douglas
Valentine
Al
Gore:
A User's Manual
by Cockburn
and St. Clair
Buy
This Explosive
New Book at an
Amazing Discount!
Reviews of Gore:
a User's Manual
|
October 26,
2001
Make The War Democratic
Put It Up to a Vote
By John Troyer
A letter to the editor in the Daily Minnesotan
("Left lacks leadership") took issue with my persistent
criticism of the loosely defined, endless U.S. war on international
terrorism. The letter's author also suggested the radical left
(a category into which I find few people actually fit) had accomplished
little beyond criticism by not proposing a counterplan.
While I do not consider myself a radical
leftist, I do take seriously the request for a counterplan.
In an attempt to demonstrate my concern with the historical
moment consuming my energies, I have developed the following
plan that would definitively demonstrate what the American citizenry
thinks about a protracted war on terrorism currently underway
in Afghanistan. The plan is called United We Stand, United We
Fall and uses the cornerstone of democratic theory: a popular
vote.
The Plan:
I propose the Bush administration take
the unprecedented step of ordering a national public vote to
decide whether or not the use of military force should continue
in Afghanistan. The national vote would work as a binding referendum
to demonstrate public support or non-support for U.S. military
actions in the Middle East. The Bush administration, working
with the House of Representatives and Senate, would produce
the two-question ballot.
Benefits of
the Plan:
1. The current Bush administration, more
than any other U.S. presidential power in the previous century,
understands the importance of the popular vote in democratically
electing officeholders. The vote would finally be an opportunity
for the American citizenry to demonstrate support for a president
whose role as commander in chief is haunted by scandals surrounding
the 2000 election.
2. Based purely on any number of polls
completed by the popular press, the Bush administration risks
nothing by ordering the vote. Approval ratings for U.S. military
involvement are persistently in the 90 percent and above category,
and the formalized vote by secret ballot would produce concrete
evidence of those numbers. The winning side of the vote must
have a clear 51 percent majority. In many ways, the Bush administration
has nothing to lose with the voting process and could in fact
gain increased popular legitimacy.
3. The United We Stand, United We Fall
vote would send a clear and distinct message to other nations
the United States is an open democracy. By using a direct popular
vote, the non-democratic countries of the world would witness
the benefits of a public body free to vote on pressing international
issues. The Bush administration could finally demonstrate to
the Taliban in Afghanistan how democratic rule works when fully
implemented.
4. As the commander in chief and highest
officeholder for the Republican Party, President Bush would
present the reasons for continuing military action in Afghanistan,
in short the "yes vote" rationale. The presentation
would argue for supporting a prolonged war on terrorism. The
Bush administration has repeatedly stated proof linking Osama
bin Laden to the Sept. 11 attacks. The veil of secrecy surrounding
the proof could finally be lifted and the crucial information
could be laid on the table for the American citizenry to view.
Bush, as commander in chief of the United States, would also
have an opportunity to explain to the world how he understands
the evidence in question indicting Osama bin Laden.
5. A non-political, office-holding individual
would argue the case for the vote to end the military action
in Afghanistan. I will suggest former Presidents Jimmy Carter
or Bill Clinton assume the role of Bush's interlocutor. While
neither one of the former presidents has publicly denounced
the military action, either one could present the case.
The information for the presentation
would consist of the long-term benefits associated with not
continuing to enflame countries in the Middle East via U.S.
military action. A major aspect of the case would be an explication
of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East since World War II.
Special attention to the Persian Gulf War would help illustrate
the problems with U.S. military interventions in the Middle
East.
The case against the war would also emphasize
the use of the United Nations in creating an international dialogue
on how to appropriately handle oppressive governmental regimes
denying human rights to the citizenry. A special component
of the case would stress the need for the American public to
finally begin understanding the reasons so many citizens of
other countries dislike U.S. foreign policy. Finally, the argument
would stress the long-term benefits of financially assisting
countries in dire straits.
6. Both presentations for the yes and
no vote would occur on national television and radio, with satellite
locations established for individuals without access to either
medium. Each side would receive one hour to make the case, clearly
giving the Bush administration a competitive lead since the
definitive proof should take less than 60 minutes to present.
The presentations would be translated into local languages for
ESL constituencies. The initial airing of the cases would occur
at 8 p.m. EST but then continue to replay for a 24-hour period,
allowing individuals who work the night shift an opportunity
to see presentations. Both sides of the argument would agree
upon the specific night for the presentations.
7. Television, radio, newspaper, billboard
advertisements by
individuals or groups pushing for a yes or no vote would be
banned. Both cases should stand firm on the merits of the presentation.
Political interest advertising would unfairly manipulate the
vote. Exit polling would also be stopped in an effort to keep
the voting fair for all people.
8. The United We Stand, United We Fall
vote would use local precincts already in place for other national
votes. A uniform, national ballot would be used to alleviate
any confusion as to what the voter's intention was when voting.
9. International observers would monitor
the voting and vote counting. The international observers would
consist of individuals from countries whose citizens died as
a result of the Sept. 11 violence.
10. An open call for local volunteers
to assist in registering voters and working the polls would
occur. I will be the first to volunteer if the plan is followed.
11. The vote would be a national voting
day and employers must allow employees to leave work to vote
without pay deductions. The long-term importance of the vote
would outweigh any short-term employer inconvenience. Any economic
costs associated with the vote are well worth the price of
knowing where the American citizenry stands on the issue of
military force in Afghanistan.
12. Finally, the Bush administration
would have a definitive answer to whether or not the current
course of action is supported by the American people. American
history books would fill page after page with evidence of how
democracy in the United States is thriving. Commentators could
explain how the first war of the 21st century used a direct
popular vote to democratically discuss an unprecedented international
situation.
In the final analysis, perhaps the vote
would produce a truly de Tocquevillean tyranny of the majority,
but at least the history books will reflect a historical moment
in United States discourse when a direct popular vote was used
to determine an issue of dire importance. The writing of history
would leave no gaps for questioning what a majority of the American
citizenry mandated, ultimately producing a seamless understanding
of what is right and what is wrong.
In the end, United We Stand, United We
Fall. CP
John Troyer
is a columnist for the Minnesota
Daily, the student newspaper at the University of Minnesota. He can
be contacted at troy0005@tc.umn.edu
|