Groups Opposed to a New U.S. War Against Iraq
Organizing For Nonviolent Civil Disobedience
Interview conducted by Scott Harris


Click here to listen:  http://66.175.55.251/clark092702.ram


As the Bush administration works to undercut Saddam Hussein's offer to
allow U.N. weapons inspectors to return to Iraq, the Pentagon is
escalating its attacks against Iraqi air defenses. On Sept. 16,
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announced that in response to Iraqi
anti-aircraft fire directed at U.S. and British warplanes patrolling
northern and southern no-fly zones, he has ordered allied jets to attack
command and control sites that operate Iraq's surface-to-air missile
batteries. Many observers view these changes in tactics as a means to
degrade Iraq's ability to defend itself in advance of a future U.S.
attack.


As part of its preparation for war against Baghdad, the U.S. also
recently announced that it will base B-2 bombers at a British airbase on
the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, 3,000 miles closer to
Iraq than current bases in Missouri. In other signs that the Bush
administration is laying the groundwork for war, Gen. Tommy Franks, the
commander of U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf, is planning to move key
sectors of his headquarters from Tampa, Fla. to Qatar by November.


As the drums of war beat ever louder, peace groups around the U.S. have
responded by organizing teach-ins, protests and vigils. One of the
projects now underway, the Iraq Pledge of Resistance, is modeled on an
earlier effort to stop American military intervention in Central
American conflicts during the 1980s.


Between The Lines' Scott Harris spoke with Gordon Clark, coordinator of
the Iraq Pledge of Resistance, who discusses this national movement
being organized to oppose a new U.S. war against Iraq.


Gordon Clark: It's called the Iraq Pledge of Resistance, and it is very
much modeled on the Central America Pledge of Resistance which
effectively mobilized public opposition to Reagan administration
policies in Central America specifically preventing an invasion of
Nicaragua or El Salvador. This one of course is focused on the impending
war with Iraq and there are a number of national organizations including
Peace Action, Pax Christi USA, the Fellowship of Reconciliation, Voices
In The Wilderness and others who are joining together to organize this
campaign. Specifically, the Pledge of Resistance is mass, nationally
coordinated non-violent civil disobedience. It is an effort by those of
us who are truly concerned about this impending war with Iraq -- its
effects primarily on the people of Iraq but also on the people of the
United States and a myriad of foreign policy concerns that will be
affected by such an attack. It is the strongest way that we can publicly
withdraw our !
support from the Bush administration and do whatever we can to stop it
by literally putting our bodies on the line -- and our freedom for many
of us for the amount of time that we will spend in jail for performing
these actions.


The Iraq Pledge of Resistance is being organized in a number of cities
around the country; that list is growing. We have high hopes that we
will soon be able to make it an international Pledge of Resistance,
although we're focusing on the United States at the moment. It's a very
active campaign right now and I think over the coming weeks we're going
to see numerous cities organizing to oppose the Bush policy in Iraq in
the most rigorous way possible, once again putting our bodies on the
line as necessary.


Between The Lines: Gordon, give us your overall assessment of where the
Bush administration is taking this country and the world in its drive
for war against Iraq.


Gordon Clark: Well, I think with the Bush administration we are seeing
the fullest expression of the hegemony that the United States has held,
the Pax Americana if you will -- except there's not too much "pax"
(peace) involved -- since the end of the Cold War. Many people ask why
Bush is so intent on doing this, and while there are a number of
different reasons, and I think certainly the current push like "a
decision must be made right now," certainly has to do with the
Congressional midterm elections and the White House's attempts to
influence them by making people think about military action as opposed
to the woes of the domestic economy or corporate scandals.


But overall, I think what we're looking at is an administration that
came in and has basically been suckered by the temptation of dominion.
For those in your audience who are Christians, it's an important
example: dominion was actually the third temptation reportedly offered
to Christ, that he would have rule over all the Earth. And it's ironic
that this president who calls himself a follower of Jesus Christ has in
fact succumbed to the temptation of dominion and believing that
basically because no one can stop the United States from doing what it
wants -- that the United States is therefore free to do anything it
wants anywhere in the world.


We've certainly seen that in terms of the repudiation of all the
specific treaties, be they environmental or weapons related and I think
we are seeing that now in respect to war. As he said to the U.N., the
Bush administration's concept of consulting is basically, "Here's what
we're going to do, please agree with us or get out of the way."


Between The Lines: Gordon Clark, the Bush administration's rationale
that we must attack Iraq, eliminate Saddam Hussein in order to prevent
future terrorist attacks on the United States such as Sept. 11 resonates
with many people in this country. Have the American people, in your
view, bought this claim that war with Iraq is necessary?


Gordon Clark: Well living near Washington, D.C. and being involved
politically, new polls come out every day. Polls can swing 10 or 20
points based on what happened the day before. They can swing 20 or 30
points based on how the question is worded.


When you ask Americans for instance, "Is getting rid of Saddam a good
idea?" Well of course they're going to say, "Yes." Then if you start
adding things like, "Well, what if no one in the rest of the world
supports us?" Then you see support plummet. "What if it involves heavy
U.S. casualties?" Then you see support plummet once again.


So I think on a very simple level, a very surface level, which is
frankly the level that many poll questions are asked on, on a very
surface level people say, "Yes, sure." But as soon as you start talking
about the likely consequences of war, what might happen to the U.S.,
then you see support plummet. That's why I think it's in the interest of
certainly the Bush administration to keep it on this very, very shallow
simple level of "Saddam's a bad man. We have to get rid of him."


Saddam is a "bad man," but so is Gen. Pervez Musharraf, the
self-appointed president for life of Pakistan who is receiving U.S. aid
at the same time he clamps down on any sort of democratic resistance in
his own country. The Saudi royal family are "bad" people who, although
it's not discussed much in the media, run one of the most repressive
religious regimes in the Middle East. In fact, they have religious
police who are just about as bad as the Taliban were before they were
kicked out of power (in Afghanistan.)


So the question is not, "Is Saddam Hussein a 'bad man'?" Of course he
is. The question is: "Is he an imminent or grave threat to the United
States?" I think the answer is absolutely not. And the other question
is: "Will this make the Middle East or the world better by us going in
militarily to take him out?" And again I say the answer is absolutely
not. It will make any number of things much, much worse and risks
catastrophic consequences.


Iraq Pledge of Resistance can be contacted by calling (301) 608-2450; or
visit
their Web site at:  http://www.peacepledge.org