Stopping the Next War Now

More from that indefatigable man on fire, Arthur Silber, who has offered up six practical steps for stopping the next war, the attack on Iran:  Building an Effective Resistance. This new war is close -- much closer than we think, as Robert Parry notes -- and is only being held at bay, for the moment, by resistance from some top military brass, some reluctance from Tony Blair (who doesn't want to leave office in the next few months with another gigantic quagmire on his record), and some scattershot opposition from a few Congressional Democrats. (Although most of the top Dem players, including the presidential candidates, are gung-ho about whupping them some Persian butt.)

For many, many reasons that we've oft enumerated here, an attack on Iran would quite likely plunge the world into an abyss of murderous turmoil and danger that it has not known since the Second World War. Silber's proposals are therefore of the utmost importance and urgency. Also essential are his two fundamental guidelines behind the six steps of resistance to the new war:

1. The criminal and immoral nature of an attack on Iran in the present circumstances and in the foreseeable future must be identified and stated with all the force imaginable, without qualification, in virtually every interview, every television appearance, and every news story that any politician (or any other public figure) takes part in, beginning tomorrow. THE INSANITY AND CRIMINALITY OF SUCH AN ATTACK MUST BE MADE NATIONAL TOPIC NUMBER ONE, UNTIL THIS ADMINISTRATION FULLY AND COMPLETELY DISAVOWS ANY AND ALL SUCH INTENTIONS AND PLANS -- AND UNTIL THE MAGNITUDE OF PUBLIC OPPOSITION CONVINCES US THAT THEY MEAN IT.

2. In every statement about an attack on Iran, no opponent of this administration can accept any of the terms of debate chosen by the administration. Such opponents must argue on completely different terms. If you argue within the framework they prefer to any extent at all, you will lose -- and the next global war may begin.

As an example of the second principle, he offers this example:

One argument about Iran (and about Iraq, as well) is absolutely wrong and completely ineffective: the idea that we need "Congressionally-authorized, well-managed" wars of aggression. If a crime is "well-managed" and "competently" executed, that makes it worse, not better. If you're arguing for "competent" wars of aggression followed by "well-managed" occupations, you're not genuinely opposed to this administration in any way that matters, or with regard to any significant principle. As I explained in "Trapped in the Wrong Paradigm," you're arguing over secondary matters, that pale in comparison to the fundamental issues involved -- and you thereby concede the basic terms of the argument to your opponents. If you proceed in this manner, you will always lose in the end.

Be sure to read Silber's piece in full. In fact, read his website in full. In my opinion -- and that of others, whose judgments in such matters cry in the top of mine -- it's one of the best sites going. I don't know Silber personally, or know that much about him -- but he is a man who has found his moment, and he is speaking with great passion and truth about the most serious issues of our day.