As indeed thousands of other Americans who oppose the Iraq war must, I have found myself trapped at an impasse these recent months, mulling over what action appropriately follows electing a congress unable or unwilling to enact the people’s desires.

My principal issue with the 110th Congress is as simple as it is indelible. The will of the American people is to withdraw from Iraq. Paint that incontrovertible truth in whatever foul, derisive language you wish -“cut and run”, “defeatist”, “strategy to lose”- but it is our will, nevertheless. Your juvenile name-calling and chastisement of the very families and communities that have most heavily borne the brunt of this unjustifiable conflict are needless and unproductive. Your incessant pandering around issues, placating the gold-star families with hollow pragmatics, and distaste for meaningful political engagement have cost the lives of too many of our women and men in uniform. The people have made clear their wishes, and that is all that you, the congress, needs to be concerned with.

Further distressing, the government lags inexcusably behind in relevant political dialogues, failing to grasp fundamental realities that have been investigated and published by scholarly authorities, sometimes years ago. While these scholars (Ward Churchill, Fawaz Gerges, Robert Jensen, Richard Falk, etc.) are frequent targets of immeasurably hostile ad hominem smear campaigns, their arguments are never refuted with the same objectivity and academic integrity with which they’re put forth -an unspoken but sobering testimony to their truth. The chronic want of such arguments in the halls of government permits Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) to mask his ensuing reluctance to face nitty-gritty Iraq war issues with such logical fallacies as the “only way” senators can “seal the pledge” to “support the troops” is through “funding their mission,” a nonexistent binary logic that persists only in the delusions of his mind. Conjuring pseudo-realities in place of meaningful political perspectives becomes an attractive option, as well; take, by way of example, Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Georgia) claiming that establishing a time table for withdrawal “tells our enemies when they can take over in Iraq,” a badass stance easily taken from the comfort and safety of Capitol Hill, but that does not contribute any new or useful information to the discussion.

Democrats cannot realistically expect debate of a higher order until they’re willing to bring level-headed, fact-based arguments to the table. The Iraq conflict’s proper closure is not a matter of party-loyalty, neither is it appropriate space for grandstanding or reelection-motivated posturing.

Eclipsing the significance and urgency of all issues publicly explored by our government is the only one never discussed. The U.S. campaign in Iraq is an international war crime. Here the road forks; we either turn the president and his accomplices over to an international tribunal where they may face justice, or we proceed forward in accordance with the president’s wishes and facilitate exponential growth of the international community’s actionable distaste for the United States. Prosecuting our president for his unconscionable acts as a gesture of cultural reconciliation will work wonders for deterring future acts of terrorism in our homeland -a material reward for doing what is basically morally right. The democratic congress plays a vital role in this intricate process of moral recourse; its members occupy strategic places from which they may react prudently and influentially to the infractions of the president and his men. They would do well to realize that the concurrence of observing egregious violations of international law, holding a position of authority, and failing to intervene and restore justice will likely incur harsh judgment when viewed in retrospect. Unless swift action is taken against the administration that so perversely and cheerfully commits war crimes in our country’s name, inaction on the part of political leaders will share negative space with that tyrannous regime in the historical record.

For concerned citizens on the ground level, strategies of dissociation and counteraction are becoming more difficult to sustain as their efficacy seems in doubt. Years of protesting and creative activism appear for naught as the conflict in Iraq escalates instead of approaching its end. The “troop surge” must surely be a contemptuous slap in the face against those who dare question the president’s motives or methods, and our political paralysis as a people has never been more plainly apparent.

I am left to my own personal moral values and interpretations to determine how I ought to respond. I know from my education and experience that sometimes, on rare occasions in history, avenues of citizenship that are unpopular, controversial, and even sometimes illegal, lead to the only acceptable and defensible moral choice. Congress had been flirting with the idea of de-funding OIF as a means of coercing the president; when they balked, many people appeared frustrated that funds continue to flow with the force of a flood. My responsive question to this frustration, despite the unspeakable controversy (and illegality) it must rouse, is: Who funds the congress?

Does refusing to fund the Iraq war equate to an inability to care for our wounded? Consider the recent scandal-ridden histories of V.A. and Walter Reed wherein the government has demonstrated its crass disinterest in rehabilitating the survivors of this catastrophic quagmire. The only way to ensure that wounded veterans receive the services they need and deserve is if we provide them ourselves, direct source; we know from what we have lately observed that the government’s systems specifically designed for disabled veterans are so disheveled and corrupt that continuing to invest, as individual people, our resources and faith in them is borderline socially irresponsible. Our taxes are collected and disbursed without fanfare, but the pockets they’re ultimately destined to line belong to none other than the subjects of our continuous protest and disapproval.

Why is it that we continue to self-abuse?

When the government proves itself undeserving of our continued support, why do we insist upon supporting it still? How can we seriously feign surprise when our cries for reform are not taken seriously if these cries accompany uninterrupted avalanches of our tax dollars into the bowels of this non-representative government? I once considered myself a smart man, but I must confess that I fail to make the logical connections that so many other Americans must find uncomplicated and straightforward. I wonder if you hire a contractor and he does not render the services promised, does it make sense to give him a check anyway, then stand outside his house with a banner or a sign expressing your contention that he should not cash it? Who, seriously, is actually funding the war in Iraq, the government? That’s simply absurd; the government cannot fund anything because the government doesn’t earn any money! We are funding the war in Iraq. We allow, even encourage them to continue their irresponsible behaviors every time we agree to pay for them.

Of course, refusing to pay taxes carries serious consequences. 161 years ago, Henry David Thoreau learned that protesting the authority of government through tax-avoidance leads to imprisonment. Peaceful and practical though it may be, interference with this machine’s money elicits harsh repercussions. We can bellyache all we like; let us take initiative to improve things when our “representation” is too lethargic or bogged down in conflicts of interest to do so themselves and we suddenly become criminals, criminals for asserting last-ditch democracy in a democratic state.

Withholding cash that might otherwise become the subsidiaries that kill the next Iraqi child might pit us against the wrath of the courts, but does our hesitation to take such radical action stem from a conscious, balanced assessment of those courts’ legitimacy? General fear of reprisal is an excuse for inaction so reprehensible that it was denounced by the forefathers themselves (these denouncements are, in fact, touted as cause-affirming by war supporters so blind with obsessive nationalistic self-love that they cannot appreciate or even recognize the irony of so touting). “Anyone who would exchange liberty for security deserves neither” (Benjamin Franklin). But returning to the integrity of the courts, is there some hard line of equitable justice against which we can lean our obedience and good citizenship with confidence in the system’s fairness? Here’s a judgment call that everyone must make for themselves, individually -the manner, after all, in which we will all answer for our decisions. But I will share what I believe is relevant and crucial to developing an informed decision, another widely recognized Bushism, and that is his flat, unashamed disregard for the rule of law.

If you’re squeamish about strategies that involve civil disobedience, and are so because you think that the legal system will look favorably upon you for your compliance with and obedience to a rapidly expanding totalitarian regime, then you should take a closer look at our nation’s guests down in Guantanamo and take special note of the way they’re treated by their host, the United States Government. While purportedly a controversial issue that divides our nation across political/ideological lines, the indisputable facts underpinning the operations of Guantanamo Bay -and many other secret prisons all around the world- serve as chilling reminders of how grossly wicked and nefarious state power becomes when left unchecked for too long. Understand that this type of systemic evil is not possible unless enabled by a large, complicit populace that decides against intervening action. Picture yourself in their place because it could just as easily be you in the state’s eyes. The administration has become so consumed with the crusade against “terror,” an abstract phenomenon that cannot be operationally defined, that no identifiable inhibitions against immoral conduct remain to be observed.

Protesters and activists of every sort are routinely ignored and their messages are lost on our leaders. The American people’s struggle will essentially boil down to their apathy vs. our anger. In an authentic democracy, the power is ours and they represent, but somewhere along the way, our power has found its way into their hands, and now that they’re abusing it, it becomes our concern because their crimes are committed in our name. It becomes ever a higher priority as we begin to grasp that the more powerful they grow, the more dispensable we, the citizens, become. De-fund the Iraq war; de-fund all such violent methods of imperialism. Do this because it is right and because it is smart; you will save the innocent from despair, but you may also save yourself from exclusion and extermination.