Reload!
The most amazing thing about the anti-war movement in America today is how damn ineffective and weak they are. Bush is more vulnerable then he has been his entire presidency. Iraq has avoided being another Vietnam only in that it took much longer in East Asia for things to get as bad for America as they already are in Iraq. According to polls, only 4 in 10 Americans support a continuation of our present military strategy in Mesopotamia.
Yet, judging by the group of anti-war marchers I saw in downtown Lawrence today, there is not the remotest risk of the anti-war movement showing any ability to capitalize politically on all the trends that you would think would be in their favor. The size of the march (the local versions of what are apparently coordinated national marches in many cities) was the same size as the march back in February 2003, before the war started. In other words, in spite of things turning out like crap (in other words, just like the anti-war folks said it would) they haven't seen any increase in the number of people -- in a liberal university town! -- who would bother to join them in a pleasant walk down the main street on a beautiful fall day.
Perhaps one of the reasons for this was the strange time-warp of most of the marchers, who still seem to be caught in the 1960s. I suppose just like generals who fight the last war, the anti-war leadership (most of whom cut their teeth in the 60s) is still fighting against the Vietnam war. There's still no recognition, based on the chants, signs, and literature handed out*, that the anti-war movement realizes that the world is really a dangerous place, and that there are real enemies of western (dare I say "progressive?") values who will kill themselves and a lot of us to make their bloody point. A lot of Americans are "against" the handling of the Iraq war now not because they believe in universal brotherhood, but because we are losing and this defeat is making us weaker and emboldening our enemies. The Iraq war was poorly planned and poorly led. It has turned out to be strategically wrong, which isn't always the same as being morally wrong. If those who believe the war is morally wrong worked with those who believe it is strategically wrong, then you might have the beginning of a real anti-war movement.
I'm not holding my breath, though.
* among the literature handed out was a pamphlet arguing for the rights of political prisoners in Iraq, a cause to which I was willing to listen until I saw that the writer's definition of "political prisoner" includes terrorists imprisoned for the the cause of "freeing Palestine" with explosives. Even as Israel makes sacrifices for peace and ends major portions of the occupation, the pamphleteer couldn't get over his or her hatred of Israel and Jews long enough to keep to the subject of Iraq and Abu Ghraib without mentioning "Palestine."
The most amazing thing about the anti-war movement in America today is how damn ineffective and weak they are. Bush is more vulnerable then he has been his entire presidency. Iraq has avoided being another Vietnam only in that it took much longer in East Asia for things to get as bad for America as they already are in Iraq. According to polls, only 4 in 10 Americans support a continuation of our present military strategy in Mesopotamia.
Yet, judging by the group of anti-war marchers I saw in downtown Lawrence today, there is not the remotest risk of the anti-war movement showing any ability to capitalize politically on all the trends that you would think would be in their favor. The size of the march (the local versions of what are apparently coordinated national marches in many cities) was the same size as the march back in February 2003, before the war started. In other words, in spite of things turning out like crap (in other words, just like the anti-war folks said it would) they haven't seen any increase in the number of people -- in a liberal university town! -- who would bother to join them in a pleasant walk down the main street on a beautiful fall day.
Perhaps one of the reasons for this was the strange time-warp of most of the marchers, who still seem to be caught in the 1960s. I suppose just like generals who fight the last war, the anti-war leadership (most of whom cut their teeth in the 60s) is still fighting against the Vietnam war. There's still no recognition, based on the chants, signs, and literature handed out*, that the anti-war movement realizes that the world is really a dangerous place, and that there are real enemies of western (dare I say "progressive?") values who will kill themselves and a lot of us to make their bloody point. A lot of Americans are "against" the handling of the Iraq war now not because they believe in universal brotherhood, but because we are losing and this defeat is making us weaker and emboldening our enemies. The Iraq war was poorly planned and poorly led. It has turned out to be strategically wrong, which isn't always the same as being morally wrong. If those who believe the war is morally wrong worked with those who believe it is strategically wrong, then you might have the beginning of a real anti-war movement.
I'm not holding my breath, though.
* among the literature handed out was a pamphlet arguing for the rights of political prisoners in Iraq, a cause to which I was willing to listen until I saw that the writer's definition of "political prisoner" includes terrorists imprisoned for the the cause of "freeing Palestine" with explosives. Even as Israel makes sacrifices for peace and ends major portions of the occupation, the pamphleteer couldn't get over his or her hatred of Israel and Jews long enough to keep to the subject of Iraq and Abu Ghraib without mentioning "Palestine."
posted by Mike at
3:02 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home