Chicago Flame March 17, 2008
What anti-war movement?
By Christopher Skeet
It's that time of year again, people. With the five-year anniversary of the Iraq War upon us, the so-called anti-"war" folks of Students for a Democratic Society have the usual round of demands. And, if the sheer volume of flyers posted at UIC is any indication of their seriousness, they appear willing to decimate a third of America's forests to make their point.
Now, the Iraq War is pretty unpopular in America, with both the presidency and Congress floundering in record-low approval ratings partly because of it. Recent polls indicate that Americans calling the war "a mistake" fluctuates around 57 percent (USA Today, Aug. 6, 2007) or 59 percent (Wall Street Journal, Jan. 31). Millions of decent, intelligent and hard-working Americans support bringing the troops home. My question is this: if a large majority of Americans oppose the war, how come the anti-"war" movement is so laughably miniscule and ineffective?
The most obvious answer is that the anti-"war" movement, by which I mean the organizations primarily steering it, doesn't oppose war at all. Depending on the source, there currently range anywhere from 30 (wikipedia.org) to 42 (globalsecurity.org) active conflicts and/or wars in the world today. It's odd that the anti-"war" movement opposes only two of these. Are the other wars not worth opposing? Or is it just that the millions of murdered Darfurians, Somalians, Chechens, etc., regrettable as it may be, are simply small fry compared to the global, oil-driven, spur-swaggerin' cowboy genocide being conducted by Halliburton and its Bushitler stooge?
It's odd, also, that in regards to the Iraq War, the anti-"war" movement is only demanding that one side disengage. Apparently, the foreign terrorists coming to Iraq to "resist" the Americans by blowing up mosques and marketplaces are completely justified. Apparently, if the Americans left Iraq, these part-time jihadists, content with the "social justice" achieved, would pack up their RPGs and go home.
Finally, it's particularly odd that the anti-"war" movement actually supports certain wars, so long as the possibility remains of those wars' outcomes serving their political needs. Hence, if Hugo Chavez's unprovoked mobilization of 10 tank battalions to the Columbian border coupled with his bellicose calls for war bolsters the ideology of the anti-"war" movement, you'll hear nay a peep from them calling for immediate de-escalation. And if fascist thugs fire rockets into Israeli villages and then hide among their own civilian populations…well, that's not "war," you see. That's "legitimate resistance," and the anti-"war" movement supports it.
Rest assured, had it been Iran or Russia that invaded Iraq instead of America, groups such as the SDS, A.N.S.W.E.R., the ISO and their ilk wouldn't be organizing marches against it. They'd wait for the U.S. government to take a side, and then they'd take the opposite side. Their formula is simple, and they use it regardless of the conflict or its possible reverberations. Let's assume Nation A and Nation B go to war. If America supports Nation A, it's because we want Nation B's oil. If America supports Nation B, it's because we hate the ethnicity and/or religion of Nation A. If America remains uncommitted, it's because Bush can't find Nation A or Nation B on a map.
I think the anti-"war" movement has failed to mobilize because most Americans who oppose the Iraq War for genuinely altruistic reasons don't have boots high enough to wade through the typical speeches into which these rallies inevitably degenerate. Opposing the Iraq War is one thing. Getting non-Marxist Americans to stand still and listen to some shoeless granolahead drone on about how they themselves are responsible for every ill in modern history is quite another.
But hey, don't let me stop you from enjoying your rally. I'm sure the bongo players and stick twirlers will put on quite a show. UIC's own Terrorist Emeritus Bill Ayers will be speaking, perhaps treating the crowd to some romantic recounts of how he opposed "war" in the 1960s with a domestic bombing campaign. But just don't expect many people to believe that you oppose "war." What you oppose is any military, economic, or political action which you feel might strengthen the United States, and your transparent ruse of feigning concern for American troops and Iraqi civilians is utterly beyond detestable. The anti-"war" movements' leaders fully support war, just for different ends.
© Copyright 2008, Chicago Flame
