Chicago Indymedia : http://chicago.indymedia.org/archive
Chicago Indymedia

Commentary :: Prisons : Protest Activity

2 Years Later: Results and Prospects for the Anti-war Movement

For the anti-war movement, the history of the past two years is one of failures.
The shutdown and disruptions of San Francisco and other cities have not been repeated. An enormous amount of energy was diverted into the failed Presidential campaign of a pro-war Democrat. The protests marking the second anniversary of the invasion of Iraq were dwarfed by the mobilizations of February 15 and March 20, 2003, which garnered public opinion the title of "the world's second superpower" despite—or because of—the powerlessness of mass marches to deter the march to war. (The endorsement of the NY Times is perhaps a good sign that a movement is failing to really challenge power.) Anti-war forces are splitting, with liberal groups such as Moveon.org refusing to call for the withdrawal of troops and bickering becoming increasingly public between mass-mobilization coalitions United for Peace and Justice and Troops Out Now! (see: nyc.indymedia.org/feature/display/145170/index.php)

Far from showing signs of winding down the war, the Bush Administration seems to desire to extend it to Iran, Syria and Venezuela, while settling in for the long haul in Iraq and Afghanistan. Clearly, mass mobilizations and support of the Democratic Party are not getting the goods. It is past time to go back to the drawing board and figure out how to build an anti-war movement that is capable of ending this war while and by building independent bases of power that can be used to effect future social change.

The intent of this article is not so much to break new ground as to synthesize what has already been said and spark discussion.

While the past two years of anti-war actions have failed to make any appreciable impact on policymakers, it is my belief that they have laid the grounds for a far more radical anti-war movement. Purely symbolic actions such as permitted marches have clearly failed as tactics. So has working within the Democratic Party. Despite 85 percent of delegates to the Democratic National Convention opposing the war, the Democrats chose a pro-war candidate on the basis of “electabillity”, who then proceeded to lose. There wasn’t an obvious contradiction in being both anti-war and a Democrat before Dean lost the primaries and some people were even able to reconcile being anti-war and campaigning for Kerry, but increasingly one is forced to choose sides.

Official channels have been exhausted and ending the war has been taken off the agenda of practical politics. If you’re anti-war and not willing to wait for the next four years—assuming the Democrats are willing and able in 2008—then you have to take actions that force those in power to end the war. There is no third option. But what this entails is still unclear.

The mass mobilizations of the past two years have been neither truly mobilizing nor, in a non-numerical sense, mass. They have only attracted those who are already committed to opposing the war. And even among the anti-war, demonstrations have disproportionately mobilized radicals, students and professionals, not the working and middle-class people who are disproportionately bearing the burden of this war. Public opinion polls (www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm) show that over half of this country now opposes the invasion of Iraq and thinks the U.S. has gotten "bogged down"—though far fewer are in favor of immediate withdrawal yet—but we haven't seen this broad base in the streets. If we want to build power, change minds and bring people into the movement, we need to concentrate on grassroots organizing around concrete issues. People are radicalized not by dogmatic speeches about the evils of capitalism or imperialism but by fighting for concrete victories and by making connections between the larger system and the conditions of their own life.

It is on this front that promising news is to be found. The emergence of Military Families Speak Out and Iraq Veterans against the War is crucial not only from the standpoint of public legitimacy and persuasion but because, short of a larger revolutionary crisis, the war machine can only be destroyed by those who operate it. 48 towns in Vermont voted against the war and for the return of the state's National Guard, involving entire communities in taking a stand against this war. Counter-recruitment efforts have been picking up at commuter colleges with largely people of color and working-class student bodies, from Seattle Central Community College and San Francisco State to the City University of New York and beyond.

The Army and the Marines have recently missed their monthly recruiting targets for the first time in 5 and 10 years, respectively, African-American enlistments have dropped by 41 percent in the past four years and Generals are publicly acknowledging that the all-volunteer force is "close to breaking". (See: counterecruiter.net)

What we have to do is push it over the edge, targeting one recruiting station and career fair at a time for decentralized, nation-wide protests. Student organizing has a particularly important role to play in this, though it need not and perhaps should not be limited to students. Through counter-recruitment efforts based in the public high schools and colleges where the armed forces get their warm bodies, we have a chance to both build a broad movement and force the rulers of this country to either end the war or reinstate the draft, opening the door for a mass radicalization of youth (and their parents).

Where we go from there is murkier. The shutdown of San Francisco in 2003 suggests that massive direct-action is still an effective tactic with enough participants, but the element of surprise of the Battle of Seattle has clearly been lost. Moreover, it is unclear that there are any tactically significant targets for an anti-war movement that are susceptible to massive direct action, with the possible exceptions of the Pentagon and military bases. Any effective strategy will likely require the creation of new tactics and methods of organizing. This should be accompanied by the continued development of an analysis and alternative program, free of dogma and formed by study of concrete situations and problems.

If we are going to succeed in ending this war, we need to understand why it has happening, how it can be stopped and what we want to do once we end it. "No blood for oil" and "Money for education, not for bombs" are fine slogans as far as they go, but if I am right in thinking the value of the money we do have is based on the power of our bombs and our control of oil, then we have to be able to provide an alternative to war without end or a devastated economy. There are few people willing to fight for an end to prosperity, even when it is unjustly and unequally shared. Moreover, a movement without an underlying analysis or vision risks become demobilized once its immediate goals have been achieved, as did the anti-apartheid forces in this country. A genuinely anti-imperialist anti-war movement is likely to take up many, if not most, of the issues and positions of the Global Justice movement.

The Vietnam War ended because the (mostly middle and upper-class) anti-war movement, dissension in the ranks of both soldiers and policymakers and the tenacious resistance of Vietnamese Communists made American elites decide the war wasn't worth its costs. It was the "wise men", elite policymakers who advised LBJ, who put an end to escalation and advised withdrawal from Vietnam and it was Henry Kissinger who negotiated an end to the war. Given the imminence of peak oil production and the slow degeneration of both the domestic economy and the reservoir of consent to American rule built on our cold-war claim to protect the “free world”, the United States needs to control the oil of the Persian Gulf if it is to remain hegemon of the world-capitalist system. The elites who run this country may be willing to pay almost any price (in the blood of others) this time around. Southeast Asia was merely important to the world-capitalist system and American dominance; oil underlies it.

We have to think long-term, we have to think strategically and we have to think radically if we are going to end this war. Compromises and permitted channels have failed to get the goods. It is time to build a movement capable of offering a genuine alternative. The history of the past two years is one of failures, but we can make it the prologue to a success.

-- Repost from Left Hook , a radical youth journal.
 
 

Donate

Views

Account Login

Media Centers

 

This site made manifest by dadaIMC software