MyDD :: Ineffective Anti-war Protests

Ineffective Anti-war Protests

by Chris Bowers, Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 05:28:04 PM EST

In an important article, Jeffery Feldman questions the effectiveness of established progressive means of public protest:

The big story of the weekend should have been the massive anti-war march that took place simultaneously in dozens of cities around the nation and the world, involving hundreds of thousands of people. That should have dominated the front pages of America's newspapers.

Instead, a few well organized and politically connected religious militants managed to elbow the anti-war movement out of America's kitchen table conversations. As of today, Americans continue to be assaulted by the ongoing debate over the long-term healthcare decisions of one woman in Florida. As of 9am Monday morning, it was as if the anti-war movement didn't even exist.

Tell me about it. In March of last year, on the one-year anniversary of the start of the Iraq war, I attended an enormous anti-war march in Chicago that must have had at least 30,000 participants. It was, however, an extremely disappointing experience that left me with little hope for the anti-war movement as a whole.

First, the speakers were extremely disorganized, self-contradictory, far more radical than the crowd itself, and totally lacking in message discipline. They ranged from Jesse Jackson stirring the crowd in a speech about how the 2000 election was stolen, to an old militant who promised a violent overthrow of the government, to a woman who harangued the crowd for the racism of the anti-war movement (she was part of the program, not someone who broke onto stage), to another speaker who told us we were not really opposed to the were unless we actively helped the Iraqi insurgency. Can there be anything less motivating than holding an anti-war march where the speakers tell those in attendance that they are not really opposed to the war? Could there possibly be a better way to make sure that the march was not covered by the media than by having every speaker talk about everything except Iraq? Most of the speakers actually talked about Columbia, the Phillipines, Palestine, Afghanistan, Puerto Rico--discussion of Iraq was actually a minority topic. Can there be anything worse than a march where the speakers, for all the media to hear, tell the crowd they are racists? Could there be any worse way to build an anti-war coalition than by tacking every non-Iraq related issue possible, and packing the speakers with radicals who do not represent the even the majority of people who came out to march, much less the majority of those opposed to the war? Could there be any stereotype they did not seem eager to fit themselves into?

After the speakers, the march was a patchwork of people protesting or supporting all sorts of different causes. The main amp that I was marching near, which was so loud that it prevented any spontaneous chants from the crowd, kept droning, "free free Afghanistan, free free Palestine, free free Iraq, free free Columbia, free free Philippines," and on and on. Not only did it impose the substance of the march upon the marchers, it diluted the purpose of the march to such a degree that I wasn't even sure I supported it anymore. And of course, when I wandered away from the march, there were the LaRocuhies, the communists, holding their own chants that were problematic mostly for how they had nothing whatsoever to do with the war. By the time we finally got to the end of the march, and speaker after speaker proclaimed that they wanted nothing to do with Kerry, I started thinking to myself "who on earth do these people think they are talking to? Who on earth do they hope to persuade? To work with? What the hell is the point of this march?"

Feldman sums this up pretty well. Our protests must be understood as media events, as coalition building events, and as message events. Right now, they suck at being any of that. It is a problem we need to finally start facing up to:

This weekend's news coverage was plastered with images of religious militants in Florida with red tape across their mouths, the word "LIFE" scrawled on it. These images, may of them of young women, are disturbing on many levels, offensive, annoying--they are many things, but they are also memorable.

What about the images from the anti-war protest? Anything memorable there?

Nope.

This weekend's anti-war protest was pretty much like all the others. Lots of people some famous, most anonymous. It doesn't seem that the protest movement was very organized at all. No real effort was made to dominate the news. No single image was promoted by a centralized PR wing of the protest. Just lots of people coming together in opposition to the war.

Now, to question the primacy of anti-war protests in the progressive movement in America is pretty much heresy. It's dangerous to suggest that anti-war protests should no longer play a central role in progressive politics--at least not as they exist now. But that is what needs to happen. Progressive politics are no longer served well by large anti-war protests. This is not to suggest in any way that the protests should end. But they should not be staged with the expectation that they will have any impact whatsoever on politics.

Anti-war protests have become consumer events in progressive politics. They are no longer the driving engine of protest politics as they once were in the 1960s and 1970s. The sooner progressives realize that the mantle of protest politics has been usurped by religious militants, the faster progressives will regain their initiative and reinvent an inspiring, progressive approach to political protest.

Yes, the media does a terrible job of covering anti-war protests, but organizers of these protests are doing a terrible job of managing of the media. We need to accept that the image of a protest matters just as much as its size. We need to have shorter messages that describe the essence and purpose of any given protest, instead of tacking on the variegated issues of every single organization that wishes to be a co-organizer. After all, coalitions are not built on our differences, but on our similarities.

When was the last time that an issue which was supported by a national majority had protests that were so utterly ineffective? We need to wake up and realize that the way we are protesting is part of the problem.

Tags: Activism (all tags)

Permalink :: 37 Comments :: Post a Comment

completely agree (none / 0)

I didn't go the protest this weekend in NYC for precisely the reasons you spell out. I don't know what the answer is, or if there even is one. But the organizers could certainly start with a coordinated effort to develop a coherent agenda for each event and keep the speakers focused on that agenda.

by tparty on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 05:54:51 PM EST

I know all about this (none / 0)

It bothers me that certain people seem to think that walking around with "Lick Bush in '04" t-shirt is effective communication. It really makes me angry. Besides, rallies for just about anything, seem to have no effectiveness at all. Although, I do have to say the rally here in Lincoln, NE got great press. How that happened I'm not sure. I wasn't at the rally, as I had a board meeting for one of my day jobs. I gather there were 200 people there.

I think, though, that all in all rallies and marches do little for anything or anybody but the rally participants.

phat

by phatass on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 06:04:06 PM EST

I was at the Chicago protest you wrote about (none / 0)

There were way to many divisions that people kept pointing out. Everyone tried to blame everyone else, and as a result, the whole anti-war message got lost.

by who threw da cat on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 06:08:17 PM EST

More coverage of anti-Sinclair boycott (none / 0)

I saw a lot more coverage of the boycott of Sinclair advertisers last year over the anti-Kerry video than I saw of any protest other than maybe the BIG one at the GOP convention.

That's probably because the anti-Sinclair boycott actually accomplished something. I'm not sure what gets accomplished at the anti-war protests other than people venting. Venting is good I suppose, but it's not real news-worthy.

I suppose this is a goofy way of putting this, but I think our actions need more "action" in them... less talk.

by afs on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 06:24:05 PM EST

Re: More coverage of anti-Sinclair boycott (none / 0)

>our actions need more "action" in them

Agreed.
Priority needs to be spent on bringing down Sinclair, Fox, and Clear Channel.

Priority needs to be also put to putting a television version of Air America on the airwaves, too.

Y'know Jello Biafra told us this - become the media - 10 years ago already when we thought the biggest threat to America was a VP's wife wanting to put stickers on Ice T records. Ah, the good old days.

by bartkid on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 12:40:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More coverage of anti-Sinclair boycott (none / 0)

Sinclair, Fox, and Clear Channel...

There goes my local ABC, WB, and Fox stations, and most of the radio. (There are more evil corporate radio entities than Clear Channel, Clear Channel is just the biggest.)

I'm just glad I can still get my WNCW - on a good day, anyway. http://www.wncw.org

by wayward on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 10:31:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There Is Academic Research on This Subject (none / 0)

Anti-war protests were never good for progressive politics. The general populace found long-haired hippies and college so objectionable that protests actually retarded the swing in public opinion against the Vietnam War, probably because they associated the anti-war position with hippies and were loath to associate themselves with such undesirables. Ironically, protests prolonged the war by slowing down public opinion's movement against U.S. involvement in Vietnam and so, indirectly, killed people.

If Iraq had stirred a an internal war within the Republican Party between neocons and Christian conservatives and we were outside observers knowing only who was taking what stance and not any of the actually policy concerns, there are some who would take a kneejerk opinion based on which group they find more objectionable. Don't deny it, some of you would think that way.

This is the heart of the Republican political strategy, to pin down the Democrats on unpopular issues that cause transfer of public affect. We've let them win on abortion by making pro-lifers uncomfortable in the Dmoecratic Party without a corresponding effect on people on the other side of the issue.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

by Anthony de Jesus on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 06:32:48 PM EST

Re: There Is Academic Research on This Subject (none / 0)

<<Anti-war protests were never good for progressive politics.>> This seems a bit sweeping to say based upon a sample size of one (Vietnam).

Whether they were "progressive" or not is debatable, but protests against U.S. involvement in WWII were certainly effective. The America First protests of the 1930s effectively prevented FDR from involving the U.S. in the European theater until the fall of France and the bombing of Pearl Harbor. More recently, I'd argue that the protests against U.S. involvement by proxy in wars in Central America were quite effective at restraining the full force of U.S. counterinsurgency there.

I think a lot of the pessimism on this thread is understandable, but unfair. Nobody expects protests alone to stop wars. But they are quite effective at precluding the illusion of a consensus. It makes it much more difficult for the Administration to argue that "the American people" support Bush's policy in Iraq when thousands of people are marching on the streets. It also helps galvanize participants, and thus create the fuel for movements.

I'd be far more disheartened if there were no protests marking the anniversaries of the execution of this unjust war than I am just because the ones that there are have a few too many people with too much patchouli oil.

by Woodhouse on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 08:08:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There Is Academic Research on This Subject (none / 0)

"precluding the illusion of a consensus"

Thanks for that language. I think you've hit what these events are good for at present. Plus seeing old friends. People will find ways to take more risky, effective direct action when we feel we have to. Assuming risk requires a feeling of necessity as well as hope. At the moment our rulers enjoy a fairly stable mix involving our uneasy comfort with the status quo and little hope for change -- but that can come unglued. Then the proforma actions will rapidly become something else.

Whether the something else will do us any good will depend on the balance of forces at the time. Let's build all the media capacity and tactical saavy we can in this relative lull.

Can It Happen Here?

by janinsanfran on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 11:43:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There Is Academic Research on This Subject (none / 0)

Could you provide names of authors, citations or links to some of this research? Thanks.

by vawolf on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 12:51:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Ludicrous! (none / 0)

For one simple reason:The Vietnam War did not end because of public opinion.

The Vietnam War ended because the anti-war movement fully penetrated the armed forces, which grew increasingly unwilling to fight. This could also happen to Bush's plans for war without end.

Now, it's certainly true that a lot of the effect was more apolitical refusal to be cannon-fodder in a useless, pointless and immoral war. A lot of it could legitimately be chalked up to a meltdown in military discipline. But it was the anti-war movement that created a living reality of a different way to view the world, and this served to powerfully deligitimate the war in the eyes of those fighting it.

See, for example, THE COLLAPSE OF THE ARMED FORCES By Col. Robert D. Heinl, Jr., Armed Forces Journal, 7 June, 1971.

By way of comparison, the Korean War was also deeply unpopular. But there was no anti-war movement against it. Hence, most people don't even remember how unpopular it was. Truman scholars remember, of course. But not much of anybody else.

by Paul Rosenberg on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 01:37:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ludicrous! (none / 0)

I don't think you can chalk up all of the differences between Korea and Vietnam to the presence or abscence of protests. MacArthur's insanity (after all, part of the unpopularity of the war was that a lot of people hated that Truman just didn't drop A-Bombs until the war ended.), the miracle of Truman's '48 campaign, the post WWII climate, the communism xenophobia that was already beginning, etc.

Similarly, the 60s prosperity, combined with the Nixon scandals, the much publicised events of the Tet offensive (which percipitated the turn in public opinion, though there were equal turning points during Koea, though not as publicised), as well as the assassination of RFK, which hardly helped Nixon's legitimacy, were all events that happened in Vietnam without allegory in Korea.

"You say the world has lost it's love I say embrace what it's made of" -Dar Williams

by Valatan on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 02:20:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ludicrous! (none / 0)

It goes without saying that there were many differences (though what the '48 campaign, two years before the outbreak of the Korean War, had to do with it, I'm not really sure). There were obviously big differences contributing to the fact that there was an anti-War movement in one case, but not in another.

But there were also a lot of similarities. Most significantly, for this discussion: Many of those opposed to the Vietnam War were also opposed because they thought we weren't in it to win--LBJ and Nixon wouldn't drop the bomb. (It was totally beyond them that if we went nuclear, we would immediately lose most of the non-aligned world. These people didn't even know what the non-aligned world was.) The anti-war movement created the conditions that translated this potentially inflammatory nutcase opinion into a "get the hell out" modality. Today, the 101st Flying Keyboards are stoking the nutcase sentiments, along with the Administration, of course.

by Paul Rosenberg on Wed Mar 23, 2005 at 07:57:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Same problem in Seattle (none / 0)

The rally was scheduled for 12:00, and most in the crowd expected to be marching by 1:00, maybe 1:30. By 1:45, after listening to inane speakers, crappy beat poetry and crazy leftist rap, a "Start the March" chant began (I think in the hope that the organizers would at least understand a chant of all things). After the chant, my friends and I left after they introduced yet another no-name crazy far-left anti-US speaker.

Oh, and did I mention that it was raining the entire 2 hours we waited (with no real cover provided) for the march to start?

Frankly, the organizers were abusing the marchers. A lot of middle-of-the-road people who were against the war left before the march.

They need to learn that action is more important than words.

by willisreed on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 06:51:38 PM EST

I forget who it was, but (3.00 / 1)

an old-guard activist guard giving a talk once pointed out that demonstrations used to be rallying points for the movement -- as in, places to demonstrate their intent and progress -- then somehow the demonstrations became the movement, an end unto themselves.

A demonstration is supposed to be where people show the world what they're doing. The World Social Forum is a demonstration of a positive alternative vision, scheduled as it is to provide a counterpoint to the World Economic Forum.

I think we need more demonstrations and less simple protests.

Yeah, I'm cynical.

by catastrophile on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 06:56:53 PM EST

Sounds like another protest organized (none / 0)

by IAC. If you don't want loony left protest you have to get permits before they do. However even if it had been organized by the mainstream antiwar groups that organized the March on Washington, I don't think you would see any enthusiasm for Kerry. Kerry doesn't want anything to do with the antiwar movement and has made this clear on several occasions. He and the other dlcers want to purge moveon.org and Michael Moore. The mainstream antiwar candidate was clearly Dean.

by noalternative on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 07:05:14 PM EST

One word: Discipline (none / 0)

They have it. We don't. From message discipline to organizational discipline to puting the wayward over a knee and disciplining them. We are the nurturing parent to such a degree that we can't even impose order on ourselves. Compare these anti-war events to Bush scripted town-hall meetings. Obviously, there is a lot that is phony and disgusting about Bush's meetings, but there is also a lot of impressive organization and they can be very effective media events. Reading this reminded me of a recent post about College Republicans and how, in their meetings they correct each other when the stray off message and they enforce the use of code words on each other. The author was struck by this because they could not remember anything close to that ever happening in the loosy-goosy liberal meetings. Discipline is not fun but it is effective.

The anything goes chaos of liberal war protests feeds into our image as being "soft". How can we be expected to protect America from terrorists if we can't even get our shit together? For voters concerned about security, I think the lack of discipline hurts us far more than the anti-war message. Its just like when you see a spoiled child throwing a completely innapropriate tantrum in public. Such a display reflects badly on the parents. You think the parents are weak. We are judged by the way we interact and organize each other. Particularly these days discipline is important. I don't think it is a coincidence that the military is defined by discipline. I am all for hippy free spirit stuff, but I would also like to win an election once in awhile. Until Americans are no longer scared about terror, we can not afford to be seen as being so completely undisciplined.

by TJonBergman on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 07:13:57 PM EST

Re: One word: Discipline (none / 0)

Sparta vs Athens...

We all read history about how wonderful Athens was and the philosophers and architecture and drama but forget that Sparta won.

by dryfly on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 07:43:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

ANSWER is the problem (none / 0)

Not sure if it was the case in Chicago, but many of the anti-war demonstrations are organized by A.N.S.W.E.R.(Act Now to Stop War & End Racism). It's little more than a front for the neo-Stalinist World Workers Party which supported Soviet crackdowns in Eastern Europe, the Chinese annexation of Tibet, and the Tiananmen Square massacre. They've been leading apologists for Saddam, the Serbs & North Koreans. They just aren't a mainstream organization, or even a mainstream liberal organization. No matter what you view of the Iraq War, I think most people would be better off avoiding their demonstrations.

by SLinVA on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 07:39:11 PM EST

5,000 Pants On Fire (none / 0)

I made this comment a number of times to people at the LA demonstration.

I said that rather than bring all our signs, we should have been asked to bring an old pair of pants, a pole and our accelerant of choice. At the beginning of the march, we douse the pants in the accelerant, and then every ten yards someone lights their pants on fire.

Actually, for maximum effect, it should have been done at night.

Amping it up a bit, I would add the following:

(1) Pictures of each of the 1500+ US troops who died. Over each picture, "Bush Lied, I Died!" and under each, the name and age of each victim.
(2) 100 pictures of Iraqi victims--small groups of 2-5. Over each, "Bush Lied, Thousands Died!" and under each, "Bush Is Bin Laden's Best Recruiiter."

No other signs. No other message. Just that. Nice. Simple. Direct.

by Paul Rosenberg on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 07:49:41 PM EST

Re: 5,000 Pants On Fire (none / 0)

Paul, this is absolutely brilliant! Have you registered the domain name?

Imagine staging something like this in every college town in America? Olberman would eat it up.

by Jeffrey Feldman on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 09:00:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Every single person who tried to light (none / 0)

their pants on fire would be arrested due to (not unreasonable) fire safety laws.

And I'm not sure you could convince any city government to permit such a thing...

by renska on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 11:27:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Every single person who tried to light (3.00 / 1)

The whole idea of direct action is that you don't wait for someone to give you permission. And what college campus is prepared to arrest 5,000 people in an hour? A tried-and-true strategy on the left was to get so many people protesting they can't arrest you all. Or if they arrest you all, they can't hold you all.

"It's not enough to say you'll be ready from Day One - you have to be right from Day One."

by schroeder on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 12:01:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

PRECISELY! (none / 0)

"It isn't nice to go to prison.
It isn't nice to go to jail.
There are nicer ways to do it.
But the nice ways always fail."

-- Malvina Reynolds, "It Isn't Nice!"

Once enough people start thinking this way, there are far too many to put in jail. This is how segregation was ended, and it was how the Vietnam War was ended, too.

by Paul Rosenberg on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 01:41:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Glad to see any protest happening (none / 0)

Chris, I was glad to see on Democracy Now this morning many of the protestors and the speeches given by military families in Fayteville NC.

C-SPAN in January carried some of the Demonstrations during W's 2nd coronation, it was pretty tiny in size.

There's a couple of things at play here. I think that Gen x'ers would much rather demonstrate online and rant-rave here on MyDD. This brings me to the point of saying that there has been a dumbing of the populace as a result of TV. Less people are involved locally in political meetings and the like. Society has changed. My parents are sitting next to me saying in our day they would be marching at the NYC demonstrations.

I went outside to take a look at the marchers in NYC but I noticed something that scared me, the NYPD had cameras and were filming. You can see this if you re-watch today's Democracy Now, but on Amy's video the NYPD has the cameras in their hands at their sides pointing to the back of them, but still on. Very sneaky.

by neolib on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 07:57:17 PM EST

Rallies (none / 0)

I think, also, that the people who have gotten good at setting up rallies are the ones who have done them a lot over the years. These tend to be the die-hard liberals. I'm not saying that I'm any less liberal than they are. They've been doing it longer and just know how to set a rally up. The effectiveness of these rallies can be impaired, though because the people who set them up tend to be a bit looney. I have a feeling that being a liberal for a long time in this country can actually cause mental illness.

I think it's also easy to see that the issues of Palestine and Afghanistan and world hunger and any number of things can be easily linked if you look at them. But it's hard to point out those linkages in a succinct manner in a public forum. This has always been hard. TV certainly hasn't helped.

We all remember the great spokespeople of a movement, partially because of their eloquence and their succinctness. We don't remember those who aren't as good at this sort of thing. "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country," is a pretty succinct and powerful statement. Can you quote anything from Eisenhower's military industrial complex speech? Not that Eisenhower was a lefty, but compared to what we have now, he was pretty liberal.

I'm rambling again. not being succinct :-)

I think a lot of this comes out of the politics of the 60s and 70s where a lot of left-wingers just gave up on the "system, man." Which, I have to say, is not hard to do. They gave up because they never were able to win anything. There's plenty of evidence that any left-wing activism, as such, is marginalized just by the nature of how our system is set up. How much of this is a chicken/egg thing is, I don't know.

Rallies seem to be more for the participants than anything else. They certainly don't change anybody's mind on issues that are already in the public eye. But they let the faithful have something to do. I wonder how many of them have written their members of Congress or volunteered for a campaign. Many of them may believe that that sort of stuff doesn't even do any good anyway.

phat

by phatass on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 08:23:51 PM EST

Have hope (none / 0)

There are a few things you said that are the right motivations to not protest or become more active. When my parents tell me to become active and they are going to also, that is awesome. That is 2 older people in their 60's who grew up during a period when if you did not like something, you got out and marched or attended a rally somewhere. In the past 30 years you did not have one 1 party controlling almost all of government. It is disheartening for those of us who do not like the direction of our country.

But there is hope, when a parent tells a child to go out and protest, that is our Right as citizens of the US. Look at the Ukraine, Lebanon and the aftermath of the Madrid bombings. I can guaruntee you that out of the 150,000 soldiers in the Gulf, there are a few who want us to protest, if not just for the fact that we have the right to do it.

by neolib on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 08:40:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Have hope (none / 0)

You make some very good points here. And I have to say, I know of at least one woman who was over there and thanked me for being active when she got back.

The discussion over at DKos has taken a turn that I find interesting. And this topic has been mentioned on this thread here. That is that rallying should be the central part of some sort of direct political action.

What can we get 200 people in Lincoln, NE (or anywhere) to do on the same day that will have some direct political effect?

To the people protesting in Florida, they have the feeling that they might be able to get something to happen RIGHT NOW, and it probably seems to them, that they have. Of course, really, they are being used by Tom Delay and Bush. But it doesn't look like that to them. Especially if Harry Reid and other Democrats vote for the bill.

phat

by phatass on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 08:50:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The war isn't there yet (none / 0)

This insurgency is pre-adolescent.

It's currently making the transition from squad-level to platoon-level attacks.

It's not a real insurgency until it hits an occassional company-level assault on a major town.

Until then, casualty levels simply don't support the notion that an anti-war movement forwards about the state of the war.

And, franky, the US Army is salivating at the possibility the insurgents want to take it to the next level. They got a good platoon-size engagement today, and they shredded the insurgents.

The real state of the war won't really be obvious until 2007. Once the insurgents either establish their ability to operate in force, in the open, or the US Army bludgeons them, then you'll see.

by jcjcjc on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 12:17:32 AM EST

Re: The war isn't there yet (none / 0)

The rebels hit americans because they're
kicking in doors, and abusing their
power. Everyone is a terrorist.
They're shooting innocent people.

And the rebels will ultimately, lose.
America will prevail in Iraq. Because
Iraqis are starting to blame the rebels
for the heat and water being turned
off.

Meantime, the Americans will continue to
take the hit. The damage that is being
done to our foreign policy capabilities
are irreversible. Iraq will never
shine like a star.

What is at stake, IMHO isn't Iraq Victory,
or the chance to protest the war -

Instead, its the slow slide down of a
once great superpower, sybaritic, pathetic
and economic. The war simply costs too
much for what we're getting.

Gass is what - 2.00 a gallon now. More?
Better get a spare fuel tank for that
big honkiin' SUV.

by turnerbroadcasting on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 08:54:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Benefits of the war (none / 0)

The big lesson from this war is that protracted war at the standard of military we want is untenable.

The modern economy cannot and will not support this sort of war at any length.

It opens big questions about future conflicts, such as a potential war with China.

Can we even imagine what a war with China will cost? If this is what Iraq has cost? Even accounting for the massive stealing by Hallbiurton, the Iraq War will cost easily half a trillion to a trillion dollars before its done.

Given the additional economic and social costs, a war with China would simply cease to be measurable in dollars (especially after the Chinese call in all our debt).

It would trigger an inflationary cycle that would lead to the use of currency figures in goofy words like googleplexes (sp?).

Have we reached the point where war has become SOOO expensive that the alternatives (peaceful protests, covert warfare, diplomacy, containment) so far outstrip war that war ceases to be practical?

by jcjcjc on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 09:50:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Sparta Vs. Athens (none / 0)

Wonderful analogy.

A key element of this hinges on our societal
mechanisms, the statistical drivers for the
population at large -

In sparta, the driver was, as a man, how many men
you could kill on the battlefield.

In athens, it was social standing, that is -
how far up the athenian social order you
could climb.

Socrates was dirty because he stood on
the corner, didn't belong to all the right
clubs. The odd anti-war protester in sparta
was dirty because he would regularly get
hit over the head, with a club and end
up groveling in the dirt.

-=-

Here's the thing. In America, in the early 21st century, social status and the mass drivers
are ? Money.

And its very ephemeral. Most of the hippies
are all too aware of what starving feels like
and they don't want to be added to the
list of patriot act recipients, the visits
by the FBI or worse yet... destroy their
credit rating. Today you're on top of the world,
tomorrow you can be in the ditch. thats
our society.

So the structure doesn't exist for people
to naturally express themselves.

The christian conservatives, on the other
hand, have spiritual goals. They want
to rise up in their churches and be top dog.

by turnerbroadcasting on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 08:50:07 AM EST

The chattering class (none / 0)

The real problem with todays protests are the are to Civil! To get the country's attention we need folks who are willing to really push their way into the news. In new york the only attention the protests received of any consequence was Discount theater and resturant coupons from the Mayor! I'm sorry but the only way Protest will have any impact is when people start taking daring and dramatic actions that get large numbers arrested. Bring back the S.D.S.and the Black Panthers!

by eddieb on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 10:34:20 AM EST

The first march, however, was the horrendous one just prior to the invasion where the police were overzealous with crowd control and people were penned into the little boxes and unable to move.

In the first two cases, the general zealoutry of the speakers wasn't such an issue because, again, the march was more or less over, and most people went home rather than listening.

The first march got little to no media coverage and the second got some coverage because some NYU students burned a flag. Or they burned something anyway. But the 10 minutes of confrontation at Washington Square Park between protestors and police was all that was covered, not the huge (huge!) peaceful protest that packed Broadway between 34th St. and... 8th? for at least 4 hours.

But I did attend (briefly) another protest when Bush was in town to address the UN at some point and all I could think was "where did they unearth these freakball speakers?"

Granted, the people were protesting Bush's existence, not the Iraq war, but the message was such a mish-mosh of rants that I found it fairly embarassing and didn't stick around long.

Ah well.

by renska on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 11:37:17 AM EST

giving other side too much credit (none / 0)

i have similar sentiments about the anti-war protests as many of you. i stayed away from the salt lake city march after reading a transcript of their speakers from a previous event (terrible).

also, what is this comparing the other side to sparta? sparta!? friends, we need to get over this myth. the right has big wads of cash and a slick PR machine, that's true. but where is their spartan army? i've never seen it. when have we ever seen massive and well disciplined rallies for a conservative cause?

those small crowds down in FL may provide some memorable images but are they even helping their cause? i live in utah and even conservative mormons aren't real fond of people making a public scene with their prayers. local polling shows 2/3 of utahns disagree with the action congress took - which translates into all the dems and half of the republicans. the FL protests do NOT unite the GOP or win any new converts, IMO.

by jethropalerobber on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 12:08:06 PM EST

Formal Attire Protests (none / 0)

Now is the time to organize the FAPs! Aside from garnering more media attention due to the novelty of it, a formal attire protest would further legitimaize the cause by showing middleclass America that the anti-war movement goes deeper than the dreadlocked phish-heads from northeastern liberal arts colleges...thats not to discourage them from protesting too, but come on people, how hard is it to tie the dreads back and throw on a tie???

by spacemuseum on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 02:15:04 PM EST

Loud and Ineffective or Deathly Quiet (none / 0)

So now that we know some of the problems, when are there going to be rational solutions brought to the table within the anti-war movement?

It's obvious that "throwing in the towel" is not a viable solution. The cost of lives is going to be too great before sense is knocked into the heads of the loyally brainwashed from pro-war propaganda. And, why should we wait until our economy is flushed so far down the toilet that it will be unrecoverable?

If the majority of conservatives are like the ones in my town they will be hard to convince. Any sign of rationalization for why this war is unjust is shunned off as anti-Bush and anti-American, and then disregarded. Even after pointing out the irregularities in his fabricated justifications for war.

It is definitely clear that something needs to be done. This shell game has to come to an end, and the lies have to be stopped somehow. "How" still being the imperative question.

I don't want to sit down and shut up, but if that is what it is going to take to wake people up than so be it! The war is only going to create more terrorists from the angered families who've lost innocent loved ones that died at the hands of soldiers who supposedly thought they were actually picking off insurgents.
War may be impersonal through the sights of sniper rifles, but the loss of family members lasts a lifetime. Come to think of it, so does the loss of liberties that used to be guaranteed within our Constitution within the Bill of Rights when the PATRIOT Act was passed.

by DeltaCat on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 04:34:35 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.