ANSWER, NION, United for Peace, & Win Without War

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

>My buddies in Z-Net and IPS are in United for Peace,
>so that's where I'll be.  Win Without War does not
>appear to be more than a group statement at this
>point.  There's another outfit -- Peace
>Action Network -- that seems to be a legit
>membership group.  There are some smaller
>coalitions too.
>
>United for Peace appears to be the anti-globalists
>in anti-war form.  It includes Global Exchange and
>the Ruckus Society, among others.
>
>Post coverage of the local demos was pretty good, IMO.
>Paul Montgomery's tone in describing the myriad differences
>among participants was light-hearted; the description of the
>diversity underscored the broadness of underlying sentiment--
>church ladies, hippies, anarchists, old lefties, etc. etc.
>His view of Workers World was that they don't matter. What
>does is the energy and broadness of popular anti-war sentiment.
>
>This is gonna be fun.
>
>mbs

I asked the same question on many left-wing listservs, and here's one 
of the thoughtful replies:

*****   To: <marxism at lists.panix.com>
Subject: Re: ANSWER, NION, United for Peace, & Win Without War
From: "LouPaulsen" <LouPaulsen at attbi.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 08:26:21 -0600

----- Original Message -----
From: "Yoshie Furuhashi" <furuhashi.1 at osu.edu>
>  Apparently, in the USA, there are no less than four (national)
>  coalitions against the war now: ANSWER, NION, United for Peace, _and_
>  Win Without War (see below).  Any thoughts?
>

You aren't counting the student network that is coming into 
existence. Furthermore, on a local level, there are coalitions in 
between these other coalitions.  Here in Chicago we have maybe six or 
seven.  For example, there is 'Chicago against War in Iraq', which 
was formed by DSA types for the explicit purpose of having a 
coalition that won't have anything 'left' about it.  It is 
pro-weapons inspections.  But it might not be as far to the right as 
'Win Without War'.  On the other (left) hand, there is the 'Iraq 
Peace Team' or 'Iraq Peace Pledge', which is a pretty good 
pacifist/anti-imperialist coalition which did civil disobedience at 
the Federal Building on Tuesday.  Then there are dozens of local 
groups, networks, church affairs, etc., which are not in any national 
coalition at all.

This is what a real movement looks like, on a scale that we haven't 
seen for 35 years.  Networks and coalitions popping into existence 
all the time. NOBODY is in control of it all.  Nobody CAN be.  Do I 
think that it is a bad thing that 'Win without War' is coming into 
existence?  Personally I do not. It is a bad thing that there are 
people who want to 'Win' over Iraq (who are pro-imperialist, that 
is), but, since we can't talk them out of their pro-imperialism in 
the short run, it is not bad that they organize in a coalition to 
fight against the bellicose imperialists and widen the national 
debate over the war.  They may pull some people to the right, which 
is a negative aspect, but on the other hand they will draw thousands 
more people into the debate and into the struggle, and this positive 
aspect greatly overrides it in my opinion.

Naturally Corn at thenation.com has found in 'Win without War' a 
coalition to which he can give his heart and soul.  Fine!  At least 
with this spectrum of coalitions, there is no excuse for anybody 
staying out of antiwar activity!  Let Corn try to organize something 
instead of disorganizing everybody else.

Just my take on it,

Lou Paulsen

<http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/msg22959.html>   *****
-- 
Yoshie

* Calendar of Events in Columbus: 
<http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html>
* Anti-War Activist Resources: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/activist.html>
* Student International Forum: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/>
* Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osu.edu/students/CJP/>