> I opposed this war for a whole range of reasons, moral, realpolitick and
> geopolitical. On the moral side, I thought that there was a non-war
> alternative through continuing to press for change on behalf of the Iraqi
> people through the United Nations or other methods, such as support for
> internal resistance (and critique the first Bush and Clinton administration
> for failing in that). On the realpolitick side, this war is unlikely to
> lead to a real democratic alternative, both because of Bush's disingenuous
> motives and precisely because it was unilateral, Iraqi nationalism is more
> likely to be channelled in response into authoritarian counter-responses
> over time. And geopolitically, the war in Iraq endangers both us as US
> residents and others around the world by stoking hatred and strengthening
> authoritarian movements that will find ideological sustenance denouncing our
> actions.
Nathan, I heard all those arguments raised in one form or another in every demonstration I have been to, including ANSWER demonstrations. I have seen them in a thousand different articles on the Web here and there, including editorials in the mainstream press.
> Bits and pieces of this response were scattered across antiwar analysis, but
> it was marginal to the simplistic "no war" legalisms and "unity" rhetoric
> with forces that excluded such analysis.
The fact is, you know, that while the Bush administration was presenting its own 'cafeteria' of rationales for the war (I rather like the metaphor), so was the anti-war movement. All of the 'dishes' you recommend as part of the ideal anti-war diet were to be found on the menu and on the podium of the major demonstrations, including ANSWER's. The 'unity' you oppose was a means of bringing together people who opposed the war for different reasons into the same places at the same times. Why was this "No war! for various reasons" idea so bad? The "Attack Iraq! for various reasons" message of the Bush administration seems to have worked well enough.
The bottom line is that this idea that we weren't able to stop the war because we didn't find the "magic argument" just doesn't hold water.
> Speeches at rallies I went to were
> preaching to the converted, not speaking to those less convinced of Bush's
> complete perfidy and for whom an actual argument was necessary.
Nathan, only the "converted" come to rallies!! The purpose of holding large rallies is not to convince people that the war is wrong. They are (a) a show of force - this is how many of the "converted" we have - and (b) a way of emboldening the more timid people who are already convinced of Bush's complete perfidy but are debilitated by feelings of isolation and powerlessness, and who doubt themselves because it seems that nobody agrees with them.
The fact is that the actual arguments that were being made to the "unconverted" came from an incalculable variety of sources - teach-ins, editorials, leaflets, opinion pieces on the web, e-mails, etc. - the total mix of which was not under -anyone's- control, certainly not ANSWER's, and which included every possible argument against the war, including all of yours.
> While I am personally convinced of Bush's cynicism and bad motives, merely
> repeating or worse assuming it will not convince many people who needed to
> have actual arguments and alternatives presented.
You are not really adequately addressing the whole issue of how people get convinced. You seem to believe that there is this magic bullet argument or vision or leaflet which is a "spiritual atomic bomb of infinite power", to quote Lin Piao speaking about the Red Book, and which could have converted a majority of people in this country into die-hard war opponents just by virtue of the excellence of the structure of its ideas.
That is not a full description of how people really get convinced or unconvinced of things. First, of course, you have to get the argument into their hands; someone who only reads the New York Post and listens to Fox might never hear a coherent anti-war argument, even yours, no matter what the hell we do. People decide what they want to pay attention to. And even if they do hear our arguments, they approach them with a set of filters and amplifiers based on who made the argument in what venue. They have presuppositions about who tells the truth and who they should believe and who they should disbelieve and mistrust. If the argument comes from someone they take as an Authority, it gets accepted. If it comes from someone whom they have characterized as a Yuppie or an anti-American or a Democrat or Clintonite, they might reject it out of hand based on their own predispositions.
For example, war supporters very frequently assume that all war opponents are Clintonites who are messing with Bush out of pure loyalty to the Evil Billary, and they ask us 'Where were you when Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998? Where were you when Clinton bombed Belgrade?' which is always good for a laugh in my circle of course. On another list, someone who talks to a lot of working- class youth in NYC said that those who supported the war were people who liked Bush, distrusted Yuppies, and believed that the anti-war movement was Yuppie- dominated. Some of these filter combinations just can't be broken through very easily. You are dealing not with people's opinions about the Kurds, for God's sake, but about their understandings about their whole lives and their identities and who is against them and who is for them in this world, and who and what they trust to help them make sense of it all.
You really trivialize the whole thing when you claim that it's all because anti-war rallies were led by buddies of Saddam like the WWP, who of course are not buddies of Saddam.
Lou Paulsen Chicago