[lbo-talk] The Antiwar Movement Strikes Back

Chuck0 chuck at mutualaid.org
Thu Nov 6 10:28:01 PST 2003


Jack Smith wrote:


> The following article appears in the Nov. 8, 2003, Hudson Valley Activist
> Newsletter, published by the Mid-Hudson National People's Campaign/IAC, in
> New Paltz, N.Y. and circulated via jacdon at earthlink.net.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> THE ANTIWAR MOVEMENT STRIKES BACK
>
> By Jack A. Smith
>
> The U.S. antiwar movement was united and reenergized in Washington Oct. 25
> as demonstrators rallied and marched behind the banner, "End the Occupation,
> Bring the Troops Home Now!"

First of all, there is no "antiwar movement." There are several movements against peace and war. One movement, led by ANSWER, seeks to build a movement led by ANSWER. And even if you take this paragraph at face value, the stuff about unity is nonsense, since many activists simply won't participate in demos organized by ANSWER. And as we saw on this list last week, there was a lot of opposition within the UFPJ about organizing with ANSWER.


> Police Chief Charles Ramsey estimated the crowd at 50,000. Organizes
> posited that it was twice that number. Regardless, this was the largest
> protest against U.S. aggression in Iraq since President Bush prematurely
> declared victory from the deck of an aircraft carrier on May 1.

The central commitee of ANSWER decided that the attendance was 100,000, weeks before the event ever happened. Most journalists and independent observers put the rally size at 10,000-20,000. If anybody think that 100,000 attended, I challenge them to cough up the evidence to prove this nonsense.


> The protest was perhaps the most important of the five national peace
> rallies in Washington since October last year, even though it was far from
> the largest. Here's why:

Actually, it was the least important and probably the most damaging to the anti-war movement. The most important protest of the pastyear was F15, which is widely viewed by activists as the most effective outpuring of mass opposition to the rush towards war.


> First of all, the action was the product of unity between the country's two
> principal antiwar coalitions ‹ International ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War &
> End Racism) and UFP (United for Peace and Justice). The two coalitions,
> which acted separately in the past, shared responsibilities equally,
> including the selection of speakers. Whether or not this important display
> of unity will carry over into the future is a matter of conjecture.

That's funny, I would judge the importance and effectiveness of a demo by how much closer it brought us to reaching out goals. The vast majority of people opposed to the war want to end the war, not celebrate short-lived alliances between two anti-war coalitions. The goal of any anti-war movement should be to develop a strategy and do direct action to stop a war and, in the long run, dismantle the war machine. If the goal of an anti-war movement is to develop short-lived coalitions to put speakers on stage for a few hours, then they have really forfeited any clim to lead a movement.


> Second, the huge and broad antiwar movement, which is based on several
> hundred national and regional peace groups, began fading following the fall
> of Baghdad. Given the resurgence of struggle against the occupation by
> Iraqi resistance forces, the inability to locate Iraq's alleged weapons of
> mass destruction, a serious reduction in public support for the war, and
> President Bush's sagging popularity, the Oct. 25 protest was an essential
> step in reviving the U.S. peace movement.

What evidence do you have that the anti-war movements faded after the start of the war? Is the lack of large demos by ANSWER a sign that the movement has disappeared? Juts because people aren't marching in the streets does not mean that the movement has gone away. On the other hand, the October 25th demo was a black eye to the movements because it made it look like our numbers have dwindled, when in fact most Americans currently oppose the war, or think that it was a bad idea.


> Third, the united political message that echoed and reechoed throughout the
> day was for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops. During the Vietnam
> era, when the peace forces made a big contribution toward actually ending
> the war, it took several long years for the broad movements to unite around
> the then-radical demand to "Bring the Troops Home Now!" In this war, it took
> only months.

Political messages voiced from a stage do not end wars. If ending a war was that fucking easy, we wouldn't have any wars or military right now, given the number of anti-war rallies that have happened in the past century. And the anti-war and pace movements have already been pretty united in their message of opposition to the Iraq war. This was most evident on February 15, which saw millions around the globe voicing their opposition to the war.


> Oct. 25 turned out to be a good day for an outdoor mass demonstration for
> another reason as well. The weather in Washington was perfect, in the 60s
> and sunny. Out of town buses began arriving at 8:30 a.m. for the 11 a.m.
> rally, and continued arriving until 2:30 p.m. Most of them originated from
> ANSWER's 150 organizing centers in the eastern part of the nation.

That's funny, I never suspected that holding protests on nice days was an objective of the anti-war movements. The International Action Center, the forerunner of ANSWER, held an anti-war rally on a beautiful June day in 1999. We all got nice sunburns, thanks to the hours of speakers that the IAC put on the stage, but that "national mobilization" was held the day after that war ended, and it achieved nothing in terms of long term opposition to the US war machine.


> Participants in the march and rally were multinational with a predominance
> of youth. Perhaps a thousand of the demonstrators were either family
> members of GIs presently serving in Iraq, Kuwait or Afghanistan or veterans
> of past wars. Some active duty GIs in civilian clothes were also in the
> crowd. One of the most moving of the rally speakers, Fernando Suarez del
> Solar of Escondido, Calif., is the father of a Marine killed in Iraq. "I am
> here not only in the name of my son but in the names of 350 kids who have
> died in this illegal war," he declared Spanish, which was translated after
> every phrase. "President BushŠlied to the American people and to the entire
> world about this warŠ. We need to make Mr. Bush understand that he is not
> the owner of the lives of our children. He is not the owner of America."

That's funny, because the rally crowd I saw on C-SPAN, didn't look very diverse at all. Certainly not on the level of the demographics of Washington, DC.


> A large sign demanding the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops bedecked the
> raised stage at the rally site near the Washington Monument. Virtually
> every one of the dozens of speakers, each allotted only three or four
> minutes, repeated the "Bring the Troops Home Now" demand.

ALL HAIL THE LARGE SIGN! THE LARGE PROLETARIAN SIGN WILL STOP THE WAR, CURE CANCER, AND BRING THE TROOPS HOME!


> Each coalition had its own MC and speakers for alternating half hours for
> the duration of the rally. It worked surprisingly well and the audience
> enjoyed a broader variety of speakers and entertainers than was usual when
> one or the other coalition conducts its own rallies. Many of the speakers,
> not only from the more left wing ANSWER but UPJ as well, imparted an
> anti-imperialist as well as antiwar message.

Did you actually watch the rally, Jack? Because I watched most of it on C-SPAN. This was the first time that I caught most of the speaker's program at an ANSWER rally. What I saw was a steady stream of ANSWER functionaries, leaders, and supporters. There were a few token speakers from UFPJ and non-ANSWER organizations, but I was really taken aback at how most of the speakers were ANSWERbots. My favorite part of the rally was when actor Viggo Mortenson started throwing t-shirts into the crowd, only to be stopped temporarily by Rent-a-Protest-Reverend Grayland Hagler.

Go Aragorn! Slay the evil lords of ANSWER with free t-shirts!


> Several speakers were exceptionally well-received, including ANSWER's former
> Attorney General Ramsey Clark, who is campaigning to impeach President Bush
> for high crimes and misdemeanors.

ANSWER had a former attorney general? I thought PCJ handled all of their lega work?

Rev. Al Sharpton, a long-shot candidate
> for the Democratic Party presidential nomination,

I sense that the good reverend will not be getting ANSWER's endorsement.

brought the house down
> when he declared, in reference to President Bush's demand for an additional
> $87 billion to defeat the Iraqi resistance, "Don't give Bush $87 billion for
> war, don¹t give war 87 cents; give out troops a ride home instead." He also
> scoffed at the demand from some quarters to withdraw only gradually in order
> to preserve Washington's dignity. "You cannot get out with dignity," he
> intoned, "because you lost it when you entered Iraq in the first place."
> The greatest applause appeared to be reserved for a group of older women
> peace activists who formed themselves into a riotously funny singing group
> called the "Ragin' Grannies," especially when they rendered their own
> satirical composition "Georgie Porgie" to the tune of "Yankee Doodle."

This is all good stuff on stage, but does not constitute a long term strategy to end war and the US military machine.


> Two feeder marches, one organized by the Muslim-American community and the
> other by the African-American community reached the rally just before the
> big march was to begin.

LOL. I'll have to tell my anti-capitalist friends that their feeder march went unnoticed. I keep telling them that they are wasting their time with any participation in ANSWER protests, but I think that they will have to be bored to death several more times before they understand what I'm talking about.


> The two-mile march route took the demonstrators past
> the White House, FBI building and the Justice Department before returning to
> the Washington Monument. The trek ended up being about 20 blocks long, with
> the front of the march reaching the Justice Department before the tail end
> left the Monument grounds.

Look, ma! Another symbolic protest around downtown Washington which was seen by nobody and accomplished nothing. At least we've come a long way from that IAC-sponsored anti-sanctions protest which wound through deserted DC streets, starting at the library and ending at the souvenir photo guy with the cardboard cutouts of President Clinton and Hillary. The rich and powerful really trembled at the sight of that march.


> The Washington event was one of some 40 coinciding U.S. and international
> protests that took place Oct. 25. Up to 20,000 also marched in San
> Francisco that day.

Again, more inflated numbers on the San Francisco event.


> Mass media coverage somewhat improved from earlier in the year. C-Span
> covered the events live and repeated the entire rally and march a second
> time. CNN had frequent reports. Most of the major national papers, such as
> the Washington Post, had satisfactory coverage. Associated Press sent out a
> fair account that was picked up by innumerable papers.

The media coverage of this "important" protest sucked. For an organization with the purported resources it has, ANSWER certainly can't get much media coverage for its events. But then ANSWER doesn't understand that permitted rallies in Washington, DC of 10,000 people usually don't get covered.


> ANSWER set the original date for the Oct. 25 rally in June and began seeking
> unity between the two coalitions to work together on the event a few week
> later. It took over two more months of persistent effort (including
> pressure from an important group within UPJ) to convince the UPJ leadership
> to agree to unity. The outcome showed it was well worth the effort. "The
> movement has gotten a very big gust of wind in its sails at the very moment
> that the Bush administration is slipping in the polls," is how ANSWER's
> Brian Becker assessed the united protest.

This is the point where whatever liquid you are drinking comes out through our nose as you snort with derisive laughter. ANSWER organized this protest for 6 months and this is all they managed to turn out? What happened to North America's most esteemed activist bus service? And why did it take two months for UFPJ to agree to "work together" with ANSWER?

We can all read between the lines and see that there is tremendous opposition to ANSWER from within the anti-war movements.

Which begs the question: did ANSWER see these opponents within UFPJ as red-baiters? Because ANSWER talks all the time about "unity," which is their codeword for "unify below our leadership." And given that anybody who opposes them is labelled a "red-baiter," you have to wonder what Becker and the other ANSWER cadre thought about the "red-baiting problem at UFPJ."


> Whether unity in action will become more frequent is another matter. There
> are clearly elements in the peace movement that prefer rivalry between the
> coalitions to unity in pursuit of a common goal. In her remarks that opened
> the rally, Petra Lindsay of Youth & Student ANSWER spoke of the event being
> the "first step toward unity." It will be interesting to see if obstacles
> materialize to prevent a second step.

The anti-war and peace movements already have unity around a number of messages, ideas, objectives and goals. What we don't have "unity" around is the idea that ANSWER leads any of the movements. With their October 25th fiasco in Wshington, it should be clear that ANSWER not only doesn't lead "the movement," but that they are bankrupt when it comes to ideas and strategy about how to acheive our short and long term objectives.


> In sum, the Washington protest clearly strengthened both coalitions as well
> as the broad antiwar movement as a whole at a time when an activist movement
> in the streets of small towns as well as large cities is needed now more
> than ever ‹ not just to end the occupation and bring U.S. troops home from
> Iraq but to disrupt Bush administration plans to extend the "war on
> terrorism" to a number of other countries on the right-wing hit list.

Jack: While your piece gets a "C" grade for propaganda, it is rather transparent as propaganda goes. I'm going to give you an "F" on this piece when it comes to journalism. It's quite obvious that you passed Freshman composition in college, but this piece is light on the facts when it comes to reporting on the October 25th protest. If you laid off the ANSWER promotional stuff and focused more on the people who attended the protest, you'd have a much better article.

Better luck next time!

<< Chuck0 >>

Homepage -> http://chuck.mahost.org/ Infoshop.org -> http://www.infoshop.org/ Monumental Mistake (blog)-> http://chuck.mahost.org/weblog/index.php Practical Anarchy Online -> http://www.practicalanarchy.org/ Infoshop Portal -> http://portal.infoshop.org/ Infoshop Science -> http://science.infoshop.org/ AIM: AgentHelloKitty

"...ironically, perhaps, the best organised dissenters in the world today are anarchists, who are busily undermining capitalism while the rest of the left is still trying to form committees."

-- Jeremy Hardy, The Guardian (UK)



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list