Why There Is No Massive Antiwar Movement in America

[bigtree]

Truthdig ‏@Truthdig 23m23 minutes ago
Tom Engelhardt: Why There Is No Massive Antiwar Movement in America http://tdig.it/18KG8tp


____ In the last six decades, the American national security state has succeeded strikingly at only one thing (other than turning itself into a growth industry): it freed itself of us and of Congress. In the years following the Vietnam War, the American people were effectively demobilized, shorn of that sense of service to country, while war was privatized and the citizen soldier replaced by an “all-volunteer” force and a host of paid contractors working for warrior corporations. Post-9/11, the citizenry was urged to pay as much attention as possible to “our troops,” or “warriors,” and next to none to the wars they were fighting. Today, the official role of a national security state, bigger and more powerful than in the Vietnam era, is to make Americans “safe” from terror. In a world of war-making that has disappeared into the shadows and a Washington in which just about all information is now classified and shrouded in secrecy, the only way to be “safe” and “secure” as a citizen is, by definition, to be ignorant, to know as little as possible about what “our” government is doing in our name. This helps explain why, in the Obama years, the only crime in official Washington is leaking or whistleblowing; that is, letting the public in on something that we, the people, aren’t supposed to know about the workings of “our” government...

...In April 1968, not so many months after the Tet Offensive, I went with two close friends to a rally on Boston Common organized by an anti-draft group called the Resistance. There, the three of us turned in our draft cards. I went in jacket and tie because I wanted to make the point that we weren’t hippy radicals. We were serious Americans turning our backs on a war from hell being pursued by a country transforming itself before our eyes into our worst nightmare...

...I felt that my government had betrayed me, and that it was my duty as a citizen to do whatever I could to change its ways (as, in fact, I still do). And so, in some upside-down, inside-out way, I maintained a connection to and a perverse faith in that government, or our ability to force change on it, as the Civil Rights Movement had done.

That, I suspect, is what’s gone missing in much of our American world and just bringing back the draft, often suggested as one answer to our war-making problems, would be no ultimate solution. It would undoubtedly change the make-up of the U.S. military somewhat. However, what’s missing in action isn’t the draft, but a faith in the idea of service to country, the essence of what once would have been defined as patriotism. At an even more basic level, what may be gone is the very idea of the active citizen, not to speak of the democracy that went with such a conception of citizenship, as opposed to our present bizarro world of multi-billion-dollar 1% elections.

If, so many years into the disastrous war on terror, the Afghan War that never ends, and most recently Iraq War 3.0 and Syria War 1.0, there is no significant antiwar movement in this country, you can thank the only fit of brilliance the national security state has displayed. It successfully drummed us out of service. The sole task it left to Americans, 40 years after the Vietnam War ended, was the ludicrous one of repeatedly thanking the troops for their service, something that would have been inconceivable in the 1950s or 1960s because you would, in essence, have been thanking yourself...


read more: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/why_there_is_no_massive_antiwar_movement_in_america_20150203?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

[Cleita]

1. It's true. In the past, if we didn't actually go to war, we knew someone, whether

in our families or neighbors, who did go and many of those that didn't come back. Today I can honestly say I don't know anyone who has gone to the post 911 wars. So I believe perhaps 90% aren't personally affected except maybe those killed by ex-military suffering from untreated PTSDs and since often those dots aren't connected immediately they don't think of them as the consequences of war.

[marym625]

2. K&R

Great post. Thank you for it.

Yesterday I created a post that was about changing all dishonorable discharges given to those in the Military that refused to fight in an illegal war. Those that never went and those that refused to go back.

It went nowhere fast. Had three replies, two of which were against it.

We convicted Germans that just followed orders. We pardoned the Confederate soldiers. We pardoned those that dodged the draft in the illegal Vietnam War, but for Iraq, let these people suffer for doing the right thing.

Makes me so sad.

Here's the petition if you're interested http://wh.gov/iTEsI

[uhnope]

20. signed.

But I know what you're going thru.

I once pushed and pushed a petition for a cause that I felt was totally obvious, but few responded.

Some of us aren't so good at PR, maybe.

[marym625]

23. Thank you

Probably. If it's PR than it's on me. It's the "they got what they deserved" crap that angers and saddens me. These people are brave. They stood up against the government and said they refuse to help kill innocent people so US corporations can profit. They deserve medals.

Thanks again.

[uhnope]

30. I think the "Germans" part was a misstep, BTW

most will not sign something that implies such a comparison

[marym625]

35. Thanks

I'm not sure I understand but I believe you.

I will see if I can edit i it

Thank you

[uhnope]

37. why not mention instead that Vietnam draft dodgers were all pardoned by presidential decree?

[marym625]

38. Because I goofed

I was just thinking about how hypocritical we are, we prosecuted Germans for doing what they were ordered to to and we prosecuted our own for not following orders for an illegal war.

But yeah, Vietnam would have been better. But I can't edit it.

[bigtree]

32. thanks, mary

...I missed your post, maybe a link?

Thanks for the petition. I think it has merit.

To Grant An Honorable Discharge To All Military Personnel Who Refused To Serve In Iraq Because It Was An Illegal War.

The illegal, immoral war in Iraq caused many good Military personnel, from all Military branches, to refuse to be deployed at all or again. The war was based on lies and US action was unwarranted. These brave men and women followed law and morality by refusing to take part in an illegal war.

We convicted the Germans who just followed orders yet we convicted our own for doing the right thing. They served time, lost all rank and all the benefits of serving in the Military. Many who did a tour of duty suffer from PTSD and are unable to receive treatment. They are unable to secure employment and have the stigma of a felony on their records.

It's time for the President to do the right thing and issue an Honorable Discharge to each member of the Military that refused to fight an illegal war

...very good. (signed)

[marym625]

33. Thank you very much

I deleted my post early this morning. Besides the disappointment in the replies and the lack of attention,I had put in too much personal information about a friend. Since editing won't really delete what is removed, I figured better to just delete the post.

I will post another one later today.

Thank you so much!

[on point]

3. There was a massive anti war movement against Iraq war crime

But the PTB showed they didn't care and demonstrations no longer useful. We need other means

[bigtree]

5. in my opinion

...many thought we had elected someone who would clearly repudiate war; at least as the past administration had defined our 'national security' response after 9-11. We were lulled in the campaign into believing that behind Barack Obama's subtlety about warring was a determination to be more decisively anti-war as president. Turns out, he actually believed most of the authoritarian garbage that the Bush-era militarists and globalists had invented out of whole-cloth.

We need an unambiguous and sincere anti-war candidate, as well as more anti-war leaders elected to government. If we don't find a way to change the military leadership and structure, and also the military industrial complex's lock on our resources, we are doomed to repeat and perpetuate unnecessary and opportunistic warring.

[geek tragedy]

12. Huh? Obama never ran as anti-war. He ran as a hawk on Afghanistan.

He denounced the invasion of Iraq because it was so obviously a policy failure.

The "I'm not opposed to all wars, just dumb wars" seems pretty clear.

The problem is that "anti-war" as an ideology has been a loser at the ballot box. Ask President Kucinich.

[bigtree]

13. well, imo, his language suggested to many that he had an anti-war agenda

...kudos to you for recognizing the truth behind the rhetoric, but there was, in fact from many, an expectation that he was rejecting the Bush-era rationales to war - most of that expectation dashed as early as his acceptance speech in accepting the Nobel Peace Prize when he used the opportunity to justify war; 'just wars' in his estimation.

[geek tragedy]

17. Which Bush-era rationales are you talking about?

Bush had a lot of pretexts for his wars.

Does Obama share the "kill the terrorists before they kill us" mindset? Yes. As will every politician to poll in the double-digits for president. That doesn't make it right, but that's the political reality.

Does Obama share the "massive land invasion to spread democracy and freedumb" mindset? No.

Obama certainly isn't anti-war, and he's really not that unconventional by DC standards, but when you see how he's struggling against Neocons in both parties to avoid a war with Iran, not accurate to say he's Bush regurgitated either.

[bigtree]

22. much to cover there. I appreciate the opportunity

...I'm not sure you realize that I've given this much thought and presented several extensive breakdowns of my view. It's not just rhetoric that I throw off for the edification of some petty political debate. These issues matter deeply to me and I've sought to generate a better understanding of the issues involved.

Here's some of my view which I took time to outline in December of last year:


____ When the newly-seated Obama administration began to direct their new assaults on whatever they decided was vital to defend in Afghanistan and Iraq, they unleashed every instigation of resistance there was to the presence and activity of the U.S. military on Muslim soil which originated as motivation behind the first bombings the US embassy Africa in 1998 and the USS Cole bombing in Aden in 2000, in addition to the 9-11 attacks. When those terrorist attacks were perpetrated, there was only isolated resistance and violence directed against U.S. interests and allies in the region. In the bloody aftermath of the Bush administration's provocative invasion of Iraq, and continuing with Pres. Obama's adoption of that 'terror war,' acts of violence increased and expanded across the globe.

Quite a bit of print has been cast in the past decade about 'Orwellian-speak' in regard to our government officials' justifications for and explanations of military and intelligence goals and operations related to the Bush-era's coinage of our 'war on terror' (and President Obama's fealty to the notion, if not by name, by deed) against agents, operators, architects, associates, forces, remnants, and specters of the original al-Qaeda nemesis which was determined responsible for attacking the nation on Sept. 11, 2001. That 'enduring' commitment which Pres. Obama refers to in his statement on the 'End of the Combat Mission in Afghanistan' makes an absolute Orwellian lie out of any assertion of his that the 'longest war in American history' is ending with his duplicitous statement heralding the withdrawal of a majority of troops deployed to Afghanistan.

Pres. Obama has sought to stage some sort of sustaining defense in Afghanistan of our government's own representation of 'democracy' in Kabul against whoever would resist the codifying of America's swaggering advance on their territory.

The increased occupation (his 'surge' of force) was designed to facilitate Afghan elections and to provide the same sort of 'with us or against us' choice that Bush's invading and occupying forces in Iraq presented the citizens there. The plot which which emerged in this Potemkin defense of democracy in Kabul is one which is already well-know to Afghans. Opposition communities would be occupied and intimidated by our forces while supportive communities would be protected and enabled in the run-up to the balloting. The outcome of the vote resembled whatever minority composition of the Afghan population felt unencumbered by the regime's heavy-hand to cast their ballot in their favor. The result may well have bolstered whatever legitimacy the West wanted to place on their enabled rule in Kabul, but the effect of the increased military activity had a predictable effect of aligning the myriads of Afghans once led to oppose one another, to band together in resistance against their country's foreign invaders.

Whatever the goals of the new Obama administration had in their deployments in Afghanistan, they had already been corrupted by a mindset which assumed our ability to seize and hold territory impressed more than it repelled. The next strategy was an attempt to thread the needle of resistance to the U.S. advance on Afghan territory with a promise of 'stability' of their installed regime. The counter to that bunk is that nothing at all had been done to address the original complaint of Muslims and Arabs in the way of our nation's swaggering advance across their sovereign borders; that the very presence of our military on their soil is an intolerable aggravation to their religion, values and their wishes - as well as a threat to a great deal of their own safety and security. The devastating effect of our military intervention in the region, which has cost so many lives caught up in the way of America's government-building folly so far, only deepened itself with every tweak and correction that intended us to 'win' some sort of 'victory' outside of the pursuit of the original 9-11 suspects.

President Obama and his republican Pentagon holdovers led our nation to this retreat. They were content to tolerate the continued deaths of our our soldiers as our troops eventually hunkered down there; tolerate the thousands drastically wounded; waiting for some declared 'victory' to materialize out of our their desperate defense of their own lives against the Afghans that the President and the Pentagon claims we're liberating.

I don't believe there was ever anything to 'win' in Afghanistan, as the president suggested. There has been, however, much to lose in this repeated flailing of our military forces against the Afghan people; against the remnants and ghosts of al-Qaeda. We have already been shown, repeatedly, that our government-building efforts behind the force of our military in the Middle East has produced more individuals inclined or resigned to violent expressions of resistance than it's succeeded in establishing any of the 'democracy' or 'stability' promised.

There's absolutely no hint of lessons learned from the President's tragic escalation of Bush's Afghanistan deployment in which he sacrificed over 1000 more troops' lives in his ''surge' than Bush lost avenging 9-11. Over 2200 U.S. troops have been sacrificed in Afghanistan - 630 of those deaths occurring in 8 years under George W. Bush. Illustratively, the top three deadliest years of the war -- 2010 (497 deaths), 2011 (362), 2009 (303) -- occurred under President Obama’s tenure. Nearly two-thirds of the U.S. fatalities in the war in Afghanistan have occurred during the Obama administration, in a quarter of the war's duration.

The President and our legislators need to craft and direct policy in Afghanistan which is 'enduring' but, not merely an extension of this self-perpetuating flailing of our military forces at every expression of resistance to their self-serving presence; or against their self-serving political agendas. Both Bush and Obama made dubious and tenuous representations of the threat to the U.S. in order to declare and secure their unilateral authority to use our military forces (at least initially) any way they see fit, without congressional pre-approval - justified almost entirely in their view by their opportunistic declarations that our security is threatened.

That was the slippery slope that Bush used to war. That's the slope that Pres. Obama used to escalate Bush's Afghanistan occupation far beyond the former republican presidency's limits - with the catastrophic result of scores more casualties than Bush to our forces during this Democratic administration's first term and scores more innocent Afghans dead, maimed, or uprooted.

In pressing forward with a re-escalated U.S. military response to the atrocities committed within Iraq, this Democratic president is losing almost all of the ground we thought we'd covered in repudiating the opportunistic Bush wars. Bush's were waged, certainly, for oil and other greed; but just as certainly to effect U.S. expansionist ideals involving regime changes and 'dominoes.'

In President Obama's recent representations of a future threat to the U.S. from this new enemy in Iraq, we see echoes of Bush's 'preemptive doctrine' which many believed this new president's election was repudiating. The results, worldwide, of contemporary U.S. interventionism, speak for themselves. The Obama administration, almost blithely, is hoping their own military steadfastness in Afghanistan - and their new offensive stand in Iraq says something uniquely democratic and inspiring to the world. I'm afraid that all anyone outside of this country will hear is 'empire.'

The only lesson that our military invasions have imposed on the region is the one which the authors of the deployments purport to oppose; that of the efficacy of military force and violence as an ultimate avenue to power and authority. In Iraq and Afghanistan, those who support the U.S. military-enabled regimes and seek protection behind our dominating forces are considered 'democratic' and legitimate -- while those who choose to be or find themselves outside of that imposed influence are to be opposed as 'insurgent' or 'radical' in their opposition and defense of their chosen territory against NATO's selfish advance.

Bush wrote the script for the U.S. in the region; cast the antagonists in his kabuki play - erected Potemkins of democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan to defend in contrived protection schemes where we create the 'enemies' we then claim to protect and defend against...


I'm really not trying to contradict your own view that 'Obama isn't Bush'. Clearly he is not, but I don't think is own posture toward warring is so far removed from the last administration's own to distinguish his justifications enough from the Bush-era rationales as some distinctly different or transforming doctrine. Certainly, the results- albeit, on a smaller scale - are much the same. We're back into Iraq with an expanded military campaign into neighboring Syria (something long-sought after by the Bush administration), and still committing troops to warfare in Afghanistan (albeit, to a much lesser degree after the tragic surge of force above Bush levels and the resulting casualties which exceeded Bush's own there).

I don't excuse President Obama's posture on war by pointing to republican resistance. I expect him to repudiate it and set his own doctrine leading the nation away from war. I don't hold the view that he's managed that. In many ways, he's provided what he promised: justification for what he termed 'just wars' in his Nobel Peace Prize speech.


I outlined more of my view in this analysis of his re-deployment of troops to Iraq:

Common dreams has an article outlining the Obama administration's bid for a new AUMF for their new military efforts in Iraq which they describe as a push for 'endless war.' That's the reality of the present re-involvement there - perpetual war - and given the politics that compelled this President to return to the country he withdrew all of our troops from just a short while ago, it's a sure bet that we will likely never leave Iraq without some U.S. military presence; at least in the next decade.

What this push for a new AUMF really represents is Pres. Obama's desire to shed the appearance that he's fighting Bush's wars. As his present military ambitions and actions stand, he's either bound to use Bush's AUMFs as 'authorization' for his warring in Iraq, or he's bound using his CiC authority which has limitations under the War Powers Act provisions which would trigger a time limitation and possible rejection of his mandate to continue.

It's telling that he increased his efforts to obtain a new AUMF with a majority republican Congress; undoubtedly aware that his support for perpetual warring in Iraq and opening a new front in Syria faced opposition from his own Democratic legislative caucus. To date, Obama has relied on slippery interpretations of 'boots on the ground' - characterizing special forces as 'trainers' or 'advisers' to avoid triggering a congressional responses under the WPA law. For now, he's been resigned to operate under unexpired Bush-era authorizations of force (mostly, the 2001 AUMF against al-Queda) and strained to associate the present ISIS leadership with the al-Qaeda organization they publicly split from years ago.

What a new AUMF would do for him is to release him from the political acrobatics he's had to engage in and allow him to place U.S. troops directly in harm's way without dancing around whether they are 'advisers' or any other euphemism used to obscure their direct role in the fighting he wants the U.S. to engage in.

This isn't about 'narrowing' the mission or any other limiting factor that supporters are justifying this ambition as; it's a direct appeal for an entirely new front in an obvious extension of Bush's 'pollyandish misadventure' in Iraq. It portends what this article correctly terms an 'endless' or self-perpetuating war which will never resolve itself or release the U.S. military from obligations to engage our troops or resources for any foreseeable future.

Even Obama's own leadership is insisting that this will be a 'long' endeavor, so, there's really no denying that this AUMF is intended to serve well beyond this presidency.

What proponents of this action, and their challenge to critics to formulate their own response to ISIS ignore is that U.S. military involvement in Iraq is a self-perpetuating morass which has had the effect of fueling and fostering even more individuals with the ambition of fighting our forces or our interests there than we are able to put down.

That was the sobering reality when Bush's own intelligence agencies collectively made that exact judgment during his own commitment of troops to Iraq, and it was the judgment earlier on in this present commitment of troops and resources by Obama's own intelligence agents that individuals were abandoning al-Qaeda to engage the forces he sent to Iraq.

There is no country in the world which threatens democratic progress in Iraq more than the United States. The Iraqi regime has been under siege from resistance forces in Iraq since the U.S. first pulled out its troops — forces whose cause has been fostered, inflamed and aggravated by previous American military activity in the country.

Sadly, the calculation by Pres. Obama that he could apply a limited number of troops with a flurry of airstrikes to contain the self-perpetuating folly has our forces destroying armaments left from the last engagement, while shoveling even more into Iraq in the vain hope that more war will translate into peace.

Bush’s equation for troops in Iraq went like this: More violence = need for more troops. That’s the same equation President Obama has acquiesced to with his campaign of airstrikes and steadily escalating military presence and activity today. With that prescription, we will leave Iraq by … never. Iraq’s forces will always be challenged by some militarized resistance, even more so as they remain aligned with our aggravating military presence.

President Obama will never be able to encircle Baghdad with enough air power to crush the resistance to the U.S.-enabled Iraqi rule. The best he can hope for as he lobs missiles against what he identifies as our ‘enemy’ is an artificial prop of an unpopular junta. So why bother?

Possibly, the answer lies in the political pressure from his opponents to ‘do something.’ The chickenhawk-infested Republican majority have meshed the sacrifices of our soldiers into their ‘smear and fear’ campaigns to make themselves look like they’re the ones defending our security, and Democrats like the ones preventing us from ‘winning’ in Iraq. It’s a cynical mission, a shameful one.

What Republican critics fail to understand and acknowledge is that U.S. military activity in Iraq greatly heightened the violence instead of reducing it. It’s ludicrous to expect that more bombings, and the introduction of more weapons into Iraq will bring about any different result, no matter which Iraqis we identify and attack as enemies of our compromised and threatened junta.

Now we have a new U.S. warlord fomenting his own politically-driven violence in Iraq; mindless of the conflating consequences and blind to the legacy of perpetual war he once decried in his pushback against Bush policies to assume the presidency.

from the article 'Secretary of State John Kerry Pushes for Endless War Authorization':

In his opening remarks, Kerry said, "It will be years, not months, before is defeated."

"We’re determined to work with you, first and foremost to develop an approach that can generate broad bipartisan support, while ensuring that the President has the flexibility to successfully prosecute this effort," he said.

"We do not think an AUMF should include a geographic limitation," he said, adding that "we would not want an AUMF to constrain our ability to use appropriate force against ISIL in those locations if necessary. In our view, it would be a mistake to advertise to ISIL that there are safe havens for them outside of Iraq or Syria."

That's a bid for 'endless war,' a war hopelessly perpetuated by our own military's aggravating influence, as demonstrated by Bush's own folly. Such a stark change from what Pres. Obama said on the eve of his order to end that sad Bush war:

"What we will not do is let the pursuit of the perfect stand in the way of achievable goals. We cannot rid Iraq of all who oppose America or sympathize with our adversaries. We cannot police Iraq’s streets until they are completely safe, nor stay until Iraq’s union is perfected. We cannot sustain indefinitely a commitment that has put a strain on our military, and will cost the American people nearly a trillion dollars. America’s men and women in uniform have fought block by block, province by province, year after year..." Pres. Obama had said.

Now comes appeals for a war without time limitation or boundaries against yet another ideological enemy. We never learn.

[uhnope]

26. a lot of people projected certain positions onto Obama that he never volunteered for

he's not to blame for expectations that others put on him.

His Nobel was well-deserved for getting chemical weapons out of Syria without firing a shot, for his embracing of the world's landmine ban treaty, and for lowering tensions with Cuba.

[bigtree]

34. projections, no doubt

...but I'd excuse the expectations, hoping the hawkish stances were just for the campaign. I do remember the way supporters and his campaign placed so much emphasis on his 'Iraq speech' in an attempt to distinguish his military posture from Hillary Clinton's which they described as 'warmongering'.

[Maedhros]

25. Another side effect of electing Barack Obama is that many hardcore Democratic partisans

feel that they need to support Obama's wars because of party solidarity.

I disagree with those people, vehemently.

[stevenleser]

31. You are making the assumption that the support is about that. It's not. nt

[ND-Dem]

59. Yes. The protests in the run-up to Iraq were actually more wide-spread and ubiquitous than the

Vietnam protests, though you'd never know it today.

Once the war got started and was quickly "successful" it was all rah-rah and the anti-war protests died out.

[hack89]

4. The military is so much smaller than it was

with the growth in population and a smaller military, it makes sense that so few Americans actually serve or know someone that does.

The Army had 1,322,548 soldiers in 1970 - this year they will have 450,000. You have to go back to 1940 to find fewer Americans serving in the Army.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/24/us-usa-defense-budget-idUSBREA1N1IO20140224

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004598.html

[bigtree]

7. the broader point is that the sacrifices once associated with warring have been diffused

...deliberately, or not. most Americans are removed from the consequences of warring; military budgeting for deployments often hidden from direct view and regular appropriations; casualties obscured, ignored by the media and their duty canonized by the government, instead of characterized and regarded as a cautionary tale; consequences regarded as mere obstacles to rationalized goals and motivations; 'enemies' conflated, fears exploited with 'national security' opportunistically defined by a unitary executive determined to perpetuate the security regime.

The majority of Americans are far removed, deliberately removed, from the consequences of warring, and also the impetus to war.

[love_me_some_pickles]

6. Because there is no draft.

[bigtree]

8. that's not a solution, imo

Any military draft would undermine the 'freedoms' that folks would have us defend. Any conscription of unwilling Americans outside of a national emergency would deny many impressionable young adults the chance to lead a life without aggression. It would result in a generation of warriors resigned to a world at war, with only a rejected few left to pursue a life without weapons or conflict.

Ours is not a nation under siege, in any sense. Even as we face threats from terrorists and uncertainty from regional conflicts, the United States remains militarily secure and dominant. Our volunteer force is not only sufficient but the nation likely could not afford the increase in ranks that would result from a permanent draft.

We need to encourage service as teachers, tutors, coaches, and mentors. We need more doctors, police and rescue workers. We should inspire our youth toserve in our government, on the city council, on the school board, as mayors, governors. Our country thrives on our philosophers, poets, actors, artists, musicians, atheletes, scientists, and peacemakers.

I am not willing to commit generations of our youth to a life girded by preparations to kill others. More responsible would be efforts to teach these young people how to live together in peace.

[love_me_some_pickles]

10. Never claimed it was a solution, only that it is part of the reason.

[ND-Dem]

60. yep. and i actually think we should reinstate the draft. a professional army or an army of

economic conscripts = an army that is easy to pull into dangerous 'adventuring'.

[geek tragedy]

9. no draft and far fewer casualties than in Vietnam.

It really isn't more complicated than "people are more committed when it's their ass on the line"

There wasn't much of an anti-war movement before Vietnam. The anti-war movement was a reaction to Vietnam, moreso than a general acceptance of anti-militarism.

[Dreamer Tatum]

11. I will show you why there's no antiwar movement in the US in one picture

[stillwaiting]

15. Add a television and a computer and there ya go.

We are hypnotized, distracted, and subdued (most of us anyways).

[Bigmack]

18. ...and when we start out not-so-bright to start with...

... shiny objects attract our attention.

We have the collective attention span of a newt, and the intellectual depth of a 2x4

[AngryDem001]

29. Well, when you gut public education,

Last edited Wed Feb 4, 2015, 01:06 AM - Edit history (1)

that's the (very predictable) result.

[Kermitt Gribble]

41. Do you favor private charter schools over public education? n/t

[AngryDem001]

42. I never said anything about private schools.

I was talking about Republicans continual efforts to de-fund public schools.

[haikugal]

53. I think you intended to say 'gut' rather than 'get'...

[AngryDem001]

56. Oh for F***s sake!

SOMEDAY I will learn to type. Sorry!

[haikugal]

57. LOL..

My new IPad types stuff for me all the time...drives me nuts because it isn't what I wanted....lol

[niyad]

14. and, of course, what movement there is, is completely ignored by the msm.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. Because America is terrified of the new bogeymen the PTB have erected.

Because flag waving and xenophobia is a lot easier than being anti-war.

America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. John Quincy Adams

[Bandit]

19. In all the years of "The War on Terror" there hasn't been as many Americans killed as a

single year of the Vietnam Conflict. People in every city of the USA knew of someone that had been killed or injured. That just isn't the case this day and age. People just don't feel the urgency to protest something that just plain doesn't effect them..That is how they can keep these "wars" going..

[PasadenaTrudy]

21. Hippie, not hippy

Unless you are talking about big hips. Why can't people get this right? #petpeeve

[project_bluebook]

24. No draft and the collapse of the middle class.

If there was a draft without exclusions then war would be too toxic to consider or rush into. Everyone would be affected, rich to poor. Also, with the decimated middle class few people have the time or money saved to demonstrate, too busy working 12 hour days.

[reddread]

27. there is.

we just cant get in the door to speak to our elected representatives.
the ones who unleash infiltrators on peaceful groups of concerned citizens
foolish enough to petition for peace. the ones who pepper spray and fire weapons
at the heads of heroic citizens and first aid providers. Thanks Jerry, we know our place now.

the main changes that impact a message of justice from the grassroots?
media consolidation and deregulation. Thanks Bill. Good thing Hillary is a different kettle of rotten fish.
and very much, the displacement of a peace and justice lobby within the Democratic Party
by disenchanted military members who still believe in their mission, their
conditioning, and that might makes right. They just dont want to vote Republican.

[Octafish]

28. FBI CIA NSA

Fingerprint File. Voice File. Suspicions File. Associations File.

Thank you for the heads-up on Tom's excellent article, bigtree.

"We the People" is MIA for a reason: With all the Secret Government of benefit to the 0.01-Percent, Uncle Sam is no longer one of Us.

[WDIM]

36. the people are sleeping

We've been lulled to sleep. We are too distracted worrying about our own lives and what we will consume next.

The media has equated anti-war with anti-troops which makes no sense to me because protecting our troops from needless wars is the best way to support our troops in my book.

With the violence perpetrated on the otherside many people feel the wars are justified.

We live in a culture that believes violence can be justified even the christians preach an eye for an eye. Even though Jesus said to turn the other cheek and forgive.

[woo me with science]

39. K&R

[closeupready]

40. Because the personal is political, and there is no longer a draft to make war personal.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

43. The draft would inject some sanity into the military....

We would have ordinary people in there who have a problem with things like trophy photos.

[Yorktown]

44. In disagreement: not all wars are wrong.

Yes, Iraq was the remarkably dumb idea of one of the worst Presidents ever.

But Viet Nam was perfectly honorable. Remember, in Viet Nam, a small minority of indoctrinated ideologues inflicted Communism on a whole nation. The facts that southern leaders were not holding a moral high ground makes it no less commendable to have tried to help people retain their freedoms.

Translate it in today's terms: Taiwan.
A functioning democracy. A non-democracy, China, has the avowed goal to bring Taiwan into the fold willy-nilly (even if the historical claim of China on Taiwan is thin). If China started to try to impose its autocratic regime on Taiwan, and if Taiwan asks for help, how should democratic countries react?

Or in the here and now: Ukraine.
A nationalistic authoritarian regime, Russia, is trying to slice Ukraine because of its doctrine of Greater Russia. This aggression wasn't provoked by the western military-industrial complex, right?

Don't die for Dantzig, and you get a Groß Reich.

[bigtree]

46. Ho Chi Min City

Nixon explained in his 'Silent Majority' speech that North Vietnam, with the logistical support of communist China and the Soviet Union, had a campaign to impose a communist government on South Vietnam by instigating and supporting a revolution.

Nixon:

"In response to the request of the Government of South Vietnam, President Eisenhower sent economic aid and military equipment to assist the people of South Vietnam in their efforts to prevent a communist takeover. Seven years ago, President Kennedy sent 16,000 military personnel to Vietnam as combat advisers. Four years ago, President Johnson sent American combat forces to South Vietnam."

"For the South Vietnamese, our precipitate withdrawal would inevitably allow the Communists to repeat the massacres which followed their takeover in the North 15 years before."

Nixon's lofty justifications for his continued involvement collapsed under the reality of a perpetual war fueled by our very presence in Vietnam which only served to harden resistance to the U.S. and any forces allied with us. At the end of decades of war, and thousands of American lives sacrificed, North Vietnamese forces took Saigon in 1975. Communist forces occupied the South, renaming Saigon Ho Chi Minh City.

It's no accident that the leadership of ISIS includes former Baathists who our military insisted disband when we imposed our 'interim authority' headed by Chalabi, the man who lied us into Iraq. The Shiite government that we promoted and enabled into power's brutality and barbarism against the Sunni minority created the landscape for the forces we're engaged fighting today. And, so it goes. We never learn.

As Saigon became Ho Chi Min City after the U.S. bugged out, Iraq’s Baghdad was always destined to reflect the designs of those Bush had identified as our ‘enemies’ — more so than the captured, occupied, and overthrown capital city will ever resemble any of the grand designs that Bush hawked to the American people to get their initial approval to invade. It becomes more of a conundrum than anything akin to the democracy American troops are pledged to support and defend.

[Yorktown]

47. I fear your answer is besides the point I was trying to make.

I was just trying to say that not all wars are unjust.

I gave the examples of Ukraine or the potential situation of Taiwan

As for Viet Nam, you write: "the reality of a perpetual war fueled by our very presence in Vietnam", and I fear I must disagree. Ho Chi Minh was a Communist nationalist whose goal was to create a unified independent Communist Viet Nam. Regardless of who opposed this goal: The French, Americans, the South Vietnamese, Elvis Prestley, anyone.

Now, my question remains the same: if you were a freedom loving citizen of South Viet Nam in the 60's, would you have hoped for free nations to help your country against the Viet Cong ideologues or not? I feel the Vietnamese boat people answered the question later.

If you value freedom and are not ready to willingly help like minded people abroad, prepare yourself to have to face aggression wars from dictatorial regimes.

Remember Dantzig.

[bigtree]

48. well, you've jumped past my point

...which is the dubious assumption made through our modern history about the effectiveness or efficacy of our nation's military in achieving these political goals. Not only have they been proven counterproductive, the U.S. does not enter into these conflicts with the same seemingly benign or altruistic goals which are advertised or promoted as justification for our involvement. That reality goes a long way in explaining the tragic outcomes, imo.

[Yorktown]

49. Poor execution doesn't trump principles.

Was the US intervention in Viet Nam well executed? Certainly not.
Were the motivations purely altruistic? Probably not entirely.
Are these two points a blanket indictement of having tried? My contention is that it is not.

In more tangible terms., I come back to what free loving citizens of South Viet Nam in the 60's, or the Donetsk region today, or maybe Taiwan one day would feel and wish.

Would they regard help from democracies as welcome? My entire point is that: yes.

[bigtree]

50. the motivations for war were corrupted from the start

There was the 'domino' theory which was a remnant from our Cold war. Fearing the N.Vietnamese would take over Indochina, the U.S. sought to help the French. Fine. But the motivation behind that was more than the delusion of Communism as some eventual threat to the U.S., it was the U.S. desire to free Indochina troops for West German rearmament. There was also the British economic interest in rubber and tin in Malaya - and there was the overall assumption that 'free' nations in the region would assist in the rebuilding of the economy of Japan.

All of these goals quickly, predictably gave way to the defense of the prestige and reputation of the U.S.; of Kennedy, Johnson and others in the Democratic party who were more concerned with the political question back home of who 'lost China'. Kennedy concerned with his political posture; Johnson full up on his own testosterone. Most people accepted that this was about preventing the spread of Communism, for years, until its tragic reality became clear. N.Vietnam prevailed, despite all of the lives sacrificed and slaughtered on both sides.

The nonsense in the beginning about 'dominoes' is enough to conclude that it was an unjust war, driven mostly by a megalomaniac view of American authority and dominance; not to mention the economic motivations. Also, there was Johnson's own deception using the Gulf of Tonkin nonsense to propel us into a wider conflict.

[Yorktown]

52. Not being angels doesn't invalidate just wars.

You describe the individual weaknesses of past Presidents. Did anyone believe they were perfect?

Does it alter the fact Communism was a monstrous illusion? No. If you feel no empathy for the people who see totalitarian armies invading their lands to impose their inhumane ideologies, then OK, there will never be a just war.

But not fighting for Dantzig enables an Hitler to set up gas chambers. Losing in Viet Nam left one million trying to flee by sea at the risk of their lives. Another million in reeducation camps. Do you think those millions would not have wished to have been spared that fate by a just war?

Some wars are humanitarian aid. And humanitarian aid can and does get perverted too.
Breaking news: humans are not angels.

[bigtree]

54. no one in the US or in the government gave a damn about S.Vietnamese

we were lured into and kept committed to that war by the myth of a Communist takeover,

Hell, even Eisenhower admitted in 1956 that the N. Vietnamese would win any election held. That war was about political bullshit, pure and simple, no matter what you believe we were fighting for.

[Yorktown]

55. Again, you show no empathy for the victims of dictators

The Communist takeover was not a myth, it happened in Viet Nam, Laos and Cambodia.
Did it bring peace, freedom and prosperity to the people of these countries?

It's all well and nice to discuss the moral impurity of democracies and of their interventions, but it disregards the loss of life and freedom of millions under forcibly enforced Communism.

As for the N. Vietnames winning elections in the South, it took into account the reign of coercion the Viet Cong exerted. And the fact the South leaders were corrupt and incompetent enough not to do what was needed to ensure they had the hearts and minds of the villagers. But in the safety of cities, I doubt the Viet Cong would have come near a majority.

[TheKentuckian]

61. SHRINK THE TENT! Interventionist, domino theorist to the right please!

Empathy! What a load of shit.

[Yorktown]

64. Empathy is shit? If you say so..

[TheKentuckian]

67. What has "empathy" have to do with interventionist warmongering? You can "feel their pain" all you

like without a bullet fired.

[pinboy3niner]

62. Many of us who fought there came to conclude it was a disastrous mistake

Even those of us who went as true believers, willing to lay down our lives for the cause.

And those of us who have returned to visit Vietnam have found that we have more in common with our former enemies than with the chickenhawks who sold us that fucking war.

[Yorktown]

63. Thanks for your service, but I still disagree

Many of us who fought there came to conclude it was a disastrous mistake. Even those of us who went as true believers, willing to lay down our lives for the cause.

Yes, the VN war was poorly conceived, poorly executed.
But I stand by what I wrote earlier: the principle was sound.
Don't you wish the French had invaded the Rhur when the Germans started attacking Poland?
6 million Jews would have applauded. But it was too late to ask them in 1944.

And those of us who have returned to visit Vietnam have found that we have more in common with our former enemies than with the chickenhawks who sold us that fucking war.

I can understand that.
If you have held a gun and risked your life, its a common experience.
A common experience many (most?) politicians never shared.
Hence the closer proximity to former enemies than to chickenhawks.

But, all in all, you still do not acknowledge my point:

Please try to put yourself in the shoes of freedom loving civilians faced with the Army of a stronger, ruthless dictatorship. You would be hoping someone somewhere would hear your plight.

[whatchamacallit]

45. Because The 9/11 Show was so good

it united the nation under the banner of bullshit. Now we all support illegal preemptive wars forever!

[jwirr]

51. Good night to discuss this. I am watching the reaction of Jordan to the murder of the pilot. So far

two of their prisoners have been executed - one a woman. I do not want to go to war but I think by morning there will be less of us feeling like that. What a mess.

[Stardust]

58. Because demonstrations aren't covered and they don't effect change. The fix is in.

[UTUSN]

65. This essay confuses me. I'm asking for explanation, NOT being lambasted

I’m asking to have the denseness of contradictions in the link explained (not asking for a lambasting)

In the decades of wanting to be over some landmark events of my lifespan (the rise and fall of the KENNEDYs and LBJ), I concluded that the propelling factor in the “anti-war” movement was, indeed, the draft and that looking for and finding moral objections were useful to the fear and hatred of the draft and the wish to have a blissful, fun, “normal” life without being disrupted by the draft (and war).

The author of the linked piece wants it all to be about the noble reasons, the ones that did exist, but twists and turns about afterward being deprived of service and participation and belief in government. Well, the expressed desire of my generation was NOT to participate and NOT to serve. The author even brings OBAMA into it, claiming credit for sweeping him into power only to be disconnected from him. Yeah, those 1% elections, just like no-antiwar-movement, no participation in voting, either.

Yes, the massive forces of money and global gaming continued their games, without us: We’ll do it without the Draft and they won’t care about our warmongering.

It sounds like the author wants it all ways: Just opposition to participation, then complaining about being disconnected.

We/Americans in particular seem to think that our generation (each new one) invented everything, while history has been happening forever: The Romans knew that the world stage of politics and government were for the big boys, and that the plebs had no business being involved in the world stage, bread and circuses being all they needed. That’s basically what the author/my generation were demanding – not risking ourselves, just us being allowed to have our gourmet treats, our recreational drugs, our beautiful music, and now our Superbowls and reality shows and shocking celebrities.

********QUOTE****** [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"] [/FONT]

.... ...urge [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]to serve[/FONT] felt like, especially once it [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]went into opposition[/FONT] on a massive scale. ....

However, what’s [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]missing[/FONT] in action isn’t the draft, but a faith in the idea of [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]service[/FONT] to country, the essence of what once would have been defined as patriotism. At an even more basic level, what may be gone is the very idea of the [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]active citizen[/FONT], not to speak of the democracy that went with such a conception of citizenship, as opposed to our present bizarro world of multi-billion-dollar [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]1% elections[/FONT]. ....

there is no significant antiwar movement in this country, you can thank the only fit of brilliance the national security state has displayed. It successfully [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]drummed us out of service[/FONT]. The sole task it left to Americans, 40 years after the Vietnam War ended, was the ludicrous one of repeatedly thanking the troops for their service, something that would have been inconceivable in the 1950s or 1960s because you would, in essence, have been thanking yourself. ....

What’s missing is any sense of [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]connection to the government[/FONT], any sense that it’s “ours” or that we the people matter. In its place—and you can thank successive administrations for this—is the deepest sort of pessimism and cynicism about a national security state and war-making machine beyond our control. And [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]why protest what you can’t change?[/FONT] ....

******UNQUOTE******

[raouldukelives]

66. Perhaps because so many are invested in war.

Consider someone who claims to be vehemently anti-war but at the same time is investing in defense industry tied corporations. Which voice, in the long run, is going to speak the loudest for them? The money or the cardboard sign?
If people want to truly stand against something, not standing with it is a great start.