Bill Weinberg: How the Anti-War Movement Is Blowing It

[0rganism]

Note: I'm posting this article because it addresses a lot of the objections and counter-objections raised by the October 25 march. I wouldn't for a moment doubt Mr. Weinberg's sincerity and cred as one of the credible leftist indy journalists, and he raises the same sorts of concerns about ANSWER that some of this site's regulars do.

HOW THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT IS BLOWING IT

by Bill Weinberg

Raining on a parade--or, in this case, an anti-war march--isn't likely to win one popularity contests. But somebody has got to raise the alarm. The upcoming Oct. 25 march in Washington DC is being billed as a revitalization of the movement which made history with coordinated worldwide protests against the looming US-led assualt on Iraq Feb. 15. But the new mobilization actually represents a dangerous step backwards for the anti-war forces in the US.

This effort displays more sanctimony than analysis, and the sloppy thinking in evidence is unlikely to do more than further marginalize opposition to the occupation of Iraq. The new campaign is failing on three broad imperatives that are essential for an effective movement. Without principled alliances and moral consistency we have no authority to criticize Bush's policies. Without a realistic sense of our own power we are dooming ourselves to a cycle of empty (if self-righteous) enthusiasm followed by burn-out and demoralization. And without asking the tough questions we stand zero chance of ever coming up with meaningful answers.

more from WW3Report

[Malva Zebrina]

1. I am convinced that the revolution against Bush will happen

from deep down in the guts of concerned people and not from the organizing abilities of any group such as A.N.S.W.E.R.--there must be that felt rage-that absolute indignation at what Bush has done to this country--that compulsion to take to the streets--to disobey--to carry pitchforks and shovels and shake them at Bush in complete, abandoned rage at what he is doing to our country and our children--there must be a deep down gut compulsion to eject all of those who are destroying our country. Although A.N.S.W.E.R. does have the capability to organize large numbers of people via buses etc.and does get the C-Span coverage and I have little doubt they are convinced that their way is the best and only way, it looked to me as if it were simply too much involved in other projects-- it will take specific outrage at Bush, and not a focus on Mumia, to stop the neo cons and the Bushites--and I see none of that in the rallies so far--the protestors seem to be happily skipping along as if on a picnic--as a matter of fact--just happy people marching along for the day's entertainment and chance to meet up with others--will not make a dent, imo. Just my two cents. There must be a surge--an unorganized surge perhaps of irate, compromised people who are willing to take to the streets and storm the Bushtille.

[TolstoyAndy]

2. Kick that!

Marianne said it well.

One thing missing from the Weinberg article is something like this:
If I go to one of the Answer-sponsored rallies, it's not because I hate America or even because I hate Bush and war.

If I go, it's not because Answer sponsored it, but because that's a day when there will be a lot of other people out there, that's all. The power of numbers.

(And people to hide behind when the Chicago police come in with their horses, shields and clubs. :scared: :mad:)

Answer could stand for pushing Israel into the sea and making Mumia President, I'd still go when I can. They do a great job getting the word out.

Fuck their politics - fuck everyone's politics.
Real conservatives can be our best friends - we all want the constitution back.
Real communists can be our best friends - we all want the constitution back.

Answer is imperfect, but where are the Fucking Pink Tutus? Where have they been for the last 3 years!

We've already got one-party rule.

[KG]

3. considering that ANSWER and UPJ *are* the anti-war movement

it seems the sanctimonious ones are those that, um, bash ANSWER but offer no real alternatives. coz let's face it, w/o ANSWER there is no organized anti-war movement.

[maha]

4. I disagree

If ANSWER evaporated tomorrow there would still be UPJ and Moveon.org.

UPJ organizes circles around ANSWER in the NYC area.

(on edit) In fact, it is possible the anti-war movement would get BIGGER if ANSWER were out of the way, because moderates would feel moe comfortable joining up. ANSWER may be driving as many people away as bringing them in.

[DinahMoeHum]

5. Right on the $$$, maha!! The moderates have to join in. . .

...no real revolution or change will take place until the moderates and true-blue conservatives/libertarians join in.

I daresay Rove & Co. will be piddling their pants if we get the military veterans, police and firefighters to join the demonstrations at next year's convention in NYC.

:kick:

[Wellong]

6. Answer and their support

of those killing US Troops, amongst other things will keep me from ever supporting them, or engaging in activities that they have organized.

[Skittles]

8. you

are so brainwashed

[Wellong]

10. No

you are ignoring the truth about positions ANSWER has taken.

[Skittles]

11. I know the truth

something you just don't give a shit about

[Wellong]

12. If you know the truth

then you know ANSWER supports those attacking and killing American soldiers.

Do you?

[Martin Eden]

7. The tough questions

Weinberg's essay makes a lot of sense to me. To succeed in ousting Bush and changing U.S. foreign policy, we will have to convince our fellow citizens in the mainstream middle not only that Bush is wrong, but that we have a better solution.

A.N.S.W.E.R. will never be the answer for mainstream Americans.

Approx. 70% of Americans supported the invasion. How do we get a substantial number of them to accept that the invasion was wrong and that "staying the course" is not in our nation's interests?

What should the new course be? How do we end the occupation without leaving in our wake a chaos that results in more suffering for the Iraqi people and a new regime of tyrants and/or terrorists?

I'm not just thinking of the danger such a regime might pose -- I'm thinking of the backlash against a Democratic administration that permitted such an outcome.

Like it or not, this neocon administration has put our country and the Democratic Party into a very difficult situation. A good outcome in Iraq may be nearly impossible to achieve no matter what the USA does from this point, but who will get the blame if a Democratic administration in 2005 brings the troops home and a Jihadist regime emerges in Iraq?

I dread a scenario in which the crimes of the Bush administration are overlooked when a Democratic president "loses" the "war on terrorism" by having such a regime emerge on his watch. The neocons could come back stronger than ever to save America from the "weak on national security" Democrats.

Weinberg articulates some of what needs to be done to establish an independent Democracy in Iraq. How do we get there from here?

I wish I knew. IMO, the Democratic platform should include a repudiation of the Bush Doctrine of unilateral preventive war, and a genuine effort to repair relations with our European allies and the Islamic world. We need to work towards a consensus with the international community to ensure a legitimate, stable, and just government in Iraq.

Easier said than done. Let's hope a Democratic leader rises to the challenge.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.