November 24, 2003
THINK PERSONALLY, ACT PERSONALLY:
In disarray, U.S. anti-war movement struggles to make an impact (John Jurgensen 11/23/03, THE HARTFORD COURANT)
What's an anti-war activist to do after war breaks out?Judging from the peace movement in the eight months since the invasion of Iraq, there seem to be three options: Admit defeat, find a new cause or keep up the fight. [...]
Despite the unflagging efforts of core activists to keep the fires of public protest burning, there's no avoiding the fact that the anti-war movement failed. War happened in Iraq. It was, by definition, a crippling blow to the peace movement.
"I think it's moribund. It's on life support," said Todd Gitlin, a professor of sociology and journalism at Columbia University and author of "Letters to a Young Activist." After the war began, he said, "The movement shrunk back to its core of go-for-broke activists. Some of the sentiments are alive, but the movement demonstrated a few weeks ago in Washington that it's not capable of turning out the numbers that it did last winter."
Gitlin was referring to the Oct. 25 march in the nation's capital, the first major street demonstration there since Baghdad fell in April. Although tens of thousands gathered to show their disapproval of White House policies, attendance was sparse compared with the coordinated protests that drew millions of people in February. [...]
Besides the stamina required to protest an open-ended occupation of Iraq, the groups opposing White House policies are, as in the past, dogged by their many competing agendas: environmental degradation, globalization, human rights, the Patriot Act.
"We have so many important issues. Where do we put our energy?" said Jim Galvic of Hartford, a regular at the Monday gatherings at the meeting house. "It's like we're getting sucker-punched from all sides. If we had one laser-like issue to rally around, it would make it easier. But what do you choose?"
The point being that they weren't protesting the war, as such, in the first place, but hopping on a convenient vehicle to push their own petty personal causes. Posted by Orrin Judd at November 24, 2003 10:31 AM
We can't take seriously an anti-war movement that doesn't have a serious foreign policy alternative for guarding against terror threats.
Not only that, but pulling troops back from
Saudi and hopefully from South Korea and
Okinawa puts to rest the imperialism charge.
putting more money into police and fire departments to deal with another 9/11 (as has
been suggested by some lib-dems is not a serious
alternative).
One other thing...
The ubiquitous sight of soviet symbols at "peace" marches is so preposterous that I can't resist the notion that they have been planted there?
Posted by: J.H. at November 24, 2003 10:58 AMThe peace movement was a luxury that most Americans thought they could afford as long as the wars we fought were on another continent. Once the war was brought to our shores, that rationale went out the window. What they don't understand is that sometimes the price for peace is too high. When the price for peace is paid by other people in faraway lands, it is acceptable. When it is paid in American blood, most people would rather pay the price of war.
Posted by: Robert D at November 24, 2003 12:30 PMRight on O.J. Peace Movement my a$$.
Posted by: Genecis at November 25, 2003 12:23 PM