errorI've seen several recent posts on various Indymedia sites advocating that anti-war protests take place. While I agree with the moral stance of these posts, the authors are basically fighting the last war, and that's bad tactics. When we were at war in Vietnam, the anti-war stance was appropriate. We simply had no business being there. All the little wars since then - Grenada, Panama, etc. were appropriate targets for an anti-war protest.

During the Gulf War there was a little more moral wiggle room - Saddam had tanks poised on the Saudi border, and there's some validity for the argument that our intervention kept him from crossing into Saudi Arabia. Just to point at just one of the many worst case scenarios in the days immediately before the Gulf War, if Saddam had taken the Muslim holy city of Mecca every country in the area would have gone to war immediately. There might have been millions of dead. Nonetheless, opposition to our entering the Gulf War was morally sound and tactically acceptable.


However, there's no way to keep this war from happening. That battle is already lost. Consider a few things:

First, there's just been too much blood spilled. Somewhere in the neighborhood of five thousand people died in these attacks. That's twice as many as died when Tojo attacked Pearl Harbor, and MOST OF THEM ARE CIVILIANS. By now, every American has watched them being killed on television at least once, and they would be REALLY REALLY angry about it even without the constant propaganda.

Second, the target of the first attack was a major financial center. The TV news drones keep telling us that this was an attack not just on America, but on our economy. While that's an oversimplified position pushed by whorish propagandists, it's also halfway true. Dozens of major and minor economic players had offices in or near the WTC, and even the one's who didn't actually have offices in the buildings that collapsed have had their business at least temporarily interrupted. You do realize that when everything is said and done several more buildings in the area will be declared write-offs and torn down - if they don't collapse first.

Third, the Pentagon was attacked. That's a real and serious military attack on THE military target, and the corporate propagandists are driving the point home to everyone who hasn't already figured it out. Every officer in every branch of our armed forces is currently watching CNN and thinking, "That could have been me. That might be me next time. I think I'll advocate bombing the hell out of everyone who might have done this." Most senators and congressmen are thinking the same thing.

Fourth, most people in America want a war now. I'm not talking about a small majority. At this point I suspect that ninety percent of the country wants to see at least some kind of violent action taken.

What these factors mean, taken together, is that WAR WILL HAPPEN. There's nothing that can stop it now. Since that battle is already lost, an anti-war stance is not tactically sound. Not only will people taking an anti-war stance look foolish, there are also hordes of corporate shills who are ready to pounce on anyone with an anti-war sign and shrilly denounce them as traitors, and there are dozens of right wing politicos who would happily take advantage of anti-war demonstrations as an excuse to curb our civil liberties. These fascists would be extremely happy to have a chance to link the anti-globalization movement, which is making slow but steady progress, to a (heavily propagandized as traitorous) anti-war movement.

Please don't play into their hands.


This doesn't mean that you have to take a pro-war stance. It just means that you need to keep you eye on the important issues and take action on them.

Issue One: Globalization. Continue to protest the FTAA, World Bank, WTO, etc. If you end up speaking to a reporter, simply tell them that these are important issues regardless of war, and that the social justice you're asking for is a fair, appropriate way to keep others from being hostile to the United States - not by appeasing them, but by granting common people everywhere the same civil rights and economic advantages which Americans enjoy.

Issue Two: Civil Liberties. Obviously the right wing politicos and corporate leaders would love to use the coming conflict to restrict civil liberties. Portray yourselves as a watchdog whose job it is to "make sure that necessary wartime restrictions are kept within constitutional limits." (or some similar phrasing) then fight each restriction tooth and nail.

Issue Three: The right wing looks upon this coming conflict as a chance to spread neo-colonialism, corporate control, and religious extremism even further into the third world. Spend some of your political capital on what happens after the war. Push for carefull controls over our behavior toward defeated people. Work to make sure that conquered nations (and there WILL BE conquered nations) get to have fair and free elections, full restoration of water, gas and electrical services under government control, rebuilding of schools, full civil liberties, etc.

Let me repeat my opinion. There is no way to stop this war. However, if you avoid a reflexive anti-war stance, you'll probably be able to operate more or less freely during the war, and you'll get big points for political maturity.

Alex

First, I concede the arguments above are forceful. But as logical as they are, they do not trump morality. We must protest this coming (existing?) war because it will go far beyond any sense of merely meting out justice to the perpetrators of Tuesday's attack. It is obvious it will be set up to kill thousands -- tens of thousands -- of "collateral" innocents. To stand by knowing there's near certainty that number of women children, and innocent men will die is immoral. And morality trumps tactics, which is said to be the reason for the argument.

I don't know what whos keeping score. But i don't want to win any points for standing by idly while the biggest military machine on the planet murders innocent people. I will not stand for it. And if you do want to talk tactically, the rhetoric at this point means that we will be entering into a ground war for sure, probably a multi-front ground war. In a situation like that, how will people fight back? With increasing desperation. We can expect to see more terrorist attacks. How long before a nuke is used either in the military battles or through the planting of a device in a major city in a terrorist attack. What happens then? Further nuclear attacks? The destruction of life on this planet? That seems to me to be a very plausible course of events. Won't matter too much how well liked we are by state security forces or the US public for that matter. I personally will do everything I can to try and avoid this possible outcome. The argument that we should not do anything is completely absurd to me. Lets be creative, lets engage in actions designed to sway people. The battle is in the minds of the people. We cannot stop someone who seized the presidency from doing whatever he wants except by forcing him to change through collective action and refusal to participate. One more thought, wars in Afghanistan have had a tendency to drag on for decades. The entire soviet military machine could not win a war there over more than a decade. The same was true of the US military machine in Vietnam. Its not as if this war machine has never been defeated militarily before. If the war does drag on, how long till they reinstitute the draft? All the institutions to do it are already in place it just needs to be reactivated. Then the only choices for many of us will be going to war, jail or underground. Or maybe we should volunteer to go fight in the war so we won't be the targets of repression and the government won't have to worry about something messy like instituting the draft. On second thought your right we should wrap the flag around ourselves and goose step off to slay the heathen brown people in the middle east. Thanks but no thanks!

I don't like it. I hate the idea of thousands, or perhaps even millions of people dying, but I know, as a simple realist, that there is nothing I can do to stop this war.

There's absolutely nothing you can do to stop this war either. Unless you can somehow convince whoever sponsored this act to 'fess up and surrender immediately, a war will happen. I don't like it, but there's gonna be a war.

You can react two ways.

You can (if you don't mind an overworked metaphor) band a little, like the willow. By acting wtih some restraint - by not fighting the battles you can't win - you will be around to fight the battles that can be won. For example, you'll be around to fight the battle against putting Muslims into camps. You'll be able to continue fighting against globabization. (Globalization is the disease - war is just one of the symptoms.) You'll be able to be an activist in the upcoming elections. You'll be able to fight against Bush in 2004. You'll be able to fight against expanding that war into something other than a brief punative expedition.

Most importantly, you'll be around to fight the battle for a just peace AFTER a surrender has been signed. At this point it looks like we're going to war against Afghanistan and possibly Pakistan. I have no doubt that Bush will somehow work Iraq into the picture, along with (just maybe) Syria and Iran. What that comes down to (if we win) is an American/European force occupying up to five countries. The terms of surrender, occupation, and rebuilding will have a great deal to do with the nature of the world we live in twenty years from now. If that occupation is controlled entirely by the corporate, right wing forces, it will be series of barbaric, colonial acts which will have created a world as bad as the one we live in now - if not infinitely worse.

On the other hand, if the terms of that surrender, occupation, and rebuilding are intelligent and fair, and if the rebuilding is appropriately handled theres a chance (albeit a very small chance) to create a situation that's better than the one we live in today. But if you want to seize that chance, you need to take a long view of the situation and organize for an occupation that isn't a simple act of hate filled, reactionary colonialism. That means coming out of the war with a movement that's united and and credible. The price for getting through the war with some credibility and power is to exercise restraint right now. Please be willing to pay that price.

On the other hand you can try standing tall and proud and firm with your "Stop The War" sign while rabid goons beat the shit out you, gas you, drag you off to jail, and throw you in with Bubba, the serial rapist. Then, if you survive Bubba, you can be tried and thrown into a camp with excellent oven and shower facilities. If you take this course you'll save no-one, you'll discredit the entire anti-globabization movement, and you won't be around to fight the battles you can win.

Your Choice,

Alex

Alex, all you're doing is justifing vigilantism on the part of the U.S. government!! An attack by the U.S. military will result in FAR MORE INNOCENT DEATHS than were brought about in last Tuesday's attack. The LAWFUL and PROPER WAY to deal with the perpetrators is to bring them before the International Warcrimes Tribunal at The Hague, Netherlands to stand trial, as the Nazis and other terrorists and war criminals have been. Since this was an INTERNATIONAL incident, it is within the jurisdiction of the International Community. The Bush regime has no buisness taking the law into its own hands and responding to a terrorist attack with ANOTHER TERRORIST ATTACK!!! If he goes through with this, then he and Colin Powell and all other major participants should STAND TRIAL along with the original terrorists for CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY!!!

Your patriotism is admirable.

Commit yourself to building to building combat in any US city.

Your chances of survival are less one in three.

As somebody who wishes you would all go to hell, I take great pleasure in the forcefulness of the arguments pro (Alex) and con (other posters). In fact, there's no principled way to decide who's right. This means the "progressives" and the rest of the lefty rabble will be fairly evenly split, and (as usual) will spend most of their energy and enthusiasm on arguing with each other. So as I light up my cigar, scotch in hand, waiting for Uncle Sam to clean up the cess pool, I see little prospect of practical opposition. Salud!

Outs, Consider throwing your immense resources our way.

Truth, justice and planetary sustainability for human habitation hang in the balance.

No pressure, just give it some thought between your tokes.

Outs, Consider throwing your immense resources our way.

Truth, justice and planetary sustainability for human habitation hang in the balance.

No pressure, just give it some thought between your tokes.

I say that this is the beginning of america being torn in two.

Bring on the second civil war as well!!!


Might as well. Our constituition is being strangleholded.


In fact, Our constituition is being held hostage by terrorists as well. Lieberman, gore, cheney are all taking our freedoms away.

I say strike back while america is down. We have to fight back. Remember how alienated we felt before this crisis?

Stay strong and don't succumb to corporate tv brainwashing.

Or the typed words of a prozac hangover baby boomer.

I say to mobilize mass units of anti war protests.

This way recruiters can snag us all up to fight this dirty war.

rav, you mean that after the terror shown to Pro-Democracy Resistance Fighters by the Gestapo, they, like Germany could muster a credible fighting force out of concentraction camp interees?

Look, this is the second posting by this character who supposes to have such a wonderful strategic vantage point that he can dispense 'rules' to the rest of us. Let us be clear on how offensive this tone is. Please feel free to not dialogue with the points if you don't agree with the method of distribution. If Alex wants to argue a point of strategy let him take it to an activist meeting and present his case face to face. In this manner he can obtain much needed and immediate feedback on his presention skills. My suspicion is that anytime someone stands up in a group and pretends to tell the rest of us how we should feel about something he is instantly shouted down. In open publishing you note that we can only shout one at a time. Clearly this is NOT an appropriate forum for mandating strategy with such an athoritative tone, especially when that strategy contains some very arrogant assumptions. A more effective writer would find a less offensive way to raise his or her concerns regarding rules for engagement.

Believe me, I don't drink scotch, smoke cigars, or look forward to innocents being killed. I drink other stuff and smoke a doobie on occasion. If anybody comes up with a self-defense plan for my country that avoids killing innocents, I'd love to hear it. If it has to do with "root cause" reconstruction, such as kissing Arab ass or abandoning Israel, I'm not interested. But I will not really enjoy The Big Show that's going to start in the next few months; I just see it as necessary.

Spoken like a true NAZI-FASCIST Outsider,-you racist piece of shit!!! Better hope Georgy Porgy don't put YOU on the front line!!

when we strip away your name-calling and invective, there is nothing left to your post. After we clean up over there, we'll drop in on you and your kind over here. then you can really play revolutionary, you faggot.

Outs, I'm going to pound away at you until you hear a knock on your door.

We here want to you join up with your Gestapo, practice your skills in a nuclear contaiminated zone, and return to fight hand-to hand combat in any US city.

Your chances of dying at home is about one in three.

You're probably right about the presentation. I'm not terribly satisfied with the piece either, and to tell the truth, I don't like my own conclusions much in either of the pieces you refer too. However, I feel like the conversation about what the attacks have changed in the way we handle ourselves must be started, and I don't mind taking the unpopular postion. Sadly, I'm not seeing much more in terms of responses than kneejerk moral outrage and name calling. I find both of these really boring.

I'll make the same suggestion I made about my rules post. If you've really got the willingness to address these ideas, take the original post into a text editor and take it apart from an intellectual and philosophical perspective.

Frankly, I don't think anyone has the intellectual stones to do this. I don't think any of you have really thought about just how much consensous reality has changed and what that means to the movement against globalism. Show me I'm wrong. I dare you.

Alex

The Anti War Movement may not at this time be viable. However, the Anti Long War Movement will soon be very much so.