U.S. Peace Movement Confronts Unique Set of Issues in Responding to Expected U.S Military Actions

Interview by Between The Lines' Scott Harris

After the Sept. 11 attacks against New York and Washington, calls from the White House for a new war against terrorism are widely supported throughout the nation. Although the world does not yet know the scope or precise targets of expected U.S. military action, there are fears that careless retaliation that would take the lives of innocent civilians in Afghanistan or elsewhere could fuel a wider and dangerous conflict throughout the world

The nation's peace movement, which opposed U.S. wars in Southeast Asia, Central America and the Persian Gulf, now finds itself confronting a potential new conflict, but with a very different set of circumstances. This time, however, the war is not an abstract issue thousands of miles away, but right here on our doorstep. Activists, like many citizens, have friends and family members who were killed, injured or personally affected by the recent attacks. Even though the threat of a U.S. military response this time provides some difficult challenges, peace groups around the nation have swung into action by organizing vigils to oppose revenge and racist attacks in dozens of cities. A day of action, on Sept. 20, calling for "peaceful justice" was coordinated in just over a week, by a coalition of students on more than 140 college campuses nationwide.

Between The Lines' Scott Harris spoke with peace activist David McReynolds, who has worked for many years with the War Resisters League based in New York City. McReynolds examines the issues confronting the U.S. peace movement, in the wake of assaults on the World Trade Center and Pentagon(A RealAudio Version of this interview may be found At http://www.btlonline.org).

Contact the League by calling (212) 228-0450 or visit their Web site at: www.warresisters.org

"Peace movement" is an accurate word for what is going on.

I can't imagine that any disagrees with the proposition that the US must respond to the 9/11 attacks.

I also can't imagine that anyone would oppose the idea that some military forces might be used in that response.

I think the real issue is the nature and extent of the military response. The so-called Peace Movement seems to be putting forth the proposition that the response should be fashioned so as to avoid unnecessary casualties (military and civilian, American and otherwise), and to avoid escalating the conflict.

Those are fair points. . . but to say that no military response should be pursued is, in my opinion, a recipe for disaster.

(On the other hand, it may be that the time is at hand for a complete reformation of the Middle East -- to drag the entire region kicking and screaming into the 21st century and bring about a major cultural/economic/political change whereby Western styled democracies, founded upon individual rights, will take root. That may be the only way to bring a lasting to peace to that region, and here as well. But maybe that's an unrealistic view.)

"Peace Movement" isn't the best term we could use, but not because some military is "unavoidable," much less justified. There is a widespread consensus of world opinion AGAINST a military response and in favor of a criminal justice approach. Only 54% of Americans favored a military response in a Gallup poll conducted last week. The rest favored a criminal justice approach or were unsure. This is virtually without ANY exposure to this point of view in the US media.

So a clearly articulated movement FOR justice as the unifying theme would definitely have considerable potential. A "peace movement," owever,is likely to carry a lot of unnecessary baggage.

"I can't imagine that any disagrees with the proposition that the US must respond to the 9/11 attacks.

" I also can't imagine that anyone would oppose the idea that some military forces might be used in that response."

If one can't imagine then all other possibilities are rather limited. End of story.

Sadly we don't have any choice but two: either find a way to break out of the cycle of violence or continue to perpetuate it. I don't mean to sound so dualistic but these appear the dominant trends. Our inability to recognize that there is always more than one possibility could be just stubbornness.

I imagine that someone addicted to 24 hour CNN coverage would be hard pressed to imagine we could break out of the cycle of violence (or for that matter acknowledge that we have any responsibility to do so) and I admit this is a problem. We must strive not to let CNN do our thinking for us and limit our perspectives accordingly.

And who care what they call the 'movement' or even if it ever gets a clearly identifiable name. The so-called 'anti-globalization movement' remains un-catagorizable and I don't see how that is a problem. Perhaps it is better not to have a name because then that only gives people a silly thing to argue about.

.

Where my imagination runs short is in calling for war when we are not clear where we are going or what we are going to do when we get there. I don't remember ever being in a similar situation before. Usually we have a clear idea who the enemy is and what we have to do to defeat them. This time around it sounds like our need for 'unity' and our preparations for war may be just to obfuscate the extent of our responsibility.

We need to just carpet bomb the whole region... with food and medical supplies. That would be one way to break the chain of violence.

Or, we could also try this: http://bushfordummies.com/home.asp?did=41

"I wonder if..." above wrote at the end of her comment:

"(On the other hand, it may be that the time is at hand for a complete reformation of the Middle East -- to drag the entire region kicking and screaming into the 21st century and bring about a major cultural/economic/political change whereby Western styled democracies, founded upon individual rights, will take root. That may be the only way to bring a lasting to peace to that region, and here as well. But maybe that's an unrealistic view.)"

Simply an unrealistic view? I must point out that with this little offhanded parenthetical, you dismissed the entire Middle East and its people. Much of what we are facing at the moment stems from a total lack of awareness of the value of the "cultural/economic/political" practices of our fellow human beings the world over.

You may not be the type of person who would harass an Arab in the street, but do you realize that you have no respect or regard for these people and their way of life? Otherwise, you would never suggest that all they need is "Western styled democracies."

Until we are willing to recognize that we, as a nation, are blind; that compassion ends for us at our borders and that other ways of life are not only valid, but worthy of respect and continuity, we will never rid the world of terroism.

As if carpet bombing, or any bombing for that matter, will stop violence!

Far from being a creative solution it also illustrates a serious lack of logic. Violence begets violence. The inability of some folks to recognize this makes me wonder if the US is not experiencing some form of mass pychosis.