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.

1. Principled Alliances and Moral Consistency

One of the reasons Feb. 15 represented such an important step forward for anti-war organizing in the United States was the emergence of the new coalition United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ), which coordinated the protests nationally. Prior to this, most national anti-war organizing fell under the auspices of International ANSWER. The dirty open secret on the American left--universally, but rarely openly, acknowledged--is that ANSWER is led at its core by an outfit called the International Action Center (IAC), which is itself a front group for the reactionary and Stalin-nostalgist Workers World Party. What nobody wants to say out loud is clearly evident: IAC and Workers World support genocide.

IAC's frontman, former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark, is a founding member of the International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic, and IAC routinely dismissed accounts of the atrocities against Bosnian Muslims and Kosovar Albanians as imperialist "lies." Even now, IAC supports Milosevic almost without reservation, portraying him as a defender of socialism. During the worst of the Bosnia bloodshed, IAC4s Clark travelled to Bosnia to meet with Serb strongman Radovan Karadzic (now indicted on war crimes charges) and offer his support.

Workers World also supported Deng Xiaoping in the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989, portraying the protesters as "counter-revolutionaries."

In 1991, Workers World split the movement aganst Desert Storm by refusing to condemn Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. In the ensuing years, Clark and IAC dismissed human rights allegations against Saddam as more imperialist propaganda.

Workers World Party--whose cadre such as Brian Becker are ANSWER's most visible spokespersons--is a vigorous apologist of mass murder.

The progress that was made in the Feb. 15 mobilization towards bringing legitimate leadership to the anti-war movement has now been reversed, as UFPJ and ANSWER have joined forces for the Oct. 25 rally.

The movement has squandered its moral credibility by accepting ANSWER's leadership. We have no authority to oppose US occupation and aggression in Iraq when we are literally rallying around leaders who actively supported occupation and aggression in Bosnia and elsewhere--even in Iraq, where Workers World has asserted that Saddam's gassing of the Kurds was just another imperialist lie.

The frequent response to this criticism is that nobody will notice that our movement is led by genocide-apologists, and it is more important to oppose the occupation of Iraq. This cowardly and hypocritical position undercuts our effectiveness by giving our enemies an iron-clad accusation of double standards to use against us. Moreover, the willingness to throw principles to the wind makes us look desperate--like what, in fact, we have largely become: a movement with no real faith in its own power.

2. A Realistic Sense of Our Own Power

The cynicism which has led to the tactically and ethically disastrous alliance with ANSWER is, paradoxically, the flipside of a naive utopianism. "People marched and demonstrated a whole lot to try to stop the war, and we weren't able to," UFPJ's Leslie Cagan was quoted in the Washington Post Oct. 19. "That had, I think, for some segments of the activist community, a little bit of a demoralizing effect."

The notion that the Feb. 15 mobilization was going to "stop the war" is a simple denial of political reality. Equally so is the notion that the mobilization was not worthwhile because it failed to "stop the war."

Millions worldwide in the streets clearly would not deter Bush, but it almost certainly helped sway others in positions of power to rein in the worst excesses of what Bush had planned. The "shock and awe" bombardment of Baghdad was to have dwarfed the massive aerial bombardment of 1991's Operation Desert Storm, with Pentagon officials actually calling it a "21st Century Blitzkrieg." In the actual fact, far fewer missiles fell on Baghdad in 2003 than in 1991. The London Times reported May 2 that the Pentagon cut the planned bombing campaign in half after the commander of British forces in the Persian Gulf argued that it would have disastrous political consequences. Many factors doubtless played into this thinking, including the threat of unrest in the Middle East, the risk of defection or destabilization of pro-West Arab regimes--and, we can safely assume, the global wave of protests.

The Feb. 15 mobilizaiton probably saved countless Iraqi lives. And--if we could build on the progress intelligently--it would put us in a stronger position to oppose the current occupation.

By setting up unrealistic expectations, we assure our own demoralization and burn-out. We have to accept that the struggle against US imperialism will probably persist for generations, and we are in it for the long haul. This means resisting the temptations of self-delusion and easy answers.

3. Asking the Tough Questions

Soundbite pseudo-analysis is an inherent danger of activism, which must be guarded against at all times. Slogans like "Bring the troops home" and "US out of Iraq" are handy for fitting on a placard, but they inevitably dodge the really tough questions. Having now plunged Iraq into social entropy, destroyed the country's infrastructure and brought to a boil myriad ethnic and religious conflicts which had been simmering under the Saddam dictatorship, it might be the height of irresponsibility for the US to just unilaterally withdraw. It would, in fact, be a violation of the responsibilities of an occupying power under international law.

We must be clear that US imperialism will never act in the interests of the Iraqi people, whatever rhetoric about "freedom" and "democracy" is cynically employed. Empires act in the interests of empire: they always have and always will. But a unilateral withdrawal which allows genuinely freedom-hating jihadis to take power would not be in the interests of the Iraqi people either. "US out of Iraq" only works as a demand if we have some kind alternative to offer.

We are not going to arrive at answers to such difficult questions merely by thinking about them--and we have largely failed to do even that. We can only begin to find alternatives to support in Iraq by opening a dialogue with pro-democracy, anti-occupation Iraqis, either on the ground in Iraq or in exile. The work of the San Francisco-based Open World Conference of Workers to seek out and support dissident unionists in Iraq is a step in this direction. So is the Independent Media Center network's effort to support a Baghdad IMC. But the mainstream anti-war movement has dodged its responsibility on this front, the leaders being apparently too pre-occupied with maintaining and strengthening their own position of leadership.

Whatever happened to CARDRI, the Committee Against Repression and for Democratic Rights in Iraq, the progressive London-based exile group that opposed both the Saddam dictatorship and US imperialist designs in the 1980s? Does CARDRI still exist? Are any of its members still vocal and active? It is from such voices that we must seek leadership--not from the self-appointed cadre of Workers World, or even the comparatively innocuous Leslie Cagan.

I offer that the alliance with ANSWER may actually make the Oct. 25 mobilization more counter-productive than worthwhile, but I am aware that many dedicated and sincere activists will be attending despite misgivings. At a minimum, I hope I have provided some fodder for serious discussion on the bus ride to Washington.

Thanks for that wonderful piece. How's things down at the CIA building? Have you selected enough phony "radicals" ready to "lead" the anti-war movement yet? How much are you paying them?

--Thanks for that wonderful piece.--

You're welcome.

--How's things down at the CIA building?--

Fine. And how are things at Langley?

--Have you selected enough phony "radicals" ready to "lead" the anti-war movement yet?--

We'll find out.

--How much are you paying them?--

Hold on. Let me ask krankyman.

He said "Pennies on the dollar." We're Cheap Labor Conservatives.

I have made the same arguments within my circle of friends and have routinely pointed to this website for further documentation on this subject:

http://authoritarianopportunistswhocozyuptogenocidaldictators-forpeace.org/

for those interested in reading the direct quotes of the Workers World Party, and related links that provide analysis.

It is imperative that we all join forces to fight this illegal war and the Bush administration, and for that reason, I'll will attend the Oct 25 march. However, I will not be silent in exposing International Action Center and the Workers World Party for their apologies for state terror. We must not, and should not, blindly follow sectarian sects like IAC and WWP if we are to have any moral credibility when talking about the war in Iraq.

Thank you for the above article

000

Well, the war happened despite their best efforts.

I guess we can just chalk it up to total incompetence.

Imagine that! Chanting, drums, and crapping on the street didn't stop the war! Amazing!

It's too late. We've lost. We're all a bunch of losers anyway, what did we expect. I mean, look at us. We don't bathe, and when we do we don't use soap or water, we don't comb our hair, we wear weird clothes and get strange piercings and tatoos, we hit the bong almost every hour of the day, we flunk out of school, we blame everyone but ourselves for our own shortcomings. Face it. We're a bunch of idiots. We deserve to lose.

Ho-Hum, the same old tired argument about how the organizations that developed into ANSWER were pro-communist or pro-dictatorship, Ho-Hum, pulling out the Tiannemen Square issue (without context yet again) blah blah blah.

Like we really need to worry about this when the conservative pro-capitalist imperialist opposition is and was:

Pro-Porfirio Diaz: Many of you white liberals could give a shit about dark people unless they're miles away, but consider how US transnational capitalism supported the dictator of Mexico at the turn of the century who was instrumental in the murder of thousands of indians and Mexican peasants.

-Pro-Hitler: Ford, Prescott Bush, and all the other "wonderful" American entrepeneurs that thought fascism was a good idea in the 1930s

Pro-Stalin: After all, he was good for American capitalists in defeating Hitler and covering our government's ass when

it turned out that supporting nazis was a bad idea. But then apparently supporting a communist dictator was worse.

-Pro-Saddam: Sure, he killed Kurds with chemical weapons, but hey, our capitalist government provided him with them and then Rumsfield arrived in the early 1980s to pat him on the back.

Do I need to go on...

Why does the ANSWER coalition need to apologise for their past mistakes when the opposition doesn't have to apologise for shit.

That is the weakness of the anti-war movement and the left is that we don't express our passion for the movement the way the morons on the other side do (and their's involves a passion for racism, xenophobia, white supremacy, you name it).

We should take credit for having more heart, compassion and integrity, but that doesn't mean that we can't show our fangs. Although I know its hard when the corporate media colludes with the government to make sure we are either demonized or ignored.

Stop obsessing on the past, red-baiting bullshit and move forward. You ask many young people today, with the exception of those being brainwashed by Ann Coultier the moron and the Young Republicans, and you'll find that most youths today could give a shit about the "red scare" and wonder what people were so afraid of in the 50s and 60s. I wonder myself...ya'll were so brainwashed back then, but of course

look at the frenzy being whipped up under the "War on Terrorism" whatever the fuck that is.

I've noticed that its mostly white liberal males who get all

bent over the "commie thing" with respect to the activist groups and they want an umbrella organization that is more

"moderate" or less "tainted" or whatever. Ya'll just want to protect your privilege and your fake fantasy that "one day things will return to normal."

Grow Up, Grow Some Balls, and MOVE ON PEOPLE!!!

I'll be on the bus too. I hope my red bandana doesn't scare you white liberals into thinking I'm a pro-Stalin, pro-Chinese dictatorship commie. Or will it be my black skin?

For those who don't know the definition of red baiting, let me explain.

Red baiting is exposing the hypocrasy of the authoritarian left and their apologies for genocide. They make apologies for dictatorships such as China, North Korea, the Shining Path, Saddam Hussein, Milosevic, etc, etc, etc, depending on which flavor you choose to examine.

Red baiting is also exposing the ridiculousness and the failures of Trotskyism, Leninism, and Stalinism. It is also means being honest about the fact that Fidel Castro is a dictator (a gilded cage is still a cage) http://www.illegalvoices.org/apoc/books/cuban/preface.html

Red baiting is also exposing the atrocities they have commited in places like Spain during the Spanish Civil War, and in places like Kronstadt during the Russion revolution.

The time of the "red" is over and people are fed up with the brutal injustices that go along with the failed ideologies of authoritarian state revolutions.

It is so predictable the way the authoritarian communists pull out the word "red baiting" everytime someone exposes their politics to the mainstream. It reminds me exactly of the use of the word "anti-semitism" which gets trotted out every time someone criticizes the state of Isreal.

Normal americans are very anti-authoritarian and hate the boss as much as they hate the traditional "reds".

000

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secHcon.html

Red baiting would be to attack the WWP with the intent of discrediting the anti-war movement. This article criticizes the fact that a single group, the IAC, exercises control over who can organize and speak at the big rallies. Also, the accusation that UFPJ is "white liberals" and ANSWER is not is false. I've peeked in on a couple ANSWER meetings, and most of the people there are white males over the age of 50. The insiders seem a bit younger, but they're white too. Maybe they are revolutionists and not liberals. Maybe the rally organizing meetings are different, but that's my limited experience.

UFPJ's politics are on their front page:

http://www.unitedforpeace.org/

As for whether they're "liberals" or not, they are liberal inasumuch as many of the groups in UFPJ are liberal. In that regard, ANSWER is also liberal. The WWP also supports reform. Just look at their paper: the rhetoric is revolutionary, but they support reform too. The main difference between UFPJ and ANSWER is that UFPJ is a coalition of different organizations, organized as a representative democracy. ANSWER is an organ of the IAC, which is an organ of the WWP. ANSWER is certainly more flexible (and liberal) than WWP, but, that's still not the same as a coalition.

No comment on NION - haven't been to their meetings, nor do I know their structure.

Overall, I think these organizing efforts are awesome, and everyone participating is to be commended, but the leadership of ANSWER (and NION), won't help the broad progressive movement grow. The various communist sects are top-down and corporate; this works well at mobilizing quickly, but it's anti-democratic. Democracy is bottom-up, grassroots, diverse in ideology, and (because it requires bottom-up communication) sometimes slow.

There's something that's an in-between form of democracy that is a corporate structure that accepts feedback from the rank-and-file. It's like the "suggestion box" used at corporations, where the failings of corporate domination and management political maneuvering are supposed to be mitigated by anonymous complaints to the higher-ups. That isn't real democracy. It's more like head games.

(I'm not a member of a group in UFPJ.)

What's the worse fear of an authoritarian activist organization? That rank-and-file activists might compare notes and actually engage in some critical thinking about the organization.

This charge of "red-baiting" has been thrown out by supporters of ANSWER so many times that they just look stupid. What us the first response of ANSWER supporters to any criticism? Accuse them of red-baiting. There is no dialogue, just an effort to make the critics go away. Authoritarians can't handle democracy and transparency, which is why they react to movement discussion of their organization with the accusation of red-baiting. Never mind the fact that most of ANSWER's critics are reds or are sympathetic to reds. What we have here is an organization that doesn't belong in the movement.

Can we vote them out of the movement or something like they do in those reality TV shows?