WASHINGTON, DC, March 15, 2003--Demonstrators took over 2500 copies of MIM Notes in the Washington DC rally against the war in Iraq and RAIL tabled and distributed MIM Theory as well. It may be appropriate at this moment to thank President Bush for exposing the war-mongering nature of the system and taking the Democratic Party with him into this war.
The unity of the imperialists has left the political field open to the real anti-militarists, the people who are really going to bring global peace. In ordinary times, the imperialists conceal their wars against the Third World. Ironically, without the imperialists' going berserk, we could not have so many demonstrators. Police said 40,000 attended while organizers from International A.N.S.W.E.R. said it was 100,000 participants. (1)
Despite the Democrats' voting for the war in Congress, and despite the fact that major candidates for president Kerry, Lieberman, Gephardt and Edwards all support the war--participants in the DC rally continued to hold many illusions about the Democratic Party. In fact, one of the speakers at the rally called for electing candidates to replace Bush & Co. and then called for revolution in almost the same breath.
As we go to press, the the Democratic Party Senate Leader Daschle has criticized Bush for failing in diplomacy, "miserably."(2) Others have criticized Bush for not having enough allies to go to war with international legitimacy.
Our movement needs to distinguish arguments that help Bush do a better job making war on the world and those arguments that are necessary for global peace. Democrats in 95% of cases are making arguments about how Bush could make war better. With the exception of some mention of Sport Utility Vehicles (SUVs), Democrats rarely attempt to address the causes of war and terrorism.
Democrats failed the Iraq test as they have failed countless other less- publicized questions of war and peace. What is more--even "peaceful" Democrats tolerate the Bush administration, and believe it is legitimate to be in a system where they alternate power with warmongers attempting to rule the whole world instead of supporting global majority rule. In contrast, we believe it is ghastly to tolerate and accept Bush today--and for this, the Amerikkkan population, not just the rulers are to blame.
What the movement inside u.$. borders needs to understand is that making arguments that would work in the Democratic Party may help one obtain political office, but they do nothing toward peace. Getting elected in the united $tates and peace are two separate questions.
What is necessary for peace is in fact unpopular in the united $tates, but we cannot change the prerequisites for peace simply because Amerikkkans are too busy reading Marie Claire and watching NakedNews.com to support a real anti- war movement in vast numbers. We have to tell it like it is and hope for change, just the way a minority of anti-Nazi Germans had to tell it like it is while gaining the support of less than 10% of the population during World War II. Germans in the 1940s should not have supported more moderate Nazis instead of Hitler as a matter of being "realistic."
There were a few counter-demonstrators scattered throughout--a handful, plus the usual tent for the pro-war speeches. As the anti-war demonstration wound down, a bellicose white male drove up in a car, opened his window and yelled "we're going to war. Deal with it!" He was probably the diplomat Bush sent to France.
The counter-demonstrators focus on "supporting our troops." Lesson number one in peace throughout the world has to be internationalism. If you want peace, then "our troops" cannot be any more important than "their troops." At least since when the united $tates dropped two atomic bombs on Japan in 1945, the whole idea that one side of war could win without taking a risk of being attacked back with devastating weapons of mass destruction has been out- dated. What goes around comes around, so if we cause problems for "their troops" we are only "asking for it" ourselves. In this war, both groups of troops are pawns being sacrificed for bourgeois rulers.
We are tired of these conservative counter-demonstrators. We live every day under threat of terrorism, because they and their rulers are too narrow- minded to address the causes of terrorism, both by the united $tates and lesser terrorists in the world. Then these backward counter-demonstrators want us to applaud their sending troops abroad where they are "under threat" and end up stirring up more "terrorism" of different sorts--including legitimate responses like George Washington's.
These hypocrites claiming to be oh-so patriotic ought to know that if George Washington used violence against colonialism, then so too, we might expect the Iraqis to. Until we grant that the whole world has learned the lesson of George Washington, we are going to stay stuck in a pattern of imperialist violence. The safety of troops abroad is NOT a higher priority than our safety at home or the safety of others abroad--whether Amerikkkan or not. We should not be manipulated just because the rulers have succeeded in sending troops already.
The anti-war movement lost not its size but its quality, because of complacency of thought and action. Even a large portion of demonstrators are indifferent to politics. We see them turning down leaflets from people and also offering reasons against war that demonstrate a lack of political development.
The anti-Bush sentiment in the rallies comes from the least reliable sectors of the anti-war movement. Since Democrats in Congress voted for the war, there is really no reason to be hearing specifically anti-Bush sentiment except for that sector of the movement that just wants Bush to do a better job making war by having more military allies and using diplomacy even more in order to further disarm Iraq before attacking it.
A 48-year-old ex-Marine held aloft a huge "Fuck Bush" poster/banner right to the end of the rally. A teenage youth confronted him and asked for "respect" for Bush, while the ex-Marine equally aggressively asked for respect for someone who already served his country. We gathered from the exchange and the effort that went into the banner, that this ex-Marine was not one of those tepid anti-war demonstrators who will bail out of the anti-war movement when Senator Kerry continues the war as the next president. There is definitely a need for more aggressive types like this one to join the anti-war movement.
As one speaker noted, in the 1970s, Bush (and his many ardent war backers) did not do service in Vietnam. In the National Guard where even there his service was under question, Bush was "busy protecting the skies" "against the Viet Cong air force." That was a joke, because the Vietnamese never sent any air force to attack the United $tates.
The reality is that veterans are on both sides of this conflict and even troops are divided into pro-war and anti-war camps. Hence, the whole question of "respect" posed by our teenage junior Republican is misplaced. How to get along with the rest of the world and the impact of this war are scientific questions. If an ex-Marine says this war will only cause more terrorism, he is not any more or less correct than a gay millionaire who never served in the military when he says this war will only cause more terrorism. If two people are saying exactly the same thing, one is not more correct because he once served the united $tates in battle.
Notes: