BY JACK SMITH
NEW PALTZ,
New York — On October 26, the ANSWER [Act Now to Stop War and End Racism]
coalition mobilised hundreds of thousands in Washington, San Francisco
and well over 100 other cities in the US and abroad against the Bush regime's
intention to invade Iraq, a country not connected to the September 11,
2001, terror attacks. This happened before Bush even set a date for his
new war.
It is obvious to veteran observers of the anti-war struggles in the
US that today's movement is growing considerably faster, and with more
savvy about Washington's real intentions, than the early years of the mass
anti-war/anti-imperialist movements of the 1960s-'70s that ultimately helped
stop one of the most shameful wars in American history.
The first demonstration against the Vietnam War took place in 1963 when
a group called Youth Against War and Fascism organised a small protest
in New York City. It took over two years before the first demonstration
of 25,000 people was held in Washington in the spring of 1965, organised
by Students for a Democratic Society (SDS).
To accomplish this breakthrough, SDS had to overcome obstacles thrown
in its path by the leaders of the largest traditional anti-war organisations
of the time which publicly demanded that the nationwide student group renounce
its intention to allow communist and left socialist groups to take part
in the projected protest. They even threatened to boycott the rally unless
their wishes were heeded. To their enormous credit the students refused,
and the subsequent rally excluded no-one and included anti-imperialist
as well as pacifist demands.
The huge success of the SDS protest helped pave the way for the historic
anti-war movements that soon followed, movements based on uniting all who
could be united against the war — from pacifists and anti-imperialists,
to liberals and Democrats, to socialists and communists, to libertarians
and anarchists, to war veterans and GIs on active duty.
It took quite a while, however, before numbers of 100,000 or 200,000
or up to a million were registered — numbers that, as they were compounded,
helped to convince those who rule America that there was no alternative
to extrication from Vietnam.
There were many struggles in the anti-Vietnam war movement, between
and within the liberal and left camps, for the leadership and political
direction of various coalitions.
There were struggles over the political demands of rallies, over whether
it was appropriate to carry the flag of the National Liberation Front of
Vietnam, over whether to focus on winning over the politicians or the people,
over the extent of anti-imperialist influence, and continual efforts by
some to keep the reds away. But despite and because of these struggles,
a mass movement for peace and against imperial conquest ultimately prevailed
over the warmakers.
The question before the anti-war forces now is whether they can maintain
and accelerate the incredible momentum of the last year over the next months
and years. Will today's movement be able to delay, deflect or even halt
the right-wing Bush administration's enthusiasm for a “war on terrorism”
composed of a succession of aggressive attacks on various countries?
The movement has succeeded before, but can it do so again under the
quite different circumstances of the Bush-era wars?
For example, the left was large during the Vietnam War era, and today
it is relatively small. Similarly the socialist camp that served to restrain
some of the more adventurous aspects of US foreign policy no longer exists.
Also, while the Vietnam War was thousands of kilometres away, Bush administration
scare stories and propaganda have convinced a large sector of the American
people that their “homeland” is under attack, and that there is an imminent
danger to themselves and their local communities from a ruthless “axis
of evil”. These may be lies intended to justify aggression to secure world
political, economic and military hegemony for the US, but they are fervently
believed by many millions of Americans.
Further, despite a certain recent opposition to aspects of the “war
on terrorism” manifested by a small minority of politicians, both the Republican
and Democratic parties are committed to backing President Bush's war plans.
A major difference in the last quarter-century is the way Washington
now conducts its wars, a product of the Vietnam Syndrome — i.e., the disinclination
of the American people to support a foreign war of long duration, with
many US casualties and fought by conscripts.
Since Vietnam, the US government only starts wars against small weak
countries lasting weeks or months without significant Pentagon casualties
and fought by a professional army bringing overwhelming military and technological
force to the battlefield.
Another difference is that reporters enjoyed more freedom during the
Vietnam War. They could get to the front lines, interview soldiers, write
about civilian casualties, and assess the situation for themselves. Today,
all war news is funnelled to reporters through the Pentagon/White House
propaganda apparatus — and the huge corporations that control today's profitable
mass media are the last ones to complain that the government, in effect,
is providing their war coverage.
Despite these important differences, however, today's peace movement
is displaying remarkable growth and political sophistication. In part,
this too stems from Vietnam. Millions of Americans were active in opposing
that war.
Over the years, many have dropped out or have decided to support the
deeds they once opposed. But many have remained active in various causes
or are returning to peace activism in droves because they hate militarism
and they know an unjust war when it is shoved in their face.
Many also remember the need to fight imperialism as a key element of
the peace struggle and understand that unity and the efforts of the political
left were important ingredients for success.
There are other positive factors, as well. First of all, the left may
be smaller today, but it is experienced and some groups are superlative
at organising.
The movement against corporate globalisation and the neo-liberal free-trade
sham perpetrated by Washington has educated millions of people in recent
years, including workers and students. As a result — along with the transportation
of a large part of industrial America to low-wage countries and the corporate
scandals at home — that holy of holies, the free enterprise system, is
no longer treated with quite the veneration of yesteryear.
A number of union locals have joined the antiwar struggle in the last
several months, another development taking place faster than it did in
the '60s — and the national leadership of the AFL-CIO trade union federation
is hardly beating the war drums as it did in the past.
A further factor involved in today's movement is that the American people
not only learned from Vietnam but they have not forgotten the revelations
and scandals from the 1970s to today, from Watergate and Contragate to
this year's Corporategate.
Today, many people know that the government lies. They know about CIA
dirty tricks. They know about FBI killings of activists, invasions of privacy
and political prosecutions.
They know some of the truth about the US role in overturning democratically
elected governments, about the Pentagon's “secret wars” and support of
death squads in Latin America, about the deadly effects of economic sanctions,
and about how a right-wing Supreme Court gave the presidency of the most
powerful country in the world to one George W. Bush — a man they recognise
as a liar, as told in the old joke, because his lips are moving. And “W's”
lips are going rapid-fire these days, selling another war of aggression
to the American people.
These conditions appear to be favourable for the continued growth of
the anti-war movement. But we cannot expect immediate results or give way
to pessimism because the struggle is long and progress may be slow.
A demonstration of 200,000 or a million won't end wars right away, but
that doesn't mean activism has failed. It means the process is cumulative,
and that numbers (as well as the appropriate political thrust) really do
count.
As such, it must be recognised that street action, rallies, marches,
educational meetings, discussions at the workplace and in school, speaking
up at community meetings and sending letters to the newspapers are the
most effective tactics we have to bring our case to the American people
and our opposition to those who rule the state.
Our movement has hardly any support in the political system and none
in the mass media — so we have to reach people in our own way. Arguments
intended to debase the importance of demonstrations by suggesting they
accomplish nothing but “preaching to the converted” are not situated on
reality. Every demonstration brings out people new to the struggle and
reaches many more people through word of mouth, leaflets or media coverage,
scant as it often is.
Given the antiwar movement's great advances in the last 13 months, it
seems entirely possible for it to win some victories in the coming years,
assuming the various groups unify in action, avoid sectarianism, focus
on the real targets, reach out to ever wider constituencies including the
unions, and work ceaselessly to organise for a world free of war, violence
and their blood brother, modern imperialism.
[Abridged from the Mid-Hudson Activist Newsletter/Calendar.]
From Green Left Weekly, November 13, 2002.
Visit the Green Left Weekly
home page.
