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.