We were driving home the other night and she asked me this question: “Why isn’t there an anti-war movement, like there was in the sixties?”
I’ll tell you some of what I told her, and I hope you’ll chime in with your thoughts … whether you agree or disagree … or whether you think I’m totally nuts ;-0
Taken at face value, the question is based on a faulty premise. There IS an anti-war movement. But it’s certainly true that the anti-war movement of today is nothing like what we saw in the sixties. And one interesting question is “Why not?”
A few reasons are obvious, no? Let’s get them out of the way quickly.
[1] There’s no draft this time. Granted, the current policy is insane and there is de facto conscription, but there’s no draft per se. It makes a big difference whether all the young men in the country are at risk, or only those who sign up. Even if they thought they were signing up for something else. The point is, the guys who sign up come from a part of the population who are inclined to sign up. There’s another part, the part who wouldn’t sign up in a million years if you gave them a billion dollars. It’s an entirely separate part of the population; never the twain shall meet; and if these people ever got motivated the impact would be enormous.
[2] The major media coverage of the war in Vietnam was graphic and heart-rending and continuous. Today the war coverage is almost entirely fictional. It takes a significant effort to find out what’s going on, whereas 35 or 40 years ago it was in your face every night.
[3] Pro-military propaganda is much more prevalent in the schools now than it was then. It’s more prevalent in the entire culture, for that matter. Just one meaningless yet horrifying example: during the Vietnam war the CIA ran a program called “Operation Phoenix” which was supposed to be about interrogation but which quickly degenerated into mass murder. But today, if you do a Google search for the phrase “Operation Phoenix”, the vast majority of your hits will pertain to a video game. How sick is that?
Other reasons are a bit less obvious, perhaps, but there are a lot of them:
[4] Major media coverage of everything other than the war is almost entirely fictional. Back in the 60s, if there was trouble in certain cities, or unrest on certain campuses, we knew about it. And we got this information from the mass media. If government officials were telling obvious lies about anything, the mass media were reporting that, too. So anti-government positions in general seemed a lot more reasonable then than they do now.
[5] Infiltration of what should be the base of the anti-war political alliance is clearly visible, and it has been much more effective than the relatively low-level subversion of the previous anti-war movement.
[6] Neither major political party opposes the war. This point isn’t so clear-cut because perhaps the Democratic candidate in 1968 wasn’t the most peaceful candidate who ever ran for office. But at in 1968 there were several serious anti-war contenders for the Democratic nomination. And in 1972 there was actually an anti-war Democratic candidate. But in 2004 there was only one anti-war Democrat in the whole raft of “contenders” … and when the Democrats chose their eventual “challenger”, it turned out that he wanted to send more troops to Iraq than the incumbent.
[7] Important basic rights which “protected” the anti-war activists of the 60s and 70s have been shredded. Anti-war activists today know that the rights their predecessors enjoyed — the right of peaceful assembly, basic freedoms of expression, protection from unreasonable searches, the right to a fair and open trial — are all a distant memory.
Much more current are whispers of anti-war activists, people organizing peaceful protests, being visited by FBI agents who reminded them that their citizenship could be taken away and they could be declared terrorist sympathizers if they persisted.
And of course they knew that losing their citizenship and being declared terrorists or suspected terrorists or terrorist sympathizers could lead to some really nasty treatment, and they backed off … wouldn’t you?
By this point she was saying “So maybe that’s why most of the Democrats won’t stand up against the war. They might just disappear.”
… which told me she had had enough. So I didn’t say much more. Should I say more now? I’ll offer one more observation before I give my patient readers a turn…
[8] The anti-war movement of today is badly split. The anti-war movement in the 60s was a broad coalition that itself could be described as “split”. But the divisions in the current anti-war movement strike me as far more significant. For instance…
On one hand we have people who realize that the official story of 9/11 was a hoax, that the invasion of Afghanistan was not about “smoking Osama bin Laden out of his cave”, and that the entire “global war on terror”, now morphing into a “struggle against violent extremism”, was and still is a sham.
On the other hand there are those who believe the official stories about 9/11 and who think that the American invasion of Afghanistan was justified but the diversion of American forces into Iraq was not. So we have a difficult situation, where the anti-war movement is divided on basic issues, like whether or not we should be in Afghanistan, like whether we should be involved in a global war against anything.
This seems like a good place for me to stop and for you to start. Why not tell me what you think?
Your diaries are beyond incredible. Thank you so much.
My daughter happens to think people just don’t care anymore or if they do care that they don’t care for very long. That they get bored.
I agree with all of your points. The media black out. My husband goes on about Viet Nam how it was on the TV in school and at home. You saw reporters INVESTIGATING.
Papa Bush started off his original war in the Middle East by propogandizing the whole “don’t spit on our soldiers like those hippies…” which was another lie and hoax to make the lemmings not dare speak up against anything to do with war so as they don’t appear to be anti-soldier.
Saying one is anti-soldier because they are anti-war is as about as smart as saying one who is anti-arson must be anti-firefighter.
Thank you for your fantastic diary!
i think the fact that the protests, letters, stopping traffic, petitions, and everything that we did before the war started didn’t seem to make a dent. a lot of the pople out there marching against the war were first-timers, suburbanites, and there was this hope that if we all showed up, it would change something, and stop the war, or at least wake up the democrats.
and then nothing happened, and we went to war. and we watched it, powerless, on our televisions (well, a sanitized, rah-rah version).
a lot of that energy that might have been spent protesting the war got channeled towards the elections in ’04. since we couldn’t change bush’s mind, maybe we could get him out of office. so everybody donated money, and volunteered, and registered voters, and GOTV, and in the end it still didn’t work, and bush escalated the whole clusterfuck by flattening fallujah, and we watched more scenes of horror online or on the news, powerless.
so now at this point i think a lot of people have figured that nothing they do will really change anything, and they are waiting for the rest of the country to come around so that maybe sheer unanimity of quiet opposition will end things. but a deep feeling of utter powerlessness has got to be a major factor in why nothing seems to be happening. when you look at the poll numbers, a large majority consistently are upset with the war, so it isn’t ignorance or agreement.
i think people have just given up on the possibility of change.
Doesn’t bring it home.
The terrorists will bring it home soon enough, I fear. It is impossible to black out terror attacks in the media. As always…and not just in the U.S….people just want to get by. Once something threatens them to the point that it appears that they might NOT get by…or even makes getting by more difficult to some degree…THEN they get upset.
Watch as the gas prices continue to rise.
Watch as the war escalates throughout the Middle East. (If indeed these fools DO prosecute it further, into Iran + Syria. Especially if they break out the tactical nukes and cannot hide that fact.)
Watch as the anti-establishment media…with the internet as its engine…peaks ever higher each time it attempts to push the essential corruption of this government into the public eye.
Watch if Fitzgerald actually indicts Rove and/or Libby.
Watch if they try to institute some form of draft. (I think that they won’t, BECAUSE of the resistance it would engender. And because a drafted army cannot be trusted if there is trouble at home.)
Watch if there is a massively successful counter-attack in Iraq. An Islamic Tet Offensive. One that is to large and successful to be hidden.
And particularly, watch if there are another couple of effective domestic terror attacks. A few malls blown up, some mass transit commuter attacks. Nuthin’ says lovin’ like something from the oven, and nuthin’ gets the attention of sheeple like the shredded bodies of a few of the herd.(And God help us if they hit a nuclear plant here. God help them too, because THAT would produce a hard rain of retaliation. Indiscriminate, glass parking lot retaliation. Bet on it.)
American casualties in Vietnam were in the hundred thousands during the real “anti-war” era, and the motivating force behind the anti-war demonstrations was sheer self interest. People did not want to get their asses blown off.
People just want to get by. And getting your ass shot off will put a serious crimp in the effort.
It’ll come to that here as well, if we don’t reach a state of real military dictatorship before then.
A “security state”…a police state by any other name smells as rotten.
And if we DO reach police state status…then watch the true anti-establishment spirit of America come to the fore. WE will be in a state of insurrection.
The major cities will turn into Baghdad.
There will be a HUNDRED Fallujahs.
The minority ghettos will be incredibly dangerous, and so will the well-armed countryside. Only the suburbs will surrender.
Watch.
They cannot win, these reactionary fools.
But they can and will take us down with them if we allow it to happen.
Watch.
And ACT.
Later…
AG
First, there is no antiwar movement today. Period. If there is one there might as well not be.
Second, stop blaming the media. They actually werent all that good back then either….golden oldies like me tend to have poor memories.
Nor are there people willing to tell the FBI to shove it up their ass, deport me or throw me in jail, when they are threatened with such.
No one willing to give up the creature comforts. We all have been,largely, coopted.
The forced conscription via the draft is the main thing. Yet we liberals in the seventies were happy to see the draft abolished and still are against one, even though it is necessary: someone must personally have something big to lose in order to catalyze a movement willing to take on the FBI, cops, etc.
Remember, too, that the media reaction and the antiwar movement did not reach a fever pitch until at least 3-4 years after the Americans first major deployment.
Also, many more soldiers died in Vietnam. It was a real war, with a well managed heavily armed enemy which had a real army AND “terrorists”. This is not even really a war. Its a police action by soldiers ill suited for the task.
Are you serious? Do you honestly think there’s no significant difference between major media coverage of this war and major media coverage of the war in Vietnam?
There isnt that much happening now, either on the battleground or on the streets back home. No comparison can be made. The Vietnam conflict was a war of a greater magnitude. It demanded more coverage, as did the growing antiwar movement.This isnt even war. Its occupation. An aggressive and deadly enemy but a small and weak one actually, not an organized military opponent, even. We are training the Iraq’s to defend themselves so that when we leave in a few years with band playing “mission accomplished” the various warring factions will be free in a democratic society to really tear the lid off and get after each other.
This will not be any big news story either. No American involvement at that point.
The media must be stimulated into action. It was much more stimulated during Vietnam. Protestors were trashing places, occupying the student union, breaking some laws to draw attention from the media. Getting roughed up by the pigs. Thats more telegenic phootage than a bunch of geeks silently typing chatter back and forth through the internets, wouldnt you agree?
No! I do not agree at all. What gives you the impression that there’s not much happening on the battlefield? Just because you don’t see battles on TV? And what makes you think the Vietnam war wasn’t an occupation?
Please note that I am not talking about media coverage of the anti-war movement; I am talking about media coverage of the war! There isn’t any … but the war is still going on… and on…
I dont think we disagree as much as you say we do. “Not much” relative to Vietnam. There is no real enemy here comparable to the well organized, well managed and well armed North Vietnamese regulars and vietcong guerillas. Battles were engaged on a regular basis between standing armies. The North Vietnamese Government held much of the country, and the country was recognized as legitimate in reality of not in political “fact.”
I agree there is not much media coverage of this war. Police patrols in a tank and a few deadly booby trapped cars are certainly horrible events, but they arent “war.” And the mere repetition of similar events is not very newsworthy. Most of the dead are Iraqis, which doesnt seem to stir much concern anywhere in the US.
And yes, I agree with you the US occupied South Vietnam for several years until we withdrew, in defeat, to let the SV military be mopped up by the NVs….an eventuality which had been assured through the victory of Richard Nixon, of all people! But it still took years to accomplish and most antiwar protestors did not believe the US would ever really quit the war, no matter that it ruined the economy and caused 58,000 American dead and no telling how many permanently maimed, crippled or emotionally wrecked. I knew a few of those unfortunate ones myself.
Not to minimize the human tragedy of this war in any way. I am amazed just like you are that there is so little reaction, except you are amazed by the media’s inattention, and I am amazed at the Left’s inaction.
Reversing the latter would automatically reverse the former.
I’ll take your top 2 reasons plus number 8, with a difference. In my town San Francisco — just about the most lefty liberal place in the nation — the Intifada in the late 1980s and 1990s ushered in the rise of anti-Israel activism, and gave new life to somewhat fringe socialist groups that had been around since … well, at least since I moved there in 1980. Their after-peace-march rallies, for instance during the first Gulf War, always had slates of people haranguing about Palestine and Mumia Abu-Jamal. Thousands of us ignored the speeches but marched and worked loudly and creatively for peace.
These groups moved quickly after 9/11 to form a coalition called International ANSWER that is now the primary organizer and official face of major anti-war activity around here. As far as I know they are the organizers of national marches too. All you have to do is look at their home page to understand why many people who oppose the war aren’t rallying to their side. “Stop the war in Iraq”, yes. “End colonial occupation: Iraq, Palestine, Haiti,” no. Regardless of what you think about Palestine and/or Haiti (which is completely off the radar for most Americans), this scattershot, divisive, and easy to caricature approach is no way to rally people to the anti-war cause. It turns me off and I personally know scores of people who feel the same way.
I choose not to march under the huge anti-Israel banners featured in ANSWER’s demonstrations or listen to one more speech about freeing Mumia. And though I share much of their pro-Palestinian and anti-capitalist sentiment, most Americans do not. Their rhetoric is just too far out to appeal to any but the most doctrinaire and/or naive.
Someone else here might know if there is any other group trying to organize against the war outside of this ANSWER “coalition.” God knows they face an uphill battle.
I’m not the first person to point out that the anti-war movement (such as it is) loses the chance it has to make an impact when its public rallies and marches are free-form expressions of wonderful individuality rather than quiet, determined expressions of unity. As someone else put it, no one reads the signs and no one pays attention to the huge papier mache heads. They WOULD sit up and pay attention to thousands of people dressed in the same T-shirt, walking silently in an orderly fashion.
But then it wouldn’t be fun…or exciting…
we can’t even get those involved to agree on a slogan, or a platform, or a location, like the Sept 24th demo is proving.
There’s NO WAY we can get everyone to agree on a uniform at this point. Maybe its a good tactic, maybe not, but at this point, its not even an option.
I dont know what the solution is, but i know that UFPJ and ANSWER’s leadership methods aren’t helping at all. It’d be nice to get local activists involved more directly, and bypass the current leadership, but I’m not exactly sure how that could be done.
I s the Kos convention going to feature any unified dissent or are we going to get speeches from our favorite diarists, or what?
Where are they holding it? Vegas?
“[5] Infiltration of what should be the base of the anti-war political alliance is clearly visible, and it has been much more effective than the relatively low-level subversion of the previous anti-war movement.”
infiltration by who? Government types? people from X political party? Zionists? Anarchists? I’m not sure what you’re getting at.
Also, I’d like to point out that number 8, the large split in the movement, is because half the movement is afraid of alienating people by talking about serious political issues (such as US imperialism in general) and half of the movement is loud, radical, unapologetic, and without tact, allowing the first section point at them and say “see, see, you’re SCARING the SUBURBANITES”
That’s not a problem with the movement, but with US political dialogue in general. You could put “afraid of government retialiation” and “dominated by corporate media” under that category also. Most of these problems are more than weaknesses within the movement.
Maybe infiltration isn’t the best possible word for it, but there’s definitely some shady business going on. If you’ll pardon me for linking to my former blog, I’ll recommend this item, much more for its links than for my own attempt at analysis.
Or you may prefer to skip the analysis; in that case click here.