[Peace-discuss] The case against anti-war adventurism in the U.S.

[C. G. Estabrook]

[I'm not entirely comfortable with the following piece (particularly the
penultimate paragraph), but it raises the question of what to do on "the
day after," and I think the suggestion is on the right line.  --CGE]

March 17, 2003

THIS ISN'T ABOUT YOU

Antiwar movement should shut up about 'shutting it down' - before the
state shuts us down  

As we shiver in the shadow of war, waiting to be shocked and awed by the
malevolent magnificence of militarism in action, some in the antiwar
movement are calling for "direct action." What this amounts to is what
happened the other day in downtown San Francisco, when about 200 people
marched to the Pacific Stock Exchange, and a few dozen of these sat down
on the steps, refusing to move, while their brethren disrupted traffic and
tied up the downtown area for hours. Why did they do it? Let Warren
Langley, former president of the Pacific Stock Exchange, and newly
converted to antiwar activism, explain it in his own words:

"It's my history and my lifetime. This war seems very wrong for the entire
world. I decided I was willing to do whatever it takes to show a strong
stand against it."

Me, me, me, it's all about Me! Langley's narcissism is embarrassingly
apparent. Like someone standing there with his fly wide-open, happily
unaware, he perfectly embodies the unabashed self-absorption of the
"direct action" movement. In nominating themselves for sainthood, the
direct-actionists are acting out their personal fantasies on the political
stage. In their little morality play they are the stars, moral paragons
who, by the sheer power of their goodness and bravery, will shut down the
war machine. "Shut it down!" is their slogan, and they mean the whole
country. On the day war comes, we are instructed to go on strike and pour
out into the streets. Not only that, but, as the Washington Post reports:

"Frustrated dissenters plan sit-ins and blockades at government buildings,
financial centers, congressional offices and military bases and
installations. The day after war begins, dissenters in at least 50 cities
are planning direct actions. In New York's Times Square, protesters are
planning to stop traffic. In Detroit, protesters are planning 72 hours of
nonviolent disruptions at government installations. In St. Louis, they are
planning to block the entrance to a Boeing bomb-making factory. North of
Santa Barbara, Calif., activists - many of them religious leaders
experienced in civil disobedience - are strategizing to shut down
Vandenberg Air Force Base."

It is hard to imagine what the rationale behind this strategy could
possibly be, other than the psychological satisfaction afforded by
grandstanding. As Zein El-Amine, described by the Washington Post as "a
Washington, D.C.-based organizer," explained it:


"'People want to do more, and those of us who have been activists for a
long time have become demoralized by protesting that has not resulted in
any recognition.' Civil disobedience, he said, 'is just the next logical
step.'"

Never mind that such a strategy will alienate 99.99% of the population.
All that really matters is that El-Amine and his compadres feel better
about themselves and get a little "recognition." 

Me, me, me - it's all about me! 

Aside from this rather unappealing psychological profile of the
direct-actionist mentality, there are three major problems with this
approach as a strategy. First and foremost is its almost child-like
naivete. What, exactly, is the point of trying to infiltrate Vandenberg
Air Force Base? It's hard to believe they really think they can win a
pitched battle against squadrons of enraged Military Police. No one doubts
the ability of the U.S. military to fend off such a hare-brained assault:
what the nutball caucus of the antiwar movement is counting on is the
unwillingness of the authorities to make martyrs out of them. But, if I
were them, I wouldn't count on it. As the Sacramento Bee reports:

"Security forces at Vandenberg Air Force Base may use 'deadly force
against protesters if they infiltrate the military complex if a war
starts, officials said. Some anti-war activists plan to trespass onto base
grounds in hopes of disturbing Vandenberg's mission and to vandalize
sensitive equipment they contend helps guide the war effort. Vandenberg
officials revealed Friday that military security police may shoot to kill,
if necessary, to protect base residents and machinery."

The road to sainthood often ends in martyrdom. Are these crackpots really
willing to go that far? I hope not. It is clear, at any rate, that such a
strategy would be largely ineffective. That is, it would not accomplish
its ostensible goal: to stop or even slow down the U.S. assault on Iraq.
On the other hand, it would succeed in giving John Ashcroft and the War
Party a perfect means by which to test the more draconian clauses of the
"Patriot" Act - and a rationale for proposing even harsher legislation in
the near future.

The "direct action" faction would put the broad antiwar movement directly
in the crosshairs of the state apparatus. Their suicidal actions could be
the catalyst that unleashes a tsunami of repression unlike any seen in
this country since World War I. Open authoritarians like David Horowitz,
who accused the hundreds of thousands of antiwar marchers in this country
of being "Communists" guilty of "sedition," are licking their chops,
gleeful at the opportunity to call for jailing their political opponents -
all in the name of defending "freedom," of course.

Secondly, the direct-actionist approach will alienate most everyone. From
an antiwar point of view, it was utterly pointless to go into downtown San
Francisco and tie up traffic for hours, making everyone late. Working
class people, stuck in traffic, had plenty of time to brood on the
question of what makes people behave like total jerks. In the San
Francisco Bay Area, the most antiwar region of the country, most didn't
mistake the antiwar cause for its ostensible representatives. Elsewhere,
however, enraged commuters may perhaps be forgiven if their support for
the war is emboldened. 

Another big problem with the direct-actionist panacea is that it is bound
to be a complete flop. The plan is, essentially, to call for a general
strike that will bring the country to a screeching halt. As the Post
reports:

"The day - or days - after war begins could see the largest coordinated
displays of civil disobedience in the United States since the civil rights
era. Protesters around the country plan on blockading avenues, stopping
traffic and generally disrupting business as usual."

Generals are always fighting the last war, and that goes for the
direct-actionists in the peace camp as well. But the grandiose comparison
to the civil rights movement is absurd. The position of the antiwar
movement in this country is in no way analogous to that of blacks in the
South who had to live under Jim Crow. In the latter case, what Americans
saw on television were searing images of African-Americans being
humiliated and spat upon for trying to get a cup of coffee at a lunch
counter. In the case of the former, however, they will see a bunch of
spoiled children sitting down in the middle of traffic and throwing a
public tantrum. 

The narcissist, by definition, cannot see himself as others see him.
Blinded by self-love, the direct-actionist cannot see the immense
apparatus of repression represented by the State, that will crush his
dreams of vainglory as effortlessly as one swats a bothersome fly. In
announcing the policy of using deadly force to stop incursions into
Vandenberg Air Force Base, Major Stacee Bako showed a much more acute and
realistic understanding of the theory of the State than the quasi-Marxoid
direct-actionists and self-proclaimed "anarchists":

"This is not fun and games anymore. We're living in post 9/11. We don't
know what's going to happen with the war effort in Iraq. These folks have
got to realize their actions. ... They're illegal intruders."

The State never was about fun and games, and it is now embarked on a
deadly serious business, that of extending its dominion overseas in a
frankly imperial adventure. The conniving cabal of chickenhawks that has
usurped power in Washington is not only willing but eager to crush
domestic dissent. If anyone was in a joking mood, the idea that a few
self-deluded publicity hounds represent an obstacle to the War Party's
plans would be laughable. But this is no laughing matter. These fools are
hurrying us along the path to war and repression by building popular
support for both. They might as well be on the War Party's payroll, and no
doubt some of them are. 

Nothing is wrong with peaceful and legal protests on the day war breaks
out, but the advocates of disruption who self-righteously howl "No
business as usual!" and advocate illegal acts have got to be told off, in
no uncertain terms. How dare they endanger the rest of us, and subject the
organized antiwar movement to State repression at a fateful moment like
this?! It's outrageous, and impermissible. In San Francisco, in the
aftermath of the last mass protests, a contingent of self-proclaimed
"anarchists," who go under the vague general rubric of the "Black Bloc,"
split off from the main march and descended into the financial district,
breaking windows, throwing rocks, and creating havoc. Dozens were
arrested, but most were out of jail in a few hours later, and all charges
were dropped.

A sinister note is added to this turn of events by the revelation that
undercover agents of the San Francisco Police Department were deployed in
the crowd, videotaping protesters and doing 
 whatever. The antiwar
movement of the 1960s, you'll recall, was thoroughly infiltrated with
police agents who routinely provoked violence, in the guise of
"radicalism," in order to bring discredit on the antiwar cause. 

Okay, then, smashing windows is out, but what to do on the first day of
the war? Stay home from school? Don't go to work? That is the somewhat
milder version of the "No Business As Usual" mantra being pushed by "Not
In Our Name" (NION). This is a tactical error based on an over-estimation
of the antiwar movement's numbers. Even if every person who marched in the
massive February rallies participated in NION's symbolic general strike,
that would amount to only a very small fraction of the general population.
Not only that, but it just goes to show how disassociated from reality the
direct-actionists really are. Most people, of course, can't afford to miss
a day of work, and, in this economy, can hardly afford to be fired.

One can sympathize, of course, with the idea that we have to somehow mark
this occasion, Day One of the American Empire, by doing something unusual.
But why not use that day to gather together, look to the future, and come
up with some new tactics?

We're going to war without having a real debate, either in the Congress or
in the country: this is often said by the antiwar opposition. Well, then,
instead of preaching to the converted, let's challenge the other side: I
propose a series of town hall debates at which we confront the advocates
of war, right and left, and expose them in full view of the American
people.

Both visually and intellectually, such a device is so much more
interesting than a sea of chanting protesters: it has a built-in dramatic
structure made for television. The 21st century equivalent of the
Lincoln-Douglas debates, re-enacted in hundreds of cities and towns across
the country: what better way to reassert the legitimacy of dissent and
throw down the gauntlet to the War Party? If the civilian advocates of
this war fail to pick it up, then they lay themselves open to the charge
of cowardice. We can then point to the anomaly of a War Party that doesn't
flinch at mowing down whole cities full of Iraqi civilians, but is too
scared to face their fellow Americans on the battlefield of ideas. 

There are, after all, plenty of questions that need to be posed, as this
war progresses, escalates, and spreads throughout the Middle East, the
first one being: when and where does it end? How long will the troops
stay? How much is this going to cost us? How soon will a plebiscite be
held? Do they plan on admitting Iraq to the Union as the 51st state, or
will it be accorded commonwealth status, like Puerto Rico? The American
people think we are going in there to clean out the bad guys, and then
declare victory and go home. Wait until they find out that it will take
several hundred thousand troops, in place indefinitely, to keep the peace.
As more reservists are relocated overseas, and the costs become all too
apparent, the soft support for this intervention will collapse. 

Barring a nuclear attack by Kim Il Jong on American forces in Korea, or
some diplomatic rabbit pulled out of a hat, war in Iraq by the end of this
week seems likely. What antiwar activists must realize is that we are in
this for the long haul. The day war starts marks not the end but only the
beginning of our struggle. On that day, antiwar activists should meet in
conclave, and watch the horror with like-minded souls: not with "shock and
awe," but with full understanding of what we are up against, and what it
will take to win.

- Justin Raimondo

[Justin Raimondo is the editorial director of Antiwar.com. He is also the
author of Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the
Conservative Movement (with an Introduction by Patrick J. Buchanan),
(1993), and Into the Bosnian Quagmire: The Case Against U.S. Intervention
in the Balkans (1996). He is an Adjunct Scholar with the Ludwig von Mises
Institute, in Auburn, Alabama, a Senior Fellow at the Center for
Libertarian Studies, and writes frequently for Chronicles: A Magazine of
American Culture. He is the author of An Enemy of the State: The Life of
Murray N. Rothbard.]