[Peace-discuss] The US anti-war movement is looking for ways to revive itself

[C. G. Estabrook]

As was the case in Vietnam, there are two ways to oppose this war. One is
to see the war as "a mistake and unwinnable" (the only one this author --
and many others -- recognizes).  But there's another, and more people are
adopting it (the poll numbers of those who think the war was a bad idea
are pushing 60% at the end of February):

"Take the Vietnam War. There was a huge amount of activism on the war and
there's been a lot of studies of people's attitudes on it. The Chicago
Council on Foreign Relations, for example, does regular polls on people's
attitudes towards international affairs every four years. There's an open
question, 'What do you think of the Vietnam War?' And there's maybe ten
choices. And the one that's had an overwhelming majority since 1969 is,
*'Fundamentally wrong and immoral, not a mistake.'*

"If you did a poll in the Harvard Faculty Club or editorial offices or
something, nobody would say that. Everybody says, 'It was a mistake. It
was right, but it was a mistake. It was wrong because it cost us too much,
but it was a mistake, it was a disaster, it got too costly, we got into a
quagmire' -- and that sort of thing. Well, apparently, that's not the
popular attitude. Now, what do people mean when they say, 'Fundamentally
wrong and immoral, not a mistake'? Well, in order to find that out, you
have to ask further questions. But those questions don't come to the minds
of investigators -- academic investigators.

"In fact, if you look at their interpretation of it, what they say is,
well, this must mean that people didn't like the casualties. Well, maybe.
But that's not the obvious interpretation. 'Fundamentally wrong and
immoral' might mean something beyond just too many U.S. casualties. But
it's been built up in the doctrinal system to be something called the
'Vietnam Syndrome,' meaning you don't want to take casualties. Actually,
the polls that have been done show that's not true. Recently, the main
academic polling institution in the country -- the Program on
International Policy Attitudes in Maryland -- investigated this and they
consistently show that people don't think that casualties are a cost
they're unwilling to accept if the cause is just." (Noam Chomsky, March
2004, emphasis added)

Our task is to demonstrate an obvious truth: that the US cause in the
"Greater Middle East" is unjust.  --CGE


On Thu, 24 Feb 2005, Ricky Baldwin wrote:

> The really interesting thing about this article, I think, is that
> although the general framework of the article is the specious
> suggestion that the anti-war movement is unpopular and "limited" by
> massive public support for the war, the only evidence presented flatly
> contradicts this claim.
> 
> "According to a February 8-9 poll by FoxNews," it says, "46 percent
> believe getting involved in the war was a good idea, compared to 49
> percent who did not."
> 
> So MORE people think the war was a bad idea, for whatever reasons,
> than not.  Yet the article goes on to claim that "that trend" (which
> trend? that most people think the war was a mistake?) was made more
> "acute" by the (alleged and highly disputable) "success of the January
> 30 election".
> 
> It claims repeatedly that most people still think US troops should
> remain in Iraq, but never cites any polls for this, much less a margin
> of error.  It's interesting because this is a major argument of the
> article, upon which the supposed "limits" of the anti-war movement
> supposedly hinge.  In fact, without this piece, the main theme of the
> article -- that the anti-war movement has been forced to regroup
> following significant failure to persuade people -- collapses
> entirely.
> 
> In this light, its other claims seem even more ridiculous, e.g. "The
> anti-war movement reserves its arguments to the unpredictable human
> and financial cost of the Iraqi war, recruiting problems, and also
> counts on some weighty spokesmen and women."
> 
> Even if we didn't already know this to be crass make-believe, they
> can't even find anybody to SAY it?  They just have to state it in the
> text of the article, without attribution or evidence or referent of
> any kind?  As part of a rather faith-based argument to begin with, it
> seems to stick out even more.
> 
> Are the warmongers really this desperate?  I'm a little surprised at
> AFP.
> 
> Ricky