|
“Whatever
happened to the anti-war movement?” asked the agitated editor of a
magazine to which I frequently contribute. “As we spiral inexorably
toward war with Iraq, I am constantly amazed at the lack of any kind of
vocal opposition to what will surely become this country’s next
Vietnam; especially on the part of young people who are the ones who
will be coming back in body bags.”
Because I wrote a book, All for the
Cause, a few years ago about the Vietnam-era anti-war movement and other
pivotal social campaigns of the 1960s and 70s, the editor figured I
would share his disappointment that large numbers of Americans aren’t
already pouring into the streets to oppose the bloodthirsty urge of
George Bush the younger to avenge his father’s failure to eradicate
Iraq more than a decade ago.
But, while I’d like to see a
lightning-fast reaction to Bush’s misguided push toward war, I’m not
ready to count out the younger generation, or the likelihood that a
coalition of people representing all age brackets can and will build an
influential response. The problem is that, while the presidential bully
pulpit allows Bush to spread his deadly agenda as quickly as a poisonous
weed can strangle a garden, a viable peace movement must arise from the
grass roots and requires considerable cultivation before it can blossom.
Some people today look back at public
opposition to the war in Vietnam as if it had simply sprung up from the
ground (sort of like Yippie leaders Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin who
once tried to levitate the Pentagon). In fact “The Movement” of
1960s’ lore was a long-time-coming. During the early years of that
decade, very few Americans (even students) protested their
government’s military escalation in Southeast Asia or participated in
such budding groups as Students for a Democratic Society. Only a small
number of scholars and traditional pacifist groups noticed Lyndon
Johnson’s buildup of military advisers in 1963. In early 1965, the
first major teach-in on Vietnam at the University of Michigan was
attended by 3000 people; that’s about the same number who rallied in
Washington last month against Bush’s warmongering. In the spring of
1965, as Johnson was committing 180,000 combat troops to Vietnam, SDS
organized the first national march on Washington, demanding that the
U.S. government allow the people of Vietnam to decide their own destiny.
Some 20,000 showed up for that protest, approximately the same number
who participated in a recent peace rally in San Francisco.
During the 1960s, it took years of
college teach-ins, coffee-house discussions and small demonstrations,
plus a lot of national organizing, before the movement became
influential enough to draw half-a-million protesters to the Washington
mall in November, 1969. By that time, the movement had important
structures in place to coordinate mass protests. Such groups as the
Student Mobilization Committee and the National Peace Action Coalition
gradually had raised enough money to rent offices in Washington, New
York and Los Angeles, where they recruited countless volunteers to
coordinate the giant “Moratoriums” and “Mobes.” It’s never
easy bringing together hundreds of thousands of people for a single
event, and the biggest anti-war demonstrations required a huge effort to
come up with affordable housing, meals, transportation and even parking
for the masses.
In addition to logistics, debates about
political tactics always make forming a broad coalition difficult. In
the 60s, there were strong divisions between the “peaceniks,” folks
who simply wanted to “bring our boys home,” and more militant
activists who linked our presence in Vietnam with U.S. imperialism
worldwide, urging radical changes in a system led by greedy corporations
and their military-elite. There were rambunctious debates among those
who favored non-violent candlelight marches or passive acts of civil
disobedience and those who were angry enough to wreak havoc in the
streets. Organizers found ways to incorporate the approaches of all the
divergent groups, allowing each to make an anti-war statement in its own
way. The process of building a peace movement took a lot of time,
perseverance and patience.
So, as much as we need another huge peace
movement, we can’t expect a sizeable coalition to spring up overnight.
Unfortunately, a President (even if he is only a Supreme Court-appointed
one) with massive firepower at his disposal is in a much better position
to make war than the people are to stomp out the flames. But that’s no
excuse for not stoking up the engine of the old peace train. It would be
foolish to wait, as too many Americans did in the 60s, until planeloads
of body bags are returning home to Dover Air Force Base. It also would
be sad not to consider the loss of lives Bush’s war would certainly
bring to the people of Iraq even before our own soldiers begin to fall.
So we must begin building a new anti-war alliance however and wherever
we can.
We can start with those old warhorses of
protest: letter-writing and phone calls to our elected legislators. We
can educate ourselves about Iraq and organize teach-ins in our schools
and universities. We can spearhead new groups for peace in our local
communities. Thanks to the wonders of the Web, it’s easier than ever
to communicate with people who are forming anti-war organizations in
other cities; for example, we can link up with peace groups from Boston
to Naples, FL, at www.globalizethis.org.
We can add our names to a growing list of Americans who oppose war in
Iraq, at www.peacepledge.org.
And, whenever we learn of a peace gathering or rally in our area, we can
show up and be counted.
Finally, we can choose to vote next month
only for candidates who say they will oppose the war. And we should
thank those statesmen and women in both houses of Congress who have
stood up to Bush’s bullying.
If only Jimmy Carter were president
again. The best news of the past month is that the most admirable
president of my lifetime has received the Nobel Prize for his lifelong
dedication to peace. When this wise elder statesman speaks about war,
the current occupant of the White House ought to listen. And Carter says
that, at this point, Congress should not have given Bush an endorsement
to attack Iraq. As the Nobel committee noted in announcing Carter’s
selection, he has “stood by the principles that conflicts must be
resolved through mediation and international cooperation based on
international law, respect for human rights and economic development.”
And, as Kenneth Roth, director of the Human Rights Watch campaign, said,
“Carter has done more to integrate human rights into U.S. foreign
policy than anybody else. Before Jimmy Carter, human rights and U.S.
foreign policy were like oil and water.”
Unfortunately, the grease is back on the
White House burner, and a hunger for control of an oil-rich nation has
us at the brink of tragedy (again). While we might not be able to build
up enough pressure to stop Bush immediately in his tracks, each of us
had better start doing something. For much of the last three decades,
the chant “Out Now” has been used most frequently to call people
from their sexual closets. Suddenly, it’s appropriate to recall the
slogan’s original message. If you really want to stop a war, come on
out and stand up for peace.
Bill
Sievert, a regular contributor to Letters from CAMP Rehoboth, can be
reached at AllfortheCause@aol.com.
|
Back to Top of Page 