Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
The Anti-Warriors
This is just a sample of how anti-war protesters sound to those of us who live in reality full-time. Think of it as a momentary look in the mirror. That is, if you can put down the bong long enough to read the entire article.
Last week, I argued that those Americans who preached pacifism in response to the attacks of September 11 were (borrowing from George Orwell) objectively pro-terrorist, objectively in favor of letting the masters of this attack escape to live and to commit more mass murders of Americans.
THIS UPSET some people. One Pennsylvania man issued what in pacifist circles must constitute a violent threat: “You may expect a series of letters from me and other folks in this regard, until such time as you deem it appropriate to issue a complete retraction of, and unqualified apology for, your comments.”
Please, not the dread Series of Letters.
Let me see if I may cause further upset. Two propositions: The first is that much of what is passing for pacifism in this instance is not pacifism at all but only the latest tedious manifestation of a well-known pre-existing condition-the largely reactionary, largely incoherent, largely silly muddle of anti-American, anti-corporatist, anti-globalist sentiments that passes for the politics of the left these days. The second is that, again in this instance, the anti-war sentiment (to employ a term that encompasses both genuine pacifism and an opposition to war rooted in America-hatred) is intellectually dishonest, elitist and hypocritical.
ANOMIE ON THE LEFT
• Remembering the Darkest Day
That the anti-war sentiment is in general only a manifestation of the larger anomie of the reactionary left is clear. The first large anti-war demonstration was held last weekend in Washington and the most obvious fact about it was that this protest against war was planned before there was ever any thought of war. It had been intended as just another in the series of protests against globalism that have been serving as a sort of kvetch basin for all sorts of unhappy people who like to yell about the awfulness of “Amerika” or international corporations or rich people or people who drive large cars or drug companies that test their products on bunny rabbits or life its own unfair self.
When the terrorists murdered more than 6,000 people and the president said that America was going to do something commensurate about this, the organizers of the Washington protest realized they had found a fresh complaint and a fresh cause. They thought up a few new instantly tired slogans (“Resist Racist War”) and printed up a few new posters and — presto-changeo! — thus was born an anti-war movement. Or something.
IMPOSSIBLE TERMS
As to the second proposition. Osama bin Laden has told us by word and action that he sees himself and his cohort as engaged in a total war against the United States and that this war is one not just of nations but of cultures: Holy Islam versus a corrupt imperialist America. He has promised further attacks such as September 11 unless the United States sues for peace under impossible terms, the abandonment of Israel being only one. In short, Osama bin Laden wishes to defeat the United States. So do others; for instance, Saddam Hussein.
Do the pacifists wish to live in a United States that has been defeated by Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein? Do they wish to live in a United States that has been defeated by any foreign force? Do they wish to live under an occupying power? Do they wish to live under, say, the laws of the Taliban or the Baath Party of Iraq?
These questions, you may say, rest on an absurd premise: Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein cannot ever hope to defeat and occupy the United States. Yes, but that is true only because the United States maintains and employs an armed force sufficient to defeat those who would defeat it. If the United States did as the pacifists wish — if it eschewed war even when attacked — it would, at some point, be conquered by a foreign regime. What stops this from happening is that the government and generally the people of the United States do not heed the wishes of the pacifists.
LIFE AS A CONQUERED PEOPLE
The anti-warriors must know that their position is a luxury made affordable only by the sure bet that no one in authority will ever accede to their position. The marchers and shouters and flag-burners in Washington pretended to the argument that war should not be waged. What they really mean is that war should not be waged by them. It should be waged by other mothers’ sons and daughters.
How many pacifists would be willing to accept the logical outcome of their creed of nonviolence even in face of attack — life as a conquered people? Not many, I would think. How many want the (mostly lower-class) men and women of the United States armed forces to continue to fight so that they may enjoy the luxury of preaching against fighting? Nearly all, I would think.
Liars. Frauds. Hypocrites. Strong letters, no doubt, to follow.
THIS UPSET some people. One Pennsylvania man issued what in pacifist circles must constitute a violent threat: “You may expect a series of letters from me and other folks in this regard, until such time as you deem it appropriate to issue a complete retraction of, and unqualified apology for, your comments.”
Please, not the dread Series of Letters.
Let me see if I may cause further upset. Two propositions: The first is that much of what is passing for pacifism in this instance is not pacifism at all but only the latest tedious manifestation of a well-known pre-existing condition-the largely reactionary, largely incoherent, largely silly muddle of anti-American, anti-corporatist, anti-globalist sentiments that passes for the politics of the left these days. The second is that, again in this instance, the anti-war sentiment (to employ a term that encompasses both genuine pacifism and an opposition to war rooted in America-hatred) is intellectually dishonest, elitist and hypocritical.
ANOMIE ON THE LEFT
• Remembering the Darkest Day
That the anti-war sentiment is in general only a manifestation of the larger anomie of the reactionary left is clear. The first large anti-war demonstration was held last weekend in Washington and the most obvious fact about it was that this protest against war was planned before there was ever any thought of war. It had been intended as just another in the series of protests against globalism that have been serving as a sort of kvetch basin for all sorts of unhappy people who like to yell about the awfulness of “Amerika” or international corporations or rich people or people who drive large cars or drug companies that test their products on bunny rabbits or life its own unfair self.
When the terrorists murdered more than 6,000 people and the president said that America was going to do something commensurate about this, the organizers of the Washington protest realized they had found a fresh complaint and a fresh cause. They thought up a few new instantly tired slogans (“Resist Racist War”) and printed up a few new posters and — presto-changeo! — thus was born an anti-war movement. Or something.
IMPOSSIBLE TERMS
As to the second proposition. Osama bin Laden has told us by word and action that he sees himself and his cohort as engaged in a total war against the United States and that this war is one not just of nations but of cultures: Holy Islam versus a corrupt imperialist America. He has promised further attacks such as September 11 unless the United States sues for peace under impossible terms, the abandonment of Israel being only one. In short, Osama bin Laden wishes to defeat the United States. So do others; for instance, Saddam Hussein.
Do the pacifists wish to live in a United States that has been defeated by Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein? Do they wish to live in a United States that has been defeated by any foreign force? Do they wish to live under an occupying power? Do they wish to live under, say, the laws of the Taliban or the Baath Party of Iraq?
These questions, you may say, rest on an absurd premise: Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein cannot ever hope to defeat and occupy the United States. Yes, but that is true only because the United States maintains and employs an armed force sufficient to defeat those who would defeat it. If the United States did as the pacifists wish — if it eschewed war even when attacked — it would, at some point, be conquered by a foreign regime. What stops this from happening is that the government and generally the people of the United States do not heed the wishes of the pacifists.
LIFE AS A CONQUERED PEOPLE
The anti-warriors must know that their position is a luxury made affordable only by the sure bet that no one in authority will ever accede to their position. The marchers and shouters and flag-burners in Washington pretended to the argument that war should not be waged. What they really mean is that war should not be waged by them. It should be waged by other mothers’ sons and daughters.
How many pacifists would be willing to accept the logical outcome of their creed of nonviolence even in face of attack — life as a conquered people? Not many, I would think. How many want the (mostly lower-class) men and women of the United States armed forces to continue to fight so that they may enjoy the luxury of preaching against fighting? Nearly all, I would think.
Liars. Frauds. Hypocrites. Strong letters, no doubt, to follow.
For more information:
http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/637394.asp
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$180.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network
It's hard to maintain peace when an oppressive regime elsewhere in the world graduates from killing it's own civilians to attack others, with a global reach. Do you suggest we simply cross our fingers and hope it doesn't happen again? Or, perhaps you think the answer is to look inward and figure out what it is we have done that makes them hate us so much. Perhaps that way, we can prevent future attacks. But, this would simply perpetuate violence as it would send out the message that violence pays off. In other words, if you don't like a nation's foreign policy, just kill a few thousand of its citizens and those policies that you do not like will soon be changed. The peaceful world you dream of sounds like a wonderful place, as did Karl Marx's idea of a class-free society. Unfortunately, neither are likely to ever exist.
The CIA, an agency of the ruling class, is well-known for planning just this kind of action, and the contempt by the ruling class for the lives of all of us is evident in all the horrible wars they perpetrate, all to maximize their profits.
The US economic crisis, a long time in the making, and most recently since the beginning of 2000, is a guarantee that there will be a labor movement, and that is why the ruling class is resorting to fascism. It does not have the money for blood for oil wars unless it steals the bread from the workingclass. No society, not even Nazi Germany, can provide guns and butter. Thus, the attack on civil liberties is to squelch any workingclass opposition to the theft of our tax dollars for guns instead of butter.
Every single person who demands a national health care system, more and better public schools, more and better public transportation, more and better affordable housing for all, sufficient food for everyone, and all social services is by definition antiwar.
Killing children can never bring peace. Peace can only be achieved by eliminating the profit motive and establishing worldwide socialism. Only a united workingclass can eliminate the profit motive and establish peace.
How do you figure this? Many of the societies which have been most successful at providing some or all of the above have done so at least partially with the wealth obtained or safeguarded through war.
For example, one of the world's first welfare and pension systems was introduced in Germany in the 1870s by Chancellor Bismarck, no one's idea of a flower-fondling pacifist.
Public schools emerged in Britain and the United States, both of which - as we frequently hear on this very message board - were warlike and imperialist. Ditto for public transportation, of which, believe it or not, Britain and the USA once had some of the very best. It's probably completely a coincidence that public transportation (and many other public services) in those countries has declined during precisely the same era that they have become less, not more warlike, but you never know...
True, I'm being partly facetious, but not entirely so. While I certainly don't recommend war as a means of gaining prosperity, and see war as something which should always be a last, not a first resort, I think it's disingenuous in the extreme to pretend that the highly privileged position we enjoy in the West, both with respect to material wealth and personal freedom, hasn't been gained and maintained at least partially through war.
And while that may be an uncomfortable thought, it might be useful to examine carefully the quality of life provided by those societies and groups prepared to use war to destroy us.
It's also a fallacy to assume that oppostion to Bush's policies is invariable rooted in a generic opposition to the institution of "war", although those who hold to pacifist principles consistently would oppose this one as being a member of the set of all wars.
What I see in this undeclared "war" is not just the military action, but a determined attempt to impose upon the English-speaking world the same type of military-oligarchical authoritarian state which that same world has been imposing upon its client states for the past century, and a prelude to what amounts to a war of world conquest, all under the fig leaf of "combating terrorism".
Sptember 11th might justify acting against the actual perpetrators; there's a cogent moral argument to be made there. It does not justify the imposition of rule by fiat here, nor the bullying of the rest of the world.
Bush, and those who own him, have been acting as if they have the ambitions of Octavianus. They have been edging closer and closer to an open declaration of "We are the rulers, and we shall do as we please. You are the ruled, and you will do as we say." to the entire world, including their own people.
That is what I oppose. Now kindly refute me. Please argue in favor of oligarchy, repression, conquest and rapacity.