Fragmentation in the anti-war movement is ultimately counterproductive.
By Kate MeyerSpring 2007
The first thing I received when I opened my sleepy eyes to a crisp Washington, DC morning upon arriving at the protest of the Iraq War was a map of the National Mall. The map depicted the Washington monument, the Capital building, and the 15 or so different meeting spots for the various groups attending the protest and marching together.
A 400,000-person anti-war protest in Washington, DC self-fragmented into unrelated and isolating groups. (art by Rob Ochshorn)
There was a meeting spot marked for the Campus Anti-War Network; for college student anti-war activists; for Iraq Veterans Against the War; for the National Organization of Women, Code Pink, and Women Say Pull Out, three organizations based on the theme of women against the war; for Students for a Democratic Society, United for Peace and Justice, and the Raging Grannies; for True Majority, the International Socialist Organization; and several more groups had a place on the map. During the day, as we marched around DC, groups within the crowd chanted such things as, “Troops out now,” “This is what democracy looks like,” as well as the more controversial, “Occupation is a crime, from Iraq to Palestine.”
We all came for one reason: to protest the Iraq War and demand an end to it. Why, then, did this base of approximately 400,000 strong self-fragment into either unrelated or isolating groups? Why is it that we brought up Palestine, causing the counter-protesters (those protesting our protest) to hold Israeli flags? When did this stop being about Iraq?
With the notable exception of Iraq Veterans Against the War, a directly-related independent group which benefits the entire anti-war movement by that leverage and insight it provides, the division of the movement is ultimately counterproductive. When asked the question, “Who will you march with in DC?” I was faced with the choice between marching with college students against the war, women against the war, or those advocating general peace and justice. Why do we have to choose?
Organizations can be beneficial in the sense that they mobilize a specific sector of the population around an issue very efficiently and can often do profound work in that area. After getting members involved, the organization can open up new possibilities for political participation in tangentially related areas. For example, the National Organization for Women (NOW) has been a leading member of the women’s rights movement since 1966 and is an accomplished organization which has proven to be a great avenue for involvement in women’s issues. True, it may be able to efficiently publicize to its 500,000 members the opportunity to attend an anti-war protest, but why would one need to go to an anti-war protest identified under that organization? Why is it that NOW is officially aligning itself with the anti-war movement, something out of its specific field of interest, thereby alienating those who may advocate vehemently for women’s rights, but who believe in the war in Iraq?
Likewise, why can’t I attend an anti-Iraq protest and not be inherently aligning myself as anti-Israel? People within the anti-war movement may be able to recognize, acknowledge, and accept its intricate group dynamic. But by tolerating—or welcoming proudly—these separate agendas into our rallies and chants, the opposition (a large portion of the listeners of our protest, we must not forget) perceives us as a bunch of pro-choice, anti-Israel, socialists who now also don’t like the war in Iraq.
This raises two points. The first of which is that we must not forget that the point of a protest is to demonstrate disapproval of a current situation, policy, etc, in the hopes of getting it changed or abolished. Intrinsic to this process is a set audience, in this case Congress (to effect the changes), the rest of the anti-war movement (to demonstrate numbers and momentum), and the pro-war crowd (to demonstrate opposition, and, hopefully, spark a change of heart); the point is not to protest for protesting’s sake. This brings me to my second point, which is to be conscious of one’s desired audience. There is a fine yet giant distinction between being conscious of one’s audience and tailoring one’s ideas to it. One should not censor one’s beliefs. If you are a pro-choice, anti-Israel, socialist, by no means should you be ashamed or hide it—that is, if you are asked about abortion, Israel, or socialism. But, if you’re attending an anti-war protest, make prominent your views on the war. Bringing up other issues is the easiest way to give the opposition an irrelevant excuse to discredit your opinion on the focus issue that you came to protest originally.
One may argue that socialist issues, women’s rights, and Israel are legitimately related to the war in Iraq and are the reason to end it, hence validating a focus on those concerns. To de-emphasize these individual movements is not to deny their cause, but these three happen to be some of the most controversial issues in recent history. To de-emphasize them is just to give the movement a fighting chance. If these issues were inextricably linked to a solution to the war in Iraq, it would be imperative to bring them up prominently at the protest. From my perspective, however, these three issues do not hold enough of a direct relevance to a solution in Iraq to justify the attention paid to them.
The socialist contingency may argue that this war is being fought on imperialist grounds, specifically because our capitalistic markets want to appropriate Iraq’s oil. The primary solution to this grievance is to change US economic policy from capitalism to socialism and to withdraw from every country we have “colonized”—that is to say heavily influenced politically, economically, militarily, or culturally leaving them dependent wholly on the United States. Needless to say, such solutions will not be taken seriously by the ultimate actor in the solution process—Congress—which has never taken fondly to the idea of abolishing capitalism in the United States. Likewise, proposing to put an end to capitalism does not present a concise or immediate solution to withdrawing from the war in Iraq.
Women’s rights may be a relevant issue in a war against a strict Arab country, where they are often severely restricted. However, the solution to improving women’s rights in Iraq, if anything, is advocating greater US involvement in order to influence and assimilate Iraqi culture to Western views on women.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been going on since the establishment of Israel in 1948. There are three reasons why giving attention to Israel in the context of the Iraq War is unproductive: it is not strategic, it is not inextricably related, and it is not part of the solution.
The first reason—that it is not strategic—is an application of the old adage “pick your battles.” Bringing up a 59-year-old, brutally violent, deeply rooted battle, taking the side of the Palestinians, which the United States has never favored (and there is no reason to believe that they are on the verge of changing their thoughts on a 59-year-old financial and military friendship with Israel soon), and condemning it at a protest where you are simultaneously advocating withdrawal from Iraq is, well, not picking your battles. Some may argue that is the same battle. But is it? The reasons Bush gave for going into Iraq were that there were weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein was hiding and that he was somehow directly linked to Osama Bin Laden and therefore to September 11. These are distinctly separate reasons for going into Iraq than those of our involvement in Israel.
Some may argue that this is all to increase US power in the Middle East. This argument may be applicable to Iraq (where one could say we are there to increase US power in the Middle East by gaining oil). But it does not logically make sense for Israel: much of the Middle East despises us for our affiliation with Israel. We would have better relations with the Arab world if we did not support Israel at all. Hence my second reason for not bringing up Israel: it’s a separate issue. Thirdly, the solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (whatever that may be to end the cycle of violence and hatred) is not directly related to the solution advocated for Iraq: bringing the troops home now.
So if the anti-war movement does what I have just proposed, if everyone temporarily detaches from their respective group associations and advocates as a collective anti-war group for just bringing the troops home, what will that look like? Party lines and silencing? I really hope not. There have indeed been many horrible failures into the pit of party purges and obliteration of individuality. However, there is a way to form a coherent group without developing group orthodoxy. Retain the reasons why you came to the protest, discuss them, publicize them, but focus the movement’s voice—its protest chants—on the common reason for coming: a solution. To focus is not to silence.