I Wonder What All The “Antiwar” People Are Doing Today
May 22, 2010 22 Comments
Remember how in 2004-2008 a large proportion of our country absolutely FREAKED OUT about the fact that the United States had some soldiers stationed in a country called Iraq? This was the “antiwar” movement. They didn’t want U.S. soldiers to be stationed in Iraq (which as everyone knows is called “a war on Iraq”) therefore they freaked out, and protested, and made lots of self-righteous noise, insisting that we listen to them. And we did, through our mainstream media which made sure we had no other option.
Well as you know they succeeded because we no longer have any soldiers stationed in Iraq!
I mean, I assume we don’t. Because the “antiwar” movement suddenly became silent around late 2008 and we have not heard from them since. This is presumably because the “antiwar” movement achieved their goals, thus was dispensed of their civic responsibility to FREAK OUT and make a lot of whines and noise, and instead could merge back into regular society, content in their mission accomplished.
Hmm…wait a minute….I just checked icasualties.org….149 US fatalities in Iraq in 2009…27 so far in 2010…how can this be?
Okay, so we didn’t remove our military contingent from Iraq. Where then are all the “antiwar” people? Isn’t it still their civic duty to have naked protests and post ‘I’m sorry’ websites and such? Why not? Is it no longer a “war”? Why not? Is it no longer urgent to FREAK OUT about it? Why not?
Oh I see, the answer is, ‘because it’s gotten less deadly’. (Why is that, I wonder? Because of the protestors’ valiant efforts which totally accomplished such a large amount of accomplishment, or could it be rather because of “The Surge”(tm) that they protested against so much?)
So, but okay, no, I get it. Now that the deadliness has been cut down, it’s below the protest-worthy threshold, so it’s no longer important to protest against like it was in 2008. In 2008 (when the protests were still going on), there were 314 US fatalities in Iraq. Evidently this was above the protest-worthy threshold. Which they are totally consistent about (Afghanistan: 316 US fatalities in 2009: more deadly than FREAKOUT-WORTHY 2008 Iraq).
Now look, I admit it, pointing out stuff like ‘inconsistency’ on this front is pretty boring I guess. I mean, it’s almost too obvious: the “anti-war” faction did indeed stop protesting because they achieved their goal.
Their goal was, purely and simply and solely, to get someone with (D) after his name into the Presidency.
Mission accomplished.
Hey, Sonic Charmer! It’s been a while…..
I can’t answer for every “anti-war” person – but the issue for me was never about getting someone with a “D” into the White House. It was about my anger at Bush for invading Iraq under the false pretense of WMDs. I actually supported the initial invasion because I reasoned “how stupid could they be to invade a sovereign nation if they didn’t know exactly where those WMDs were…” Well, I guess they were that stupid…..
Afghanistan has never been an issue for me because there actually is a threat there – Al Qaeda and the Taliban did/do represent a real threat to the US. Saddam never did.
– hp
1. We still have soldiers in Iraq though. Doesn’t that bother you equally as much as it did two years ago? If not why not?
2. If you acknowledge that Al Qaeda represents ‘a threat’ to the US then why isn’t it okay for us to face Al Qaeda wherever they are (e.g., Iraq)? Al Qaeda is not metaphysically confined to within the borders of Afghanistan….
best
SC asks….
1. We still have soldiers in Iraq though. Doesn’t that bother you equally as much as it did two years ago? If not why not?
Obviously, once we invaded we were committed to staying a while. Pulling out and leaving a vacuum would have been a disaster – so the fact we still have some troops there does not bother me too much. I realize my opinion here differs from that of some others on the left.
What bothered me about Bush is that the initial invasion took place apparently without certain knowledge of WMDs, and that there was no apparent exit strategy. My cynical side says there were never any plans to exit because the intent from the start was to stage a two-pronged attack into Iran (from Iraq and Afghanistan).
2. If you acknowledge that Al Qaeda represents ‘a threat’ to the US then why isn’t it okay for us to face Al Qaeda wherever they are (e.g., Iraq)? Al Qaeda is not metaphysically confined to within the borders of Afghanistan….
Agreed – but prior to the invasion Al Qaeda had virtually no presence in Iraq
– hp
I think the main interesting thing to me about this issue (and, why I keep bringing it up) is what it seems to reveal about what really drives political movements. Fair enough, it may not be literally true that the conscious goal of everyone in the “antiwar” movement was to make the President have a (D). I’m sure most of them felt and believed they were totally sincere and still do.
Nevertheless, it sure does seem as though all of the surface reasons we were given for why they were protesting are basically still in place – and yet the “antiwar” movement completely dissipated with the election of Obama. Not because anything fundamental changed in Iraq. This is hard to explain on its own terms unless “antiwar” is, and always was, merely a proxy for some other more important fissure in domestic politics that really drives people. As I believe it was.
Nevertheless, it sure does seem as though all of the surface reasons we were given for why they were protesting are basically still in place – and yet the “antiwar” movement completely dissipated with the election of Obama.
This isn’t entirely true. I know, for example, that Cindy Sheehan has been arrested several times since Obama was elected, including several times in front of the White House or outside Obama speaking events. I agree that the anti-war protests have diminished – but the hard core protesters are still there and still active.
– hp
I realize my opinion here differs from that of some others on the left.
Evidently, in which case you’re obviously not who I’m talking about in this post.
I know, for example, that Cindy Sheehan has been arrested several times since …
The fact that Cindy Sheehan is still doing her thing doesn’t mean the “anti-war” movement hasn’t dissipated. I think you’d agree it pretty obviously has.
best
SC said….
Evidently, in which case you’re obviously not who I’m talking about in this post.
I am trying to point out that the left isn’t monolithic on this.
The fact that Cindy Sheehan is still doing her thing doesn’t mean the “anti-war” movement hasn’t dissipated. I think you’d agree it pretty obviously has.
It has certainly diminished. I wouldn’t say it is completely dissipated. Part of the reason it has diminished is that different people had a different set of objections. My objections have largely been addressed. Other people’s objections have not.
BTW – Obama ran on a “get out of Iraq and concentrate on Afghanistan” platform – so the fact that we in Afghanistan is not a valid criticism. The fact that we are slower to get out of Iraq than he promised is a valid criticism – though personally I thought his timeline was overly ambitious from the start.
– hp
– hp
I am trying to point out that the left isn’t monolithic on this.
Well in that sense, no group of humans of reasonable size (let’s say, >4) is literally ‘monolithic’. However, the fact that you consider yourself on the left but don’t fit my description of “antiwar” (I didn’t actually mention the term ‘left’ BTW) doesn’t invalidate the identification of an antiwar faction or the making of general observations about same.
Again, fair enough to say you’re not part of the group I’m talking about. But this doesn’t mean that group doesn’t exist or can’t be spoken of in general (but essentially accurate) terms. Does it?
It has certainly diminished. I wouldn’t say it is completely dissipated.
This is similar pedantry, in that it tries to rule out a perfectly-valid generality on the basis of residual/isolated counterexamples. Ok, it hasn’t “completely” dissipated. Similarly, I’m not “completely” dry (there may be a water molecule somewhere on my body). However: so what? And who really talks that way?
Part of the reason it has diminished is that different people had a different set of objections. My objections have largely been addressed.
Fair enough, but most of the objections verbally voiced by the antiwar movement have not gone away / been addressed. They are still in place, as I showed in my post. Hence on the surface there is no reason for their fervor to have subsided.
Unless of course their true objections were something other than their stated ones….
BTW – Obama ran on a “get out of Iraq and concentrate on Afghanistan” platform – so the fact that we in Afghanistan is not a valid criticism.
Huh? I wasn’t making a criticism of Obama. I was making a criticism of the antiwar movement. They postured as being upset about and at least partially motivated by soldiers being in danger/getting killed/etc. So the fact that soldiers are still in danger/getting killed in Afghanistan is perfectly relevant as a criticism of the consistency of the antiwar movement.
The fact that Obama “ran on” “concentrating on” Afghanistan doesn’t prove anything in this regard, except of course that perhaps the antiwar crowd – if they were consistent – should not have voted for him or supported his candidacy. In other words to the extent this point of yours proves anything, it only buttresses my point about antiwar inconsistency.
The fact that we are slower to get out of Iraq than he promised is a valid criticism
Again, my criticism is of the antiwar faction, not of Obama or what the admin is doing/not doing. If we are slower to get out of Iraq than Obama ‘promised’ (I am not sure whether this is the case, but I’ll take your word for it), that just means the antiwar faction should be irate and out protesting. Yet they are not. Again, this is difficult to explain/reconcile if one takes past antiwar statements and motivations at face value.
But again, that’s a general statement meant to describe the antiwar faction in general. I am duly aware that you are an exception…
best
Afghanistan has never been an issue for me because there actually is a threat there – Al Qaeda and the Taliban did/do represent a real threat to the US. Saddam never did.
This is the standard campus talking point. I’m willing to believe you’re sincere in this, Hippieprof, but most liberals of my acquaintance are decidedly not — before Iraq, they were freaking out about Afghanistan in exactly the same way. Not having an “issue” with Afghanistan is, for these folks, rhetorical slight-of-hand, a way to avoid answering “do nothing” when asked “how should the United States have responded to 9/11?”
Had Iraq not come up, Afghanistan would be the “distraction” from the “real war on terror,” which would be conveniently located elsewhere and which liberals seeking to appear centrist would be ever-so-eager to fight (remember when Obama was all for invading Pakistan, back on the campaign trail?). Should we end up fighting another war somewhere (God forbid), I’m certain that that war will be a “distraction” from the “real war on terror,” now coincidentally located back in Iraq….
Bullfrog said….
This is the standard campus talking point. I’m willing to believe you’re sincere in this, Hippieprof, but most liberals of my acquaintance are decidedly not…
I am indeed sincere. I do know the type of people you are talking about, though – people who did not support the original invasion of Afghanistan (or any military operation anywhere, for that matter). Most of the ones I know think Obama is too conservative, and actually voted for the Green Party in 2008. BUT – they are a small minority, at least among the liberals I know – and believe me, working on a college campus gives me a lot of exposure to liberals.
– hp
Hippieprof,
The fact that Hussein’s Iraq was not in compliance with it’s UN-mandated ceasefire agreement from the Gulf War was not reason enough to attack Iraq and depose Hussein?
Good question Pastorius.
You know, I realize it probably looks silly to most people that I’m trying to prolong this argument. But really, I don’t understand why the argument is over – I don’t understand why “antiwar” folks stopped caring, being mad, and wanting to argue this issue. Unless of course it really is about the (D)…
SC said I don’t understand why “antiwar” folks stopped caring, being mad, and wanting to argue this issue. Unless of course it really is about the (D)…
You are indeed hard to argue with – I provided you and answer, you didn’t like it, so you told me that obviously your post wasn’t directed at me.
I will repeat my answer. There are still active antiwar protesters out there. They are fewer in number because different people had different concerns all along. Some of us have now had our concerns addressed.
You can’t just dismiss my answer because it doesn’t fit your hypothesis.
– hp
Pastorius asks…
The fact that Hussein’s Iraq was not in compliance with it’s UN-mandated ceasefire agreement from the Gulf War was not reason enough to attack Iraq and depose Hussein?
Um… no? Invading a sovereign nation requires significantly more justification than that – especially when we had very little support from traditional allies.
– hp
Ahhh,the old familiar equivocation. One can almost boil it down to a formula: If American military action is considered, demand a UN resolution. If UN resolution is secured, oppose it as a “distraction” to the “real war,” which is always someplace unassailable, like Pakistan or North Korea. In fact, my fearless prediction is that the Obama administration will start butching up on Iran — painting them as the “real” sponsors of terrorism — about 10 seconds after they explode their first nuke. Again, not questioning your sincerity, Hippieprof — in fact, I admire your willingness to engage a different viewpoint (this is sadly, sorely lacking among most professors I know) — but it sounds very familiar to what I heard from the various fairweather pacifists over the last 7 years.
I’m sure you remember all the times we bombed Iraq under Clinton with a UN resolution, and the time we bombed Serbia without one. Both were fine with the “antiwar” left.
Now, the actual antiwar left — the ones that are categorically against war — were unhappy with both, just as they continue to be unhappy with Obama’s various wastes of blood and treasure. However — and this, I believe, is SC’s point — there sure are a LOT of people who talked a big game about their principled opposition to American adventurism under Bush’s watch who are mysteriously silent now. Can anyone gin up a 1000+ person “peace rally” these days, even in San Francisco? If not, why not? Surely the “principle” is the same in both cases, is it not?
hippieprof,
You are indeed hard to argue with
You think I’m hard to argue with; I’m not even sure why you’re trying, because you aren’t really disputing anything I said. My thesis is simply that the antiwar movement has subsided without its stated grievances having gone away. You do not really seem to dispute this, instead all you’re doing is talking about you in particular. But as you said yourself, you don’t speak for the antiwar movement; so I’m not sure what that proves.
There are still active antiwar protesters out there. They are fewer in number because different people had different concerns all along. Some of us have now had our concerns addressed.
Fair enough, but the vast majority haven’t. I assert that the primary stated concern of the vast majority of the antiwar crowd, supposedly, was us having troops in Iraq. And we still have troops in Iraq. Unless you dispute that us having troops in Iraq was a primary concern of the antiwar crowd (if not perhaps you in particular), I’m not sure how you can possibly dispute my point that the majority of antiwar folks haven’t had their concerns addressed. And unless you dispute that the antiwar faction has subsided greatly (which I don’t think you do), then my main point stands. So like I said, I’m not sure why you’re arguing, or what over.
It’s more likely that the financial sponsorship has realized it’s goal. I’m sure there are still plenty of ‘antiwar’ wackos waiting to march, but the organizers and sideshow attractions that make the protests a reality are professionals, and are no longer on anyone’s payroll.
The rank and file of WWP, ANSWER, Code Pink, et cetera that were marching at these protests are probably almost as apt to do so now, but their Comissars are currently sitting on their asses waiting on a phonecall with the promise of a paycheck to start rallying the troops for the next big outrage.
This is consistent with my theory, if one assumes that the financial sponsorship’s goal was to put (D)s in office.
HP said: Um… no? Invading a sovereign nation requires significantly more justification than that – especially when we had very little support from traditional allies.
I respond: Sorry, but your answer doesn’t make sense, so I will repeat the question, and this time I will capitalize the words you seemed to miss:
“The fact that Hussein’s Iraq was not in compliance with it’s UN-MANDATED CEASEFIRE AGREEMENT from the Gulf War was not reason enough to attack Iraq and depose Hussein?”
You see, in order for a war to be over, the losing side has to sign a ceasefire agreement. If they do not comply with it’s terms, then the war is on.
If the UN was in agreement on this ceasefire, and they were, then that means the United States (who led the coalition in the Gulf War) was fully within it’s rights to go back to war to depose the government of Iraq – which was responsible for reneging on the ceasefire agreement.
Technically, the Gulf War never ended. Even a ceasefire is not an end to a war (that would be a surrender), it is a pause. But this one was broken repeatedly, e.g. Hussein would fire upon our overflights, and from time to time we would literally bomb their country (e.g., under Clinton). How is that ‘peace’.
The idea that war is a binary on-off thing, and it was somehow in the ‘off’ position from 1991-2003, meaning that what was done in 2003 was a giant change back to ‘on’, is simpleminded thinking and more evidence of the Hollywood-movies-based view many modern/Western people have of war. Sometimes I think Americans must have looked awfully stupid speaking from the premise that there was no war until 2003; apparently there are times when US BOMBING THEIR COUNTRY doesn’t count as ‘war’ in enlightened Westerners’ eyes.
As for the issue of what invading a ‘sovereign’ (which means what?) nation ‘requires’, I don’t feel very equipped to argue with Hippieprof. After all, it all seems to be based on so much made-up rules. You ‘can’t’ invade a ‘sovereign’ nation if this, that and the other thing doesn’t apply. And such-and-such conditions (whatever the current conditions are) ‘aren’t enough’. Says who?
Like, Hippieprof, where did you get this rule of yours that whether we can invade a country morally depends on what our Traditional Allies think of us invading that country? This just raises so many questions, such as – Who are our Traditional Allies exactly? What makes them so? Why does it matter what they think? If it was morally wrong for us to invade Iraq, how/why would it have suddenly become ok simply because some group of countries who for some reason qualify for the club ‘Traditional Allies’ said so? If I try to take your apparent moral principle seriously (which is very difficult), and think it through, it collapses under its own idiocy.
Generally, I guess maybe it would be nice on some level (or at least, it would make these things easier/simpler to think about) if there really were some clear set of moral guidelines or checklist according to which one country ‘can’ invade another, but I don’t believe this for a second. Geopolitics is a schoolyard. And I don’t believe in Catholic ‘Just War’ theory (why do lefties? are they Catholic?), so when some antiwar lefty brings that up I can only roll my eyes. I have little patience for people who grasp onto some random moral principle they plucked from some religion somewhere that they are only spouting out of convenience (i.e. because it happens to support their view). Should I scour old Hindu or Druze or Zoroastrian texts to try to find some random religious principle that supports my view. Is that how this argument works? Duelling random religious principles at dawn?
Anyway, I don’t want to give the impression that I want to re-argue The Iraq War. I don’t. I was already tired of this argument in 2004. My only point above is still just: why don’t anti-war folks still want to argue The Iraq War? They were so obsessed with this subject from 2003-2008, and now they (ok, not all of them, ‘just’ MOST of them) have dropped the subject entirely. Mysterious!
Not to raise a dead thread – but today I drove by a protester on the street with a sign “Bush stop the killing” but with “Bush” crossed out and “Obama” written in.
See – they are still out there….
– hp
Well, I stand corrected then.