Scott Ritter, on
Alternet.org makes some very important points about the state of the Anti-War movement as currently implemented.
Lately I have noticed a growing despondency among many of those who call themselves the anti-war movement. With the United States now entering its fourth year of illegal war in and illegitimate occupation of Iraq, and the pro-war movement moving inexorably towards yet another disastrous conflict with Iran, there is an increasing awareness that the cause of the anti-war movement, no matter how noble and worthy, is in fact a losing cause as currently executed. ..
More on the flip.
...Despite all of the well-meaning and patriotic work of the millions of activists and citizens who comprise the anti-war movement, America still remains very much a nation not only engaged in waging and planning wars of aggression, but has also become a nation which increasingly identifies itself through its military and the wars it fights. This is a sad manifestation of the fact that the American people seem to be addicted to war and violence, rather than the ideals of human rights, individual liberty, and freedom and justice for all that should define our nation.
In short, the anti-war movement has come face to face with the reality that in the ongoing war of ideologies that is being waged in America today, their cause is not just losing, but is in fact on the verge of complete collapse. Many in the anti-war movement would take exception to such a characterization of the situation, given the fact that there seems to be a growing change in the mood among Americans against the ongoing war in Iraq. But one only has to scratch at the surface of this public discontent to realize how shallow and superficial it is. Americans aren't against the war in Iraq because it is wrong; they are against it because we are losing.
His title, The Art of War for the Anti-War Movement , refers to a little tome I've recently been reading, Sun Tzu's The Art of War.
One of the recurring themes Sun Tzu takes on is the imperative of a clear eyed assessment of the terms of conflict. Know your enemy's strengths and weaknesses, yes, but also be mercilessly candid about your own.
In this vein, I think we must acknowledge that Scott's assessment is spot on. The American people have not turned against an immoral war. They've turned against a losing one.
How do we change the terms of this debate? Scott again (emphasis his):
The anti-war movement, first and foremost, needs to develop a laser-like focus on being nothing more or less than anti-war.
There are many important issues-moral issues- that compete for the finite resources on the left. Many of them are near to my heart, including the development of a culture of peace. But right now, they must give precedence to a specifically anti-war movement both for strategic and pragmatic reasons.
Long term, sustainable economies, social justice, and an open society are absolutely necessary for a culture of peace. But while America bombs lead the way in American foreign policy, these long term necessities are a distraction to the immediate, urgent imperative of withdrawing the forces of invasion and occupation in Iraq. Preferably before the idiots in charge open up yet another front in Iran.
Just as we cannot defend freedom abroad by abandoning it at home, we cannot build a sustained peace movement while we continue to foment aggression abroad.
Complex problems, such as faced by the anti-war movement, require complex solutions, which in turn dictate a flexible control mechanism that can coordinate and synchronize every effort to achieve the desired result at a time and place of the anti-war movement's choosing, and then be prepared to follow up on successes as they occur and sustain the movement over an extended period of time. It is not enough to win a battle against the pro-war movement; the anti-war movement needs to win the war of ideologies. As such it must not only prepare to win a particular fight, but to exploit that victory, massing its forces against any developed weakness, and drive the pro-movement into the ground and off the American political map once and for all.
I have indicated my willingness to apply my training and experience as a warrior in a manner which helps teach the principles of the art of war to those who call themselves part of the anti-war movement. There seems to be not only a need for this sort of training, but also a desire among the myriad of individuals and groups who comprise the anti-war movement for an overall coordinated strategic direction, operational planning, and tactical execution of agreed upon mission objectives. One can be certain that the pro-war movement is conducting itself in full accordance with these very same organizational principles and methodologies. And let there be no doubt: the pro-war movement in America is prevailing. In order to gain the upper hand politically, and actually position itself to stop not only those wars already being fought (Iraq), but also prevent those being planned (Iran), the anti-war movement will need to re-examine in totality the way it does business. I for one am ready to assist. However, in writing this essay, I am constantly reminded of the old saying, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink." One can only hope that the anti-war movement is thirsty.
(Emphasis added.)
We do need both, but they need to be parallel tracks at this point, I think, not mixed at every anti-war rally.
So, I think we need a "General" to keep the overriding goal in mind. We must stop this unprecedented aggression being perpetuated in our names.
I nominate Scott Ritter.
x-posted at WatR and TexasKos.