PGHIMC - Pittsburgh Independent Media Center

A (nearly) retrospective criticism of the anti-war movement
by Tim Ianulli Thursday, Aug. 07, 2003 at 11:33 AM
timianulli@freudian-slip.org

A personal viewpoint on the anti-war movement at its height, with possible consequences for the radical left.

With the on-going occupation of Iraq, it will perhaps not be controversial (at least on this website) to say that the war against that country is not over. Despite this, the American public has been sold on the Bush administration's declaration of victory, and the anti-war movement has fizzled out. I consider this the anti-war movement's primary failure. To be clear, I don't consider it a failure because the war wasn't prevented or stopped. That was perhaps impossible. I consider it a failure because it didn't create lasting unrest. I should also clarify that I don't intend this as a criticism of the job the organizers did or any of the participants, but rather as a criticism of the ideology of the movement and the unexpressed theory behind it.

The problem lies with the fact that we addressed the war on Bush's terms. Specifically, when it was and where it was... we didn't do enough to challenge the lines drawn around Iraq, and therefore the fundamental issues that the war in Iraq is a symptom of. Put simply, the anti-war movement lacked context. Plenty was made of why this or that justification of the war is fraudulant, or of projected death tolls, etc. Except for the presence of book vendors and some vague references to larger problems, nothing was made of the larger movement. In hindsight, I feel that the anti-capitalist agenda should have been the primary focus of the speakers, the literature, even the banners at the large events. It seems that it was counter-productive to adopt "no blood for oil" and "drop Bush, not bombs." The popular criticisms of the day, which I think can be reasonably summed up as "If you're about peace, why are you being so disruptive?" in my opinion reveals that most people, including the majority of participants, thought we were opposed simply to violence. The whole thing came off as a partisan squabble, a reaction to a Republican administration, and that's why the war was so polarizing.

As strange as this may sound, I think far too much was made of "The War," as though the problems began and ended with a declaration by George W. Bush and the dropping of bombs on Baghdad. Usually being critical of the far left for being too much theory and not enough action, I hate to say this, but in this case it seems that the theoritical aspect was sorely unaddressed.

Of course, part of the problem is that there were so many people there, and a cohesive ideology was never nailed down. For the time being, I think there desparately needs to be more debate, even amonst ourselves, so that hopefully we can become galvanized around similiar ideas and "values." This would take us a long way in having an affect on culture, and thus would be a significant step towards either revolution or reform (depending on what ideas win out).

I haven't been visiting this site much, so forgive me if any of this has already been said. Also please excuse my typos.

add your comments