|
|
March 29, 2003
Anti-war protestors = professional agitators
The NY Times has an in-depth article today looking at the mechanations of the anti-war groups, and the internal tensions between the radicals and the more mainstream ones: At least for now, the more mainstream groups have gained the upper hand. They have sought to cast their movement as the loyal opposition, embracing the troops but condemning the war. Within the movement, which includes everything from small groups in small towns to a large alliance of more than 200 organizations, radical elements still exist. But the larger and more influential groups have sought over time to sideline them, deliberately excluding certain speakers, dismissing certain tactics, marginalizing certain protests, in a determined effort to avoid being dismissed as career malcontents. Sorry, it's too late - they're already dismissed. As for the "career" part, that's already determined too: "If we're going to be a force that needs to be listened to by our elected officials, by the media, by power, our movement needs to reflect the population," said Leslie Cagan, co-chairwoman of United for Peace and Justice, and a career political organizer... That's one thing I haven't seen covered very much in coverage of the anti-war protesters - a lot of them are professionals who spend all their time protesting this or that. Even the ones who aren't full-time are often at least as committed as your average military reservist. This is not a spontaneous outpouring of distress over this war; it's the latest in a series of causes for these people. What we need the journalists to do is an investigative piece on the history of these "peace" organizations, exposing their track records of protest. The story is not what they're protesting now, but what common threads are present in the whole spectrum of causes they espouse. I think you'll find the central theme is anti-capitalism, anti-Americanism and anti-establishment - although I do think some (not all) of the church-associated groups do have a somewhat more altruistic and peace-based attitude (although they're still wrong). To be sure, activism in the face of conditions or policies we dislike is a hallmark of our country, and a freedom our soldiers have died to preserve. But this type of virulent activism is increasingly disruptive and damaging to our country. We need to educate ourselves about it and act accordingly - not just prosecute the illegal behaviors, but expose their hypocrisies and hidden agendas. Last paragraph modified for clarity of message - slc Posted By susanna cornett at March 29, 2003 06:59 AM | TrackBackComments
"Activism is increasingly disruptive and damaging to our country." Read back over that. Think about what you wrote. Posted by: Lee at March 29, 2003 01:24 PMI read it when I wrote it and I stand by it. THAT kind of activism IS damaging to the country. Activism is general is a good thing. But since you apparently need it spelled out more clearly, I'll edit it for you. Posted by: susanna at March 29, 2003 01:56 PMOne of the most hilarious thing I have to share with everyone here -- on Parade Magazine a few weeks back, they ran a profile of the America's wages. Whether intentional or not, they had this picture of a Mink Farmer with an annual salary of $45,000. Next to this Mink Farmer, they had a PETA Organizer with an annual salary of $15,000. Just found it so funny, and so comparitive of this whole 'career malcontents' talk. IT’S ALL TALK I’m waiting. And I have a funny feeling I could wait until this war is over and not hear what I would like to hear: A viable, working alternative to the present war. Recently the anti-troops people, with professional protesters leading the way, have been getting a great deal of news coverage. This is a worldwide event, almost synchronized, which makes one wonder: who is funding the anti-war operations? As yet, though, I’ve not heard one single anti-war voice come up with a plan of action. There’s been no offer of a viable, working alternative. All I hear is rhetoric: “pull out the troops and bring them home”; “stop invading the Iraqi people”; yadda yadda. Let’s look at the possibilities according to these folks. Suppose we just pull out right now. Our troops will have to back track, down through the south, and hopefully get out of there in one piece with a substantial number of Republican Guardsmen on their tail. Oh yeah, that’ll work, uh huh. And after we’re gone, then what? Will the peaceniks be back in the street protesting when Saddam, as before, turns on his own people once again? Oh, but they say, we can send in negotiators, people who can help the Iraqi people have a freedom state! Somehow, I can’t imagine Saddam sitting down and having tea with a bunch of UN leaders and suddenly capitulating to their ideas for his nation. Of course, the protesters are worried about the loss of human life (as if nobody else is?) And they point to photos of Iraqi citizens and instances where Iraqis were used as human shields (by their own government, not ours). “See?” they squeal, “these people are being hurt!” Okay, so we pull out. And then these innocents whom the peaceniks are so concerned about can be hurt in rape rooms, torture chambers and by bio-chemical agents. Oh, how humanitarian we are! As if living the rest of your life with a painful disfigurement inflicted by your own government isn’t as bad as receiving a permanent injury from someone trying to keep torture from happening to you, your children, or their children’s children? I guess the peaceniks don’t really have a plan per se. But I won’t say they don’t “mean well” in general. I do believe, however, that their intentions are misapplied. If they really want to help the Iraqis, they could always call the International Red Cross, or VISTA, or any other world service organization, and find out how they, as an individual, can help someone who is stuck in Iraq. As yet, I haven’t even heard the peaceniks recommend doing that, either. This whole protest thing reminds me of something my mom used to tell me when I was a kid: “Eat your vegetables, remember, there’s children starving in India”. I couldn’t figure out then, and mom still can’t explain to me, how my eating my lima beans benefited starving kids in India. Being a classic do-gooder at an early age, I slipped my limas in an envelope and addressed it to “the children in India”. Maybe, like mom, the war protesters think they’re enhancing our gratitude for the freedom we enjoy in America. We’re allowed to protest, to have an opinion contrary to our leaders, etc. The people of Iraq aren’t. And if that’s the only goal of the protesters, okay, protest. But, if the goal is to help the Iraqi people and save American lives, there are better ways to do it than laying down in the street and pretending to be dead. Leah Walker Post a comment
|