In the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq by a US-led coalition, and for three years since, I have spent many hours speaking to numerous anti-war forums across the country and around the world. I have always been struck by the sincerity of the vast majority of those who call themselves ‘anti-war,’ and impressed by their willingness to give so much of themselves in the service of such a noble cause.
The reality is, had our military prevailed in this struggle, the American people for the most part would not even blink at the moral and legal arguments against this war.
Whether participating in demonstrations, organizing a vigil, conducting town-hall meetings, or writing letters to their elected officials and the media, the participants in the anti-war movement have exhibited an energy and integrity that would make anyone proud. I have been vociferous in my defense of their actions, noting that the expression of their views is consistent with their rights afforded by the Constitution. Their engagement in the process of citizenship is a stellar example of the ideals and values set forth in that document. As such, it represents the highest form of patriotism in service to a document that begins, “We the People.”
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 with the pro-war movement moving inexorably towards yet another disastrous conflict with Iran, there is an increasing awareness that the cause, no matter how noble and worthy, is a losing cause. Despite all of the well-meaning and patriotic work of the millions of activists and citizens who make up the anti-war movement, America remains very much a nation engaged in waging and planning wars of aggression. America has become a nation that 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, 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, its cause is not just losing but is on the verge of collapse. Many in the anti-war movement would take exception to such a characterization, given the fact that there seems to be a growing change in the mood 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.
Take the example of Congressman Jack Murtha, a vocal supporter of President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq. Last fall, Mr. Murtha went public with his dramatic change of position, suddenly rejecting the war as un-winnable, and demanding the immediate withdrawal of American troops. While laudable, I have serious problems with Jack Murtha’s thought process here. At what point did the American invasion of Iraq become a bad war? When we suffered 2,000 dead? After two years of fruitless struggle? Once we spent $100 billion?
While vocalizing his current opposition, Congressman Murtha and others who voted for the war have never retracted their original pro-war stance. Nor have they criticized their role in abrogating the Constitutional processes when they voted for a war before the President had publicly committed to going to war. (We now know the President had committed to the invasion of Iraq by the summer of 2002 and that all his representations to the American people and Congress about ‘war as a matter of last resort’ and ‘seeking a diplomatic solution’ were bold-faced lies.) The Iraq War was wrong the moment we started bombing Iraq. Getting rid of Saddam Hussein is no excuse and does not pardon America’s collective sin of brooking and tolerating an illegal war of aggression.
The reality is, had our military prevailed in this struggle, the American people for the most part would not even blink at the moral and legal arguments against this war. This underlying reality is reflected in the fact that, despite our ongoing disaster in Iraq, America is propelled down a course of action that leads us toward conflict with Iran. President Bush recently re-affirmed his embrace of the principles of pre-emptive war when he signed off on the 2006 version of the National Security Strategy of the United States, which highlights Iran as a threat worthy of confrontation. This event has gone virtually unmentioned by the American mainstream media, un-remarked by a Congress that remains complicit in the war-mongering policies of the Bush administration, and un-noticed by the majority of Americans. America is pre-programmed for war, and unless the anti-war movement dramatically changes the manner in which it conducts its struggle, America will become a nation of war, for war, defined by war, and a nation that will ultimately be consumed by war.
It is high time for the anti-war movement to take a collective look in the mirror and be honest about what it sees. A poorly organized, chaotic, and indeed often anarchic conglomeration of egos, pet projects, and idealism, it barely constitutes a ‘movement,’ let alone a winning cause. I have yet to observe an anti-war demonstration that has a focus on anti-war. Every left-wing cause took advantage of the event to promote its own particular agenda — the environment, ecology, animal rights, pro-choice, and numerous other causes not only diluted the anti-war message, but guaranteed that the demonstration itself would exclude the vast majority of moderate (and even conservative) Americans who might have wanted to share the stage with their fellow Americans from the left when it comes to opposing war with Iraq (or even Iran) but do not want to be associated with any other theme.
The anti-war movement needs to develop a laser-like focus on being nothing more or less than anti-war.
The anti-war movement lacks any notion of strategic thinking, operational planning, or sense of sound tactics. So much energy is wasted because of this failure to plan and organize centrally. As a result, when the anti-war movement does get it right (and on occasion it does), the success is frittered away by a failure to plan effective follow-up efforts, failure to implement supporting operations, an inability to recognize opportunities as they emerge, and a lack of resources to exploit such opportunities if in fact they were recognized to begin with. In short, the anti-war movement is little more than a walk-on squad of high school football players drawing plays in the sand, taking on the National Football League Super Bowl Champions. In order to even have a chance of prevailing with the American people, the anti-war movement needs to start thinking like a warrior. We, as a nation, are engaged in a life-or-death struggle of competing ideologies.
The anti-war movement needs to study the philosophies of those who have mastered the art of conflict, from Ceasar to Napoleon, from Sun Tzu to Clausewitz. It needs to study the “enemy,” learning to understand the pro-war movement as well as it understands itself. It needs to comprehend the art of campaigning, of waging battles only when necessary, and having the ability to wage a struggle on several fronts simultaneously, synchronizing each struggle so that a synergy is created which maximizes whatever energy is being expended. The anti-war movement needs to understand the pro-war movement’s center of gravity. It needs to grasp the pro-war movement’s decision-making cycle, then undertake actions that pre-empt this cycle, thereby forcing the pro-war movement to react to the anti-war agenda, instead of vice versa.
There is an old adage in the military that ‘intelligence drives operations.’ The anti-war movement needs to develop a centralized intelligence operation, a think tank, not a spy organization, that produces sound analysis based upon fact that can be used to empower those who are waging the struggle against war. The mainstream media treats the anti-war movement as a joke because many times that is exactly what the anti-war movement, through its lack of preparation and grasp of the facts, allows itself to become.
The anti-war movement lacks organization. There is no central leadership or mechanism to muster and control resources effectively. The anti-war movement takes pride in its ‘democratic’ composition, but in fact it operates as little more than controlled chaos, creating ample opportunity for the pro-war movement to execute a ‘divide and conquer’ strategy to minimize and nullify whatever good the anti-war movement achieves through its efforts. The anti-war movement would do well to take a page from the fire service and implement a version of the Incident Command System (ICS) that firefighters use when fighting complex fires involving the integration of several departments, organizations, and jurisdictions. The anti-war movement needs to develop its own ‘ICS for the anti-war’ that is universally applied throughout the movement, so that an anti-war effort in Seattle operates the same as an anti-war effort in New York City.
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 prepare not only to win a particular fight, but also to exploit that victory, massing its forces against any developed weakness, and drive the pro-movement 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 that 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 make up 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. 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 not only to stop those wars already being fought (Iraq), but also to prevent those being planned (Iran).
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.
Reprinted from Truthout, the fine on-line peace resource, with Scott’s permission.
Back to Center Post Contents | Home