Views > January 31, 2003

Stopping the Drive to War

By James Weinstein

Opposition to war against Iraq has grown steadily in recent weeks, both at home and abroad. The January 18 demonstrations in Washington and San Francisco attracted hundreds of thousands of people, more than even the biggest anti-Vietnam War marches in the ’60s. The polls show that more than two-thirds of Americans oppose the Bush administration’s plans to unilaterally attack Iraq.

Still, the media all but ignore the unprecedented activity against the war. In Chicago, for example, the City Council passed a resolution opposing unilateral action by the United States by a vote of 46 to 1. Something like this was inconceivable in the ’60s, yet the Chicago Tribune buried this news in a paragraph hidden in a more general story, and the New York Times gave it three inches in a column of short items. Since then, the number of city councils that have passed similar resolutions has risen to 50 (with Cleveland being the most recent at this writing). This is truly amazing, yet it has produced not even a ripple on the pages of the country’s leading newspapers.

Not surprisingly, the media have preferred to play up the in-fighting among a small number of former student protesters who are appalled by the fact that a few sectarian groups have been the most active organizers of the big marches in recent months. Yes, it is unfortunate that speakers at some of the big demonstrations often talk about matters not directly related to the Bush administration’s plans and rationale for war.

Intelligent organizers against the war would stick to the point in order to gain maximum support. But the more important point is that the hundreds of thousands of people who attend these protests totally ignore the sectarian distractions. Meanwhile, the carpers, instead of being thankful for the dedicated organizing by the sectarians, contribute nothing but cold water to the movement against the war.

It is difficult to tell how effective the opposition to war will be. The Bush administration already claims that international opposition is of little concern, and so far Bush and his managers have totally ignored the protesters and polls that indicate maximum concern and minimal support for war.

In his State of the Union address, Bush simply repeated unproven claims that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction which threaten the United States. He did not explain how this could be so when his own experts admit that Iraq’s armed forces and military hardware are now at less than one-third the strength they were in 1991, when they were easily beaten. Nor did he explain how Iraq had become an ally of al-Qaeda, when Saddam’s secular regime has been a sworn and consistent enemy of the Islamic fundamentalism of Osama bin Laden and his followers.

Of course, Bush dwelled on the evil acts committed by Saddam, while neglecting to admit that the United States was supporting Iraq at the time many of these crimes were being perpetrated. Nor did he mention that, according to Amnesty International, at least a dozen other nations have been guilty of the same or similar crimes, and that most of these nations are considered friendly by the administration.

We don’t know if the drive to war can be stopped. But we do know that the movement to prevent it—and especially the opportunity to educate the public about the administration’s imperial ideology—must be encouraged in every way.

Those who attempt to use this movement for some narrow sectarian end are no threat. Their efforts against the war should be appreciated, their distractions ignored. Our energies should be directed at gaining the attention of political forces too timid to oppose the administration by demonstrating that we represent majority opinion on this issue.

• subscribe to print magazine

  First Name Last Name Home Address City State Zip Code Email

  2-year, 24-issues, $44.95 1-year, 12-issue, $24.95

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  The complaint that the media hasn’t covered the so-called anti-war movement is unfounded.  The NY Times has virtually beat the band for this cause.  A review of today’s issue - Feb 1 - reveals frontpage coverage of several stories that betray an underlying opposition to the war.  The lead article outlines a supposed rift between Great Britain and the US when hardly one exists.  A second article covers plight of businesses w/ reservist employees.  And a third covers the non-story of Iraqi ghetto dwellers paying lip service to their opposition to the war.  These articles are from one issue.  They reflect a consistent pattern in the Times, which is about as mainstream as news coverage can be.
  Your criticism that mainstream media chose inappropriately to focus on “sectarian” groups as the principal organizers of the rally is also off base.  I know several people who were in attendance at the SF rally.  The anti-Israeli theme at the demonstration - and yes, the anti-semitic aspect - was hardly off point.  For many it was the point itself, to the extent that the true significance of the attendance figures is difficult to gauge.
  Finally, you do not have fair basis to assert in the least that your views represent the majority of Americans.  You reference polls that indicate the majority oppose “unilateral” US action.  I haven’t seen those, but I have seen the most recent ABC poll that shows the majority approve of Bush’s handling of Iraq (58%).  In the same poll 63% endorse US military action against Iraq to remove Saddam from power; 32% oppose.  What?  Was that the noise of your balloon popping?

  Posted by MB on Feb 1, 2003 at 2:12 PM

  1. In his State of the Union address, Bush simply repeated unproven claims that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction which threaten the United States.

  2.  He did not explain how this could be so when his own experts admit that Iraqís armed forces and military hardware are now at less than one-third the strength they were in 1991,

  It does not take a genius to recognize that these two facts are in no way related, though Weinstien tries to pretend that they are.  But to put this in terminology he will understand, if we reduce the US’s nuclear supply to a third of its present total, it will obviously be harmless, right?  Right.

  Posted by Carl on Feb 2, 2003 at 7:11 AM

  This - as so many of your other articles are so important and necessary as the mainstream press gets less and less helpful and more and more (dishonest?) certainly not helpful and a source of accurate information.  Please keep writing
  

  Posted by Mary on Feb 3, 2003 at 8:16 PM

  To respond to Carl’s criticism of the relationship between the president’s questionable claims about Iraqi weaponry and the knowledge that Iraq possesses less than a third of its ‘91 arsenal: The argument, Carl, was not that any nation operating with only one third of the military stockpile it held 12 years ago is no longer potentially threatening.  Rather, Mr. Weinstein stated that a nation (Iraq) which was virtually powerless to harm a mightier nation (United States) in the past, would be even less of a threat now that its offensive capabilities are only a fraction of what they were. I hope this clears up your confusion. 
  

  Posted by Zach K. on Feb 4, 2003 at 5:11 AM

  MB (Charlotte, NC) and Carl (NYC) are couple of examples that American officials have referred to as people that “do not wish to be convinced can never be convinced”, regardless of the side they are speaking for.
  Therefore, we should continue to fight on amongst ourselves. May be people like MB and Carl will survive longer than their ideological opponents, may be not. In the process though, Bush and his cohorts will definitely succeed in their imperialist endeavors. In fact, our bickering ensures their success.
  For a historical perspective, please read article at the following link:
  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2719939.stm
  

  Posted by Naushad on Feb 5, 2003 at 3:06 AM

• extended discussion >>>Continued...

  Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 23 posts.

Member Login

Also by James Weinstein

• The Long Detour
  The History and Future of the American Left
• Stopping the Drive to War