OPINION & EDITORIAL
Anti-war campaign yearning for action
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Kyle Szarzynski:
- John Edwards may prove best option (December 4, 2007)
- America, stop kneeling at altar of religious insanity (November 27, 2007)
- Critics ignore Kumar's progressive strides (November 26, 2007)
- Islam no defense for extremist action (November 20, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Different war, different protests; students adapt to times (December 13, 2007)
- Protests best when practiced sparingly (March 8, 2006)
- Madison no longer hotbed of activism (September 1, 2005)
- Both parties to blame for erosion of abortion rights (January 19, 2006)
- Looking forward to Hong Kong (January 19, 2004)
by Kyle Szarzynski
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
There was once a time when the University of Wisconsin-Madison was a center of radical anti-war activism. During the late 1960s, the student body took to the streets in protest against a war in Vietnam that was unjustified and inhumane. They demonstrated and staged sit-ins. In short, they did something about an obvious injustice.
Today, there exists a similar type of war in Iraq but a very different type of response. Despite Madison's liberal reputation, the sad — or perhaps shameful — reality is that few UW students have ever taken part in any sort of organized anti-war effort. Over the last few years, there has been a march here, a counter-recruitment demonstration there, but nothing that could be defined as a real movement against the war. Of course, this isn't just a local phenomenon; the inability to jump-start an anti-war movement in Madison has been echoed throughout the country.
Yet we all know of the human tragedy that is the American occupation of Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed; millions have been left homeless, unemployed, maimed. More than 2,700 American soldiers have fallen, and the number increases every day. Meanwhile, the evidence that the war's justifications were lies continues to mount: The Downing Street Memo and countless other documents and reports reveal that the Bush administration did indeed "fix the facts" for the basis for going to war.
What is the explanation for this? Why isn't there a mass radicalization of students as there was during the Vietnam era? One contributing factor to the complacency of Americans is the relative complacency of their own media. Unlike the footage of the Vietnam War, the media today generally doesn't broadcast the horrors of war. Dead bodies, mutilated children and demolished homes usually aren't available for the American viewer to see. Obviously, this tends to dull the anger that most Americans feel about the war.
The tragedy of this is that the entire Democratic Party establishment is and always has been pro-war, including 2004 presidential candidate John Kerry. The flawed logic of anti-war voters putting all their faith in a political party that is mostly pro-war speaks for itself, and the result has been devastating for building a viable anti-war movement.
Perhaps the most important reason for the lack of action against the war, though, is the absence of a draft. If thousands of young Americans were forced to fight an immoral war, then the obvious response would be active opposition. History would indicate this to be the case, as every major anti-war movement of the 20th century — from Canadian opposition to World War One to the French protests against their country's colonialism in Indochina and Algeria — has featured mandatory military service.
The above analysis seems to imply a hopeless situation. It is certainly undeniable that fighting back against the war machine is a monumental task. Still, Americans have become more frustrated as an unjust war continues to be waged, and the death toll continues to increase. A New York Times poll, conducted in June 2006, found that 59 percent of Americans believe that the war in Iraq was a mistake. Of course, the emergence of an anti-war public is old news; the issue now is how to turn anti-war sentiment into resistance.
On the UW campus, the student body is solidly anti-war (witness the overwhelming "Yes" vote on the war referendum last spring). A movement can arise from such sentiment only if there is a real way of channeling it in a way that is productive to ending the war. The issue of how to best tap into the anti-war anger on the UW campus and throughout the country is fundamental to the emergence of a mass movement against the war.
It is in this context that the establishment of a new student organization at UW, the Campus Anti-War Network (CAN), should be welcomed. Here, the process of working to get students involved and confronting the problems of building a movement can become a reality. The group's central demand — immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq — is a breath of fresh air after listening to all the "gradual" withdrawal strategies of the so-called anti-war politicians in Congress.
It is only by getting involved with the movement through groups like CAN that any hope of ending the bloodshed in Iraq in the near future is possible. It is only through organization that we can hope to create an effective struggle against the war and, once again, fill the streets with anti-war activists.
Kyle Szarzynski (szarzynski@wisc.edu) is a sophomore majoring in Spanish and history.
Anonymous (October 25, 2006 @ 7:22am):
Don't worry, Bush made the Iraqi Assembly create a timetable. Our congress can't cut-and-run, but theirs can.
Anonymous (October 25, 2006 @ 8:33am):
So you're basically asking for a national draft just so you have an opportunity to burn your draft card like other self-interested draft-deferring college students did a few decades ago.
I saw this same sort of attitude on UW when the Kosovo campaign was going on.
Here's an idea: go and vote for whoever you want to. We don't need fellows in the Maths Research Building being bombed like what happened in the 60s. We need responsible citizens keeping their cool, staying focused on the issues, and taking part in the democracy. You don't need movements.
Oh...and by the way...from a guy who's fought in both Afghanistan and Iraq, I can tell you the reason why there has been so little coverage of the bodybags you want to see on the evening news: There are relatively few compared to Vietnam. In Vietnam it a daily affair that Americans died at a rate 20-30 times what it is today. So it's not 1-3 deaths per day in combat, it's more like 30-50. This war is NOT NEARLY as violent as Vietnam.
Furthermore, the bulk of the violence is happening between Iraqis and other Iraqis, and between Iraqis and foreign terrorists (which, granted, would NOT have been happening had 95% of the world thought Saddam had not yet destroyed his WMDs and consequently the invasion wouldn't have happened). The Free Fire Areas, Agent Orange, Carpet Bombing, and other controversial tactics of Vietnam are no longer used.
So, in the end, Kyle Szarzynski is just a guy itching for a fight. For a cause. So he can be like those guys were back in the 60s.
Anonymous (October 25, 2006 @ 8:55am):
Your Student Org webpage says a tenant of Campus Anti-war Netwrok is "To advocate for an immediate withdrawal of the U.S. military from Iraq and Afghanistan, and reparations for the peoples of those countries." So, you're saying we should restore the Taliban to power and buy them burkas with which they can supress women? These are the same students as "Stop the War" group last year... lame.
Anonymous (October 25, 2006 @ 9:57am):
You and your hate-America street mobs missed another chance to defeat America... boo-frickity-hoo! America and her coalition allies already won both these wars. Post-bellum reconstruction efforts and the institution of democratic governments in Afghanistan and Iraq are already well underway.
Iraq is Succeeding
http://www.nysun.com/article/42234
Now crawl back into your private spiderhole of pre-9/11 denial (or your mom's basement, if she'll put you up) and drink some more bong water.
Anonymous (October 25, 2006 @ 10:07am):
You bleeding heart liberal hippies don't make any sense. You think war is wrong under any circumstances. At what point CAN we fight terrorism? When DO we stop the Taliban? And how innocent is Saddam? And if America is the cause of so much bloodshed in Iraq, then why are the Iraqis fighting each other? Why is al Queda there? Oh, I forgot, al Queda doesn't exist. You liberals need a dose of reality. Yes, war is a terrible thing. But tell that to the terrorists. Tell that to the Commies. Tell that to the Nazis. I will march in anti war parade when the terrorists do the same with respect to their violent ways.
Anonymous (October 25, 2006 @ 10:47am):
I think it's funny that there are so many rabid republicans who will back George Bush's war regardless of facts; those same people will be the very last in line when it comes to signing up for the military.
Your support is only lip service. If you believe we are winning in Iraq, go join the bandwagon of "victory" and sign up for the military. Yeah, I thought so.
Anonymous (October 25, 2006 @ 11:05am):
If it wasn't for such an ideology, the enemy would be demoralized and there is a good chance we would all but be out of the conflict right now. Instead, "the movement" gives the enemy hope... hope that one more roadside bomb, one more kidnapping will send the American's home with their tails between their legs so they (the enemy) can take over the country and wipe out all who supported the effort.
It is the likes of you that have the blood over many of the Americans and Iraqi civilians killed by embolden terrorists on your hand. Like the rest of your ilk, you will never accept responsibility for your actions.
Anonymous (October 25, 2006 @ 11:30am):
Good luck finding a job with those majors...I guess you be like the typical liberal and mooching the system because you couldn't even figure out how to spend your money on a college degree wisely.
Anonymous (October 25, 2006 @ 11:52am):
Yeah, the Liberals dismissed the Iraqi military and created a civil war. Us Liberals should be ashamed of ourselves for not having a plan to help our president out. The Liberals should have listened to Colin Powell when he told us we needed more troops for the job. The Liberals should have never let Osama bin Laden escape.
I just can't get this damn blood off my hands!
Anonymous (October 25, 2006 @ 12:27pm):
"I think it's funny that there are so many rabid republicans who will back George Bush's war regardless of facts; those same people will be the very last in line when it comes to signing up for the military."
The second poster fought in both Afghanistan and Iraq. XD
And you realize, of course, that most voters are too old for military service?
Anonymous (October 25, 2006 @ 12:50pm):
Today's students are mostly a bunch of pansies living off of mommy and daddy, waiting to cash into the American Way Of Big Easy Bucks Lifestyle. Don't expect anything out of these brats except the boot licking of their zombie right wing Hitler wannabes.
Anonymous (October 25, 2006 @ 1:45pm):
to 11:05am
So if I'm against crime I MUST join the police dept? If I support fighting fires I MUST join the fire dept? Can't I just pay my taxes and vote for people who support the police and fire depts?
Yer logic sucks ya stinking moron.
"They're not anti-war, they're just on the other side"
Anonymous (October 25, 2006 @ 3:09pm):
You write with passion,a misguided passion.
You are young my freind,and have no sense of history.
You will grow up some day,maybe get married,maybe have kids.
When and if that happens,Please remember those who serve,and have served to keep us free.
"It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press.
It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us the freedom of speech.
It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who gives us the freedom to demonstrate.
It is the soldier who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag."
Anonymous (October 25, 2006 @ 3:18pm):
Ah yes, it's the hippies fault that the war continues, not the ineptitude of the administration and those planning the war. What encourages the terrorists to continue is the fact that they essentially are winning, regardless of how many people here approve of the war. It's hard to be demoralized when you see that the enemy can hardly do anything to stop you.
Anonymous (October 25, 2006 @ 4:56pm):
Yes, the hippies AND politicians are just as much to blame for the current state of the war. If the "hippies" would quit demoralizing our troops and giving comfort to the enemy AND if our politicians would allow the troops to do their job as opposed to micromanaging as well as fighting a war based on public opinion, we WOULD be out of there right now because we would have won. There is no reason, other than the left making us fight a war in a political fashion we should not have won. We have the tools, we just can't use them!
Anonymous (October 25, 2006 @ 6:20pm):
Changing my shoes as I seem to have stepped right into spilt rightwing kool aid.
Anonymous (October 25, 2006 @ 6:31pm):
I love war. I want someone else to fight it for me, of course. It's kind of like supporting the Packers; I'll never be a Packer, but I'll watch them kill Iraqis... I mean beat the Bears on any given Sunday.
So, to keep with the football theme: we, the best team in the league (not the Packers), have gone 4 quarters with an all-girls school and still have yet to score. It makes us look unlike any "super power" I've seen.
Way to go George, way to make us look weak.
Anonymous (October 25, 2006 @ 6:41pm):
What is the purpose of protest? To demoralize the opposition and cheer on the "home team", right?! In the case of the war protesters, the home team is those who would rather see us dead (incidentally, those the protesters support would kill the protesters in a heartbeat because they don't like their kind... ain't American great, you can protest and be allowed to live!), and the opposition are those willing to give up their lives for the protesters! Of course, those who protest will never see it, to them it is a game. Too bad most have not a clue what they are protesting.
Isn't it interesting that once we were no longer able to adequately question those who wished to kill our soldiers (and us for that matter) and the media was finally able to say the majority of American's were against the war (which is not accuarate), the rate of violence in Iraq went up. Could it be those we are fighting see that they have a chance of winning?
Anonymous (October 25, 2006 @ 7:42pm):
"boot licking of their zombie right wing Hitler wannabes."
Witness the Leftists' Krystalnaght style street riots (euphemistically called "anti-war protests);
http://www.zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/
Anonymous (October 25, 2006 @ 8:34pm):
You can feel mezmerized all you want by the plastic fantastic flower power of your new style Hitlerific neo-socialist Volkswagon while you cloister yourself in the bedwetting yellowed tower of godless, self-absorbed wacademic nihilism.
Don't apologize for your impotent flailing at Karl Rove's ChimpyMcHalliburton empire.
In your Leftist bleeding heart you know real Americans in red America pity you for sheltering yourself in the Sodom and Gomorrah of your loathsome Mifflin Street metrosexual lifestyle while you cower in comfort under the blanket of protection provided by better men than you.
Your fathers should be ashamed of you for slouching toward dhimmitude. Go watch Flags of Our Fathers, visit the Iwo Jima memorial, and learn the lesson... Art is War!
Anonymous (October 25, 2006 @ 10:40pm):
I attended many protests during the Vietnam war, and a few during the current Iraqi invasion, but I have to wonder whether your over-the-top rhetoric is designed to kill the anti-war sentiment (not "anger") that we need to tap into. You're not a Bush supporter, are you? By current situation I mean that 60 percent of the voting age public is aligned against the war, with most of those supporting getting out as soon as feasible (granted, that's up to some interpretation). That level of support for exiting Vietnam occurred only after scores of large-scale mobilizations, thousands of smaller scale protests (some turning violent), tens of thousands of American dead, the decision of a sitting president to decline to run, several anti-war candidacies, etc., etc. This amount of opposition came this easily because we didn't have a bunch of hot-heads going out and committing stupid "actions" in the name of peace, something my generation stupidly did. (I excuse us because we did have the draft, and it was very personal.) As for strategy, I would hope "radicalizing" students doesn't take precedence over ending the war. The fastest way to be radicalized is to get beat over the collective (there's a sixties word for you) head with a baton. I don't recommend it, both for your head, and for the cause. Organizing a huge, peaceful march in spring, as a means to make Congress and the President accountable to public opinion on the war, is one thing. That would be great. But your rhetoric is a bit too extreme and will scare off more people than it will bring.
Anonymous (October 26, 2006 @ 1:59pm):
Your father must be very proud.
