Editorial: Anti-War Movement Needs to Reinvigorate Supporters

This week is critical for the movement opposing the U.S.-Iraq War. The one year anniversary of the invasion presents the opportunity to see whether the same groups that coordinated last year's demonstrations still have the influence to do it again.

A year ago, as bombs were beginning to fall in Iraq, millions of people filled the streets of the world's major cities condemning the military's action. In San Francisco more than a hundred thousand people marched through downtown. There was a palpable anger in the air. It was an unmistakable conflagration of disappointment that weapons inspections had been abandoned and disgust at the president's failure to make the case for war to either at home or in the international community.

Police arrested more than 1,000 demonstrators in San Francisco las t March 20 and at UC Berkeley 119 people were arrested for closing down Sproul Hall. At that time the anti-war sentiment was visible-there were times when it felt as though it was truly possible to affect the decision making process.

By the numbers of people mobilizing, the new anti-war movement seemed poised to be more effective than the movements of the 1960s. Whereas it took several years of troop deployments in Vietnam before a significant opposition arose in the U.S., the new anti-war movement was active and mobilized months before the first troops were sent into harm's way.

Demonstrations in the Bay Area, the West Coast and across the country were invigorating-part rock concert and part political rally.

In the year since the war began, however, tempers have cooled significantly. Despite the efforts of a few dedicated organizations like Moveon.org, the anti-war movement has been largely invisible.

Last year's anger, which pushed people off their sofas and into the streets, has mostly been replaced with grudging resignation. The war has become a part of the contemporary political landscape-an ugly blemish to be tolerated and exploited this election year.

Clearly the circumstances of the opposition have changed. Before coalition troops moved into Iraq there was hope that war could be stopped before it had begun. The fundamental question posed to demonstrators was the easiest to answer: should there be a war at all?

There are no clear choices in the occupation phase of the war. The questions are more complex. Bringing the troops home too quickly could lead to civil war in Iraq and even more violence. Simultaneously, it seems incompatible with American ideal of self-determination to maintain an occupying force abroad.

If there is another way to oppose this war then the spokesperson to articulate it has yet to emerge. Today's movement lacks central figures to rally around. Instead of instantly recognizable leaders we have only loosely connected affinity groups with so many ancillary concerns that protesting the war is only one item on a slate of grievances.

During last year's Sproul demonstration activists made three demands: first, to stop the war, second, to to halt fee increases and staff reductions and third, to declare the University of Baghdad a sister school. By adding demands other than an ending the war many demonstrators felt as if they were being used to forward causes other than the one for which they were willing to be arrested.

Despite the problems, mass protest and coordination between activists and everyday folks remains one of the few sources of power that citizens in a democracy wield. It's vital to remind our leaders that just because the streets aren't flooded with protesters everyday it does not mean that a seething rage does not exist just below America's apparently calm demeanor.

Tags: