[DEBATE] : (Fwd) US anti-war movement: ill but could recover

[Patrick Bond]

April 30, 2009
An Interview with Jerry Gordon on the State of the Antiwar Movement
Not Dead Yet

By RON JACOBS

GIs and Iraqis still dying in battle in Iraq. An increase in troops and 
air attacks in Afghanistan. Civilian casualties on the rise. Despite 
campaign promises to begin bringing US troops home from Iraq in 2009, 
the number of US troops in Iraq remains virtually unchanged. General 
Odierno says the US may have to keep soldiers and Marines in Iraqi 
cities past the July 1, 2009 deadline agreed to in the Status of Forces 
Agreement signed in December 2008 between Washington and its client 
regime in Baghdad. In Afghanistan, US intelligence agencies look for 
ways to ensure that Washington's man wins the upcoming election, with 
flashbacks to the fraudulent votes in Vietnam that put Nguyen van Thieu 
in the palace in Saigon.

Despite the fact that Washington's imperial adventures in both of these 
nations are far from over, there has been very little protest in the 
home country. Indeed, one national antiwar network--United for Peace and 
Justice--is suffering from financial problems and is losing one of its 
national coordinators. There is one organization however, that is 
planning to forge ahead. They are the National Assembly to End the Iraq 
and Afghanistan Wars and Occupations. This group was formed in 2008 by a 
group of antiwar activists unaffiliated to any party. The group's 
founding conference was held in Cleveland and was attended by several 
hundred individuals, including members of both national antiwar networks 
and several other organizations including Veterans for Peace, several 
political organizations and a number of labor and religious groups. I 
recently received word from one of the group's founders that the 
Assembly was holding its second conference this July. What follows is an 
email exchange he and I had.

Ron: Hi Jerry. To begin, would you mind introducing yourself and explain 
your role in the National Assembly to End the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars 
and Occupations? Also, can you give the readers a little of your history 
in the antiwar movement?

My name is Jerry Gordon and I am the secretary of the National Assembly 
to End the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars and Occupations. I have been 
actively involved in struggles against U.S. wars, occupations and 
interventions starting with the Korean War (1950-53) and including 
Vietnam (as a National Co-Coordinator of the National Peace Action 
Coalition), Central America, Yugoslavia, the first Iraq War in 1991, and 
the current war.

Ron: I've provided the readers with a brief history of the founding of 
the National Assembly in the introduction to this interview. Is there 
anything you would like to add to that description?

Yes, I would add that the founding conference featured spirited 
discussion and debate regarding what the antiwar movement should do in 
the period ahead. The conference was unique in that it was open on a 
non-exclusionary basis to all activists wishing to attend. Over 400 
people did so, reflecting widely different points of views on all kinds 
of questions. Decisions were made on the basis of one person, one vote.

Ron: Since the inauguration of Barack Obama as president, I've noticed a 
decrease in antiwar activity among even many of the most involved 
antiwar activists. While it is safe to say that this decrease began well 
before January 2009, the virtual lack of protest around the occupations 
and wars seems to indicate a major change of heart among many 
protesters. Do you agree? If so, to what would attribute this? If not, why?

I don’t believe there has been a major change of heart among the antiwar 
majority in this country, although the turnout at recent demonstrations 
has unquestionably been smaller than at previous ones. I believe there 
are several factors at work here.

Let’s go back to the largest action against the Iraq War which was held 
September 24, 2005 in Washington D.C., which drew some 700,000 people. 
Unfortunately, two things of a distinctly negative character happened in 
the aftermath of that action.

One was the swing against mass action by big chunks of the movement, who 
advocated electoral politics as the central strategy. The focus was on 
electing a Democratic Party majority in both Houses of Congress as the 
way to end the Iraq War. Well, the Democrats got control of both the 
Senate and House of Representatives as a result of the 2006 elections 
but the war continued and even escalated. And the Democrats continued 
voting to fund it.

The other negative development was the split in the antiwar movement. 
Instead of parlaying the success of the 2005 mobilization, which was 
co-sponsored by United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ) and the ANSWER 
Coalition, and concentrating on organizing even larger united actions, 
the movement fractured, with UFPJ leaders declaring they would have no 
further collaboration with ANSWER. This severely weakened the movement 
and it remains a continuing and festering problem.

The current period has ushered in major developments that profoundly 
affect the antiwar movement. The first, of course, is the very severe 
economic crisis. For tens of millions of people in this country, the 
central issue today is survival. Ending the wars and occupations is no 
loner the priority it once was, especially since U.S. casualties are 
much less than they were in the previous period. Today we are witnessing 
increasing numbers of protest actions against budget cuts, denial of 
essential social services, assaults on workers’ living standard and 
their right to organize and bargain collectively, mass unemployment, 
housing foreclosures, lack of health care coverage, breakdown of the 
infrastructure, environmental issues, etc. In short, American society 
faces a deep crisis of epidemic proportions which grows worse by the 
day. The antiwar movement is struggling to connect its issues to the 
fightback on other fronts and to demonstrate its relevance by arguing, 
among other things, that the choice is guns or butter, because we can’t 
have both. So our greatest challenge is to make that connection and that 
is an ongoing process.

The other major development is the election of Barack Obama to the White 
House. Elected as an antiwar candidate, Obama has already dashed the 
hopes of millions by escalating in Afghanistan, which he continues to 
argue is the “good war,” and by intensifying the drone bombings in 
Pakistan. At the same time, he says he will not pull out all U.S. troops 
from Iraq until 2011.That’s much too long for many in the antiwar 
movement but since the casualties are down and the direction appears to 
be to get out, large numbers are prepared to give Obama the benefit of 
the doubt and no longer feel the same compulsion to take to the streets 
to demand “Out Now!”

As long as Obama’s maintains his credibility and popularity in the 
conduct of foreign policy, and as long as illusions persist that the 
Iraq War is winding down and that the U.S. will indeed withdraw all of 
its forces, and as long as the rationale for continuing the war against 
Afghanistan and Pakistan is not challenged more assertively, the antiwar 
movement will not likely draw the kind of crowds it did in the past. But 
everything changes and that will certainly be the case here as the 
economic meltdown accelerates, the number of casualties in Afghanistan 
climbs, and new flareups and conflicts erupt in Iraq. The National 
Assembly believes that these and other developments will result in our 
antiwar message resonating more broadly, as we proceed and persist in 
the struggle to strengthen, rebuild and unite the antiwar movement.

Ron: The National Assembly is having a national conference in Pittsburgh 
on July 10th and 11th this year. Can you tell us why the conference is 
being held now? What are your hopes for this conference?

The conference has been called primarily to assess the current situation 
and to plan actions in the period ahead. The antiwar movement critically 
needs continuity, meaning it has to constantly stay active planning and 
organizing periodic mobilizations in the streets – however large or 
small – to build the movement, win new activists to its ranks, 
demonstrate visibility, and educate masses of people. Reflecting this 
last priority, we look to the Pittsburgh conference to combine an 
educational/activist program which will revitalize the movement and make 
it a more powerful force in the struggle to end the wars and 
occupations. We are convinced that the best way to arrive at such a 
program is by convening a national conference open to all peace 
activists who will have the opportunity to share their ideas and proposals.

We also hope that the Pittsburgh conference will further promote the 
cause of unity of the antiwar movement. There are a number of positive 
signs reflecting broad and growing support for the National Assembly’s 
unity campaign. Top leaders of the movement – such as Michael T. 
McPhearson, UFPJ’s Co-Chair and Executive Director of Veterans for 
Peace, and Brian Becker, ANSWER’s National Coordinator -- are scheduled 
to address the conference and this bodes well. All of us in the movement 
need each other and it is high time to put aside past grievances and 
move forward together. This would certainly be in the interest of the 
larger struggle to end the wars and occupations, and the tens of 
millions of people subjected to foreign occupations and the killing and 
destruction that goes with it would enthusiastically welcome such a 
development. Our responsibility is to help make that happen.

Ron: The National Assembly has been against the occupation and war in 
Afghanistan since the Assembly was formed. Other national antiwar 
networks have been less pointed on this matter, focusing mostly on the 
situation in Iraq instead. Why has the National Assembly been as opposed 
to the war in Afghanistan as it is to the occupation (and war) in Iraq?

One of the highlights of the June 2008 conference was the proposal from 
the floor that the National Assembly expand its agenda to include the 
demand for immediate withdrawal of U.S. military forces from 
Afghanistan. Proponents of this proposal argued convincingly that the 
same government waging war and occupying Iraq was doing the same thing 
in Afghanistan. The proposal was debated and approved by a majority. In 
retrospect, it is clear to all of us that we arrived at the correct 
decision. This was a classic example of democracy in action as practiced 
by the National Assembly.

The war against Afghanistan violates the right of self-determination; is 
resulting in more and more deaths and casualties of Afghanis, Americans, 
and other nationals; is unwinnable; and is costing taxpayers a fortune 
that is needed to feed, clothe and house people, not slaughter them. 
These are all good reasons to oppose the war’s continuation.

Ron: Back to Obama for a minute. What do you think it will take to get 
him to withdraw US troops from Iraq before 2011? When I look at his 
record so far, especially in regards to his action (or lack thereof) on 
the use of torture, illegal eavesdropping and the closing of Gitmo and 
other torture chambers, I am less hopeful than I was in January. What 
kind of strategy do you hope to see develop that will end these 
occupations and the accompanying activities?

We believe in the strategy of mass action as the principal way to end 
the wars and occupations. What is critical to achieving success in this 
struggle is not who is sitting in the White House but who is marching in 
the streets. After all, the Vietnam War was ended during the Nixon and 
Ford Republican administrations, not under the Democrats. Electoral 
politics and other forms of protest all have a role, but masses of 
people in motion are what brings about fundamental change. This includes 
forcing changes in government as shown by the ouster of the Shah of Iran 
in 1979 and the overthrow of dictator Ferdinand Marcos seven years later 
in the Philippines, despite the history of his being propped up by 
Washington.

Ron: I read recently that there are tens of thousands of security 
contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan in addition to the troops. How does 
one go about insuring their withdrawal as well?

The presence of so many private contractors in Iraq is undoubtedly a 
gigantic problem. They play a mercenary role and do a lot of the 
occupying power’s dirty work, which, as we now know, includes torturing 
prisoners and detainees. Private contractors outnumber U.S. troops in 
Iraq, and more than 180,000 civilians, including Americans, foreigners 
and Iraqis, are under U.S. contracts. All must be sent packing and when 
we call for “Out Now!” we include contractors with an exclamation point. 
The same mass movement that will sooner or later force Washington to 
withdraw U.S. troops and equipment from Iraq and Afghanistan and shut 
down U.S. military bases in both countries is the same movement that 
must insure that the contractors leave as well.

Ron: Thanks. Anything else?

Yes, we urge readers of this article and other antiwar activists to 
register for and attend the July 10-12 conference. It will be held at La 
Roche College in Pittsburgh. Please visit our website at 
www.natassembly.org or call 216-736-4704 or email natassembly at aol.com 
for more information. You can register online or via regular mail. We 
will be glad to send you upon request a brochure containing a 
registration form. Write National Assembly, P.O. Box 21008, Cleveland, 
OH 44121.

Ron Jacobs is author of The Way the Wind Blew: a history of the Weather 
Underground, which is just republished by Verso. Jacobs' essay on Big 
Bill Broonzy is featured in CounterPunch's collection on music, art and 
sex, Serpents in the Garden. His first novel, Short Order Frame Up, is 
published by Mainstay Press. He can be reached at: rjacobs3625 at charter.net