Why the Anti War Movement is Mum on Afghanistan

I wanted to respond to a letter that ran in the Strib about a week ago now, about Obama's decision to send troops to Afghanistan. The letter writer wondered why there aren't 50,000 people protesting this decision and stated that, if McCain were president and had made this decision, there would be 50,000 people protesting. The writer went on to say that his daughter, who was involved in the anti-war movement, now thinks that the movement was really an anti-Bush movement.

I don't think this is true. While Bush made great kindling for the anti-war fire (in the metaphorical effigy sense) the movement wasn't all about him. The unfortunate thing about movements is that, in the end, they're actually all about their leaders. Generally speaking, leaders of movements are people who love to hear themselves talk, and movements sustain their momentum as long as there is an audience willing to listen. Too often, these leaders talk a lot but say little, and lose their audience.

I was involved in the anti-war movement in the beginning, too. I went to the first protest in New York City on February 15, 2003 (my 19th birthday) and voiced my disapproval with the other 100,000 people. It was fun; the thing about protests is that they give you a natural high, an unique euphoria that comes only from standing next to thousands of people who agree with you.

But I didn't go to any more protests after that. As great as that day felt, I knew that the protests weren't going to stop the war machine. Protests didn't stop the Vietnam war--why would they have stopped Iraq? And secondly, it quickly became clear that the movement was providing a platform for self-indulgent narcissists.* My then boyfriend recounted all the other protests he attended after that first one in February, told me about how he drummed on a plastic bucket until it shattered, how strangers hugged him, and complained that the police called the protesters "babies". He mentioned nothing about the message they were trying to send, or what was said at the protest. It was all about him. Additionally, I read a newspaper article several years later that quoted him saying, "If there were a draft there'd be 100,000 more people here" (or something to that effect; I'm paraphrasing). That almost sounds like he was whining, doesn't it? As in, "gee, I wish there were a draft--that way there would be so many more people here to listen to me." I sensed that there were people who were happy there was a war on, because the war gave them a sense of purpose, a reason to unite and make noise. I was reminded of Jeremy Sisto's character in that movie The Sixties: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nl58QbpVLHw
He's the one who leads the protesters to charge the armed guards, endangering all of them including his girlfriend, proving that he cares more about a flashy protest than the people around him; sorry I couldn't find a better clip.

In the 2004-2005 school year, I was abroad, but I read about changes that were happening within the movement. Military families who joined the movement after losing sons and daughters joined the movement only to discover that it had little to do with Iraq--the movement leaders held up placards that said "US out of the Philippines NOW!" They were confused and dismayed--the Philippines had nothing to do with Iraq. The anti-war movement had morphed into an anti-Imperalism movement. Meanwhile, the families of Iraq vets were frustrated, because they wanted the movement to be about Iraq. The disconnect between the leaders of the movement and the Iraq war is a clear one--for the leaders, Iraq was a concept, an idea, just as "imperialism" and "colonialism" are concepts. For the military families, Iraq was a painful reality. The movement killed itself by shifting away from the war and into the murky conceptual territory of imperialism, because by doing so it lost the support of military families and vets.

Another reason why there aren't protests against Afghanistan (actually, I've seen some footage of people protesting...and they're still chanting the anti-imperialist mantra) is that the people who were at the forefront of the movement in 2003 most likely don't have time for the movement now. They were in college then. Now they're working or looking for work. Their main concern is the economy, like everyone else. When I was a senior in 2005-2006, the underclassmen didn't seem interested in continuing the movement.

Lastly, Obama's decision isn't the same as those made by the Bush administration. Why? Because he spent months conferring with advisors before he made this decision. Because he has a brain and isn't a cowboy gone wild. And because, as many have said, Afghanistan is where the focus should have been all along. That, and: these wars have been going on for ages. The movement petered out five years ago. Who has the engery any more? Ask the kids who are currently in college.

*Read The True Believer, by Eric Hoffer