As the antiwar movement gears up for 2008, it may be useful to remind ourselves of two great lessons from the anti-Vietnam War movement. One: It is very difficult to stop the U.S. government from waging war. Two: Combining passion for peace with strategic savvy, we will succeed anyway.
Painful Memories Yield Valuable Insights
In March 1965, before ordering the first deployment of U.S. ground troops to Vietnam (U.S. "advisers" had been there for years) President Lyndon Johnson told Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara: "I don't think anything is gonna be as bad as losing, and I don't see any way of winning."
Johnson had just received a classified briefing saying that the U.S. client regime in South Vietnam was about to collapse. Military experts declared that only a huge U.S. military commitment could avert imminent defeat. They said that looking ahead even "warfare of any design, scale or duration" could not assure success.
The heartbreaking truth is that top U.S. officials knew they could not win in Vietnam even before the first bombing runs and large-scale troop deployments. Still they plunged ahead. The cost was more than two million Vietnamese and 50,000 U.S. dead; uncounted wounded and innumerable lives ravaged on all sides; much of Vietnam poisoned by Agent Orange for two generations.
All this carnage because of U.S. leaders' calculations about the damage to empire if Washington was forced to withdraw, and fear of being politically destroyed at home by the charge of "losing Vietnam." But in the end the combination of Vietnamese tenacity, international isolation, and antiwar resistance here forced U.S. leaders to recognize that Washington would pay a bigger political price for staying than leaving.
And Now Iraq
George Bush and a few diehard neocons may still believe that the U.S. can "win" in Iraq. The reality-based sectors of the U.S. elite know this is a fantasy. But, just like Lyndon Johnson and Robert McNamara in 1965, the demands of being Imperial Guardians make them resist getting out.
In fact, the imperatives to stay in Iraq are stronger than those which produced a decade of senseless slaughter in Vietnam.
Vietnam, after all, was important to Washington only as a "domino" in the Cold War. The "loss" of Vietnam didn't deprive the U.S. of any crucial resources or endanger "national defense." But Iraq sits on huge oil fields right in a region absolutely central to the world's energy supply and to Washington's geo-political strategy.
Also complicating matters: Vietnam's struggle was led by a left-wing party with overwhelming support among Vietnamese and the active solidarity of people across the globe. While the Iraqi people likewise have the sympathy of most of humanity, Iraq has no unified political force commanding the allegiance of a majority nor the solidarity of a broad-based international movement. Even as most Iraqis oppose the occupation, competing Iraqi factions are engaged in a bloody civil war.
Inside the U.S., the anti-Vietnam War movement emerged during a period of progressive advance. First and foremost, the Black freedom struggle had become a powerful force that every other movement drew on for inspiration and strength. There was a direct line from the African-American upsurge to the revolt within the military, as Black soldiers spearheaded the G.I. rebellion which rendered the U.S. occupation force unusable by 1971. Today's antiwar movement, in contrast, follows 30-plus years of right-wing rollback, which has weakened the Black community and other constituencies that were pillars of antiwar, anti-racist motion in the 1960s.
Last, for all the anticommunist hysteria of the Vietnam era, no "enemy" ever actually attacked the U.S. But the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001 was a crime against humanity which traumatized the country. It provided Washington with a powerful ideological weapon for manipulating popular fears, demonizing Arabs and Muslims, and intimidating critics.
Keep on Pushin'
Given these realities, it should come as no surprise that those who hold power in Washington are not yet ready to quit Iraq.
What is more remarkable is how large a section of the U.S. people have seen through the lies and fear-mongering to turn against the war. And how much progress the antiwar movement has made in hurting the military's ability to recruit, supporting G.I. resisters, and to exert pressure on Congress.
For 2008 stepped-up efforts are needed on these fronts and more.
With election season already underway, it is urgent that "war vs. peace" be catapulted into the center of the debate, and to press every candidate to take an antiwar stance. Tactics ranging from "voters for peace" pledges to protests at campaign rallies all have their place. Creative ways to capture media attention ought to be high on any list. (CODEPINK has played an exemplary role here; to join in go to www.codepinkalert.org.)
The time is ripe for an uptick in civil disobedience, so that no institution linked to this war escapes exposure and protest. Broader educational efforts are needed to reach millions who have not yet had face-to-face human contact with individuals pressing the case for immediate withdrawal. Confronting racism must be integral to the mix: Pat Robertson's endorsement of Rudy Giuliani with a screed about the "bloodlust of Islamic terrorists" is a wake-up call about the ideological barrage headed our way.
Combining direct action and patient dialogue with people who now disagree with us, we can build bridges that millions will one day walk over to join our ranks. There is no daylight for the U.S. war-makers at the end of their Iraq tunnel. Sooner or later they will be forced out as they were in Vietnam.
Those of us who lived through those years learned hard lessons about perseverance. The younger folks now taking center stage are learning faster. Together let's take Curtis Mayfield's anthem from the sixties struggle into our hearts and our work:
I've got to keep on pushing I can't stop now Move up a little higher Some way, somehow
