What purpose does protest serve now?

James O. Goldsborough

April 3, 2003

What is the point of protest, people ask? The war has begun. It won't be over until it's over. Why continue opposition now?

Just as self-defense is in the nature of things, some wars are in the nature of things. A person or nation attacked defends itself. "What kind of people do they think we are?" asked Churchill when the Axis powers demanded surrender in the darkest days of 1941.

Some wars are not in the nature of things. The Iraq war is in response to no attack, no threat to the United States, no imminent danger. The Bush administration tried and failed to link Iraq to Sept. 11. It started this war even as U.N. weapons inspectors were asking for more time and the Security Council was opposed to war.

It is the nature of this war that is causing protest. Unlike the Vietnam War protest, the Iraq protest started prior to war. In Vietnam, it took the nation several years to realize its mistake. The levers of government are so powerful that without a free press, the public might never have known the truth about the Vietnam War – "truth, the first casualty of war."

This war has been condemned by organized church leaders with near unanimity. It is seen as a violation of "just war" theory – last resort, proportionality, rightful intention, legitimate leadership, protecting civilians. Bush's war is based on a principle Americans had never heard of even a year ago: pre-emption. Pre-emption, the opposite of self-defense, is illegal under international law.

This war is illegal, immoral and unjust, but now that it has started, some ask, why continue to protest? It's too late. The troops are at the gates of Baghdad where they must either storm the city, lay siege to it or retreat, all unacceptable options.

The obvious answer to "why bother?" comes from Vietnam. We know protest can stop a bad war, Vietnam was the precedent. But deserts are easier for tanks and planes than jungles, and few believe this war will last long enough or casualties mount high enough for protest to stop it. So what is the point?

I have talked to enough Americans in recent weeks to report that indeed there is a point. A great many people feel this war is a violation of American principles. They don't have to be told by church leaders or newspaper columnists that this war – the destruction of an ancient nation in the pursuit of one man – is an evil war. They feel it in their bones. They feel violated and they are angry.

This war has created a profound moral dilemma. Americans are accustomed to supporting their troops in the field. The Vietnam years were traumatic precisely because it was the first time in more than a century Americans were face-to-face with a bad war, and a conflict erupted between conscience and patriotism. (The 1898 Spanish-American war was fought in the days of "splendid little wars" and can't be compared with Vietnam.)

Let's not forget what Vietnam did to this nation and to the world: riots, terrorism, revolts, assassinations, cities burning, two wrecked presidencies, one presidential resignation. The possibility existed in Vietnam to win the war but at so great a cost we would have lost: a narrow Pyrrhic victory triggering so many consequences that it would become defeat.

This war, Bush's war, offers the same possibilities. What if "regime change" brings a worse regime, a fundamentalist regime, breaking up the country and spreading war to neighboring Turkey, Syria and Iran? What if Bush's war unleashes a worldwide spasm of revenge against America and influences the Israeli-Palestine conflict in ways that feed worldwide terrorism?

Bush says these things won't happen. Based on history, I think the chances of them happening are high.

We called Vietnam an American tragedy and said we learned the "lessons of Vietnam." Richard Nixon, forced to resign in part over Vietnam (the wiretapping, the plumbers, the "smoking gun"), wrote a book, "No More Vietnams."

If there is a lesson of Vietnam it is this: The people shall never again let an obsessed president, aided by his "best and brightest" and abetted by a feckless Congress, do that to us again. Power resides in the people, and they will make their voices heard one way or another.

Unlike Vietnam, this war won't be stopped by protest. But as Baghdad is destroyed and people around the world recoil at the sight of dead civilians and B-52s dropping bombs on cities again, as Arab and Muslim opinion is enflamed and terrorism draws a new breath, Americans who oppose this war cannot remain silent. We support our troops but oppose the politicians who sent them on this fool's mission. We must bear witness.

How does bearing witness help, I am asked?

How can it not help, is my answer. Neither history nor collective conscience will ever excuse this war. Now is not the time for silent acquiescence.

As a foreign correspondent based in Europe, I used to joke that I'd never met a German who was a Nazi or a Frenchman who wasn't in the Resistance. In retrospect, we all choose the right side.

What's harder is to be on the right side from the beginning.

Goldsborough can be reached via e-mail at jim.goldsborough@uniontrib.com.

Source...

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies.

printed from What purpose does protest serve now? on 2004-05-25 22:28:24