I am against the Iraq war, thought I had gone through the looking glass when I first heard it was a possibility, and attended my first anti-war rally in October 2002. I was the only person I knew that was against the first Gulf war. I have been called a liberal, a communist, a socialist, and a traitor (and this is only by my mother), but never a Republican - until I expressed doubts about whether Jane Fonda's appearance at the peace rally on Saturday would help the movement.
This got me thinking about the peace movement in general, and several things that don’t quite make sense to me. I realize that I may be troll rated for this, but DKos is a diverse group and some of you may understand what I mean, if not agree.
Ok, the people at the rallies are really amazing, smart, articulate, dedicated and really nice – good people. But I was trying to explain to a friend the other day why the Raging Grannies and Code Pink dress the way they do, and said it was to have fun. "Well", my friend asked, "should they be having fun at a Peace Rally?" "Of course" I said, but then got to thinking about some of the people there that had lost their spouses or children in the war, and the group of Iranians hoping that their homeland is not next, and thought, wait a minute – of course people should be happy to share their like-mindedness but perhaps not be so festive. After all stopping a war is the definition of deadly serious.
Prior to the Iraq war, there were a lot of causes in which I believed but I was not what you'd call and activist. I thought and still think the WTO is shite, and admired the anti-globalization protesters at the Seattle conference back in 1999. I didn’t go – I wouldn’t have known what to do at a protest – do you chant? Throw things? I received an email from the Nader campaign urging me to dress like the grim reaper to protest the death of free speech, when Mr. Nader was not allowed to join the Presidential debate. What do you do when you share a belief but don't understand all of the methods used to convey your feelings and push forth an agenda? The grim reaper analogy might seem a bit over the top to many people, and most would have no idea what was going on.
Now, I doubt if the old workers rights, suffragette, and race equality marches used some of these attention-grabbers. Those people marched as themselves, and that I can relate to. The peace movement is now mainstream, and despite some people's initial support for the war, and for reasons we may not all agree with, most Americans are against it. Of course people should dress however they want, but why not go as yourself? Why wear costumes that have nothing to do with peace or anti-war? Personally, I like the costumes, but for different reasons, so do the Republican-Americans.
Alot of the people at this rally looked pretty average. Alot of people didn't make eye contact with me as I was trying to hand out signs because I guess they are used to doing that when people on the street ask them for something. These people are not like me, but they are anti-war.
I want to make the point that most Americans are anti-war, but how will our our lawmakers know that if they don't make themselves known, because they don't want to be associated with Jane Fonda. Yes, she is a mainstream actress, and yes, her views on the Iraq war are mainstream, but I'm sorry, as a symbol, she is just not mainstream! She is not a symbol of peace no matter what she believed then or now, and fair or not, I hope that the peace movement will not be associated with her because of her speech (which was very good I thought). I think it will alienate people that are against the Iraq war. We need people to march and write letters and make phone calls. But people have to trust the anti-war groups and what they are saying, and have to trust that they won't feel betrayed if they attend an anti-war rally.
OK, and while I'm at it, not all people that are against the war want an immediate pull out. As evidence of what will happen, please refer to the Soviet pull out of Afghanistan, which led to an immediate civil war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Afghanistan). I am not saying that we should stay indefinitely, but Iraq needs to be stabilized somehow or the civil war and loss of innocent lives will continue. If we pull out, we will probably return at some point, because as bad as we have made things,they will get worse.
I don't have the answer to how this can be accomplished, but I do know that Bush and co. cannot and will not stop the civil war whether we stay or go. I imagine that Bush and co. will screw anything up, including a withdrawal. We need the help of rational world leaders and that will never happen while they are in charge. And it should not have to wait two more years. We have to impeach to start down any constructive road, and I want the mainstream to understand this. We already know that Bush and co are not the leaders to accomplish any kind of stabilization with their legalized torture, extradition, cover-ups, no-bid contracts, use of contractors with no oversight, "accidental" journalist killings, etc. They have to be impeached and then perhaps the international community will be more willing to help us and Iraq out of this quagmire.
I suppose I must summarize before my children destroy the house. Please lets be more inclusive in the anti-war movement (and that includes anti-war Republican-Americans), and lets get serious about impeachment.