Comments on The Art of War for the Anti-War Movement

Go to STOP THE WARS!! - Add a comment - Go to The Art of War for the Anti-War Movement

"Unless

 Christians are as willing to die for peace as soldiers are willing to die for war, we had better basically shut up about being peace activists,"-Christian Peacemaker Team member Stewart Vriesinga

posted by nenkai04 on April 21, 2006 at 10:01 AM | link to this | reply

I fear that unless things get violent in the U.S., the

antiwar movement will remain as disorganized and ineffectual as it is.   Part of the problem remains that those who are interested in ending the war are still unsure about how to do this, and so it drags on until something drastic happens.  There are no legal wars (or illegal ones for that matter) that are not at the mercy of the perception of neighbor nation-states.  Some people may believe that this war is illegal.  I think it's something we've done before and will do again with as little justification as we had this time.  We are a nation which follows leaders, and our leaders have long ago sold us out for more lucrative followers.  So we are lost.  And probably permanently.  Very interesting piece with many different perspectives built in to the author's perspective.  Thanks for the reading.

posted by brettnik on April 9, 2006 at 2:27 PM | link to this | reply

good post

i agree -- the anti-war movement needs something different from the 60's and 70's activism and marches etc.

 

it seems so -- "60's"

posted by Xeno-x on April 5, 2006 at 2:39 PM | link to this | reply

Ritter's perspective is fairly peculiar.

Unlike most of the vocal anti-war activists, he is a Republican (and apparently not just one of those who never got around to changing affiliation). So he resents that anti-war protests are often infused with other agendas. While I agree that each protest should have a single focus, I have to defend the protestors' sense that the issues are interrelated. They are not just a random collection of leftist beliefs. Their protests, broadly speaking, are animated by a resistance to the political power of big business, the power that lay behind excessive pollution, excessive profiteering, and excessive war (not coincidentally, the three main focuses of the left-wing "antiglobalization" movement). Few of them would seriously argue that all pollution, profit and war should be avoided in all circumstances. Their concern appears to be mainly the gross excesses resulting when the public sector is co-opted by private interests. Politically connected businesses willing to pursue profit regardless of who gets hurt, either by being poisoned, being overworked, or being bombed. It all fits together rather elegantly. Sure, it's overly simplistic. Not all big businesses are the same; some more socially conscious than others, etc. But you can't have an effective protest if you focus more heavily on the nuances than the basic premises. It's not fair the treatment the protestors get in the supposedly liberal press. The protestors are generally more worthy of admiration than our current government leaders, and yet they don't get nearly the same degree of respect.

posted by Dylan24 on April 5, 2006 at 10:17 AM | link to this | reply