The New York Times reports that on Tuesday, the leaders of the antiwar coalition Win Without War will gather for a two-day retreat to discuss their group's future now that the war has ended. The group's challenge is to build on whatever momentum they might still have left and to "find a message that resonates".
Leaders in the movement do not like to focus on the notion that they lost. Yes, they failed to stop the war. Yes, the public has overwhelmingly supported President Bush's actions. With a swift United States victory over a brutal dictator and fewer casualties than most experts predicted, it is particularly hard for antiwar organizers to argue that their dire forecasts were right.The group's website still advocates "Alternatives to Pre-emptive War Against Iraq to Keep America Safe". They may as well promote "Alternatives to Soap and Water to Keep America Clean".
Nothing in the article indicates that the WiWoWar folks have learned anything from the success of the war and the relief among Iraqis at being rid of the Saddamite menace. What the self-appointed peace experts might do would be to admit that "okay, we were wrong, the war itself turned out to be the least bad alternative after all" and then focus on promoting viable ideas for rebuilding Iraq and preserving the peace. If they could put forth any legitimate ideas for U.S. relations with the Middle East I might give them some credit. But that is not what's happening. They seem to be starting with the premise that their only mission is to trash the Bush administration. Their opposition to the war and to any foreign policy initiative are merely proxies. The content doesn't matter. They are about dissent for its own sake, never mind the consequences of what their dissent is nominally advocating.
That is why they have to try so hard to fabricate a new message. Because they stand for nothing other than reflexive opposition. For an organization to ask the questions "what are we about? what is our message?" is like when Ross Perot's running mate, Adm. James Stockdale, asked the questions in the 1992 vice-presidential debate with Dan Quayle and Al Gore: "Who am I? Why am I here?". If you have to ask...
Fortunately, most Americans are smart enough to see through the self-congratulating vapidity, unreality and ineffectuality that still characterizes the antiwar movement, especially now after the war is won.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 21, 2003 07:19 AMThe anti-war movement is simply the other side of the same coin of those who wage war in the name of "liberation".
They are two sides of the same coin because both embrace a worldview that embraces self-sacrifice.
That the elimination of Hussein was a geo-political imperative is not in doubt. However Iran was and remains the greater threat, with Bush's friend Saudi Arabia a major financier of terrorism. Let us see how the Administration approaches these issues. Will Mr. Bush tackle this or will he attempt to bully his only true froned iin the Middle-East, Israel? I hope that PM Sharon is made of the stern stuff that former-PM Shamir is.
Posted by: David Klotz on April 21, 2003 05:12 AM