NationStates Jolt Archive


How anti-war protest movements have made the U.S. stronger

The Cat-Tribe
23-09-2005, 18:09
COMMENT: As I have said many times, protesting a war is patriotic. This excerpt from the linked article explains just some of the positive history of war protests in the United States. You can't call all these people commies or traitors.

Link (http://slate.msn.com/id/2080735/)

Aristophanes' Lysistrata a play that reminds us that anti-war movements are as old as war itself. In American history in particular, wartime dissent has a venerable lineage.

Even during that most mythic of causes, the Revolution, fully one third of Americans opposed independence, in John Adams' famous estimate, while an equal third favored it. Only in retrospect did the Revolution become an unambiguously glorious endeavor.

Dissenters spoke out against virtually every subsequent conflict. The humiliating defeats of the War of 1812 made that fight so unpopular that the states of New England considered seceding from the Union. A generation later, many Americans viewed the Mexican-American War (not unreasonably) as an act of naked U.S. aggression. In 1848, shortly after the war's conclusion, Congress censured President James Polk for "unnecessarily and unconstitutionally" commencing hostilities. Supporting the rebuke was Illinois Rep. Abraham Lincoln, who attacked Polk as "a bewildered, confounded and miserably perplexed man."

Popular support for the Spanish-American War waned as the relatively easy fight for a free (i.e., pro-American) Cuba gave way to a more controversial program of wresting away Spain's other colonies, particularly the Philippines. When President William McKinley opted to annex the Philippines—he wanted, he said, "to educate the Filipinos and uplift and Christianize them"—a motley array of critics from Andrew Carnegie to Mark Twain objected. William Jennings Bryan used his dissenting stance as the centerpiece of his (losing) 1900 presidential campaign.

During World War I, critics excoriated Woodrow Wilson—who had run for re-election in 1916 on the slogan "He kept us out of war"—for entangling America in a bloody European conflict. Political leaders from Wisconsin Sen. Robert LaFollette to Socialist Party presidential candidate Eugene V. Debs spoke out. ("I had supposed until recently that it was the duty of senators … to vote and act according to their convictions," LaFollette sardonically told the Senate. "Quite another doctrine has recently been promulgated by certain newspapers … and that is the doctrine of 'standing back of the president' without inquiring whether the president is right or wrong.") The majority of Congress, however, passed a series of repressive laws that let the government imprison or deport thousands of critics of the president, including Debs. Vigilante groups ostracized, assaulted, and even lynched countless more.

In fact, the only major war that lacked an organized bloc of dissenters was World War II: Pearl Harbor had made an isolationist stance untenable, and as Americans learned more and more about Nazi Germany, most anti-war activists decided the defeat of fascism was worth fighting for. (Some rejoined peace movements, such as the nascent anti-nuclear effort, at the war's end.) Still, even during the "Good War," critics persisted. On the left, pacifists served prison time for refusing to fight or perform compulsory alternative service. On the right, congressional Republicans launched an investigation of Pearl Harbor, with some implying that Franklin Roosevelt had foreknowledge of the attack.

The case for dissent rests on more than its lineage. Critics of war—even when they've been wrong, or their comments distasteful—have done far more good than harm. Although enemy leaders may take heart from knowing that Americans are divided, the mere expression of opposition has never materially hurt any U.S. military campaign. Except perhaps for the Revolution's Loyalists, no dissenters have aided America's adversaries in large numbers. When, as in Vietnam, conditions like flagging troop morale have undermined battlefield success, it was the soldiers' awareness of the war's futility—not the protests back home—that created those conditions. The sense that the war was unwinnable fueled the peace movement, not the other way around.

In short, the claim that by protesting dissenters are showing insufficient "support" for the troops is specious. Does anyone really believe that doves wish ill upon American fighting men and women? Sometimes hawks cite stories that Vietnam anti-war activists vilified or even spit on returning veterans—stories, as Jack Shafer wrote in May 2000, that range from the overstated to the bogus. In fact, like almost all anti-war movements, anti-Vietnam demonstrators argued for peace in the name of the grunts being sent to die. Remember Vietnam Veterans Against the War?

Not only have anti-war movements caused the nation little direct injury; they've made positive contributions. Dissent has produced important works of American political and social thought. Henry David Thoreau wrote his classic [I]Civil Disobedience as a cri de coeur against the Mexican-American War ("the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool"). Randolph Bourne wrote his greatest essays protesting World War I.

Anti-war efforts have given rise, too, to valuable institutions and movements. From the War of 1812 emerged the first full-fledged peace organizations, a key part of the ensuing reform wave that brought penal reform, new opportunities for women, public education, and, in some states, the abolition of slavery. The aftermath of World War I saw the formation of the American Civil Liberties Union (headed by Roger Baldwin, who had been jailed for his dissent) and increasing protections for free speech.

Most important, peace activists have sometimes actually helped end or prevent wars. Wayne State University historian Melvin Small has shown that the Vietnam anti-war movement helped marshal a majority of Americans (and especially influential players in Congress, the press, and the intelligentsia) against the war. If it didn't end the war as speedily as it had hoped, its activities did, indirectly, lead Johnson to forgo a second term and persuade Nixon to reduce American troop levels and to scrap plans to intensify the war. And while it's hard to prove conclusively why things don't happen, historian Lawrence Wittner contends in The Struggle Against the Bomb that the post-World War II anti-nuclear campaign played a key role in curbing the nuclear arms race and preventing nuclear war. On a smaller scale, he suggests, public antiwar pressure may have deterred the Reagan administration from undertaking a full-blown war in Central America.

If the doves were give in to their critics and shut up, then we would all have to trust the Bush administration completely to decide whether to continue, escalate, or end the war. The government would have a free hand to do as it likes. Far from showing their patriotism, critics who muzzle themselves in wartime are abdicating a democratic responsibility.
Swimmingpool
23-09-2005, 18:13
Oh, the ownage...
The Nazz
23-09-2005, 18:15
Thanks for posting this. You're going to catch some hell for it, I imagine, but thanks for doing it anyway.
Balipo
23-09-2005, 18:31
Good stuff!!
The South Islands
23-09-2005, 18:32
Aristophanes also wrote The Clouds, perhaps one of the most obcene and lurid plays ever written.
Psychotic Mongooses
23-09-2005, 18:37
COMMENT: As I have said many times, protesting a war is patriotic. This excerpt from the linked article explains just some of the positive history of war protests in the United States. You can't call all these people commies or traitors.

snip
I think I love you.... :p
Sumamba Buwhan
23-09-2005, 18:44
Awesome!
The Cat-Tribe
24-09-2005, 02:14
bump
The Nazz
24-09-2005, 05:29
No real arguments from the peanut gallery yet--wonder why that is?
Lacadaemon
24-09-2005, 05:35
The way the Vietnam war was ended is nothing to be proud of. I would also take issue with the actual aims and goals of the nuclear disarmament movement as well.
Gauthier
24-09-2005, 05:36
And the quote from Teddy Roosevelt:

“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Minalkra
24-09-2005, 05:40
Damn straight Teddy!
The Nazz
24-09-2005, 05:44
The way the Vietnam war was ended is nothing to be proud of. I would also take issue with the actual aims and goals of the nuclear disarmament movement as well.
Vietnam ended the way it did because, like the current Iraq debacle, it was based on false premises and the American people eventually found out about it and decided it wasn't worth it anymore. And there was more to it than that--North Vietnam saw us as a continuation of the imperialist regime of France and they were fighting for their independence. They'd have fought to the last man, just as we would if we were occupied. Here's what that means: the US could not have succeeded militarily in Vietnam unless they were willing to completely wipe out the population. It's that simple. What was happening in the states at the time, no matter what Eutrusca or other Vietnam era apologists try to say, had little to do with the morale of US troops in Vietnam. It was just a bad idea all the way around, just as this Iraq war has been from the very beginning. And they will end similarly--mark my words.
Greenlander
24-09-2005, 05:46
Oh, the ownage...

The guy makes a decent post, a decent point of view, an expression that is at least respectable and true even if one does not agree with the political flavor of it...

However, now onto your post, please illuminate us as to exactly how the original post amounts to an "ownage" of anyone in particular? In my opinion the post in question does not do any such thing, it's not that type of post at all :rolleyes:

No real arguments from the peanut gallery yet--wonder why that is?

Gee, let's think about this for a moment, now why might the "peanut gallery" not wish to respond in this thread. Perhaps it is entirely because such grandiose posts as yours are already here and it is too much for them to contend with… *blank stare*

As to Cat-Tribe and his original post, nicely said. It educates and narrates a history close enough I will not nit-pick. Although I do not find your argument convincing for myself, it is well done. Respect without agreement, but appreciative of the contribution and look forward to future contributions as well.
The Nazz
24-09-2005, 05:49
Gee, let's think about this for a moment, now why might the "peanut gallery" not wish to respond in this thread. Perhaps it is entirely because such grandiose posts as yours are already here and it is too much for them to contend with… *blank stare*
More likely because you know you can't touch it, and so you decide to act all cool and hope no one will notice that, once again, you've got nothing.
Zatarack
24-09-2005, 05:50
Well, that's one more argument I'm no longer in. I wonder what's left?
Greenlander
24-09-2005, 05:51
More likely because you know you can't touch it, and so you decide to act all cool and hope no one will notice that, once again, you've got nothing.

Oooh, ouch, it hurts so much, you saw right through me :rolleyes:
The Nazz
24-09-2005, 05:55
Oooh, ouch, it hurts so much, you saw right through me :rolleyes:
Well, it's easy when you're so transparent.

Face it--you've got nothing to counter the idea that the ability to protest makes the country stronger, because it's a self-evident and historically proven fact. So either get over yourself, or set about trying to debate, but don't sit back and try to act like you simply respect the skill of a guy who gets paid to write for a living. If you think his argument is weak, then man up and try to take it apart.

But then, of course, you'd have to be able to do that in the first place, and you're not up to the task, I think.
Lacadaemon
24-09-2005, 05:57
Vietnam ended the way it did because, like the current Iraq debacle, it was based on false premises and the American people eventually found out about it and decided it wasn't worth it anymore. And there was more to it than that--North Vietnam saw us as a continuation of the imperialist regime of France and they were fighting for their independence. They'd have fought to the last man, just as we would if we were occupied. Here's what that means: the US could not have succeeded militarily in Vietnam unless they were willing to completely wipe out the population. It's that simple. What was happening in the states at the time, no matter what Eutrusca or other Vietnam era apologists try to say, had little to do with the morale of US troops in Vietnam. It was just a bad idea all the way around, just as this Iraq war has been from the very beginning. And they will end similarly--mark my words.

I would imagine the "false" premise you are talking about is JFK bumpimg off their President, thus sort of sticking the US in it.

Also, North Vietnam was never "occupied"; bombed yes, but never occupied. Eventually, they could have been fought to exhaustion, resulting in a partion and return to the status quo ante similar to the end of the Korean war. (And indeed it took them several years to regather their strength before the 1975 annexation of the South.)

I won't dispute that the US actually prosecuted the War like an asshat, but that is beside the point, and had nothing to do with the war protests. The US deliberately involved itself in the internal policies of South Vietnam under the specious Truman domino theory, and then abandoned them after escalating the war. And look at what happened to the South Vietnamese once they were occupied by the north. No-one in their right mind - be they leftist or rightist - can applaud the ultimate result, unless of course they are capable of the same ethical gymnastics that allow one to be a member of CND in the eighties and pro-Iran's right to arm itself with nuclear weapons today.

Frankly, as there is little doubt that the anti-war movement was in no small part responsible for the untimely withdrawn and slipshod guarantees of the territorial intergrity of South Vietnam which resulted in the suffering of millions of vietnamese, I don't think that they have anything to be particularly proud about in that instance. (Unless of course you wish to make the case that american lives are inherently more valuable that vietnamese ones).
Lokiaa
24-09-2005, 06:02
Well, no one is bothering going to post a credible counter-response, and my US history is not exactly straight at midnight, but I guess there could be a couple of questions.
1. How exactly does it make America stronger? :p It seems it's just an argument to say that protesting isn't Anti-American.
2. Didn't Lincoln form a small militia to fight in the Mexican-American War? I could be quite wrong, but something in my head is ringing about that.
3. I think WWII has been taken on mythic proportions in the US, both by right-wingers and left-wingers. There were still strikes and labor tensions, and I highly doubt EVERYONE was gung-ho on blowing the snot out of Germany and Japan. Whether that side got a lot of media attention, I don't honestly know.
4. On the Spanish-American War, did public opinon REALLY sink during the war (which saw, what, 100 American lives lost in actual combat?) or in the vicious aftermath in the Phillipines?
5. I think it can be reasonably argued that the people have more voting power in the current era, and media is sufficently more manipulative, and that a change in public opinon can legitmatley end a war when it IS winnable.

Okay, that's all I really intend to say, for I have mid-terms I should be studying for and a paper to write at some point. :p

EDIT: Where's the talk about the Civil War? That certainly deserves some merit.