The American anti-war movement has all but vanished during the Obama years. American troops still fight and die in Iraq (over 200 KIA since Obama took office), yet protests attract dozens rather than the thousands one could expect during the Bush Administration. The fighting in Afghanistan has elevated to such an extent (over 900 Americans killed since Obama's inaugural) that 60% of American deaths have occurred during the last two and a half years of the decade-long war.
Those who focus on American sovereignty have been given the conflict in Libya - which had U.N., not Congressional approval. Those who fetishize the norms of international law had to stomach American troops being sent to Haiti, and this week's uninvited raid into Pakistan - which was a violation of their national sovereignty. This received a mostly ignored critique from the antiwar activist, and former poster girl, Cindy Sheehan, but little else. A movement that could once rely on the mainstream media to heavily publicize its cause (while washing out the more disagreeable elements) has now been shoved to the outer fringes of the left blogosphere.
It was only a few years ago when activists could call on the Senate Majority leader to decry an ongoing war as lost. Major troop escalations would be accompanied by New York Times-run ads, at discounts, denouncing the commander as a betrayer of the American people. Either would be unheard of today. Central Park rallies and firebrand speeches from the Mall are also distant memories.
As to why this has happened, the answer is obvious: the White House is now occupied by a Democrat. Obama apologists might be able to differentiate Obama Action X from Bush Misdeed Y in a couple of instances, but when the examples pile up, and the Obama defender comes down on the Democrat's side six or seven times in a row, the parsing loses its persuasion. Eventually, Bush's critics seem partisan rather than principled.
Insurgency movements can succeed if America loses its will to fight. In fact, that is their most important weapon. Right now, the United States is broadcasting a resolve that it hasn't shown in many years. It is reasonable to hope, and expect, improving fortunes in our ongoing conflicts.
The issue is: what will happen the next time an (R) enters the Oval Office? Will the anti-war movement go mainstream again? Can it? A majority of Senate Democrats voted for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and then turned on the war in 2004-08. It is almost impossible to find a principle that simultaneously explains those two positions, while justifying resolute support for all of Obama's military actions while in office since then. Yet, this is the circumstance many Democrats find themselves in. The seemingly partisan nature of the 2004-08 anti-war movement, and the media promotion of it (the once ubiquitous Cindy Sheehan couldn't buy her way into a New York Times column today), might make Democrats vulnerable to the charge of political opportunism, necessitating a decent interval before it can resume its scolding of a GOP President after its silence during the Obama years. In short, a principled and mainstream antiwar movement might be impossible for quite some time after Obama leaves office. The recent partisanship of it has been too blatantly exposed (American deaths in Iraq continue, but demands for immediate withdrawal collapsed after Obama's inauguration).
There will always be pacifists opposed to any military engagement. They are background noise that a free society should tolerate. Occasionally, there will be wars that deserve vigorous domestic opposition. A mainstream anti-war movement should pick its moments carefully, else they be dismissed as crying wolf. Taken in sum, voting for the 2003 invasion, pushing for withdrawal in 2007, and silence today, seems impossible to defend. Yet, that became the mainstream Democratic position, enabled by their media allies. In their reporting of the capture of Bin Laden, the media continues to carp about the origins of the Iraq invasion, but seems to have almost nothing to say about what's happening in Libya right now. Navy Seal teams are heroes for Obama but a sinister force under Cheney. Do they think this earns them credibility? Should we listen to their complaints about the next GOP-led war? And, if the next war deserves scrutiny and a legitimate antiwar movement, who will America turn to then, now that the mainstream antiwar movement has so discredited itself?
No comments:
Post a Comment