The Anti-war movement seems to have come to an impasse. There are periodic demonstrations, but the war, the occupation, the carnage and destruction of whole cities, the torture and the lies continue. Is there a way forward?
The US eventually pulled out of Vietnam, and we think it is important for anti-war activists today, to gain a solid understanding of why that happened. Of course the US suffered losses on the battlefield, but the Vietnamese suffered even worse losses. The economic costs of the war were great, but from a purely economic point of view, the US had the resources to continue the war for many, many more years. What was decisive was the attitude of the GIs in Vietnam themselves. GIs in World War II suffered huge casualties, but because they by and large supported the war against Nazi controlled Germany, they remained a solid fighting force. The a large section of GIs in Vietnam lost their belief in the justice of that war. That, combined with the casualties, led to the US army in Vietnam becoming an unreliable fighting force. The killing of officers, or “fragging” became a regular occurrence. The US rulers pulled out of Vietnam, not because 50,000 US dead was too many. Kissinger is reported to have referred to GIs as “dumb, stupid animals to be used" as pawns for foreign policy. The US rulers pulled out of Vietnam because there was widespread rebellion in the ranks and a threat that the army would completely collapse.
We have seen the faint beginnings of this in Iraq. Tens of thousands of GIs have escaped the nightmare of Iraq through “psychological” ailments -- read that as they just couldn’t bring themselves to participate any more. Hundreds of GIs have gone AWOL while on leave in the US. A few have committed suicide. But a telling sign is that of 19 members of the Army’s 343rd Quartermaster Company who refused orders to haul fuel. These GIs did not make a clear stand against the occupation. Rather they claimed that they would be exposed to unnecessary risks. But we should look deeper into the meaning of that attitude. Individual soldiers may naturally be reluctant to undertake dangerous missions, but when soldiers are politically convinced of the righteousness and importance of a war, discipline and a sense of duty more often than not outweigh physical fear. However, when soldiers are not convinced of the importance of their sacrifice, they are much more likely to be undisciplined. During the war in Vietnam, the brass sent GIs into the jungle as bait, to lure attacks, so that air gunships could mow down the attackers. As the GIs in Vietnam increasingly understood that their sacrifices on the battlefield had nothing to do with anything virtuous, they increasingly disliked playing the role of bait, and in increasing numbers refused such missions. Taken in that light, the refusal of the members of the 343rd to obey orders on the grounds of safety is a sign that conviction among the troops as to the justice or importance of their mission is flagging.
But while there are definite signs of dissatisfaction within the army, they are not of such proportions that US ruling class fears that it will lose control of the army if it does not withdraw. That is the chief reason why the US pulled out of Vietnam, but has not yet pulled out of Iraq.
The GIs in Vietnam became radicalized not only by seeing the imperialist policies of the US first hand , but were also influenced by the growing social struggles state-side. The struggle for Black equality, the development of a militant wing of the labor movement (exemplified by organizations such as DRUM--the Dodge Revolutionary Union Movement-- and others), the student radicalization, and the anti-war demonstrations all played a part, all contributed to GIs becoming increasingly opposed to the brass and to the ruling class.
Social struggles in the US, and radicalization of the GIs in Iraq are the things needed to end the occupation of Iraq. However, instead of the mass mobilizations that were needed, social struggles were largely sabotaged during the US presidential election campaign. The Million Worker March was one of the few significant demonstrations to be held during this period, but it was purposefully knifed by the top AFL-CIO bureaucrats. At the behest of John Sweeny, Marilyn Sneiderman, Director of the Field Mobilization Department of the AFL-CIO, sent out a Memorandum to "All State Federations and Central Labor Councils of the AFL-CIO" referencing the "Million Worker March," and directing them "not to sponsor or devote resources to the demonstration in Washington, D.C." This memorandum argued the case for sabotaging the mobilization of organized labor as follows. “We encourage our state federations, area councils and central labor councils not to sponsor or devote resources to the demonstrations in Washington, D.C. but instead to remain focused on the election..." Outrageous!
This same scenario was played out over and over again in many other organizations which might loosely be called “progressive” or “liberal”. Wherever the leadership of these organizations had strong ties with the Democratic Party, they opposed mass demonstrations against the war.
It is time that the labor movement, and the anti-war movement learn what the Democratic Party is all about. The people who really control the Democratic Party are not working people who vote Democratic, but a small layer of millionaires and billionaires. The millionaires and billionaires who control the Democratic Party may not always be the same individuals who control the Republican Party, but they belong to the same class. Those who control the Democratic and Republican Parties agree on all fundamental issues that are importance to the very top, the very richest layer of the capitalist class. At times it appears that the Democratic Party is open to maverick politicians, especially on the local level. Those who control the party allow these mavericks into the august chambers of government as a fig-leaf, to obscure who is really pulling the strings.
The fundamental agreement between the rich who control the Democratic Party and the rich who control the Republican Party is shown by their attitude towards mass mobilizations. Sure, they spar with each other at election times, but that sparring does not extend to mobilizing the masses to struggle for various concessions which would be in the interest of the masses. The Democratic Party machine never calls for mass social struggle. It never organizes social struggle. It never puts its resources into social struggle. But if a mass movement is large enough, the Democratic Party machine will allow a few maverick politicians to speak to it, to corral the masses back into the fold. Further, as soon as the masses are back in the fold, the Democratic Party machine goes into action sabotaging the mass movement, putting a damper on it. That is why we saw the AFL-CIO tops, who are beholden to the Democratic Party machine, sabotage the independent mobilization of labor for the Million Worker March.
The major anti-war coalitions, ANSWER, NION, UFPJ etc. have pursued a policy so far of giving Democratic Party politicians ample speaking time at demonstrations. But the price to be paid for obtaining such speakers is the muffling of any criticism of the Democratic Party. The anti-war movement cannot afford to continue with this policy. It has been a disaster, and will continue to be a disaster. It’s time for the anti-war movement to break its ties with the Democratic Party and pursue an independent policy of struggle.