What, exactly, do the anti-war demonstrators want?

Great Debates
41

So you don’t know what the protesters want, but you know that it is not rational, whatever it might be.

What? The UN was involved. The UN was forced to pull out of Iraq, when someone started blitzing the place. The UN was sidelined by the warmongers.

So, what do I want, Sam. What I want for George Bush not to be able to swagger around my country, claiming that his ludicrous “War on Terror” is working, giving smarmy speeches about how he has “liberated” the people of Iraq. We can’t turn back time and let him correct his mistakes, but we can sure as hell hound him for them and maybe, at some point in the future, it might make a difference to some future event.

On Iraq, specifically, control of the country should immediatley be turned over to the UN, with a Arab administrator in charge. No soldiers can be pulled out at present, so the US, British, etc troops would still be there (and why not, their governments created the mess), but would be under UN rather than US strategic control. The illegal contracts that have been signed with American companies with regard to Iraq should be immediately nullified, and the matter left for a future Iraqi government, as required by the Hague Conventions. Essential and urgent reconstruction should be for the UN administration to set up. is that clear enough for you?

The “War on Terror” should be declared over. There is no war, there can be no war on “Terror”.

So we can’t negotiate with them, but we can fight a war against them?

42

In other words, surrender? Sorry, if there’s one thing almost all Americans are united on, it’s that we need to fight terrorism, Mr. Chamberlain.

43

Please explain how the Bush Doctrine and “War on Terror” is accomplishing this.

44

My, my. What crap we’re talking.

The only opposition to Bush and Blair isn’t, for example, from the U.N., from the governments of a large number of countries, from the opposition parties in the U.S. and the U.K., from members of the goeverning party in the U.K, etc., it’s from people that want bicycle lanes. Amazing.

45

Avenger, you said the war on terror should be ended. I have reservations about the Bush strategy in the war on terror as well, but I don’t say it shouldn’t be fought in the first place as you just did. Please clarify what you mean if this isn’t what you are trying to say.

46

You can’t fight a war (in the sense that George Bush means war, ie. bringing as much firepower to bear as possible) against terrorists. It won’t work. It is a logical impossibility. We have seen it in action - it isn’t working. You can blow up buildings where terrorists may be/have been , you can attack countries where terrorists may be/have been/ have visited on holiday. What happens? More innocent people affected, more resentment fostered, more future terrorists.

adaher , if you believe this “war” to be realistic and rational, how do you imagine it will be won? How will we know when it has been won? Who will be the losers, and how will they concede?

47

Um, L_C, with all due respect, what are you talking about? Seriously, cycle lanes? I didn’t see anything about cycle lanes in Trafalgar Square last night? Am I being royally whooshed or something because I’m lost.

48

You are right that we cannot defeat all the terrorists. What we can do is take out their state sponsors, which severely limits their reach. Terrorist orgs tend to be pretty ineffectual when they don’t receive money or support or sanctuary from states. Witness how almost all of the once potent Communist terrorist groups whithered on the vine with the fall of the Soviet Union. No more monetary or political support, no more effective terrorism. Most of these groups, the ones that still exist, are nothing more than bandits, and in time they will completely disappear. Attacks beyond their borders are almost certainly beyond their means. Ever since Al Qaeda’s means of support has been cut off, they’ve only been able to mount regional attacks.

But let’s say I’m wrong and knocking off the state sponsors doesn’t do the trick. Well fine. But now every nation that Al Qaeda operates out of is hunting them. They are not welcome anywhere. And they are being arrested by the hundreds. Even if a terrorist group can operate without a state sponsor, they have to contend with law enforcement. You can at least see that letting a terrorist group receive support from a state sponsor and not dealing with that sponsor would mean that no progress would be made. If you kill terrorists, they just send more. If you take out their means of support, you cripple them.

49

Adaher I think the “fall” of communism struck a blow on those terrorists more than the lack of money per se… they were ideologically beaten let’s say… not mainly financially starved. IMHO.

50

And wouldn’t democratization in the Arab world similarly dry up the recruits? Hasn’t it been agreed by all sides that tyranny and the West’s past support of that tyranny has been the primary cause of terrorism?

Now obviously it would be nice to just wait them out like we did with the Soviets, but then the Soviets didn’t pull an attack on us that killed 3000 people, so our hand was forced. If they had, it would have been WWIII right then and there and we would have forced a change, as we are trying to do now.

51

I think you are getting confused between a “War on Terror” and a “War on Arabs”. Understandable though…

52

adaher, try to understand this, please. No one is saying that individual terrorists cannot be defeated. It is a simple fact that terror itself cannot be defeated. Hell, how can you defeat terror when you cannot even define it to everyone’s satisfaction? It would be like trying to declare war on everyone with the wrong political persuasion-“wrong” being what the other guy believes in.

53

Especially in the occupation known as “terrorist.”

54

In context, my complaint is that it’s a coalition e.g. (by its own definition) disparate groups, each with their own (usually) single-issue agendas (cycle lanes being a metaphor). Onto those, they conveniently graft ‘Iraq’, or maybe just some generalised “anti-Bush” sentiment.

Now, presuming last night shared the purpose of the previous 100 years of protesting in that it was supposed to influence or challenge the existing policies, what exactly is it the single issue collective want done because I am absolutely none the wiser about the aims, direction and methods of achieving what it is they set out to do ?

Fwiw, these 'causes I understood and was sometimes a part of:

Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND)
Rock Against Rascism
Cruise Missiles Out
Say No To The Poll Tax
Anti-Aparthiad

  • all having simple, clear campaign goals and having a plan about how to achieve them. ‘Stop the war’ coalition haven’t even got a war anymore.
55

Not sure I agree L_C.

Say No To The Poll Tax - did everyone on this protest agree on what form local government funding should take?

Are you saying that the Stop The War Coalition was a coherent campaign at first, then ceased to be so when the war started. Or when it “finished” which you seem to think it has. What if the supporters want exactly the same things now that they wanted then?

56

I fear friend Elsie values his self-image as a sardonic observer so much that he dreads to be associated with anything that carries the taint of optimism and hope. But he’s a good enough old stick, and can depended upon when the time comes to man the barricades. He’ll just be pretending that he’s really there hoping to pull the birds, and maybe cadge a free pint or too.

57

“or two”. Jeeeez.

58

Sorry to say it was never coherent to me for two reasons;

It was formed on a false premise. A coalition of other causes means you have your own movement to which people have signed up to (say, anti-whale hunting). Then the leadership of that movement append themselves to an entirely different cause – a political cause, or rather party political cause. Here’s a clue people, folks joined your cause because they believed in it. That’s how it works. You don’t join them on additional causes because it suits you. They’ll join those causes if they feel so inclined.

Second, ‘Stop the war’ never had a plan. It was entirely focused on not doing something and, because it had no alternative proposals and how to achieve those proposals, it implicitly accepted the status quo; ‘we don’t want this but we have no that’

It is not enough to have as your campaign goal one ruddy big march. What the hell is that all about; lets have a day out in London on the back of the Iraqi people?

This is how it used to work@

Point One
Point Two
Point Three

How

Why

When by

And those in the ‘Stop the War Coalition’ are all *very well aware *of all the need for clarity of purpose because their own single issue causes are defined in those terms. As I said, the premise of ‘Stop the War’ didn’t ever ring true.

59

I really don’t think “Communist terror groups” are of the same sort at all.

The terror groups we’re talking about are motivated by different things, such as preceived oppression, injustice, destruction of a moral lifestyle, and so on. (I say “perceived” so folks will not argue about whether it is real or not.)

Since these terror groups are people who perceive themselves as directly affected by these ills and as protectors of their people, they are unlikely to stop just because they have no state sponsorship nor even if states start actively to suppress them with police power.

It may be true that removing state sponsorship and benign neglect limits their reach. Which helps us, but it certainly doesn’t help those in their direct path (e.g., Saudi Arabia, Turkey, etc.)

Solutions? Who knows? I tend to think a “carrot and stick” approach works best.

I agree with those who say our global statecraft (and that of others) has fertilized the growth of terrorism.

But I disagree with those who think all we have to do is mend our ways and act like the Red Cross/Crescent. That is, stop basing our foreign policy on our perceived narrow interests and start making sure the people of those countries have the same opportunities we should have - i.e., freedom, a level playing field, impartial justice, a voice in government. (Which policy, surprisingly, might include elements of promoting democratic rule).

It’s the same kind of problem as the “crime problem”. To minimize these sorts of problems, we have to do all of a number of things: prevention, deterrence, enforcement, punishment, and rehabilitation.

So, we do need to have a concerted application of force where we can reasonably and justifiably apply force. And also cleverly leverage force (as in, sanctions, conditional aid, other non-violent applications of power).

But we also need to change our foreign policy at a fundamental level so that our deeds match our rhetoric and more people in the world feel hopeful about working with us rather than despairing. Mainly, of course, I mean the people most likely to become terrorists.

Both/and. Not either/or.

60

Again linking to this article, from right after the Red Cross headquarters bombing: Tish in Iraq.

Also, the logic of the US said there were WMD = > it turns out Saddam was bluffing them and most of the world for a decade => the US was deliberately lying! sorta escapes me.