Thoughts on the Anti-war movement

This piece by Scott Ritter is worth a read. It begins as follows:

Whether participating in demonstrations, organizing a vigil, conducting town-hall meetings, or writing letters to their elected officials and the media, the participants in the anti-war movement have exhibited an energy and integrity that would make anyone proud. For myself, I have been vociferous in my defense of the actions of the majority of the anti-war movement, noting that the expression of their views is not only consistent with their rights afforded by the Constitution of the United States, but also that their engagement in the process of citizenship is a stellar example of the ideals and values set forth in that document, and as such representative of the highest form of patriotism in keeping with service to a document that begins, "We the People."

Lately I have noticed a growing despondency among many of those who call themselves the anti-war movement. With the United States now entering its fourth year of illegal war in and illegitimate occupation of Iraq, and the pro-war movement moving inexorably towards yet another disastrous conflict with Iran, there is an increasing awareness that the cause of the anti-war movement, no matter how noble and worthy, is in fact a losing cause as currently executed. Despite all of the well-meaning and patriotic work of the millions of activists and citizens who comprise the anti-war movement, America still remains very much a nation not only engaged in waging and planning wars of aggression, but has also become a nation which increasingly identifies itself through its military and the wars it fights. This is a sad manifestation of the fact that the American people seem to be addicted to war and violence, rather than the ideals of human rights, individual liberty, and freedom and justice for all that should define our nation.

In short, the anti-war movement has come face to face with the reality that in the ongoing war of ideologies that is being waged in America today, their cause is not just losing, but is in fact on the verge of complete collapse. Many in the anti-war movement would take exception to such a characterization of the situation, given the fact that there seems to be a growing change in the mood among Americans against the ongoing war in Iraq. But one only has to scratch at the surface of this public discontent to realize how shallow and superficial it is. Americans aren't against the war in Iraq because it is wrong; they are against it because we are losing.

Scott goes on to argue that the reason the anti-war movement is losing ground is that it isn't uniquely focused on its anti-war agenda. It's demonstrations get tied up with other liberal/progressive causes that dilute the message.

Maybe he's right, but the more I read of his piece, the more I'm inclined to disagree. Perhaps I disagree because, though I'm certainly not pro-war, I'm not really anti-war per se. I'm anti the senseless, illegal, immoral, and largely unwinnable wars we've been fighting for the most part since the end of the Korean War (Vietnam, Grenada, Lebanon, Panama, and now Iraq), but I'm not against all war. In fact, I was for the first Gulf War, not as a matter of war, but because I thought we needed to help protect a particular soverign state and, more importantly, protect the basic principle that soverign states shouldn't be invaded and toppled without adequate cause.

True, we haven't convinced the American people that protecting human rights and promoting basic freedoms are more important than proving how macho we are by winning wars we chose to fight. But, maybe that's because the anti-war movement is anti, not pro.

My first suggestion to the anti-war movement is that being "anti" is not a good position to be in. Perhaps the movement would gain more ground if it found something to be "for." Aggressively, forcefully "for."