Anti-War and Anti-Military Too (UPDATED)
Filed under: Lead Post, Lead Story, Military, United States — Jason, Managing Editor on March 12, 2008 @ 6:08 pm CET
The political self-destructiveness of the anti-war movement.
Writing at Slate, University of Minnesota Professor Ronald Krebs notes the relative lack of participation by Iraq war veterans in the ongoing debate over the war, especially on the anti-war side. In contrast to the Vietnam era when future Senator and Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry’s “Vietnam Veterans Against the War” group boasted 30,000 members and was the subject of major Congressional hearings, the current Iraq Veterans Against the War group claims only a small fraction of that membership and wields almost no political influence. Why the difference?
Krebs cites several factors, including the end of the draft and the professionalization of U.S. military forces that reduced the overall number of veterans available to join protest movements at all as well as the relative decrease in protest-inducing atrocities in Iraq compared to Vietnam. But I think Krebs misses the full context of one of the factors he cites.
Specifically, Krebs notes the growing partisan identification of military members as a reason for a decline in their propensity to join anti-war protests:
The officer corps is now composed disproportionately of self-identified political conservatives and Republican partisans, to the point that a brouhaha erupted in the 1990s over the “civil-military gap,” with some worrying (thankfully baselessly) that a coup might even be in the offing. The Iraq war has opened up an unprecedented partisan divide, and Republican support has been remarkably resilient. While there have been signs of mounting discontent—including surprisingly large active-military contributions to Ron Paul, the only Republican presidential candidate to oppose the war—the current crop of veterans is less fertile soil for the IVAW’s plow than for its Vietnam-era counterpart. Put simply, veterans have been quiet partly because many are strong partisans who, at least until quite recently, have been committed to the administration, the war, or both.
This analysis assumes the truth of the conventional wisdom that military forces are partisan strongholds for Republicans. Such findings, based in large part on survey data collected during the Clinton administration, may be misleading for a variety of reasons, including over-sampling of the most culturally conservative service — the Air Force — and the disproportionately white male officers corps. Furthermore, attitudes measured during the Clinton administration might reflect the influence of factors unique to Clinton himself in addition to any persistent partisan identification. Thus, it seems overstated to conclude that military members generally are affiliated to the Republican Party at a level so pervasive as to explain their almost complete absence from the anti-war movement.
But, even if we were to accept the assumption that much of the military is comprised of partisan Republicans and/or hawkish independents unlikely to join the anti-war cause, there seems another possibility that is getting missed. Specifically, even while soldiers may be infertile ideological ground for anti-war sentiment, it should also be noted that the anti-war movement is a poor draw in its own right.
In the aftermath of Vietnam, anti-war protesters carried forward the reputation of anti-military radicalism in addition to anti-war sentiment. Tales of returning soldiers being physically assaulted or spit upon may have been equal parts fact and myth, but soldiers from the era almost universally report feeling socially ostracized and driven to conceal their military affiliation. To whatever extent that such attitudes persisted among an anti-Iraq War movement in significant part led by retreads from the Vietnam era, veterans of the Iraq War era might be expected to decline to participate, even if they might disagree with the war itself. Even when they disagree with the policy, military members are inclined to see themselves and their comrades as worthy of honor and respect.
Officially, the current anti-war movement has gone out of its way to try to avoid the anti-soldier collateral effects of the Vietnam era. Participants at anti-war rallies take care to note specifically that they “support the troops” even while opposing the war. But those effort are likely remains a tough sell to many veterans because of the contradictory anti-soldier messages that keep creeping through. For example, anti-war forums frequently feature gross exaggerations of the degree and commonality of atrocities by military members in Iraq and Afghanistan. Anti-war leaders like Cindy Sheehan perpetually make statements that roam far beyond merely an anti-war message to include outright anti-American themes unlikely to appeal to military members of veterans. And moves by highly influential anti-war groups like “Code Pink” to shut down military recruitment efforts in Berkeley and on various college campuses cannot help but be seen by military members and veterans as anti-military instead of merely anti-war. Also, recent stories such as a judge who prohibited a 17-year-old in foster care from joining the military on grounds that can only be seen as anti-military in addition to being anti-war feed the feeling among military members and veterans that the anti-war movement’s claims to be pro-soldier are disingenuous at best. Even if the number of such anti-military actions is small, their impact is exaggerated by memories of similar post-Vietnam abusiveness. Military veterans are unlikely to sign up for an alliance.
The bottom line is that the lack of enlistment by anti-war veterans may not be do only to a partisan U.S. military that is almost to a man vested in either the Bush administration or the Iraq war policy. In addition to such factors, military members and veterans may be put off by the bias and ignorance that they detect within the anti-war movement. The anti-war movement has a problem with its message. They can claim to love the troops all they want, but as long as they otherwise continue to repeat the anti-military themes of the Vietnam era, their appeal to among current and former military members will remain low.
UPDATE: An anti-war and anti-military group in Pittsburgh has openly announced its intention to express its opposition to the war by physically destroying a military recruitment station and by kidnapping and imprisoning the individual recruiters. Response from the supposed “silent majority” (according to commenter Jay_C) that purports to support soldiers while opposing the war simultaneously has been, well, silence. And silence is consent.
It should shock no one that even veterans who are opposed to the war refuse to link arms with people who attack soldiers or who silently condone those that do.
1 Observer
March 11, 2008 @ 3:27 pm CETAs a veteran of the VietNam era, I can personally say there was a strong anti-military bent out there at the time and not just anti-war.
Look at all the calls of service members being ‘baby killers’ and such.
One missing ingredient to push young protesters to involvement today is no draft exists.
I knew many who protested the war simply because they were more afraid their lottery number would go against them and they may have to end up putting their own butt on the line.
Follow what the extreme anti-war crowd is doing and don’t just look at Code Pink. Look at others there like World Can’t Wait.
Trace back their linkages and you will see affiliation with the RCP and other communist groups.
There is a whole net here of influence working many aspects to the anti-war movement that to many looks like individual issues with it but they are all under a few umbrella organizations that are using them as tools and giving them a degree of separation.
Follow up on the group Recreate 68 and you will see that they and those associated with them can’t seem to even come up with new tactics, since they are trying to use exactly the same issues and methods in a whole different time.
It is all about framing the issue and mass street protests are not the usual method of choice today. More it is organized online gathering into social groups and trying to project their agenda through putting pressure on legislators by multiple paths and controlling the message in the MSM and other public information sources.
They are simply flooding the public perception at every point they can to create an impression and totally avoiding any reasonable debate of the issue.
2 Observer
March 11, 2008 @ 3:39 pm CETI will agree that there are some that support the troops but oppose the war. That is a fair issue for debate.
However I also am aware there are others that oppose both.
The mouth the same phrasing just to be politically correct and out of sheer need for acceptance on the public stage.
Just how much support do they throw away if they boldly state they are both anti-troops and anti-war?
They would still have a hardened core of supporters , but they would alienate many with this position being taken.
It is just simple pragmatism to enable advancement of their agenda.
Don’t bet the bank that it is their true position.
3 Michael van der Galien
March 11, 2008 @ 3:51 pm CETGood, very good article Jason. And also a good comment above this one.
What I think is happening, partially, is that members of the military see through it. As you write, when the anti-war leaders get more passionate, their rhetoric turns anti-military, not just anti-war. The accusations of how bad, how evil US military members are, are disgraceful.
As an aside, one has to wonder whether the partisanship of members of the military isn’t partially caused by the anti-military legacy of the far-left, which is an important part of the Democratic Party.
4 Jason
March 11, 2008 @ 4:03 pm CETOne of the biggest failures I think the anti-war movement has had is their failure to replace their Vietnam-era leadership with new people. It is precisely because the movement is still dominated by retreads from the Vietnam era that they are unable to craft a new message that can be heard over the constant replaying of the old one.
There is, for example, a prolific writer on another blog who seems to compare nearly everything to 1968 — he just can’t seem to help but try to constantly, incessantly relive the "glory days" of the 1960s by coopting the current events of the day. And as long as those people continue to be dominant in the anti-war movement, they will continue to be saddled with the cultural baggage of that era (which is deeply offensive to military people and many others).
5 Observer
March 11, 2008 @ 4:15 pm CETMichael
Thanks for the compliment.
In the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan today, if you really follow places like the milblogs (military active and retired) and people like the reporting of Michael Yon of the situation on the ground and you will see that the vast majority of the boots on the ground believe in and fully support the mission and it’s objectives.
And these are those who are in harm’s way.
Sure there are a disgruntled segment and some true anti-war types. But if that is the case, one must examine why they are in the military with an all volunteer force to begin with.
There are a few of the anti-war veterans who have been conclusively shown to have joined the military and may have or have not served in theater in combat, but perhaps in support roles even outside of the Iraq Afghanistan area like say Kuwait.
They only wish to use their Iraq Era service to give themselves some type of credibility.
But even more keep getting exposed as posers, people who never served at all or at least never where they claimed to have done so.
6 Observer
March 11, 2008 @ 4:23 pm CETAs I state earlier the anti-war types are repeating old tactics of the 60’s
7 Del Wasso
March 11, 2008 @ 5:43 pm CETadmin: spam from person who didn’t read the post deleted
8 World Against War
March 11, 2008 @ 6:33 pm CETadmin: spam deleted
9 Jay_C
March 11, 2008 @ 7:50 pm CETCorrect me if I’m wrong Jason, but in your defense of Observers statement, I don’t think you are saying that patriotic Americans can’t be against the war but still for the troops. It sounds like you are saying that some groups messages may make flimsily facades to appear as though they do support the troops but not the war. That being said, In teh real world, (outside of organized groups, but as far as the "man or woman in the street" does anyone else here believe that Participants at anti-war rallies cannot support the troops while opposing the war? I for one say they can do both. Not such a hard sell for me to believe they can do both. I do both. I have relatives that were /are in the Military, and I oppose the war.
10 Jay_C
March 11, 2008 @ 7:54 pm CETOops, sorry, my quote was aimed at DelWasso, who was banned. Not observer, Iappoligise.
11 Jason
March 11, 2008 @ 8:35 pm CETI am fully aware that most anti-war people do not themselves subscribe to anti-military prejudices. But when they fail to explicitly distance themselves from the recycled anti-military 60s radicals that have grown to dominate the current anti-war movement, even those who are otherwise pro-military become tainted in the eyes of many military people. The result is that those military people even if they also oppose the war are unlikely to join the anti-war movement. That was my main point.
12 ernie1812
March 11, 2008 @ 11:27 pm CETI agree with Jason, "those military people even if they also oppose the war are unlikely to join the anti-war movement." As both a IVAW and Votevets.org member its clear that IVAW is just a rehash of VVAW. Which is fine, more power to them, at least someones’ doing something, its just that i think it really limits recruitment because, draw all the parallels you want, Iraq is a different war with a different generation of veterans. Yet IVAW is dead-set on recreating vietnam era type actions. Just for one very small example, I don’t see the point of mailing an IVAW newsletter (considering the cost and resources required to send it) instead of communicating through .pdf newsletter. While back in the 60’s printing and mailing your own magazine/newsletter was a great tool its not just not anymore. But like said before, they are set in protesting the war the same way it was done in Vietnam which for numerous reason just won’t work. Great response to the simplistic and BS Slate.com article btw. I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity. -Dwight D. Eisenhower
13 Garett Reppenhagen
March 12, 2008 @ 3:39 pm CETThanks for all the interest in what we at IVAW is doing. Just too answer a few questions, that were passively asked, we are a different generation of veterans, and it is a different military. I would say that the demographics of the military are very unique to this age, the large number of troops come from low income rural areas, that tend to be more of a conservative environment. But, IVAW has Republicans in our ranks. We are not Democrat, nor any major party. I would say the a large number of our membership is independent. The fact that there is no draft and the media can not cover this conflict the same have a lot to do with it, also the fact that 75% of this wars veterans, are still in the military because of longer enlistments, Stop-Loss, and Individual Ready Reserve. In Vietnam you did on tour and came home. I have friends still in that are on their 5th tour. The are many reasons that IVAW does not have 30,000 members, but a large one is that this conflict is in it’s fifth year and the Vietnam Era Winter Soldier was held in 1971, a full 8 years after the start of major action in Vietnam, even 3 years after the Tet Offensive were over 14,000 service members died in one year alone. Hopefully we can end this conflict, save American troops, and stop the damage we have done to our economy and national security, before a similar offensive in Iraq. IVAW uses electronic news letters for our members and supports. However, not all service members in Iraq can obtain access to the net and it is easy to block websites. Also you can not hand a person on the street a webpage. So we use paper an digital news letters. There is a lot to learn from what the Vietnam Veterans Against the War did in their age, and we take lessons on what to repeat and what pitfalls to avoid. The Winter Soldier II is not an attempt to criminalize individual service members or the institution of the military itself. However, we are trying to expose the nature of this conflict, and what many soldiers and Marines do in Iraq might be considered atrocities, it is the war itself an atrocity, and the civilian leaders at the top who our guilty of abusing our military resources and American tax money.
14 Jay_C
March 12, 2008 @ 5:13 pm CET"But when they fail to explicitly distance themselves from the recycled anti-military 60s radicals that have grown to dominate the current anti-war movement, even those who are otherwise pro-military become tainted in the eyes of many military people"
So we agree that most anti-war people do not themselves subscribe to anti-military prejudices. Are you saying this fact should be / is ignored, since these same people are in some way associated with others that may be more radical?
15 Jason
March 12, 2008 @ 6:01 pm CETSilence is consent, Jay_C. When the anti-military minority claims to speak for the entire anti-war movement, I have yet to see any of those who are not actually anti-military call them out on it. Instead, for tactical reasons, they have refused to confront their bigoted elements and have chosen, like you, to spin instead of answer. And they are responsible for the consequences of that choice in their loss of credibility and legitimacy.
16 Jay_C
March 12, 2008 @ 7:44 pm CETThe "nuts" can claim to speak for the entire movement as much as they want, they don’t, as I wrote here. http://poligazette.com/2008/03/12/anti-military-protesters-to-imprison-recruiters/
And of couse the majority appears relatively "silent", Competing for coverage if you are civil and orderly is a boring story. How are the majority of civil anti-war, pro-military folks supposed to compete with that?
If there are 1o people in a room, 1 is throwing chairs and punching people and yelling he is anti-war and anti-military. The other 9 are civily but passionately saying that they oppose the war but support the troops, who is going to get most people’s attention? Does the one speak for the other 9?
17 Jason
March 12, 2008 @ 8:04 pm CETMerely saying that the anti-military people don’t speak for you is not the same as actually condemning them for their bigotry and excess, Jay_C. Differentiating yourself without joining the condemnation of their excesses allows you to evade responsibility but not actually commit to a consistent standard of judgment. It is thus an unprincipled dodge, not a principled position. As long as you try to have your rhetorical cake and eat it too, I will consider you and others who use the same dodge as you do as condoning the anti-military elements of the anti-war movement even if they do not go all the way to endorsing it.
Coverage isn’t the issue. Having the backbone to confront one’s allies when they go over the line is the issue here. If the 9 people refuse to do anything to stop or condemn the person throwing chairs, they are condoning his action whether or not they actually endorse it or participate in it.
Silence in the face of prejudice and violence is consent. This is the standard that Obama was held to regarding Farrakhan and your anti-war comrades should not get a looser one just by virtue of your claim of good intentions.
18 Jay_C
March 12, 2008 @ 9:14 pm CETI wold think most reasonable people would "do something about it" though, they call the cops, as I would. Wouldn’t you agree?
19 Michael Merritt
March 13, 2008 @ 9:54 am CETI was going to post this in Michael’s entry below, but figure it might get more attention here. Jay_C also mentioned this, but I wanted to expand.
Is perhaps the problem that the radicals are the ones getting all the media coverage? The media figures, "Who wants to hear about the guys who support the troops, though not the war? The guys who want to destroy the recruiting center will sell more papers/get more ratings."
I’m not saying it’s right. I’d like to see more stories about people who support the troops, though perhaps not the war. But, I would think that a site which constantly comments on stories in the media would understand the vocal minorities always get the better stories. And having spent some time studying the media as a student, and having spent some time actually doing it, I can understand why these people, and the Code Pinkers, for example, are getting more coverage.
I certain denounce actions like these. But, if it makes people happy, I not only denounce this action, I reject it as well.
So, I’m not in the camp that silence means you support something. If all the anti-war leaders (are there any?) had to put up statements rejecting every word and/or plan some crazy loon/organization has, they’d have no time to do anything else.
20 Jay_C
March 13, 2008 @ 12:50 pm CETThanks Michael Merit, you are much better than I at getting to the crux of the issue. I guess you have to spell it out. So here goes. (I thought it went without saying), but I also formally denounce actions like these. I not only denounce this action, I reject it as well. Again, using the "reasonable people" argument, I believe (don’t know for sure) but I believe that most reasonable people would distance / have distanced themselves from the anti-military 60s radicals. Given this, those who are otherwise pro-military would, I would think, (If not viewed by others through the lens of pre-conceived notions that “all anti-war folks are anti-military”) appear less “tainted” in the eyes of military people. As a matter of fact, case in point. I have a cousin who knows I am against the current war in Iraq (he was in the first Iraq) war. But he knows he (as well as the military in general) has my full support. I believe of the anti-war people I fit the profile of the majority. I don’t think I’m some “enigma” or “outlier” that is the exception to the rule, but rather the rule.
21 C Stanley
March 13, 2008 @ 1:24 pm CETI understand the criticism of Jason’s point, because it’s very difficult as an individual to have any effect whatsoever on what other people in a ‘movement’ say or do. Personally, I feel there’s a bit more responsibility to be placed on leaders in a movement (politicians who oppose the Iraq War, leaders of veterans groups, etc) who should be more loudly speaking out against the extremists. I can remember feeling this way when there was a rash of abortion clinic bombings: as a pro-life individual, I wanted to make sure that any group or politician who was advocating that stance would speak out against that indefensible tactic.
And the reason it’s important to hold SOMEONE accountable for doing that is because it’s the only way to stop those tactics from occurring in greater and greater frequency. You two are correct, Michael Merrit and Jay_C, that the extremists are the ones who get the press; but the problem then is that they believe this means that their tactics are working and they become emboldened to do more of the same. Unless other leaders who identify with the same cause but not the tactics speak out and denounce them, the problem grows.
So even though it’s hard and seems unfair as an individual to be tarnished by these people, perhaps one thing you can do is contact leaders of the anti-war movement, and politicians who have that stance, and ask them to speak out loudly and clearly.
22 Jay_C
March 13, 2008 @ 2:06 pm CETThanks for seeing our point Christine I think I will try to contact those in the anti-war movement to renouce these acts as we do.
This just in… (if this is true) Do you think most reasonable, pro-military people will see this as something that would possibly sway one to be anti or pro Iraq war?
http://poligazette.com/2008/03/13/report-on-saddams-iraq-censored/
23 C Stanley
March 13, 2008 @ 2:22 pm CETJay_C: I’m not swayed by that because I have a separate opinion about the war itself (mixed) from my opinion of the Bush administration and the way it sold the war to the public (negative.)
And on top of the fact that my opinion of the war overall remains mixed, I also separate my view of whether or not we should have initiated the war/overthrown Saddam from whether or not we now need to stay and clean up the mess as much as possible. So none of that is influenced one iota by the lack of transparency and candor from the Bush administration.
24 Jay_C
March 14, 2008 @ 8:02 pm CETI see plenty of response from the majority (support the troops, against the war) The comments section of the post you updated here, shows quite a few actually.
25 Jay_C
March 14, 2008 @ 8:07 pm CETOnce I get access to write comments on their site I will be among them.