Christian Science Monitor: Whither all the War Protesters?

[marmar]

Whither all the war protesters?
As the Iraq war heads toward 'surge,' the antiwar movement, now mostly online, nears a crucial moment.
By Brad Knickerbocker | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
On a beach in US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco district the other day, about 1,000 war protesters formed up to spell out the word "IMPEACH." The aerial photo quickly spread to China and Europe.

Still, there were no political harangues, no civil disobedience. The quiet turnout was mostly "old hippies, and even older hippies," jokes event organizer Brad Newsham.

Nearly four years into US combat in Iraq, the antiwar movement has yet to generate the kind of mass protest seen during the Vietnam War. There's no shutting down universities or blocking traffic at military bases – no tense face-offs with police.

But with the new Congress, the Bush administration's surge strategy (which critics deem an "escalation" of the conflict), and increasingly negative public opinion polls on the war, this may be a critical moment for the antiwar movement.

Now, it is organizing and most active in cyberspace. And while that "public space" is not as visible as the town square and university grounds nearly four decades ago, it no doubt feeds the growing public opposition to the Iraq war. (Seventy percent of Americans oppose sending more troops to Iraq, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll last week.)

One key reason that opposition to the war has been less overt, organizers recognize, is the lack of a military draft. Also, the scale of the war is different. There were four times as many troops involved and 10 times as many American casualties over a comparable period in Vietnam.

Third, only a handful of Americans are directly affected by the war or asked to sacrifice for it. .....(more)

The rest of the article is at: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0119/p01s03-ussc.html

[bemildred]

1. What, not enought riots yet?

The CSM is wrong, this way is better. Back in the day the police and FBI and those fellows would instigate violence to de-legitimize the war resistance. Every "radical" group would have its own FBI informant. It is good that they cannot do that now.

[frylock]

8. they still do..

remember in F911 when that anti-war group had been infiltrated by a local police officer? I doubt the local police force decided to do that on their own.

[bemildred]

9. Oh yes, I know, but there are no riots on the internet.

The internet fills many of the roles that demonstrations used to be used for, gets attention, spreads the word, arouses political interest, informs voters and motivates them to vote. The Congress is getting more and more direct input from their constituents too, because it is so much easier to do.

DU, for example, is full of people with agendas, but they can't instigate stupid things here, and they can't even try lest they be booted out.

[Chemical Bill]

2. Also, the "liberal" media...

marginalizes and ignores that protests that take place.

Bill

[fasttense]

3. I saw some huge protests

but the corporate media didn't report them. Remember when over a quarter of a million people surrounded the White House? Did you see much of it? I sure didn't.

Remember the die-in in New York, before the war got started? I sure didn't see much of that on our corporate media.

True they weren't too violent. But people got arrested and beaten. You just didn't see it on corporate TV.

[marmar]

4. No, but I suspect that if it was consistent and significant enough, even they couldn't ignore it....

A big march in DC or New York once a year isn't going to get their attention.

[Demeter]

5. If It's Money, Or Elections, The Media Will Report It

But they won't report ordinary people or even factual information. So there's no point in messing up your daily life for political theatre: just vote, and support, and BLOG!

The only reason we won the November 2006 election was that we voted, and the GOP disgusted its supporters and they didn't. This pattern can and will and must continue.

[OneBlueSky]

6. two reasons that there's not more public outrage . . .

first, the corporate media has sanitized this war by refusing to report the carnage in Iraq, and particularly by refusing to air photos or videos of what the war is costing the U.S. and Iraq in human lives and suffering . . .

and second, with no draft, the vast majority of American families do not feel that they or their loved ones are personally at risk . . .

[groovedaddy]

7. Consider how long it took the Vietnam protests to really

gather momentum AND there was a draft then.
If they implement a draft, the numbers will swell dramatically.
And like someone else posted: the msm doesn't report the numbers that actually have shown up - some huge ones too. They've been caught downplaying the numbers.

[pat_k]

10. Iraq quagmire = ambivalence. Only Impeachment can open the floodgates of outrage at bushcheney.

The election was a cry for help; a cry to "Get us out of Bush world."

Instead of answering that cry by impeaching Bush and Cheney (the ONLY way out of Bush world), the Congressional leadership has done everything in their power to suppress that outrage with drivel about "bipartisanship" and declarations that "impeachment is off the table."

As long as impeachment is "off the table" the national outrage has no outlet.

Sure, Americans are outraged that Bush, Cheney, and their minions terrorized us into the quagmire in Iraq with threats of mushroom clouds, but there is no good way out of a quagmire. National ambivalence about what to do stifles energy.

When the Congressional leadership recognizes their duty and finds the courage to stand up and make the irrefutable case for impeachment they will give voice to the outrage and engage voters across the political spectrum.

The Democratic Party's failure to take up the fight for impeachment is symptomatic of a deeply ingrained pattern of self-defeating behavior. (We have seen the enemy, and http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2964929">it is us). Their failure stand up and fulfill their oath is deplorable, but what makes it so heartbreaking is that they are failing to seize an unprecedented opportunity to tap into the motherlode of energy and seething outrage.