The Two Antiwar Movements
has become clear that there are two antiwar movements in this country
at present two movements, that is, that oppose Bush the Youngerís
impending invasion of Iraq, if it happens. They oppose the war for
completely different reasons, however, because they operate from
completely different premises and political philosophies. What makes
this of interest is the talk of a "convergence" between
the two. I donít think so.
first antiwar movement opposes invading Iraq because its members
really doubt that doing so is in this countryís long-term best interests,
or expresses our best ideals as a Constitutional republic. Their
writings can be found on sites such as this one and Antiwar.com.
They have no problem admitting that Saddam Hussein is a villain,
but wonder what substantial evidence connects him to 9-11. They
wonder why Osama bin Laden, who was Public Enemy #1 during the first
few months after the 9-11 attacks, has simply dropped off the official
radar screen. Saddam, moreover, owes a goodly portion of his little
fiefdom to the U.S.; he was once our villain. The U.S. government
backed him in his own nasty war with Iran.
Bush wants to attack Iraq because Saddam has or might have
weapons of mass destruction. Maybe he does; maybe he doesnít.
I donít know. Bush himself admitted
to not knowing, "and thatís the problem." China also
has weapons of mass destruction. This we do know. Russia also has
them. Nobody is proposing that we attack China. Or Russia. Nobody
would. Both would hit back, and everybody knows it.
the U.S. government comes across looking like an international bully.
Bullies tend to be full of bluster and aggression, but they studiously
avoid picking on anyone their own size.
donít doubt that if the Bush Administration were to cut loose, our
military even in its present Clinton Regime condition
could step on Saddam. Then what? Regime change, to use the phrase
of the day. Whatís that? Another U.S. backed regime posing as a
"democracy," with U.S. troops remaining in the region
indefinitely as a kind of semipermanent internationalist police
force. More ammunition for Noam Chomsky.
idea, in other words. It isnít simply that the Framers of this country
never intended for their distant descendents two centuries later
to rule the Middle East, whether for oil or for any other purpose.
(Lord have mercy! Rome on the Potomac has gotten so far from the
Framersí original intentions that it almost sounds strange to invoke
their authority here. But someone has to do it.) After the first
Gulf War, over
ten thousands Iraqis were resettled here between June 1991 and the
end of 1996. Thatís right, on US soil. Another product of our
wonderful, open-all-doors, drop-all-barricades immigration policy.
Tell me, does anyone really believe all these guys magically transformed
into loyal, Bush-following Americans, especially in these multiculturalist
times? Does anybody believe they wouldnít respond if Bush attacks
on it. There is already some
evidence of Iraqi involvement in the Oklahoma City bombing.
The government and the official media are still keeping quiet as
ever about the considerable body of evidence that Timothy McVeigh
and Terry Nichols had help from at least one "John Doe #2"
whom the FBI maintains never existed. Part of this is the politically
correct necessity of a Lone
White Male theory which may well have cost several people their
lives in the DC-area sniper fiasco which ended when a black man
with the name Mohammed and an illegal immigrant were taken into
war against Iraq would lead to another wave of refugees. Wars do
that, regardless of who wins, because wars are inherently destructive.
Where would the new generation of refugees from Gulf War v.2.0 go?
Assuming our immigration policy stays at its current level of insanity,
many of them would undoubtedly end up here where they would be welcomed
with open arms by immigration-loving Democrats like Dick Gephardt
if Bush the Younger attacks and destroys Saddamís regime, might
it lead to more terrorism on US soil? Given the above, added to
the fact that most of our governmentís measures in the so-called
war on terrorism have assaulted liberties of native-born Americans
rather than taking action to halt illegal immigration and getting
rid of illegals already here, the question is a no-brainer. It should
be clear that Arabs can cross our Southern border as easily as can
Mexicans. If Bush attacks Iraq without our having relinquished the
politically correct but culturally suicidal religions of diversity,
multiculturalism, etc., there will almost certainly be more terrorism
on US soil, possibly more destructive than 9-11 was.
plain truth is, ordinary people are vulnerable. The DC-area sniper
attacks should have proved that. The Iraqis were doubtless watching,
while our authorities fumbled the ball repeatedly and media coverage
remained strictly within the boundaries established by political
correctness. The deeper Rome on the Potomacís foreign entanglements
get, the greater the risk from foreigners. We once had a president
named Washington who warned about these sorts of entanglements in
his farewell address. We named the US capital after him but didnít
absorb a word he said.
yes. That other antiwar movement. The one the dominant media have
been reporting on at least somewhat. While most of the first
antiwar movementís activities have been limited to articles for
their websites, the second has staged marches, allegedly a hundred
thousand strong, with antiwar placards reading things like "Jobs
Not War." Last weekend there were protests both in San Francisco
and in Rome on the Potomac itself.
want nothing to do with this antiwar movement. It seems clear that
these people oppose warring with Iraq not because of sincere concern
about this countryís best interests and certainly not out of any
Constitutionalist sentiment but because they hate this country and
all it stands for. They hate Bush the Youngerís administration not
because of anything Bush has or hasnít done, but because heís Bush:
a Republican, a mouthpiece for the rich who was "selected,
not elected," and all that.
these people, itís the same old cultural (and sometimes unreconstructed)
Marxist claptrap. Their West Coast gig, which Justin Raimondo recently
reported, was filled with speeches that had nothing to do with
Iraq or our international situation and more to do with such things
as "transgendered peopleís" rights. In our capital we
saw the usual parade of far-left nutballs (Al Sharpton, etc.). The
aim was not trying to find constructive ways to diffuse the terrorist
threat that takes thinking, after all but to rant
against "capitalism." As I said at the outset, weíre looking
at two opposed political philosophies here. The first would liberate
the individual from government; the second would use government
to enslave the individual in the name of the collective.
by the way, are the people most likely to break windows, throw objects
at passing cars, and in general be destructive. We saw the same
thing in Seattle back in December of 1999. There were groups of
peaceful people, many of them middle-class, who were concerned about
the effects of World Trade Organization style globalization on their
careers, their lives, on this culture and on US independence. Some
were dubious that the WTO really
represents free trade, as opposed to trade manufactured and
micromanaged for the benefit of a global
there were the commies who came in, smashing and burning things.
Needless to say, the major media only reported the antics of the
commies, while restricting the movements of the serious people.
second antiwar movement is popular among college and university
professors, and among the sort of student who plasters her car with
Save the Whales and Teach Tolerance stickers. (Well,
enemy is "world
capitalism." If they studied economics they would eventually
come to realize that capitalism has not been allowed to operate
properly for over a hundred years, and that much of what gets called
capitalism could better be called corporatism.
Some lefties stop just short of saying "we deserved 9-11":
witness Bill Clintonís infamous speech
at Georgetown University where, like all leftists, he invoked
our "legacy of slavery." This, by the way, is one of the
things to look for, since many of those in this second antiwar movement
will raise many of the same issues I did above you donít
have to be a rocket scientist, after all, to figure all that out.
Look for a "multi-issue" focus that incorporates radical
feminism, "gay rights," green-ism, etc., with issues pertaining
to the dangers posed by illegal immigration conspicuously absent.
This movement epitomizes where over a decade of political correctness
has left this country, this hinting around by a former US president
that America made itself vulnerable to being attacked because we
enslaved Africans. This is how leftists think.
short, this antiwar movement, festering on campuses and other lefty
strongholds, basically hates this country. They have been perpetuating
a kind of intellectual terrorism on college and university campuses
for the past couple of decades. Just criticize the reparations movement,
or observe that AIDS could be stopped in a very short period of
time if men would stop being promiscuous with other men. See what
happens. The second antiwar movement could not care less about efforts
to restore Constitutionalism, or, barring that, to create conditions
for liberty and free markets, because it is more committed to the
Communist Manifesto than the Constitution or liberty. That
this second antiwar movement brought out 100,000 activists on October
26 ought to be seen as a cause for concern. I doubt that all 100,000
would sign on to every bit of multi-culti nonsense, of course, but
it is worthwhile to remember that we are now seeing the first generation
literally to grow up with the faiths of diversity and multiculturalism
problem is, as this second antiwar movement is sensational and thus
gets most of the media attention, again the issues that ought to
come up regarding the relationship between this country and the
Middle East generally, or how best to diffuse the threat of future
terrorism on US soil, are obscured.
Yates [send him mail]
has a PhD in philosophy and is a Margaret "Peg" Rowley Fellow
at the Ludwig von Mises Institute.
He is the author of Civil
Wrongs: What Went Wrong With Affirmative Action (ICS Press,
1994), and numerous articles and reviews. At any given time
he is at work on any number of articles and book projects, including
a science fiction novel.
© 2002 LewRockwell.com