January 15th, 2003 | Published in Uncategorized
After an initial wave of red-baiting coverage of anti-war activists, it’s good to see acknowledgment that one need not be a member of a Maoist splinter sect to have issues with the upcoming war in Iraq. The New York Times covers the rather diverse political background found in assorted groups in the movement:
“Last month, Win Without War, the most mainstream of the antiwar coalitions, announced its formation with a carefully worded mission statement. ‘We are patriotic Americans who share the belief that Saddam Hussein cannot be allowed to possess weapons of mass destruction,’ the statement read. ‘But we believe that a pre-emptive military invasion of Iraq will harm American national interests.’ “Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities, a member of the coalition, was responsible for the signed letter in The Wall Street Journal. “‘Let’s be clear,’ the letter reads. ‘We supported the gulf war. We supported our intervention in Afghanistan. We accept the logic of a just war. But Mr. President, your war on Iraq does not pass the test.'”
Here in Portland, there will be a march on Saturday. The last one I went to here was fairly uneventful. Local anarchists are somewhat frustrated at the lack of an attempt to tie in opposition to the war with their broader anti-globalism/anti-Starbucks/anti-SUV/anti-consumerism agenda, but the NYT article reminds me that I’d rather have them frustrated and complaining on their message boards than successfully attempting to “raise consciousness” on the back of a protest organized by people who don’t share their agenda.
Hopefully, when they do put a brick through the window of one our many Starbucks shops, they’ll be careful not to hit one of their comrades in the antiwar movement.