A leaflet from Feb 15, 2003 (NYC)
THE ROAD AWAY FROM WAR
Who can prevent a war? Who can end a war? In the most direct sense, only those who have direct control over weapons, for the most part soldiers, may determine whether those weapons are loaded, aimed and fired. Thus it is primarily soldiers who have direct control over whether war is waged or not. To the extent that soldiers obey the commands of the government, the government has control over war. But this control, though usually firmly in the hands of the government, is nevertheless indirect.
The morale of an armed force, its discipline, its political moods, not only affect its direct actions, i.e. its obedience or disobedience to the government. The morale of armed forces also affects the thinking and mood of the government which commands it. The government must always consider the effect of its commands, orders and instructions on the obedience and discipline of the armed forces. The greater the anti-war feelings among the soldiers, the greater the belief that the war it is being asked to wage is unjust, the greater the concern must the government have for possible mutinies, insubordination and insurrection. Consequently, the greater the pressure upon the government to avoid war, to obtain peace, to preserve the discipline within the armed forces.
What effect can mass rallies have upon decisions to go to war, or to prolong a war? To the extent that such rallies encourage, either directly or indirectly a spirit of revolt within the armed forces, to that extent they bring foreboding and fear to the government, and promote the cause of peace. Such rallies may encourage this spirit of revolt directly through appeals to the soldiers, or indirectly through appeals to the masses of working people, with whom the soldiers have ties of kinship and culture. But it is an illusion that mass rallies can have an effect upon the war policies of a government if they fail to encourage a spirit of revolt. No government preparing to bomb, burn, and annihilate innocent civilians and children will be morally swayed by the pleas of demonstrations and rallies. That is, unless those pleas might ultimately find their answer in the direct actions of the armed forces. The key to peace lies in encouraging the spirit of rebellion among the rank and file soldiers. The anti-war movement can encourage rebellion in the military, and show the soldiers that disobedience to the government will not be seen by anti-war masses as treason against America, but rather a necessary action for the benefit of both Americans and Iraqis as well as the rest of the world that suffers under US domination.
The recent anti-war demonstration in Washington numbered in the hundreds of thousands. We ask the reader to imagine the effect of those hundreds of thousands carrying say 10,000 banners with the slogan “Soldiers! Turn Your Guns Around!”. The exact slogan is not important. What we are asking the reader to imagine is the effect of directing an appeal to the soldiers rather than to the government, an appeal that questions the moral legitimacy of the government and its war, and that encourages a spirit of rebellion among the ranks of the armed forces.
Rebellion within the ranks of the armed forces is not an unheard of occurrence. Rebellion was a key factor in the decision of the US government to cut its losses and pull out of Viet Nam. The US had the manpower and materiel to continue the war for many more years. Yet widespread insubordination within the army, which included “fraggings”, i.e. the tossing of hand grenades into the tents of officers, posed the threat of the government losing all control over the army. The so-called Vietnam syndrome stayed the hand of the US government for many years.
The US government has sought to immunize itself from the Vietnam syndrome through an all volunteer army, high-tech weaponry and a policy of using overwhelming firepower to minimize US casualties. But these factors, though significant, do not constitute the only, or always even the most important factors. Highly significant are the beliefs and political outlook of the fighting soldiers.
An all volunteer army is immune to some of the coercion and resentment involved in a draft. But many “volunteers” are subject to an economic draft. They are motivated to enlist in order to acquire job skills or a ticket to college. Although they join the army believing in “defense” of their country, this conviction is sometimes quite thin. They have not joined the army to slaughter Iraqis. The inevitable complicity in atrocities has the potential to infect the army with a spirit of rebellion.
Casualty rates have an undeniable effect upon morale and discipline, but many armed forces, convinced in their hearts of the justice and righteousness of their cause, have retained their discipline even while sustaining very high casualty rates. On the other hand, soldiers who do not believe in the war they are being asked to fight may lose their fighting spirit even when their casualty rates are much lower. The Viet Nam conflict illustrated both aspects of this lesson, but the lesson is more general. The belief or disbelief in the justice of one’s cause is a factor of prime importance. Overwhelming firepower alters the equation, but does not eliminate the issue.
Overwhelming firepower may reduce the morale eroding effects of casualties on ones “own” side, but may nevertheless introduce a new morale eroding effect. Witnessing the horror of overwhelming firepower being wreaked upon its victims may cause revulsion in the armed forces towards the government which orders such firepower to be used. (An unfortunate example of this is the Oklahoma City bomber, Timothy McVeigh. Unfortunately, McVeigh’s experience in the first Iraq war made him numb to the mass killing of civilians and young children, referring to them as “collateral damage”. That is at the heart of the Oklahoma City tragedy. But it is worth noting that though the US suffered almost no casualties from Iraqi firepower, nevertheless, McVeigh was driven, at a later date, and at an inappropriate target, to turn against his ruthless masters.)
The anti-war movement consists in large part of working people. However, in most work places, anti-war sentiment is not yet sufficient to support political strikes against war. Nevertheless, work toward such actions is an important component of the struggle. Strikes are not enough to prevent military action by themselves, but have the potential to influence the armed forces to an even greater degree than mere rallies and demonstrations. Building political strikes, though difficult today, is a very important goal of the anti-war movement.
The idea of achieving peace through undermining the discipline of the armed forces goes far beyond anything that the Democratic Party or even the Green Party would contemplate. Although a minority of Democratic Party politicians are “against the war”, they are not so opposed to it that they would undermine the authority of the government.
In the event of political strikes against the war, the Democrats and Greens will take the same position in opposition. Any politician who endorses such struggles will soon find themself attacked by the media, no doubt portrayed as defending Saddam Hussein. Indeed, no section of the ruling class will encourage soldiers to refuse to fight, nor would they encourage political striking against the war. That would be encouraging the soldiers and working class to take matters into their own hands, something even the most liberal rulers will never do. The “left wings” of the ruling class, i.e. the Democratic and Green party, seek to corral popular anti-war sentiment and transfer that sentiment into votes for their own parties. They will capture the “no war” votes, while mounting no useful opposition of their own against the US aggression. If the masses swing to a pro-war sentiment, as was the case with the war on Afghanistan, the capitalist used-to-be doves follow suit, quickly becoming hawks.
The anti-war movement must directly appeal to the soldiers and working class to stop the war . Only class struggle in opposition to all wings of US imperialism, not just the Republican wing, is capable of winning the concession of peace.
(al_collective@hotmail.com)
(labor donated)
Who can prevent a war? Who can end a war? In the most direct sense, only those who have direct control over weapons, for the most part soldiers, may determine whether those weapons are loaded, aimed and fired. Thus it is primarily soldiers who have direct control over whether war is waged or not. To the extent that soldiers obey the commands of the government, the government has control over war. But this control, though usually firmly in the hands of the government, is nevertheless indirect.
The morale of an armed force, its discipline, its political moods, not only affect its direct actions, i.e. its obedience or disobedience to the government. The morale of armed forces also affects the thinking and mood of the government which commands it. The government must always consider the effect of its commands, orders and instructions on the obedience and discipline of the armed forces. The greater the anti-war feelings among the soldiers, the greater the belief that the war it is being asked to wage is unjust, the greater the concern must the government have for possible mutinies, insubordination and insurrection. Consequently, the greater the pressure upon the government to avoid war, to obtain peace, to preserve the discipline within the armed forces.
What effect can mass rallies have upon decisions to go to war, or to prolong a war? To the extent that such rallies encourage, either directly or indirectly a spirit of revolt within the armed forces, to that extent they bring foreboding and fear to the government, and promote the cause of peace. Such rallies may encourage this spirit of revolt directly through appeals to the soldiers, or indirectly through appeals to the masses of working people, with whom the soldiers have ties of kinship and culture. But it is an illusion that mass rallies can have an effect upon the war policies of a government if they fail to encourage a spirit of revolt. No government preparing to bomb, burn, and annihilate innocent civilians and children will be morally swayed by the pleas of demonstrations and rallies. That is, unless those pleas might ultimately find their answer in the direct actions of the armed forces. The key to peace lies in encouraging the spirit of rebellion among the rank and file soldiers. The anti-war movement can encourage rebellion in the military, and show the soldiers that disobedience to the government will not be seen by anti-war masses as treason against America, but rather a necessary action for the benefit of both Americans and Iraqis as well as the rest of the world that suffers under US domination.
The recent anti-war demonstration in Washington numbered in the hundreds of thousands. We ask the reader to imagine the effect of those hundreds of thousands carrying say 10,000 banners with the slogan “Soldiers! Turn Your Guns Around!”. The exact slogan is not important. What we are asking the reader to imagine is the effect of directing an appeal to the soldiers rather than to the government, an appeal that questions the moral legitimacy of the government and its war, and that encourages a spirit of rebellion among the ranks of the armed forces.
Rebellion within the ranks of the armed forces is not an unheard of occurrence. Rebellion was a key factor in the decision of the US government to cut its losses and pull out of Viet Nam. The US had the manpower and materiel to continue the war for many more years. Yet widespread insubordination within the army, which included “fraggings”, i.e. the tossing of hand grenades into the tents of officers, posed the threat of the government losing all control over the army. The so-called Vietnam syndrome stayed the hand of the US government for many years.
The US government has sought to immunize itself from the Vietnam syndrome through an all volunteer army, high-tech weaponry and a policy of using overwhelming firepower to minimize US casualties. But these factors, though significant, do not constitute the only, or always even the most important factors. Highly significant are the beliefs and political outlook of the fighting soldiers.
An all volunteer army is immune to some of the coercion and resentment involved in a draft. But many “volunteers” are subject to an economic draft. They are motivated to enlist in order to acquire job skills or a ticket to college. Although they join the army believing in “defense” of their country, this conviction is sometimes quite thin. They have not joined the army to slaughter Iraqis. The inevitable complicity in atrocities has the potential to infect the army with a spirit of rebellion.
Casualty rates have an undeniable effect upon morale and discipline, but many armed forces, convinced in their hearts of the justice and righteousness of their cause, have retained their discipline even while sustaining very high casualty rates. On the other hand, soldiers who do not believe in the war they are being asked to fight may lose their fighting spirit even when their casualty rates are much lower. The Viet Nam conflict illustrated both aspects of this lesson, but the lesson is more general. The belief or disbelief in the justice of one’s cause is a factor of prime importance. Overwhelming firepower alters the equation, but does not eliminate the issue.
Overwhelming firepower may reduce the morale eroding effects of casualties on ones “own” side, but may nevertheless introduce a new morale eroding effect. Witnessing the horror of overwhelming firepower being wreaked upon its victims may cause revulsion in the armed forces towards the government which orders such firepower to be used. (An unfortunate example of this is the Oklahoma City bomber, Timothy McVeigh. Unfortunately, McVeigh’s experience in the first Iraq war made him numb to the mass killing of civilians and young children, referring to them as “collateral damage”. That is at the heart of the Oklahoma City tragedy. But it is worth noting that though the US suffered almost no casualties from Iraqi firepower, nevertheless, McVeigh was driven, at a later date, and at an inappropriate target, to turn against his ruthless masters.)
The anti-war movement consists in large part of working people. However, in most work places, anti-war sentiment is not yet sufficient to support political strikes against war. Nevertheless, work toward such actions is an important component of the struggle. Strikes are not enough to prevent military action by themselves, but have the potential to influence the armed forces to an even greater degree than mere rallies and demonstrations. Building political strikes, though difficult today, is a very important goal of the anti-war movement.
The idea of achieving peace through undermining the discipline of the armed forces goes far beyond anything that the Democratic Party or even the Green Party would contemplate. Although a minority of Democratic Party politicians are “against the war”, they are not so opposed to it that they would undermine the authority of the government.
In the event of political strikes against the war, the Democrats and Greens will take the same position in opposition. Any politician who endorses such struggles will soon find themself attacked by the media, no doubt portrayed as defending Saddam Hussein. Indeed, no section of the ruling class will encourage soldiers to refuse to fight, nor would they encourage political striking against the war. That would be encouraging the soldiers and working class to take matters into their own hands, something even the most liberal rulers will never do. The “left wings” of the ruling class, i.e. the Democratic and Green party, seek to corral popular anti-war sentiment and transfer that sentiment into votes for their own parties. They will capture the “no war” votes, while mounting no useful opposition of their own against the US aggression. If the masses swing to a pro-war sentiment, as was the case with the war on Afghanistan, the capitalist used-to-be doves follow suit, quickly becoming hawks.
The anti-war movement must directly appeal to the soldiers and working class to stop the war . Only class struggle in opposition to all wings of US imperialism, not just the Republican wing, is capable of winning the concession of peace.
(al_collective@hotmail.com)
(labor donated)