The Art of War for the anti-War Movement
Gandalf Grey
It's high time to recognize that we as a nation are engaged in a
life-or-death struggle of competing ideologies with those who promote war as
an American value and virtue.
Scott Ritter, AlterNet
In the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq by a US-led coalition, and
for three years since, I have spent many hours speaking to numerous anti-war
forums across the country and around the world. I have always been struck by
the sincerity of the vast majority of those who call themselves anti-war,
and impressed by their willingness to give so much of themselves in the
service of such a noble cause.
Whether participating in demonstrations, organizing a vigil, conducting
town-hall meetings, or writing letters to their elected officials and the
media, the participants in the anti-war movement have exhibited an energy
and integrity that would make anyone proud. For myself, I have been
vociferous in my defense of the actions of the majority of the anti-war
movement, noting that the expression of their views is not only consistent
with their rights afforded by the Constitution of the United States, but
also that their engagement in the process of citizenship is a stellar
example of the ideals and values set forth in that document, and as such
representative of the highest form of patriotism in keeping with service to
a document that begins, "We the People."
Lately I have noticed a growing despondency among many of those who call
themselves the anti-war movement. With the United States now entering its
fourth year of illegal war in and illegitimate occupation of Iraq, and the
pro-war movement moving inexorably towards yet another disastrous conflict
with Iran, there is an increasing awareness that the cause of the anti-war
movement, no matter how noble and worthy, is in fact a losing cause as
currently executed. Despite all of the well-meaning and patriotic work of
the millions of activists and citizens who comprise the anti-war movement,
America still remains very much a nation not only engaged in waging and
planning wars of aggression, but has also become a nation which increasingly
identifies itself through its military and the wars it fights. This is a sad
manifestation of the fact that the American people seem to be addicted to
war and violence, rather than the ideals of human rights, individual
liberty, and freedom and justice for all that should define our nation.
In short, the anti-war movement has come face to face with the reality that
in the ongoing war of ideologies that is being waged in America today, their
cause is not just losing, but is in fact on the verge of complete collapse.
Many in the anti-war movement would take exception to such a
characterization of the situation, given the fact that there seems to be a
growing change in the mood among Americans against the ongoing war in Iraq.
But one only has to scratch at the surface of this public discontent to
realize how shallow and superficial it is. Americans aren't against the war
in Iraq because it is wrong; they are against it because we are losing.
Take the example of Congressman Jack Murtha. A vocal supporter of President
Bush's decision to invade Iraq, last fall Mr. Murtha went public with his
dramatic change of position, suddenly rejecting the war as un-winnable, and
demanding the immediate withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. While
laudable, I have serious problems with Jack Murtha's thought process here.
At what point did the American invasion of Iraq become a bad war? When we
suffered 2,000 dead? After two years of fruitless struggle? Once we spent
$100 billion?
While vocalizing his current opposition against the Iraq War, Congressman
Murtha and others who voted for the war but now question its merits have
never retracted their original pro-war stance. Nor have they criticized
their role in abrogating the Constitutional processes for bringing our
country into conflict when they voted for a war before the President had
publicly committed to going to war (we now know the President had committed
to the invasion of Iraq by the summer of 2002, and that all his
representations to the American people and Congress about 'war as a matter
of last resort' and 'seeking a diplomatic solution' were bold face lies).
The Iraq War was wrong the moment we started bombing Iraq. Getting rid of
Saddam Hussein is no excuse, and does not pardon America's collective sin of
brooking and tolerating an illegal war of aggression.
The reality is, had our military prevailed in this struggle, the American
people for the most part would not even blink at the moral and legal
arguments against this war. This underlying reality is reflected in the fact
that despite our ongoing disaster in Iraq, America is propelled down a
course of action that leads us toward conflict with Iran. President Bush
recently re-affirmed his embrace of the principles of pre-emptive war when
he signed off on the 2006 version of the National Security Strategy of the
United States, which highlights Iran as a threat worthy of confrontation.
This event has gone virtually unmentioned by the American mainstream media,
un-remarked by a Congress that remains complicit in the war-mongering
policies of the Bush administration, and un-noticed by the majority of
Americans. America is pre-programmed for war, and unless the anti-war
movement dramatically changes the manner in which it conducts its struggle,
America will become a nation of war, for war, and defined by war, and as
such a nation that will ultimately be consumed by war.
It is high time for the anti-war movement to take a collective look in the
mirror, and be honest about what they see. A poorly organized, chaotic, and
indeed often anarchic conglomeration of egos, pet projects and idealism that
barely constitutes a "movement," let alone a winning cause. I have yet to
observe an anti-war demonstration that has a focus on anti-war. It often
seemed that every left-wing cause took advantage of the event to promote its
own particular agenda, so that "No War in Iraq" shared the stage with the
environment, ecology, animal rights, pro-choice, and numerous other causes
which not only diluted the anti-war message which was supposed to be sent,
but also guaranteed that the demonstration itself would be seen as something
hijacked by the left, inclusive of only progressive ideologues, and
exclusive of the vast majority of moderate (and even conservative) Americans
who might have wanted to share the stage with their fellow Americans from
the left when it comes to opposing war with Iraq (or even Iran), but do not
want to be associated with any other theme.
The anti-war movement, first and foremost, needs to develop a laser-like
focus on being nothing more or less than anti-war.
The anti-war movement lacks any notion of strategic thinking, operational
planning, or sense of sound tactics. So much energy is wasted because of
this failure to centrally plan and organize. As a result, when the anti-war
movement does get it right (and on occasion it does), the success is
frittered away by a failure to have planned effective follow-up efforts,
failure to have implemented any supporting operations, an inability to
recognize opportunities as they emerge and a lack of resources to exploit
such opportunities if in fact they were recognized to begin with. In short,
the anti-war movement is little more than a walk-on squad of high school
football players drawing plays in the sand, taking on the National Football
League Super Bowl Champions.
In order to even have a chance of prevailing with the American people, the
anti-war movement is going to need much more than just good ideals and
values. It needs to start thinking like a warrior would, in full recognition
that we as a nation are engaged in a life-or-death struggle of competing
ideologies with those who promote war as an American value and virtue.
The anti-war movement needs to study the philosophies of those who have
mastered the art of conflict, from Caesar to Napoleon, from Sun Tzu to
Clausewitz. It needs to study the "enemy" learning to understand the pro-war
movement as well as it understands itself. It needs to comprehend the art of
campaigning, of waging battles only when necessary, and having the ability
to wage a struggle on several fronts simultaneously, synchronizing each
struggle so that a synergy is created which maximizes whatever energy is
being expended. The anti-war movement needs to understand the pro-war
movement's center of gravity, and design measures to defeat this. It needs
to grasp the pro-war movement's decision-making cycle, then undertake a
comprehensive course of action that learns to pre-empt this cycle, getting
'inside' the pro-war system of making decisions, and thereby forcing the
pro-war movement to react to the anti-war agenda, instead of vice versa.
There is an old adage in the military that "intelligence drives operations."
The anti-war movement needs to develop a centralized intelligence operation,
not a spy organization, but rather a think-tank that produces sound analysis
based upon fact that can be used to empower those who are waging the
struggle against war. Far too often the anti-war movement dilutes its
effectiveness by either being unable to produce facts during a debate, or
when it does, producing facts that are inaccurate, incomplete, or both. The
mainstream media treats the anti-war movement as a joke because many times
that is exactly what the anti-war movement, through its lack of preparation
and grasp of the facts, allows itself to become.
The anti-war movement lacks organization. There is no central leadership, or
mechanism to effectively muster and control resources. The anti-war movement
takes pride in its "democratic" composition, but in fact it operates as
little more than controlled chaos, creating ample opportunity for the
pro-war movement to effectively execute a "divide and conquer" strategy to
minimize and nullify whatever good the anti-war movement achieves through
its efforts. The anti-war movement would do well to take a page from the
fire service and implement a version of the Incident Command System (ICS)
that firefighters use when fighting complex fires involving the integration
of several departments, organizations and jurisdictions. The anti-war
movement needs to develop its own "ICS for the anti-war" that is universally
applied throughout the movement, so that an anti-war effort in Seattle,
Washington operates the same as an anti-war effort in New York City, and as
such can be coordinated and controlled by an overall command staff operating
from Denver, Colorado.
Complex problems, such as faced by the anti-war movement, require complex
solutions, which in turn dictate a flexible control mechanism that can
coordinate and synchronize every effort to achieve the desired result at a
time and place of the anti-war movement's choosing, and then be prepared to
follow up on successes as they occur and sustain the movement over an
extended period of time. It is not enough to win a battle against the
pro-war movement; the anti-war movement needs to win the war of ideologies.
As such it must not only prepare to win a particular fight, but to exploit
that victory, massing its forces against any developed weakness, and drive
the pro-movement into the ground and off the American political map once and
for all.
I have indicated my willingness to apply my training and experience as a
warrior in a manner which helps teach the principles of the art of war to
those who call themselves part of the anti-war movement. There seems to be
not only a need for this sort of training, but also a desire among the
myriad of individuals and groups who comprise the anti-war movement for an
overall coordinated strategic direction, operational planning, and tactical
execution of agreed upon mission objectives. One can be certain that the
pro-war movement is conducting itself in full accordance with these very
same organizational principles and methodologies. And let there be no doubt:
the pro-war movement in America is prevailing. In order to gain the upper
hand politically, and actually position itself to stop not only those wars
already being fought (Iraq), but also prevent those being planned (Iran),
the anti-war movement will need to re-examine in totality the way it does
business. I for one am ready to assist. However, in writing this essay, I am
constantly reminded of the old saying, "You can lead a horse to water, but
you can't make it drink." One can only hope that the anti-war movement is
thirsty.
© 2006 Independent Media Institute.
Source: AlterNet
http://alternet.org/blogs/themix/34332/
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
--Thomas Jefferson