Anti-war movement in America grows stronger
January 17, 2003
Let's make money, not war, say US protesters
From Tim Reid and Anne Dixey in Washington
timesonline.co.uk
IF GEORGE BUSH looks out of the Oval Office window tomorrow he will probably see the biggest peace demonstration in Washington since the Vietnam War.
But he will not see hippies or long-haired peaceniks. He will be looking instead at a huge cross-section of Middle America: doctors, corporate lawyers, chief executives, lorry drivers, nurses, military families, grandmothers, even families of September 11 victims. And they won’t be burning the American flag. They will be carrying it with pride.
Most Americans support President Bush and his desire to disarm Iraq, but polls show that they do not believe he has yet made the case for using military force, and across this vast nation there are deep misgivings about a war.
Every week surveys find a consistent number of between 60 and 70 per cent who oppose a war without UN backing or the discovery of a “smoking gun” by weapons inspectors in Iraq. Yesterday the Pew Research Centre reported that without clear evidence of Saddam Hussein’s weapons programme, only 29 per cent would support an invasion.
Until last June, Robert Hinkley was an international corporate laywer billing clients $500 an hour and earning more than $1 million a year.
He marched against a war in October, in Augusta, Maine, and has helped to organise nine busloads, 450 people, to make the 17-hour journey to Washington on Saturday from his home town of Bangor. “This thing is very mainstream, and it’s going to get bigger and more vociferous,” he said. “When I marched in October there were teenagers up to 80-year-olds, blue-collar and white-collar workers. People are very concerned about this war. But at the same time they are worried about appearing unpatriotic. Many have let the President go this far, but underneath it all, they are thinking: ‘Why are we really doing this?’” The problem for the peace movement is that it lacks a leader or a rallying point. It is as if it is somehow unpatriotic to criticise the President’s war aims. No leading politicians have been brave enough to oppose Mr Bush, particularly those Democrats running for president and terrified of being on the wrong side of the issue.
But there are signs that the anti-war movement, though still small, is gathering momentum as the threat of war increases, and as thousands of troops leave for the Gulf.
The anti-war movement of the 21st century communicates mainly through the internet and includes many middle-class conservatives who love their country but worry about its huge power and their President’s motives.
On Monday a group of prominent Republican business executives published a full-page letter in the Wall Street Journal headed “A Republican Dissent on Iraq”.
It began: “Let’s be clear. 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. It is not a just war.” It continued: “The world wants Saddam Hussein disarmed. But you must find a better way to do it.”
United for Peace, the organiser of Saturday’s march, has brought together more than 140 organisations, and is backed by religious and civic organisations, including the National Council of Churches, Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities, Veteran for Common Cause and Physicians for Social Responsibility.
Many thousands of these protesters will come from America’s main trade unions.
“It shows that it’s not just a bunch of people in dreadlocks out there,” Jason Mark, an organiser, said. “Blue-collar people are seen as having a lot of salt-of-the-earth wisdom and legitimacy. They’re not the usual suspects when it comes to peace and justice issues.”
Like many business leaders, the unions are worried about the economic impact of a war. David Welsh, a former San Francisco postman, is worried about the estimated $200 billion cost of an Iraqi campaign.
“That could mean less federal spending on unemployment benefits, health care and other areas that affect working class people,” he said.
Many chief executives believe that Mr Bush should be focusing on the fragile US economy, not attacking a country 8,000 miles from Washington. This is hardly 1967. The message today is: “Make Money, Not War.”
Last month Win Without War, the most mainstream of the anti-war 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. But we believe that a pre-emptive military invasion of Iraq will harm American national interests.”
In August Daphne Reed, a grandmother, founded Mothers Against War from her home in Massachusetts.
“The Government has used the horror of September 11 to strike fear into the hearts of the US people,” she said. “Do they think Americans are stupid? Because we are not . We love our country deeply. My father fought in both world wars. He taught me patriotism. This is not patriotism.”
On Capitol Hill, every senior Democrat voted for Mr Bush’s Iraqi war resolution.Few politicians will join tomorrow’s march.
Many Hollywood luminaries have opposed a war. Martin Sheen, the star of The West Wing, led a march of 10,000 in Los Angeles last weekend. Others are being told by their agents that to do so publicly would harm their careers. Michael Kieschnick, a march organiser, said: “When those millions get engaged, whether through street events, letter writing or visiting the representatives, Bush will have to pause.” |
