Stop White House madness, say ‘traitors’

 

As published in Sunday Mail

 

In April 1961, John F. Kennedy was humiliated in front of the whole world when the Bay of Pigs invasion led by CIA-trained Cuban exiles failed miserably to overthrow Fidel Castro.

 

Although unsuccessful and embarrassing, the event rallied public support at home for the Kennedy administration.

 

In his book An Informal History of America in the 1960s: Coming Apart, William O’Neill highlights that violent conflict with other nations unites citizens in backing their leader. When the president declares war, he is drawing a distinct line that separates the patriots and the traitors.

 

This way, the people are somewhat forced to support the government for to do otherwise would make them unpatriotic.

 

This is precisely the case in George W. Bush’s “War on Terror”. Bush has played the war rhetoric game on Americans to rally them thus far into launching a preemptive strike on Iraq.

 

Unable to see the imminent threat of Saddam Hussein and with the economy in shambles, Americans have taken a step back to evaluate the President’s motives. Is the attack necessary at this point in time or is this a desperate attempt to keep public support from declining due to the economy and corporate fraud?

 

As many Americans started to see steady progress made by the United Nations Security Council in disarming Iraq, they also became more opposing to the notion of a preemptive war. This anti-war sentiment, shared by most people outside the US, motivated thousands of Americans to take to the streets in protest.

 

I attended a protest in Washington D.C. on March 15, just two days before Bush announced his ultimatum to Saddam. About 100,000 people gathered at the Washington Monument at noon urging Bush to “stop the madness” and marched for 20 blocks and in front of the White House.

 

Organised by International A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to Stop War & End Racism), the event started with a long list of speakers from various organisations including the US Labour Against War, Iraqi-American Anti-War Coalition, Jews for Peace in Palestine & Israel, Kids Against the War, Partnership for Civil Justice, Queers for Peace & Justice and the Support Network for Armed Forces.

 

Amongst prominent public figures present were Michigan congressman John Conyers and Reverend Jesse Jackson from the Clinton administration. Also present was Ramsey Clarke, former US Attorney General who is leading a case towards impeaching Bush for launching an “unconstitutional” pre-emptive war.

 

The crowd responded to Clarke with chants of “Vote to Impeach!”. The crowd and organisers also held strong that the core of the Middle East crisis is America’s biased policies towards Israel. Anti-Zionist sentiments soared even amongst Jews present as they condemned Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s aggressive settlement projects condoned by the US.

 

The protesters were also apprehensive about the military’s plan to use its latest 9,500kg satellite-guided Massive Ordinance Air Blast Bombs (MOAB) – also known as the Mother of All Bombs – in its “Shock & Awe” campaign that could cause mass destruction to the Iraqi people, 50 per cent of whom are below the age of 15. Many speakers consider this campaign an act of genocide. Rallying for peace, the crowd applauded the French and Germans for pursuing a more peaceful solution through disarmament by the Security Council. Strong opposition from major political players such as France, Russia and China further intensified anti-war sentiments amongst the protesters.

 

As I walked the compound of the Washington Monument, I saw people of all ages, colours and from all walks of life. It was heartening to see them making the effort to attend the rally.

 

It was especially moving to see so many Vietnam war veterans expressing their concerns about their country’s first-ever, pre-emptive war. These protesters considered themselves the United Nations of Peace, opposing the

US-led Coalition of the Willing.

 

The chant “No Blood for Oil!” reflects their scepticism of American-British intentions in Iraq.

 

Even though they all opposed Saddam, they do not think he is an imminent threat to the American homeland. Therefore, they demanded that funds used for military activities in the Arab region be used at home where jobs are scarce, Medicare ineffective and education budgets reduced.

 

However, taking this stand has caused war advocates to call them “traitors” for turning their backs on the President in times of crisis.

 

One day after Bush announced his ultimatum, public support increased slightly, as expected.

 

However, even as late as the first strikes on Iraq, the American public remains divided with at least 34 per cent opposing pre-emptive military action.

 

The morning after the war unfolded, Congress deliberated on a testimony of support for the President as Commander-in-Chief but some members in the House of Representative argued to dismiss any statement in the letter praising Bush’s leadership.

 

Families of 9/11’s victims also issued a statement condemning the war, saying that they do not want Iraqi civilians to experience the trauma of terror that they themselves have seen.

 

Furthermore, thousands in Boston, New York City, Chicago and San Francisco took to the streets for an emergency protest. Many made their statements clear carrying signs that read “We’re Not Against Our Soldiers! We Just Want Them To Come Home!”

 

Protesters also convened in Washington, D.C. causing massive traffic jams in areas around the White House. Many walked out of schools and workplaces in an organised “If The War Breaks Out, Walk Out!” peaceful act of civil disobedience.

 

Peace activists have planned to launch nationwide protests throughout the weekend and coming weeks if the war continues. Those who oppose the war consider themselves American patriots like those who spoke against King George in the American Revolution.