I'm not marching anymore

Letters

Editor: Tens of thousands of people, young and old, took to the streets of cities around the world this past weekend to protest the imminent war in Iraq. Many of the tens of thousands of the don't-whack-Iraq collectivity are Canadians. They should ask themselves, "What better world would result from this pacifistic vision in a demonstrably homicidal and violent world?"

In the 1960s, we knew, or at least we believed that we knew, the destination to which the direction of our collective efforts to change the world would arrive.
The American Civil Rights movement and its thousands of demonstrators, not nearly all of whom were nonviolent, sought to achieve equal rights and to end then-lawful, racist, state segregation, American apartheid. We hoped to arrive at a station where black men and black women could vote, attend school, work, have access to public services and find housing on an equal footing with white Americans. Admittedly, a goal not yet perfectly achieved, but still fairly close to the mark.

The anti-war movement of the 1960s, that is, the movement against the American military involvement in Vietnam, not nearly all of whose members were pacifists, sought to end the war in Vietnam and to bring the American troops home. The movement did not seek to remove the Vietcong or North Vietnamese troops from the south. And for many, the resulting victory of the North Vietnamese and the re-unification of Vietnam was not only a foregone conclusion, but a much desired outcome as well. No surprise ending there, either.

What then is the probable destination of the don't-whack-Iraq collectivity? Well, for one, it would seem inevitable that Iraq will continue to amass and, quite likely, again use weapons of mass destruction against its neighbors and internal dissident populations. That means ballistic missiles armed with biological, chemical and nuclear warheads. Is this a worthy goal for the people who took to the streets this past weekend? Is this really a desired outcome? Is this in any way better than Anglo-American allied military intervention now? And if there are to be no military consequences and no international gatekeepers, what disincentive would be likely to prevail against a belligerent Iraq that has repeatedly initiated hostilities in the region?

Whatever the other tens of thousands who signed the now-infamous 1930s Oxford Student Union pacificist declaration of refusal to serve in the military of western democracies intended to accomplish, their action actually resulted in giving aid and comfort to Adolf Hitler and his goal of military domination of Europe and the racist extermination of millions of Jews, Roma and Slavs. They contributed, and not in a small way, to precipitating the very war-is-hell they sought to prevent. From where I sit, there is much the same sniff of self-destruction and self-defeat and lack of self-awareness about the don't-whack-Iraq demonstrators.

And, like the other movements of the 1960s, not all of the current cohort are pacifists, nor do they really oppose military conquest in principle. A sizable segment advocate the end of the state of Israel by any means, including the mass-killing of civilians, women and children. Many are aware that dismantling Israel can only be achieved by deporting or exterminating millions of Israeli Jews, and no Israeli Arabs. A racist blood price that many of the don't-whack-Iraq collectivity are willing to pay. In truth, for some, it is the only real goal.

French psychologist Gustave le Bon, in his century-defining work The Crowd – A Study of the Popular Mind (a book read and taken to heart by Hitler, Lenin, Stalin and other leaders of 20th-century mass movements), held that political demonstrations and militant mass movements are always emotional and never logical. Astute political leaders, le Bon stated, are only able to influence a political collectivity like the don't-whack-Iraq bunch, by presenting a new belief or a new image.

I am haunted by a new image. What if the don't-whack-Iraq bunch prevail? Can't you hear the sanctimony now? On the day Iraqi SCUDs find their target and 500,000 Jews die in Tel-Aviv, will CBC again broadcast the English university ethicist who tells us why genocide against Jews in Israel is justified? Will pious Anglican prelates appear on screens crying crocodile tears for the mass-murdered, but expressing understanding for the motives of the Islamic murderers? Will Canadian politicians wring their hands but have no real regrets? Will Canadian commentators tell us again that we must consider the motivations of the fanatical killers who fly airliners into skyscrapers? Of course they will.

Bob Friedland
Victoria

^TOP