The Art of War for the anti-war movement
Posted by Scott Ritter at 6:13 PM on March 31, 2006.
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.
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.
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/themix/34332/
Note: http://www.alternet.org...

citizens on U.S. territory ... I think his message is ... um, er, well:
correct. He's saying that to fight an army, you have to BE an army.
Yes, that's the U.S. answer.
Call me naive, but wasn't civilian control over the military -- in a
democratic society -- set up to control the exuberance of the pro-
war enthusiasts? Isn't that the basis of the U.S. dilemma -- that the
military (its armed forces as well as its defense industries) has
taken control of their administration?
If Scott Ritter's advice is taken -- and if it succeeds -- it would result
in regaining control of the U.S. administration. But there IS an
option.
I'm surprised Ritter is speaking of anti-war defeatism at a
time when 6 U.S. generals have publicly demanded that their
bone-headed Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld, should get the
boot. And when their commander-in-chief is losing support by
the hour.
Canada still has the opportunity to avoid that whole painful
process of getting into illegal wars, without creating the army of
anti-warriors that he advocates. It's SHarper who seems
determined to follow the Bush formula.
Thanks for posting this, Diogenes, but it leaves me uncomfortable.
It has echoes of the undercover cops who becomes addicted while
trying to infiltrate the underworld, thinking they'll defeat the crooks
by playing their game.
bone-headed Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld, should get the
boot. And when their commander-in-chief is losing support by the hour. <<
But Ritter is right: "Americans aren't against the war in Iraq because it is wrong; they are against it because we are losing. "
Those Generals want to get rid of the secretary because they feel he is the reason they are loosing. They don't want to end the "war", they want to win it. Their complaint is that Rumsfield won't heed to their "better" military plans.
---
Expect little from life and get more from it.
For any change to come about politically Scott Ritter’s model must be applied.
Beyond the idiot simple and time tested message ‘set a thief to catch a thief’ not, by the way, restricted to all things American is the message from Sun Tzu on The Art of War, the oldest military treatise in the world. Sun Tzu’s manual has been applied as a common sense guide to be applied from the board-room to the personal development field.
Rather than, Um , er …well wandering off in some anal retentive mindset applied solely to the dilemma of only this single issue, anti war, the broader issue of a country wishes to be governed is also at stake.
---
The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.... : Albert Einstein