Anti-war protests different these days

The anti-war movement that seems to be awakening is vastly different from the days of Abbie Hoffman and the Chicago Seven
by Rich Brooks

This is not your father’s peace movement.

It’s not your mother’s, either.

There are similarities between the Vietnam War of 30 years ago and the Iraq war. Policy and leadership failures in each case were responsible for taking this nation down a path that cost the lives of thousands of American servicemen and women, as well as countless civilians.

Although President Bush led us into Iraq, Congress failed miserably to exercise oversight and the press didn’t ask tough questions.

But the anti-war movement that seems to be awakening is vastly different from the days of Abbie Hoffman and the Chicago Seven.

The ’60s were a time of tumult and upheaval. Perhaps anti-war protesters were influenced by the success of the civil rights demonstrations of the ’60s…

Demonstrations often turned into violent clashes with police. Protests that erupted on college campuses came to a head in 1970 when the National Guard opened fire on demonstrators at Kent State University in Kent, Ohio, killing four.

What energized so many middle-class youths to the streets was the feeling that their voices were not being heard. And the embodiment of that alienation was the military draft.

Without the threat of Uncle Sam taking away your freedom, today’s college students don’t have a stake in the Iraq war.

Not all of those who were anti-war a generation ago were motivated by self-interest. Some did not believe that the United States should be putting its resources into killing people.

This is the common thread linking the anti-war movements across the generational divide. To stop the anti-war movement, stop the killing.

This simple lesson is the reason the Vietnam anti-war movement died after the fall of Saigon and why the demonstrators melted back in to society.

No war means no anti-war movement.

It’s easy to dismiss the anti-war movement as misguided peacemongers.

Yet their core theme has staying power. As a free republic, we elect representatives to do our bidding.

President Bush may have misled us into believing that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction — he didn’t — and that Saddam had something to do with planning and executing the attack on the World Trade Center — wrong again. The fact remains that soldiers, Marines, pilots and sailors are acting on behalf of we the people.

Which brings me to another difference between the anti-war movements. How often has the phrase “support our troops” been used?

Not even the most acrimonious anti-war demonstrators want to demonize those fighting in Iraq. That those who fought in Vietnam were not welcomed as heroes was a failure of us all.

In some ways, the defeat of Sen. Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut primary last week is a message to all politicians that it’s OK to oppose the war in Iraq. And the best way to stop the anti-war movement is to stop the killing.

Voters don’t want blood on their hands.