2008 National Conference Report back

MORE THAN 170 students representing 36 schools around the country gathered at the 2008 Campus Antiwar Network (CAN) national conference to discuss the way forward for the movement.

Titled "It's Up to Us to Stop the War," the conference was held the weekend of October 10-12 at DePaul University in Chicago. CAN made a major shift in organizational priorities with the addition of a demand for immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan to its points of unity.

During the opening plenary discussion on why the U.S. is in the Middle East, speakers tackled the two pillars of U.S. imperialism today: oil and empire. They challenged the ideas that the race for oil is an issue of the past or motivated entirely by consumption.

In addition, they broke down some of the myths about the state of Israel and its oppression of Palestinians, the role of Israel and Saudi Arabia in the Middle East, and how they factor into the U.S. thirst for geopolitical domination.

Workshops addressed important questions for the movement, with Afghanistan taking center stage in light of the decision by U.S. rulers to pummel that country with a surge in military forces.

Presentations also were given on Palestine, the role of multinational corporations in the pillaging of Colombia, torture, the Iraqi refugee crisis, and divide-and-conquer strategies in Iraq. Some students said that they had learned more at a workshop than in a semester-long college course.

With that excitement, students broke out into strategy workshops to discuss their ideas and experiences in shaping their organizing when they return to their campuses. There was something for everyone: working with veterans; publicity and media; the economic war on students; a report back from the Republican National Convention student protest contingent; and the basics on how to develop a CAN chapter.

The "How to Start a CAN Chapter" workshop took on questions of confronting and working around university policy in order to promote a chapter. A student from Drake University spoke of not being able to approach people while tabling at her student union, and having to sit behind the table waiting for people to come to her. Some constructive suggestions were given, including one student who recommended that the table be on wheels, so that she could approach people and still be behind it.

On the evening of October 11, members of Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) gave testimony about their experiences. Images provided during their testimony confirmed the use of white phosphorus on Iraqis. The presentation showed that chaos and a lack of infrastructure are rampant in Iraq. The dehumanization of not only Iraqis, but gays in the military was discussed, as well as subordination of women and ethnic minorities.

In reference to the United State's supposed goal of ridding Afghanistan of women's oppression, to paraphrase one of the veterans, "if you think that the military is on some feminist mission to free the women of Afghanistan, you are mistaken."Students agreeing

Organizing from the bottom up is a challenge, yet CAN has been able to double in size within the last year to over 50 chapters. Remaining independent from any political party has definitely added to its success, given that the Democratic and Republican parties are allied over the "war on terror." Additionally, the democratic process--the ability for each student to have a say and take part in action, has allowed for student members to flourish and leaders to develop.

At the voting session held on October 12, students debated and voted on the direction CAN should take for the next year.

Structurally, CAN will take on more responsibility in getting members educated on Afghanistan and Palestine. Politically, the movement took a large step and has added to its points of unity a call for immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan. In solidarity with their allies in IVAW, CAN now also stands for full economic reparations to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as full health and educational benefits for all military personnel regardless of their discharge status.

http://www.campusantiwar.net/news/national/2008_national_conference_report_back.html

On Waging Peace

For this paper, I will be assessing the book Waging Peace: The Art of War For the Antiwar Movement by Scott Ritter.

Scott Ritter is an ex-marine and former chief U.N. Weapons Inspector in Iraq from 1991 until 1998. He has been highly critical of United States foreign policy and states that Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction prior to the invasion in 2003. The CIA, later confirmed this.

Because of his disdain for the Bush administration and opposition to the Iraq war, he has been somewhat popular or noteworthy in the antiwar movement.

Although he says he admires the people within the movement, the way it is structured bothered him enough to write a book proposing an alternative.

Waging Peace is that book. In it, he basically reiterates an earlier essay with the same points. He believes the antiwar movement’s non-hierarchal, often leaderless quality is detrimental to its effectiveness. Imitating the military’s or FEMA’s vast bureaucracy is his solution.

There are a number of problems with this. The first glaring problem and obvious one would be that top down structures do not necessarily mean success. FEMA’s handling of the post-Katrina situation testifies to that.

He seems to fail to understand that many in the antiwar movement will not operate under authoritarian leadership. Indeed, many in the movement have quite anarchistic and libertarian attitudes on top-down control. These people will abandon a militaristic modeled movement.

It is a dangerous thing to imitate your opponent or enemy. How long before you are indistinguishable from them? Personally, becoming a mirror image of the military or government is not a goal of mine.

Ritter’s second biggest suggestion is basically to move to the center of the political spectrum. He advocates citing the constitution as a way of showing our patriotism and appealing to apolitical middle class America.

Never mind that many in the movement hold ideas of direct democracy and outlooks of property completely at odds with the old piece of paper. Forget that many of us reject nationalism and view it as a symptom of war itself. Without even knowing these two characteristics of the movement, one can see that he wants us to become center-left Democrats.

I’m sorry, Scott, center-left Democrats already exist and they supported or were mostly apathetic about the invasion. No need to increase their numbers.

When it comes down to it, it is apparent that Ritter is barely familiar with the many antiwar groups and organizations and he most defiantly does not understand them. He fails to make the connection between top-down leadership, nationalism and war. He neglects to acknowledge the millions of people in the streets pre-invasion or the media’s shameful participation in the buildup of lies and Propaganda.

In summary, his book is borderline useless, unless curiosity gets to you, and you want to briefly explore the mind of some who just doesn’t get it.