The Art Of War For the Anti War Movement

[Guest guest]

A

Sat, 1 Apr 2006 14:10:03 -0500

The Art Of War For the Anti War Movement

 

 

Thoughtful article by Scott Ritter, former weapons inspector in Iraq

 

 

 

 

The Art Of War For The Anti-War Movement

By Scott Ritter

 

01 April, 2006

 

 

http://www.Alternet.com

 

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.

 

Take the example of Congressman Jack Murtha. A vocal supporter of

President Bush's decision to invade Iraq, last fall Mr. Murtha went

public with his dramatic change of position, suddenly rejecting the

war as un-winnable, and demanding the immediate withdrawal of American

troops from Iraq. While laudable, I have serious problems with Jack

Murtha's thought process here. At what point did the American invasion

of Iraq become a bad war? When we suffered 2,000 dead? After two years

of fruitless struggle? Once we spent $100 billion?

 

While vocalizing his current opposition against the Iraq War,

Congressman Murtha and others who voted for the war but now question

its merits have never retracted their original pro-war stance. Nor

have they criticized their role in abrogating the Constitutional

processes for bringing our country into conflict when they voted for a

war before the President had publicly committed to going to war (we

now know the President had committed to the invasion of Iraq by the

summer of 2002, and that all his representations to the American

people and Congress about 'war as a matter of last resort' and

'seeking a diplomatic solution' were bold face lies). The Iraq War was

wrong the moment we started bombing Iraq. Getting rid of Saddam

Hussein is no excuse, and does not pardon America's collective sin of

brooking and tolerating an illegal war of aggression.

 

The reality is, had our military prevailed in this struggle, the

American people for the most part would not even blink at the moral

and legal arguments against this war. This underlying reality is

reflected in the fact that despite our ongoing disaster in Iraq,

America is propelled down a course of action that leads us toward

conflict with Iran. President Bush recently re-affirmed his embrace of

the principles of pre-emptive war when he signed off on the 2006

version of the National Security Strategy of the United States, which

highlights Iran as a threat worthy of confrontation. This event has

gone virtually unmentioned by the American mainstream media,

un-remarked by a Congress that remains complicit in the war-mongering

policies of the Bush administration, and un-noticed by the majority of

Americans. America is pre-programmed for war, and unless the anti-war

movement dramatically changes the manner in which it conducts its

struggle, America will become a nation of war, for war, and defined by

war, and as such a nation that will ultimately be consumed by war.

 

It is high time for the anti-war movement to take a collective look in

the mirror, and be honest about what they see. A poorly organized,

chaotic, and indeed often anarchic conglomeration of egos, pet

projects and idealism that barely constitutes a " movement, " let alone

a winning cause. I have yet to observe an anti-war demonstration that

has a focus on anti-war. It often seemed that every left-wing cause

took advantage of the event to promote its own particular agenda, so

that " No War in Iraq " shared the stage with the environment, ecology,

animal rights, pro-choice, and numerous other causes which not only

diluted the anti-war message which was supposed to be sent, but also

guaranteed that the demonstration itself would be seen as something

hijacked by the left, inclusive of only progressive ideologues, and

exclusive of the vast majority of moderate (and even conservative)

Americans who might have wanted to share the stage with their fellow

Americans from the left when it comes to opposing war with Iraq (or

even Iran), but do not want to be associated with any other theme.

 

The anti-war movement, first and foremost, needs to develop a

laser-like focus on being nothing more or less than anti-war.

 

The anti-war movement lacks any notion of strategic thinking,

operational planning, or sense of sound tactics. So much energy is

wasted because of this failure to centrally plan and organize. As a

result, when the anti-war movement does get it right (and on occasion

it does), the success is frittered away by a failure to have planned

effective follow-up efforts, failure to have implemented any

supporting operations, an inability to recognize opportunities as they

emerge and a lack of resources to exploit such opportunities if in

fact they were recognized to begin with. In short, the anti-war

movement is little more than a walk-on squad of high school football

players drawing plays in the sand, taking on the National Football

League Super Bowl Champions.

 

In order to even have a chance of prevailing with the American people,

the anti-war movement is going to need much more than just good ideals

and values. It needs to start thinking like a warrior would, in full

recognition 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.

 

The anti-war movement needs to study the philosophies of those who

have mastered the art of conflict, from Caesar to Napoleon, from Sun

Tzu to Clausewitz. It needs to study the " enemy " learning to

understand the pro-war movement as well as it understands itself. It

needs to comprehend the art of campaigning, of waging battles only

when necessary, and having the ability to wage a struggle on several

fronts simultaneously, synchronizing each struggle so that a synergy

is created which maximizes whatever energy is being expended. The

anti-war movement needs to understand the pro-war movement's center of

gravity, and design measures to defeat this. It needs to grasp the

pro-war movement's decision-making cycle, then undertake a

comprehensive course of action that learns to pre-empt this cycle,

getting 'inside' the pro-war system of making decisions, and thereby

forcing the pro-war movement to react to the anti-war agenda, instead

of vice versa.

 

There is an old adage in the military that " intelligence drives

operations. " The anti-war movement needs to develop a centralized

intelligence operation, not a spy organization, but rather a

think-tank that produces sound analysis based upon fact that can be

used to empower those who are waging the struggle against war. Far too

often the anti-war movement dilutes its effectiveness by either being

unable to produce facts during a debate, or when it does, producing

facts that are inaccurate, incomplete, or both. The mainstream media

treats the anti-war movement as a joke because many times that is

exactly what the anti-war movement, through its lack of preparation

and grasp of the facts, allows itself to become.

 

The anti-war movement lacks organization. There is no central

leadership, or mechanism to effectively muster and control resources.

The anti-war movement takes pride in its " democratic " composition, but

in fact it operates as little more than controlled chaos, creating

ample opportunity for the pro-war movement to effectively execute a

" divide and conquer " strategy to minimize and nullify whatever good

the anti-war movement achieves through its efforts. The anti-war

movement would do well to take a page from the fire service and

implement a version of the Incident Command System (ICS) that

firefighters use when fighting complex fires involving the integration

of several departments, organizations and jurisdictions. The anti-war

movement needs to develop its own " ICS for the anti-war " that is

universally applied throughout the movement, so that an anti-war

effort in Seattle, Washington operates the same as an anti-war effort

in New York City, and as such can be coordinated and controlled by an

overall command staff operating from Denver, Colorado.

 

Complex problems, such as faced by the anti-war movement, require

complex solutions, which in turn dictate a flexible control mechanism

that can coordinate and synchronize every effort to achieve the

desired result at a time and place of the anti-war movement's

choosing, and then be prepared to follow up on successes as they occur

and sustain the movement over an extended period of time. It is not

enough to win a battle against the pro-war movement; the anti-war

movement needs to win the war of ideologies. As such it must not only

prepare to win a particular fight, but to exploit that victory,

massing its forces against any developed weakness, and drive the

pro-movement into the ground and off the American political map once

and for all.

 

I have indicated my willingness to apply my training and experience as

a warrior in a manner which helps teach the principles of the art of

war to those who call themselves part of the anti-war movement. There

seems to be not only a need for this sort of training, but also a

desire among the myriad of individuals and groups who comprise the

anti-war movement for an overall coordinated strategic direction,

operational planning, and tactical execution of agreed upon mission

objectives. One can be certain that the pro-war movement is conducting

itself in full accordance with these very same organizational

principles and methodologies. And let there be no doubt: the pro-war

movement in America is prevailing. In order to gain the upper hand

politically, and actually position itself to stop not only those wars

already being fought (Iraq), but also prevent those being planned

(Iran), the anti-war movement will need to re-examine in totality the

way it does business. I for one am ready to assist. However, in

writing this essay, I am constantly reminded of the old saying, " You

can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. " One can only

hope that the anti-war movement is thirsty.

[Guest guest]

While I do not agree with the conclusions reached below, I feel the

piece is worth reading, thinking about, and passing on.

 

From my perspective, if the antiwar movement were to become

highly organized and single focused, we would lose on two counts.

Firstly because the breaoder scope of societal change would have been

tossed out. The war is, but a single issue of a much larger problem.

And secondly, because one there is a single cohesive force opposing

the war, that single force can either be boujght outordestroyedby the

enemies of the people.

 

What allows the anti-war movement to function is that it is

focused on class struggle, sexual equality, race equjality, gay

rights, distrust of the FDA\, and dozens olf outher pressing issues.

Being the many-headed beast that it is, it becomes far more difficult

for the powers of opression to silence us simply by throwing a bunch

of leaders into detention camps, or bribing leaders to switch sides in

the class struggle.

 

Alobar

 

On 4/1/06, califpacific <califpacific wrote:

> A

> Sat, 1 Apr 2006 14:10:03 -0500

> The Art Of War For the Anti War Movement

>

>

> Thoughtful article by Scott Ritter, former weapons inspector in Iraq

>

>

>

>

> The Art Of War For The Anti-War Movement

> By Scott Ritter