(From this article:
US stars align in anti-Iraq war hunger strike)
Star Hollywood actor-activists including Sean Penn and Susan Sarandon and anti-war campaigners led by bereaved mother Cindy Sheehan plan to launch a hunger strike, demanding the immediate return of US troops from Iraq.
So, all we have to do to get rid of these people is let them starve to death? Oh, if only, if only...
"We've marched, held vigils, lobbied Congress, camped out at Bush's ranch, we've even gone to jail, now it's time to do more," said Sheehan, who emerged as an anti-war icon after losing her 24-year-old son Casey in Iraq.
She "emerged" as an "anti-war icon?" This way of stating things hides the powers that are using the "icon." And this also hides Sheehan's change of heart, and her son Casey's own feelings about the war, and Casey's father's feeling about it, as well as the hearts of many other mothers who lost their sons, but believe that Sheehan's type of anti-war sentiment is a waste of their sons' lives.
The hunger strike was the latest bid by the US anti-war movement to grab hold of American public opinion, after numerous marches, vigils and political campaigns.
I don't think that the "US anti-war movement" is all one organized body. And rather than actually "anti-war" they really are "anti-US-war" in their rhetoric and goals. If they were truly anti-war, then why are they not decrying the acts of Al Qaeda in Iraq and others who target and kill civilians? Look at the logic--if terrorist groups in Iraq stop fighting, what would happen? Many people (including US soldiers) would no longer die, and an independent, stable Iraq would no longer need the US military, who would then leave. Isn't this a true anti-war campaign?
So, where is the anti-war campaign against those who bomb American soldiers and Iraqi civilians?
Despite polls which show the Iraq war is unpopular and many Americans are skeptical of President George W. Bush's wartime leadership, peace protests have not hit the opinion-swaying critical mass seen during the Vietnam War.
Okay, so there are many polls (which, as EVERYBODY knows, are true indications of what all Americans really think) that are, of course, paid for by non-political, non-partisan organizations.
It is apparent that many people (usually on the left) are bewildered by the dissonance between dissatisfaction with the war and Bush's leadership and his re-election. They seem to think that if a person doesn't support Bush and what he does, then that person will vote Democrat.
This knee-jerk anti-Bushism (what some call the Bush Derangement Syndrome) keeps many Democrats out of office.
But this next statement is even more interesting.
"We have been continually sheltered from the actual cost of war from the beginning," said Meredith Dearborn, of human rights group Global Exchange, explaining how anti-Iraq war protests have stuttered. While 2,526 US soldiers have died since the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, according to an AFP tally based on Pentagon figures, the impact of the deaths has rarely dominated headlines.
Who is "we," Ms. Dearborn? And what is this "actual" cost--monetary, suffering, deaths, or what unit of cost? I, for one, fail to see how (at least in America) we have been "sheltered" from the actual cost, since the media are constantly reminding us of death, death, death in Iraq, and how the government keeps asking for (and getting) more money to finish the job. I suppose that Dearborn's logic is that if knew the ACTUAL cost, then we would immediately withdraw and stop fighting.
What Dearborn probably doesn't believe is that many believe the cost is large, but worth it, and that the cost of withdrawal in future lives would be a mighty debt borne on generations of Iraqi lives.
The "body count" logic of the Iraq war isn't really sound when one compares the body count of the World War I battle of the Somme, for example, where 20,000 men fell in one day, and close to a million in the entire battle.
That, Dearborn, is an expensive war, in the coin of men's lives. This one, even factoring the Iraqi losses (most of which are caused by "freedom fighters" rather than American aggression), is one of the least bloody wars yet.
While it is not unusual to see an Iraq-war veteran or amputee in an airport for instance, or newspaper features on horrific injuries inflicted by roadside bombs in Iraq, the United States hardly feels like a nation at war. Some protestors and experts in public opinion put that down to the absence of the Vietnam War style conscription draft, which means only professional soldiers or reservists can be sent off to war.
So the USA hardly feels like a nation at war? I wonder why that could be? Perhaps some Americans don't believe we are at war... And I don't know why we have to keep referring to the Vietnam war--were there no draftees for the Korean War? The 2nd World War? By continually referring to the Vietnam War, writers such as this one apparently want to equate the Iraq war to that one, with all the political baggage that accompanies it.
"We have done everything we could think of to end this war, we have protested, held marches, vigils ... lobbied, written letters to Congress," said Dearborn. "Now it is time to bring the pain and suffering of war home. We are putting our bodies on the line for peace."
Perhaps what Dearborn really lacks is imagination. Here are some other things that she and her peace-loving crowd could do:
>Join the militar--oh, okay, so that's not an option. That is, after all, the ludicrous "Chicken-Hawk" argument. Let me think of some others.
>Protest, march, hold vigils, and lobby the Mullahs and Sheikhs of Sunni and Shiite Iraq, Al Qaeda, and other extremist Islamic groups. If your anti-war campaign isn't working here, perhaps you are aiming at the wrong target.
>Take a look at the goals of the other anti-American crowd in Iraq and the Middle East and see how you are helping them in their goals of winning the publicity war. And then do things differently--change your means to your end.
>Stop thinking that Americans are the bad guys here. Sure, some Americans are bad guys, and are being punished for their actions. But you need to really look at the military and what they are trying to do in Iraq.
Perhaps the only time the anti-Iraq war movement captured lasting coverage was in August 2005, when Sheehan and supporters pitched camp outside Bush's Texas ranch, where the president habitually stays in high summer.
And why is the media still so confused about why everybody hasn't jumped on the Sheehan wagon? One more time, for the terminally stupid: just because you disagree with Bush, or think he's doing a poor job, doesn't mean you agree with the antics of people like Sheehan and their "progressive" handlers/publicists/et al.
Even then, the fiercely partisan debate unleashed may have harmed Sheehan, who faced fierce fire from conservative groups and radio talk show hosts, as much as it hurt the Bush administration's image over Iraq.
Well hey, here's some analysis that makes sense to me, too!
But this next thing makes little sense to me:
The hunger strike will see at least four activists, Sheehan, veteran comedian and peace campaigner Dick Gregory, former army colonel Ann Wright and environmental campaigner Diane Wilson launch serious, long-term fasts. "I don't know how long I can fast, but I am making this open-ended," said Wilson. Other supporters, including Penn, Sarandon, novelist Alice Walker and actor Danny Glover will join a 'rolling" fast, a relay in which 2,700 activists pledge to refuse food for at least 24 hours, and then hand over to a comrade.
Somehow, that doesn't seem very effective to me. It's post-modern hunger striking, or merely referring to hunger strikes. It sounds kind of like 2,700 people choosing to not shop at Wal-Mart, but only one refusing to go each day instead of all at the same time.
Yup, really effective--but hey, it sells papers and air time, and that's what it's really all about, right? It's more of a media stunt than an actual hunger strike. Perhaps these people have visions of Gandhi dancing in their heads, but they are probably misunderstanding what a hunger strike really is. Nobody will be convinced until these folks start dying from hunger.
And even then, some will think, "That's a good start."
Sure, that's rude, but it's realistic. Think about other hunger strikes, like those of prisoners in Northern Ireland. Did they work? Not really--they only tended to convince the already convinced. And even then, they only had any chance of any effect if the person was actually willing to, you know, die for his or her cause. Somehow, I have a hard time believing that Glover, Sarandon, "Press Boat Stunt" Penn, and others are willing to actually follow through with it.
Though the anti-war movement is trying hard to puncture public perceptions, some experts believe such protests have little impact on how Americans view foreign wars. Ohio State University professor John Mueller for example, argued in the Foreign Affairs journal in December, that only rising US casualties could be proven to erode public support for a conflict.
And guess what the mass media has been focusing on? Yup, just what Professor Mueller has been saying. If it bleeds, it leads. The only thing Americans are doing in Iraq are killing and dying, right? (Oh, and raping and murdering, too. Our guys are thugs, just like their guys, but we can't criticize them because our guys are the REAL bad ones....)
Anti-war movements during the Korean and Iraq wars have been comparitively invisible, but public support had eroded in a similar way to the Vietnam conflict, in which the peace movement played a dominant role, he wrote.
Perhaps the peace movement has a golden vision of a golden age when it actually reflected something other than a minority or a fringe movement. Take as a parallel the American Civil Rights movement in the 60s or even Gandhi's Indian independence movement--both of them worked only because most people involved already agreed with them. The Civil Rights movement didn't happen in the 1920s, or 30s, or 40s, even though there were civil rights protests and whatnot going on. It was through the long-term campaigning and commitments of many Americans of a variety of colors that the campaign finally resulted in the will of the people.
The anti-(America in Iraq) war movement seems to be frustrated that this hasn't happened yet.
Recent polls reveal public scepticism over Iraq, and damage to Bush's personal ratings. In a poll in Time magazine published Friday, only 33 percent of respondents approved of Bush's leadership on Iraq while 64 percent said they disapproved his handling of the campaign.
A Pew Research Center poll released on June 20, found that only 35 percent of Americans approved of Bush's handling of the Iraqi conflict -- though that was up five percent from a similar poll in February.
But none of these polls really ask WHY people disagree, or if they do, popular articles such as this refuse to mention it. Like I said above, people can disagree with someone but still vote for them or their policy if there is nothing else better.
And that's the problem of the anti-war crowd--they consider themselves the better solution for a more peaceful, perfect world--but they would only be that solution if the world were more perfect.
However, others in the world are not all as "rational" and "progressive" as the anti-war folks in the USA--after all, those two adjectives don't really fit the people who rejoice in killing civilians and Americans in Iraq. And those are the people the anti-war crowd really need to target.
