Anti-war moderates just don’t get it

Ronald Radosh sees in the current anti-war movement a disturbing parallel with that of the Vietnam War. Just as the earlier anti-war movement was organized by the pro-communist left, the current movement is dominated by pro-Iraqi leaders. He asserts that:

the anti-war moderates don’t get it. Their only criticism of the anti-war movement is that it will not be able to stop the drift toward war with Iraq. Writing on the Web site of Mother Jones magazine, Todd Gitlin, a professor of journalism at New York University, asserts that this movement "is far too weak and provincial to stop the coming war." What he seeks to build is a "more substantial antiwar movement," and he is saddened that the pro-Saddam orientation of the present movement can only stand in the way of that task. Mr. Gitlin is aghast that the present movement is indicative of "the Old Left at its worst," and he is correct to oppose it. But what upsets him is that with leadership by the likes of [Ramsey] Clark and the Maoist C. Clark Kissinger, "the antiwar movement is doomed."

What Mr. Gitlin, a centrist radical, implies is that the goal of the movement, to stop any planned invasion of Iraq is worthy; the only wrong thing is the movement’s current leadership. If only they stopped comparing President Bush to Adolf Hitler, something Mr. Clark did at the March, then perhaps involvement would be worthwhile.

And that is the great error of the new antiwar movement. They may not agree with Mr. Clark when he says any invasion of Iraq "will be genocide again," but they, like him, are also opposed to an invasion. Since Mr. Gitlin presents no alternative to invasion for removing Saddam from power, and no suggestion how he can be forced to disarm, in effect his argument leaves Saddam firmly entrenched just as calls for unilateral American withdrawal in Vietnam assured victory for the Viet-Cong.

The moderates, like the extremists, seem to prefer to vent their anger at the danger supposedly posed by the Bush administration, while ignoring the very real danger posed by Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.

via Discriminations



Fire and Brimstone!
The New Zealand Herald reports that:

CANBERRA - The "lucky country" is unlikely to be so fortunate in the next 100 years as Australia's big cities sprawl even further and the warming Earth dehydrates its resources, hammers health and lashes the continent with a 21st-century equivalent of fire and brimstone.

Two new studies, on population growth and climate change, predict the nation will have a harder time preserving its standard of living as plague, pestilence and disaster increasingly become part of life.

Repent, ye sinners!