After large rallies in Washington and San Francisco on Oct. 26, the next big day to test the antiwar movement's might is Dec. 10, International Human Rights Day. Hundreds of groups plan events, rallies and civil disobedience to capture the nation's attention, including demonstrations in Lafayette Park across from the White House and at a military recruitment center in downtown Washington.
No mention of the role of Stalinists in organizing the protests. Just a mention that the Workers World Party is one of many diverse protest groups—how sweet that they should join hands against that evil war thing, eh? No mention of the hard left agenda at all. Let’s see what happens if an oil company sponsors a “support freedom in Iraq” rally. Not that most protesters even had a clue that a Stalinist group organized the rallies, but it should be significant to note at least. And they plan to protest at a recruiting center where young men and women swear an oath to do more for peace than those protesters ever will if they pen bad rhymes for the next century. And the idea that protesters will march on Human Rights Day should make the protesters ashamed. This is the day they choose to march, standing symbolically between our military and Saddam’s thug regime?
Do they see nothing wrong with bestowing this kind of moral standing on a regime that is brutal beyond mere atrocity reports? Have they no decency? Where were their signs when Saddam invaded Iran? Where were there slogans when the Iraqis gassed the Iranians on the battlefields and bombarded Iran’s cities? Where was their outrage when Iraqi troops electrified the swamps to better kill Iranians? Why don’t I remember their anguish for the mothers of Kuwaitis killed and captured in 1990? Why can’t the moms work up some outrage over Saddam’s determination to gain weapons of mass destruction and a palace in every province even if every child in Iraq has to starve? The protesters claim they are outraged and just in favor of peace, so why do they get worked up now? If they sat on their hands then, they cannot say they are pro-peace. They are simply against America waging a war to end Saddam’s brutal regime. They are for preserving his regime when there is no excuse for looking away and excusing his brutality and horrible visions of glory built on the decaying corpses of his own people and of his neighbors.
The British have a report out on Saddam’s atrocities. Amnesty International is, of course, outraged that their work will justify war. Can they not be happy that somebody will do something about a regime they admit is repulsive and brutal beyond comprehension? This does highlight the difference between those who ignored Saddam before, and now either want war or are against war. Those for war today never, as far as I can tell, defended Saddam’s virtues prior to 1990—he was merely the lesser of two evils (or the lesser of several). This is a perfectly defensible position in my opinion, but one that does not claim moral superiority. The fact that there are now reasons to hold Saddam as the greater threat does not erase the fact that his regime is and has been evil. No hypocrisy is required to go from tolerating Saddam to promoting his overthrow. The anti-war crowd, however, by claiming the moral high ground in opposing death and war, have a lot to answer for in explaining why they were silent for more than twenty years and only roused themselves to anger now.
Peace protesters indeed. They shield a monster and pretend it is virtue.
I stand proudly as “pro war” if that is the epithet they would hurl at me.
On to Baghdad.
