Critical Times

by David Palmer
Text of his 16 March, 2008 talk at the Nowar meeting held at the Friends Meeting House, North Adelaide

Five years have gone by since the March 2003 invasion of Iraq by the United States. Its allies – including Australia – played a role in the Occupation, but the invasion basically was an American action. Even at the present moment, there can be little doubt that the Occupation itself is mainly an American Occupation. The casualty figures speak for themselves: over 4,000 US troops have died in these five years, yet only 2 have died from Australia, and the largest contributor of troops after the US – Britain – has suffered only 175 deaths. The cost of the war – which is what the Occupation really is – is now at $12 billion(US) per month, and may reach $3 trillion within a decade. It is rupturing the US economy – now in recession – as I speak. The real tragedy, however, is what it has cost the Iraqi people: civilian Iraqi deaths from war-related injures and disease between March 2003 to July 2006 – some two years ago was calculated by medical scientists at 655,000.
This is, above all, a US war and a US war crime of enormous proportions. The popular response to US military policy in Iraq has been unprecedented – an antiwar movement that led to millions of people protesting against invasion – a month before it actually happened. There has been sustained protest globally since then, including in Australia and in Adelaide. One gain from these protests is the election of the Rudd Labor government with its promise to withdraw Australian combat troops by the end of this year. This action would not have happened without our continuous protests and speaking out against the Iraq War. In Europe, the protests also have had results in terms of troop withdrawals, and also in Japan, America’s staunchest East Asian ally. Even in the United States, the two remaining Democratic candidates – Barack Obama and Hillery Clinton – have come out opposing the war and for troop withdrawal, even if Clinton’s commitment to this policy was sadly quite late given her initial support for Congressional authorization of war powers for Bush on Iraq. Gains have been made. Without our protests, very little would have changed – and liberals like Hillary Clinton would not have backed off the prowar stance.
But the war continues – and it has spread to other regions – the Turkish invasion of Kurdish areas of Iraq; the Israeli attack on Lebanon aimed at weakening Arab growing independence from the United States; and the continued danger of a US – and possibly Israeli – attack on Iran. The war in Afghanistan rages on, with the Rudd government this week promising to follow the US plan of staying there for at least 5 years.
There is more reason for an antiwar movement now than ever before. So these are the gains, but why have we not made better progress? And why is the antiwar movement in Australia – and in Adelaide – still so fragmented and weak, except for being able to mobilize when there is an extreme crisis?
In Adelaide, the antiwar movement mobilized 100,000 people in a city of 1 million for the February 2003 protest – 1 out of every 10 people in Adelaide. A month later, after the invasion, only a small fraction of these people turned up for a protest around Easter. The event itself was dominated by mainstream religious interests and the radical protest element that had been instrumental in the February mobilization did not even speak at the rally. What do I mean by “radical”? Those who advocate a fundamental break from existing Australian foreign policy and military action within that policy. A fundamental break. Those mainstream religious interests, like the Anglican Church, today are hardly seen in the movement that remains. Why were they able to highjack that March rally? Because the movement leadership itself wanted to include “the mainstream” and failed to understand that fundamentally its real base should have been with a popular base, and one that includes the working class and students at its core.
The leading organisation in Adelaide’s antiwar movement over the last five years clearly has been Nowar. This organisation has kept the spirit of the movement alive, despite the many setbacks we’ve witnessed. What have been the gains of Nowar over these 5 years? It has coordinated protests through a steering committee, newsletter, and email lists. It has consistently gotten speakers for events and involved the public in these events. Perhaps most important, it has kept networks with other groups alive, keeping the antiwar movement visible in Adelaide and throughout Australia.
However, looking back we need to ask where the movement (not just Nowar) can improve and have a broader impact. I would like to propose three key areas, which are detailed in what follows.
1) Strategy, tactics, base of support, and realistic organizing versus left / moralist diversions
The movement needs to have a better long-term goal and a clear, winnable short-term goal. This means we need to avoid trying to cover every cause, even if these causes are important. We must prioritise and focus to achieve these. It does not mean we don’t support other causes, but we need to be very clear what is most important to gain real, concrete gains – because winning these gains will increase the morale of supporters, increase our numbers, and will show that we have an effective movement, not one that simply supports good causes.
Where do we start? Begin by thinking of these goals in terms of long-term strategy, short-term strategy, and tactics that allow for implementation of both. Be better at figuring out the key base of support for the movement, both in terms of core constituency and broader constituency. This requires organising that is based on this type of analysis and planning, and which is not just spontaneous or emotive.
How can we get away from this spontaneity and letting “tactics” lead strategy? Why is it a problem to have constant microprotests, meetings that people are unlikely to come to, and information going out that speaks to a small but not a larger group? We may have the right “moral” cause in our actions, but in real politics actions need to get results and people who support just causes need to see that our actions are effective and can impact on the current political climate and on government policy.
This approach requires getting away from left sectarian political leadership, as well as left moralist leadership, that puts the cause – however small – before realistic organizing and results. We need to get rid of the “small but spirited” rationale that came to dominate the left in the 1970s, and which persists today in many antiwar actions
2) We need to think in terms of types of organizing and connect to approaches that are common everywhere today but under-utilized by the antiwar movement in Australia.
If we consider our computer-centred world today, which includes PCs, laptops, and mobile phones, we must acknowledge the centrality of the internet. This includes the use of listservs, email, and social networking – an interactive mega-system that allows for rapid interaction across limitless space and that was the reason for the massive turnout for the February 2003 antiwar protests prior to the US invasion of Iraq. Nowar’s relatively approach since then, however, has been relatively static. We’re given some excellent information, especially through the newsletter, but this type of “virtual” organising has not gone far enough. Why not have a more interactive “blog” approach that relates to how people connect these days? Consider to how many people get their information and pass it on, beyond television, a medium that we have virtually no control over. Increasingly, activists and politically informed people get their information and analysis from the virtual internet-based world, but the challenge for us then becomes how to we transform this virtual knowledge and social networking into real world actions and involvement.
A major issue relates to what I would call the “generational problem”: why do older people of the “1960s” generation still predominate – in those attending events and in leadership? Where are the young people and students? The leftwing ideological rhetoric of some and the pacifist antiwar narrowness of others in the “1960s” generation tends to alienate these young people, especially in cultural terms. While antiwar folk music has its place, it too often is the only music at antiwar events, while more current, popular rock and hip hop is absent. But this more recent music has antiwar lyrics far beyond what the folk era produced. Consider GreenDay, John Butler Trio, and many hip hop artists. Where is this cultural genre in our events – and why aren’t young people consulted on what they would like to hear at such events?
Where are the workers and the unions? It is working class people and their unions that historically have been the bellwether for determining the real breadth and strength of the antiwar movement. The excuse of “we talked to X leader but they wouldn’t participate” is an indication that there is little organizing going on within unions by the antiwar movement. If the leaders are not responsive, then we have to organize the rank-and-file.
Then we have the reality of families and the “time” issue. Anyone with kids and a fulltime job just doesn’t have time for all the protests and the meetings. These people can connect via the internet, however, so that can find ways to get involved that don’t interfere with the necessity of preparing meals at the end of the day, making sure kids do their homework, spending time together, and finally getting kids in bed on time. When you have children you can’t just run off to meetings every other night or show up for protests on Saturday morning when you finally have time to do the shopping or must attend your children’s sporting events. The alternative is to make the movement into a broad and inclusive “social network” that can encompass family people, rather than just falling back on the same old dry political process. And it can be a way for people, who often are isolated because of their job and family situation, to meet like-minded people. The movement needs to bring people together so that they can enjoy being in contact with other people rather than just making things into a “political responsibility” that is just another obligation and feels like a chore that must be done.
Finally, organising effectively requires developing an effective division of labor. Many people, like myself (a university lecturer and published author), can contribute better through alternative ways rather than just showing up for a protest or meeting. I view my own contribution as writing and speaking – and even this I have to do selectively. Other people can contribute in other ways – based on their expertise, connections, or experience – rather than just being a body in a protest. We need people for protests, but we also need to recognise alternative forms of contributing to the movement that better use people’s talents and skills in unexpected ways.
3) What should be our long-term and short-term goals?
We need to define a clear long-term goal. I believe that this should be advocating an Australia that is independent from US international military policy. Why should Australia be part of the US missile shield, have US bases on our soil, and be a location where US spy technology that can conduct surveillance globally as well as right here? Why is South Australia becoming the “defense industry” state, while squandering its scientific knowhow that could be used for creating alternative energy technologies or other non-military innovations that then could drive our local economy? Why does the ALP always say first – “we support the US alliance”? They don’t mean the free trade agreement, they mean the military connection. Why do we tolerate this?
We need to define a clear short-term goal. I believe that this should be advocating Australian troop withdrawal from Afghanistan and an end to support for US involvement in Iraq, including Australian logistical support for the US military role there. Australia’s current involvement in Afghanistan basically supports US military hegemony in the region, as well as US economic dominance. While it may seem justified to “stop the Taliban,” consider that Kosovo now has the largest US military base in the world, and it serves as the connecting point of the major oil pipeline between “East” and “West”. It is a mirror of the oil policy in Iraq – and Afghanistan fits this part of the puzzle as well. Australian troops should be brought home. The US claimed it was liberating the Filipino people from Spain in the war of 1898, but after defeating Spain it went on to fight and defeat an independence movement in the Philippines, and subsequently turned that country into a US colony.
How we achieve these long-term and short-term goals? We need to implement all the above approach in our “organizing,” but we also need to put far more emphasis on real, not just symbolic, politics. We should be helping to build a viable Green Party, rather than continuing to support the Labor Party dominated by corporate interests and continued involvement with US military ventures, even if Iraq involvement is shifting. This also requires better lobbying – using real political pressure, not just marginal protests – and definitely not supporting sectarian left candidates that have no connection with the very people we’re trying to organize. The Greens also need to change. The Greens Party needs to professionalize, stop running token candidates, and have clear economic policies, not just social crusades. Above all the Greens need to win over progressive unions and trade unionists – and end the ALP monopoly over union endorsement.
Do you want to stop war? You can only do it through political power – and you have to win power – not just talk about it. It requires organizing, with a base, not just pamphlets, speeches, and the same old faces. Nothing will really change until we start to move in this alternative direction.

David Palmer is Senior Lecturer in American Studies at Flinders University. He is a dual citizen of Australia and the United States. The views expressed here are solely his own and do not represent any institution or organisation.