March 20, 2006
The Real Reasons behind the Peace MovementBy Vasko Kohlmayer
The third anniversary of the U.S.—led invasion of Iraq was marked over the weekend by a wave of protests around the world. Most of the marches in America were spearheaded by United for Peace and Justice, the nation's largest anti—war coalition.
United for Peace and Justice is a large umbrella association of more than thirteen hundred local and national groups who
The organization's recent press release tells us of a massive effort planned for the week of March 15 — 22 during which it planned to be coordinating local events 'as part of a nationwide week of action to end the Iraq war.' More than 500 events were planned in all 50 states.
Needless to say, United for Peace and Justice has been responsible for some of the most visible peace campaigns in recent memory. Its website boasts that since its inception in October 2002, it
Despite the variety of causes its member groups ostensibly espouse, most of them are well known for their enmity toward America and her capitalist society. They are led by such anti—establishment outfits as the Communist Party USA, Anti—Capitalist Convergence, Socialist Party USA, Anti—Imperialist News Service, Black Radical Congress and Workers Party.
There is something suspicious in all this. Why have all these radicals flocked to the peace movement when peacefulness has never been in their nature? In fact, they habitually advocate aggression as part and parcel of their campaigns. Their past behavior makes it indeed difficult to accept their present activism at face value. Clearly, there must be something else that appeals to them in this cause.
Whatever it is, we can be absolutely certain that it is not the good of this society which they make no secret of loathing. After all, these are the same people whose stated objective is the overthrow of the American system, which, they charge, is unjust, corrupt and generally injurious to everything that is wholesome in life. Their mission statements make this starkly clear:
Such subversive hopes were for a long time doomed to frustration. The fact that America gave rise to the most prosperous society in history translated into electoral stability which consigned extreme groups to the fringes of her politics.
But then an event took place which gave them new hope. On September 11, 2001, a band of Islamic fanatics managed to shake America to her foundations. The nation convulsed with chaos and fear as the World Center Towers tumbled down and New York became engulfed in a cloud of dust.
The devastation was not confined to that fateful day, however, but continued to mount for many months afterwards. So did the doubt and uncertainty. The plunge in the stock market set the country on a downward slide into recession at great cost in wealth and jobs.
But the material loss was only part of the damage, for the hijackers also struck at the very foundation of our system. Our bedrock principles — freedom, openness, trust — were also singed by the flames of those exploding airplanes. Even before the rubble was cleared, we had to reconsider some of our cherished assumptions and alter the way we go about our lives. The inherent danger is impossible to overstate, because this directly endangers the survival of American society as we know it.
With one audacious act, then, nineteen Arabic hijackers managed to rock the United States beyond the wildest dreams of even the boldest domestic radicals. This gave them new hope, for they suddenly realized that the country is not as invulnerable as it seemed. In a flash, Islamist fundamentalists became their closest ally in the anti—establishment crusade.
Recognizing the danger, the Bush administration mounted a relentless response and within three years destroyed most of al—Qaeda's original leadership. But realizing that terrorism is only the symptom of a larger problem, the administration turned its attention to the breeding grounds from which its springs — repressive Middle—Eastern regimes. As it did so, it made it clear that it will use all means at its disposal — including war — to achieve its objective.
It is not surprising that our domestic radicals should be unsettled by this tough approach, given that Islamism represents their best chance of disrupting American society. It is therefore only natural that they would do everything in their power to oppose the administration's effort. Hence their improbable zeal for the anti—war movement.
No one should be deceived about their real objective, which is not peace, but the protection of those who have the ability to destabilize the United States by terrorist subversion. By organizing large—scale protests, they try to weaken the government's resolve to defend the system they themselves seek to undermine. The peace crusade — backed by nearly all of this country's radical groups — is nothing more than a deliberate attempt to pursue their anti—American agenda under a veil of moral righteousness. This behavior is not unexpected, given that by virtue of their shared goal militant Islamists and this country's radicals are operational allies.
We saw clear evidence of this in the pre—election message of Usama bin Laden which sounded almost like a rehash of Fahrenheit 9/11, the anti—war documentary by Michael Moore. So obvious was the resemblance that Moore taunted the President in an open letter posted on his website:
It is highly instructive that the man whose life's mission is America's destruction used the arguments of one of America's loudest anti—war voices as the basis for his diatribe. But rather than feeling ashamed of this sordid rapport, Michael Moore was proud of it.
How have we arrived at this absurd situation? How is it that one of America's most visible war opponents and the world's most dangerous terrorist find themselves in such thorough agreement? Why do they both denounce the man who has been working so conscientiously to keep America from another terrorist inferno? And why is Michael Moore the more venomous of the two in his censure of Bush? How could have he become the propagandist for an apocalyptic psychopath who inflicted such a grievous injury on Moore's own country? And how can Moore boast about providing talking points to the man who has cold—bloodedly murdered more than three thousand of his fellow citizens and would kill countless more if only he could?
The fact that the two espouse different ideologies does not stand in the way of this grotesque alliance born out of a shared hatred of America. All that matters at the moment is that in order to implement their respective visions the present establishment must be toppled first.
Moore's movies and books make it clear that he is a radical socialist whose views are as extreme as those of the groups quoted above. His personal quest is fuelled by an all—consuming loathing of America's capitalistic society which he dreams of bringing down. This is what makes bin Laden such a convenient ally. No one has expressed this truth better than bin Laden himself when he said:
On 9/11 bin Laden and his cohorts showed an ability to destabilize the United States, which is why Moore and his friends at United for Peace and Justice are so intent on protecting them. The peace movement is their attempt to shackle those who want to fight back.
In the very country he seeks to obliterate, bin Laden has allies who share his views about its alleged wickedness. In one of his missives he told us:
Michael Moore could not agree more. After all, this is precisely what he has been telling us for the last five years, and nowhere has he said it more forcefully than in Fahrenheit 9/11. Is it any surprise, then, that bin Laden is such a fan?
It is understandable why many well—meaning citizens are worried about the course of this war, but they should carefully consider the manner in which they express their concerns. Above all, they should not fall for ploys of domestic radicals who seek to subvert America by limiting the government's ability to fight the enemy whose consuming goal is our destruction.
Vasko Kohlmayer is a frequent contributor who lives and works in London. He can be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.org.