The movement's drawing power was limited from the start, and then, once the war was on in earnest, it felt -- realistically -- that it had run smack against the brick wall of George Bush's manic pigheadedness. Demonstrators are unlikely to invest their energies in what look from the start like very lost causes. And the demonstrations also tailed off because the mainstream media didn't pay attention -- refused to pay attention. The story line they were promoting was: America kicks ass, new era begins!I thought that made pretty good sense. In fact, I'd say one word, "apathy" says it all. But the author took the article in another direction.
From there he goes on with some type of apology for the current wars, comparing them to Viet Nam. Back in the late 60s and early 70s, "getting out" it was the right thing to do, but not today.But also, in the new century, once war was on in earnest, the demonstrations dwindled because many former or potential demonstrators gravely doubted how nice the outcome would be if the expeditionary forces left -- or at least, lacking a tragic sense, downplayed the human costs of withdrawal.
What's your opinion? Do you think even anti-war folks feel that our getting out of such places as Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya might be wrong?
I don't think that and I don't think anti-war activists think that. For me personally, the awful realization came gradually during Obama's 2nd year in office. We are powerless to change what "the owners," as George Carlin called them, want. From there apathy and cynicism set in, which unfortunately, would take the steam out of any movement.
What do you think? Please leave a comment.