My biggest critique of the article is that it presents the anti-war movement as the place where the changes must take place. I disagree wholly that it must in fact be a pro-peace movement where the changes spoken of need to take place. There is a BIG difference. Most vets are in the anti-war movement, where they can be most effective. If you want to have a place where vets are part of the solution not the leaders, then we need to make sure a Peace movement is strong.

I have had many of these same concerns as a member of IVAW. We have included language about racism in our opposition to the war. This was a hotly contested addition, so yes there are many vets who are not “there”, but there are also many who are working to include broader issues that support the creation of war and militarism.

This article also seems to take a swipe at SWAN which is the most wholly personified version of what this article is asking for.

I would like to think that CR is one prong of the solution fork, whereas the others are congressional de-funding of combat operations (in Iraq & Afghanistan in this case) and strong, coordinated, active GI resistance & veteran dissent.

That the latter can (and does) backfire is what I think Tamara’s saying. GI’s and veterans are not necessarily anti-war or anti-military (or anti-Empire), they might in general make effective but short-lived rebel rousers when speaking about specific situations such as the unwinnable war in Iraq (or whatever other conflict they directly participated in). The problem is they don’t necessarily advocate for a sustainable peace-building movement. Tamara makes a good point about not making the anti-war movement centered on GIs or veterans, or, for that matter, on counter-recruiters or left-leaning liberal politicians or Cindy Sheehan… They should be in the chorus of many, not the preacher.

Notwithstanding, through my experiences reading about and speaking with Iraq veterans (against the war), it appears that many are renegade in that they actually are against war in general and for peace in general. The creme of this crop would be the conscientious objectors and those who go AWOL. CO’s deserve way more more attention and positive reinforcement in the peace movement. I wish anti-war activists put more stock into CO status and discussed it as a viable (though taxing) option, because those who actually oppose and refuse participation in a war have valuable foresight while vets speak out against war in hindsight. This I feel gives the devil a foothold, giving critics (and even sympathizers) fodder to question the belief systems of peace movement proponents and hence the authenticity & thoroughness of the peace movement itself.

Tamara writes, “One of the major problems of GI and veteran groups today is that most fail to address white supremacy and its relationship to gender and sexuality politics.” I feel I am witnessing this today, and women veterans can attest. In fact, women, especially women of color, feel so disenfranchised by even contemporary veteran groups that some here in California have formed the first female veterans group called SWAN to air out laundry they couldn’t alongside “the boys”.

Lastly, it’s an indisputable fact that the military is a microcosm of our society, except they’re endowed with license to monger violence. Sexism, gender discrimination, racism, and homophobia exist in the military as they exist outside the military. Activists, with or without military experience, are human beings and prone to prejudices. To be effective activists in the anti-war movement, we need to address these not-so-trivial issues and re-hardwire ourselves almost concurrently addressing the larger issue that purportedly brought us together in the first place.

If you read the history of movements against the Viet Nam war, it is quickly apparent that the activism of African-American soldiers was at the base of the ending of that war. In my research for a thesis project, I discovered that the military has actually limited the number of African-Americans that can serve in combat positions. These are people who have a history of having to fight for what they need, and the U.S. government fears this. Witness the organizing of Latino veterans against the war.

It took me 30 years after I enlisted in the military to get to the point I am at now, a long road of discovery and insights. I remember the first anti-war post I made on some list serve and someone shot back “You are a disgrace to soldiers and veterans everywhere and you should go live in Iraq!” When I responded that I am a veteran, the person wrote back automatically “Thank you for your service and sacrifice.” So if we are truly for peace, we are also compassionate. We recognize that all our efforts for peace are important.

1.) The “over emphasis” on Iraq and Afghanistan: given that over 4,000 Americans, between 10-20,000 Afghans, and 650,000+ Iraqis have been killed in these wars, I think the fact that people who fought there are focused on ending those wars is a no-brainer. U.S. imperialism isn’t killing people at the same rate in countries like S. Africa, Zimbabwe, or the Congo and so it is logical for people to focus on stopping the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Think of it this way: if you were an Iraq vet and your buddy got blown up by an IED or you saw troops torturing the people you were there to supposedly liberate, would you come home and start talking about Third World debt or Zimbabwe?

2.) GIs point out that the war is illegal: what’s wrong with pointing that out? Naked, illegal, unilateral imperialism deprives Bush and the Dems of legitimacy that would shore up support for the war. Like it or not, broad swaths of the population have all kinds of illusions in the “international community” i.e. the UN. Before the war started, polls showed that 2/3 of people would support a war if the UN said it was OK while 2/3 opposed the war if the UN didn’t give its OK. Furthermore, the Bush administration’s assertion of executive power is historically unprecedented and also patently illegal, hence the references to “King George” and Emperor Bush in newspaper editorials attacking Bush’s abuses of power.

The blatant trampling of the so-called “checks and balances,” due process, habeas corpus, international law, and the Geneva Conventions have been a tremendous factor in today’s radicalization. Failing to utilize this disregard for legality to end the imperialist wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would be a huge mistake.

3.) “Most GI and veteran-focused activism fails to address white supremacy”: I’m not sure what “addressing white supremacy” actually means. Why not say, ” address racism”? Saying “white supremacy” makes it sound like the racism against Iraqis/Arabs/Muslims that permeates the military is a “white problem” which it is NOT. Black and hispanic troops get caught up in calling Iraqis “ragheads” and “hadjis,” although it may cause some of them to turn against the war faster because they realize that America and the military discriminate against them on racial grounds as well.

This point brings me to a major problem I have with this essay which is the fact that it is entirely footnote-less, there are no specific references to either individuals or organizations, just a bunch of somewhat vague generalities passed off as “the truth.” The IVAW guys I know, Camilo Mejia, Garret Reppenhagen, Jeff Englehart, and others, all talk a lot about the racism against Iraqis that is necessary for the war to continue. They all understand that you cannot have an imperialist war without racism, without the systematic dehumanization of the people on the receiving end of American firepower. Many others in IVAW have spoken out about this as well because there is a huge contradiction between being told you are liberating somebody, having those people try to kill you because they don’t want to be occupied, and then trying to justify killing them in response. Liberators don’t bomb and shell neighborhoods indiscriminately, detain all military age males, or torture people who haven’t even been charged with a crime.

4.) “We were there”: firsthand accounts are incredibly valuable. I would be more likely to be moved into action by a Katrina victim describing losing his/her house, job, and family than a professor who read a bunch of newspapers and a lot of books and proclaims himself to be “an expert.” Ditto for veterans from Iraq or Afghanistan. Or for Iraqis or Afghans for that matter.

People who were there obviously have a legitimacy that people who weren’t there don’t. That’s just reality, and all the blogging in the world can’t change that. I have never met an anti-war veteran who tried to use the “I was there and you weren’t so therefore your opinion is crap” argument against me. The value in that argument is a good against the amrchair Rambos of the world like Bill O’relly who talk real tough in their air-conditioned TV studios, on their leather sofas, or from their Bentleys about why “we” (i.e. somebody else) need to go to war.

5.) On GI benefits: the alternative to not fighting for benefits is to have a lot of injured, severely-PTSDed, pissed off veterans come home to ZERO support from the government. This type of thing has led to the horror stories at Walter Reed where people waited months and months just to see a doctor, as well as shoot-outs with the police where angry, alienated veterans were killed in gun battles with cops. Fighting for GI benefits is not about “rewarding” veterans for their service to imperialism, it’s about working class people getting the benefits they were promised by the government. If we can win better benefits for troops, we’ll be in a better position to force the government to give us universal health care, free education, etc.

6.) Some veterans enjoyed combat: I wasn’t aware that it was a crime on the left to get a rush out of fighting, especially given the fact that you cite Muhammed Ali (boxing is a form of combat and Ali was devastating in the ring) in your article for bravery. In any case, the rush of adrenaline that comes from combat is as old as war itself. Some people enjoy it, others fear it. I think most who get a rush from it are probably those who have yet to lose a limb, or a few friends, to the war machine. Or they’re not on their second or third tour in Iraq.

If so many soldiers in Iraq get a rush from combat to the point where it’s a major problem, why is the Pentagon stop-lossing so many people? Wouldn’t they just be happy to re-up over and over and over again? When they extended tours to FIFTEEN MONTHS there was a lot of groaning in the military – not a sign of “wow combat is awesome!” but a sign of “man, we are fucked.” People are leaving (or are trying to leave) the military in droves.

7.) Veterans aren’t anti-militarist: again, the IVAW guys I know found out the hard way that the military is just a tool for Corporate America to smash down trade barriers, seize oil, pry open foreign markets, and keep the working people of this country down. Again, you don’t mention specific veterans, groups, individuals or particular events who are guilty of not being left enough.

To conclude:

Almost all of the criticisms you raise against veterans are even more true of the broader anti-war movement. UFPJ and other liberals are 1000 times more guilty of focusing narrowly on legality, lobbying, refusing raise other issues (Palestine, Katrina) and connect them to the war, etc. So either you are ignorant of the broader movement, or you are picking on veterans.

If you bothered to look at the IVAW website, their member profiles, and or read their speeches, you would find that they are not on the right-wing of the anti-war movement. They are not running around screaming “Hillary/Obama in 2008!!!!” A couple dozen of them attended the Socialism 2007 conference organized by the International Socialist Organization where they not only spoke on panels but also participated in workshops on racism, the civil rights movement, the fight for gay rights and for equality between the sexes.

Lastly, you are worried that the anti-war movement and the left are becoming too GI-centered. I have the opposite concern, that we are not GI-centered enough. The fact of the matter is that the rank-and-file of the military, the working class kids (who are also women, black, hispanic, and gay, by the way) who make up the bulk of the combat troops have the power to end the war! I would recommend reading the following article (http://www.isreview.org/issues/09/soldiers_revolt.shtml), David Cortright’s “Soldiers in Revolt,” or watch Sir! No Sir! to learn how it happened last time.

Basically, the U.S. military was overwhelmed by mutinies and revolts in 1969-1975 that made waging war on Vietnam impossible. When Nixon sent planes and carriers to continue pounding the area with bombs, there were mutinies on the ships and many of the bomber pilots dumped their cargo over unpopulated areas but reported that they “accomplished their mission” as a means of resistance. If units, platoons, and companies began refusing patrols or engage in combat in Iraq, the war would be over. That’s why it’s important for the movement to focus on building its strength at the grassroots and try to reach out to military personnel.

GIs do kill babys. If you recieve fire from a building ya kill the person shooting at you not the family living downstairs. They die.

Welcome to the world VVAW VVAW (AI) VFP and IVAW.