An Answer from ANSWER -- SNAFU!

Jose G. Perez jgperez at
Thu Jul 10 08:00:28 MDT 2003

Eli wrote:

>>I certainly agree that "Troops Out Now" is an excellent slogan and one
that  was featured prominently in the recent ANSWER-sponsored anti-Bush
rally at the SF Airport a couple weeks ago (Alas, Freda Payne's great
antiwar song "Bring the boys home now" - - has a  little language problem,
otherwise it would be perfect as a rallying cry and as an anthem).<<

I looked at the lyrics and nothing jumped out as a major problem. What
were you referring to?

>>Unfortunately, though, and trying not to be pessimistic, I really
think the chances of building a mass movement anywhere near the pre-war
size, based around this slogan alone, is slim at this time. A lot of
"ordinary", non-political people were drawn to those demos hoping they
could  stop a senseless war. But for most, if not the vast majority of
those  people, the idea of simply withdrawing American troops without
replacing  them with UN troops is simply "not practical."<<

It may start out small, I agree with your estimate, but that must be the
axis, it is the only movement that can be built -- although the wording
on the banners may vary a bit. It will be exactly what you describe --
people hoping they can stop a senseless war. Because the war continues.

The situation, if the resistance intensifies, will be *exactly* like
Vietnam. People in the U.S. didn't demand out now because, after all,
the Saigon puppet regime would continue the killing without us or
because the "Communists" would take over -- well a few of us maybe, you
and me, in the latter case, but not the vast majority. It was simply
that there was no good reason for American soldiers to get killed in

The WMD issue is not one around which a movement can be built, but it is
one that should be kept front and center as a key part of the propaganda
of the movement that can be built. This is why they said GI's had to go
get killed -- because Saddam had these terrible weapons, and as long as
he did, next thing you know they might show up in Baton Rouge. 

Well it is very clear that he didn't have the weapons, it was all lies,
so why is the government still sending wives, husbands, lovers, sons,
daughters, fathers and mothers of working people over there to get

The other reason given was that the Iraqis wanted to be liberated. Every
new attack gives the lie to that claim. As the conflict escalates --if
it escalates-- people will realize it and absorb it. The idea of getting
out without arranging an alternate occupation is "unrealistic" only to
the peace bureaucrats and NGO types. And what will become increasingly
unrealistic is the idea that anyone would be willing to replace the
United States. Why would anyone in their right mind want to do *that*,
send their own troops into a massively unpopular war that even the
Americans could not win?

If the resistance collapses at this stage, there will almost certainly
be no massive movement. But there's no sign of that happening, on the
contrary, it seems to be developing and spreading, even the kept press
is reporting how the Americans and the Brits are losing the battle for
the hearts and minds.

And all of a sudden the American technology and intelligence and armor
and even the Kevlar isn't worth shit. Because some 15 year old kids
walks up to you with a big smile in the middle of a street and blows
your head off at point blank range and no one stops him or tries to
detain him because people just don't support the American presence. 

So the American command is going to wind up doing what colonial
occupiers have always had to do in response to a people's war, which is
to wage a war of genocide against the people. The attempt will be to
terrorize the population, yet that will only unite it against you. Look
at the Palestinians.


More information about the Marxism mailing list