JANE FONDA AND THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT
JANE FONDA AND THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT “
WHAT ARE THEY ALL ABOUT?
by
Ken Eliasberg
I always get a kick out of the term anti-war; it suggests that there are some people who are pro-war almost without regard to the circumstances. Or, conversely, there are some people who are against war, whatever the circumstances. And there are. There are people whose construction of their religion informs them that they must remain pacifists. And I cannot argue with these people—disagree, yes; argue, no. But taking a broader look at the topic, isn’t the only real question whether war is an appropriate response to a particular situation? That is, was the Revolutionary War a war that should have been fought, or should we have remained a British Colony? And while the answer would seem to be almost self evidently a clear affirmative, there were many in the colonies who did not wish to separate from Britain. Similarly, in 1860 there were many nonabolitionists in the North who were opposed to War. Would we have been better off letting the South secede and have 2 North Americas, one slave and one free? Likewise, what about World Wars I and II? Would we all be better off speaking German and/or Japanese now? I don’t think so, and I don’t think that most of you do either. Therefore, the only real question—one to be asked prior to embarking on such a bellicose venture—is, is war, under the circumstances in question, an appropriate response. For many reasons—which I shall get into in great detail in future columns—I believe that our actions with respect to Iraq were (and remain) not only appropriate but long overdue.
However, reasonable people may disagree. At this juncture, the wisdom of embarking upon the war is no longer the question at issue. The question now is what is the most appropriate manner in which to bring the war to an end, and I strongly submit that it is not by cutting and running. The anti-war movement offers no help on this point; as has become so typical of the left, beyond being against it, they have nothing to offer. And even that would not be so offensive to me if they would express their disagreement in some manner less calculated to undermine the war effort. After all, surrender is not an option. If we learned nothing else from Vietnam, we must have learned that. If we just picked up stakes and pulled out, do you think the war on terror would end? Of course not! Indeed, terrorists could (and would0 construe this gesture as a sign of our weakness. Moreover, a bloodbath in Iraq would ensue which might rival that of Pol Pot in Cambodia when the U.S.. refused to honor its Paris Accord promises. Furthermore, the World would know that the U.S. cannot be trusted; if the Left thinks the world has problems with us now, wait and see what kind of problems we would have once we have demonstrated our surrender to foreign terrorists and domestic left-wing peaceniks, pacifists, and Marxists.
Who are these people that comprise the Anti-war movement? Kids, whose passion, while misguided, is admirable; what they lack in experience they make up for in the intensity of their youthful idealism. Pacificists, whose religious convictions move them to argue against almost any form of armed conflict. And Commies, holdovers from the vigorous anti-war left-wing protests of the Vietnam period, e.g. ANSWER. For those doubters I recommend an excellent pamphlet by David Horowitz, entitled Who Is the Peace Movement which can be found at www.frontpagemagazine.com on his new website Discoverthenetworks.org. Both websites are well worth examining by anyone who is truly interested in enlightenment.
But the most personally disturbing of this group are those who are really not anti-war at all—they are anti-Bush. Their hatred is so intense that it reminds me of Churchill’s statement concerning his intense aversion to Hitler, i.e.” if Hitler were to invade Hell, I should have to say a few favorable words about the Devil in the House of Commons.” As previously noted, I believe that there are some on the Left who actually favor Osama over Bush. To these people, good news for America is bad news for the Democrats, e.g. recall Nancy Soderburgh’s statement on the Jon Stewart T.V. show regarding the good news of the Iraqui elections—“well we can always hope for Iran and North Korea.” Ms. Soderburgh was kidding, of course, but you know what they say—many a true word is said in jest.
The bottom line here is that expressions which voice disagreement with the government’s policy are certainly not only acceptable but should be encouraged. However, some expressions are of a more subversive nature and have the effect, if not the intention, of sapping our energy, diminishing our commitment to bring the war to a speedy and appropriate conclusion, and, are subversive in nature—in short, they cross the line of permissible free speech and constitute sedition. The line between the two is, admittedly, not always clear, but, like Supreme Court Justice Powell observed, in connection with trying to define obscenity, you know it when you see it. In my opinion, Fonda was a traitor in the early