Washington: At least 30,000 marched, part of a far larger crowd that rallied outside the Capitol, in the day's cornerstone protest. Signs branded America a "Rogue Nation", and demanded, "Disarm Bush." - (The Associated Press)

Tens of thousands of Americans opposed to waging war in Iraq rallied in Washington despite frigid cold on Saturday demanding the White House back down and give U.N. weapons inspectors a chance. (Washington Post)

In a show of dissent that organizers said "shattered the false myth of consensus," for a war with Iraq, tens of thousands of protesters representing a diverse coalition for peace converged here today for a rally and march against the Bush administration's threatened use of military force against Saddam Hussein's regime. (New York Times)

Bullshit!! I was there!

Few things could make the cozy and inseparable relationship between the ruling elite of the military, government, and big business with the mainstream media more clear, than the events of Saturday January 18th, 2003. On the weekend that Americans commemorate the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King several Hundred thousand Americans opposed to a pending imperialist war in Iraq poured into the streets of Washington D.C. in sub-freezing temperatures. In addition to the protest in Washington, D.C. there was also a protest in San Francisco, that is believed to have drawn anywhere from 50 to 100 thousand people. There were also smaller demonstrations against the war in other U.S. cities such as Chicago, Tampa, Seattle, Portland, Boston, Honolulu, Albuquerque, Des Moines, Ann Arbor, Lansing as well as other countries including Japan, Russia, Pakistan, Sweden, France, The Netherlands, and throughout the Middle East.

That brings us to Saturday. Prior to the DC demonstration, police reported they planned to use video cameras for “crowd management and public safety.” They planned, and eventually did use, closed-circuit television cameras mounted on downtown buildings and on a helicopter to shoot video of public areas around the Mall, the Capitol, the White House and other areas. Although the police claim that individuals will not be targeted these photographic records can be used by authorities to form a permanent record of individuals participating in the demonstration. These surveillance techniques were clearly designed to intimidate and suppress dissent, but to no avail.

I have been to a number of demonstrations of various sizes and outside of the Million Man March, I do not know of a demonstration in the United States that had a larger turnout in the past 2 decades. By my estimation and many who helped organize transportation for the mobilization, the turnout for Saturday’s demonstration was anywhere from 2-3 larger than that of the October 26th action, which could put it anywhere from 250,000 to close to half a million people. These numbers are astounding considering they are in response to a conflict that by most people’s estimation hasn’t even started yet (although most people don’t realize that the U.S. and Britain have been bombing Iraq for the past 11 years or since the formal end of the 1991 Gulf War). Police and the city administration declined to give estimates of crowd size citing a fairly new policy that allegedly prevents them from offering such estimates. However, D.C. police chief Charles Ramsey said, "It's one of the biggest ones we've had, certainly in recent times" and U.S. Capitol Police chief Terrance Gainer said, "I know everyone is skittish about saying a number, but this was big. An impressive number."

In any case, no matter where I sat, stood, or climbed I could never see the beginning and ending of the crowd at the same time. Despite the overwhelming numbers of people who came out against the war, I hardly saw any (I actually didn’t see any) news trucks/vans with broadcast capabilities and very few reporters from any major American news networks such as NBC, ABC, CNN, CBS, or FOX although I suppose there must have been a few there. I guess it’s easier for them to lie and distort numbers when they sparsely cover an event and don’t show many pictures. I would’ve figured they would have great pictures and pretty accurate crowd estimates, with those police helicopters hovering overhead all day, but I guess the pictures and info gathered from that wasn’t for public viewing. The only major news organizations that I was able to identify a reporter from was the British Broadcasting Company (BBC). Consequently it came as no surprise that European news organizations such as Britain’s Reuters were among the few that admitted there were hundreds of thousands of people in attendance.

Just as frustrating as the distortion of the crowd size, was actually reading the coverage of the event by the American mainstream press. It was hard to read an article without it mentioning the “presence” of counter protestors to the Anti-War demonstrators, which is strange considering there were about 25 of them! These so-called counter protestors were in two groups. The first group of 8-10 was on a 2nd floor balcony across the street from a portion of the march route, hanging signs that read things like “Hippies Go Home” and “Support Bush”. The second group of about 15 was on a sidewalk near the end of the march route, and were separated from the anti-war demonstrators by police and a group of red Beret wearing clowns, a.k.a. the Guardian Angels. The second group made up of about 5-8 apparent military veterans and some other people with unclear affiliations, wore shirts and held signs with various confused and reactionary messages from implying ‘war protestors support Osama bin Laden’ to “Fry Mumia”. However, you certainly wouldn’t know this from watching the news or reading the major newspapers. How’s that for proportionate and fair coverage?!

As far as the makeup of the demonstration itself, I couldn’t help but be somewhat disappointed (but not surprised), by the shallowness of some people’s understanding of the entire situation and the shaky nature of their opposition. Although I guess that should be expected when many of them are forced to rely on the same media that inaccurately or inadequately covers these type of protest, to supply them with the information necessary to make informed decisions and take strong positions. As usual you had your demonstrators chanting tired and inadequate, slogans, like “Give Peace a Chance” or holding signs that implied America’s colonial aspirations were something new to its foreign policy. I hate to sound harsh but give me a break! The only thing fairly knew about this policy is the social and political climate in which it has been undertaken and America’s status as the world’s lone Superpower. People need to make the connection that the impending conflict in Iraq is not just an expression of the policies of a group of particularly dangerous men who currently occupy the highest seats of government, but an indictment of Capitalism. At the heart of all the threats of war is the desire to steal control of another nations resources to assure world dominance by the rulers of this country for the foreseeable future, and to continue with an unsustainable way of life based on the accumulation of private wealth at all cost. Meanwhile their plan is that the generally unhappy American populace will be united, and when necessary suppressed, under the bogus concept of a common national interest and national security.

Plenty of people did make the Oil connection however, as there was no shortage of signs alluding to Washington’s plans in Iraq being driven by Iraq’s oil reserves, which becomes more obvious with each North Korean antic. However, there were far too many signs that implied that one can tie their opposition to an imperialist assault to the United Nation’s approval. As if the U.N. can be counted on to offer a principled opposition to this attack when the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council are for the most part former and/or aspiring imperial powers representing their respective ruling classes and who have their own interest in the region. Since the U.S. dusted off it’s plans for the conquest of Iraq they have been threatening any major power who opposed or didn’t assist them with being cut out of the booty from the robbery. Almost all of the rest of the rotating membership is a mix of somewhat developed or third world countries heavily dependent on American aid or approval in one way or another. The U.S. being unable to gain U.N. approval for their onslaught, is certainly a preferable situation for those against the war, but the U.N. is not the place to place your faith or a rock that people should tie their position to in a storm.

Also, in contrast to the previous demonstration held on October 26, the speakers list included a number of prominent figures in, or tied to, the Democratic Party. This is of course the same Democratic Party that voted overwhelmingly to grant war powers to Bush (although to my knowledge none of those who spoke voted in favor of such). While it can sometimes be helpful to have the notoriety of prominent figures and big names to bring attention to a cause I can’t help but think that the participation of prominent figures such as Congressman John Conyers, Al Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson, all of whom are tied to the Democratic clique of the single-party Democrat/Republican sham, was at some level an attempt to co-opt the dissent of the day and channel the tremendous energy produced by such large numbers of people expressing their opposition to so much of what is going on in America into "something" that could be easily controlled. And of course this "something" would ultimately be told to simply vote Democratic and maybe it will result in just enough concessions by the ruling elite to whip people back in line for another few years.

I also sensed far too much personalization in the demonstration. Of course George Bush Jr. is an easy target to rally opposition around (I guess that’s the silver lining to his installation as President), but what’s happening domestically and internationally is far bigger than Bush. He isn’t even the architect of most of his policies. Granted George Bush Jr., Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and there ilk do represent the most violent, right-wing, and criminal elements of those who have run the country but it’s important for people not to tie their opposition to one man. Otherwise when he is no longer in office which could be in another 2 years, people will be left asking themselves - now what? If President Clinton’s presidency taught us anything, it’s that in the grand scheme of things the Democrats and Republican play for the same team.

And lastly, more people of color have to get involved. For obvious reasons, such as the difference in treatment received at the hands of police and in the legal system and the fact that people of color often have a host of other problems to deal with simply by virtue of their racial classification, black and brown people are sometimes apprehensive or apathetic about attending these type of gatherings, but the gap has to be bridged. Especially since a disproportionate number of the people in the Armed forces are people of color, and for a variety of social and economic reasons, people of color will be the first and worst effected by a continuation of America’s war mongering policies. Whether it be through social cutbacks, or being sent off to die and/or murder in the name of private profit people of color have to realize they have a large stake in this. Social protest movements driven by college educated, middle class whites kids simply won’t cut it anymore in the new millennia.

Despite the shortcomings, overall the demonstration was a major success, especially from a turnout standpoint. Hopefully years from now, the historical record will be clear that the planned, imperialist attack on Iraq was mainly the prerogative of a section of the wealthy and powerful who run the country (assuming the war actually happens which in all likelihood it will). It let those who quietly oppose or have serious reservations about an American attack on Iraq, or felt they were alone in their dissent that, feel emboldened by knowing that, in fact, they are likely in the majority. It allowed large numbers of people to come together, exchange ideas, and get involved in a number of causes that fell under the umbrella of organizations that oppose the war. It also sent a clear message to those in power that they have far less support than they would like to believe. Enough public outcry, civil disobedience, etc can change the course of this country, and if organized properly and radical enough in it’s thinking, it can go far beyond just dealing with today’s war and the major limitations that a moderately reformed Capitalism offers. That being said, there is a tremendous amount of work that needs to be done in the “anti-war movement” and in the wider movement to promote a more just, humane, and sustainable economic and environmental situation domestically and internationally. Hopefully, we can continue to do the work together.

Released: January 2003

The views and opinions expressed herein by the author do not necessarily represent the opinions or position of Playahata.com.