Anti-war activists used to be at home on the left. In the mid-2000s, Democrats were the first to oppose the War on Terror. During the 2004 Democrat primary, for example, the last rival to John Kerry was Dennis Kucinich, a staunch critic of the Iraq War who would later propose the establishment of the “Department of Peace.” Then, suddenly, something changed: Democrats embraced military intervention abroad and defended the intelligence apparatus that was built alongside it.
Kucinich—despite being very liberal on other issues—was eventually all but disowned by his party, leaving to work as one of the few progressives employed by Fox News. Today, he’s still a steady critic of American involvement in foreign wars, including those being fought in Ukraine and Israel. Yet ironically, this means that he’s aligned with the growing numbers of anti-war right wingers, which include Tucker Carlson, Thomas Massie, and, to an extent, even Donald Trump. Meanwhile, Democrats have embraced the national security state, allying themselves with agencies such as the CIA and the FBI.
How did this happen?
If you have to choose a date at which the American political system started realigning around the military-intelligence axis, choose March 11, 2010. On that day, the CIA’s Red Cell group issued a special memorandum entitled “Afghanistan: Sustaining West European Support for the NATO-led Mission—Why Counting on Apathy Might Not Be Enough.” Thanks to WikiLeaks and Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist Glenn Greenwald, this document is freely available.
The file spells out the CIA’s cynical view of the War on Terror. Issued in response to the collapse of the Dutch government, which was voted out of office for continuing to commit troops to Afghanistan, the memo lays out a new approach to ensuring Western European support for the War on Terror.
The memo starts with the observation that most citizens of NATO countries no longer supported the war. Though most of them were apathetic because the conflict didn’t have a tangible impact on their lives, the CIA worried that, eventually, these citizens might be roused to action, forcing their representatives to pull out of the war.
As the memo warned, based on the events in the Netherlands, “politicians elsewhere might cite a precedent for ‘listening to the voters.’” Something had to be done to ensure that governments kept up their support for war even against the will of their own citizens.
The memo highlights two strategies. The first is rather straightforward: The U.S. should do a better job communicating the fact that most Afghans at the time supported NATO forces and focus on the benefits that Afghan women were seeing from the Taliban’s temporary defeat. But the second strategy is a bit more subtle.
The CIA saw that so long as the War on Terror was associated with George W. Bush, it would remain unpopular with Europeans. They needed a sophisticated, cosmopolitan face for US policy in the war.
Coincidentally, Barack Obama had just been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize only months into his presidency for his “vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons” and his work to create “a new climate in international politics.” It was a match made in heaven. As the CIA enthused, “The confidence of the French and German publics in President Obama’s ability to handle foreign affairs in general and Afghanistan in particular suggest that they would be receptive to his direct affirmation of their importance to the ISAF [International Security Assistance Force] mission—and sensitive to direct expressions of disappointment in allies who do not help.”
From that moment on, the left and the military-intelligence apparatus were joined at the hip. Obama famously expanded drone warfare, which infamously included the assassination of U.S. citizens. During his administration, the NSA resumed and even expanded its widespread spying on Americans, as well as on allies. By the end of his administration, the FBI was illegally spying on a certain anti-establishment political candidate: Donald Trump.
So today, it’s no wonder that the anti-war left has disappeared: The left is firmly wedded to the military-intelligence apparatus, so much so that it has trained that apparatus on its critics at home.
—
Image credit: public domain
10 comments
10 Comments
George
September 28, 2024, 9:11 amYou chose the wrong date for when this started. The Wolfowitz Doctrine is an unofficial name given to the initial version of the Defense Planning Guidance for the 1994–1999 fiscal years (dated February 18, 1992) published by U.S. Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Paul Wolfowitz and his deputy Scooter Libby.
Perfected under Dick Cheney. We told you back then this would lead to direct confrontation with Russia and a destabilized middle east.
If you want to understand where all of this started, try 1904 with the publication of Halford Mackinder's "The Geographical Pivot of History"
Anglo Saxons are the most barbaric people on the planet. History proves it.
REPLYGeorge@George
September 28, 2024, 9:15 amDid I mention the Wolfowitz Doctrine is the tie that binds the uniparty together? You will have war and like it. It's good for the economy.
REPLYjim@George
October 27, 2024, 1:13 am" They needed a sophisticated, cosmopolitan face for US policy in the war."
Quite right. I mentioned to a roommate at the time that Obama's election was the death of the antiwar left. I also mentioned that he was a bag man for corporate interests, having played a part in eliminating caps on credit card interest rates. The roommate looked at me like I was crazy… black man, therefore beyond suspicion. Little did this guy know about Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice…
REPLYJim @George
October 27, 2024, 1:16 amOops, the above comment went to the wrong place.
"Anglo Saxons are the most barbaric people on the planet. History proves it."
Wrong, your bigotry is misplaced. The Huns and Mongols were by far the most barbaric and lethal.
Besides, the Neocons like Wolfowitz were not "Anglo-Saxon". The Neocons were almost all Jewish (Ashkenazi, from Eastern Europe). Kristol, Strauss, Frum, Ledeen, Chertoff, Shapiro, etc. Go down the list and it looks like a bar mitzvah invite.
REPLYLen Mullen
September 28, 2024, 12:59 pmThe Left's Anti-War stance has always been a myth. Woodrow Wilson – who ran on a platform of 'no Americans will die in European wars while I am president' – was negotiating engagement in exchange for a seat at the League of Nations before he was sworn in for his second term. 116,516 of our sons were killed in foreign wars on his watch. 405,399 were killed on FDR's watch. 58,209 more dead under Kennedy and Johnson.
REPLYEdwin J. M. Benson
October 1, 2024, 1:47 pmIf you think that the anti-war left has disappeared, you are not paying attention. It is still very much alive after going underground in America's universities. Now, its mutated form re-emerges as anti-Semitic pro Palestinianists yearning for a ceasefire in a war that the people they support started,
REPLYLysander_Spooner
October 2, 2024, 1:37 pmLike other commenters, I believe the existence of an (the?) anti-war left is largely a myth outside of small, irrelevant-to-the-Democrat-Party groups. I am convinced that much of their apparent opposition was simply correlated with their anti-civilization goals. E.g., they weren't actually against the Vietnam War per se, they were just pro-Communist, the actual reason they are anti-Drug War is because of the civilization destroying aspects of drugs, etc.
REPLYBrad Smith
October 25, 2024, 9:56 pmI took part in the invasion of Panama and started protesting shortly after , this continued on through the WOT. I can confirm that what was at least a very vocal minority on the left was anti-war right up until the time that Obama was elected. I was protesting around Veterans for Peace guys and other left wing groups (although I'm a libertarian and not a joiner now, so never fully joined with them) and was on Scott Horton's show, wrote articles etc. The left that I protested with turned on ME when I continued to protest Obama's wars. I was wrong not to give Obama a chance, they said, I was wrong because suddenly Afghanistan was about purple thumbs and bringing the poor women of Afghanistan Democracy. That and fifty other excuses were made daily as to why Obama deserved a chance to earn his premature Nobel Prize.
It was an amazing about face for a group that seemed to be quite sincere when opposing the Bush family wars. I've often wonder just how much money and messaging, etc., went into creating that about face, which honestly didn't seem all that organic at the time.
I wasn't the only one who felt the change was a construction of deep pockets and propaganda, many dedicated anti-war activists were left scratching their heads. Where had the money went, for one?? And as has been pointed out, it remained fine to support Hamas, of course many of the protesters moved their protesting towards Wall Street and the financial sector, world bank, IMF, Green Energy,etc. Even Veterans for Peace became more focused on protesting pipelines than they were wars, which made me glad I had never officially affiliated myself with them.
All in all I'd say there was a fairly well concerted effort with money behind it who supported the anti-war movement, when it could be used against the Republicans, as soon as Obama was in, the money shifted to other causes or dried up completely. Sure makes one believe it was always more about pushing left wing politicians than it was ending wars.
REPLYGinnyG@Brad Smith
October 26, 2024, 1:30 pmExcellent points. Socialists, progressives, leftists and communists are all loyal above all to party and its candidates. It is difficult for individuals committed to principles and ideas to understand this.
REPLY