INTERVIEW WITH VIETNAM-ERA ORGANIZERS
Prospects for GI resistance in Iraq
By John Catalinotto
Last year, in the Oct. 31 issue of Workers
World, we interviewed former American Servicemen's Union
chairperson Andy Stapp. He told us then that "It's hard to say
what will happen in a short war, fought mostly from the air.
But in a long occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan with guerrilla
fighting and steady casualties, a real opposition movement
within the military is possible."
Stapp, who was drafted during the Vietnam War after having
burned his draft card, appends the rank "Private E-1 (retired)"
to his name. E-1 is about the lowest rank a soldier can leave
the Army with, and indicates the extreme displeasure of the
brass with his/her performance.
Workers World recently continued its discussion on the mood
in the military with Stapp and another anti-militarism expert
and "retired" private E-1, Larry Holmes. Holmes was an ASU
organizer from 1972 to 1975, and is currently on the steering
committee of the ANSWER anti-war coalition.
WW What's your assessment now of the mood
of the U.S. troops?
Holmes It was only an illusion that the war was
short. The "conventional" war was short, but only then did the
real war begin. This is now a war between the U.S. occupying
force and a guerrilla army that has the support and sympathy of
the Iraqi people.
As for the U.S. troops' mood, it was never really "good."
The morale of the several hundred thousand troops sent over was
down even before the war started, when most of them were
waiting in Kuwait.
Pro-war morale was down because many of these soldiers had
access to email, instant communication with their families and
also to the news. And they learned before the war started that
there were huge demonstrations against the war.
One of the reasons why the anti-war movement has a pretty
good sense of the morale of the troops is because of the
communications revolution. Unlike in other wars, the troops'
feelings can be communicated instantaneously.
Anyone with relatives over in the Gulf knew the troops were
asking themselves, "What are we doing here, everyone is against
this war?" Then things went from bad to worse. Once the
relatively brief invasion was over, the occupation began.
Stapp It has obviously turned into a guerrilla
war against the U.S. occupation forces, with now maybe a
thousand U.S. casualties, killed and wounded, since the war
began. The soldiers are distressed. They were told they
wouldn't be there long, among many other lies. They answer:
"Tell Rumsfeld to get our sorry asses home."
Soldiers were told they would be freeing people, who would
be throwing flowers at them. Instead the Iraqis view the U.S.
troops as a hostile occupation. Now guerrillas attack the GIs
25 times daily. The military brass doesn't report half the
attacks.
The generals say the "losses are acceptable." This is
typical of high-ranking people. Meanwhile, the GIs begin to
distrust all Iraqis: "They smile but they want to stab you in
the back," they say, or "The kids throw stones at us."
In raids the U.S troops swoop into villages, drag people off
from their homes, shoot some. This leads to anger among the
Iraqis, more recruits for the guerrillas, more attacks on the
U.S. and then more raids. The U.S. generals talk as if there is
a certain limited number of people attacking the soldiers, and
that continued attacks could deplete them. It's not true. New
recruits come daily from the population.
Holmes That's right. Moreover, the government
lies to the troops again. Take the Third Infantry Division out
of Ft. Stewart, Georgia. This division led the assault on
Baghdad and is one of the main divisions doing occupation
duties there. First the officers told them they were going home
shortly. Then the day they expected to receive their orders to
leave, they found out they were staying longer.
There are all sorts of rumors, even that some soldiers talk
of mutiny. General John Abizaid, the commander there,
admonished soldiers who spoke to the press about [Defense
Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld and Bush using expletives.
WW You mentioned that Gen. Abizaid demanded that
discontented GIs stop publicly criticizing their commanders.
Your reaction?
Stapp The military suppresses free speech. The
GIs have to live under chain of command. This is inherently
undemocratic. It's obvious they all want to come home. They
should come home. The anti-war movement and their families
would welcome this.
After World War II there were mass demonstrations that
forced the generals to send troops home following the end of
the war.
Holmes The Pentagon is absolutely terrified over
the perspective of GIs speaking out against continuing the
occupation. They fear that what begins by talking could quickly
evolve into organized GI resistance to staying in Iraq. This
can reach the point where the U.S. rank-and-file troops view
their enemy not as the Iraqi resistance but as anyone over the
rank of lieutenant.
Also frightening the Pentagon is the "bring the troops home"
movement that has sprung up among the families of GIs. Both
with the families and with the GIs themselves, the Pentagon's
instinct has been to lash out with threats of punishment. But
it remains to be seen whether that will quell the dissent.
Indeed, it may have the opposite effect.
The anti-war and GI support group SNAFU has just issued a
statement supporting the right of the troops and their
relatives to speak out against the military and the war and
their right to demand to be brought home.
WW At a conference we attended in Europe, some
people called the GIs "mercenaries" because the U.S. has an
all-volunteer military. Your reaction?
Holmes This question needs a serious discussion.
We will always argue that class contradictions between the
troops and their commanders will come to the surface. But this
is a super 21st-century high-tech army, with much of the
killing done at a distance. It tests theory again.
We found out pretty quickly that the latest technology not
only doesn't guarantee victory, it doesn't change the class
structure in the Army.
Will there be significant dissent within the ranks? Or have
they become alienated from the mass of the people?
It's best that we let events speak for themselves. Now we
have seen enough resistance to dispel any doubt. How much this
will challenge the Pentagon is still to be seen, but the
opposition is there.
Stapp Time magazine early in July had 12 pages
of ads to join the Army. The Army's pitch is that there is no
money elsewhere for education, you don't have jobs. It pitches
itself as a jobs program. But you are being sent to the other
side of the world to get shot at. The news in Time that week
showed how bad the war was going.
Technically, it's true that many of the troops joined the
army for money or education and training. But this misses the
point of the class nature of the Army. During the Vietnam
period I assumed the draftees would be more anti-war than
enlistees. After a while I noticed that there was little or no
difference, and if there was, the volunteers were slightly more
against the war than the draftees.
Holmes During the early days of the mass
movement against the Vietnam war, many considered the GIs to be
like mercenaries. Fortunately, by the time that the anti-war
movement reached its heights in the late 1960s and early 1970s
there was also a significant organized resistance movement
among the GIs themselves. The more class-conscious and
politically sophisticated elements within the anti-war movement
made sure to create a civilian support network for the GIs.
WW You've both mentioned the class nature of the
armed forces? Could you explain more?
Holmes Class structure in the army is a
microcosm of class structure in society. The top management,
the CEOs, are like the generals. Management is the officer
caste. The non-commissioned officers are like foremen and
forewomen. Workers are like the rank-and-file GIs. It may not
always seem this way, but the ordinary soldiers' class
interests are diametrically opposite and opposed to those of
the officers.
Stapp The army as an institution pretty much works for the
oil companies and banks. These industries, their owners call
the shots. The enlisted forces are predominantly working class
white, Black, Latino, Native and Asian people. Higher ranks are
mostly staffed with upper-middle-class types. There is an
absolute dividing line between officers and enlisted people.
Nothing is done together. That is called fraternization and is
not allowed.
Very wealthy people are sending working-class people to war
and the people commanding the troops are from a wealthier
class. That causes antagonism, no doubt about it. In Vietnam,
most soldiers were against the war, but everyone hated the
officers. Many troops sided with me because I fought against
the officers.
The spouses and families are also working class. They don't
see that they have a big stake in the occupation. It's not like
Cheney and Halliburton.
Holmes There's another important point. When you
are talking about social struggles that threaten the existence
of the capitalist system, the class in power, or even threaten
the system's ability to function, the army is and always has
been the main institution, the ultimate and most important
weapon in defending the system with repression.
As the saying goes, "Mayors, governors, presidents,
congresses, forms of government come and go, but the army
stays." That's where the real power lies. Understanding who is
in the army and what their true interests are is vital to those
who are in the movement for progressive or revolutionary social
change.
Sooner or later getting this right is crucial to your
chances of success. Simply put, you win over the troops to the
side of the movement and your chances of winning go up 10,000
percent. But if you are going to win them you have to believe
they are winnable.
WW What is the reaction in the African American
community, other communities of color, to the continued
occupation of Iraq?
Holmes More than any other segment of the
population, the African American community did not stay fooled
for very long. They see Bush's war as a war of occupation
against brown people, to steal their oil and take over their
resources and land.
The contradiction, of course, is that for purely economic
reasons, paucity of jobs and lack of a future in civilian life,
many young people and more than the proportionate share of
African Americans are still drawn to the armed forces. So there
is a contradiction between the widespread skepticism over the
purpose of the war in the African American community and the
rising percentage of African American troops in the army.
But this contradiction is resolved when more and more of the
population embraces an anti-war position in the midst of a
terrible imperialist war and occupation such as is happening in
Iraq. The attitude of African American GIs stationed in Iraq
quite quickly becomes an extension of the anti-war sentiment in
the overall African American community and not a contradiction.
Black soldiers may yet be the main organizers of the
resistance.
Rev. Herbert Daughtry, the pastor of the House of the Lord
Church and a close ally of ANSWER, was struck by the rising
anger among Black people who have relatives in the armed
services and especially in Iraq. At his urging, ANSWER and Rev.
Daughtry are co-sponsoring what will probably be the first
major rally to bring the troops home. It will take place in his
church in the heart of downtown Brooklyn on Aug. 19. We expect
to have at the rally, in addition to community and anti-war
leaders, relatives of military personnel in Iraq.
It's our hope that the event will help with our plans to
organize a massive national protest against the occupation and
to bring the troops home on Oct. 25 in Washington, D.C.
Reprinted from the July 31, 2003, issue of
Workers World newspaper
This article is copyright under a Creative
Commons License.
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php)
HOME
:: U.S. NEWS ::
WORLD NEWS ::
EDITORIALS ::
SUBSCRIBE ::
DONATE
Email
this article
Printable
page