The United States has had its fair share of antiwar rallies and protests over the years. Those events fall into one of two categories: those that are antiwar in principle, and those that are simply anti-U.S. participation in war. In the case of the latter, one questions where their loyalties lie.
- “Not one more penny for war in Ukraine.” Those are pennies, not kopecks. RATWM seeks the withdrawal of all U.S. support for the Ukrainian nation. That would have the effect of letting the Russians decide whether they want to continue to annihilate that nation or just to conquer and absorb it.
- “Negotiate peace.” Americans overwhelmingly prefer peace to war. I know few Americans who would oppose peace in Ukraine as long as the terms aren’t lopsided. A key question RATWM ignores: How does Vladimir Putin define “peace.”
- “Stop the War Inflation.” The focus here is too narrow. I’d love it if we could stop inflation, period. Yes, government spending beyond its means is inflationary, so U.S. support for Ukraine is contributing to our current inflation (although it bears mentioning that inflationary growth in the money supply had been occurring in the several years before the Russian invasion). Stopping just the war-related inflation is nothing more than a restatement of Goal #1 phrased differently.
- “Disband NATO.” The timing here is problematic. You can make a solid case that NATO should have been disbanded 30 years ago. To do so now would essentially give a green light to Putin to roll into Poland, the Baltic states, etc. any time he feels like it. Sorry, I’ll pass on that, even as I hold my nose about the many European free-loaders letting the United States bear the brunt of the costs of shielding them from aggression from their East.
- “Global nuclear de-escalation.” Even if it’s unilateral? I’d find this more credible if RATWM had an active chapter in Moscow publicly protesting Russian aggression.
- “Slash the Pentagon budget.” Yes, the Pentagon is a wasteful bureaucracy and too many American lives (not to mention over a trillion dollars) have been squandered in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, but, like the call to disband NATO, the timing seems designed to hand Russia an unjust victory. It also suggests retreat to belligerents like China and Iran.
- “Abolish the CIA and Military-Industrial Deep State.” This goal has some merit. “Abolish” may be too radical a step, but we deserve to know if it is our presidents or entrenched, unelected bureaucrats in the Pentagon, at the CIA, the FBI, NSA, State Department, etc., who set foreign policy and perhaps unnecessarily maneuver us into military conflict.
- “Abolish war and empire.” Peace is the ultimate ideal, I agree, but everyone has to stop warring, not just one side. As for “empire,” I really get tired of Americans yapping about “American empire.” Yes, we have military installations around the globe and we’re stretched too thin (especially given our government’s woeful fiscal situation), but in most of the countries we protect, we don’t install puppet governments or deny them self-determination. The Pax Americana isn’t an “empire” in the dictionary sense of the word.
- “Restore civil liberties.” You mean like seeing that Ukrainians regain the secure enjoyment of life, liberty, and property? I’m all for it.
- “Free Julian Assange.” No comment. (Given the redundancies implicit in the first nine goals, I think RATWM was desperate to come up with something to make their list a nice, even 10.)
This impression was tacitly reinforced by the speeches that two Americans whom I respect gave at the RATWM rally—former U.S. Reps. Ron Paul, a sometime Republican sometime Libertarian, and Tulsi Gabbard, a Democrat-turned-Independent. Both of those speakers called for the United States to abandon its current financial and military support of Ukraine while remaining silent about the myriad Russian atrocities in Ukraine or calling upon Putin to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty.
Gabbard, who served on active duty in Iraq and Kuwait with the Army National Guard and today is a lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserve, is—quite understandably—alarmed by the possibility of the American–Russian contest going nuclear. What disappointed me about her speech is that she reserved use of the ugly pejorative “warmonger” only for Americans, as if our side is solely or primarily responsible for the nuclear threat. That imbalance is inaccurate, unfair, and, frankly, rather warped.
Paul, who’s also a veteran, made the same curious omission. Full disclosure here: I met Ron Paul over 40 years ago, and he was kind enough to write an endorsement for one of my books. I can vouch for his valiant efforts in defense of human life. He’s in the minority of libertarians who is anti-abortion, and he is equally anti-war. I just wish he had used the platform given to him by RATWM to affirm the right of Ukrainians to live their own lives in their own land.
Unfortunately, the protest rally organized by RATWM targeted only the United States and not the Russian aggressor. We have seen this before: It’s the old “blame America first” routine favored by the anti-American left. That position is both intellectually dishonest and morally skewed. It’s regrettable that fundamentally good and patriotic Americans such as Gabbard and Paul let themselves be used in the service of such a warped message.
