When former U.S. President George W. Bush released a statement on Ukraine — “condemning Vladimir Putin’s unprovoked and unjustified invasion of Ukraine,” and calling on the American people to “stand in solidarity with Ukraine and the Ukrainian people as they seek freedom and the right to choose their own future” — I thought to myself, Not now, man. You’re hurting more than you’re helping. And that’s because, as very few Americans will need reminding, the Bush administration took advantage of the public’s emotional vulnerability after the 9/11 militia attacks and preexisting racial dynamics to successfully fabricate the bogeyman of “weapons of mass destruction” and lead the United States to invade and occupy Iraq and Afghanistan in the name of Terrorism is being defeated.
As Russia is bombing Ukraine under the purported banner of “de-nazification,” so too is the U.S. still dropping bombs in the name of combating “terror.” According to the monitoring group Airwars, the United States Coalition in Iraq and Syria is responsible for at least one civilian death in Syria, AFRICOM declared a strikeSomalia and the U.S. are alleged to have made a strike in Yemen — all this year. To show the extent of the destruction these airstrikes can cause to local communities, The New York TimesA detailed report was recently published that examines this issue and the supposed accountability measures of the Pentagon. not actually functioning.
I think of statementsLike Bush’s as sort of “moral lemons” — stances that might look good at first glance, but actually don’t take you anywhere if you buy them. The U.S.’s “moral lemons” are actually a key part of the Russian disinformation strategy. Platforms like RT, Ruptly, Soapbox, Redfish, Breakthrough News, and moreProfiteer from the lack of accountability regarding U.S. war crime crimes pump out social-media-friendly content on the subject alongside Kremlin disinformation.
These disinformation claims include claims that first responders in Syria are actually terroristsNATO or the European Union. Completely to blame for the invasion and distort legitimate concerns regarding the far right in Ukraine into grand claims that aim at justifying the military intervention. It’s remarkably successful, including with many people who are vocally against the “war on terror” and other U.S. wars and interventions — an issue area that is resource-scarce, shame and guilt-driven, and prone to burning people out. But it cannot be emphasized enough: The U.S.’s own imperialist hypocrisy is in a symbiotic relationship with Russian imperialist propaganda. They both feed off one another to incite their own nationalism.
Left-oriented commentators aren’t the only ones who struggle with talking about war. Many more people will struggle to talk about war in a way that doesn’t reflect their own racial biases. For example CBS News Foreign Correspondent Charlie D’Agata was swiftly condemned and later apologized for saying: “ [Ukraine] is a relatively civilized, relatively European — I have to choose those words carefully too — city, where you wouldn’t expect that or hope that it’s going to happen.”
Nick Bilton at Vanity Fair said in a now-deleted tweet: “This is arguably the first war we’ve seen (actually seen in real-time) take place in the age of social media,” seemingly forgetting how the Syrian struggle against authoritarianism was so well-documented online, it directly led to dramatic growth in open-source intelligence investigation as a field.
Dalia Hatuqa pointed outReacting to a tweet from the APIn the case of Gaza and Ukraine, biases reach the prepositional levels. “Notice the use of ‘in’ and ‘on’ here,” she says, illustrating how framing Israeli airstrikes as happening “in” Gaza as opposed to “on” Gaza makes it harder for the reader to suss out power dynamics underlying the occupation.
The majority of Americans don’t know how to talk about war. This is a country that invests in sophisticated drone weapons. developing and exporting policing methods, and recruiting young people into the military — not to mention killing millions of people through our military operations — conversations about war these days are relatively few and far between, except in moments like this one, when the issue tops international headlines.
Still, with the rise in popularity of the phrase “end endless wars,” it seems that most people in the United States say they don’t like war: An AP poll finds that 66 percent of Americans don’t believe the war in Afghanistan was worth fighting, for example, while a majority also don’t want the U.S. to take a major role in Russia’s assault on Ukraine. Despite the fact that security, war and weapons are an integral part of our culture, and a primary financial priority (half the U.S. income tax goes directly to the Pentagon, where collectively we outspend the rest of the world on defense), Americans are not enthusiastic about war. So why can’t most of us talk about this central element of our society in useful terms?
Simply put, being antiwar is not the same thing as liking war. While war is defined as a type of conflict engagement that is rooted primarily in domination and subjugation and arming, antiwar refers to a style that is rooted primarily in cooperation, collaboration, and disarmament. This can be translated to many things on both a practical and spiritual level. There are literal campaigns against weapons proliferation and nonproliferation. You can also disarm someone emotionally to de-escalate conflict.
To help you visualize what antiwar work looks at a societal level, the 2020 summer protests calling for the defunding and abolishing of police were held under the politics abolition. This is antiwar because it seeks to change how we understand and engage with conflict, security, and safety. Also consider the level of civil mobilization we witnessed in the lead-up to Biden’s inauguration: Almost every sector of society made a statement backing the peaceful transfer of power. The idea that an election could be stolen was so widely repugnant, it forced even “nonpolitical” organizations to take a stance.
Today, the level of civil noncompliance with the Russian state in support of Ukrainian sovereignty is astounding: In sports, banking, media, in meeting rooms and on the streets, people are speaking up and refusing to go along with “business as usual.” I cheer loudly for noncompliance against Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Russian state in solidarity with the people of Ukraine, and not without emotion: Russian bombing raids decimated Ghouta, Douma, Aleppo and many other cities in Syria.
Because I hate war, I must push for the same treatment to all militarized offenses from Yemen to Occupied Palestine, Syria to Myanmar, and beyond. For a ceasefire and disarmament. Strategic messaging about how to disarm the army should be amplified. Freeze assets of the most powerful state backers. Press companies to terminate contracts. And so on. This would be noncompliance with Saudi Arabia and Iran, Israel, the Assad Regime, and Myanmar, to name a few, until disarmament.
This would, naturally, mean noncompliance to the United States. And this brings us back to the heart of the issue of why it’s difficult to talk about war in this country. The following is a point that those who are rightly skeptical of America struggle with: Yes, Russian imperialism does not work. But I am here in the United States and am only responsible for the United States. It is very sad to see what is going on, but we have to focus on resisting our own state’s aggression, since it’s being done in our name and is our primary responsibility.
Questions regarding the moral responsibility of U.S. citizens with regard to war and their duty and obligation to act in this regard have been addressed. debated for many decades. My instinct is that these sentiments are influenced in large part by the present. the protests leading up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and protests continuing after the fact. Notably, 800 cities across the globe mobilized against U.S. occupation of Iraq on February 15, 2003. It didn’t stop the United States. One glaring difference between this effort to stop war and other case studies is the degree to which we see the usual “neutral” or “nonpolitical” power players take a stance. I don’t believe we saw Coca-Cola cutting contracts with the U.S. military, or sports teams refusing to play the U.S. on the world stage — and it’s worth asking why. In a way, people are saying: We tried noncompliance with war before and it wasn’t enough to stop one of the most hellish campaigns wrought in our name.
While I can understand why any person might conclude “People in the U.S. only have to worry about the imperialism done in our names,” I do not advise anyone to stay there ideologically, as it’s a position rooted often in fear and is ultimately isolationist. Consider for example, that within our own country are people who have fled wars started by other imperial states — should we tell them to check their political realities at the border? Consider that the states themselves are involved in military campaigns, surveillance, policing, and surveillance. Consider that wealth, capital and other assets also transnationally operate. And consider that people from war zones and the so-called “Global South” have been writing explicitly to U.S. left commentators criticizing our navel-gazing, or as Volodymr Artiukh called it in his recent letter, “U.S.-splaining.”
So what can an American antiwar left do now? Use this opportunity to educate the public about Putinism as well as Russian state propaganda. Recognize the importance of NATO in today’s conversation, dispel myths and provide resources to help more people understand it. Promoting the idea that Russians could leave or desert the army while they are in battle is a way to increase Russian dissent. Establish connections with former Soviet Union organisations that share the same principles against war, and work together on narrative strategies. Educate about the racial inequities of war — of how racial hierarchies play out at borders, of how Russia’s devastating years’ long military campaign in Syria was normalized. Update your geopolitical map. Russia continues to bomb Syria, has a military presence there, supports Ethiopia in the war on Tigray, is the main arms supplier to Modi, and still bombs Syria.
We must also increase our resources for antiwar work. Without accountability, reparations and reconciliation, it will continue be difficult to talk about war. I’m particularly inspired by the youth-led energy of Dissenters, which is “building local teams of young people across the country to force our elected officials and institutions to divest from war and militarism” and working collaboratively to create new antiwar ecosystems. In addition to materially supporting groups like these, let’s also agitate at our workplaces to make it easier for workers to donate our time to antiwar work and thereby build more vibrant antiwar cultures.
