Demonstration/Counter Demonstration In San Diego: A Study In Stark Contrasts
Joe Gandelman
Antiwar demonstrator delivers symbolic message to the demonstrators urging support of U.S. troops in the field. Via Citizen Smash
SAN DIEGO, CA — It was a big day in San Diego yesterday as elsewhere: the second anniversary of the start of the Iraq war and a day filled with predictions of big demonstrations — but in the end it was a gloomy, drizzle-peppered day marked by stark political stylistic contrasts.
You could see it as you drove down Sixth Avenue towards the world famous Balboa Park at 11 a.m, before the main part of what was billed as a major anti-war demonstration and what had been planned as a small counterdemonstration were slated to formally do their things.
On one side: big signs from the anti-war coalition saying things such as "BUSH LIED"..."STOP SELLING WAR TO CHILDREN..." A block away, near a tent set up by counter demonstrators including bloggers Citizen Smash and Da Godess, signs reading: "THERE IS NO JUSTICE WITHOUT LIBERTY" and "DEMOCRACY WORKS: 8,000,000 IRAQIS CAN'T BE WRONG."
Later on: on the left, a costumed character representing an Iraqi woman carrying as limp dead child. An Uncle Sam with $$$$ on his hat. Mock bodybags of soldiers with phrases like "NEOCON PAWN" and "A LITTLE BOY'S IDOL." On the right: constant efforts to nix anyone carrying snarky or insulting signs that would dilute a specific message that avoided attack mode.
To a neutral observer such as myself — someone who has covered demonstrations over the years in New Delhi, Madrid, San Diego and Tijuana — the contrast was telling: one side seemed to be angry and lashing out; the other took great pains to stay focused on a single affirmative message of support for the goals of democracy and troops who have been assigned to missions overseas.
The anti-war demonstrators seemed dominated by key participating groups such as CodePINK, the San Diego Coalition of Peace and Justice, the International Socialists, and the Green Party; some people of conscience showed up for the anti-war demonstration who weren't allied with these groups but felt deeply that U.S. policy was a huge mistake. The support-our-troops side was a group planned to be small and compact, mainly of veterans and conservative San Diego bloggers and members of Protest Warrior. They also got some passersby on their side, and one instance (see below) of a lady shocked at the behavior of one anti-war demonstrator.
Was this all happenstance that the two sides had such differing approaches? And how did I show up at this event, particularly after one blogger wrote a whole post about being "Disappointed In Joe Gandelman" for pointing to a post San Diego blogger Lt. Smash wrote.
The post Smash wrote was this post. In it (read it in full) he tells how he sat at an anti-war demonstration and heard a speaker talk about supporting the resistance in Iraq — all of this after Smash had lost a dear friend in Iraq:
The “Iraqi Resistance” had assassinated my college roommate just a few months earlier. He was shot in the back of the head, in broad daylight, when the civilian SUV he was riding in stopped at an intersection in Baghdad (his assassin was later apprehended by Iraqi police, and eventually was convicted of his murder). My brother also lost one of his best friends in the war.And here, in the middle of San Diego, was a woman boldly claiming to support these same murderers, and detailing her organization’s plan to “bring down” the “US military machine,” just like what happened in good ol’ Vietnam.
And so his many support-the-troops demonstrations (visits to Camp Pendleton, etc.) and yesterday's counter demonstration was born.
And my post on it is here. My point then — as now — is that people on the left and right sometimes have a way of framing an issue to assure that they will be faced with massive, almost personal, opposition on the other side. Would I post the same post after being at the demonstrations yesterday? I most certainly would.
Smash, aka Scott Koenig, had invited me to attend since he knew I wasn't a member of either party and while I've supported the war, I have no problem criticizing aspects of it or administration polices and statements. Smash had been adamant that his group wasn't out to attack anyone but to let those in the field know that they were supported. He seemed spurred on by various factors, including the fact that his friend was killed by an insurgent and the fact that he still does reserve duty (he couldn't make the demonstration yesterday because he was on duty).
Did his group keep his word? Yes, they largely did, although there were some notable moments of friction covered here by conservative blogger Brendon Steinhauser. But there was someone there working hard all day to make sure they stayed on message.
Her name: Joanie, aka Da Godess.
"This sign is out," she said, going through placards, and pointing to one saying "MORONS" (actually, I could use that sign to picket any event involving Congress or for either political party, but that's my personal bias...). Her 8-year-old boy "Little Guy" played in the background.
"We don't want any of these snarky signs. We want them to be POSITIVE," she told some people. Smash had planned on having 50 people but 60 showed up. "I'm going to go through these signs and make sure they're not swiping at anyone..."
And she did.
It was her constant concern: making sure the signs didn't attack the other side (there were one or two exceptions later, people who simply did their own thing despite her pleas). She was constantly trying to make sure that members of her group standing near the street where the anti-war demonstrators would walk were not doing anything to dilute or divert the message.
And she echoed a concern Smash had mentioned in some of his writings on the antiwar demonstrators in San Diego over the past two years: a lot of what they really advocated was not getting out to and through the mainstream media.
"What really gets me is the media calling them 'anti-war' people. What they do is show up and tape a moment of a speech and then leave. They don't stay around to catch people supporting insurgents killing our troops. They don't catch them saying they support the Palestinians. And if they hear it, it's not reported. To me this is unconscionable."
As in the case of Koenig, Da Godess was partly motivated to actively demonstrate her feelings by excess verbiage on the left: a demonstrator who one day decided to confront her then 6-year-old son, raised in family where has a dad with a Marine background.
"I was down at the federal building and my son sees a man standing out there with the American flag upside down with a swastika painted on it. His eyes started tearing up and he said, 'Mommy, why did they do that to our flag? I had to explain this to a 6 year old. It was very difficult. He grew up in a family where his dad was a former Marine."
She explained to him that this was "it was their right to do it and it's protected. He didn't understand how people could not respect our government, our military and it was very difficult."
And then another event: she took him to one event with anti-war protesters and a protester targeted him: "They decided they would pick an argument with a person who was on their level." A demonstrator came over to him and started talking to him with a stream of F-words.
No, this is not typical of how many people of good conscience would oppose a government policy, which is what democracy is all about. But it IS typical of how people on the left (and the right) often create their most energetic foes by lapses of judgment and verbal excesses. And sometimes bystanders who don't have an opinion can be turned off.
21-year old Army specialist Christine Alkire of Fallbrook served in Iraq and was on leave, standing under tent with the counterdemonstrators. Why was she there?
"I like what I do," she said, standing directly across from a San Diego Police car that made sure there were no conflicts as some police on horseback formed across the street where the anti-war demonstrators were gathering. "I'm supporting all of my brothers and sisters who are over there right now."
She motioned to across the street to the costumed character of the Iraqi woman dramatically walking around, carrying a big limp doll that was supposed to be a dead baby.
"These people don't know what they are talking about. See that woman holding what's supposed to be a dead Iraqi child? That's a bunch of crap. I was on one of the biggest U.S. coalition bases. We were not in such a great area and we TOOK CARE OF Iraqi children, and grown ups alike. We have a section in the Army called G-5, civil affairs. They're the ones who go out there and deliver the school supplies, the started the water running, and make sure it's purified. We went out with them a couple of times and the children love us. The women love us and the people love us.
"So that's supposed to be an Iraqi woman? I don't like when they act like they're supporting us — but they're not."
Suddenly she's interrupted. A grey haired woman who looks in her mid-60s asks when the peace demonstration will start. Alkire polite tells her it's across the street and that her group "supports the troops."
The older woman is in the mood for a smile-delivered debate: "My heart aches for all of us," says to her. "But what troubles me — and should trouble you — is that the President has cut back on the services for you guys. Doesn't that trouble you?"
The older woman is smilingly trying to win a convert, but Alkire remains firm: "I will argue with you on that point..."
"...You can't argue with the FACTS..."
Alkire: "I'm not going to fight with you, because on this subject I'm smarter than you...."
The woman will not be deterred. She's arguing the war with her, trying to win her over to her viewpoint — the kind of approach that motivated Citizen Smash to visit Camp Pendleton and other bases in support of the military.
How does it play? A young woman who looks in to be in her mid-twenties is walking by, walking her five-month-old Labrador retriever. She stands there and watches, a shocked expression on her face, her jaw dropping. When the older woman leaves she turns to me and says:
"I can't believe that woman! How can you walk up to someone who is out there fighting a war and tell them they're wrong?"
The answer that the anti-war protesters would say is "easily..."
But when the preliminaries were over, and the demonstration was over several facts were clear:
- The anti-war protesters did not get a monster turnout. The San Diego Union puts the figure at 1,000 but it seemed a lot less than that.
- The anti-war demonstrators were preaching to the choir and probably converted only a few.
- The counter demonstrators largely stuck to their goal of being out there to state their support for troops in the field. There were a few exceptions, such as a "protest warrior" dressed up as Saddam thanking the anti-war demonstrators.
- The contrast in imagery was notable: the left was on the attack with statements too broad to win over people in the middle. Signs advertising a Socialist group would turn all-but-the-choir off and representations of dead babies won't win new activists except those who already feel that way.
And, in the end, the counter demonstrators probably didn't spur the anti-war demonstrators on. But the anti-war demonstrators have probably redoubled the dedication of the counter demonstrators...and turned off some people who could have been sympathetic to their message by their rhetorical and visual excesses.
FOR A SERIES OF GREAT PHOTOS SEE: Dareleen's Place here and here.
Here's the San Diego Union report on the anti-war demonstration.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Demonstration/Counter Demonstration In San Diego: A Study In Stark Contrasts
- Starbucks wins one
I wish I were in San Diego. I would have been there with bells on, with my signs supporting freedom, democracy, human rights---and the liberation of Iraq from fascist tyranny.
I'd also have a big "The Left Lied" sign. Joanie'd probably demand that I take it down, but they lied about so much, I feel the need to point it out at every opportunity.
Speaking of the Left lying, the demonstrators in New York claimed that they were doing this 'for the children' - so that war money would be spent on the schools instead.
.so, not only are they lying, they're blaming the kids. Jeez..
A majority now thinks the War on Iraq was a mistake and a plurality thinks it has not made us safer.
How is it that America is siding with the violent anti-war extremists, while the peace-loving moderate pro-war element is losing out?
"The key factors that spawned international terrorism show no signs of abating over the next 15 years. Experts assess that the majority of international terrorist groups will continue to identify with radical Islam. The revival of Muslim identity will create a framework for the spread of radical Islamic ideology both inside and outside the Middle East, including Western Europe, Southeast Asia and Central Asia."
"Iraq and other possible conflicts in the future could provide recruitment, training grounds, technical skills and language proficiency for a new class of terrorists who are “professionalized” and for whom political violence becomes an end in itself."
But by the way, calling them "anti-war" is giving them way too much credit. Many of these people have shown over and over again that they quite love war--they just hate it when America gets involved in a war in her own self-interest.
As for the desperate claim that "more and more Americans" think the Iraq war was "a mistake": yeah, right. That's what the anti-human rights, anti-freedom people were saying all during Campaign 2004. They must have been right: just ask President Kerry and his new majorities in Congress!
The truth is if you look at the surveys over time, they haven't changed much in the last two years. There are some wobbly people on the margins, so the percentages waver a few points one way or the other from month to month. Furthermore, their reasons for wobbling are not always what people like Jim would like to believe: they include people who thought it was a mistake but are now committed to seeing it through, people who think we should have gone in there and kicked butt but then turned around and abandoned those people, and even people who only think it was a "mistakee" because the Bush administration hasn't been tough enough in their view.
Also, I confess, a few times, in my darker moments, I have at times thought it was a mistake to liberate Iraq from fascist tyranny myself. It was mostly the hate-filled creeps of the hard left who made me feel that way. I sometimes wondered if America was simply too wracked with self-hatred to carry off a mission like this. Fortunately, I was wrong.
It's too bad the U.S. press is still so transparently NOT on America's side. But fortunately, we had our national referendum on that question in November 2004, in which the pro-democracy, pro-human-rights crowd won a resounding victory against the forces of reaction and intolerance.
As for Pierre's quote of the NIC report: Jeez dude! Did anyone bother to point out to you that such negative reports are written by government agencies all the time? That such reports' whole purpose is to look at every situation as pessimistically as possible and look closely at every possible threat?
Where in that report do you find it even remotely implied that the situation would be any better if we hadn't taken out the fascist butcher in Baghdad? Answer: you don't find it anywhere because it's not there.
Can't you reactionaries just give it up? We're at war, and a security analysis of where threats still lie will always come up with stuff. Try being on your own country's side for once--and on the side of human rights and progress. Please?
Take heart folks there are folks in Iraq who appreciate the support of the US to free them from tyrannical regime of Saddam.
See this post and comment at Roger L. Simon's:
Link Here
What still worries me is that the anti-progressives of America may still find some way to get America to prematurely pull out of Iraq before the country is fully on its feet. But hey, nothing's written in stone, so those of us who care about progress and human rights and freedom will just have to keep slugging it out with the reactionaries. Too bad. It didn't have to be that way, it really didn't. The left chose this path.
But I am suggesting that the side that started a war on what can most chartibly be described as one-sided innaccurate evidence, in the teeth of the international communities condemnation and then proceeded to claim that Geneva Convention guidelines did not apply to the actions of their forces can hardly be called the peaceful crowd. Especially when contrasted with an entirely powerless and peaceful group of protestors, who might at most be guilty of extreme eccentricity.
Except maybe in the most Orwellian and ironic fashion.
I have not been to such a protest myself since the war started, out of sense of patriotism. I think it is fine to disagree in that fashion before the shooting starts, but not so appropriate after the first shot is fired. These people are acting well within their rights of course, but they are being impolitic.
Which is what the whole point of this post is, I guess.
So, sorry, I didn't paint it anyway for anyone and Dean gave me no guidance on this whatsoever. In FACT: if this had taken place on a nonweekend I would have put it on MY blog. But because I guest blog here and don't post anything (except a cartoon or a very short item) on weekends when I post here, I let Dean know that I would post this on his blog and he could get the links and hits on it (and my blog always can use links and hits).
Sorry to disappoint you. There was no agenda, no marching orders -- except my own which was to watch and give you an HONEST report on my reaction to it.
PS: If Smash's group had behaved like a bunch of jerks it would have been in my report on this site. But they didn't.
No idea what you're talking about here, since people only get tossed for name-calling or being excessively and repetetively rude to me personally.
But I am suggesting that the side that started a war on what can most chartibly be described as one-sided innaccurate evidence, in the teeth of the international communities condemnation and then proceeded to claim that Geneva Convention guidelines did not apply to the actions of their forces can hardly be called the peaceful crowd.
Well see Jim, I would agree with all of that, if that could be called a fair characterization of what happened.
But of course, it's not even close to that. In fact, the nicest thing I can think to say about that summary is "fact-challenged and mean-spirited."
I could call it worse, but I'm trying to be charitable.
Especially when contrasted with an entirely powerless and peaceful group of protestors, who might at most be guilty of extreme eccentricity.
Hah! And in what way are they any less powerful than people like me, or the Protest Warriors, or people like Joe Gandelman or Scott Koenig or the others talked about in this report?
All we're doing is pointing out how virulently hateful and irrational so many of them are. (And this is giving them a free pass, since in the past people who mouth some of the same slogans they do have gotten violent, and some, like ANSWER, are clearly tools of totalitarianist regimes and advocates for mass-murderers like Kim Jong Il.)
I have not been to such a protest myself since the war started, out of sense of patriotism. I think it is fine to disagree in that fashion before the shooting starts, but not so appropriate after the first shot is fired. These people are acting well within their rights of course, but they are being impolitic.
I've always thought the same thing myself. On that we can certainly agree.
Jim, that is absolutely false. And it shows an ignorance of the Geneva Convention. The US did not claim that the Geneva Convention didn't apply to Iraqi prisoners of war. It claimed that the Convention didn't apply to terrorist combatants. And guess what, Jim, it doesn't by its own terms. The Geneva Convention itself excludes from its protections those combatants who do not themselves adhere or conform to it.
This is entirely correct. The Geneva Convention clearly spells out who is subject to it and who is not--and combatants not in uniform, or who themselves violate the Geneva conventions, are automatically stripped of any standing. In short, the Geneva Convention specifically states that the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to the people in question.
It's not a minor quibble, either.
That differentiates the Iraqis from the protestors on just about every point.
Lesse here: First we have the "Bush lied, people died" fatuity. Never mind the exhaustive research done which establishes the simple fact that all of the leading Democratic party leaders have been quoted saying exactly the same things Bush did before the war. Hell, certain sadistic characters would read these quotes at anti-war types, only to get back responses such as "that was Karl Rove," or "wasn't it Wolfowitz who said that?" When in reality it was former President Clinton, VP Gore, Madeline Albright, John Kerry, and so on.
Basically everyone agreed on the fundamentals. The problem was that they were wrong. Why? You could write a good book just about that. Short version: too much reliance on signal intelligence and no human intelligence. After the Cold War was over, everyone (yes, everyone; I don't remember the GOP kicking up much of a fuss at the time) was only too happy to disassociate themselves from the lowlifes you generally have to deal with in that business. Iran-Contra was probably one of the reasons the Republicans kept their heads down.
NO, not "in the teeth of the international communities condemnation!" Tell the truth: against the opposition of France, Germany, and China. That's it. I see that someone else already corrected your perversion of the Geneva Protocols, so I don't have to bring that up. :)
Finally we have "entirely powerless and peaceful ... who might at most be guilty of extreme eccentricity."
Yeah. So powerless every print and electronic journal can't wait to print yet another article about "massive" war protests. As Joe and others have pointed out, compare the ink given to the anti-war operations compared to that provided to the pro-war crowd. If you didn't follow places like Dean's World or the Indepundit, you wouldn't even know those sort of groups existed.
As for how peaceful they are, I refer you to the regular and frequent testimonies regarding the rudeness, vulgarity and threats faced by the Protest Warriors. Not to mention the fact that all of the major demonstrations are backed by socialist/communist groups such as ANSWER. Check out the photos of the books on sale at one of those protests: it's a Days of Rage reunion party, starring Mao, Che, and other vicious mass murderers.
And you claim Dean to be "Orwellian..."
Thanks for coming, and helping to tell the story from an "outsider" perspective. Sorry I missed you -- I didn't arrive until the very end.
Did you enjoy the puppet show?
When embedded with a crowd that has deliberately shown up to provoke a response, you see the response, not very surprisingly.
Dean: You reading of the Geneva Convention is incorrect. Only a few biased White House Administration lawyers beleive that the Geneva Convention applies selectively and even most of them have backed off that assertion.
Casey: You claim that basically everyone agreed on the fundamentals. This is simply false as well. Why did 15M go into the streets to protest the war? Or do you mean "everyone" as in everyone except for that majority of world citizens who did not?
The ICRC rejects the concept of a status outside the framework of armed conflict for persons who, in fact, are entitled to the protections of either Geneva Convention III or IV, or by the customary provisions of Article 75 Protocol I. This position is in line with the clear text of both Conventions and with the US position on the customary nature of Article 75 Protocol I."
There is no such thing as an "enemy combatant." It is an entirely bogus distinction made expressedly for the purpose of violating International Law. My prediction is that this is what the US Supreme Court will decide, too, when the Gitmo cases finally reach them.
This assertion promotes the argument that persons who fail to qualify for prisoner of war status under Geneva Convention III are categorically outside of the protections of the Geneva Conventions. However, Geneva Convention IV, Article 4 provides protected status to persons "who find themselves . . . in the hands of a party to the conflict", unless they fail to meet certain nationality criteria or are covered by the other Geneva Conventions. Detainees not protected by those other Conventions, and who do meet the nationality criteria for coverage under Geneva Convention IV do, indeed, 'have a label in the law of war conventions'. That label is "civilian", or "protected person" under Geneva Convention IV – even if they are definitely suspected of activity hostile to the security of the detaining State or of being "unlawful combatants". Persons who do not meet the nationality criteria are covered by Article 75 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions. This article forms part of customary international law.
China, India, Brazil, Russia, Mexico, Germany, France, Sweden, Norway, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Libya, Morrocco, Tunisia, Nigeria,
Chad, Sudan, South Africa, Angola, Cameroon, Guinea, Cuba, Argentina, Belgium, Switzerland, Croatia, Slovenia, The Czech Republic, Belarus, South Africa, Algeria, Bahrain, Qatar, Somalia, Yemen, Comoros, Djibuti, Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Niger, Senegal, Mali, Madagascar, Ghana, Gabon, Rwanda and others I have surely missed.
Just the first five constitute the population of over half the planet.
Politicians are like that: they tend to say what is politically expedient, not what is accurate. Democrats probably even more than Republicans, in my experience.