I have great respect for Scott Ritter and his efforts to prevent the war with Iraq, as well as his continued condemnation of the occupation. While I totally disagree with Ritter’s premise in “The Art of War for the anti-war movement,” I am glad he wrote the article, as it is always worthwhile to evaluate our efforts at ending the tragedy in Iraq.

On August 22, 2002, the former weapons inspector electrified a Baltimore audience by confirming what we suspected: "The truth of the matter is that Iraq has not been shown to possess weapons of mass destruction." He rightly pointed out Iraq never expelled the weapons inspectors, as his former boss Richard Butler did in 1998 on orders from a desperate Clinton administration, enveloped in a seedy sex scandal. Ritter’s speech helped convince Maryland Senator Paul Sarbanes to vote against the war.

That evening, though, the ex-Marine supported unleashing the "dogs of war," if his commander-in-chief ordered the U.S. military to attack. During the questions and answers, Sister Ardeth Platte, the Plowshares activist, told him he must disobey the commander-in-chief when he issues an illegal order.

Ritter is a former warrior, and I am a pacifist. I would never tell him how to wage war. And I believe he is out of his element in telling the "antiwar" movement what it is doing wrong.

I noticed he used the term "antiwar" to describe the movement. But I am a member of the peace movement, and know that all wars are wrong. Obviously, some members of the antiwar movement, such as John Murtha, were pro-war until the situation became untenable. Murtha, who used to be my congressperson, remains a hawk, and his plan for a pull-out means redeployment to a nearby country. But at least he concluded that going into Iraq was a disaster.

Like so many critics of the peace movement, Ritter fails to provide any blueprint as to how we can increase our effectiveness. One point which he gets correct is his analogy that we are a walk-on squad in comparison to the government’s Super Bowl champion. Those of us in the streets are challenging the mightiest imperial power in history. Chastising us for our failure to end the war in Iraq is synonymous to rebuking the Zealots at Masada for not defeating Rome’s imperial legions. Many sectors of society, including the corporate-owned media, oppose our message of abolishing war and establishing a just economic system.

The former Marine failed to include nonviolent civil resistance in the list of tactics of the “antiwar” movement. Is he not aware of the actions organized by the National Campaign for Nonviolent Resistance? I read this with disbelief: “…their cause is not just losing, but is in fact on the verge of complete collapse.” Has he not read the accounts from across the country of more than 600 actions commemorating three years of war?

When strategizing, we must understand history. In South Africa, Gandhi was unsuccessful in dismantling apartheid. However, he and others were able to organize a successful nonviolent mass movement in India, as a majority of the people would benefit from independence. Yet the mass movement was unable to establish a just society, where the class structure was eliminated.

This country was founded on violence and imperialism, and the elites have always reaped the profits. Because some of the wealth trickles down, many citizens stay away from dissent so as not to risk their assets. The active members of the peace movement are usually altruists, and we are a minority of citizens speaking out against the injustices evident from New Orleans to Baghdad. For most people, there must be a personal interest for them to join a cause. Note the masses of non-movement people who turned out to oppose the draconian anti-immigrant legislation.

King and others were able to eviscerate the most odious examples of government-backed racism, but the civil rights movement did not have much of an effect on a system rigged to benefit the elite and to condemn the poor to a life of poverty. Positive change--the abolition of slavery, gaining the right to collective bargaining and universal suffrage--is possible in this country. However, it is extremely difficult to revoke a status quo in which the vice president can profit economically from a war he started.

It is possible to be educated by former warriors. Much of my knowledge of nonviolence comes from Phil Berrigan, a World War II veteran. Nevertheless, I recommend Scott Ritter should undertake some serious nonviolence training. Afterwards, he should get in the trenches with those of us in the peace movement trying to end this awful U.S.-made disaster in Iraq. He just might discover how thirsty we are for an elixir which would help us end all wars.

Max Obuszewski is a member of the Pledge of Resistance-Baltimore.

###