Scott Ritter on the state of the antiwar movement

Scott Ritter, former UN weapons inspector in Iraq and longtime critic of the Iraq War, argues that the antiwar cause in America "is not just losing, but is in fact on the verge of complete collapse". Why? Because, he says, "Americans aren't against the war in Iraq because it is wrong; they are against it because we are losing".

Ritter is dead wrong about the "complete collapse". And, sure, some people are turning against the war because we're obviously losing. But so what? If a war can't be won at a reasonable cost, it ought to be terminated. That's basic Christian just war doctrine. He's interpreting that development poorly.

But he does have a good point here in the parts I've bolded, though I don't agree that the antiwar movement is "a losing cause" at this point:

Lately I have noticed a growing despondency among many of those who call themselves the anti-war movement. With the United States now entering its fourth year of illegal war in and illegitimate occupation of Iraq, and the pro-war movement moving inexorably towards yet another disastrous conflict with Iran, there is an increasing awareness that the cause of the anti-war movement, no matter how noble and worthy, is in fact a losing cause as currently executed. Despite all of the well-meaning and patriotic work of the millions of activists and citizens who comprise the anti-war movement, America still remains very much a nation not only engaged in waging and planning wars of aggression, but has also become a nation which increasingly identifies itself through its military and the wars it fights. This is a sad manifestation of the fact that the American people seem to be addicted to war and violence, rather than the ideals of human rights, individual liberty, and freedom and justice for all that should define our nation.

Andrew Bacevich talks about the same phenomenon. It's a real cultural militarism and it needs to change. And, no, trolls, opposing militarist thinking is not the same as "dishonoring our soldiers". A much greater degree of skepticism about our infallible generals would be a very healthy development, though.

| +Save/Share | |