Anti-war protesters rally near White House; 5 arrested

[The Minx]

Link

Washington (CNN) - Chanting "We are the change," hundreds of anti-war protesters gathered across from the White House on Saturday, the seventh anniversary of the war in Iraq.

More than a dozen speakers, including politician Ralph Nader and anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan, addressed the crowd before the group marched through Washington. Protesters delivered symbolic coffins draped with international flags to the offices of Halliburton - a controversial energy services company once helmed by former Vice President Dick Cheney - and the White House.

Police arrested five people after they laid down by the coffins in front of the White House.

"Is the honeymoon over with that war criminal in the Oval Office?" yelled Sheehan during the rally before the march, to shouts of agreement from the crowd. "Why are we giving him a free pass when he didn't deserve it?"

Sheehan, whose son was killed in Iraq, became a household name in August 2005 for protesting outside of former President George W. Bush's Texas ranch. She is now camping out on the grounds of the Washington Monument in an effort to draw attention to her cause.

Saturday's crowd carried signs including "Indict Bush now" and "We need jobs and schools not war."

An Iraq war veteran burned a small American flag on stage while shouting "this is not my country."

Nader called Bush and Cheney "fugitives from justice," while arguing that military action in Iraq and Afghanistan was creating a new generation of enemies against the United States.

Some called for greater funding for education and other priorities, echoed by those attending the rally.

"War is bankrupting this country," said marcher Lisa Savage, who had traveled from Maine where she says her local school district is more than $1 million short on its budget.

"Just a few minutes of the war could pay for that," she said.

It does seem that the honeymoon is over for Obama and the left, and the wind has been blowing this way for quite some time. This is the first significant anti-war rally outside the Obama white house that I'm aware of, though.

[Hotfoot]

Wait, didn't we just have a big announcement about how we're on the very edge of pulling out of Iraq? How the war there is basically over?

I will say this though, a lot of states seem real damn eager to gut the public schools.

[SirNitram]

Someone covered a protest other than the various conservative ones? I'm shocked. Then again, the 'Democrats are in disarray' is a favorite story.

As to the topic, a quick hit on Google shows quite an insight into the sort of person we're dealing with. 'War Criminal' being used to refer to Obama, Obama is the same as Bush, do it NOW!

In short, not the quality thinkers. Then again, I'd not consider 2,500 folks including Sheehan as 'the left'.

[The Minx]

Wait, didn't we just have a big announcement about how we're on the very edge of pulling out of Iraq? How the war there is basically over?

I guess that they're thinking about Afghanistan.

Apparently they're also disappointed that Bush and Cheney aren't going to be indicted for war crimes.

[frigidmagi]

They're likely calling Obama a war criminal for not having US troops magically disappeared from Iraq on day one and for intensifying commitment to Afghanistan. Oh yeah and Drone Strikes. Obama uses Drone Strikes, which they don't like.

As far as I'm concerned? They may cordially fuck themselves with a rusty iron pipe. If God is Kind and Good they will catch tetanus.

Oh and has a war vet myself to this guy:

An Iraq war veteran burned a small American flag on stage while shouting "this is not my country."

Then fucking leave you embarrassment. The rest of us have work to do and you're in the damn way.

Let me be clear on this. I don't like, agree or even really respect the current anti-war protest movement. I support their right to protest however and I am willing to fight (something I know from first hand experience many if not most aren't willing to do) to protect that right. On the flip side there is a damn limit to what I am willing to tolerate without replying to (I say reply to, I will not support suppressing any speech.) Stupid shit like screeching this isn't my country or all my leaders are war criminals is juvie bullshit. Grow up. It's up there with any criticism of the President in wartime is treason bullshit. My suggest is we try behaving like adults. You know... For the novelty value if nothing else.

[Charon]

I don't know what these people are surprised about, Obama has, from Day 1 on the Campaign trail, pretty much stated that he is going to be slowly pulling out of Iraq and intensifying the fight in Afghanistan. He also stated that he would use Drone Strikes a lot.

So yeah, people are schmucks. News at 11.

[General Havoc]

"Obama is doing what he said that he was going to do instead of doing the various things that we sort of assumed he would do without any evidence that it was a good idea to do them! This is outrageous!"

Twenty five hundred people is small potatoes. Let the adults go back to running the country

[Cynical Cat]

I can't get worked up about or care about these guys. These are just their usual antics. The Tea Baggers shouting "Nigger" at the black members of the House trumps them when it comes to shock value.

[General Havoc]

I can't get worked up about or care about these guys. These are just their usual antics. The Tea Baggers shouting "Nigger" at the black members of the House trumps them when it comes to shock value.

I know the Teabaggers are insane, but when did this happen?

[Cynical Cat]

Very recently. click me

[The Minx]

Very recently. click me

As ever, the comment section is amazingly horrible. So, when someone calls a black Congressman the N-word, it's obviously the Democrats who are race baiting. Obviously.

[Derek Thunder]

They're likely calling Obama a war criminal for not having US troops magically disappeared from Iraq on day one and for intensifying commitment to Afghanistan. Oh yeah and Drone Strikes. Obama uses Drone Strikes, which they don't like.

I think one could make a fair point that drones piloted by third-party contractors for the CIA who are not ostensibly covered by the military chain-of-command raise a question as to the legality of such an arrangement. Essentially, using mercenaries to strike a country that we're allied with. I wouldn't say it's illegal, but it strikes me as a gray area that requires more justification to the public.

To be honest though, I'm not sure what we're trying to accomplish in Pakistan. Until Pakistan itself takes control of its restive border regions, all the drone strikes in the world won't amount to more than a sliver of enemy casualties.

As far as I'm concerned? They may cordially fuck themselves with a rusty iron pipe. If God is Kind and Good they will catch tetanus.

That seems a little hyperbolic for people who perceive the United States as... less than noble in its foreign policy.

[frigidmagi]

I think one could make a fair point that drones piloted by third-party contractors for the CIA who are not ostensibly covered by the military chain-of-command raise a question as to the legality of such an arrangement. Essentially, using mercenaries to strike a country that we're allied with. I wouldn't say it's illegal, but it strikes me as a gray area that requires more justification to the public.

Okay, that's fair, however I would point out that the employment of mercenaries while for very good reasons is unpopular. It is not illegal. Not in international law or more importantly under US national law. Maybe it should be and I'm willing to have that conservation. On the flip side, y'all realize that if you want our military to do all the jobs y'all keep sending us out on (Disaster relief, wars, peacekeeping missions, training missions with other nations, garrisoning other nations like Japan, Italy, Germany and S Korea) we either need mercenaries or more troops.

I am in favor of more troops or reducing the missions. A withdrawal from Europe (or at least Spain and Germany and major reductions in Italy and Britain) would be helpful but even then an increase in troop levels is likely needed. We have a bare 13 divisions for ground operations not counting our reserves.

To be honest though, I'm not sure what we're trying to accomplish in Pakistan. Until Pakistan itself takes control of its restive border regions, all the drone strikes in the world won't amount to more than a sliver of enemy casualties.

Really?

This is gonna be long then.

What we are trying to accomplish in Pakistan is a multi-tiered thing. One, Al Qeada, an organization I believe everyone can agree is at war with us has based itself in Pakistan. Two the Taliban, another organization at war with us operates in Pakistan. Both these organizations attack our troops in Afghanistan. The Pakistani government for the most part until recently seemed happy to leave them there.

We could not send troops into the area without risking a war with Pakistan. While on one hand, even if Pakistan went nuclear we could still win. Pakistani missiles can't hit the US. It would still cost us heavy causalities and frankly what would do after the war? We can't afford the money and manpower cost of occupying Pakistan on top of Afghanistan and Iraq. Not to mention the sheer level of political and public relation damage such an event would cause.

That meant we couldn't send ground troops into the area, which usually would mean they would have a safe haven from which to retreat to, plan, rearm and attack again. In most battles of this type if one side has a safe haven, they have a huge advantage. We couldn't allow that.

Add in the fact that most of their leadership was concentrated in this emerging safe zone. In other words all we could do was kill low level fighters in Afghanistan and never hit the heart or the brain of the opposing force nor could we advance into the regions where they're getting weapons or a good amount of their recruits from. That is one hell of a handicap.

So our objectives are as follows:

1: Kill enemy leaders and recruiters
2: Remove their sense of safety
3: Prove that they do not have a safe zone
4: Hamper their operations in this area by hurting their mobility and planning abilities

We did however get a steady stream of intelligence as to where these people in the safe zone were. If we could get to them, we could hit at the vital organs (i.e the leadership and the recruiters) of the enemy. So... We went and hit them with the best tool we had. A unmanned flying drone with a pair of hellfire missiles. In effect we are using robot assassins to strike at men who are engaged in armed conflict with the United States.

Is it perfect? No. Innocent people have been mistaken hurt and killed. That's a tragedy and if anyone can figure out how to fight and win a war without this happening, I'm perfectly willing to listen. Has it had successes? Yes. We've hit targets we were aiming for killing men who are trying to kill Americans.

There are also secondary effects. These strikes as they are in many ways beyond the ability of the enemy to stop or block destroy the safety of the area for them. It has been recorded by members of the Taliban and Al Qeada that most of their leaders do not like to move openly for this very reason. That many members dare not move in large groups in the day time. So for the cost of drone flights and missiles we reduce the enemy's mobility, his ability to gather or conduct intense planning sessions. Again worthwhile things to hit.

The day Pakistan takes over the border regions is the day we should stop this. But the Central Government of Pakistan hasn't yet, despite taking forward steps towards that goal. The day someone comes up with a better plan to reach the objectives in question (striking at the two enemy organizations in question without causing a war) is the day we should change our actions as well. No one has really done that yet either.

That seems a little hyperbolic for people who perceive the United States as... less than noble in its foreign policy.

If that was indeed what was going on you would have a point. But that's not the case. These folks are protesting the US being in any war, anywhere, against anyone. At this point it's pretty much the radicals who are left as most are happy with the withdraw in Iraq. Dissatisfaction may rise in Afghanistan but from what I've seen and heard even the majority of the "Progressive" wing of American politics is taking a wait and see response to Obama actions. Which is fair. I'm not asking for blind support, but I am asking for a chance to see if Obama can pull something out here.

These folks have made it clear that they are not happy with anything less then frankly foolish measures and actions. Their protest is not that American Foreign Actions are often less then Noble as you put it (which I'll admit is a fair criticism) but are fueled by the belief that American Foreign Actions are uniformly evil and oppressive. They do this while insisting on gaining the benefit of those actions and demand to be held up as moral paragons while they are in fact shallow, foolish and hypocrites. I have no patience for such shit be it from the right or the left.