The first significant anti-war marches since Obama took office, planned for the March 20 anniversary of the Iraq war , in light of Communist Party USA 29th National Convention official discussion document: "International Issues and US Foreign Policy."
Medea Benjamin of Codepink has written that "…March promises to be a revival of sorts.
The ANSWER coalition is gearing up for the first significant anti-war marches since Obama took office, planned for the March 20 anniversary of the Iraq war….("With 1000 US soldiers dead in Afghanistan, Time to Revive the Anti-war Agenda" http://codepink4peace.org/blog/2010/02/with-1000-us-soldiers-dead-in-afghanistan-time-to-revive-the-anti-war-agenda/)
March 20th is a National Day of Action Against the Wars and Occupations. Coordinated actions are planned for cities in other areas of the U.S., as well as the March On The Pentagon in DC. But in the section from the cpusa 29th National Convention Official Discussion Document on US Foreign Policy extracted below it would seem that such anti-war marches are slammed as counter-productive and divisive ("…it leads to isolation of the peace movement from the rest of the all-peopleÂs movement particularly labor and African American, Latino and other communities." See document extract below).
Can the Webb Leadership of the CPUSA actually be suggesting that American labor, African Americans and US Latinos are indifferent to the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ?
Or is the inference that the CPUSA leadership does not presently deem it politically expedient to participate in anti-war protests in the streets of the nation? Isn’t the role of a Communist party to lead the struggle against imperialist wars?
What is the CPUSA Leadership’s position on Obama’s massive military surge in Afghanistan ? How does the Webb-group leadership of the CPUSA participate in the struggle for world peace and against wars undertaken by the Obama Administration ?
Can the attribution be true that Webb’s leadership group has virtually called off marching against its ruling class’s imperialist wars because these adventures are now led by a Democratic Party administration?
Or is the problem the ANSWER coalition’s leadership of the March 20th anti-war rally? But anyone who has participated in a few peace marches or rallies over the years is quite accustomed to marching beside people from very different political tendencies.
Is this abstention from marching for peace a principled strategy or tactics?
We look to the following official document for guidance:
"Peace movement and its role"
"Some narrow left elements within the peace movement insist on lumping the new [Obama] administration in with the Bush administration, maintaining the same oppositional stance. To be sure, an important task of the peace movement remains opposing and mobilizing against policies that continue the old destructive path, such as the military escalation in Afghanistan. But failure to see the positive developments, even if small, hesitant and inconsistent, and failure to appreciate the significance of the divisions in ruling circles on foreign policy, means missing significant opportunities to build for more and deeper advances. In addition, it leads to isolation of the peace movement from the rest of the all-peopleÂs movement particularly labor and African American, Latino and other communities."
What’s going on?
March 9, 2010