New Leadership for a Movement

The two host organizations, IVAW and Civ-Sol, have come a long way, surviving both Bush terms, the anti-war promises of Obama, the “end” of the Iraq War, the escalation of the War in Afghanistan and the withering if not complete halt of the Peace Movement. It is those left standing that will dictate the leadership and strategic direction of any revival, or better yet reconstruction from the ground up, of such a movement. With this Leadership and Organizer Training, IVAW and Civ-Sol (along with other key organizations such as Courage to Resist and Catalyst Project) have made it clear that they are not only up for the challenge, but see it as their role to redefine and lead a movement against war and militarism.

Looking Back to Learn

This is a long way from IVAW’s humble beginnings in July of 2004 as simply a speaker’s bureau. Along with the anti-war movement, the organization grew and picked up momentum; participating in Camp Casey with Cindy Sheehan in 2005; in 2006 they marched in the Gulf Coast to highlight the Bush Administration’s negligence of life in Louisiana after Katrina and of veterans and civilians in the war in the Gulf region of Iraq. Winter Soldier marked a peak for the organization in March of 2008, with hundreds of veterans testifying to the horrors of war and subsequent disregard for human life; and in August of 2008 IVAW demonstrated at the DNC and RNC that they are a determined and significant force that will not be silenced. From 2004 – 2010, scores of chapters were built, Conscientious Objectors (COs) were supported, and countless actions held highlighting the horrors and inhumanity of war and care for veterans.

There was no shortage of shocking disappointments, given that at one point even The New York Times quipped, that the massive anti-war demonstrations were emblematic of a second “superpower”. Yet with every event, action or march, IVAW believed that each effort would bring about an end to the war(s). A strategy rooted in ending the war in Iraq and later adding Afghanistan, only brought disappointment. Without a longer term strategy or vision, this proved to be demoralizing and demobilizing for IVAW, and the anti-war movement as a whole. This also proved to be a weakness when President Obama ‘ended’ the war in Iraq. What becomes of IVAW when this happens in Afghanistan?

Furthermore, as an explicitly “anti-war” organization, IVAW has been unable to speak to the majority of veterans, who don’t identify as “anti-war”. This false dichotomy of pro-war vs. anti-war or red vs. blue states serves solely as coded speech to those who already identify with  that ideological construction. If the goal is to organize as many veterans and GI’s as possible, than selecting a narrow ideological frame closes doors on potential leaders and members. The anti-war frame communicates negatively because it merely says what we are against and not a vision of what we are for. This frame also carries with it the weight of the anti-war movement (predominately white and middle class), which is not necessarily reflective of the veteran and GI community.

This is why organizing around universal values as opposed to ideology can speak to a much broader base of people. Through the universal values of dignity, respect and human rights–as utilized by the United Workers and the CIW–communication can occur across ideological or partisan barriers.

The Civilian Soldier Alliance has been active in the anti-war movement for as long as, if not longer then IVAW, although under varying organizational names. Their work has been crucial in supporting the work of resisting veterans and service-members throughout the years. In 2007, they decided to focus their efforts on working directly in alliance with IVAW–drawing from their own diverse experiences and looking to the Student/Farmworker Alliance’s (SFA) relationship with the CIW–focusing much of the work that many of these committed civilians were already doing.

Civ-Sol was subject to the same ebbs and flows of the national anti-war movement, its hopes and frustrations, yet like IVAW, has come out of it with a core group of highly committed leaders. Also similarly to IVAW, in the absence of leadership within the larger anti-war movement, Civ-Sol, found themselves rushing from event to action, with a plethora of appealing protest tactics, in hopes that the next one would end the war.

Looking Forward to Change

By 2009, there were few peace groups to speak of, having been sucked into the brilliantly managed ‘peace’ campaign of Barack Obama. The momentum of IVAW and Civ-Sol had also been stagnated by the 2008 Presidential elections, but unlike other groups, they emerged with a highly committed core of leaders ready to engage in deep critical reflection of their work and movement. Studying the movement’s shortcomings, looking toward other organizations for advice and reflecting on the history and organizing of the anti-war movement during Vietnam and the Civil Rights Movement, a synthesis that developed two significant documents: IVAW’s organizing model and the Civilian Ally organizing manual.

The strength of these two documents were demonstrated repeatedly at the Leadership and Organizing Training. Civilian Allies actively practiced taking leadership from veteran and service member leaders and identifying themselves as allies in a collective struggle with (not for) veterans to end the occupations. The entire training was full of leadership development of both veterans and civilians, with space and support created for people to step into leadership roles and see their participation evolve into being educators and learners simultaneously. Similarly, the principle of transformative organizing was evident by the focus on community building and larger strategic visioning, which required people to look outside of their own self-interest and move beyond, “What’s in it for me” or demanding some transactional service in order to participate, to wanting to be a part of making history for the collective good. As a result, people were open to exploring issues of gender, sexual, racial and economic justice.

Moreover, by weeks end, the group had collectively identified an issue to start a campaign around, which IVAW announced at their July 11th National Convention. The unifying issue of the campaign will be to struggle for adequate PTSD and mental health care for veterans and GIs and stop deployments of traumatized veterans. A clear shift from the previous strategy of trying to create bigger and bigger events to end the war. The change to campaigning will help focus the efforts, resources, and members of the organizations. It will also serve to unite veteran and peace organizations, develop leaders, build power and victories, while also exposing the federal governments neglect for the health of veterans and service-members.

Points to Consider

On many fronts IVAW along with Civ-Sol are pushing forward in a much more strategic, intentional and sustainable way that has the potential to organize a broad-based peace movement led by veterans and GI’s capable of shifting the power relations that prioritize poverty, profit and killing at the expense of fair development and dignified healing. Here I offer what I believe to be key considerations to aid these two groups in leading such a movement; only some of which I will explore in more depth.

As it stands, both organizations identify the core of their strategic visions’ to be an end to the military war and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. This has and may continue to be a barrier for them as a long-standing effective organizations. As mentioned earlier, wars can be ended rather abruptly by Presidents and perception management my mass media as evidenced with President Barack Obama “ending” the war in Iraq. Once a war has been ended, the mission of the organization has been achieved and is no longer needed. I would like to see these organizations still around in thirty years; not because the U.S is still in Iraq and Afghanistan, but because they fight for the human rights of veterans and build power to transform national priorities toward peace and reconciliation. Therefore, it proves crucial that IVAW think bigger and more long-term to achieve such goals.

Great efforts are being made to pursue a transformative organizing model, where people engage in struggle not out of self-interest (transactional model), but to participate in collective struggle for something much larger then themselves. To take this a step further, a key lesson of the United Workers is to also organize through universal transformative values that unify and speak to a larger struggle of working toward realizing the full human potential of all (values of respect, dignity and sanctity of life). In heeding this lesson, the base of members and leaders of veterans and civilians could expand greatly beyond ideology of pro-war/anti-war and connect with people around shared values and cultural codes.

The last two points I will not develop, but still think are important, namely in relation to campaigning.

Already in the works, the two groups should continue to prioritize critical reflection and analysis especially in the early stages of the campaign and as they test out their new organizing models. This is not to say action should be superseded, but that in order to learn from action, reflection must be present.

Lastly, to have a robust public campaign–taking lessons from the CIW and United Workers–a well constructed campaign narrative can help make a struggle epic, historical and winnable.

Conclusion

 I am truly hopeful and inspired by the work and leadership of IVAW and Civ-Sol and believe they can be the new and needed leadership of a vibrant peace movement in the U.S. Additionally, they are taking calculated and intentional steps toward fulfilling that role.  There is a deep interest and acknowledgement of the need for sound strategy (not in the rhetorical sense) and focus their efforts to develop leaders from the ranks of veterans. They aptly view campaigning as a medium in which to focus them, develop leaders and construct the terrain in which to engage in struggle and deepen the commitment of their members. If they continue along this path and take the time for critical reflection they will move from being a reactive anti-war force, to an offensive force of visioning and creation of a more just, humane and dignified order not solely for veterans and service-members, but for all, home and abroad.

Greg Rosenthal is a human rights organizer and educator in Baltimore, a Leadership Organizer with the United Workers and Grad student at he University of Maryland Baltimore.