Moment of Truth (For the Anti-American Left)(Horowitz on the Aftermath of the De Genova Remarks)

Every movement has its moment of truth. At an "anti-war" teach-in at Columbia last week, Anthropology professor Nicholas De Genova told 3,000 students and faculty, "Peace is not patriotic. Peace is subversive, because peace anticipates a very different world than the one in which we live--a world where the U.S. would have no place."

De Genova continued: "The only true heroes are those who find ways that help defeat the U.S. military. I personally would like to see a million Mogadishus."¹ This was a reference to the ambush of U.S. forces by an al-Qaeda warlord in Somalia in 1993. The Americans were there on a humanitarian mission to feed starving Somali Muslims. The al-Qaeda warlord was stealing the food and selling it on the black market. His forces killed 18 American soldiers and dragged their bodies through the streets in an act designed to humiliate their country. In short, America can do no good, and nothing that is done to America can be worse than it deserves.

The best that could be said of the crowd of Columbia faculty and students is that they did not react to Mogadishu remark (perhaps they did not know what "Mogadishu" referred to). But they "applauded loudly," when the same professor said, "If we really [believe] that this war is criminal ... then we have to believe in the victory of the Iraqi people and the defeat of the U.S. war machine."²

In other words, the American left as represented by faculty and students at one of the nation’s most elite universities wants America to lose the war with the terrorist and fascist regime in Baghdad. In shorts, the crowd might just have well applauded the professor’s first statement as well.

The phrase "a million Mogadishus," has a resonance for those of us who participated in an earlier leftist "peace" movement, during the war in Indochina. In 1967, at the height of the conflict, the Cuban Communist leader, Che Guevara (still an icon among radicals today) called on revolutionaries all over the world "to create…two, three, many Vietnams," to defeat the American enemy. It was the Sixties version of a call for jihad.

In the late Sixties, I was the editor of Ramparts, the largest magazine of the New Left and I edited a book of anti-American essays with the same title, Two, Three, Many Vietnams. Tom Hayden a leader of the New Left (later a Democratic State Senator and activist against the war in Iraq) used the same slogan as he called for armed uprisings inside the United States. In 1962, as a Marxist radical, I myself had helped to organize the first protest against the war in Vietnam at the University of California, Berkeley. At the time, America had only 300 "advisers" in Vietnam, who were seeking to prevent the Communist gulag that was to come. John F. Kennedy was President and had been invited to speak on the campus. We picketed his appearance. Our slogan was, "Kennedy’s Three R’s: Radiation, Reaction and Repression." We didn’t want peace in Vietnam. We wanted a revolution in America.

But we were clever. Or rather, we got smarter. We realized we couldn’t attract large numbers of people by revealing our deranged fantasies about America (although that of course is not how we would have looked at them). We realized that we needed the support of a lot of Americans who would never agree with our real agendas if we were going to influence the course of the war. So we changed our slogan to "Bring the Troops Home." That seemed to express care for Americans while accomplishing the same goal. If America brought her troops home in the middle of the war, the Communists would win. Which is exactly what happened.

The nature of the movement that revealed itself at Columbia is the same. When the Mogadishu remark was made, it was as if the devil had inadvertently exposed his horns, and someone needed to put a hat over them before others realized it. That someone was the demonstration organizer, Professor Eric Foner, the prestigious head of Columbia’s history department. Actually, when Foner spoke after De Genova at the teach-in, he failed to find the Mogadishu remark offensive. Instead Foner dissociated himself from another De Genova comment to the effect that all Americans who described themselves as "patriotic," were actually "white supremacists."

But the next day when a reporter from New York NewsDay called Foner, the professor realized that the Mogadishu remark had caused some trouble. When asked now about the statement he said it was "idiotic." He told the reporter, "I thought that was completely uncalled for. We do not desire the deaths of American soldiers." Foner did not say (and was not asked) how he thought organizing an anti-American demonstration to protest America’s war in Iraq and express the hope that we lose would not encourage the enemy and possibly lead to American deaths.

Eric Foner is the scion of a family of American Communists (and American Communist leaders) at that. In the Sixties he was an anti-American Stalinist. After the terrorist attacks of 9/11, he wrote a piece in the London Review of Books saying, "I’m not sure which is more frightening: the horror that engulfed New York City or the apocalyptic rhetoric emanating daily from the White House." After receiving much adverse reaction, he wrote a self-exculpatory piece for The New York Times explaining that his uncertainty was actually patriotic.

Eric Foner’s cover-up reflects a powerful tactical current in the movement to derail America’s war in Iraq. Until now, the largest organization behind this movement has been "International ANSWER," which thanks in part to the efforts of the War Room and www.frontpagemag.com has been revealed as front for a Marxist-Leninist party with ties to the Communist regime in North Korea. According to a comprehensive (but partisan and sympathetic) report in The New York Times,³ some factions of the left became disturbed that the overtly radical slogans of the International ANSWER protests were "counter-productive." Last fall, they met in the offices of People For The American Way to create a new umbrella organization called United for Peace and Justice that would present a more palatable face to the American public.

As it happens, the name of the new organization was similar to that of one of the two main groups behind the national protests of the anti-Vietnam movement. It was called the People’s Coalition for Peace and Justice and it was a run by the American Communist Party. (As it happens, the other organizer of the national demonstrations was the MOBE, which was run by the Trotskyist Communist Party.)

The groups that People for the American Way assembled to create the new Iraq protest organization picked Leslie Cagan to be its leader. Cagan is a veteran of the old Vietnam left -- a pro-Castro radical who was still a member of the Communist Party after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Ms. Cagan’s politics were no less radical and anti-American than International ANSWER's. But Leslie Cagan understood the problem of too much candor. "If we’re going to be a force that needs to be listened to by our elected officials, by the media," Ms. Cagan told the Times, "our movement needs to reflect the population." In other words, we have to keep our horns hidden. According to the Times, since that meeting, the left has been hiring Madison Avenue firms to shape its messages and has been putting up billboards with the slogan "Peace Is Patriotic" to make its point.

At the Columbia teach-in, Professor Foner had this to say about patriotism. "I refuse to cede the definition of American patriotism to George W. Bush," Foner said, drawing a cheer from the audience. "I have a different definition of patriotism, which comes from Paul Robeson: The patriot is the person who is never satisfied with his country." It’s true that Paul Robeson was never satisfied with his country. He was an icon (and member) of the American Communist Party, who received a Stalin Peace Prize from the dictator himself. ⁴

The war in America’s streets is not about "peace" or "more time for inspections." It is about which side should lose the war we are now in. The left has made crystal clear its desire that the loser should be us. Even if the left had not made this explicit, a "peace" movement directed at one side makes sense only as an effort to force that side to retreat from the battle and lose the war. Which is exactly what the Columbia professor said. If this is patriotism, what is treason?

3. Kate Zernike and Dean E. Murphy, "Antiwar Movement Morphs From Wild-Eyed to Civil," NYT, March 29, 2003, B1.

The Next "Peace" Protest Will Be Brought to You By a Castro Groupie
By John Perazzo
FrontPageMagazine.com | February 11, 2003

On February 15, many thousands of protesters will assemble within sight of the United Nations building in New York to express their opposition to a war in Iraq. Their efforts will be duplicated in some 300 additional cities throughout North America, Latin America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. This will be the first such protest not organized by the Workers World Party (WWP), an energetic Marxist-Leninist organization that openly supports Kim Jong Il’s brutal dictatorship in North Korea. Instead, it will be run by a group called United For Peace and Justice (UFPJ), whose co-chair Leslie Cagan is an enthusiastic, longtime supporter of yet another Communist despot, Fidel Castro.

Given the manner in which the major media report the contemporary "peace" movement’s activities, the average American would never suspect that it is in fact a movement dominated the selfsame Communists that once marched in support of Stalin, Mao, the Vietcong, the Sandinista Marxists, and the Communist guerrillas in El Salvador; the same America-loathing radicals who, because they passionately deem America the root of all evil in the world, now support Kim and Castro.

A featured speaker at last month’s massive "peace" rally in Washington, for instance, angrily denounced the "American imperialism" supposedly underlying our country’s "war against the people of Iraq, and the people of Palestine, Colombia, and the world." And he had plenty of company; there was nary a word uttered about any threat posed by Saddam Hussein – let alone the Palestinian suicide bombers or the communist guerrillas in Colombia. In the eyes of such "anti-war" orators and their enthusiastic audiences, America is always the problem, regardless of the setting or the time.

The media, however, do not mention such things. They show only the surface of the movement, flashing images of spirited marchers with their placards and pithy slogans that decry America’s "cowboy" mentality. Citing the large numbers of such demonstrators, liberal defenders of the "peace" movement contend that it is "broadening" to include many who cannot be described as "hate-America" Leftists like Ramsey Clark or Noam Chomsky.

But in order to understand the mind of any movement, we must acquaint ourselves with its leaders, those individuals whose ideas animate the masses that follow them. Consider the aforementioned Leslie Cagan. She is a socialist and longtime activist who, during the past thirty years, has mobilized millions of demonstrators in rallies denouncing our nation’s foreign policies; its military-related spending; and its purportedly virulent racism, sexism, and homophobia. She is a die-hard, pro-Communist radical who proudly aligns her politics with those of Communist Cuba.

Yet a February 4 New York Times puff piece benignly heralded Cagan as "one of the grandes dames of the country’s progressive movement," a woman whose "organizational skills are prodigious." Predictably, there was no mention that Cagan has consistently lavished praise upon Castro’s Cuba, which she considers a far better place than the United States. During her seven years as director of the Cuba Information Project, she led numerous demonstrations demanding that the US end its economic embargo of, and travel ban to, Cuba. "In the winter of 1969-70," Cagan fondly recalls, "I spent over two months with the First Venceremos Brigade in Cuba. Just ten years into their revolution, the Cubans had taken control of their history. . . . While we were in Cuba, Fred Hampton and other Chicago Black Panthers were murdered. It was a shocking reminder of the brutality and power of the US government, and there we were in Cuba, a whole nation under attack from the US. As Brigadistas we were taking a risk traveling in defiance of Washington’s travel ban, but we knew the risk was small compared to what Cubans and so many others around the world faced every day."

In short, Cagan candidly sides with Castro’s Communist regime rather than with the United States, which she deems the world’s foremost terrorist nation. The Venceremos Brigades with which she proudly associated were in fact organized by Castro’s Cuban intelligence agency, which went so far as to train some "brigadistas" in guerrilla warfare techniques, including the use of arms and explosives.

Cagan’s pro-Castro rallies were supported by such socialist organizations as Casa de las Americas, the Communist Party, the Socialist Workers Party, the Venceremos Brigades, the Workers World Party, and the Young Socialists. Cagan herself was an original founder of the Committees of Correspondence, a splinter group rooted in the Communist Party USA. Joining the chorus of her fellow leaders in the "peace" movement, she condemns what she calls America’s "daily assaults and attacks on poor and working people, on women, people of color, lesbians/gays and other sexual minorities, the disabled and so many others, [and] such foreign policy matters as . . . military actions and economic sanctions."

In February 1996 at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, the National Network on Cuba (NNOC), of which Cagan was a national co-chair, sponsored a public forum that featured an address by Angela Sanbrano of the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador (CISPES), which was affiliated with the Communist guerrilla movement in that country. Another guest speaker was the Cuban revolutionary José Luis Ponce, who appeared on stage with an admiring Cagan. Ponce extolled the enormous social gains that Castro’s revolution had brought to Cuba. As the socialist publication The Militant paraphrased it, Ponce lauded the revolution for its opposition to "the legacy of US domination - a legacy of unemployment, absence of health care for millions especially in the countryside, illiteracy, racism and the super-exploitation of women." He further predicted, quite happily, that "a fight for socialism" would re-emerge in Russia. To all these assertions, Cagan nodded with approval.

Not surprisingly, Cagan firmly opposes our government’s contemplated war against Iraq, which she characterizes as nothing more than a thinly veiled oil grab. "Oil is not worth war!" screams Cagan’s UFPJ Website. "How much is the Bush administration’s push for war with Iraq motivated by its desire to gain control of Iraq’s oil fields?" On February 4 in Charlotte, North Carolina, UFPJ sponsored a "No War For Oil" protest held symbolically in front of a Texaco location.

In attributing nefarious motives to US military ventures, Cagan continues a long Leftist tradition. In the 1960s, for example, it was commonplace for the Left to assert that the US was sending troops to Southeast Asia merely to secure mineral rights in South Vietnam for American corporations. As Stokely Carmichael put it at the time, our 58,000 dead soldiers were sacrificed merely "to serve the economic interests of American businessmen who are in Vietnam solely to exploit the tungsten, tin, and oil."

Following President Bush’s recent State of the Union address, Cagan said, "George Bush again tried to make his case against Iraq and he failed." "Such a war [in Iraq]," she contends, "undoubtedly threatens to unleash an escalating and uncontrollable cycle of violence, death and destruction." Of course, she does not express the barest hint of concern that Saddam’s regime, which has blatantly defied the conditions of UN Resolution 1441, poses a threat to American security. In the eyes of Cagan and her ilk, the principal enemy of world peace is the United States.

But we ought not be surprised that the very people who opposed military action against the al Qaeda-harboring Taliban should now oppose military action against a monster that has yet to strike with its full measure of ferocity. Last summer, Cagan joined such notable critics of America as Noam Chomsky, Ed Asner, Medea Benjamin, Gloria Steinem, Ossie Davis, and Michael Ratner in signing the infamous "Not In Our Name" (NION) statement denouncing America’s declared war against terror, which began in Afghanistan.

"Let it not be said," read the NION document, "that people in the United States did nothing when their government declared a war without limit and instituted stark new measures of repression. The signers of this statement call on the people of the US to resist the policies and overall political direction that have emerged since September 11 and which pose grave dangers to the people of the world." "We believe," added the NION signatories, "that peoples and nations have the right to determine their own destiny, free from military coercion by great powers." Given the context in which it was used, that may well be the most inane sentence ever put to paper. Asserting that the US possessed no moral authority to annihilate the Taliban, it implied that that privilege rested with the same Afghan people who lived powerlessly under the Taliban’s brutal oppression. By the same token, we are apparently expected to believe that the Iraqi people have it within their power to dethrone a dictator who, during his twenty-four-year reign, has imprisoned, maimed, and murdered hundreds of thousands of actual and suspected political opponents.

Perhaps the most noxious element of the "peace" crowd’s message is its pathetic lack of viable alternatives. Cagan, for instance, boasts that "while organizing against the Gulf War in 1990/1991 . . . I coordinated the National Campaign for Peace in the Middle East, [whose] primary focus . . . was trying to stop the mad rush to war by the US government." The historical record shows that more than five months elapsed between Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait and the start of the Gulf War, during which Saddam defied repeated ultimatums to withdraw his troops as a means of averting a coalition attack. Thus it is utterly obscene to depict America’s actions as a "mad rush to war." While Cagan and her cronies self-righteously stand around bleating for peaceful resolutions to international conflicts, the armies of dictators who haven’t the slightest desire for peace can swallow up entire nations.

Cagan is never at a loss for words when presented with an opportunity to denounce America and applaud Communist regimes and their support groups. Indeed she cheered last month’s "peace" rally in Washington, sponsored by International A.N.S.W.E.R., which is closely allied with the WWP, which in turn avidly backs Kim Jong Il’s regime in North Korea. "This is A.N.S.W.E.R.’s dance, and they get to call the tune," Cagan said. "We are at a point where it is really, really critical that many, many groups come out and voice their opposition to this war. Some in the hard-core Left have taken the lead on that, and I applaud those groups for that." Stalinist Communist parties have always had their own "peace" fronts, a tradition that the WWP, Leslie Cagan, and other prime movers of the anti-war movement now continue.

Some readers may find it difficult to believe that the WWP does, in fact, support the murderous North Korean government which has not only exterminated hundreds of thousands in concentration camps, but has poured all available resources into a military buildup while some two million people died of starvation. Yet on July 9, 1994, WWP chairman Sam Marcy wrote to "Dear Comrade Kim Jong Il," extending the organization’s "deepest condolences" on the death of Kim’s father, "the great leader of the Korean people, Comrade President Kim Il Sung."

Marcy eulogized the elder Kim for having "devoted his whole life to the Korean people’s struggle for national self-determination and the international working-class struggle for socialist emancipation. With his leadership, the Korean people . . . brought about the first defeat of the US imperialist military machine. . . . Comrade Kim Il Sung worked tirelessly to bring about the peaceful reunification of Korea and to forge a lasting peace on the peninsula. . . . It is Kim Il Sung’s remarkable achievement that in his own lifetime he became a symbol of national liberation and reunification for the Korean people, and a symbol of the anti-imperialist and socialist struggles of all the world’s peoples. Although US imperialism tried at every opportunity to blockade, threaten and sabotage the construction of socialism in the north, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea stands strong. . . . Workers World Party [is] proud to have known Kim Il Sung as a great leader and a comrade in the international communist movement."

Obviously, it isn’t really the concept of "war" that Leslie Cagan and her fellow Communists oppose, but only war that seeks to protect the interests of the United States. As National Review Online recently reported, the WWP has in the past "supported the Soviet interventions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the Chinese government’s crackdown in Tiananmen Square," and today "devotes much of its energy to supporting the regimes in Iraq and North Korea."

At the aforementioned Washington demonstration, virtually every featured speaker invoked standard Communist rhetoric glorifying the "struggle" of their "comrades" to mount a "revolution" to "liberate" the "oppressed peoples" suffering under American "imperialism." They displayed placards bearing slogans like, "Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld: The Real Axis of Evil." Such is the mindset of Leslie Cagan and her fellow leaders of the "peace" movement. Their devotion to genuine peace is much like Yasser Arafat’s; they exploit the rhetoric of peace while working feverishly toward a very different agenda.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.