Despite media reports to the contrary, significant differences exist between the 1991 anti-war movement and that of the 1960s. Protesters today are organizing against a policy they believe is wrong while trying to support the soldiers who are carrying out the policy. Much of the credit for this subtle but important difference goes to the Military Families Support Network, an organization opposed to the Gulf war which is made up of people with relatives serving there.
On August 23, 1990, soon after U.S. troops were ordered into the Middle East, Alex Molnar wrote an open letter to President Bush in The New York Times titled "If My Marine Son Is Killed." A professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Molnar mailed a letter and launched a movement. He is national co-chair of the Military Families Support Network.
Beth Rosales, a longtime activist from the Philippines, has a brother in the Army Reserves. His number came up, and now he's in the Gulf. Once again Rosales is demonstrating her opposition to a destructive U.S. foreign policy, this time through her involvement in the Support Network.
Judy Davenport is national co-chair and South Carolina state chair of the Military Families Support Network. She delivered the following testimony before Rep. Lane Evans' (D-Ill.) House forum on January 14, 1991, the day before the war began.
Both Molnar and Rosales were interviewed in mid-February by Bob Hulteen, who himself has a nephew, Lance Corp. Matthew Johnson, currently in California awaiting orders to be sent to the Gulf.
'If My Marine Son is Killed'
An Interview with Alex Molnar
Sojourners: Soon after President Bush committed U.S. troops to Saudi Arabia, claiming the protection of that country from Iraqi aggression, you wrote a letter to the president expressing your horror at the thought of military action. The letter seemed to speak powerfully to a large and very diverse group of people. Why do you think the letter engaged and energized so many people, turning them from non-activists to activists?
Alex Molnar: I think it put a human face on the disaster facing us. It combined a very personal statement about what my loss could be as a result of armed conflict in the Persian Gulf with an analysis of why this conflict is unnecessary and a bad idea. It also fixed the responsibility, both in the general political sense and in a very personal sense, squarely on George Bush.
We've got in excess of 5,000 names [of supporters of the Military Families Support Network] in our computer in Milwaukee, and we have more people joining all the time. We have state chairs in 46 states plus the District of Columbia.
If we just had the money available to the emir of Kuwait. In the period leading up to the president's launching of the American attack, the emir hired 20 legal and public relations firms. They ran full-page ads in newspapers, they did television and radio commercials, and they even made bumper stickers and distributed T-shirts on college campuses.
The American people have been turned into a David confronting the Goliath of our own government, allied with the emir of Kuwait. We made a commercial expressing our concerns for the troops in the Gulf, but all of the network affiliates and CNN turned us down.
CNN said it wasn't in their interest to do it, and the guy from the NBC affiliate was a little bit more pompous. He wrote and said that our commercial was inflammatory, that they felt they needed to treat the subject in a balanced and evenhanded way, and that that could only be done at greater length in their news and public-affairs programming. But people such as me and our organization don't get invited to This Week With David Brinkley or Face the Nation or Meet The Press. You get this sort of non-stop circle of the same people commenting on each other and how smart they are.
Do you know the carnival game where those ducks on a conveyer belt disappear from sight on one side and emerge again at the other end? That's what the public affairs programs are like. So, on the one hand, we can't buy time, even if we can raise the money. On the other hand, we are simply not represented because we aren't what they consider "expert opinion." That's the Catch-22 position in which our government and so-called opinion leaders have placed the American people.
Sojourners: The Military Families Support Network has entered the fray over the war in a unique way. What are your goals and hopes, and how can the rest of the peace movement get involved with your activities?
Molnar: The purpose is relatively uncomplicated. For one thing, everyone we have on our mailing list has read my letter. It serves almost as a statement of philosophy for the organization, even though we are not a membership organization.
The other thing is that the objectives and goals have not changed and are very clear. That is, we try to support the soldiers and their families in every way we can. One of those ways is, now, trying to end the war in the Persian Gulf.
We have increased the meaning of the word "support" from trying to prevent the war to providing practical assistance to military family members and working legislatively on military welfare issues. When the soldiers come home from the Persian Gulf, we want them to have a more secure future than the veterans of Vietnam have had.
We're putting a lot of heat on Congress. We've supported Rep. Barbara Boxer's (D-Calif.) legislation to take people out of the danger areas in some cases -- either when both parents are there to take one out of the danger areas, or to take a single parent out of the danger areas. Sen. George Mitchell (D-Maine) has appointed a task force on military family concerns, and we're working with the members of that task force.
Rep. Jim Moody (D-Wis.) has introduced a joint resolution calling for the reinstitution of the military honors accorded soldiers' bodies when they are returned to Dover [Air Force Base], and we were very active in pushing for that.
I think the peace movement could get involved in supporting the troops by helping us. When we need to organize to put pressure on representatives and senators regarding military family issues, established peace groups could stand with us in our demands.
My son is a decent, honorable young man who is living up to a commitment he had made, and he's not about to let down the men and women he serves with. That's generally true of our soldiers.
These young men and women are proud to be soldiers, quite irrespective of their personal feeling with regard to the conflict. They believe, with justice, that they're doing something honorable by serving in the armed forces.
Sojourners: Is it true that the Military Families Support Network wouldn't say that it has a position on war in general, but only a position on this war?
Molnar: Yes. We have a very narrow focus, which is one of the reasons why we draw so many people to us -- Republicans and Democrats and people from all walks of life.
The network is not anti-military. If anything it is pro-military, and we have a lot of military people in our group. The group is also not anti-war, because most of the people believe that you can fight a war at some time and some place.
We are anti-Operation Desert Shield and Storm as the administration has constructed it. Our focus has become one simple criteria: Does this war advance the welfare of the people of the United States, or does it retard the welfare of the people of the United States? Our answer is that it retards the welfare of the people of the United States, so we shouldn't do it.
Sojourners: What has been the response from families in the military that wouldn't join your organization? Do they ignore you, by and large, or have you been condemned by some military families?
Molnar: I haven't heard any condemnation. I think we're a very healing group. We're not combative or confrontive with people who are in the same boat as we. We enable people to set aside false issues of whether or not a person is a good American, whether or not a person cares about the soldiers, and just talk about the policy. In some ways we are able to defuse conflict that otherwise would polarize people.
Sojourners: How do the folks in the service react to their families being involved with your organization?
Molnar: Most of them are very, very supportive. There doesn't seem to be any feeling that what we are doing is somehow hurting our loved ones' morale or anything like that.
My son was able to get a hold of me several weeks back to wish me a happy birthday. He told me again how proud he is of what I'm doing, and how the guys in his tent are rooting for me. Lots of men and women there are very happy that there's a group like ours.
Sojourners: What are some things individuals can do?
Molnar: We're an organization that works primarily through the existing political process. Right now we're proposing the "First Order of Business" campaign.
We're asking everyone to pledge that every day between now and when the war ends, they will call their representative and senators at their district office, give their full name, address, and phone number, and ask the simple question, "What has the representative or senator done today to stop the war in the Persian Gulf?" And then request a written reply. It is nonviolent, it is respectful, and it is within the boundaries of American political discourse.
Sojourners: Thus far, what is your experience of political involvement related to stopping a war you don't believe in?
Molnar: The experience of doing this reaffirms my faith in this country and in the people of this country. It has become clear to me that the major difficulty we're facing now has nothing to do with the ideological differences between Republicans and Democrats. It has to do with a group of people -- members of Congress and the Senate, the people in the executive branch, the so-called "opinion leaders" -- attaching themselves to the institutions of our democracy like barnacles to a pier piling.
This war represents the people of the United States versus their own government. What we're engaged in now is a struggle over the soul of this country, and the vitality of our democratic institutions into the next century. The American people are trying to protect our own soldiers from our own government.
Finding Solace and Strength
An interview with Beth Rosales
Sojourners: Many of the people in the Military Families Support Network are new to activism, but you are not. How does your experience in social change movements influence the way you perceive the war?
Rosales: My family came to the United States in the early 1900s, well before most Filipino immigrants, who came after 1961. The kids came one at a time, and I came in 1965. I grew up in the Monterey-Salinas, California area. Fort Ord is there, so there were a lot of protests.
We never really joined them, partly because we were an immigrant family and partly because our parents probably wouldn't have let us. But frankly, it was mostly because we were working. Activism was not really part of our day-to-day schedule. In college I got involved in ethnic studies and learned about history. Out of that, I decided to become a social worker, so I could work in the community.
Sojourners: With the eyes of a social worker, you probably see the effects of the Gulf war at home -- what it means in neighborhoods.
Rosales: The first Marines killed from New York were from the South Bronx, and I don't think that was an accident. Clearly a lot of poor kids have joined the military. I would say even those who joined the military reserves were joining either for additional income or for tuition.
My brother -- whom I've raised since my parents' death when he was an infant -- wanted to go back to school after two years of not being in school. He wanted to learn a vocation. From his recruiter's point of view, the way to do that was to join up. A lot of kids joined up for tuition.
My brother's income also is important to our family income. That's the case for other families, too, especially single mothers relying on their son's income. It's not just supplemental income for the soldier, but for the larger family. That doesn't come through when people say, "Well, they signed up for the military, they knew they would eventually go to war." That's too simplistic.
In the South Bronx, there are blocks and blocks of boarded-up buildings. That's the war at home. We have one member in the New York chapter [of the Military Families Support Network] who has two sons. One of his sons was shot in his neighborhood, so he thought the military was his other son's way out. There are a lot of stories like that.
The Support Network is a place to share the pain and disillusionment. We have what we call a comfort and support group similar to other military family groups. We share letters and information.
The network has become an extended family in many ways. For example, when I found out that my best friend's son was shot, I hit bottom. All of my polemics came home to roost, and I felt totally despondent, totally helpless. The knowledge of other families in it with me really helped.
The network is also a place of solace when families hear people rallying around the president. We find a disquieting comfort together. A straight political organization may not provide this type of holistic approach. We have a visceral notion of opposition to the war and can articulate it without using slogans.
People find strength to oppose the war, and to speak to the media, to churches, and in schools. Now the military is having reservists go to schools to explain the war, so we're asking for equal time.
Sojourners: As someone familiar with activist groups, what is your opinion of the style of organizing used by the Military Families Support Network?
Rosales: It really is a network, rather than an organization with a national body, which allows for more regional diversity. For example, in Texas they do things very differently from the folks in North Carolina, where a group of mostly men meet in the laundromat and wash their clothes together. Some chapters are very involved in congressional work, writing letters every day to the president and their congressional representatives to ask what they have done to stop the war.
We don't quite do that in New York. We're a group of mostly women, but it is not a "women's" group. Our meetings have the flavor of Baptist church services, with testimonies, and we include silence like the Quakers do. We have also added the cultural flavor of our Latino members.
We're able to direct people to necessary services and to the churches, and we're also able to do advocacy work. Historically, groups have done only advocacy work or only service work. You can't really cut people's needs that way all the time.
Sojourners: As I listen to you, I'm thinking about the kind of values you take into this situation as opposed to the values of the people who are making the decisions to go to war and to continue the war.
Rosales: That is what's so tragic in this war -- seeing the values and language of what I call the militarization of our society. I know that sounds smug, but the cultural violence of this country often comes out in the briefings by generals -- who are not, by the way, out there in the sand.
And we hear military analysts say that the United States air war has a 40 percent error rate. Where does that 40 percent go? Iraq is not an unpopulated country.
What is really scary is the impact on kids seeing the intensity of war on television. These are the values we're extending to the children: Our highest achievements are these sophisticated weapons.
The Middle East is a region, a people, and a culture that we know very little about. We know nothing about their history. Some people say, "What if we don't win?" I think we've already lost by rushing into the war.
Speaking as an immigrant from the Philippines, I think there is a rightful concern about the "imperialist power" of the United States. The United States clearly dominates society in the Philippines, never giving it a chance to develop its own indigenous culture. We were colonized by Spain and the United States. My Spanish name signifies the colonial nature of my country.
Sojourners: Do you have a vision for how the Persian Gulf situation will be resolved? What's your sense of the future?
Rosales: The people in the Military Families Support Network have thought about the issues seriously before speaking out against the war. It took six months to get our kids over there, and there were only six hours of dialogue. It will require more than that to have a true dialogue. That seems reasonable, doesn't it?
'We Say No'
Capitol Hill testimony by Judy Davenport
Mr. Evans, my name is Judy Davenport, and I am the national co-chair of the Military Families Support Network. I am the wife and mother of two men who are proudly serving in the United States Navy. I live on the Naval Weapons Station in Goose Creek, South Carolina.
I am here today to thank you for your vote and to thank you for the chance to tell you that America is not ready to fight and die in the Persian Gulf. We learned from the experience of the war in Vietnam that the people must be committed before you commit the troops.
The vote last Friday showed clearly that the people are seriously divided on the question of sending our troops to die in the Gulf. When asked if they would support a war in the Persian Gulf, many Americans said yes. When asked if they would support a war if 1,000 troops would die, most Americans said no. When asked if they could support a war in which they knew 10,000 Americans would die, 63 percent said no.
We are the families of the people who will die, and we say no.
Congress has disregarded the will of the people. Many members of Congress have admitted that despite overwhelming mail opposing the president's policy, they chose to support the president instead of representing the people. The congressional vote is a betrayal of the trust that my husband and son placed in our government when they took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States.
We went into this life of service to our country with our eyes wide open to the sacrifices we might be asked to make. We did not, however, join the military to restore the emir of Kuwait to his throne. As one soldier said, "I joined the Army to defend my country. I did not know the Army was for rent." No one has been able to give me a credible reason for the massive deployment of American troops. I don't know what we could win, but I do know what we might lose. This represents the only interest we have in the Middle East.
Mr. Evans, I am asking you to lead your colleagues in the House and Senate In ensuring that the president exhausts every available peaceful means to settle this crisis. We need your help to bring my son and husband, and all the other loved ones, home alive.
Got something to say about what you're reading? We value your feedback!