Ok first let me make this very very clear. I am not "Pro War". War is a terrible thing, that causes untold hardship and should only be entered into for the most serious of reasons. Even if the reasons for entering into a war are good, if you begin a conflict without clear objectives, goals or some cohesive measurement of victory, then you have not adequately prepared for war, and you're pissing away lives for no reason. There are many presidents that are guilty of this. From the airstrike happy Clinton, to the Great Communicator himself, many Presidents have been guilty of sending troops into harms way without proper Force Pro or clear Objectives. It is not a recent development, but as no one really bothers to study American history past the 20th Century I am left with the latter half of the 20th century to talk about, which everyone "knows"
Lets face it, the current Anti-War "movement" (and I use that term very loosely) has its genesis in the Anti-War movement of the 60's and 70's. There are a lot of aging hippies that are trying to bring back the "Good Old Days" like Medea Benjamin, Amy Goodman, Bill Ayers and his wife, and certain other notables. They have enlisted certain disenfranchised or embittered veterans, or college students who haven't really ever had to deal with the consequences of their actions, or even shiftless drifters looking for something to latch onto. The problem with this movement is that a large percentage of the country remembers how the hippies tried (and nearly did) rip this country apart. It has soiled a lot of their once allies and advocates. It also doesn't help that a lot of the Early peacenicks actually have power now. It kinda makes protesting, and "fighting the Power" hard, when your people are the ones with so much power.
To be clear, there are people who are strict pacifists. I have no problem with said people. I think their naive, but if they hold a deeply held belief that all conflict is wrong then I will not make a moral judgement upon them. Unfortunately that is not the case. Take Code Pink. I first became aware of them it 2007, when I watched the Petraus hearings live in Baghdad. Now Code Pink is a feminist Anti-War group that took their name from the old (and fictional) color coding of military alertness. It really wouldn't make much sense if they called themselves DEFCON 1, so that's probably why they used the Movie version. It also has the tragically ironic coincidence of being the Code that Hospitals call for Missing/Kidnapped babies (you can now spend hours wrapping your mind around that one. Somehow I think they didn't think this one through all the way).
What did they do to earn my Ire. Well aside from spreading the "General Betray-Us" flyers and pamphlets, they would also stand up in the middle of live, televised senate and house hearings, and scream all sorts of obscenities, dressed like fruit cakes. Keep in mind I was watching this in Baghdad. How many people around the world do you think saw Americans acting like perfect jack asses. Never mind the painfully obvious leading questions Senators and Representatives would ask. It only gets worse from there. From naked or near naked protests (trust me something you don't want to see) to running up to Condalisa Rice with red paint on their hands (trying to insinuate there's blood on their hands) the theatrics and hysterics are too much for me, and really trash the whole process, I get protest, but these hags obviously do not realize there is a line, that ought not be crossed. From trying to shout down (with pointless chanting) speakers, to spreading falshoods about what's going on, Code Pink has pulled out all the stops to get attention.
Perhaps the worst part, though is that this is not about the actual war. Its perfectly fine apparently for them to support supposed "Aid" convoys to Palestine (in truth full of weapons), because apparently Israel is being a Bully. How a country that is daily being threatened with total annihilation is a bully is still not clear to me. During the "Arab Spring" they actually had to be saved by those "evil" contractors, who literally saved them from rape. Not a word of thanks.
How about IVAW (Iraq Vets Against the War). It is clear that it was modeled on VVAW, and indeed it followed some of the unsavory practices when they attempted to repeat the unqualified "success" of Winter Soldier. The uniquely named "Winter Soldier II" put on by IVAW, with greatly exaggerated stories of "atrocities" and pointless displays of disdain, like throwing one's medals (symbolically) away. You'd never even know that a lot of the "Veterans" of the Iraq war had never actually been to Iraq, and those that had been, there were only a very few that were actually in combat arms. Ironically enough the same thing happened during the original Winter Soldier, which testimony (or at least the cliff notes) were taken before Congress by John Kerry. Yes that John Kerry.
IVAW is somewhat laughable though, because even after 8 years of war there were only about 1.5 million people who ever deployed to Iraq in any capacity. where as people could actually believe that there were so many disaffected Vietnam vets (seeing as they were about 12% of the US population, chances are you might have actually known someone that was a Vietnam Vet), and worse yet for the (bowel) Movement, people seem to actually like Soldiers. The image of Soldiers as the "Victims" or "Baby Rapists/Killers" are mutually exclusive (though it is interesting how they try to link the two) , so there are issues with their take on the war. It also doesn't help that with alternative media, it's almost impossible for a single source to call the war "unwinnable". The fact that the main faces are also constantly being called out for their "errors" adds greatly to the "clown" factor.
I could detail the laughable off shoots, like Under the Hood. I could talk about how they very nearly aided the Nasser Abdo, when he tried to repeat Maj. Hassan's actions. I could talk about Cindy Sheehan who took her very real tragedy, the loss of her son, to make her a central figure in the anti-war movement. It was almost forgotten that she and Cassey Sheehan had almost no contact after he joined the Army. I could talk about how she skirted the line of the law as much as she could, and tried to get as many soldiers at Ft Hood to deserters or get CO status. I don't mind if you really do have a change of heart and want to get CO status, but trying to get Privates who don't know any better anyway some (really bad) Barracks Lawyer advise on exactly how to get out of going to Iraq (and sadly more than one dumb-ass private took the bait and paid for it with his/her career).
No I could talk about all of that, but I want to leave you with this thought: "Truth is the first casualty of war". I find it interesting that the Anti-War movement is far more willing to indulge in "subjective" truth, than the actual war fighters. If they are so willing to Lie, What then are their ulterior motives? If they are so narcissistic, and the flunkies are so fanatic, what else might be going on there? We've given the War so much scrutiny, and those who "support" it and the troops that fight it. Why haven't people given the same scrutiny to the Anti-War movement. After all these are the people who believe so highly in Machiavellian plots an machinations, is it possible that they might be guilty of the same thing that they accuse the Warriors of?