I am a longtime member of Historians Against the War, a group formed in 2003 to oppose the Iraq War. Joining is extremely simple and does not cost a cent. All you have to do to do is sign this statement.

The steering committee of HAW is now polling members on whether HAW should take “positions on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, U.S. threats to Syria and Iran, the so-called 'global war on terror,' and the socio-economic impact of empire on the United States."(Go here to respond). Here is my answer.

Let's stick to a narrow gauge approach. Going beyond this on the Israel question will threaten to needlessly divide our membership and cut us off from potential allies. While individual members of HAW should be free to make such connections, the organization itself must remain focused on the unifying goal of opposition to the Iraq war. I write this as a long-time opponent of U.S. aid to Israel.

For similar reasons, a narrow gauge approach makes even more sense on highly divisive domestic issues related to the"socio-economic impact of empire in the United States." No matter what"positions" HAW endorses, the effect will be to push away members and potential members.

For example, if HAW calls for more domestic spending on government programs or increased economic regulation, it will alienate antiwar conservatives and libertarians who support smaller government, freer markets, and lower taxes. Many of these conservatives and libertarians regard the Iraq war as an illustration of the dangers of an expanding"welfare/warfare state."

While we should never be afraid to express individual opinions on these questions, it would be a fatal strategic mistake for any of us to try to impose our views on the other members by forcing HAW to take a"one size fits all" organizational stand.

Please note that a change in HAW's policy will only detract from the stated goal of HAW leaders to build bridges to conservative and libertarians and show greater sensitivity to their concerns.

Anthony Gregory - 8/14/2006

I expressed a similar view in an article a while back on protest strategy. I say that opposing wartime restrictions of civil liberties is appropriate, but taking a side on Israel vs. Palestine is more strategically problematic. A relevant excerpt:

Overthrowing capitalism, smashing Starbucks windows, nationalizing healthcare, banning handguns, waging class war, outlawing meat, protecting the endangered species –- these interests need to be kept separate from the issue at hand: the U.S. government’s imperial occupation and war upon the people of Iraq and its budding police state at home.

Now, many leftists believe the issues are all connected, that war is a mere symptom of capitalism and thus a holistic social democracy, or a proletarian dictatorship, or an anarcho-commune is its only cure. . . .

As a libertarian, I have a pretty good idea of what I think causes war – big government – but you won’t see me at an antiwar protest holding a banner saying, “Abolish the Income Tax” or “Repeal the Federal Reserve Act.”

I might even be tempted to hang with the left-anarchists who pithily call for Smashing the State, but that is quite a lot to accomplish and stopping the murderous war is enough work for one afternoon.

Common Sense - 8/14/2006

I have sent a message arguing against the proposed statement. I have also suggested that, if they do make the proposed change to the statement, the name of the organization be changed to reflect its new concerns.