Apparently at last night’s Democracy for America/DC for Democracy Meetup, there was a move to endorse (in a non-binding way, per the organization’s by-laws) the United for Peace D.C. Anti-War Mobilization – a three-day-long protest against the U.S. military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as against many other things. Due to another engagement, I wasn’t able to be there to witneess this first-hand. From what I’ve gathered from multiple sources, however, the Meetup ended up with a lot of conflict over what is supposed to be an anti-conflict march. Those who ran the Meetup were largely for endorsement, whereas others in attendance were against.

I certainly fall into the latter group. It’s not because I don’t want our troops to be brought home safely, or that I don’t support peace in Iraq and Afghanistan. Rather, it is because this march will serve no purpose, whatsoever.

sprite and I attended one of the 2003 International ANSWER anti-war rallies here in D.C. We went hoping to find a group of kindred spirits who could bring back the energy and focus of the 1960s anti-war rallies, images that are vivid in our minds if only from documentaries and tales from the previous generation.

What we found was an unfocused, diffuse, rambling gathering. People spoke out about not only war in Afghanistan and Iraq, but the Israel/Palestine problem, the World Bank, NAFTA and every other progressive/liberal pet cause they could. The result was (to use one of my favorite Shakespeare lines) full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

And that’s exactly what this United for Peace march will be. Not that they are playing up the multi-facted angle of the march. Instead, they are only marketing the “bring the boys back home form Iraq” angle – an angle that was heavily pushed at the Meetup. However, a good friend of mine and I had discussed this possibility before the Meetup, and he brought up the other angles of the march: most of the protests will take place at the World Bank, not at the White House or Capitol Building; the march addresses immigration policy as well as myriad other “progressive issues”; and the march takes a pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli stance.

While I’m not the biggest supporter of either Israel or Palestine at this point (there are a lot of underlying issues that prevent me from being able to say that either side is right – the two parties act like children, in my opinion), endorsing this rally – either officially or unofficially – brings forth a de facto endorsement of its platform, including the anti-Israeli stance. And I don’t feel comfortable having DC for Democracy, a PAC of which I was a founding member, endorse such a controversial and ill-guided stance.

I also differ on the “bring the troops home now” stance. Realistically speaking, we’re entrenched, and we should try to leave the place in better shape than it was when we started this misguided military exercise. And right now, we’re not close to being there. Cutting and running is not the prudent thing to do, much as its painful to say.

The outcome of the vote was 13 “yes” votes, 8 “abstain” votes, and 5 “no” votes. As each abstention counted as a “no,” per Robert’s Rules of Order, the motion failed to pass. And this is good. I know it left some members of DC for Democracy a bit sore, but they should feel free to go to the marches and rallies on their own, for themselves. They can even invite their DC for Democracy friends to come along, and they can wear their DC for Democracy shirts and buttons – it’s still a free country, and we welcome all points of view.

But I’m certainly not going to take part in the march. And I’m glad that DC for Democracy did not vote to endorse the march.