Originally written August 24 2005
Everyone knows that San Francisco is a focal point for anti-war sentiment. Protests, civil disobedience and other acts designed to show opposition to the war in Iraq are standard fare in these parts. But now it seems that San Francisco anti-war activists have taken their opposition to the war in Iraq a step further.
Not content with simply protesting the war, they’ve trained their sights on all things military. In an apparent effort to rid the city of any semblance of its military history, various leftist groups, and even some city officials, are trying to erase the military’s presence altogether. In short, San Francisco has declared itself a military-free zone.
Following on the heels of their success in sometimes violently shutting down job fairs that include military recruiters on college campuses, the counterrecruitment movement is now looking to broaden its influence. Instead of merely protesting the existence of military recruiters on campuses, the movement wants to ban them altogether. Proposition I, a measure that will be on the ballot this November, seeks to do just that.
Put together by a group called College Not Combat, the initiative of the same name talks tough on the surface. But it doesn’t have any teeth. The nonbinding measure simply asks that individual schools and colleges consider banning military recruiters and denying recruiters access to their student directories, which would violate section 9258 of the No Child Left Behind Act. In the process, these schools could very well have to forgo federal funds. Given that such institutions are unlikely to want to get off the federal gravy train, it’s doubtful they will choose to take this action.
The initiative also suggests that colleges create scholarship funds and grants to provide alternatives to the so-called economic draft for low-income students. Since scholarships and grants already exist for low-income students, this request is redundant. In general, the proposition amounts to little more than wishful thinking.
Feel-Good Measure
So it seems San Franciscans will be asked to vote on yet another in a series of what I like to call “feel-good measures,” much like Proposition N last year, which demanded the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Since city governments have no jurisdiction over such matters, the initiative, although it passed, had zero effect.
But one can always rely on the majority of San Francisco residents to support these symbolic measures, and so the College Not Combat initiative may succeed. If it does, San Francisco voters will have blindly exercised their anti-military prejudice with little thought for the motivations of those behind the measure in question.
When it comes to the College Not Combat initiative, the list of endorsers is a veritable Who’s Who of moderate to radical leftist groups. ? Beyond the predictable backing of Green Party luminaries such as Supervisor Chris Daly and former Board of Supervisors president Matt Gonzalez, endorsers largely consist of anti-war, socialist and pro-Palestinian organizations.
Anti-Israel—and anti-American
Groups like Al-Awda (The Palestine Right to Return Coalition) and The Middle East Children’s Alliance, while having seemingly nothing to do with this debate, are in fact organizations whose opposition to Israel’s existence also includes a fair amount of anti-American sentiment. Then there’s the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, which has opposed every effort of the U.S. government to combat Islamic terrorism, whether at home or abroad.
While it’s obvious what socialist groups would stand to gain from undermining the U.S. military and by extension the capitalist system it defends, one might wonder at the motivations of the other groups backing the measure. Could it be they have some interest in weakening the U.S. military?
Navy in a Jam
Continuing their crusade against the military, anti-war groups have asked San Francisco radio station KMEL-FM not to accept sponsorship from the Navy for its annual Summer Jam concert in Mountain View. Despite the fact that the Navy has sponsored the concert for at least 10 of its 19 years, these groups are demanding that it suddenly stop doing so now.
Their rationale is based on the ever-present canard that minorities are disproportionately recruited for the military. They claim that the station is “using hip-hop to promote the military to young people of color,” as if the mere presence of a Navy booth at the concert offering young people another choice in life is evidence of a sinister agenda.
The fact that all recruits today, whatever their race, are volunteers seems to mean little to anti-war activists, who insist on portraying American soldiers either as victims or butchers, depending on the cause at hand. In this case, it’s simply opposition to the war in Iraq. In a letter sent to Clear Channel, the company that owns KMEL as well as the liberal Air America, activists hysterically equated the Navy’s sponsorship of the concert with promoting “the Bush administration’s pro-war agenda.” To them, any approach that doesn’t automatically demonize the U.S. military is somehow amoral.
Radical Pink
This attitude becomes less surprising when its source is considered. At the helm of the usual leftist suspects is San Francisco’s Global Exchange and its subsidiary, Code Pink Women for Peace. The antics of Code Pink members, which mostly consist of members parading around in silly pink costumes, disguise a political purpose that is far more radical than the surface would suggest.
The group is headed by Medea Benjamin, who, beyond defending various dictatorial regimes against “U.S. aggression” and famously disrupting press conferences, is best known for spearheading the drive to deliver $600,000 in cash and supplies to “the other side” in Fallujah.
In other words, her organization may have funded the Islamic terrorists who had taken over the town, imposed a Taliban-like state on its inhabitants, tortured and beheaded hostages (both Iraqi and otherwise) and killed American soldiers and civilians (remember the lynched contractors?). More recently, Code Pink has jumped on the Cindy Sheehan bandwagon, along with the rest of the anti-war movement.
With all this experience trying to undercut the U.S. military, it should come as no surprise that Benjamin and her buddies were involved in the KMEL protest. But despite their efforts, which included a protest in front of the radio station, the concert went on as planned, with Navy sponsorship intact. Chalk one up for the good guys.
Sinking the Ship
Probably the most blatant example of San Francisco’s anti-military bias was displayed last month by the city’s Board of Supervisors when they voted 3-8 against docking the WWII/Korean War-era USS Iowa as a floating museum at the Port of San Francisco. This was after the local Congressional delegation secured $3 million to move the Iowa from Rhode Island to San Francisco because a study had shown the ship would bring in 500,000 visitors a year.
But regardless of the benefits the Iowa could have brought to the city in increased tourism revenue, the supervisors, in typical knee-jerk fashion, wouldn’t allow it in San Francisco. Instead, the ship may go to Stockton, a port city whose officials are obviously much more sensible than their counterparts in San Francisco.
Supervisors who voted against the resolution based their decision on opposition to the war in Iraq and the military’s enforcement of the federal “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Once again, these issues are simply being used as excuses to cover up anti-military and anti-American sympathies across the board.
As Supervisor Chris Daly so forthrightly put it, “I am sad to say I am not proud of the history of the United States of America since the 1940s.” That’s an awful lot of ground to write off, but there you have it.
Voice of Moderation
Senator Dianne Feinstein, the former mayor of San Francisco and a voice of moderation when it comes to her hometown, was not at all happy about the decision.
Feinstein told The Chronicle: “This isn’t the San Francisco that I’ve known and loved and grew up in and was born in. I thought that in view of what’s going on and in view of the loss of lives of our men and women, it was a very petty decision.” Her comments demonstrate that showing respect for the military needn’t involve partisanship.
But it seems that many among the supervisors’ liberal constituency supported the decision, labeling the USS Iowa nothing more than a “celebration of war.” Such attitudes are an insult to the blood, sweat and tears of those generations that fought to retain the freedoms we all enjoy today.
Indeed, many of the city’s veterans were incensed over the decision and rightly took it as a slap in the face, not to mention the nonprofit organization Historic Ships at Memorial Square and the USS Iowa Veterans Association, both of which tried for years to bring the Iowa to San Francisco. ?
Angels Away
San Francisco’s attitude toward the military is evident in other areas as well. A group that calls itself the Bay Area Peace Navy has been on a quest to rid the city of Fleet Week and the spectacular, albeit loud, air shows of the Blue Angels. So far they’ve been unsuccessful, but give it time.
The relatively paltry funding for San Francisco’s Veterans Day Parade and Memorial commemoration also speaks volumes about where the city’s priorities lie. When the Board of Supervisors renamed Army Street “Cesar Chavez Street” in 1995, it was yet another not-so-subtle jab at the military.
If the city truly wanted to rid itself of military symbols, it would have to dig up the graves at the San Francisco National Cemetery and raze all other evidence of the military’s presence at the Presidio (including extensive Buffalo Soldier sites), pave over Crissy Field, bulldoze the War Memorial complex on Van Ness Avenue and knock down the Lone Sailor statue at the north end of the Golden Gate Bridge. Since San Francisco has a long and rich military history, there certainly wouldn’t be any shortage of monuments to destroy.
Lest it be forgotten, the city’s relationship with the military is a two-way street. After all, many residents would not have survived the 1906 earthquake without the Navy’s assistance. So let’s just say for the sake of argument that San Francisco succeeds in cutting off all military ties. Here’s what could happen:
—The next time San Francisco finds itself in need of help from the Coast Guard or the National Guard, the city would be on iits own.
—Were a terrorist attack—or an earthquake or some other natural disaster—to occur in San Francisco, the federal governnment would just ignore all requests for assistance. ?
—Should a foreign nation decide to invade and conquer the vulnerable coastal city, it would meet with little resistance, especially considering the pacifist attitude of many of its residents.
—All federal funds would be cut off immediately.
Of course, none of this is going to happen, but one can dream.
- Post 9/11:The Fight Must Go On - Friday September 11, 2009 at 11:11 am
- Fuel or folly? Ethanol and the law of unintended consequences - Tuesday May 20, 2008 at 6:34 pm
- Homeless by the bay - Tuesday April 22, 2008 at 12:01 am
