Should antiwar activists organize blood drives?

Scan page 5

SOCIALIST ACTION FEBRUARY 1991 5 SAN FRANCISCO: At an organizing meeting last month for the Jan. 26 demonstration, an interesting idea was debated among the activists. A proposal was made to organize a blood drive for the U.S. troops stationed in Saudi Arabia.

The activists behind this proposal want to show that the antiwar movement is just that—antiwar and not anti-troops. They are fed up with the capitalist media's conscious depiction of the antiwar movement as isolated, "unpatriotic" and violent.

To dispel this distortion, some antiwar activists think the movement should organize blood drives in conjunction with national demonstrations. In this way, they argue, people will see clearly that the antiwar movement is about saving lives, not about trashing U.S. troops.

The sentiment of these activists is admirable, but their proposal is not. Organizing blood drives for troops will only diffuse the message of the antiwar movement and cause it to lose its effectiveness and mass appeal.

Focus on slogans

The best-and only legitimate-way to support the troops is to get them out of the Middle East and home to their families immediately. And the best way to do this is by organizing the broadest possible layer of people to demand an end to the war.

But in order to be most effective, the antiwar movement must focus on those siogans which bring people together, not slogans which could potentially divide the Activists disagree on whether the blood drives symbolize support for the troops or support for the U.S. government's war drive.

Organizing blood drives is a common preparation for war, like stockpiling weapons and rationing scarce goods. By organizing blood drives, the antiwar movement Will essentially be doing the government's job.

The blood drives point out the social costs of this war. While there isn't enough blood for people who need it in this country—even though low-income people often sell their blood to buy food-the U.S. government is spilling untold amounts of blood in the Middle East.

No one disagrees that the troops are in the Middle East to protect the ability of U.S. oil corporations to reap super profits at the expense of the Arab people and the environment. That's why one of the more popular slogans at antiwar demonstrations is "no blood for oil." But these blood drives do exactly that—give blood for oil.

Moreover, the war won't end one day sooner due to lack of blood. The generals won't say, "Oops, we're low on blood. I guess we can't send out the soldiers to get shot today."

If necessary, troops will be required—as is the practice of the military—to donate blood as often as medically possible to maintain blood supplies at the battle fronts. It's very unlikely that American troops will suffer a blood shortage.

That makes the "blood for troops drive" seem chauvinistic. The real victims of the U.S. war in the Gulf-the Iraqi people-—will not receive this blood. Aren't their lives as important as American lives?

Public relations ploy?

The only value of these blood drives is their public relations potential. But there is no guarantee that this message will be correctly interpreted or reported by the media.

The media could instead highlight the hypocrisy of antiwar activists giving blood to support the war effort. Or they could discredit the movement by focusing on antiwar activists who choose not to give blood. Every antiwar protester could be asked, "Did you give blood for the troops yet? Why not? Don't you really support them?"

The movement must not be sidetracked by symbols which appear humanitarian, but are, in reality, reactionary in nature. We must stay focused on our strongest demand-bring the troops home now! This is the only deWAR Joseph Ryan/Socialist Action mand that will truly save lives-of all nationalities—by ending the war as quickly as possible.

Scan page 6

when Iran and Iraq were fighting. "Maybe,"