Grieving Mother Becomes Symbol of Antiwar Movement

By Marcel Votlucka
Staff Writer

Unless you’ve been living under the proverbial rock, it’s become clear by now that Iraq is our generation’s Vietnam, but a close look at the character of this era’s anti-war movement reveals some startling contrasts.

The antiwar movement during the Vietnam War was led by scruffy professors, hippies, and disillusioned soldiers fresh from combat. The present antiwar movement is led by grieving mothers.

Thirty-odd years ago the marches and protests defined themselves through chanting and singing and drum beating. Today, protest comes in the form of a bereaved parent’s private tears and public dignity.

When Vietnam veterans came home, they were spat upon and jeered, but the modern antiwar movement uses soldiers’ unnecessary deaths as the gravest argument against an illegal and unjust war.

As blood flooded the cities and jungles of Vietnam, Americans talked about fundamental changes in the system; the war was only a symptom of what was wrong with the world, and it was time for a revolution in values—the dawning of the "Age of Aquarius" made that imperative. But at the dawn of the 21st Century there is no revolution pending, just a pervasive discontent, anger and rage targeted like a laser at one source; the murderous lies of President George W. Bush.

What caused this change? In the past, citizens learned about the latest casualty figures and perhaps thought of them as a necessary sacrifice for whatever cause the war at the time was about. But since Vietnam and Watergate, people have become far less trusting of the government, hence low voter turnout and even lower approval ratings for Congress and the President. Moreover, the Internet has made it possible to access information and images from around the world, painting a more vivid picture of the world than those with power want us to have.

And in this present era of reality TV, images speak louder than words, and we treat the Osbournes, the Real World cast, and J-Lo and Ben Affleck, like our own families. Thus, it’s easy to see why the horror of war has become far better understood, far more personal and far more real.

This is where figures like Cindy Sheehan come into the picture. Sheehan’s son Casey died in combat in Iraq last year, and like many of the parents of soldiers killed in the war, she wonders why her son had to die in a war justified by conspiracy theories and lies. President Bush claims that the blood of thousands of innocent Iraqis and ruthlessly exploited soldiers is being spilt for a "noble cause."

That answer isn’t good enough for Sheehan, and when Bush took yet another vacation to his ranch in Texas on August 7, Sheehan decided to follow him there in order to get some better answers. She resolved to camp in front of Bush’s ranch for the duration of his vacation, asking only that he take some time from his schedule to meet with her so she could ask one simple, poignant question.

But allow me to let Sheehan put things in her own words:

"I want to ask him what was the noble cause that Casey and the others have died for, because he keeps on saying that they died for a noble cause, and I don't think a war of aggression against a nation that was no threat to the United States of America is a noble cause. And I’m not going to let him tell me about keeping America safe for freedom and democracy, because he told us before he invaded that it was about weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein with some kind of a link to al Qaeda. And that's been proven wrong, and it's been proven wrong consistently, and the Downing Street memos prove that as early as July of 2002, they knew that that was wrong and they had to fabricate the intelligence to fit their policy of invading Iraq. And that means that my son's murder was premeditated."

What noble cause did my son die for? It’s a simple, poignant question, with much power behind such few words. But for daring to ask this simple question, the President’s loyal media terriers are vilifying Sheehan with animalistic ferocity. She’s been called a "traitor" who is "exploiting death" to win political points. Radio host G. Gordon Liddy even accused Sheehan of being anti-Semitic! "She uses the term how the "neocons" are doing this thing--that's code word for "the Jews in the Pentagon." Meanwhile, other pundits are complaining about today’s "critical" press because of the coverage of Sheehan’s protest. All of this outrage stems from one simple question: what noble cause did my son die for?

Meanwhile, President Bush has refused to meet with Sheehan, although he seems to have ample time for attending fundraisers and clearing brush on his ranch. He also seems to be unable to fit into his busy schedule the funerals of soldiers killed in his "War on Terror." All this cowardice stems from one simple question: What noble cause did my son die for?

Why are they so afraid of Cindy Sheehan? Can one simple, honest question provoke so much fear and loathing? The answer is simple. Cindy Sheehan isn’t a pundit. She’s not seeking public office. She’s not looking for any special favors other than an audience with the man whose war claimed her son’s life. She embodies normal, middle class America; she’s not a fuzzy academic roaring from her ivory tower, nor is she am "elitist" Hollywood celebrity singing antiwar songs at concerts, nor is she a pollster brandishing abstract statistics and poll data. She’s merely a mother who lost her son to a war built on lies.

She is, in short, the human face of the antiwar movement, one they can’t hide from, one they can’t resist. And they are afraid, very afraid, because there is more power in her simple question and peaceful protest that all the guns and bombs and violence the warmongers praise from afar. And that is precisely why the chickenhawks attack her and the Warmonger-in-Chief hides from her.

And through it all, Cindy Sheehan weathers the warmongers’ storm of slander with the tragic dignity and steadfast resolve of a bereaved mother. This baptismal by fire has made her the unexpected but welcomed symbol of the antiwar movement. You can’t help but admire and respect mothers like Cindy Sheehan, Lila Lipscomb, and Nadia McCaffrey for opening their lives and allowing the world to see their private grief.

Indeed it’s a mother’s love, pride, grief, anger, and thirst for justice that brought her to Crawford in the first place. And it’s that same sentiment that is fueling the present antiwar movement.

The war and its opposition have a human face. And it is Cindy Sheehan.