A Pax on Both Choices

"I am and am not for and against the War, and I believe the majority of the American people share my opinion," said Leona Tolstoy, a long-time war-and-peace activist.

Wearing a black armband and a yellow ribbon, Ms. Tolstoy was one of several thousand people who gathered last weekend for a meeting of Ambivalents Not Not Against the War. "We aren't against being for the War, but we aren't not against it either. There are two sides to every issue and we ambivalents try to take both of them."

We spoke with Ms. Tolstoy in the lobby of the Howard Johnson Motor Hotel where she prepared to chair the plenary session. "Ambivalence is as American as apple or cherry or blueberry pie," she informed us. "Ever since our slave-owning forefathers brought forth freedom upon this continent, we've wanted to have our cake and eat Ultra-Slimfast too. We want to run the world to make it free. We go to war to ensure peace. We're ready to sacrifice our youth, so long as we don't see their blood. . .

Her diatribe was interrupted by a sudden outburst from the crowd. "What do we want?' a voice bellowed.

"Something!" shouted the crowd.

"When do we want it?'

"Soon!"

Placards reading "Casuistry, Not Casualties" and "Vacillate Now!" waved in the air. The chanting continued until many of the protestors changed their minds, breaking up into small discussion groups to deny what they had just said.

"Looks like the Gulf War has got your organization pretty agitated," we noted.

"Alot of us miss the Cold War. We were at war and at peace simultaneously. We could be as hostile and aggressive and kinder and gentler as we wanted without disrupting our lifestyle. This war is different. We may actually have to fight! We believe in patriotism, 'kicking ass,' and Kuwait's democratic right to live under the monarchy of its choice. But we also believe in Oprah, EARTH Day, and the security of small furry animals. We're afraid we may have to choose between our inconsistencies."

"So you disagree with the way things are being handled?"

"Yes and no. So far this has proved to be a short winnable war that will take a long-time to win, in which we have and have not established air superiority, having wiped out all the Scuds except for those still being fired the night we decimated the enemy's still functioning command control, assuring that we will and will not have to fight an all-out limited ground war in which casualties will be kept to a very heavy minimum. The administration has done a superb job of maintaining ambiguity in the heat of battle. But there's always the danger that something decisive might happen and force us to take a stand."

"For instance?"

"Casualties. Soldier moms crumpled in the sand. Incinerated pen pal partners. Unsightly burn victims on city buses. The preempting of baseball by special reports. A surcharge on taxes. Anything that brings us face to face with the consequences of having done the things we're in favor of doing. As Americans we like to support just causes -- just the causes, not the consequences. .. ."

"So how can we keep the war's consequences from affecting our opinions of it?"

"That's the job of the media. As long as we can represent ourselves as ready for the sacrifice whether we are or not, we'll be okay. As Ted Turner didn't say, 'Television is reality by other means."

"But if the networks fail, it could be the sixties all over again with an unpopular war and mass dissent."

"The coming era will be another 1960's, and another 1930's with a collapsing economy, and another 1940s with global mobilization for war, and another 1914 in that war's potential for carnage, and another 1890s in its fin de siecle stirrings, and another 990s in its millennial fervor.... These are heady days for ambivalents. So many pieces of history to not learn the lessons of at the same time. Unlimited positions not to take on every issue. The hour of indecision is approaching Hopefully our leaders will have the good sense to keep putting it off till tomorrow.”>

Read More......