Lakewood Militarization Resistance
by Joe La Sac
This week a military ship, the USNS Brittin, was spotted loading equipment off in Tacoma. Resistance groups have mobilized, determined to stop the shipments from reaching their destinations.
This time, however, the Stryker vehicles and equipment are heading for Fort Lewis, coming back from Iraq – instead of the other way around.
The activists have said they oppose the transportation of war materials at “all points in the cycle”, that includes equipment coming home. In 2007, a similar Port of Tacoma protest ended in tear gas and rubber bullets several nights in row. Last November, activists from the Northwest blocked equipment coming from Iraq at the Port of Olympia. The shipment lasted over eight days, and at one point protesters had intersections structurally blocked off, and monitored the flow of traffic to and from the port for 18 hours, until police arrived in full riot gear. Major confrontations lasted for five days after that.
The Port of Tacoma is a bit different; there are lots of entrances and exits and it is difficult for activists to block the shipments at bottleneck points like it is in Olympia. Nonetheless, activists are finding places to block and slow down the equipment at freeway intersections and on-ramps. Last night at Exit 122 in Lakewood, where some convoys were pulling into Fort Lewis, a group of twenty-five protesters awaited instructions from another group at the Port of Tacoma. When the convoys arrived, they marched into the street, sat down, and blocked the path to Fort Lewis.
After ten to fifteen minutes of blocking, police from Tacoma, Dupont, Lakewood, Washington State Patrol, and two Military Police arrived at the exit. Lakewood police, mostly caught off-guard by the incident, watched as protesters chanted “Out of Iraq! Out of Iran!” The Lakewood police eventually arrested three protesters.
In the early morning hours another blockade was setup, this time at Exit 120. I was not at this location. But from what activists have said, Stryker vehicles were blocked from entering the base and had to reroute their path to a different exit to enter the base.
August 2nd, 2008 at 2:48 pm
I very much agree with the anti-war movement, but I question if these sorts of protests are the most effective way of fighting the powers that be.
Many of my friends involved in the political sphere, suggest that the best thing one can do is contact their local congressmember and express perspectives.
While I do think it is important to display support for a movement and always support individuals having the right to protest, I wonder if there is a more effective way of doing so.
Where do protests succeed and where do they fail?
Reply
August 2nd, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Elected representatives have done nothing to end the war. I would say they have failed us.
Reply
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:22 pm
I completely agree with you but do you think protests inspire movement or actually create results?
Perhaps inspiring movement is creating a result, but I just question the effectiveness of such protests.
I read in a self-proclaimed conservatively-slanted blog and in The News Tribune that these protests cost Tacoma a lot of money. While I’m not suggesting that as a deterrent, I’m merely offering a possible negative of these protests.
On the other-hand what’s the cost of someone’s life. In voicing against war, perhaps any cost is worth it. Thoughts?
http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/story/429345.html
http://5views.com/2008/08/02/how-much-will-protests-cost-tacoma-and-pierce-county/
Reply
August 3rd, 2008 at 5:09 am
The moment I start reading quotes like this, the anti-war movement becomes a joke:
The activists have said they oppose the transportation of war materials at “all points in the cycle”, that includes equipment coming home.
Yes, let’s have the boats turn around and go right back to killing people again.
Reply
August 3rd, 2008 at 10:08 am
The cost is inconsequential, by which I mean that we deserve to pay for it. The public was not forceful enough to prevent our elected officials, OUR public servants, from going through with a war we opposed. Thus those officials (on all levels, local and national) rather deserve the headache of dealing with protests, and the taxpayers deserve to pay for it, for our lack of will.
However, the anti-war movement has its priorities wrong. It would be wrong to just up and leave Iraq; the violence would get so bad that it would be a human rights catastrophe. They should put their apparently considerable efforts into preventing future conflicts.
Reply
August 3rd, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Okay okay, so you propose we stay in Iraq based on the same bullshit preemptive strategy that got us there in the first place?
Reply
August 4th, 2008 at 11:24 am
I don’t think anyone is suggesting that the Bush administration’s strategy was anything other than terrible, but I’m merely putting forth that protests might consider a more effective strategy to get their voices heard.
Yes, in some senses it feels like a last resort because our elected officials aren’t listening to the majority of the population, but how can protests do more?
Protests aren’t going to get us out of Iraq, policies are. Protests do influence policies, how can they influence them better. That’s what I’m asking.
Reply
August 4th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
I didn’t mean to say letter-writing was bad, just less direct. Maybe writing a letter as a group to the congressperson/senator might be effective, stating that the group will oppose and cost any jurisdiction money so long as they are cooperating with war operations in Iraq, etc. Together, writing and acting can probably be more effective.
Reply
August 4th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Just because the pre-emptive argument was used inappropriately once, that does not mean that it is never appropriate vis-a-vis Iraq. Are you suggesting that there would be no power vacuum if we left? That the rightful powers that be have everything taken care of? Forgive my skepticism, but perhaps if you can see beyond the injustice of going there in the first place you could see the responsibility we have not to “wash our hands of it” like children. We need to fix the mess we made, not ignore it when it gets too hard.
Reply
August 4th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Instead of discussing this in such an inefficient manner (comments…), how about you both take some time to arrange arguments, and then present them as a sort of point/counterpoint essay.
I think it’ll help everyone avoid the broad statements of what they “think” would be best, and allow for some data for both us and you to work off of.
What do you say Glynnis and Joe? The question would be along the lines of “Can America Leave Iraq Now?” Obviously we’re not experts here, but we are in the art of fact gathering
.
Ps: I think this would be another great aspect of the site. Take two of our contributors and do a point/counter on some topic the pair might disagree on. This would be a great way to present well thought out discussions and create new ties between contributors.
Reply
August 4th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
If Glynnis takes the position that a catastrophic power vacuum would occur in the event of a troop pull-out, I would gladly take the position that it would not. I have things to do tonight, however.
Reply
August 4th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
There is no need to put words in anyone’s mouth.
This is a place of civil discussion.
I was not suggesting right away though. We could put together a deadline for both parties and publish as a dual-piece.
A little bit of perspective never hurt anyone.
Reply
August 5th, 2008 at 11:08 am
I’d be up for it. I’ve been having some trouble articulating what I mean, so a formal piece may help with that.
Reply
August 5th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Alright, let’s plan on doing a joint piece exactly one month from today.
The topic: Can America Leave Iraq Now?
Joe, you’re going with the “yes” side?
And Glynnis, you’re going with the “no” side?
Is a month too much time?
Otherwise let’s have the due dates be Sept 5th. You can turn them into me so I can post them appropriately. I think this will be a great opportunity to shed some light on the possibilities for Iraq.
Reply
August 5th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Sure I can take the ‘yes’ side. One month sounds good.
Reply