Like, that’s what dedicated anti-imperialist organizing looks like. Like, if any of you folks in modern anti-imperialist orgs are doing this right now, my hat’s off to you. This kind of bravery is really incredible.

Socialist Workers Party continued to send in members, and at Fort Jackson in 1969 was able to create an organization called GIs United. This group contained a number of very capable organizers, and in March they succeeded in holding a large open meeting on base to rap about the war and racism. Over 100 GIs participated in this free-floating rap session, and the brass moved swiftly to bring the organizers up on charges.

As well, there’s evidence of less well documented organizing:

During the summer of 1968 troops were put on alert for possible use at the Democratic convention in Chicago, and 43 Black GIs at Fort Hood held an all-night demonstration declaring their intention to refuse any such orders. This was a harbinger of continued discontent among black soldiers. During the summer of 1969 black GIs in the 3rd Cavalry Division at Fort Lewis walked out of riot control classes en masse, and the brass were so anxious to avoid an incident that they let it pass.

all in all, resistance from within the military during the Vetinam war was incredible:

By 1969 entire units were refusing orders. Company A of the 21st Infantry Division and units of the 1st Air Cavalry Division refused to move into battle. By 1970 there were 35 separate combat refusals in the Air Cavalry Division alone. At the same time, physical attacks on officers, known as “fraggings”, became widespread, 126 incidents in 1969 and 271 in 1970. … From January of '67 to January of '72 a total of 354,112 GIs left their posts without permission, and at the time of the signing of the peace accords 98,324 were still missing.

The Vietnam war wasn’t ended by protests, it was ended by organizing and insurrection from within the ranks and fierce resistance by the NLF.

:amerikkka:

  • Nagarjuna [he/him]@hexbear.netOPEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    The refusals to deploy by units may have been the result of organizing:

    Rather than concentrating on large base-wide actions, an effort was made to concentrate on localized, unit organizing. … These groups would put out small, mimeographed unit newspapers … struggle against immediate forms of harassment, and occasionally submit group Article 138 complaints against a particularly oppressive officer. … Because they dealt with immediate local issues, these unit organizations were frequently able to effect some genuine changes. In addition, these unit groups could raise conceptually the issue of power in the military: “We know that to achieve these goals will take a long fight. To begin to implement this program we intend to build our own democratic organizations within our units which serve our own interests, to protect us now from our present leaders, and later to replace the existing organization of the military.”

    What’s interesting to me is that this is very similar to the IWW’s current model of “solidarity unionism” where the goal is to use direct action to build a culture of fighting, win small changes, and eventually stage bigger actions over issues like wages, always with an eye towards anarchist revolution.