As thousands of protesters gathered outside Berkeley’s Old City Hall on Tuesday to weigh in on a revised anti-military recruitment resolution, I wandered the crowd, chatting with people on all sides of the issue. The confrontation was sparked when the city council passed a lengthy resolution denouncing the Marine recruiters who have set up shop in downtown Berkeley. The resolution supports Code Pink’s efforts to nonviolently obstruct the recruiters. A few observations …

• Unfortunately, councilmembers didn’t take up the item until after 9pm, when at least half the crowd had gone home. Comments were broadcast over a P.A. system, fomenting a lively “public dialogue.” We need more such engagement in our civic lives!

• Berkeley High School students shined during the comments: one compared sitting in to block the Marines to the civil rights lunch counter sit-ins in the South. They talked about receiving blows during the sit-ins as badges of honor. These kids are heroes.

• The right is quite adept at co-opting progressive language for its ends, as evidenced by Councilmember Gordon Wozniak’s specious claim that opposing military recruiters limits their right to “free speech.” Several speakers successfully reframed the argument by pointing out that the real issue is whether the community should tolerate or resist an imperialist organization whose agenda is to deceive young people into killing and being killed on behalf of conquest and oil.

• Speaking of which, the pro-military crowd is quite fond of invoking myths about the role of the Marines in “protecting our free speech.” Many screamed, “you wouldn’t be here today if it wasn’t for the Marines.” No one mentioned the genocide of Native Americans.

• Cognitive dissonance runs rampant among many pro-military folks. Many understand the idea that we define “supporting the troops” as bringing them home. But criticism of the troops’ actions is off limits. They don’t allow themselves to consider the possibility that the troops have a moral responsibility to disobey orders. For these right-wingers, no soldier is ever responsible for his or her actions as long as s/he is “following orders.” In a Twilight Zone moment, a woman told me that any soldier who would disobey an order shouldn’t be in the military. Check out the film Sir No Sir! - a documentary about soldiers who disobeyed orders in Vietnam and helped bring that war to an end.

• The above distinction is key to understanding the genesis of the brouhaha. Pro-military folks were incensed that the original resolution personalized the criticism by stating the recruiters (individuals) are unwelcome in Berkeley. I wonder if the conflict would have been as large had the proposed wording stated, “military recruitment centers are unwelcome intruders.”

• Several speakers called out Republican threats to cut off federal funds to Berkeley a bullying tactic that’s par for the course for that party and the Bush Administration. If we actually want the war on the Iraqi people to end, we have to take a stand and be willing to stand up to such threats.

• The city council made the wrong decision by backing down. They should have sent the original letter, slightly modified as follows: “those who recruit for the military or any organization that participates in wars of aggression are unwelcome intruders in Berkeley, but they are welcome if they instead recruit for nonviolent intervention organizations such as Peace Brigades International, a nonviolent army, or for other forms of peaceful public service.”

Matthew Taylor is a founder of PeacePower magazine, and a UC Berkeley peace and conflict studies student who’s writing a book about the Save Memorial Oak Grove campaign. Check out more of his writings at www.matthewtaylor.net