Why backing down was the right thing to do

Not sure if you've heard about the brouhaha in Berkeley, wherein the city council planned to send the Marines a letter calling them "unwelcome intruders" - the goal being to prevent them from keeping their recruitment center downtown. It created a huge firestorm and honestly, I believe it should have. Today's news reported that the council backed down from their position, but indicated they would not issue a formal apology.

Many people would consider me a liberal/left-wing nutjob (although I give good moderate), but there is a time, place, and manner for everything, and the Berkeley City Council royally screwed themselves by not keeping that in mind.

First, I do think the recruiting practices of the military should be questioned, since there are several reports of men and women being duped into a contract (both before and after the war began) and then are stuck in a system that appears to be outside the realm of civil courts and other resources generally available to the average citizen (I'm thinking now of the authority the military maintains to regulate its own matters).

If you don't mind me pontificating for a minute, here is an example: A general principle of contract law is that if you can prove that you agreed to a contract under false pretenses (read: the other party lied to you, made false promises that gave you the incentive to enter into the bargain), then you can argue that the other party committed fraud and your contract will not be enforced (in other words, you get out from under the contract you signed).

I'm not sure that soldiers have this option or if they've tried and it worked or didn't work. Who knows. But if they wouldn't be able to make this argument that's pretty shitty, right? You are "promised" by the recruiter that you won't go into battle, this gives you the incentive to sign the agreement, and then you are sent anyway? Even if it's unreasonable for a person to believe a recruiter's promise, there seems to be an argument there. But that argument is under civil common law - not military law. Who knows what recourse a person has under military law.

On the other hand, it's paternalistic to assume that young people need protection from recruiters - if they are that out of it (that they don't realize they are potentially being lied to) and they are over 18 why are we trying to think for them?

Anyway, I digress.

The Berkeley City Council's problem is that they addressed the wrong issue.

You don't question the war through the circuitous route of questioning the recruiting practices of the war, even if that's an immediate issue in your community. Maybe they could have said they didn't want the recruiting station so close to Berkeley High or UC Berkeley. That still seems like a restraint on the military's free speech but at least it's somewhat closer to a specific concern the city is trying to address (the city may be legitimately concerned about young people in Berkeley being duped into serving).

You don't "send a message" about the war in the way they did, however. It's ridiculous and absurd and I would argue an abuse of power. Plus, it undermines their credibility (for those who think the council has any credibility left).

If they had a specific example of one of the recruiters at the office in Berkeley lying to people, they could have challenged that act - in other words, they should have been specific, not general, about the accusations or criticism. Highlight the misdeeds (if there were any) of the recruiters, don't send a general message that means NOTHING to the people you are trying to reach with that message (Bush, et. al.).

I'm really bashing on Berkeley but it's because all the good ideas percolating there get undercut by these extreme actions that do nothing to further the legitimate arguments on the left and only serve to polarize the population. One commenter on SFGate.com called Code Pink "the Operation Rescue of the left," and I think there's something to that. Polarizing tactics do NOTHING to help our country and are easily dismissed.

A more effective way to communicate your position is to appeal to people's reason and common sense.