We won nothing but death and debt.
Posted on 02/19/2023 2:18:36 PM PST by nickcarraway
On Feb. 15, 2003, in hundreds of cities across the world, some 10 million people demonstrated against the United States’ impending invasion of Iraq. By many accounts, it was the largest single day of anti-war protest in history. New York Times reporter Patrick Tyler wrote that the huge anti-war demonstrations were indications of “two superpowers on the planet: the United States and world public opinion.”
Yet this vast mobilization was unable to halt the march to war. Some believe the protests had no influence, but this is shortsighted. The movement in fact had significant impacts in the U.S. and internationally, prompting politically motivated decisions that undermined the military mission and contributed to what the U.S. Army termed “strategic failure.”
The George W. Bush administration manipulated post-9/11 fears to gain support for the use of force by falsely claiming that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. As critics countered the WMD deception, public support for attacking Iraq began to erode.
The White House was frustrated by the lack of international support. In Germany, Turkey, Canada and elsewhere, political leaders faced public pressure to reject the U.S. entreaties for participation. Bush’s only significant ally was British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who faced criticism for being Bush’s “poodle.” To assuage the skeptics in his government, Blair persuaded a reluctant White House to seek authorization from the United Nations. When Secretary of State Colin Powell went to the Security Council, however, he was decisively rebuffed. The U.S. was only able to muster the votes of the UK, Bulgaria and Spain. Rather than face humiliation, the White House withdrew the proposed resolution and proceeded with the attack.
The international rejection of the U.S.-led war was significant. It was the first time since the UN’s founding that the United States could not get full Security Council approval on a national priority.
A creative dialectic developed between the Security Council and global civil society: The stronger the anti-war movement in other countries became, the greater the determination to resist U.S. pressure at the UN. And the stronger the objections at the UN became, the greater was the legitimacy and impact of the anti-war movement.
The ways in which protest influences policy are not always apparent. While the anti-war movement did not prevent the invasion of Iraq, it helped set the terms of the debate by insisting on UN approval for the use of force and by convincing key governments to refuse to participate, thereby shaping the war’s eventual outcome.
The same is true today for the Kremlin’s war in Ukraine. A new global anti-war movement is needed now with the same message as 20 years ago: “No to war.” Pursue peace by aiding Ukrainian victims, supporting Russians who reject the war, and demanding international negotiations for the withdrawal of Russian troops.
DAVID CORTRIGHT is the author of A Peaceful Superpower: Lessons From the World’s Largest Antiwar Movement.
People forget that Communists were in the forefront of the Isolationist movement, until Hitler invaded the Soviet Union.
“Began being planned and disseminated from Moscow almost 100 years ago now.”
True, but which side of the Ukraine War are the anti-war people? That would include the Democrats and the Progressive organizations.
Putin Invokes Soviet Heroes Lenin, Stalin, Says Russia 'Created' Ukraine
Putin Does His Best Stalin in Threat To “Cleanse” Russia
Thousands fast after Putin signs law banning evangelism outside of churches
Putin signs the law that bans evangelism
Putin signs 'fake' news law that would jail journalists over war reports
Russia bans media outlet that published Vladimir Putin scoops
Putin Erects Statue in Moscow to Honor Fidel Castro
Back in the USSR: Lenin statues and Soviet flags reappear in Russian-controlled cities
War is the least of our problems.
We've got schools refusing to teach math and science because they are racist and instead teaching kids that white people are evil because they created America.
We've got a medical profession surgically cutting off the genitalia of children because they (the children) want to play pretend.
We've got gays, lesbians, and trannies effecting hostile takeovers of Protestant religions (not churches, entire denominations), we've got a commie, pro-gay, atheist Pope, we've got a senile pedo-president who was an idiot before he lost his mind, we've got a military which is dropping fitness standards.
And we've got a million other things happening...just too many to mention.
“No such thing as “Anti-War”, just folks who think we are fighting for the wrong side.”
Of course there’s “anti-war”.
Peace groups, peace institutes, pacifist organizations.
Always somehow on the communist leftist anti-American side.
I remember when one sect of this “anti-war” slime mold posted here for a while.
He’s dead, Jim.
You are right. Different sects within this fungal macro environment selectively ignore certain wars.
You know, how you can tell that Russia is no longer Communist?
The Democrats don’t support them anymore.
Thanks to Jeff Chandler, for the above and ignored reality!
The anti-war movement has been exposed for what it truly is, a vehicle for political attack. They have proven over and over again that they are perfectly fine with war as long as the democrat party supports it.
“Anti-war” people support Putin.
We won nothing but death and debt.
Isolationism is on one end with neocon/neoliberal (like McCain, Bush, Biden, etc), interventionists on the other end
Those saying Europe is more than capable of taking care of Russia (like myself) being between these two extreme positions.
I think it's that the Russians don't $upport the Democrats anymore--the way they used to when the CPUSA, SDS, NOW, NAACP, the SPLC, the [homosexual] Human Rights Campaign, and the others were here with the other "Agents of Influence," spreading the good word about socialism and the evils of Amerika.
It’s obvious you deflect from your suppprt for NATO helping Clinton and Obama, but despite that...
You might have a point were it not for the neocon Project for a New American and the RAND papers pushing for war in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Iran, etc, and in Ukraine.
And you might have a point if not for this also:
If A precedes B (invasion of Ukraine), then who caused B?:
WION
Gravitas Plus
Did NATO Push Ukraine Into War?
Possible solution: NATO pulls out all the way back to its founding years, Russia pulls out of Ukraine. China, Russia, etc, disband all overseas bases, so does NATO.
They are one both sides. Biden and Obama are on Putin’s side.
“Biden and Obama are on Putin’s side.”
Not sure about Obama, but Biden is DEFINITELY on Putin’s side, as he continues to extend and expand the war, meaning that Putin will get FAR MORE of Ukraine than he ever dreamed of.
You are insane. Trotskyites were always a small minority. They never turned on Stalin. Even after Khrushchev's speech denouncing Stalin.
But, but, the FR neocons think we have unlimited $ to war against Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, Yemen, Iraq, Iran, in Ukraine, etc, etc.
McConnell, Graham and others seem to think so with neolibs like Biden in agreement.
Well, to be fair, this was mostly about oil.
Only a fool believes that. And Russia always tries to help Democrats elected president.
Obama tells Medvedev he will have "more flexibility" after election
Wow, so you still believe the media’s lie that Russia was helping Trump, even though it’s been debunked? Russia was helping Hillary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.