Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Twenty Years After the U.S. Invaded Iraq, the Anti-War Protest Movement Does Still Matter.
Monterey County Weekly ^ | Feb 16, 2023 | David Cortright

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.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: antiwar; donatetofreerepublic; iraq; ukraine
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061 next last
To: nickcarraway

You are obviously a beta who is desperate enough now to resort to the basest of name calling. Grow up and procure better arguments instead.

Trotsky’s IDEAS were enough of a threat to Stalin’s way of thinking to have him cracked so as to nip them in the bud as much as possible.

Done talking to you now and reading your clearly uneducated ramblings.


41 posted on 02/19/2023 3:13:53 PM PST by Its All Over Except ...
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Cortright hasn’t done his homework.


42 posted on 02/19/2023 3:18:21 PM PST by sauropod (“If they don’t believe our lies, well, that’s just conspiracy theorist stuff, there.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
"To: Its All Over Except ... So you are pro-war and pro-globalism?"
I read his post as obvious sarcasm. Maybe, you are the pro-globalist?
43 posted on 02/19/2023 3:19:03 PM PST by Hiddigeigei ("Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish," said Dionysus - Euripides)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Its All Over Except ...
Trotsky’s IDEAS were enough of a threat to Stalin’s way of thinking to have him cracked so as to nip them in the bud as much as possible. Have you even taken high school level history? Stalin was a paranoid maniac of epic proportions. He killed off waves and waves of officials under him, and burned through intelligence assets in the U.S.

Trotsky was feeling from country to country and was ABSOLUTELY no threat to Stalin.

44 posted on 02/19/2023 3:22:22 PM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Its All Over Except ...

Sorry, but I am deeply educated in history. The U.S. communists and fellow travelers never turned on Stalin. Read a book by Davis Horowitz or Ron Radosh.


45 posted on 02/19/2023 3:24:00 PM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Its All Over Except ...

LOL. I’m a beta because I won’t fall for your anti=American leftist drivel.


46 posted on 02/19/2023 3:25:43 PM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
you still believe the media’s lie that Russia was helping Trump

Er, no. Never did--and not sure where you got that. The Russians did use to help the Dems more--actually wrote all their policies for them in the 1960s, '70s, and ''80s

And of course they try to help the Dems now. Today, the Dems favor a weak America because trading away pieces of our country to Russia, the Ukraine, and Red China has been a nice business for them.

47 posted on 02/19/2023 3:27:48 PM PST by SamuraiScot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

Wasn’t she shacking up with Lew Rockwell? Left her marriage, IIRC.


48 posted on 02/19/2023 3:28:09 PM PST by sauropod (“If they don’t believe our lies, well, that’s just conspiracy theorist stuff, there.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

“ They are one both sides. Biden and Obama are on Putin’s side.”

Indeed, yes.


49 posted on 02/19/2023 3:34:12 PM PST by ifinnegan (Democrats kill babies and harvest their organs to sell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

I read your comment earlier and didn’t take it the right way.

You are exactly right.

I have no interest in seeing a bad player be rewarded with
land and mineral/or energy deposits, not saying you did or
didn’t.

In this instance, the land should be returned. > IMO

If the Russian speakers want to be a part of Russia,
Russia should facilitate them moving into Russia.

Let them sell their land in the Ukraine for a reasonable
amount, then buy/build in Russia.

That’s what we suggest for people in the U.S. who are
unhappy here.

The borders were set years ago, after careful negotiations
between Russia and the Ukraine. The time to address this
was back then. Now it needs to be handled somewhat
differently.


50 posted on 02/19/2023 4:04:57 PM PST by DoughtyOne (I pledge allegiance to the flag of the USofA & to the Constitutional REPUBLIC for? which it stands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

Agree. As Japan most recently found out war should never be the first, second or even the third resort. Putin effed up.

Having said that I’m trying to see two sides of this conflict. Those eastern provinces were part of Russia less than a hundred years ago and were arbitrarily given to Ukraine as a political sop. As such they do contain majority Russian populations. Ukraine has been fighting a separatist movement there for at least the past ten years, and given the ‘foreign interest’ in Ukraine Russia obviously honestly feels it is being encircled.

All of this should be considered. Anyway, given Russia has invested hundred(s) of thousands of lives already they will hardly be willing to begin negotiating with their withdrawal as a precondition.


51 posted on 02/19/2023 5:17:08 PM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: BobL

Bobl on 19th February 2023 “Putin will get FAR MORE of Ukraine than he ever dreamed of.”

Bobbie, Pooptin had, on 31 March 2022, control of 27% of Ukraine.

Now he has control of less than 15%

To simplify it for you, that means he has lost nearly half of the territory he once controlled, just 10 months ago


52 posted on 02/20/2023 2:36:56 AM PST by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

“To simplify it for you, that means he has lost nearly half of the territory he once controlled, just 10 months ago”

I guess if you’re going to join the bunch that pretends to be 5 year olds, then I guess we’re stuck with that attitude here.

For others, Putin had ASKED for Crimea before the war started, 4% of Ukraine. He has now liberated at least 15% of the country and is well on his way to liberating FAR MORE of Ukraine, possibly all of it (although you guys will likely get to deal with the Bandera region in the far west when the new borders are drawn).

You can thank your buddies who lead NATO for this outcome...it did not have to end this way.


53 posted on 02/20/2023 5:26:57 AM PST by BobL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: BobL

Putin had grabbed Crimea in 2014.

That was in violation of the 1994 Budapest agreement in which Russia signed that it would respect Ukraine’s borders.

Russia is losing thanks to Putin


54 posted on 02/20/2023 5:31:14 AM PST by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: BobL

Bobl “e has now liberated at least 15% of the country and is well on his way to liberating FAR MORE of Ukraine”

Grabbing territory your country had sworn (in the 1994 Budapest agreement) to respect, is not liberating.

You probably think that in 1938 to 1942 Hitler was just “liberating” German lands, eh?


55 posted on 02/20/2023 5:33:38 AM PST by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

“Russia is losing thanks to Putin”

If you say it 1000 times, then Putin might leave the HUGE AREAS he’s liberated...or he might not.


56 posted on 02/20/2023 5:38:50 AM PST by BobL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

“Putin had grabbed Crimea in 2014. That was in violation of the 1994 Budapest agreement in which Russia signed that it would respect Ukraine’s borders.”

How’s Kosovo doing these days, Mr. NATO?


57 posted on 02/20/2023 5:40:16 AM PST by BobL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: BobL

You’re changing the topic.

Do you now admit that you were wrong about any alleged “will not expand beyond East Germany “,

>Russia EXPRESSLY violated the Budapest Agreement which it SIGNED promising to respect Ukrainian borders, you say no one cares?? Typical Russian double-speak

the Budapest memorandum

According to the three memoranda,Russia, the US and the UK confirmed their recognition of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine becoming parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and effectively abandoning their nuclear arsenal to Russia and that they agreed to the following:

1. Respect the signatory’s independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.
2. Refrain from the threat or the use of force against the signatory.
3. Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by the signatory of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.
4. Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they “should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used”.

5. Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against the signatory.

___________

Russia signed this and has violated protocols 1,2,3 and 5

Russia promised to not only respect Ukraine’s 1994 borders, including Crimea, but also
to
1. Refrain from the threat or the use of force against the signatory.
And to
2. Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by the signatory of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.

Russia has violated every one of those agreements which were made with Ukraine with the only condition from Ukraine being Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons.

Russia reneges on international law and promises


58 posted on 02/20/2023 9:13:01 AM PST by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: BobL

Grabbing territory your country had sworn (in the 1994 Budapest agreement) to respect, is not liberating.

You probably think that in 1938 to 1942 Hitler was just “liberating” German lands, eh?


59 posted on 02/20/2023 11:20:05 AM PST by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

“You’re changing the topic.”

Nope, perfectly happy to talk about Ukraine, providing you can explain to us why it is different than Kosovo.

So far, you REFUSE, so I’ll answer: We defined the ‘New World Order’ with Kosovo, which was AFTER Bucharest, and our rule is that if a country is strong enough, they can STEP ON THE NECK of any country they choose, as we did with Serbia.

So how’s Ukraine different, again?


60 posted on 02/20/2023 3:33:41 PM PST by BobL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson