The U.S. antiwar movement is reaching a critical juncture because a majority of Americans are doubting the need for war. What’s next?
A TURNING POINT IN THE WAR
By Jack A. Smith
June 5, 2005 Hudson Valley Activist Newsletter (USA)
The U.S. antiwar movement is reaching a critical juncture. For well over a year public opinion has been transforming into opposition to various aspects of the Iraq war. Now, quantitative changes are metamorphosing into qualitative change, and a moment is approaching when it appears the majority of Americans will turn against the war.
The massive demonstrations scheduled for Washington Sept. 24, organized by the September 24 National Coalition (initiated by ANSWER) and United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ) will take place at this pivotal point.
Both coalitions call for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq — a demand in advance of the generality of public opinion, and all the more required for being so. Why? The fallback position for the Bush administration and those in the “opposition” party who support remaining in Iraq until victory is a long-term “withdrawal” taking many years.
What has changed about Iraq that has caused this turnabout in public views? The so-called Vietnam Syndrome is reasserting itself. That is, public opinion is showing a disinclination to support an aggressive U.S. war against a small third-world country that lasts more than a year or two and costs far more in American lives and treasure than anticipated.
Despite the existence of a powerful “preemptive” antiwar movement that developed in the months leading up to President George Bush’s invasion of Iraq, nearly 70% of the American people supported the war when it started. They had been assured by the Bush administration that the war was necessary, based on lies about weapons of mass destruction and Baghdad’s alleged connection to the 9/11 terror attack, and that Iraq would be crushed in a matter of weeks or months with few U.S. casualties and at a bargain-basement price.
Of its many miscalculations in the rush to seize Iraq for its abundant reservoir of petroleum and strategic location in the Middle East, the Bush administration’s greatest mistake was to ignore the possibility that the Iraqi people would resist an invasion and occupation by a foreign power.
The resistance has deprived the White House of a promised quick victory, caused the U.S. death toll to approach the 2,000 mark, has cost a fortune, and is now resurrecting the Vietnam Syndrome. What the Bush administration fears most is that the resistance will cause a majority of Americans to vocally and actively express their opposition to the war, as they did during the Vietnam conflict.
Government and political leaders are deeply worried that the army of occupation will become demoralized by widespread antiwar sentiment at home, which is why the propaganda apparatus and mass media glorify the Armed Forces and continuously urge the masses of people to express patriotism about the war and publicly declare support for the troops. Recruitment for the professional army has already fallen to new lows, the reserves are dropping out as fast as possible, and there is no possibility of reinstituting conscription unless the White House also desires to see the antiwar movement instantly double in size.
Public opinion polls have been gravitating toward opposition to the war since it became obvious five or six months after the March 2003 invasion that the promised easy victory was turning into a prolonged struggle against a growing armed resistance.
Opposition was actually quite high throughout the 2004 election year. For instance, Gallup reported three weeks before the election that 54% of the American people held that “it was not worth going to war.” This was two points higher than Gallup’s June 30 poll this year. Two weeks before the election, the ABC/Washington Post poll revealed that a majority of the people (50-47%) disapproved of the way Bush was conducting the war. It’s 56-43% in the same polling group’s survey last month.
But when both ruling parties fielded presidential candidates utterly devoted to prevailing in Iraq, the antiwar movement ironically began to dissipate as public opinion grew stronger against the war. Some 98% of the electorate voted for pro-war candidates. The only serious mainstream antiwar candidate was Ralph Nader, who had been so demonized by the Democratic Party, coupled with the quadrennial reappearance of “lesser evil” politics, that antiwar liberals felt they had no choice but to vote for Kerry and war.
One cannot help but wonder what would have happened had the Democrats opposed the war from the beginning, educated the public about the real nature of the Bush administration’s invasion, and nominated a candidate committed to withdrawal. In our opinion that candidate would probably be seated in the Oval Office today, pulling the last troops out of Iraq.
Today’s poll figures show that most Americans no longer wish to be engaged in the war. By 58-38% Americans think Bush “does not have a clear plan for handling the situation in Iraq,” according to Gallup. By 51-46%, people told Gallup “it was not necessary to invade Iraq to prevent additional terrorism in the U.S.” ABC News/Washington Post asked, “Was war with Iraq worth fighting?” and 53-46% said no. Are U.S. casualty figures acceptable? — 69-29% said “unacceptable.” Has the U.S. “gotten bogged down” in Iraq” — 62-37% said bogged down. Has the war “damaged the U.S. image in the world” — 67-33% said yes. Was going to war a mistake? — 51-48%, yes. Did Bush “intentionally mislead the American public?” — 52-48% yes.
The new Associated Press/Ipsos poll is quite similar. Was it a mistake to go to war in Iraq? — 53-42% yes. Approve of Bush’s conduct of the war? — 56-41% disapprove. Has the war been worth it? — 50-49% no. Has the loss in American lives been worth it? — 56-41, no. CNN/USA Today/Gallup asked, “Do you favor or oppose the U.S. war with Iraq,” by 59-39% the majority opposed. The latest CBS/New York Times poll asked about Bush’s handling of the war and by 59-37% disapproved. Should the U.S. have go into Iraq or stayed out? — 51-45% said stayed out.
Despite these impressive antiwar numbers, there are complications. Americans may now think the war was a mistake and that the U.S. should never have invaded, but they are confused about getting out. Gallup reported in early July that by 64-28% it “is necessary to keep troops in Iraq now to prevent additional acts of terrorism in the U.S.” Would it do more harm or good for the U.S. “if the troops pulled out before things stabilize in Iraq?” — 55-41% said it would do harm to the U.S. ABC News/Washington Post asked if the troops should remain in Iraq “until civil order is restored, even if that means continued U.S. military casualties?” — and 58-41% said yes. Associated Press asked if the troops should leave immediately or wait until “the situation has stabilized?” — and 59-37% said wait until there was stability (which is not to deny the great importance of the 37% immediate withdrawal opinion, which is quite high under the circumstances).
There’s another complication that showed up in the ABC News/Washington Post poll in late June: “As a result of the war, are the Iraqi people better or worse off now than before the invasion?” By a startling 69-24% the answer was “better off,” despite over 100,000 Iraqi dead, the total disruption of the country’s infrastructure, unimaginable hardships, a Quisling regime in Baghdad and an occupation by foreign troops.
As the polls change, so do the politicians, including a number of Republicans. During a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing in late June, conservative Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) turned to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and spoke the unspeakable: "I'm here to tell you sir, in the most patriotic state that I can imagine, people are beginning to question. And I don't think it's a blip on the radar screen. I think we have a chronic problem on our hands. We will lose this war if we leave too soon. And what is likely to make us do that? The public going south. And that is happening."
Liberal Democrats — such as Reps. Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), the Hudson Valley’s Maurice Hinchey (N.Y.), Neil Abercrombie (Hawaii), Marty Meehan (Mass.), Lynn Woolsey (Calif.), Barbara Lee (Calif.), and others — have become increasingly activated in the antiwar fight. (NOTE: Rep. Hinchey will speak in New Paltz at SUNY on the war and the Downing St. memo. He deserves a good turnout. See July 7 in the calendar, part 2.)
These liberals, have little influence over their party, unfortunately, as was quite evident during the convention last year when one after another had to bend the knee to a centrist candidate dedicated to winning an unjust, illegal war based on lies. But they have, along with a few Republicans such as Rep. Ron Paul (Texas) and, surprisingly, Rep. Walter Jones (N.C.),
constituted whatever conscience now exists in the House. Their latest endeavor is House Joint Resolution 55, “a bill to establish a plan to begin the end of the war in Iraq.”
According to Kucinich, the bill “requires the Administration to announce not later than Dec. 31, 2005, a plan to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, and to begin bringing our troops home not later than Oct. 1, 2006. This will be the beginning of the end of the war in Iraq.”
This is a step forward, of course, but passage of such legislation is unlikely in the short term. In the longer term, the Bush administration — joined by pro-war Democratic politicians — may be able to manipulate such a vague proposal into a mandate for a long occupation.
The principal role in translating public antipathy to the war into political action will be played by the antiwar forces, not the relatively small minority of antiwar politicians who nonetheless deserve as much support as the movement can muster.
The first task of the peace movement must be to mount a monumental protest in Washington Sept. 24 to make an indelible statement to the American people, particularly those additional millions now leaning toward the antiwar side, that the United States should withdraw from Iraq immediately.
One of the key responsibilities for this movement is to explain why the sky is not going to fall on America if the U.S. pulls out quickly, any more than the withdrawal from Vietnam caused the U.S. harm. Indeed, losing the Vietnam war was a good thing for our country. Steps were taken to reduce the extensive powers of the CIA and FBI. Some good legislation was passed. And above all it kept the warmakers in check for many years, forcing them to cautiously experiment with small wars, such as Grenada and Panama, or proxy wars as in Nicaragua and El Salvador, before graduating to the Gulf War in 1991 — and even then the fear of the Vietnam Syndrome keep President Bush the First from directly invading Iraq. The next big U.S. adventure was the unjust, illegal attack on Yugoslavia — but in deference to the “syndrome” it was kept short and without American casualties.
It took 28 years after Vietnam before Bush the Second decided it was time to carry out a major imperialist war in defiance of the Vietnam Syndrome. And, as with Vietnam, it will do the U.S. and the world good if Bush’s adventure in Iraq is brought to an abrupt halt.
Another task for the movement will be to enlighten the American people as to why a swift American departure is not going to harm Iraq any more than it has been harmed by the U.S. invasion in the first place. Bush’s invasion has set in motion a process that may well result in civil war, a possible breakup of the nation and grave future hardship. This is a matter best handled by the Iraqi people, not neoconservative warmakers or centrist empire-builders from the United States on the prowl for oil and hegemony in the Middle East.
The comparison between Vietnam and Iraq has been overplayed, as we have cautioned before. But there are similarities, not the least being the ignorance and intransigence of the political leadership in Washington, a hubris-ridden circus of fools with overwhelming military power at their disposal and a desire to rule the world. Once again, as Country Joe put it, they are “getting Uncle Sam into a terrible jam,” and in the words of Pete Seeger (the full text is in an article below), “We’re neck deep in the Big Muddy and the damn fools keep yelling to push on.” Our movement’s job at this possible turning point in the war is to push back hard and without letup.
By Jack A. Smith
June 5, 2005 Hudson Valley Activist Newsletter (USA)
The U.S. antiwar movement is reaching a critical juncture. For well over a year public opinion has been transforming into opposition to various aspects of the Iraq war. Now, quantitative changes are metamorphosing into qualitative change, and a moment is approaching when it appears the majority of Americans will turn against the war.
The massive demonstrations scheduled for Washington Sept. 24, organized by the September 24 National Coalition (initiated by ANSWER) and United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ) will take place at this pivotal point.
Both coalitions call for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq — a demand in advance of the generality of public opinion, and all the more required for being so. Why? The fallback position for the Bush administration and those in the “opposition” party who support remaining in Iraq until victory is a long-term “withdrawal” taking many years.
What has changed about Iraq that has caused this turnabout in public views? The so-called Vietnam Syndrome is reasserting itself. That is, public opinion is showing a disinclination to support an aggressive U.S. war against a small third-world country that lasts more than a year or two and costs far more in American lives and treasure than anticipated.
Despite the existence of a powerful “preemptive” antiwar movement that developed in the months leading up to President George Bush’s invasion of Iraq, nearly 70% of the American people supported the war when it started. They had been assured by the Bush administration that the war was necessary, based on lies about weapons of mass destruction and Baghdad’s alleged connection to the 9/11 terror attack, and that Iraq would be crushed in a matter of weeks or months with few U.S. casualties and at a bargain-basement price.
Of its many miscalculations in the rush to seize Iraq for its abundant reservoir of petroleum and strategic location in the Middle East, the Bush administration’s greatest mistake was to ignore the possibility that the Iraqi people would resist an invasion and occupation by a foreign power.
The resistance has deprived the White House of a promised quick victory, caused the U.S. death toll to approach the 2,000 mark, has cost a fortune, and is now resurrecting the Vietnam Syndrome. What the Bush administration fears most is that the resistance will cause a majority of Americans to vocally and actively express their opposition to the war, as they did during the Vietnam conflict.
Government and political leaders are deeply worried that the army of occupation will become demoralized by widespread antiwar sentiment at home, which is why the propaganda apparatus and mass media glorify the Armed Forces and continuously urge the masses of people to express patriotism about the war and publicly declare support for the troops. Recruitment for the professional army has already fallen to new lows, the reserves are dropping out as fast as possible, and there is no possibility of reinstituting conscription unless the White House also desires to see the antiwar movement instantly double in size.
Public opinion polls have been gravitating toward opposition to the war since it became obvious five or six months after the March 2003 invasion that the promised easy victory was turning into a prolonged struggle against a growing armed resistance.
Opposition was actually quite high throughout the 2004 election year. For instance, Gallup reported three weeks before the election that 54% of the American people held that “it was not worth going to war.” This was two points higher than Gallup’s June 30 poll this year. Two weeks before the election, the ABC/Washington Post poll revealed that a majority of the people (50-47%) disapproved of the way Bush was conducting the war. It’s 56-43% in the same polling group’s survey last month.
But when both ruling parties fielded presidential candidates utterly devoted to prevailing in Iraq, the antiwar movement ironically began to dissipate as public opinion grew stronger against the war. Some 98% of the electorate voted for pro-war candidates. The only serious mainstream antiwar candidate was Ralph Nader, who had been so demonized by the Democratic Party, coupled with the quadrennial reappearance of “lesser evil” politics, that antiwar liberals felt they had no choice but to vote for Kerry and war.
One cannot help but wonder what would have happened had the Democrats opposed the war from the beginning, educated the public about the real nature of the Bush administration’s invasion, and nominated a candidate committed to withdrawal. In our opinion that candidate would probably be seated in the Oval Office today, pulling the last troops out of Iraq.
Today’s poll figures show that most Americans no longer wish to be engaged in the war. By 58-38% Americans think Bush “does not have a clear plan for handling the situation in Iraq,” according to Gallup. By 51-46%, people told Gallup “it was not necessary to invade Iraq to prevent additional terrorism in the U.S.” ABC News/Washington Post asked, “Was war with Iraq worth fighting?” and 53-46% said no. Are U.S. casualty figures acceptable? — 69-29% said “unacceptable.” Has the U.S. “gotten bogged down” in Iraq” — 62-37% said bogged down. Has the war “damaged the U.S. image in the world” — 67-33% said yes. Was going to war a mistake? — 51-48%, yes. Did Bush “intentionally mislead the American public?” — 52-48% yes.
The new Associated Press/Ipsos poll is quite similar. Was it a mistake to go to war in Iraq? — 53-42% yes. Approve of Bush’s conduct of the war? — 56-41% disapprove. Has the war been worth it? — 50-49% no. Has the loss in American lives been worth it? — 56-41, no. CNN/USA Today/Gallup asked, “Do you favor or oppose the U.S. war with Iraq,” by 59-39% the majority opposed. The latest CBS/New York Times poll asked about Bush’s handling of the war and by 59-37% disapproved. Should the U.S. have go into Iraq or stayed out? — 51-45% said stayed out.
Despite these impressive antiwar numbers, there are complications. Americans may now think the war was a mistake and that the U.S. should never have invaded, but they are confused about getting out. Gallup reported in early July that by 64-28% it “is necessary to keep troops in Iraq now to prevent additional acts of terrorism in the U.S.” Would it do more harm or good for the U.S. “if the troops pulled out before things stabilize in Iraq?” — 55-41% said it would do harm to the U.S. ABC News/Washington Post asked if the troops should remain in Iraq “until civil order is restored, even if that means continued U.S. military casualties?” — and 58-41% said yes. Associated Press asked if the troops should leave immediately or wait until “the situation has stabilized?” — and 59-37% said wait until there was stability (which is not to deny the great importance of the 37% immediate withdrawal opinion, which is quite high under the circumstances).
There’s another complication that showed up in the ABC News/Washington Post poll in late June: “As a result of the war, are the Iraqi people better or worse off now than before the invasion?” By a startling 69-24% the answer was “better off,” despite over 100,000 Iraqi dead, the total disruption of the country’s infrastructure, unimaginable hardships, a Quisling regime in Baghdad and an occupation by foreign troops.
As the polls change, so do the politicians, including a number of Republicans. During a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing in late June, conservative Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) turned to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and spoke the unspeakable: "I'm here to tell you sir, in the most patriotic state that I can imagine, people are beginning to question. And I don't think it's a blip on the radar screen. I think we have a chronic problem on our hands. We will lose this war if we leave too soon. And what is likely to make us do that? The public going south. And that is happening."
Liberal Democrats — such as Reps. Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), the Hudson Valley’s Maurice Hinchey (N.Y.), Neil Abercrombie (Hawaii), Marty Meehan (Mass.), Lynn Woolsey (Calif.), Barbara Lee (Calif.), and others — have become increasingly activated in the antiwar fight. (NOTE: Rep. Hinchey will speak in New Paltz at SUNY on the war and the Downing St. memo. He deserves a good turnout. See July 7 in the calendar, part 2.)
These liberals, have little influence over their party, unfortunately, as was quite evident during the convention last year when one after another had to bend the knee to a centrist candidate dedicated to winning an unjust, illegal war based on lies. But they have, along with a few Republicans such as Rep. Ron Paul (Texas) and, surprisingly, Rep. Walter Jones (N.C.),
constituted whatever conscience now exists in the House. Their latest endeavor is House Joint Resolution 55, “a bill to establish a plan to begin the end of the war in Iraq.”
According to Kucinich, the bill “requires the Administration to announce not later than Dec. 31, 2005, a plan to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, and to begin bringing our troops home not later than Oct. 1, 2006. This will be the beginning of the end of the war in Iraq.”
This is a step forward, of course, but passage of such legislation is unlikely in the short term. In the longer term, the Bush administration — joined by pro-war Democratic politicians — may be able to manipulate such a vague proposal into a mandate for a long occupation.
The principal role in translating public antipathy to the war into political action will be played by the antiwar forces, not the relatively small minority of antiwar politicians who nonetheless deserve as much support as the movement can muster.
The first task of the peace movement must be to mount a monumental protest in Washington Sept. 24 to make an indelible statement to the American people, particularly those additional millions now leaning toward the antiwar side, that the United States should withdraw from Iraq immediately.
One of the key responsibilities for this movement is to explain why the sky is not going to fall on America if the U.S. pulls out quickly, any more than the withdrawal from Vietnam caused the U.S. harm. Indeed, losing the Vietnam war was a good thing for our country. Steps were taken to reduce the extensive powers of the CIA and FBI. Some good legislation was passed. And above all it kept the warmakers in check for many years, forcing them to cautiously experiment with small wars, such as Grenada and Panama, or proxy wars as in Nicaragua and El Salvador, before graduating to the Gulf War in 1991 — and even then the fear of the Vietnam Syndrome keep President Bush the First from directly invading Iraq. The next big U.S. adventure was the unjust, illegal attack on Yugoslavia — but in deference to the “syndrome” it was kept short and without American casualties.
It took 28 years after Vietnam before Bush the Second decided it was time to carry out a major imperialist war in defiance of the Vietnam Syndrome. And, as with Vietnam, it will do the U.S. and the world good if Bush’s adventure in Iraq is brought to an abrupt halt.
Another task for the movement will be to enlighten the American people as to why a swift American departure is not going to harm Iraq any more than it has been harmed by the U.S. invasion in the first place. Bush’s invasion has set in motion a process that may well result in civil war, a possible breakup of the nation and grave future hardship. This is a matter best handled by the Iraqi people, not neoconservative warmakers or centrist empire-builders from the United States on the prowl for oil and hegemony in the Middle East.
The comparison between Vietnam and Iraq has been overplayed, as we have cautioned before. But there are similarities, not the least being the ignorance and intransigence of the political leadership in Washington, a hubris-ridden circus of fools with overwhelming military power at their disposal and a desire to rule the world. Once again, as Country Joe put it, they are “getting Uncle Sam into a terrible jam,” and in the words of Pete Seeger (the full text is in an article below), “We’re neck deep in the Big Muddy and the damn fools keep yelling to push on.” Our movement’s job at this possible turning point in the war is to push back hard and without letup.
e-mail:
