Whatever Happened To The Anti-War Movement?
American lives are being lost. Innocent civilians are being killed. Several of the engagements appear to be primed for protraction. The wars are expensive in other ways, too.
At least since the stormy 1960s, whenever America has gotten involved in deadly combat on foreign soil, large crowds of peace-promoting citizens have gathered in Washington and other cities to demonstrate against war.
It happened in 2007, when tens of thousands congregated on the National Mall and heard actors Sean Penn, Jane Fonda and Danny Glover speak out against President George W. Bush and the war in Iraq. It happened in 1991, when throngs rallied against U.S. involvement in the first Gulf War. And it has happened more than a dozen other times since the March on Washington for Peace in Vietnam in 1965.
Now, despite the U.S. military's concurrent and costly entanglements, the National Mall is quiet and the streets of Washington are pretty much protester-free.
The lack of noise and the apparent nonchalance raises the question: Where have all the protesters gone?
Moral Outrage
"I think a couple of things happened to the anti-war movement in the U.S.," says Celia Cook-Huffman, professor of conflict resolution at Juniata College in Huntingdon, Pa. "First, we did see it, alive and well, prior to the Iraq war. It had become an international movement that pulled together people from all over the world to try to stop the U.S."
But in recent years, she says, organizing a war protest has become more difficult. "The lack of a draft means that fewer people feel coerced into fighting," Cook-Huffman says, and "there is less a sense generally that people are being coerced to participate — even though in economic terms this may not be true. But I think it changes how people feel about soldiers and war."
She also believes the country is still stinging from the harsh way many Vietnam veterans were treated upon their return to civilian life. "People are more careful about doing anything that looks like it might be attacking soldiers," she says. "I think it makes it harder to organize a movement."
Since the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, anti-war sentiment has been clouded by the "War on Terror," Cook-Huffman says, which makes the enemy "both very scary and very nebulous. So we can feel great that we aren't attacking innocent Afghans, only bad Afghans."
And, she adds, many Americans no longer feel the impact of the wars being fought. News from the frontlines is more tightly controlled by military officials than in the past. "The army has gotten much smarter about how it frames the story and filters information," she says, "so that the stories that outrage and require a moral response are harder to find."
Plus, military spending in the United States is big business, affecting many communities. According to Jo Comerford of the National Priorities Project, a Massachusetts-based federal-data research organization, the U.S. has spent about $1.2 trillion on the wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan in the past decade.
Tea Party Protesters?
Time was, a war abroad was a galvanizing moment for a certain cross section of Americans. Not only were there large marches and sit-ins, but also creatives wrote poetry and songs, produced anti-war art and put on street theater. The peace-loving, conflict-averse strain of Americankind was vocal and visible and a proud and potent player in the national debate.
Today that seems like so much nostalgia.
"Resistance to war has taken on new and different forms than what we knew in the 1960s," says Barbara Wien, a professor of peace education at American University. "It is insinuated into many, many aspects of our society now, and resistance to war is growing among the world's people. The peace movement is actually everywhere."
But it's just not the same. Now and then, small pockets of protesters still band together. On March 19, for instance, about 100 demonstrators — anti-war protesters marking the eighth anniversary of U.S. military involvement in Iraq — were arrested outside the White House.
"It's a far cry from the Bush years, when hundreds of thousands or millions marched against the war," David Boaz, executive vice president of the libertarian Cato Institute, writes on the Britannica website. He asks the same question: Whatever happened to the anti-war movement?
In the post, he points out that American protests against wars seemed to stop the moment Barack Obama was elected president in 2008. "Maybe anti-war organizers assumed that they had elected the man who would stop the war," he observes.
But the wars have continued. More than two-thirds of Americans have opposed military intervention in Libya, Boaz reports, and nearly two-thirds of Americans — a number that is up dramatically since early 2010 — believe the war in Afghanistan hasn't been worth fighting. "Where are their leaders?" Boaz wants to know. "Where are the senators pushing for withdrawal? Where are the organizations?"
He concludes that the anti-war activity in the United States — and around the world — a few years ago "was driven as much by antipathy to George W. Bush as by actual opposition to war and intervention."
To buttress his assertions, Boaz cites a recently published study of anti-war protesters. The research was conducted by Michael Heaney of the University of Michigan and Fabio Rojas of Indiana University. It concludes that the anti-war movement in America evaporated because Democrats — inspired to protest by their anti-Republican feelings — stopped protesting once the Democratic Party achieved success in Congress in 2006 and then in the White House in 2008.
"As president, Obama has maintained the occupation of Iraq and escalated the war in Afghanistan," Heaney, an assistant professor of organizational studies and political science, said in a news release. "The anti-war movement should have been furious at Obama's 'betrayal' and reinvigorated its protest activity."
Instead, Heaney continued, "attendance at anti-war rallies declined precipitously and financial resources available to the movement have dissipated. The election of Obama appeared to be a demobilizing force on the anti-war movement, even in the face of his pro-war decisions."
So is Barack Obama the new George W. Bush? Could a "new, non-Democratic" anti-war coalition rise up to protest against the wars being waged today? Boaz asks. "And the $64,000 question — though these days it would have to be at least a $64 billion question — could a new anti-war movement hook up with the Tea Party movement in a 'Stop the War, Stop the Spending' revolt?"
After all, the Tea Party has shown that it knows how to stage demonstrations.
Talking Broadly About War
And what about the younger generations? With the American anti-war movement of the 1960s came a widespread interest among students in peace, justice and conflict resolution. Today, dozens of colleges and universities offer courses — and some offer majors — in peace studies. There are professional organizations such as the Peace and Justice Studies Association and the International Peace Research Association.
With America mired in a myriad of military pursuits, what do professors of peace studies say in the classroom? "The 'why' does get a bit complicated at times," says Juniata's Celia Cook-Huffman, but the students "seem willing to struggle with that."
She adds, "We also try to talk about war broadly, so the war on the poor and the war on the environment get mixed in there as well."
And how do students respond? In various ways. "Some are ready to take action and do," she says. And "some feel overwhelmed and aren't sure what do to."
|
Once the democrats got power they weren't going to be saddled with what could be considered defeat. So they didn't pull out of Iraq but also started up more war, they didn't close Gitmo, they intensified wireless wire tapping, and all of a sudden they were fine with all of it. So now half the people in the anti-war movement are suddenly understanding the need for it cause they're invested in the current group of politicians.
I think the economy has a major impact as people can't take the time off to protest.
It is also well because the 'aint-war' crowd was boosted by democrats opposing republican. Now that it is a 'democrat war' it is ok. One of the truths I have found out about people and politics is that everybody know the senator or congressmen are corrupt...but the ones they voted for is the exception. There are exceptions of course...but that just proves the rule.
|
We're still around, its just we lost. Our own candidate didn't listen to us.
That pretty much sums it up.
When you spend tons of effort campaigning for a guy who stands up and shouts anti-war mantras then he turns his back on you... I think people feel lost. In 2008-2007 the war protesters won... congratulations on an empty victory.
Don't worry, the Republicans have been shafting the other side with their empty promises of smaller government.
Equal representation.
And this is why Democrats make better war-mongers than Republicans.
Funny thing is Obama didn't campaign on being anti-War. In fact, iirc he stated that he wanted to increase the focus on Afghanistan, where he thought we should have stayed. The most he did was point out how he didn't support Iraq at all, unlike many of his Dem opponents who had voted for it initially. But he never was anti-War, just anti-Iraq war.
|
|
Funny thing is Obama didn't campaign on being anti-War. In fact, iirc he stated that he wanted to increase the focus on Afghanistan, where he thought we should have stayed. The most he did was point out how he didn't support Iraq at all, unlike many of his Dem opponents who had voted for it initially. But he never was anti-War, just anti-Iraq war.
Doesn't that depend on whether you are talking about the Primary Campaign:
"The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year — now,"Or the Presidential campaign where he backed way way off from that?
Also, in 2007 running through the primaries:
"But our drawdown should proceed at a steady pace of one or two brigades each month. If we start now, all of our combat brigades should be out of Iraq by the end of next year."
During the primaries one of the biggest differences between Obama and Clinton was their war stance and he pulled every anti-war string he could while Clinton had a stance much closer to McCains. Obama didn't campaign against McCain as being anti-war because he didn't have to, he killed Hillary on it though (then stole her platform on it for the presidential run).
Ultimately Obama's flip flop on his anti-war stance was the nail in the coffin for me. Once he did that I pretty much lost all respect for him.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
We're still around, its just we lost. Our own candidate didn't listen to us.That pretty much sums it up.
When you spend tons of effort campaigning for a guy who stands up and shouts anti-war mantras then he turns his back on you... I think people feel lost. In 2008-2007 the war protesters won... congratulations on an empty victory.
Don't worry, the Republicans have been shafting the other side with their empty promises of smaller government.
Equal representation.
+1 Internets.
Funny thing is Obama didn't campaign on being anti-War. In fact, iirc he stated that he wanted to increase the focus on Afghanistan, where he thought we should have stayed. The most he did was point out how he didn't support Iraq at all, unlike many of his Dem opponents who had voted for it initially. But he never was anti-War, just anti-Iraq war.Doesn't that depend on whether you are talking about the Primary Campaign:
"The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year — now,"Or the Presidential campaign where he backed way way off from that?
Also, in 2007 running through the primaries:
"But our drawdown should proceed at a steady pace of one or two brigades each month. If we start now, all of our combat brigades should be out of Iraq by the end of next year."During the primaries one of the biggest differences between Obama and Clinton was their war stance and he pulled every anti-war string he could while Clinton had a stance much closer to McCains. Obama didn't campaign against McCain as being anti-war because he didn't have to, he killed Hillary on it though (then stole her platform on it for the presidential run).
Ultimately Obama's flip flop on his anti-war stance was the nail in the coffin for me. Once he did that I pretty much lost all respect for him.
And again, you'll notice both quotes you give are directed at Iraq, not Afghanistan. Yes, he was against the Iraq war from the beginning, but he wasn't anti-War, just anti-Iraq war. The false assumption many made was that if he was against the Iraq war, he must be against all war. But that is not something he ever said. And again, I believe he did talk about redirecting our forces to Afghanistan and away from Iraq.
Taking the fight to Afghanistan and Pakistan.
I think many of the supporters just didn't listen critically to what he was saying. He has done exactly what he said he was going to do. Focus more on Afghanistan and take drone attacks to Pakistan.
|
|
And again, you'll notice both quotes you give are directed at Iraq, not Afghanistan. Yes, he was against the Iraq war from the beginning, but he wasn't anti-War, just anti-Iraq war. The false assumption many made was that if he was against the Iraq war, he must be against all war. But that is not something he ever said. And again, I believe he did talk about redirecting our forces to Afghanistan and away from Iraq.
You are splitting hairs.
Anti-war activists at the time were very vocal against Iraq and so that's
what he glomped onto to grab their attention and their vote. No he didn't say "Hey I'm against ALL war", but he did take a rather vocal stance on the war that was primarily in the public eye at the time and he made some rather bold assertions about what policies he intended to pursue.
At the time Afghanistan was largely a minor side show and it is still largely considered a justified military action even by most of the peace-loving folks.
Edit: Has anyone ever campaigned on a policy of pure pacifism?
And again, you'll notice both quotes you give are directed at Iraq, not Afghanistan. Yes, he was against the Iraq war from the beginning, but he wasn't anti-War, just anti-Iraq war. The false assumption many made was that if he was against the Iraq war, he must be against all war. But that is not something he ever said. And again, I believe he did talk about redirecting our forces to Afghanistan and away from Iraq.You are splitting hairs.
Anti-war activists at the time were very vocal against Iraq and so that's
what he glomped onto to grab their attention and their vote. No he didn't say "Hey I'm against ALL war", but he did take a rather vocal stance on the war that was primarily in the public eye at the time and he made some rather bold assertions about what policies he intended to pursue.At the time Afghanistan was largely a minor side show and it is still largely considered a justified military action even by most of the peace-loving folks.
Edit: Has anyone ever campaigned on a policy of pure pacifism?
Ah ... wait? You were saying that he was spouting anti-war mantras and then turned his back on it. Yet, he has pulled much of our forces out of Iraq. And if Afghanistan is a non-issue, there were is the "turning his back" going on? You seem to be contradicting yourself here. Either Afghanistan is an issue and his increased military focus there is something that bothers anti-war folk and so they feel betrayed, or it isn't and thus they shouldn't feel betrayed.
Edit: Has anyone ever campaigned on a policy of pure pacifism?
Eugene V. Debs.
|
|
Ah ... wait? You were saying that he was spouting anti-war mantras and then turned his back on it. Yet, he has pulled much of our forces out of Iraq. And if Afghanistan is a non-issue, there were is the "turning his back" going on? You seem to be contradicting yourself here. Either Afghanistan is an issue and his increased military focus there is something that bothers anti-war folk and so they feel betrayed, or it isn't and thus they shouldn't feel betrayed.
No what I'm saying is he campaigned hard that he was anti-war (against the current active war if you want to get pedantic) during the primary, then once he had the primary in the bag he adopted the stance Clinton had (almost exactly) in the main election. That was his big differentiator from Hillary, that he was more anti-war than she was.
I will have to file that bit of trivia away :DEdit: Has anyone ever campaigned on a policy of pure pacifism?Eugene V. Debs.
Although, as candidate for the Socialist Party of America, I guess you can't say he ran on pure pacifism.
In 1920, however, he did win a million votes from a jail cell, which is, as far as I know, a feat unmatched in American politics.
I think the anti-war movement in the 60's put a really ugly face on the whole idea, and even though there are still alot of folks out there that abhor violence, they don't want to re-create the vitriol toward our troops that happened back then, or be associated with that in any way. I remember alot of protests before the Iraq conflict and before we sent troops to Afghanistan, while it was being voted on or planned. There were several that gained national attention. But once the troops were sent, they died down significantly, and it's for that very reason, I believe.
The anti-war movement in the 60's gained a voice in our gov't, and stole their will to fight in fear of political repurcussions. As a result, becasue the war had already begun, it tied our guy's hands with strategic restrictions that I believe only served to drag the war out longer than it needed to be, and took even more American lives, and in the end proved to be a giant waste of both lives and time.
No one wants a repeat of that, so, now people protest the sending of troops, but tone it down significantly when they've been sent and the fighting has started.
IMHO,YMMV
|
|
Ah ... wait? You were saying that he was spouting anti-war mantras and then turned his back on it. Yet, he has pulled much of our forces out of Iraq. And if Afghanistan is a non-issue, there were is the "turning his back" going on? You seem to be contradicting yourself here. Either Afghanistan is an issue and his increased military focus there is something that bothers anti-war folk and so they feel betrayed, or it isn't and thus they shouldn't feel betrayed.No what I'm saying is he campaigned hard that he was anti-war (against the current active war if you want to get pedantic) during the primary, then once he had the primary in the bag he adopted the stance Clinton had (almost exactly) in the main election. That was his big differentiator from Hillary, that he was more anti-war than she was.Ah, but wasn't the ongoing Afghan war also' the current war'?
Obama was honest about that, at least. He supported shifting troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. That's just what he has done. He talked about different timetables of withdrawal from Iraq, but he was never a strong 'pull 'em out now' guy.
Yes he was a very strong 'Pull them out now' guy in the primaries. This is how he beat Hillary. He made multiple speeches on how much more aggressively he was going to get us out of Iraq, including several where he said we'd be out by the end of his first year in office.
I think Obama was kidnapped and replaced with a lookalike.
I have no proof so don't raid my home.
Maybe, or just a ruthless actor.
So I'm not the only one thinking along these lines.
Yes he was a very strong 'Pull them out now' guy in the primaries. This is how he beat Hillary. He made multiple speeches on how much more aggressively he was going to get us out of Iraq, including several where he said we'd be out by the end of his first year in office.Did he, now? Well, so he's an even bigger fraud or fool than I'd believed. Congrats- you've lowered my already low opinion of the man.
It gets even better. Now you have to factor in Lybia.
Forget Obama...President Donald 'Black Gold' Trump is going to have all you unemployed hippies on the front lines dying in Lybia and Iraq with a Plan to sieze that Oil.
Speaking of ... how's that campaign job going?
The sad truth is that the movement opposed to the Vietnam War fizzled appreciably when the draft was suspended. It didn't disappear, but the numbers attending the anti-war rallies decreased.
One of the myths of the anti-war movement, perpetuated by peaceniks and we-were-stabbed-in-the-back hawks alike, is that the movement had some kind of decisive effect on the course of the war. This is, of course, a preferable idea to most Americans than the truth, which was, of course, that the Vietnamese kicked our asses.
We were so upset that we got China to invade them a couple years later, and, guess what? Vietnam kicked their asses, too.
|
The anti-war crowd are generally hypocrites. What they really are is the anti-republican crowd. It is the same reason why we have $4.50 a gallon gas and no one in the media is saying boo. High gas prices are only a problem when a Republican is in charge and war is only a problem when a Republican is in charge.
Obama promised hope and change. All we've gotten is depression, banks making oodles of money, astromically rising oil prices, increasing national debt, additional military involvement, and a leader that doesn't know what he's doing. Hope all liberal suckers are satisfied.
That's a CNN-quality comment. You should be proud.
P.S. You're supposed to refer to liberals as "libtards."
|
The anti-war crowd are generally hypocrites. What they really are is the anti-republican crowd. It is the same reason why we have $4.50 a gallon gas and no one in the media is saying boo. High gas prices are only a problem when a Republican is in charge and war is only a problem when a Republican is in charge.
Holds up a sign. 'Boo! Down with Gas Prices!'
The anti-war crowd are generally hypocrites. What they really are is the anti-republican crowd. It is the same reason why we have $4.50 a gallon gas and no one in the media is saying boo. High gas prices are only a problem when a Republican is in charge and war is only a problem when a Republican is in charge.
Do you really perceive things to be that skewed?
Come to think of it, it *has* been several weeks since we've had a good old "everything is the other side's fault" fest. Maybe *this* one will be the one that solves all of our problems...
|
|
Its not perception. Where is the outrage? Where are the daily headlines? Where are the videos of coffins being unloaded? Where is the nighly report on how much the gas prices have gone up and why it is the presidents fault, a secret oil man conspiracy? Where are the massive demonstrations in Washington? They disappeared the day after the Obama election.
edit: the wars have not gone away, in fact we have added one. So if the war hasn't gone away what has? The protests of course.
Its not perception.
Of course not.
High gas prices are only a problem when a Republican is in charge and war is only a problem when a Republican is in charge.
Naturally. No perception there. It's that liberal media again.
Stupid libtards. Why do they hate America?
Because we hate hard work. We much prefer to suck haplessly from the government teat while mewing ceaselessly, all the while robbing our more industrious, productive neighbors of the their hard-earned wealth.
It's what we do.
Despicable! May Ayn Rand herself curse you from beyond the grave!
*flags self*
Can we leave off the left vs. right b.s. now?
Its not perception. Where is the outrage? Where are the daily headlines? Where are the videos of coffins being unloaded? Where is the nighly report on how much the gas prices have gone up and why it is the presidents fault, a secret oil man conspiracy? Where are the massive demonstrations in Washington? They disappeared the day after the Obama election.
edit: the wars have not gone away, in fact we have added one. So if the war hasn't gone away what has? The protests of course.
Read this How does oil speculation raise gas prices? or listen to the Pod cast it accurately explains petrol (Gas) prices.
|
|
Actually I am putting forth facts not flamethrowing. If you want to show everyone the massive demonstrations or multitude of news reports then by all means do so and prove me wrong rather than simply being snarky and implying that I don't know what I am talking about. I did not call any names or say anyone hates america so please do not imply otherwise as it is disingenuous...and typical by the way.
From a Non US point of view - Afghanistan was the right war and Australia invoked the ANZUS treaty and had troops ready for you to use when you needed them becuase you were going after the terrorists. There was very few opposed to the war except those that believed all human life was sacred and that is understandable.
Iraq on the other hand has seen as not necessary, and the majority of commentators were saying the evidence of WMDs was inaccurate or worse made up. 90% of Australians were opposed to going in to Iraq because they knew it was unnecessary the protests were huge Australians actively questioned our Alliance with the US, the US were seen as gung-ho warmongering cowboys who rather than their measured response in Afghanistan were going on a revenge kick in the middle east, they were also seen to be attacking an already defeated enemy and not forcing the Saudis who are where all the terrorists came from to shape up.
This perception is not necessarily mine.
Actually I am putting forth facts not flamethrowing. If you want to show everyone the massive demonstrations or multitude of news reports then by all means do so and prove me wrong rather than simply being snarky and implying that I don't know what I am talking about. I did not call any names or say anyone hates america so please do not imply otherwise as it is disingenuous...and typical by the way.
Typical of...whom?
Your very first post was a partisan attack, and things are going south from there. For the last time, please leave the Republican vs. Democrat stuff at the door. If you can't do that, I leave you to your namesake. Enjoy!
We're still around, its just we lost. Our own candidate didn't listen to us.
Beyond that, the economy got the majority of the focus lately because that's effecting more people directly and as that's improved people have kind of just forgotten about all the rest.
This.
Iraq was always bullshit, and I wish we would just leave already. We should have learned about Afghanistan from the Soviets. As for Libya, I really don't think it is comparable, but I guess we'll see.