What did the anti-war movement accomplish?

[Humus]

An interesting topic I'll let you guys chew over the weekend.

What did the anti-war movement accomplish, if anything? Was it good or bad that the anti-war movement existed?


My comment ... I think in the end the fact that there this war was unpopular more or less forced the coalition to be credible, to really do what they said they were going to do.

 

[Sharkfood]

It depends on what part of the anti-war movement you are referring to.

The extremists accomplished losing all credibility as they are still at their efforts by using methods that just defy logic. There are still droves of anti-war protestors that are making wild and baffling claims- claims that make the Iraqi Information Minister look like an amateur. Yes, there are tons of people that are explaining that all the images we are seeing are all falsified and US propaganda- right down to saying the images of Iraqi people smiling and waving are being done at gunpoint, by hired "arab-looking" Hollywood actors, and the statue toppling is being done by groups of Americans and using Hollywood special effects/special camera focal lengths to give the illusion of many people in Baghdad square. They believe all the headlines being provided by Al Jazeera and Abu Dhabi are all false and paid for by the US propaganda machine due to American terrorist attacks on their people and buildings.

The more moderate folks in the anti-war movement have gained a little respect, but still have had a very difficult time providing any form of persuasive anti-war solution to the problems in Iraq. It's the more moderate thinkers that need to stand up a bit and start providing alternate solutions, which always seem to degrade to finger pointing of unrelated conflicts rather than a focus on how to solve the current crisis. Hopefully many of them have learned that somply pointing a finger at Vietnam, Bosnia , Serbia and the first Gulf War can no longer be used as some sort of "ammunition" against the current war and crisis in Iraq. Almost every single anti-war founded prediction in this conflict has panned out to be wrong and it's about time some of these folks stood up to at least reason with their preconceptions and maybe contrast them a bit.

 

[SMarth]

Show us how many people without a job (or a life) there is in this world

 

[pax]

It takes two to tango. Virtually no improvement in tactics occured between WW2 and Vietnam to reduce not just the civilian casualties but also military casualties in such large campaigns. However the (so far) success of this operation in both very low civ and military casualties on both sides actually may not have been as improved were it not for the peace movement and the essential role it plays in scrutinizing the methods and tactics of warfare.

A role the media has become a lot weaker at in the last few decades...

Technology has helped but Im not so sure the govs hesitation to use weapons on a mass scale in civilian areas in overkill fashion would have been as evident this time without the pacifists...

This war was waged failry carefully overall... I only have a few gripes about a couple bombings but on the scale of the war its relatively modest issues still... Its great to see things improve this much. Makes for future interventions in hopefully non-wmds equipped countries much more likely... Like Chris Hitchens Im very much an optimist that such interventions would be for pretty much democratic purposes from now on and facilitate the social democratic revolution in the rest of the world as in Europe. I just didnt share his apraisal of Iraq as a safe country to do that in as desirable as it was for humanitarian reasons.

Im still not sure the result will have been a safe one until the scientists involved in Iraq wmds programs are fully debriefed... And that those interviews lead us to the realisation that saddam had few and weak wmds...

 

[ZoinKs!]

However the (so far) success of this operation in both very low civ and military casualties on both sides actually may not have been as improved were it not for the peace movement and the essential role it plays in scrutinizing the methods and tactics of warfare...

My views seem to largely be a mirror image of pax... Here's the cliff notes version:

• Technology is the only reason low collateral damage was possible
• War goals set by the Coalition motivated them to carefully avoid collateral damage
• The anti-war movement is not the main reason for low civilian casualties

Regarding military casualties...they've been reduced on our side but not necessarily the other side. Of course, there were procedures in place to give Iraqi soldiers the option of surrender...for those who choose "martydom tactics," their prospects of survival were grim indeed. I've heard rumours (allegedly from sources in the Pentagon) claiming more than 100,000 Iraqi military dead. But I don't know how they got those numbers and I'd call it a "guess" rather than an "estimate."

Regarding fewer civilian casualties...this is mainly the result of more accurate bombing. During ww2, strategic bombing was aimed at entire cities because that was as accurate as they could get. The b-52 raids over Hanoi during the '70s had some improvement to accuracy so collateral damage was less than during ww2. (If memory serves, the very first smart bombs were used in Vietnam, also.) And now most bombs dropped in Gulf 2 were smart bombs with typical accuracy measured in meters.

The goal of a smart bomb is to destroy the target while never missing it. Clearly this goal will never be reached 100% but when we get closer to it civilian casualties will become increasingly rare. (Unless there's another knock-down, gouge-eyes kind of war for survival similar to WW2 but hopefully that won't happen.)

How much has the peace movement contributed to the development of smart bombs? My guess is "not much."

Technology has helped but Im not so sure the govs hesitation to use weapons on a mass scale in civilian areas in overkill fashion would have been as evident this time without the pacifists...

I really don't think the pacifists had much influence on the way the campaign was conducted. The government knows that anyone who's literally a "pacifist" will disapprove of military action no matter how it is conducted. (I realize not everyone in the anti-war movement was an extreme pacifist.) Also, at least some portions of the "anti-war" movement is more accurately called the anti-US movement while others were the anti-Bush movement; so there's no pleasing them either. And it looks like France, as long as it's led by Chirac, will *always* oppose US policy regardless of circumstances, reason, or rationality. Since these groups will never approve of anything the Coalition did, why take extraordinary effort to please them?

Why did the Coalition avoid mass, overkill weapons in civilian areas? Because Iraqi civilians were not the enemy. A utilitarian view: killing civilians wouldn't serve the strategic goals of the war. After all, it's hard to liberate dead people.

My conclusion: relatively low civilian casualties primarily resulted from the strategic goals set by the Coalition combined with the technology available to them. The anti-war movement may have had a contributory, but certainly not primary, effect on the planning and conduct of the war.

Also, as has been pointed out by Sharkfood, they couldn't think of any peaceful, realistic alternatives to war. I'd say the peace movement failed miserably in it's aims. In the final analysis, they didn't find any way of preventing war or allowing peace and they didn't strongly affect the course of the war once the shooting began; their most noteworthy accomplishment was embarassing themselves.

 

[covermye]

However the (so far) success of this operation in both very low civ and military casualties on both sides actually may not have been as improved were it not for the peace movement and the essential role it plays in scrutinizing the methods and tactics of warfare.

Please. What you're insinuating in the above quote is that we would still be using "WW2" tactics if it weren't for the "peace movement" because our military places little value on both military and civilian life. That's just plain silly sounding. There is no "essential role" that the peace movement played. No war protester values life any more than any advocate of this war. Matter of fact, NOT having this war a long time ago cost more innocent lives at Saddam's hands than we created in the last couple of weeks.

A role the media has become a lot weaker at in the last few decades...

So one of the roles of the media is to take up the side of anti-war protesters? News to me.

Technology has helped but Im not so sure the govs hesitation to use weapons on a mass scale in civilian areas in overkill fashion would have been as evident this time without the pacifists...

Now this is where you go completely overboard with a very silly statement. The pacitists had NO bearing on the planning of this war. TECHNOLOGY allowed us to fight the war as it was fought and limit civilian casualties. Again: THE MILITARY DOESN'T WANT TO KILL THE FIRST CIVILIAN in ANY conflict, let alone in this specific situation, where we are trying to win over the hearts and minds of the general Iraqi population.

Your implied argument in the above quotes is that military leaders and advocates of this war place little or no value on innocent lives or the lives of our own soldiers, and only did here because of the war of the anti war protesters. That's just plain ignorant, man. I don't know how else to argue this...

This war was waged failry carefully overall... I only have a few gripes about a couple bombings but on the scale of the war its relatively modest issues still... Its great to see things improve this much. Makes for future interventions in hopefully non-wmds equipped countries much more likely... Like Chris Hitchens Im very much an optimist that such interventions would be for pretty much democratic purposes from now on and facilitate the social democratic revolution in the rest of the world as in Europe. I just didnt share his apraisal of Iraq as a safe country to do that in as desirable as it was for humanitarian reasons.

Im still not sure the result will have been a safe one until the scientists involved in Iraq wmds programs are fully debriefed... And that those interviews lead us to the realisation that saddam had few and weak wmds...[/quote]

 

[Fred]

What bothers me the most, is the sheer number of people who hold irrational beliefs. I'm not talking about the moderate antiwar/prowar people, but rather the sensationalists, alarmists, scaremongers and conspiracy theorists.

I mean, its kinda scary when even the US, with all the resources for education and what not STILL have a large percentage of people that believe in UFOs, Bigfoot and who think that anything that comes from the US Government must defacto be illegitimate. I won't even get into the religious beliefs like Faith healing, angels and what not.

Moreover, there is a side to the PC revolution in the 90s that scares me a little too. B/c they are taking a perfectly well founded line of logic to an extreme and making it ridiculous. I invite people to check out some of the so called Science wars, books like the Blank slate, and some of the hoaxes that scientists have played on extreme leftish ACADEMICS (Feminists, environmentalists, etc etc).

The failling of Democracy is said to come from lack of education. And its scary when such things even occur in the towers of academia.

I used to be all far a liberal arts education, but seeing the crap thats passed off as serious classes, really irratates me. Alternate Realities, a philosophy course anyone (this at an Ivy League)? The Axiom of the class is that we cannot under any circumstance ever trust our senses, b/c everything is subjective.

 

[pax]

Not saying the anti war movement is the only factor in the careful planning and execution of this war but if you say it had no effect at all I think its a pretty generalizing silly statement of its own.

Hard to think that some people dont value life more than others? Saddam for one. And we have our own 'little Saddams'. How Id like to think everyone of our compatriots loves life and wants to be careful in avoiding loss of life during a campaign, especially those in positions of power. But some dont. Some plainly advocated nuclear weapons in Vietnam.

If you prefer to live the fantasy that the low loss of life was only because of technology and not public opinion influenced by a generation of pacifist movement. Fine, its your delusion. The idea the huge pacifist movement hasnt had any effect or only had a 'negative effect' over the decades to me is about as much bearying your head in the sand as can be possible.

 

[covermye]

Not saying the anti war movement is the only factor in the careful planning and execution of this war but if you say it had no effect at all I think its a pretty generalizing silly statement of its own.

It had no effect at all. If you think there is a high-ranking military official that values innocent civilian and U.S. Troop lives less than your "average pacifist", you're completely wrong.

Hard to think that some people dont value life more than others? Saddam for one. And we have our own 'little Saddams'.

That's not what I said. I said there are no military officials responsible for planning this war that value life less than the pacifists that think they're affecting anything by acting like morons. Our "own little Saddams'? Please humor me and name one or two...

How Id like to think everyone of our compatriots loves life and wants to be careful in avoiding loss of life during a campaign, especially those in positions of power. But some dont. Some plainly advocated nuclear weapons in Vietnam.

I'm not talking about Vietnam. I'm talking about this war. We're here to free the civilians. No way was a WMD or even tactics that endangered innocents ever considered here for that very reason.

Don't try to argue that there would NEVER, EVER be a place for a nuclear weapon, either. How many innocents would have continued to die on a global scale had we not dropped the two bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima?

If you prefer to live the fantasy that the low loss of life was only because of technology and not public opinion influenced by a generation of pacifist movement. Fine, its your delusion. The idea the huge pacifist movement hasnt had any effect or only had a 'negative effect' over the decades to me is about as much bearying your head in the sand as can be possible.

Wrong again. The "huge pacifist movement" is not a "huge movement" at all. What percentage of people are pacifists? Hardly a huge percentage, by anybody's measure. NOBODY WANTS to kill innocent people. NOBODY WANTS their own troops to die. It's that freakin' simple. You calculate specific palns of action for specific circumstances. No two are the same. Sometimes people die in a war. It's not pretty. Sometimes more people are required to die than any of us would like. Sometimes civilians die. It's always been that way. It always will be. Why? Because some conspiracy theorist like you thinks that we have our "own little Saddams" that want to kill innocents and put our troops in harm's way just because it's easier or more fun? Please.

 

[Ilfirin]

All adversity is ultimately good, even if it does really aggrevate you in the short term.

 

[RussSchultz]

All adversity is ultimately good, even if it does really aggrevate you in the short term.

Jock itch is never good.

 

[John Reynolds]

Jock itch is never good.

Gives 'ya an excuse to have your hands down there.

 

[Pete]

The anti-Iraq-war movement accomplished nothing more than letting a bunch of freaks and radicals air their complaints under the banner of peace. There may be valid reasons for opposing this war, but I haven't seen any put forth, lucidly or otherwise, in the many so-called peace rallies. I saw them as nothing more than freak shows.

Anti-war is a nice position--I'm sure no one is more anti-war than the military--but it's not yet realistic, and, in this case, I don't think it's morally justified.

 

[RussSchultz]

Its boils my blood to see people protesting now and advocating "resist imperialist occupation".

Sporadic resistance (like continued suicide bombing, thwarting the new government forming, etc) will only bring about everybody's worst nightmares--the humanitarian crisis will never resolve, the US military will stay longer trying to create a stable environment for the new government. The new government will be "puppets" etc.

"Give rebuilding a chance" would be my placard at one of these rallys.

 

[MrsSkywalker]

Well, it gave us all something to bitch about for a few weeks. And it made a lot of "sheep" feel good about themselves for awhile. They can brag: "I was there! I fought against the war! I got my fat, lazy ass off the couch, drove it in my old VW deisel bus, and parked it on a patch of grass...oh, and I held up a sign!...not so sure what it said......hmmm...but i was there!"

The military doesn't have one iota of interest in what these people think, b/c like it or not, the reason that these people can publically spew their hatred for military action is because of the military. It was soldiers who won us our freedom, and soldiers who have kept it, a fact which the military alone can fully appreciate. They know we owe it all to them, they are secure with that fact, and a bunch of left wing wackos isn't going to sway them one way or the other.

 

[pax]

Glad to see you have such blind and undying faith in everyone in the military and gov and in the west in generla there covermye. Ive known people who are assholes who put less value on human life than others. Ive chatted with people online on some newsgroups who advocated mking Iraq a parking lot...

I dont know where to carry from here other than to say if you dont think the millions who consider themselves leftists or pacifists think they have an influence then you are fundamentally mistaken. Because we live in a democracy, however a republican one, we expect to have some influence when we speak out. Its as basic as that...

Your stance is about as valuable an argument as saying the Beatles had no influence on modern music... If you could at least say where the peace movement went wrong and then where it went right you could gain some respect. As is I dont have much to comment on...

Of course in some people the influence the peace movment has had is to push the more lunatic right wing fringe even farther into the right. Not uncommon to see mass movements produce counter reactionary trends in others... I think an argument could be waged that such a reaction negates in some situations the influence intended in the first place.

I dont think thats the case here or in the anti war movement. Im just not that pessimistic. Im pleased to see the fruits of an amazingly 'clean' campaign and can only congratulate the US military for what seems to be an ever improving methodology. For a long time things were getting worse, weapons more murderous... Now it looks like things are gonna get better, more professional. Plenty of credit to go around and I have no reason to think the peace movement has no influence. If only because politics is a power vacuum when one vacates it. And those who are taking part in the peace movement are enjoying their right to such politics even with the clearly abusive counter reactionary movement Ive seen expressed in so many newsgroups... I find it sad to see no one sees value in the peace movement or many of its members. If you choose to delude yourselves with thinking they are all airheads or what not its your choice and your intellectual loss.

But even I as a social democrat see value in the various right wing groups I deal with. Ive never met a political group with absolutely no value in it ever. Some are truly terrible and shouldnt exist but to say they had no merit in some of their discourses would be very dishonest of me.

 

[covermye]

Pax,
Enough with "talking down" to me already. So you've chatted with people online that want to blow up the whole freakin' country of Iraq. No big suprise there. What the hell does that have to do with the military leadership of our country though?
Just think about the logic: How the hell long has "leave no man (or woman) behind" been the motto of the US military? Do you think that had anything to do with a bunch of hippies holding hands and singing campfire songs? Or worse, militant types that shut down busy interstates and highways to protest this war in the name of "peace"? NO! It's only common sense that the "military team" want to protect its members.
Hell, go back to the revolutionary war even. We didn't fight like the British because we valued the lives of our own. We changed the way we fought even then, to SAVE THE LIVES OF OUR OWN MILITARY MEN. Are you gonna credit the "pacifists" for that, too?
You know, just because a bunch of people get together and shout and, for the most part, make a mockery out of their right to free speech at times like this doesn't mean they're RIGHT. Just because you agree with them doesn't mean they're RIGHT.
Somalia wasn't all that long ago. I don't remember seeing one "pacifist" speak out against the military action there. But look at the lengths we went to to not hurt the innocents there. Look at the lengths we went to to not leave any of our own behind. It's basic common sense that you want to lose neither your own or hurt the innocents that you're there to fight for. It's got jack squat to do with a bunch of feel-good pacifists.

 

[Brimstone]

An interesting topic I'll let you guys chew over the weekend.

What did the anti-war movement accomplish, if anything? Was it good or bad that the anti-war movement existed?


My comment ... I think in the end the fact that there this war was unpopular more or less forced the coalition to be credible, to really do what they said they were going to do.

What about Osama Bin Laden and his organizations attack on civilization? Winning public opinion had to one of his goals, so now everything the US and UK does, Arab/Muslim perceptions will always be kept in mind. The fear his movment caused may have forced the western powers to actually care about the opinion on the Arab street. While his intention was to cause an uprising to destroy the infidels, the infidels might just go out of their way to embrace those he considers to be his people.

 

[RussSchultz]

Somalia wasn't all that long ago. I don't remember seeing one "pacifist" speak out against the military action there. But look at the lengths we went to to not hurt the innocents there. Look at the lengths we went to to not leave any of our own behind.

Eh? Which movie did you watch that in? A whole lot of civilians died in Somalia during "Black Hawk Down". A whole lot.

 

[Crusher]

Somalia wasn't all that long ago. I don't remember seeing one "pacifist" speak out against the military action there. But look at the lengths we went to to not hurt the innocents there. Look at the lengths we went to to not leave any of our own behind.

Eh? Which movie did you watch that in? A whole lot of civilians died in Somalia during "Black Hawk Down". A whole lot.

They also were either holding an AK-47 at the time, or standing within two feet of someone who was. Either way, there's a very large difference between being a civilian and being an innocent civilian.

The movie also did a good job, IMO, of portraying the wide variety of people and beliefs who are in the military. Blackburn was there to kick some ass, Eversmann believed in protecting the civilians, Hoot just wanted to make sure everyone got back. I think the movie also showed that regardless of their personal feelings about the campaign, every one of them was going to do their job, and do it by the rules.

That said, it was a movie, and it was based on a book, and I doubt they got every detail 100% historically accurate. I'm sure there were a few innocent people killed amidst the fighting, and probably by fire from both sides.