Why has the anti-war movement failed?

[Kaleva]

Poll question: Why has the anti-war movement failed?

Was thinking about an earlier post I made linking to an article where Cindy Sheehan gave her opinion as to why the effort has been a failure.

[TwilightGardener]

1. Other--seen as fringe.

[Echo In Light]

4. I like how per Establishment POV pro-war types are perceived as rational & level-headed by contrast

Damn "crazy" anti-war liberals :silly:

(which I am)

[rucky]

2. Media portrayal of protesters, no pictures from battleground & no draft

[Echo In Light]

5. "pictures from battleground" would reveal endless civilians being slaughtered, herded, suffering

Little wonder the need for 'embedded' "journalists" ...and I use the term quite loosely

[fascisthunter]

3. because power has been removed from the people

and when that happens, there is no chance for activists to influence policy as they once did before. Not only are activists up against a government, but they are up against a very wealthy corporate elite that just happen to cover the news these days, so you can forget about getting visibility through the media, unless you are fascist fuck-up tool teabagger, those which aid the elite.

[PassingFair]

6. It didn't fail.

We would be outright murdering Iranians (or Syrians) by now
if we hadn't stopped their juggernaut.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CRG502A.html

snip>

"When Bush came to power for the first time, the Neo-Cons laid before him a coherent plan for the extension of the American Empire in the Middle East.

It contained three chapters:

One, to conquer Iraq in order to take control of its immense oil reserves and place an American garrison at the critical junction between the Caspian Sea oil and the Saudi resources.

Two, to break the Iranian regime and return Iran to the American bloc.

Three, to do the same to Syria and Lebanon.

It was not yet decided whether Iran would come before Syria, or the other way round. It might have been assumed that the experience of the American adventure in Iraq would cancel the next chapters. "


How soon some forget.
:eyes:

[alfredo]

8. The Axis of Evil was a mistake. When we put Irag and Iran in that axis, then

invaded Iran's neighbor Iraq, that pushed them to the right. Bush made Ahmadinejad possible.

[PassingFair]

14. And you think that was a mistake, how?

They knew what they were doing.
They wanted to bring about an
excuse for total domination in the
middle east, whether they had to
use Israel or not.

[alfredo]

16. Iranian moderates were gaining influence.

They were helping us fight al Qaeda before bush named them as part of the Axis of evil.

Any country will trend rightward if faced with an external threat. bush's aggression tipped the election to Ahmadinejad.

Look at us after 9-11.

[PassingFair]

17. I mean in relation to the Bush Administration's goals....

I agree with you...it was horrible,
but it was no mistake.

[alfredo]

30. Their goals were unrealistic. They had little knowledge of the culture, and

We made the same mistake in Iraq that the Nazis made in Russia. They went in as conquerors instead of Liberators. Sure we used the language of liberation, but our actions were quite the opposite.

[Echo In Light]

34. Out of curiosity, what's your take on the PNAC, since many of *'s 1st term people were members?

[alfredo]

52. Dogma unpolluted by reality.

[PassingFair]

59. They realistically decided that they didn't CARE about consequences.

Consequences are for little people.

They were going to make money whether they
cornered oil production or not.

Halliburton and the Arms Dealing would thrive
whether they won or lost or better yet, kept war afloat
in perpetuity.

[alfredo]

61. The reality was death, destruction, and deficits. As long as the corporations

were the ones who ended up with the money, it didn't matter.

[PassingFair]

46. Um...did you read any of the essays at my link?

The NEO-CONS made no mistakes.

"Liberation" was not the goal.

Once they sucked the marrow of their
28% for their foot soldiers, once it
was clear that the African-American
fodder was refusing to enlist...it
slowed them down.

Thank goodness for Senators like
Leahy and Feingold, thank goodness
for the protesters who kept their
misdeeds and LIES in the spotlight.

[alfredo]

53. The military campaign was very good considering their numbers. Not securing

ammo dumps was a big blunder.

As I said we used the language of liberation, but liberation of their oil, not the people was their goal.

[PassingFair]

56. Not having the public behind them...in evidence by protest and VOTING....

is what slowed their murderous escapade.

I don't disagree with you at all about their real goals.

:)

[alfredo]

62. We were not in a place to really slow down anything until Jan 2007.

[PassingFair]

65. Cumulative effect....

I believe that the democratic electorate chose
Obama over Clinton because of her IWR vote and her
refusal to admit that she had rolled
over for the Neo-Cons.

[alfredo]

84. But we forgot Obama's vote to continue funding the war. That was his

first vote of note in the Senate.

[PassingFair]

90. We understood that once our people were in there, we had to support them...

until we could get them out.

[alfredo]

93. No more circular firing squads.

[Echo In Light]

33. PNAC, and the NEED to install Buscho at any cost was certainly no "mistake."

Quite deliberate and strategical.

[BeFree]

11. Indeed

It has been a very successful movement. Just not totally successful.

Besides, nearly half the country thinks we are nuts and we think they are nuts.
Of course, they need not physically fear us but we damn sure have to keep an eye on them.

[murdoch]

100. Yes, it was partially successful

There is no Manichean losing and winning in such things. The London anti-war marches had Blair pressure Bush to go to the UN - which (effectively) voted for additional inspections, not immediate war. That alone is a victory.

People who set a goal and if they do not reach it declare that they have failed are people who rarely accomplish anything. A foreign army has occupied parts of Ireland since 1169, and there are Irish still fighting to kick out the invaders, colonizers and occupiers. Some struggles are for the long haul.

[Odin2005]

7. Other: Most people are not pacifists.

[timeforpeace]

9. As we see from support for Afghan war here, it was more anti-Bush.The level of hypocrisy is stunning

[Smarmie Doofus]

10. I voted "no draft" but I would add "media" if allowed.

The Viet Nam quasi-genocide ended because of oppostion generated by both these factors.

Our rulers have neutralized them both. No draft means only poor and working class kids who need careers and/or true believers will be the fodder.

Media consolidation means no honest info about the topic reaches the average citizen.

[Wiley50]

12. No Draft

Youth doesn't have their lives on the line.
Only the poor kids join, it's the only chance they have to escape poverty

Only us old farts who remember the draft get out for protest, mainly that is.

[Cid_B]

78. Umpteenth time I've seen this...

I'm not poor and wasn't poor before joining. This applies to quite a few of my fellow Soldiers. The ones who are currently in financial trouble have 9 times out of 10 have blown their money on going to the club.

Set down your broad brush. I know its easier just to think of us as poor uneducated sheep, especially as compared to your oh so enlightened self, but you do yourself an intellectual disservice by advocating such a ludicrous idea.

[havocmom]

13. No draft, no real, steady news from the war zones,

I grew up on daily detailed film reports from the actual war zones. One could not avoid the graphic illustrations. That is missing this time. Media has been bought by the companies that profit from war, so media is not showing the realities of war.

People think the military is all voluntary because nobody is drafted. Except the troops ARE drafted. Too many have no way to get invested into the economic system. Too many have no future. Too many have no choice but to sign up and serve in the military. THAT is a draft without justice. Without a shared risk, too many people don't much care what happens to the 'volunteer army'; they shrug and reason 'hey, they volunteered for it'.

How many years with no pictures of flag-draped coffins? Again, the American people had no graphic reminders of the real costs.

Tax cuts, little bitty ones thrown as bones to the masses, big ones to big players, pretended that war did not come with any financial costs. Gee, we can puff up, beat our chests, feel all rough and tough and not have to pay for the thrill of it all. Few seem to consider that SOMEBODY has to pay for all the damned debt incurred.

The wars did not cause any big, fast changes in most people's realities. So they shrug and go about grazing in the pastures, chew their cud, oblivious to the fact that there is a slaughter going on.

[Peace Patriot]

15. The anti-war movement didn't fail. DEMOCRACY failed, and the cause was Diebold & brethren. nt

[Echo In Light]

18. Yes, although WAY too many smugly resisted the fact of * being installed & "re-elected"

... by illegal, anti-democratic means. Had more openly jumped on the obvious when it happened instead of denouncing those who were as "crazy conspiracy theorists" maybe there would've been more pos results. As it is, most seem to think that since a Dem "won" the last "election" that the system is basically workin' like a champ! (mission accomplished!)

[SammyWinstonJack]

21. +1 nt

[Wiley50]

23. Peace Patriot, You're right again, as usual. But it's the media too.

One big United Corporate Industries od America

Peace Patriot, You are about the smartest woman here, but you never start threads, only replies and you never reply to those who reply to you, you don't do conversation. I've sent you several Private messages over the years, but you've never responded.

For just once, will you tell us why?

[Peace Patriot]

44. Hey, Wiley50! Sorry if I missed your emails. I usually do reply if someone writes to me.

Could've been during some busy periods of mine--work, family--where I got overwhelmed. I've tried to be better about that answering emails.

As for not starting threads, I don't know. I've done a few--not many--in the Latin American forum. (--a good place to visit, if you want to learn about the remarkable leftist democracy movement that has swept Latin America; they have a lot to teach us , especially about TRANSPARENT elections).

I guess I just don't wake up in the morning with a theme in my head, to write about, but, when I visit DU, I get stimulated by the posts and comments, and am moved to comment on some things. I try to post some of my comments in my DU Journal, but I haven't done any organization of it or anything. I'm not good that way. Also, I don't get a lot of feedback, so I don't exactly feel encouraged about doing original posts. My comments may be just too long for a lot people--and sometimes too opinionated. They don't feel inclined to reply. I DO engage in dialogue, though--quite often. But since my thoughts tend to be l-o-o-o-o-ong (and some say long-winded), it takes time for me to write and I may miss some replies.

As for the media, you are absolutely right. That is Big Problem no. 2, in our election system. However, it is quite notable and instructive that, in Venezuela, for instance, where the media is rancidly rightwing--even worse than here--people just keep electing Chavez, in big numbers. He currently has an approval rating of 62%! The voters just ignore the rancid corpo media. The big difference between there and here is TRANSPARENT vote counting, not the media. They have a vote counting system that is many orders of magnitude better than ours. I don't know if this lesson about priorities (Diebold vs the crapola media) is directly applicable here. There may be another difference that is important--stronger communities and better grass roots organization, there, enabling people to develop views independent from the corpo-fascist media.

One more thing: It took complete "neo-liberal"-induced economic meltdown for Chavez to be voted in, in 1998. Latin Americans experienced, over the previous decade, what we are experiencing now. The economic collapse engendered political and constitutional reform. So, ironic as it may seem, our Depression may engender something similar--community and organizing that will overcome the disinformation and propaganda that our people are subjected to. But we must, as our first priority, restore vote counting transparency. Barebones, bottom-line, We MUST hand-count 10% of the paper ballots (and get paper ballots where states do not have them) as a check against the electronic returns. Venezuela does 55%--more than five times the minimum needed to detect electronic fraud.

Our election conditions have actually worsened, not improved, since the '06 and '08 elections--with ES&S buying out Diebold. ES&S is worse than Diebold, believe me, and now has gained monopolistic control of much of our voting system. This is a very bad and dangerous situation. And I'll be damned if I can understand our Democratic Party leaders doing NOTHING about it. It's like they've all been "snatched" in "Invasion of the Body Snatchers." But so many of them have been "chosen" as our leaders, by Diebold & brethren, in primaries and general elections, maybe that explains it.

Thanks for the compliment--and for the feedback.

:patriot:

[slackmaster]

19. Other - Once he took office, President Obama was informed of the real reasons we are at war

And why it is so difficult to get out.

[Wiley50]

26. Afghanistan is for a pipeline across it, to steal oil that once went to Russia

Iraq was for the largest untapped oilfield in the middle east.

Saudi Arabia has been almost sucked dry. I expect the Saudi Royal Family to
escape en mass any day now, leaving the dregs to the fundamentalists and the Shia.

[noamnety]

20. Government is in bed with corporations

War benefits war profiteers, CEOs, etc.

Put lockheed headquarters in the district of any elected official (with a very few exceptions) and they will become a war supporter.

[Bluenorthwest]

22. Those promoting war here on DU

the majority of them have also posted many words and photos of their service aged kids, none of whom will go to fight the war their parents are so gung ho about. If there was a draft the same people would be leading the peace march.

[TwilightGardener]

24. I haven't seen any real "promotion" of war on DU. At most, an acceptance

(often reluctant) that the Aghanistan war will continue on for now. Don't mistake resignation as promotion.

[Bluenorthwest]

31. I can tell the difference

This nation is always at war, and I am not a young man anymore. So that which they have to say, I've heard it once and twice and then again. Nothing new under the sun.

[TwilightGardener]

32. If you want real war promotion, go to Freeperville and hear the bullshit

about war on Islam, and killing muzzies and ragheads over there so they don't kill us here, and bringin' freedom-n-democracy. THAT'S "promotion". It exists, but not on DU.

[spoony]

66. Oh yes it does.

I just read a thread where nuking Afghanistan was endorsed. No shit. And there ARE people here spouting that nation-building "freedom-n-democracy" meme. AND people essentially saying "...so they don't kill us here" by positing that we'd be attacked by AQ if we pulled out of Afghanistan.

It most certainly DOES exist here, and it sounds even more stupid, out of place, incongruous and illogical here than it would there because we should know better.

[tekisui]

51. Well, dissent is met with opposition.

How would label that opposition to anti-war posters? It is defense of it, at least. Apologia of it at times. And, yes, there are many who promote it. I expect many more to jump on the promotion side after the President makes his speech.

[TwilightGardener]

58. Defense of Obama's decision is not promotion of war for the sake of war.

There are some of us left on DU who believe that this is a terribly tough and complex situation with possible bad consequences no matter what course Obama chose. That's very different from "Let's go kill some towelheads, let's turn that shithole into glass!!" And as to your definition of "dissent"--it's the "out-now" folks who rule here. The few who pipe up otherwise are the dissenters.

[cowcommander]

25. Because Saddam was no saint

Let's be honest here, Saddam was an evil fucker who you couldn't really defend either. Most people never saw past that and approved of the war because it was supposed to be a feel-good campaign where we'd be the good guys again, more clear-cut than what happened in Vietnam. The media did a very good job of selling this idea too, I remember the History Channel aired a ton of documentaries about Saddam's atrocities before and during the invasion(and they still replay them occasionally).

That said however, this war was poorly planned beyond the invasion phase. Nobody in the White House gave much thought about what to do AFTER disposing of Saddam, which is the real tragedy behind all this mess and why it took several thousand dead innocent civilians from a bloody insurgency to finally stabilize the country.

[devilgrrl]

29. Yeah, an evil fucker that Ronald Reagan armed to the teeth throughout the 80's

The War is a lie - no matter how huge of an evil fuck Saddam Hussein was.

[cowcommander]

37. Have you ever seen the movie "Shooter"?

The senator near the end of the movie gives a speech about that.

This is a country, where the Secretary of Defense can go on T.V., and tell the American public, oh, that "This is about freedom! It's not about oil!" And nobody questions him, cuz they don't wanna hear the answer, because it's a lie!

Sadly, too many people didn't care if it was a lie.

[Kaleva]

38. The bulk of Saddam's arms & equipment was Soviet.

The tanks, APC's, aircraft, helicopters, guns, artillery, communication gear, mines, AAW weaponary and so on.

[Thothmes]

69. How many of the hundreds of thousands of AK 47s

that the Iraqi army carried were US manufacture. How many of the hundreds of T-55s and T-62s were U.S. manufacture. How many of the dozens of MiG-21s came from U.S. inventories. How many of the thousands of SAM-6 & 7s came from U.S. stocks. Yah Ronnie armed them to the teeth.

[devilgrrl]

72. The Reagan Administration supported Saddam Hussein

it's that simple. :popcorn:

[Thothmes]

73. No doubt of that

but you were incorrect in stating that we supplied the Iraqi army and airforce with their equipment. That was done by the Soviet Union.

[Echo In Light]

35. Ever read the 'goals' outlined by PNAC's blueprint, "Rebuilding America's Defenses?"

Wanna talk about some "evil fuckers..."

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

The US didn't invade Iraq b/c of Saddam being a tyrant.

[Kaleva]

27. Probably could have added another option: The internet.

People don't have to go out in the streets when they can voice their opposition at a forum made up of other like minded members.

[aikoaiko]

28. It was more anti-Bush then anti-war.

[ismnotwasm]

36. Too many people don't care

Not really. In first world countries, War is abstract with no instant gratification in a society obsessed with being instantly gratified. It's too uncomfortable to contemplate too deeply, not too mention that generally, people aren't encouraged to think too deeply about anything.

On the other hand, It's a feel good opportunity for churches and other organizations to 'support the troops' putting together care packages for military personal, most of these these same organizations put no effort into questioning war. None.

It's seen as a normal part of the human condition, rather than a pathology, a sickness, a disease of society and the human soul. Which is exactly what it is.

Bush is a criminal and a sociopath,and why he and his are not doing life prison is a travesty and a human tragedy. However, while I understand the thought behind the "anti-bush" arguement, in the long view, I don't think it was the major factor.

[Iggo]

39. Because it's fought online instead of in the streets?

[Kaleva]

41. +1. Would have been a good option to have listed.

[certainot]

while those 1000 radio stations do all the heavy lifting

when those stations start getting picketed and their local sponsors get boycotted the politicians that are enabled by the constituencies created but all that coordinated UNCONTESTED repetition will have to pay attention.

[DailyGrind51]

40. Back in the '60s, my main fear was getting drafted and sent to Vietnam.

[pitohui]

42. no draft -- it doesn't affect "regular" people, or isn't seen to affect them

at the end of the day, we have an all volunteer army, and i'm not in the business of saving people from themselves -- everyone in the armed forces today at some point volunteered to be there in hopes of financial gain, they are being paid, they get health care, they get pensions, etc -- they are far ahead of many of us financially and they made a choice to join the service to get those things, so they are de facto profiting from war/defense industry

if they have a criticism to make abt how war/defense is being conducted, i'm willing to hear it, but they are way better equipped to fight their own battles than i am

i have to put my own issues first, which are health care, financial survival, etc. because that is what is crushing me and my family

i respect sheehan but at some point her son VOLUNTEERED to be in the service, he wasn't some random guy picked off the street like in vietnam, and that's why it is harder to sympathize at the end of the day...

i think the war in iraq is stupid-ass and the war in afghanistan needed to be prosecuted faster and more vigorously -- we gave omar 3 weeks head start and he vanished with a sack containing millions of dollars and no one's even looking, osama got the same 3 weeks head start and has many hundreds of millions...we needed to bomb kabul or wherever omar and osama were standing on the evening of 911, not wait three weeks and now eight years later...even if we catch them now, so fucking what -- they have already learned you can attack america and enjoy years of notoriety and freedom with your millions while some lower echelon fighters take the fall...the wars have been totally mishandled but that doesn't mean i see anything to be gained by giving up now

[Obamanaut]

43. With a draft and no deferments for cysts or anything else, more of

the folks voting to fund and continue the war would have more children (and other relatives) facing the liklihood of being blown to bits. WIth that possibility, they maybe would not be so willing to let the killing continue.

I selected 'all of the above.'

[Liberation Angel]

45. I disagree with the premise of question: Obama's election was a success!

The reality is that Obama's election did EXTREME harm to the prowar movement by the global corporofascistocracy.

ALREADY there is progress on many antiwar fronts )most notably Obama's reduction in the threat of nuclear war.

Obama was elected primarily BY the prowar movement and he has already made significant strides to reduce the war "on terror" as a Bush strategy to practical steps to remove the dangers of war AND has reduced troop levels in Iraq.

I BELIEVE that whatever Obama does in Afghanistan is done by him with the intent to REDUCE the future threat of more war, even while ratcheting up the troop level. Strategically as an antiwar activist I believe he is wrong on this BUT I also believe he INTENDS to do this to reduce violence and threats of violence and worse wars in the future.

To say the antiwar movement has failed is simply entirely wrong: the MOVEMENT includes the repudiation and abandoning of Bush's policies on war and stabilizing global efforts to reduce threats of war and violence.

MANY DUers feel, like me, that Obama has failed to act aggressively enough in reducing troop levels or in correcting the errors and crimes of the past administration --- but to say that the movement itself to get him to do that has failed is also ass-backwards.

We have not failed, we are simply not strong enough nor are we well enough resourced to convince the Congress and the media and the president to act more quickly.

LOOK -- the Afghanistan surge is, to me, an abomination. BUT the fact remains that these are policy issues which are much more complicated than simply pulling all our troops out at once (which i would prefer for many many reasons): it is about a global strategy for peace and a reduction of the threat of wars. We can reasonably differ on how this is done, but one thing is sure: whatever we do we need to do it carefully so as not to further destabilize the region which has been so f*cked up by the Bush administration that it takes time to fix it.

Bush took a humongous and monstrous crap on the entire planet, and especially in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran and Israel/Palestine.

It will take time to fix.

But I do believe that in the long run the peace movement has succeeded in at least getting us moving in the right direction for the MOST part and that ultimately the 80 thousand troop surge that many in the Pentagon wanted will not happen.

I do not suport more troops, I do not like it, I think it may make things worse: but, except for the casualties in the meantime, i am hopeful that whatever strategies Obama uses will WORK to make this a less warlike world.

He MIGHT just do it.

But many will probably die in all events and will surely die if his strategy is wrong. The flip side of pulling out is that it could get much worse )more casualties) if he allows Karzai and the governmentto fall again to the Taliban or fails to keep Al Qaeda subdued in Pakistan. i do not know th answers.

What i do know is that in MANY respects Obama has been a victory for MUCH of the peace and antiwar movement when viewed in its historical context. He is no dennis kucinich, but we knew that.

And he HAS to have a comprehensive strategy to make peace out of the war that was handed him. I kind of trust him to at least TRY to do that and shudder at the alternatives if he had NOT been elected with the support of the peace promoting left.

[Nikki Stone1]

47. The anti war movement isn't backed by corporate money and deadly weapons--but

we still go on.

[anonymous171]

48. Lack of Draft and focus. nt

[proteus_lives]

49. No draft.

Americans wouldn't have given a shit about Vietnam if there hadn't been a draft either.

[Lagomorph]

50. People resisted Bush...

...when the real problem goes far deeper and much further into the past.

Resisting Bush was like trimming an extra branch off a very large and very old tree.

Voting against Bush was just a "feel good" moment. When Bush was gone, it was back to the same old thing.

There's not a person in Congress I'd trust to watch my back, at the moment, and that's what they are supposed to be doing.

[tekisui]

54. The anti-war movement was used to get Dems elected.

When the Democrats built their winning coalition in 2008, they brought the anti-war folks in to help mobilize. The language on Iraq was promising, even though the language on Afghanistan was disappointing. The coalition of various interest groups shared each a common goal of getting the repukes out of power.

Obama was a great leader on the campaign trail and was able to organize the groups. The focus was getting out of Iraq as a way to bring those fed up with it together.

At the time, evidence was trickling out about the lies, tortures, cover-ups, leaks, etc, around Iraq. When someone spoke to ending that, people followed. Of course, one would have been a fool to say anything different at that time.

Once Obama was elected, we celebrated and patted ourselves on the back. The leadership didn't carry over the same way to the WH, and the groups lost the organization.

It will be back. It might take a couple of years, but it will be back.

[notesdev]

55. Incoherence

A strict focus on the lack of strategic goals and the obscene cost would have made a much stronger public argument than the "Bush=Hitler" stuff. The core issues never needed to be partisan.

[Lagomorph]

64. Well said...

...there were lots of good reasons to limit the effort to finding Osama Bin Laden and letting Afghanistan deal with Afghanistan.

[varelse]

57. Other - war is a hugely profitable enterprise

the most powerful forces in the world are in play to keep the Warfare State afloat. It is simply too lucrative an enterprise to allow it to fail because of a few million peace activists.

Fred J Cook published a book about this back in 1962, and sadly, the proprietors of the Warfare State have only been gaining ground since then.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

60. There never was an anti-war movement.

Attending rallies and protests is not a "movement." It was the hubris of the so-called anti-war movement that allowed them to think that by simply holding protests, or putting signs in their front yard that suddenly they would be rewarded with manna from heaven and all would be right with the world. That was never the case. Movements to change the shape of the world, by their very definition, involve struggle and sacrifice. I haven't seen much of that.

[Kaleva]

71. interesting!

[Hippo_Tron]

63. When has an anti-war movement been successful in this country?

[Kaleva]

77. A definition of insanity.

Doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results.

[G_j]

81. I guess MLK Jr. was insane too

but he did have a dream!

[treestar]

67. No draft

That would get people to really think about the necessity of a war.

That 1991 war in the Gulf promoted the cheerleading war - people just cheered the troops on as if they were a football team. They didn't have to worry about their own brothers, husbands going. Another thing is that members of the military are rare now and their relatives can claim reflected glory - my husband is in Kuwait and therefore you can defer to me - that's the attitude. I'm special now. Whereas if just another soldier, just another soldier's wife, as in WWII - that wouldn't be there.

If one's brother/nephew/son had to go and hadn't volunteered - that's more motivating. Or if you are a young man who could really be drafted and you don't believe in the war - that's much more motivation.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

68. Economic Draft.

The military is the only option for survival for many young and not so young ( enlistment now is allowed up to age 39) Americans.

Many communities rely on the military population economically.

Good pay, bonuses, great benefits and a college education. All branches have met and exceeded their recruitment requirements.

Can you imagine the unemployment rate if the wars ended and all these soldiers returned to civilian life?

It's foolish to hope this will change anytime soon. Until war causes the average American considerable economic strain and heartache

nothing will change. Even now with the outrage over the deficit, Americans refuse to place blame on the wars. There's such a huge

disconnect and it will be the end of us.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

70. because the wars can't be ended without a perceived victory

Turning Iraq over to a bunch of Iranian terrorists and leaving Afghanistan after nearly a decade with the Taliban intact would be chalked up as a defeat for whatever president has the fortitude to say ENOUGH.

[yodoobo]

74. The draft is why we didn't get mixed up in vietnam or Korea

Thank goodness we had the draft back then to nip those wars right in bud.

[Lilith Velkor]

102. Butbutbut we HAVE to force kids to fight wars to teach 'em that forcing kids to fight wars is wrong!

Andandand we MUST make Congress pass a new draft bill that leaves no loopholes for the spawn of the wealthy and powerful, it would like, totally pass!

Just like that health care legislation we just made them pass, you know, the one that completely hosed the insurance companies?

/:crazy:

[freddie mertz]

75. Lack of Draft, co-opted by Obama and the Dems

These are the two main reasons.

Most americans are "safe" from the direct impact of the wars.

AND many hoped that electing Obama and Dems would lead to a ramping down of the conflicts, which has turned out to be wrong.

[spanone]

76. stupid humans have accepted war as a way of life.

[Zynx]

79. This is certainly not the largest factor, but the faces of the "movement" are not credible.

Hollywood celebrities and well known left-wing politicians are not going to persuade the broad masses of people and neither are "dirty hippies". If the prominent faces of the anti-war movement were former generals, officers, and soldiers, then you would see more support for taking us out.

[WonderGrunion]

80. Other, the peace movement assumed that Anti-Iraq = Anti-War

And they thought they represented a larger section of the population than they actually did. I've always thought Iraq was a stupid and illegal invasion. Afghanistan can get bombed into glass for harboring Al Qaeda and OBL.

[Name removed]

83. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Odin2005]

86. Exactly!

[Sebastian Doyle]

82. The corporate whore media is deliberately ignoring it.

When even the "best" of the news networks (MSNBC) is owned by a "defense" contractor (General Electric) you can't expect much better unfortunately.

[Kaleva]

85. I agree with Cindy and believe it's because it was more anti-Bush then anti-war

Once Obama won the election, the rhetoric here at DU against the wars has toned down as pointed out by other members. The status of the draft hasn't changed but the person sitting in the Oval Office has.

While all the options I listed have played a part, the main reason is that I think the movement was more anti-Bush then anti-war.

[certainot]

87. Other: protests need to be where the wars are sold

your local talk radio station.

the limbaugh state megastations are the centers of power for the GOP and did most of the selling of the attacks on afghanistan and iraq and the excuses and lies that are keeping us in there.

we wouldn't be there if those dozens of protests i and many others went to went to those local radio stations instead of the state capitols, etc.

while we were marching around in those places the national and local right wing talkers with their giant soapboxes were negating most of the effect with 24/7 coordinated uncontested repetition, selling the war, defining who was patriotic, intimidating and threatening the politicians we were trying to influence, and distorting the message to a crowd the size of the one that voted for obama.

limbaugh really is head of the GOP and we need to picket those stations and boycott their local sponsors if we want to get our reps and presidents backs and get them to do the right thing.

[bridgit]

88. Movement hijacked by those promoting other issues

[CTyankee]

89. I was in the anti-Vietnam war movement both pre and post draft. Post draft we got many fewer people

attending rallies. I don't blame them. People had to look out for themselves and the Vietman War was just not WW2.

The all volunteer army has changed that and not in a good way. It would probably be a good thing if everyone had to sign up, a la Israel. I think we wouldn't see so many wars...

[isurvivedit]

91. Because they were pro Obama...

and haven't wanted to admit he is NOT a man of peace, as more military bases are being built in Iraq, illegal rendition is continued, the Patriot Act is extended, and more troops are being sent to Afghanistan, among other things....

[tnlefty]

92. I didn't read the thread regarding Ms. Shehann, so I can

only state, that the people of this country have much less a say in the matters of war and peace than does the MIC and their need for on going conflict.

Oh, elected officials from both political parties making excuses in regards to casting votes being hinged on the next election or their aspirations for higher political office, and that excuse really bugs the hell out of me.

[MSchreader]

94. It's some of the above, plus others

From the above list, I'd say options 1 (more anti-Bush than antiwar) and 2 (no draft) are fair reasons for some of the problems of the current antiwar movement.

Options 3 (like a herd of cats) and 4 (hijacked) are ridiculous excuses used by those who don't want to accept the real reasons -- after all, neither of those stopped the Vietnam antiwar movement, and that movement was infamous for having both of these by the bucket full.

Option 5 (low casualty rate) seems false to me because a high casualty rate does not mean an antiwar movement is likely to emerge. For example, there was no real antiwar movement during the Second World War or the Korean War, and both had higher body counts than this one.

Option 6 (not violent enough) seems more like flamebait than a real choice.

Of the six listed, Option 1 is the closest to the reality of the situation. As someone who was involved in organizing in the antiwar movement from the beginning -- and I mean from the moment bombs began dropping in Afghanistan -- it is pretty clear to me that the failing of the antiwar movement was its complete lack of political independence. It was not so much antiwar as anti-Bush, and this problem existed especially at the top, among the leading national coalitions.

Even the oh-so-radical ANSWER coalition (later split into the rival ANSWER and Troops Out Now coalitions) pulled their punches when it came to the complicity of Congressional Democrats. An especially tragic example of this was the World Can't Wait group initiated by the Maoists, which was pretty much taken over by the Progressive Democrats of America.

And the closer the Democratic Party came to reassuming power in Washington, the more that the national antiwar coalitions avoided anything that appeared to be confrontational. After 2006, the demonstrations became smaller as focus shifted from protest to lobbying. The main initiator of this was the largest of the antiwar coalitions, United For Peace and Justice, but the decision affected all of the organizations of the antiwar movement. Even the johnny-come-lately National Antiwar Assembly, formed in 2006, could not avoid the deflation of the antiwar movement, and essentially was stillborn as an alternative to UFPJ and ANSWER/TONC.

But the movement being more anti-Bush than antiwar is only one component of the overall problem of political independence that the movement suffered. Another large one was that its main tactic for ending the war was pressure on the White House and Congress.

Even though, especially after the mass protests on February 15, 2003, it was obvious that no movement of any size was going to persuade the Bush regime and Congress to change course, the antiwar movement continued to act as if they were having an impact with their street marches and rallies. At no time during those years did the primary organizations of the antiwar movement even consider changing their approach. And when they did finally start discussing a change, in 2007, the result was the aforementioned demobilization in favor of "respectable" methods.

In addition, there was never a proactive approach to strategy and tactics. It was always reactive; Bush and/or Congress make a decision and the movement holds a protest action somewhere nearby. There was never an attempt to organize any kind of actions that were not a response to something that the Bush regime did.

And this finally gets into the question of orientation -- which, personally, I see as what motivated the antiwar movement to rely on such failed methods. The leading elements of the antiwar movement saw themselves as appealing to ruling class and the political representatives to have a "change of heart" -- they appealed to the "better nature" of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. -- in order to bring an end to the war. At no time did they consider other avenues or approaches. This is understandable, given the makeup of those leading elements, virtually all of whom are part of the same classes as those in charge in Washington and on Wall Street. "Birds of a feather", and all that.

(This goes for all of the so-called "radicals", too, who are also the part of the exploiting and oppressing classes -- the war classes. Social being determines consciousness, and we saw that play out when even self-described socialists and communists from these classes went out of their way to appeal to Bush to "see his mistakes" and change course.)

There comes a point when you have to acknowledge, in all deference to Frederick Douglass, that power will concede nothing, even with a demand. That's what happened to the antiwar movement; from the moment it was clear that putting 1 million people in the streets of New York or Washington was not going to move the rulers one inch, the movement was dead, its goals and methods obsolete, and its marches and protests so much waste of shoe leather.

Hopefully, people will learn these lessons for the next time.

[Kaleva]

98. A very good read!

[cynatnite]

95. Other: The general public doesn't rank it as that important. n/t

[alcibiades_mystery]

96. It doesn't take responsibility for its own poor rhetorical strategies

You can see it in this thread. It's always "the corporate media" or "the sheeple" or some other such category that's to blame. Instead of figuring out rhetorically smart choices, it repeats rhetorical mistakes, over and over and over again, and blames others for its poor rhetorical strategies not working. Or, it says that they did work, because "it could have been so much worse" (mind you, the same people will go into apoplectic fury when anybody else makes the same argument about the economy). It's the usual human vanity and stupidity, in other words: always somebody else's fault.

[Kaleva]

99. +1

[Blue_Tires]

97. i'm not sure i'd use the word 'fail', but...

the news media plays a role, too...The goings-on in the sandbox have been out of sight, and out of mind for too many too long...and even in the days of huge marches a few years ago, there was too much backlash from RW commentators, ex-military and media shills with 9-11 imagery and infamous memes like "hating america", "giving aid and comfort to the enemy", "treason", "support your president during wartime", or "not letting the terrorists win"

another reason is the reasoning and mission objectives over there have become SO blurred, I don't think any brass in the pentagon have ANY idea of what the big picture is supposed to look like anymore...so how can you end a war that isn't easily defined anymore (other than the fact its a bloody mess?)...would "ending the war" mean just pulling out troops and ships? what about pulling out the massive administrative apparatus we have in the green zone and elsewhere? what about all the bases and airfields? what about the corporate leeches who have set up shop? more importantly, what about blackwater and all the other merc groups doing the dirtiest of dirty work??


and I'm not saying if this is right or wrong, (and i'm not trying to start another discussion), a lot of people hold out belief that a man in the white house tagged as the "anti-bush" would end it sooner or later...

[conturnedpro09]

101. Other: 9/11

From that point forward, it was absolutely clear that there was never going to be a successful anti-war movement to stop the wars that awaited us.

The fact that "we were attacked first" changed everything for most Americans. It did not matter who got punished, or who continues to get punished, or who may get "punished" next. If we attacked Iran, the numbers "9/11" will subliminally tell most Americans that somehow they had it coming and somehow it's preventing another 9/11. Somehow.

[DireStrike]

103. No draft is the big one, but there are others.

The powers that be are getting stronger and better. They have more money (a larger share of ALL the money, is the main thing), and more modern tools at their disposal. They are more powerful than they were back then, by far.

Social causes also continue a slow but steady leftward march. The public in general notices this and feels that things are getting better without their having to do anything. Recently this has started to change... because the most disaffected members have been the socially right-leaning activists, seeing their ideology continually rejected by society. They've had more incentive to organize, and they've done it. And this movement is effectively assisted by the elite, who can tell where to direct their considerable resources for maximum effect.

There is no movement on the left currently. There is nothing... except growing discontent. Unless something happens fast, I think we are just in the beginning (or at best in the middle) of a long-term right wing movement.