[Peace-discuss] The anti-war case, then and now

[C. G. Estabrook]

[This is rather gentle, given the enormities committed by the
USG, but it seems to me basically right. --CGE]
	  	
  August 26, 2005
  The Peace Movement: 
  Right Before the War, Right Today
  by Steve Breyman

As Cindy Sheehan supporters continue their vigil in Crawford,
and Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) plans hearings on her
resolution calling on the administration to begin planning an
exit strategy for Iraq, it's useful for the growing number of
concerned citizens to recall that their friends, neighbors,
and family members opposed to the war were right in their
critique of the Bush administration's case for the invasion,
and right in their predictions of what would happen following
the invasion.

Not just occasionally right, but on the money across the
board. Antiwar people argued that the "big three" reasons put
forward directly and indirectly by the Bush administration and
its echo chamber in the press were bogus. The movement argued
rightly that there was little or no evidence for claims that:
(1) the Iraqis were close to possessing nuclear weapons, or
still had vast quantities of chemical or biological weapons;
(2) Saddam Hussein was allied with al-Qaeda; or (3) Iraq had
anything to do with 9/11.

Peace movement activists claimed that terrorism would
increase, not decrease, with the invasion of Iraq. They were
right, as shown by State Department figures. Opponents of the
invasion argued that it would violate the UN Charter and other
international legal commitments. They were right, as shown by
the assessment of Kofi Annan and many others. Peace groups
scoffed at Secretary Rumsfeld's claim that the invasion would
be paid for out of Iraqi oil revenues. With a price tag
steadily approaching a trillion dollars – the meter still
running – it's clear who was right.

Antiwar activists claimed that the invasion would worsen, not
improve, the prospects for nuclear proliferation around the
world. Right again, as developments in North Korea make
abundantly clear. Citizens worried that war might deepen
ethnic and religious divisions in the country. Growing
hostility among Sunnis, Shi'ites, and Kurds shows that they
were right. Cautious patriots predicted an unprovoked invasion
would damage the country's international reputation. This was
before the torture scandals of Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib.

Why does all this matter now? Because we're – hopefully –
headed into a debate over when to get out of Iraq.

The peace movement is divided. There are two main views: (1)
we must wait till the security situation is stabilized, and
Iraqi military and police forces can battle the insurgency on
their own, but we should (perhaps) discuss an exit strategy
now (this is, more or less, the perspective of MoveOn.org and
other factions and individuals affiliated with the Democratic
Party); and (2) bring the troops home immediately.

Keeping red-baiting alive, right-wing television and radio
hosts ascribe the second view to people who hold the first
without seriously addressing its arguments. Thus, even
positions not that distant from Bush and Cheney are dismissed
as members of the "loony Left." Of course, the Limbaughs and
the O'Reillys have no real response to the solid brief for
bringing the troops home now. But have you come across
considered analysis of the "troops home now" position anywhere
in the mainstream media? This view, it's important to note,
predominates among veteran activists and many activist veterans.

The case for "immediate" withdrawal (which may take several
months) is straightforward and robust. Bringing servicemen and
women home now will: shrink the insurgency, as its main reason
for being would disappear; save U.S. and Iraqi lives (U.S.
forces can be replaced by UN peacekeepers should the Iraqis so
desire); save money and permit a focus on reconstruction; stop
or reduce the flow of foreign fighters to an Iraq no longer
the center of the jihadist campaign against the U.S.; permit
rehabilitation of nearly broken National Guard, Reserve, and
regular military units; enable the U.S. to start rebuilding
its shattered international reputation (a long task); and
permit the U.S. to replace its "global war on terror" with
diplomacy and law enforcement.

The next time you hear some hysterical talk show host or guest
ridicule a distorted version of the antiwar movement's case
for an immediate pullout or read some columnist or blogger's
ad hominem putdown of peace activists, pause for a moment. Ask
yourself: who supported the war from the start? Who bought the
administration's reed-thin case for the invasion? Who claimed
American troops would be widely greeted as liberators? Who
still defends the U.S. policy toward "detainees"? Who offers
us no firm date for escape from a deepening quagmire? Correct
then, the peace movement is right today in its call for a
quick withdrawal.

[Steve Breyman is associate professor of Science and
Technology Studies at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in
Troy, N.Y., where he directs the department’s graduate
program. He is also director of Rensselaer’s Ecological
Economics, Values & Policy Program. Breyman’s latest book is
Why Movements Matter: U.S. Arms Control Policy and the West
German Peace Movement (SUNY Press, 2001). He produces and
hosts On the Barricades, Wednesdays 10-11a.m. on WRPI 91.5 FM.]