The Peace Movement: A Defining Moment
Robert Fantina
February 03, 2007
Prior to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, millions of people gathered in many of the world’s major cities to protest the pending invasion. President Bush, who compared these demonstrations to a focus group, ignored the voice of the people and proceeded with his war of choice.
It was not until 2006 that the voters expressed at the polls their dissatisfaction with the war, and disillusionment with Mr. Bush’s policies in general. Following that election, in which the Republicans lost control of both Houses of Congress, Mr. Bush fired Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and stated that he would announce ‘a new way forward’ in Iraq. This ‘new way’ turned out to be escalation.
The peace movement has remained active, albeit mainly ineffective, since prior to the war. What it may have lacked was some event that would energize and unite the diverse populations that oppose the war. The revelations about abuses at Abu Gharib, the secret foreign prisons and admission of torture of prisoners were apparently insufficient. Perhaps now, however, with his ‘new way forward’ in Iraq, Mr. Bush has provided the peace movement with that impetus.
This situation, like so much of the Iraqi conflict, is not without historical parallel.
Four decades ago, as two U.S. presidents escalated the Vietnam War, throughout America there were organized peace groups, mainly centered on college campuses. With students being drafted at the rate of nearly 35,000 per month it is not surprising that opposition to the war was centered among them. Despite the fact that it was these young people who were being sent to Vietnam and too often returning in body bags, they were often not seen as within the mainstream of American society. Their voices, clamoring for the autonomy they also wanted for the people of Vietnam, were largely ignored when not actively repressed. As a result the peace movement did not have widespread acceptance outside of the university environment. What it needed then, as now, was some unifying event. President Lyndon Johnson provided it by starting a bombing campaign against North Vietnam in 1965. From that point the peace movement quickly transformed into a political and social force to be reckoned with; coming from a slow but steady start, within two years it had permeated mainstream America.
Prominent civil rights leaders added more credibility to the peace movement. In 1967, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King openly expressed his support for peace on moral grounds. Rev. William Sloane Coffin of New York’s Riverside Church, another long-time civil rights advocate, also openly and actively protested the war. These men, themselves marginalized during the beginning of their active public ministries, eventually proved instrumental in helping the peace movement gain credibility and broad acceptance.
During this time the Congress of the United States was slowly evolving also. In 1967 Senator Eugene McCarthy announced his candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination on a peace platform. In 1968 Sen. William Proxmire, long a proponent of the war, changed his stance and strongly opposed it. He eventually supported the Hatfield-McGovern amendment that set a deadline for the removal of all U.S. soldiers from Vietnam (the amendment was defeated).
The opinions of these senators appear to have reflected American society, which had also grown tired of and disillusioned with America’s tragic misadventure in Vietnam. Another mirror of public opinion that impacted Mr. Johnson greatly was the judgment of news anchor Walter Cronkite. Following a visit to Vietnam in 1968, Mr. Cronkite, sometimes referred to as the most trusted man in America, publicly stated that the U.S. would not win the war. Mr. Johnson is quoted as saying that if had lost the confidence of Mr. Cronkite, he had lost the confidence of America. That same year the president announced that he would not be a candidate for reelection. Mr. Cronkite’s gloomy prediction of the war took seven more years and tens of thousands of lives before being fulfilled.
On January 10, 2007 President Bush announced his ‘new way forward’ for Iraq. It appears that he has located the failed policies of Mr. Johnson for Vietnam and dusted them off for use in his own war. The escalation, or ‘augmentation’ as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice calls it, may be to the peace movement today what Mr. Johnson’s bombing campaign was to the movement forty years ago. Although without a central core such as existed among college students then, the current peace movement has the advantage of organization and the Internet. Immediately Mr. Bush announced his newest recipe for disaster, demonstrations were held in San Francisco and New York.
Congress today is far ahead of where it was in 1968; the Democrats (with the exception of Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut) are united in their opposition to this ‘augmentation,’ and leading Republicans are also abandoning Mr. Bush. Said Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel the day after Mr.Bush’s augmentation announcement: “I think this speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam….” Another Republican, Sen. George Voinovich, told Secretary Rice that she and Mr. Bush would need to do a better job of explaining the rationale for the war, and that the president could no longer count on his support. Both men are thought to be considering tossing their generally conservative hats into the presidential primary ring. Mr. Bush has said that it would be a future president who decides when U.S. soldiers will leave Iraq. Perhaps it will be one of them. Yet Senator John McCain, considered at this time the front-runner for the Republican nomination, strongly supports Mr. Bush’s escalation. This support is surprising considering his own history as a soldier and prisoner of war in Vietnam.
The war in Iraq has never been about weapons of mass destruction; its real purpose could be argued in a variety of directions: more oil for the already oil-rich American politicians, some odd need of Mr. Bush’s to prove his manhood and atone for his absence from military service during the Vietnam era, or a general flexing of American muscle for all the world to see. Regardless of what has led the country into this quicksand of military and diplomatic disaster, those who oppose the war must unite, energize and make their collective voice heard. Much of Congress is listening; it members must be held accountable.
It was not until 2006 that the voters expressed at the polls their dissatisfaction with the war, and disillusionment with Mr. Bush’s policies in general. Following that election, in which the Republicans lost control of both Houses of Congress, Mr. Bush fired Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and stated that he would announce ‘a new way forward’ in Iraq. This ‘new way’ turned out to be escalation.
The peace movement has remained active, albeit mainly ineffective, since prior to the war. What it may have lacked was some event that would energize and unite the diverse populations that oppose the war. The revelations about abuses at Abu Gharib, the secret foreign prisons and admission of torture of prisoners were apparently insufficient. Perhaps now, however, with his ‘new way forward’ in Iraq, Mr. Bush has provided the peace movement with that impetus.
This situation, like so much of the Iraqi conflict, is not without historical parallel.
Four decades ago, as two U.S. presidents escalated the Vietnam War, throughout America there were organized peace groups, mainly centered on college campuses. With students being drafted at the rate of nearly 35,000 per month it is not surprising that opposition to the war was centered among them. Despite the fact that it was these young people who were being sent to Vietnam and too often returning in body bags, they were often not seen as within the mainstream of American society. Their voices, clamoring for the autonomy they also wanted for the people of Vietnam, were largely ignored when not actively repressed. As a result the peace movement did not have widespread acceptance outside of the university environment. What it needed then, as now, was some unifying event. President Lyndon Johnson provided it by starting a bombing campaign against North Vietnam in 1965. From that point the peace movement quickly transformed into a political and social force to be reckoned with; coming from a slow but steady start, within two years it had permeated mainstream America.
Prominent civil rights leaders added more credibility to the peace movement. In 1967, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King openly expressed his support for peace on moral grounds. Rev. William Sloane Coffin of New York’s Riverside Church, another long-time civil rights advocate, also openly and actively protested the war. These men, themselves marginalized during the beginning of their active public ministries, eventually proved instrumental in helping the peace movement gain credibility and broad acceptance.
During this time the Congress of the United States was slowly evolving also. In 1967 Senator Eugene McCarthy announced his candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination on a peace platform. In 1968 Sen. William Proxmire, long a proponent of the war, changed his stance and strongly opposed it. He eventually supported the Hatfield-McGovern amendment that set a deadline for the removal of all U.S. soldiers from Vietnam (the amendment was defeated).
The opinions of these senators appear to have reflected American society, which had also grown tired of and disillusioned with America’s tragic misadventure in Vietnam. Another mirror of public opinion that impacted Mr. Johnson greatly was the judgment of news anchor Walter Cronkite. Following a visit to Vietnam in 1968, Mr. Cronkite, sometimes referred to as the most trusted man in America, publicly stated that the U.S. would not win the war. Mr. Johnson is quoted as saying that if had lost the confidence of Mr. Cronkite, he had lost the confidence of America. That same year the president announced that he would not be a candidate for reelection. Mr. Cronkite’s gloomy prediction of the war took seven more years and tens of thousands of lives before being fulfilled.
On January 10, 2007 President Bush announced his ‘new way forward’ for Iraq. It appears that he has located the failed policies of Mr. Johnson for Vietnam and dusted them off for use in his own war. The escalation, or ‘augmentation’ as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice calls it, may be to the peace movement today what Mr. Johnson’s bombing campaign was to the movement forty years ago. Although without a central core such as existed among college students then, the current peace movement has the advantage of organization and the Internet. Immediately Mr. Bush announced his newest recipe for disaster, demonstrations were held in San Francisco and New York.
Congress today is far ahead of where it was in 1968; the Democrats (with the exception of Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut) are united in their opposition to this ‘augmentation,’ and leading Republicans are also abandoning Mr. Bush. Said Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel the day after Mr.Bush’s augmentation announcement: “I think this speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam….” Another Republican, Sen. George Voinovich, told Secretary Rice that she and Mr. Bush would need to do a better job of explaining the rationale for the war, and that the president could no longer count on his support. Both men are thought to be considering tossing their generally conservative hats into the presidential primary ring. Mr. Bush has said that it would be a future president who decides when U.S. soldiers will leave Iraq. Perhaps it will be one of them. Yet Senator John McCain, considered at this time the front-runner for the Republican nomination, strongly supports Mr. Bush’s escalation. This support is surprising considering his own history as a soldier and prisoner of war in Vietnam.
The war in Iraq has never been about weapons of mass destruction; its real purpose could be argued in a variety of directions: more oil for the already oil-rich American politicians, some odd need of Mr. Bush’s to prove his manhood and atone for his absence from military service during the Vietnam era, or a general flexing of American muscle for all the world to see. Regardless of what has led the country into this quicksand of military and diplomatic disaster, those who oppose the war must unite, energize and make their collective voice heard. Much of Congress is listening; it members must be held accountable.