[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
The anti-Vietnam-War movement peaked around 1970. McGovern ran in '72 on a peace platform and got creamed – would have got creamed even if the Nixon team had not resorted to dirty tricks. We didn’t pull our last troops out of Vietnam until 1974. No anti-war movement in American history has ever succeeded in getting the administration to end a war until the administration was damned good and ready to end it in its own time for its own reasons.
That doesn’t mean it can’t happen, of course, just that history gives us little reason for optimism.
[/QUOTE]
Without the movement would LBJ have run? Could he have won? If the movement brought down LBJ then perhaps indirectly it lead to the end of the war.
How are you defining “in its own time for its own reasons”, though? Widespread unpopularity and social discontent are certainly among the “reasons” that administrations decide to change course on policy decisions.
[QUOTE=Trotsky]
Anti-war movements help their countries lose wars at best. They don’t prevent or cause some great truce.
QED.
[/QUOTE]
They can keep a country out of a war if they start early enough. Wasn’t France’s refusal to get involved in Iraq based at least in part on popular opposition?
[QUOTE=Johanna]
The First Amendment says the people have the right to peaceably assemble for redress of grievances. So it’s the patriotic American thing to do.
[/QUOTE]
No, it’s something we have a right to do. Depending on circumstances the impetus might be patriotic, or unpatriotic, or irrelevant to patriotism.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
The jihadists are weak.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, they are. That’s why they resort to terrorism. When a dissident group cannot hope to win its goals at the ballot box or on the battlefield, sometimes it will resort to terrorism, the purpose of which is to inflate its perceived power. There was a time when the whole West Coast was scared of the Symbionese Liberation Army, which never had more than a dozen members.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
Are you forgetting that they will have nuclear bombs in five years if we do nothing. That they already posses missiles to deliver them.
[/QUOTE]
Please be careful not to confuse underground terrorist groups like al-Qaeda with national governments like Iran’s (which hates al-Qaeda as much as we do, BTW, because of the Sunni-Shi’a thing). That kind of confusion is one of the things which misled us into Iraq. Al-Qaeda might conceivably get a nuke; it will never get a missile or a silo to launch it from.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
That they number more than a billion. That they will control most of the world’s oil reserves.
[/quote]
And, again, be careful how you use the pronoun “they.” We are not at war with the whole Islamic world and if we’re wise we never will be. A general war between Islam and the West is exactly what Osama bin Laden wants.
[QUOTE=Trotsky]
Dude, the difference is that the Soviets knew of the idea of deterence. They knew if they flew planes into the WTC it would’ve mean nuclear war.
AQ isn’t worried about that, yet.. They figure they can be the islamic world’s army by proxy and do whatever, and the islamic world itself is more or less safe. Or at least with ‘acceptable’ losses.
That needs to change, fast.
[/QUOTE]
Errmm . . . how exactly does it need to change? By making their losses unacceptable? And how would you do that without killing millions of innocents?
Using an army to fight terrorists is like using a machine gun to rid a house of termites.
[QUOTE=Kimstu]
ISTM that anti-war movements generally have more effect on postwar politics than on the actual conduct of wars. I’m thinking of the so-called “pro-Boer” movement during the Anglo-Boer War at the turn of the 20th century, which seems to have boosted pre-WWI internationalism and diplomacy efforts.
[/QUOTE]
If so, then the existing movement might be the opening for a different strategic direction for America after we pull out of Iraq. A “concert of powers” strategy might be preferable to “American hegemony” – but it would require a radical change in our leaders’ thinking. See this thread, and I highly recommend reading the whole article linked in the OP.
[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
Without the movement would LBJ have run? Could he have won? If the movement brought down LBJ then perhaps indirectly it lead to the end of the war.
[/QUOTE]
The movement led to Nixon running and winning in 1968 on a promise to end the war – but once he was president he did what he wanted.
[QUOTE=Kimstu]
How are you defining “in its own time for its own reasons”, though? Widespread unpopularity and social discontent are certainly among the “reasons” that administrations decide to change course on policy decisions.
[/QUOTE]
True; but the real reason we pulled out of 'Nam is that it was at long last obvious to Nixon/Ford that it was unwinnable.
[QUOTE=Trotsky]
The anti-war movement can certainly help lose battles (Vietnam during the cold war) but not the war (the cold war itself).
We’re facing losing the Iraq battle in the WOT (really the war on jihad) in the same way.
[/QUOTE]
You know what also helps to lose battles? Not having any kind of coherent plan, criteria for victory or exit strategy.
The anti-war movement is largely an indicator of public opinion. It does not form it. If your position cannot withstand the onslaught of a band of hippies and assorted liberal wackos and other fringe elements with placard signs, maybe you should be questioning it yourself.
[QUOTE=Trotsky]
Don’t tell me, you think the reaction of the threat of jihadist attack is going to be worse than the jihadists could ever do.
Hell, we might even have duck and cover shows..
[/QUOTE]
Or we might get into stupid and self destructive wars that hurt us and help them - which is what we did. That’s what they want; the only way they have to really hurt America is by manipulation, and with Bush in charge they’ve jerked us around like a puppet.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
True; but the real reason we pulled out of 'Nam is that it was at long last obvious to Nixon/Ford that it was unwinnable.
[/QUOTE]
I would be happy to be proven wrong on that point, BTW. It would make me more optimistic about the current situation.
I am old enough to have marched in parades that were about civil rights for blacks. Sometimes they were dangerous. But the message sent to the government was that fair treatment was a growing cause. Those that took to the streets would also vote,so it was not easy to ignore them.
Vietnam become as unwinnable and as ugly as Iraq has become. The people said enough and marched to let their dissatisfaction and growing numbers to be seen. Johnson shut the curtains and bitched endlessly about the marches. They were helpful in his decision not to run. Yes,marching helped. Can it now? It is harder to do. The police seem to be much more likely to react with violence. The marchers are forced to march farther away from the seat of politics. They have to get permits and stay in local areas. It would require a huge march that would step over the lines and make it obvious to the politicians. Last election did not send a strong enough lesson.
Some of the largest protests in world history took place before the U.S. and the “Coalition of the Willing” crossed Iraq’s borders. There have been many protests in the U.S. since then, some with hundreds of thousands of people. The MSM either wholly ignores them or, in certain circumstances, misrepresents their numbers.
So, in this case anyway, the answer is clearly no. I believe they are still valuable in other ways, but let’s not kid ourselves – if we begin a draw down of troops in a couple of years it will be due to the fact that anyone advocating otherwise will be unelectable.
[QUOTE=gonzomax]
I am old enough to have marched in parades that were about civil rights for blacks. …They were helpful in his decision not to run. Yes,marching helped. Can it now? It is harder to do. The police seem to be much more likely to react with violence.
[/QUOTE]
Are you serious? The police are much LESS likely to react to violence now. Can you imagine the uproar of a Kent State type incidence happening now?
The difference is that the government is so much better at manipulating the giant media machine. People like **Trotsky ** watch Fox News all day and buy into their simplistic message of America vs Evil and that the solution to every foreign crisis is “let’s kick thar ass!”.
I believe that Iraq will prove to be just like Vietnam. A war that was ultimately irrelevant strategically and served to ultimately weaken and distract us from the greater conflict (Islamic extremism now, Communism back then). Iraq has already severely limited our options in dealing with Iran and it certainly hasn’t helped with Lebenon.
[QUOTE=msmith537]
..Can you imagine the uproar of a Kent State type incidence happening now?..
[/QUOTE]
Don’t have to imagine, I can remember it. And there wasn’t that much outrage, outside of us. Whole lot of “Well, they had it coming!”. “Bums”. “Its all the fault of their left-wing professors!” There would be a mad dash amongst the Hannitys and the Hewitts, see who could be first to say it.
Besides, the National Guard is already deployed, they’d have to arm the Campfire Girls.