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.
Lenin was not always wrong.
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?
You’re new to the SDMB. If you continue to post factual assertions in the Great Debates forum you’re going to see this a lot:
Cite?
No, it’s something we have a right to do. Depending on circumstances the impetus might be patriotic, or unpatriotic, or irrelevant to patriotism.
The United States of America.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.