Most Popular This Week
- Eve of Destruction (or How to Destroy a Planet Without Really Trying)
- 'Beyond Orwellian': Outrage Follows Revelations of Vast Domestic Spying Program
- The World Economy Is a Ticking Time Bomb (and The Fuse is Burning)
- 'We Are Movement, Not a Moment': North Carolina Peaceful Uprising Continues
- The Bill of Rights Exists: An Open Letter to Dianne Feinstein
- Eve of Destruction (or How to Destroy a Planet Without Really Trying)
- The World Economy Is a Ticking Time Bomb (and The Fuse is Burning)
- Is Enbridge Building a Secret Keystone Pipeline?
- 'Beyond Orwellian': Outrage Follows Revelations of Vast Domestic Spying Program
- The Bill of Rights Exists: An Open Letter to Dianne Feinstein
Popular content
Today's Top News
Anti-War Groups Battle for Survival
As President Barack Obama formally declared an end to combat operations in Iraq this week, the anti-war movement that helped sweep him into office - and that worked for seven years to bring U.S. troops home - finds itself struggling for survival.
CODEPINK and other anti-war organizations are enduring a less than vibrant movement. AP Photo
Several factors - war fatigue; a deep, lingering recession; and the presence of a Democratic president they helped elect - have drained the energy from organizations that led the fight against the Iraq war. Some of the most influential anti-war activist groups that once summoned half a million people to march against the Iraq war and the policies of President George W. Bush are straining to raise the money and attention to fight what they see as Obama's military entrenchment in Afghanistan.
"We don't have a very vibrant anti-war movement anymore," lamented Medea Benjamin, founder of CODEPINK, one of the anti-war movement's most visible organizations. "The issues have not changed very much. ... Now we have a surge [in Afghanistan] that we would have been furious about under George Bush, yet it's hard to mobilize people under Obama. We have the same anti -war movement and not the same passion."
MoveOn.org, which produced a 2007 anti-war newspaper ad labeling Gen. David Petraeus "General Betray Us" for the surge in Iraq, has largely been silent, despite a similar U.S. strategy in Afghanistan with Petraeus at the helm. Cindy Sheehan, perhaps the most famous anti-war protester, believes the peace movement is over. And United for Peace and Justice - once the largest of three major anti-war coalitions - has practically dissolved.
Leslie Cagan, UPJ's founder, resigned last year after nearly seven years leading the group.
"I was totally exhausted," said Cagan, 63. "I have a long history of anti-war activism - about 45 years - but the last eight or nine years have been totally intense. In a post 9/11 world, it's just nonstop."
Liberals demanding an immediate withdrawal from Iraq after the 2003 invasion were largely ignored by the Bush administration, but their influence with Democrats and independent voters grew between 2004 and 2008, the height of the war - and the time of Obama's emergence as a presidential contender. By 2008, the anti-war sentiment had fueled a surge in voter registration, while anti-war activists openly embraced Obama, whose early momentum was based largely on opposition to Iraq.
As Obama catapulted to the front of a crowded field of Democratic presidential candidates, his criticism of the Iraq war motivated thousands of volunteers to hit the streets for him. In turn, Democrats and war-weary independent voters surged to the polls, pushing Obama, as well as down-ticket Democrats, into office.
Now, that energy has all but vanished, leaving Obama and embattled congressional Democrats with one less ally when they need all the help they can get.
"That's going to be a real headache for Obama coming down the road," said Gary C. Jacobson, a political science professor at the University of California-San Diego.
"One of the major motivations for Democratic turnout in 2006 and 2008 was the opposition to the Bush administration and their wars" and that motivation is gone, Jacobson said. "It's not going to send [activists] running after the next Republican candidate... but they might be less energized and less likely to participate and turn out [for Democrats] than before."
Paradoxically, the anti-war movement has grown weaker even as public opposition to the Afghanistan war has grown stronger. A recent Gallup poll found that 43 percent of those surveyed think the Afghanistan war was a mistake, compared with 30 percent in January 2009. But an anti-war rally in Washington in March 2009 drew fewer than 10,000 people - a fraction of the 500,000 activists who attended an anti-Iraq War rally in Manhattan in 2003.
After fighting the Bush administration for the better part of a decade, the anti-war movement can barely draw public attention to Afghanistan because of kitchen-table issues like the worsening economy, the increasingly unpopular health care overhaul and high unemployment. Meanwhile, the leaders have kept their grumbling about Afghanistan mostly to themselves, to keep Obama's sagging poll numbers from sinking further or jeopardizing the Democratic majority in Congress.
"A lot of the people who were part of this movement have retreated," Code Pink's Benjamin said. "They wanted to give up on the timetable [for withdrawing from Iraq]. Some are still reluctant to criticize a Democratic president now with the midterms coming up."
The staggering economy has hit the movement hard: Just a few years ago, some groups raised millions of dollars in donations and mobilized legions of supporters to rallies in Washington, D.C., and New York; now, United for Peace and Justice - which had a full-time, paid staff and a budget of more than $1 million - relies on volunteers working without a headquarters and with less than $100,000 to spend.
"That says a lot about where our masses are when it comes to getting out against the wars," said Michael McPherson, the co-convener of United for Peace and Justice. "If people are deciding between trying to figure out if you're going to have a job and ending the war in Afghanistan ... trying to figure out how to keep your job is going to win every time."
But Sheehan, whose son died in Iraq and who kept vigil outside Bush's Crawford ranch to protest the war, had long abandoned hope that the activists would fight as hard once Obama was elected. Groups like MoveOn.org, in particular, are more interested in politics than in peace, she said.
"I basically think that it's over," Sheehan said. "And the reason that it's over is that so many of those same groups that you're talking about supported Obama. ... I just don't think that if you're anti-war you can support somebody who is for war."
Nevertheless, many activists believe that momentum is building against the continued military presence in Afghanistan.
In July, 102 House Democrats voted against the $33 billion emergency war supplemental bill, compared with 32 who voted against it last year - a sign, activists say, that Congress is responding to falling public support for the Afghanistan war. Activists took heart when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she would not whip progressive members to support this bill, and when Appropriations Chairman David Obey said he had "profound skepticism" about spending more money on combat in Afghanistan.
"I thought it was very telling that not a single member of Democratic leadership stood on the floor to defend the president's Afghanistan policy during the supplemental debate," said Tom Andrews, a former congressman from Maine who also is the national director of Win Without War.
Andrews says the anti-war energy is focused on Congress, with MoveOn and other groups using lobbying instead of protests to fight the war. Others, like Norman Solomon, an anti-war writer and founder of the Institute for Public Accuracy, say any resurgence of anti-war activity won't look like the massive, Bush-era street protests, which proved largely ineffective.
"We weren't able to affect policy" during the Bush administration, Solomon said. "We got bigger turnouts at rallies and had more vocal visibility that way, but that's not something to yearn for."
As Democrats in Congress begin to put pressure on the White House to leave Afghanistan, some say that move could help the anti-war movement regain some of its lost strength. Still, if outside groups can't build on that momentum, "it would be a problem," said Bob Borosage, founder and president of Institute for America's Future.
But he says that he believes groups like MoveOn and labor unions will step up to the plate, especially since Obama has addressed other progressive agenda items like the health care overhaul and Wall Street reform. "I have many fears about these things, but I have no doubt that there will be a rising anti-war movement," he said.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

26 Comments so far
Show AllI call bu**sh*t. MoveOn and others of that ilk really don't give a rip that the US is still in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's all just a political game to them. The people in our country really are more interested in what is happening on TV or which teams are playing this weekend or whether their kids' teams are winning in Little League. Just keep food coming and they don't care about what is happening to people half a world away. Who's winning on Dancing with the Stars?
There are still organizations which are speaking out against the militarism but they are called unpatriotic. You know, groups like Veterans for Peace, those men and women who served in the military and realized, too late, that their government was not exactly telling them the truth? At least they came to their senses! When are the rest of us going to be willing to do more than send letters to our Congressperson or call them on the phone? They really don't care what we think as we don't have the money to line their pockets like the lobbyists for war.
We are being royally screwed and we don't seem to care.
Or you can support someone who has been consistently against the "wars" and never supported the War Candidate, or War Parties.
www.PeaceoftheAction.org
www.CindySheehansSoapbox.com
And who's actually trying to do something not sanctioned by the establishment.
Thanks
Cindy Sheehan
You got MY vote, Cindy! ♥ ☮
Thanks for stopping by.
Me, too!
Thanks, Cindy!
Me also!
Many thanks to you, dear Cindy!
I salute Cindy, a true American Heroine.
It takes Cindy’s kind of balls to have a successful Strike.
But what are you for; even your "trying to do something" is presented as a negation? It's a big challenge: trying to articulate the experience of peace as well as invitations for others to join and avenues to pursue. Of course that biggest challenge is that first step of culturing an experience of peace individually, and being able to repeat it, then helping to culture and nurture it in other people. And, no, calling people dehumanizing names, or visioning someone hanging from their toes in a dungeon doesn't get it despite the short term titillation: recognizing the humanity of even one's worst enemy, then culturing moments of shared recognized humanity is the way; for peace is the way, though at the moment it may be a singular occupation with the need of holding the vision for 6 billion plus other humans until a second true peace maker develops.
Thanks for all you do, Cindy. Your courage is inspirational.
I hope you'll stop by Common Dreams more often. You're insights would be highly valued.
Bless you dear one.
Hi Cindy --
Love to you --
"According to all myth, the female - not the male -- gives life"
Enjoy the following pretzel!
"But he says that he believes groups like MoveOn and labor unions will step up to the plate, especially since Obama has addressed other progressive agenda items like the health care overhaul and Wall Street reform."
Are you sure that's a pretzel? It sure doesn't SMELL like a pretzel.
MoveOn and labor unions aren't going to be "stepping up" anywhere.
They're frozen in a kneeling position, desperately propping up and pushing pathetic, treacherous Democratic candidates from behind, and praying they won't all be swept away in the mid-term elections.
I DO agree that "Obama has addressed other progressive agenda items", though-- by marking them "Return to Sender".
come on guys support the empire!!
Support the empire send your neighbors kids
Heck the obombers kids will be old enough to fight to protect our
"freedom" soon.. (what do ya think the chances of them going over, over there.
Where are the Bushy children through all his war mongering? Not in the front lines. Nor was Georgie Bush. He was too high on coke and being pushed through University. You can pay for the degree even if you can't get passing marks.
Obama was annointed in order to get rid of the so called anti war movement. I was in countless demonstrations and marches. The only times i felt anything really real happening were at the 2004 republican convention demonstrations/march in nyc and in February, before the invasion of Iraq - nyc.
And this article is ....................no comment.
Its really sad. But you could see this coming.
Kids, you just have to know who your friends, but most importantly, you true allies are. Anyone who looked back then at MoveOn.org and the support and exposure they got from the MSM (as well as from the Professional Left) should have winced and quickly closed their checkbooks and personal schedules to them. Anytime... read: ANYTIME the MSM co-ops and wraps itself around something, it should be then be treated like the plague and avoided at all costs.
MoveOn and their enablers did nothing but give rise to the GWB look-a-like that now resides in the white house (when he's not on vacation, of course).
Just my opinion, I could be wrong.
We err in not realizing that modern methods of repression are at work and seem to be working very well in spite of being largely hidden from plain sight. The new repression is largely economic, though violence is always in the wings. Become associated with opposition to the plutocracy even marginally and kiss opportunity goodbye. Add this to the well known effect of terror causing immobility and what has happened to the "anti-war" movement (I am not sure that it is a real movement anymore and not just a sham to direct and divert people of conscience) is perfectly understandable.
This very effective repression is the reason that Fascist US, just as with the Axis powers of WWII, will need to be confronted from without. We are well on our way to constructing the Oceania of 1984, a US/European plutocratic entity conducting continuous war against the helpless, bolstered by grateful plutocrats in all market economies who could not exist without Nato terror programs that include mass murder and specific killing of whole families who end up on the "terrorist list." This is exactly the program during the colonial American War in Viet Nam, as I can assert from my five years living in that country doing refugee work during that war.
The mechanisms of repression in the US were very robust then but mere individuals experienced little concrete consequence. Today the money being spent on repression, the endless litany of warrentless searches, phony drug busts, no fly lists, massive unemployment (all the better to recruit soldiers), etc., is ubiquitous. And the bottomless honeypot (intelligence term for trapping resisters with something attractive) of the internet is a key part of this system. I wouldn't be writing this if I wasn't too old and sick to care anymore about my safety and sadly wise about the impossibility of protecting my family. Speak up and get shot down. Human and civil rights have sunk to near medieval levels in the Western world. No one is safe. So why worry about it.
The plutocrats know, as all such depraved people have always known, that it is them or us and they are taking care of us first in hopes that they can escape their just fate. It is needless to point out to these psychopaths that there will be no eventual winners in this struggle because, in their malfunctioning brains, only short term wins count. The challenge is clear. The sane will need to organize in solidarity to confront this homicidally insane leadership. It is doubtful that frontal assault will prevail. We need new, creative ways to resist. A world wide general strike seems in order.
Food Not Bombs is growing more now then we ever have. It could be that the groups that are fighting for survival might not be seen as relevant. Maybe they could get out in the streets and meet the public. We started Food Not Bombs in 1980 when we saw that most peace groups had no strategy and failed to build deep relationships with people outside the peace movement. We saw that many groups focused on issues that often seemed obscure to the general public.
So we developed a different strategy, going to the public to see how we could help. Being out on the streets with food and literature on a regular schedule so that people would know they could depend on us. We don't push anything on anyone. You can read our literature or not, eat our food or not but we are there if you need us. If you hold a protest there we are again with food. You will never see one of us speaking from the stage at a major peace rally. Democracy Now! or Grit TV will never knowingly interview one of our volunteers. The Nation would never consider reporting on any of the many ways we work for peace. No one reported on our kitchen at Camp Casey or the fact that organized the food relief for the survivors of Katrina. We would never be invited to speak at the National Peace Conference but everyone is happy to eat our food and wish us well. And we get emails and calls about new groups every day. People call seeking food or asking to help in their community from early in the morning to late at night. Feel free to participate with that part of the anti-war movement that is flourishing in over 1,000 cities and growing. Visit www.foodnotbombs.net or call us toll free at 1-800-884-1136
Thank you Cindy for being a noble woman. If only all women would adopt your love for humanity this would be a beautiful world. Sadly, they are more interested in drinking and marrying rich men that support wars and bring home a paycheck. I am 61 and have been working to stop war since I was eight years old. So far I have been declared insane by my government and labeled politically incorrect by the education crowd. This fight is not easy. You would think it would be, with all the people claiming to love Jesus and God. It is like Jesus said, "Hypocrites!"
Until we build a guillotine in front of the Lincoln monument and rid ourselves of the parasites who control our media, nothing will change. Without media warmongers, we would be out of Iraq and Afghanistan. We might never have been at war in the first place.
We are fighting, killing and dying to protect the chosen ones. All our soldiers get from the wars is an occasional rape, sodomy, or a little pornographic torture. Peanuts, compared to our huge investment.
First step in rejecting MSM -- corporate-press is to turn it off!
Put the TVs in the closet --
"According to all myth, the female - not the male -- gives life"
"Now, that energy has all but vanished, leaving Obama and embattled congressional Democrats with one less ally when they need all the help they can get. 'That's going to be a real headache for Obama coming down the road,' said Gary C. Jacobson, a political science professor at the University of California-San Diego."
Oh, I get it. The real importance of the collapse of the anti-war movement rests not on the many more humans we kill, but on its impact on Obama and the dems.
I sometimes think we deserve whatever fresh horrors are brewing.
God bless you, Cindy Sheehan! My name is Ed Tant and I'm an opinion columnist for the Athens Banner-Herald, the daily newspaper here in Athens, GA. I have been an antiwar activist since 1968 and have written about and photographed peace rallies in Washington, New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Atlanta and Athens for decades. In New York in 2004 I was arrested and jailed for 30 hours for taking notes and photos at a nonviolent protest in the city during the Republican National Convention there. It was an occupational hazard and a badge of honor, as I said in a letter to the editor that I wrote in The New York Times on April 30, 2007. My website, www.edtant.com, features my photos and links to my newspaper columns. I hope that you and other readers of this site will visit my website, Cindy. At a rally in Washington on March 17, 2007, you gave me a hug after your speech. It made my day!
As long as we have the ''volunteer'' military, no war taxes and military contractors, there won't be any
civil disobedience or turmoil like we had in the 60's.
The only successful antiwar party has been the Dutch Freedom party, which has many flaws I will admit, who split the government and caused the Dutch pull out. If you want to support an anti war party with some ability to actually change things I suggest the British National Party. BNP will also be viewed as flawed by some. One reason the War Party is so effective is they do not let petty quibbles about domestic politics or religion get in their way. So if you are really about opposing fox hunting, appalled by anti immigrant politics or identity politics, forget being anti war. Just admit those are the issues that concern you and stop pretending. If you are anti war. Support the BNP, they potentially have the ability to knock British forces out of Afghanistan. Right now Britain and maybe Germany are the soft spot in the pro war factions.