Saturday, September 20 marked the six-month anniversary of the U.S. attack on Iraq. Although six months is certainly too early for a final determination about how things will turn out there, it's clear that the situation on the ground is quite bad. There were five major car bombings in Iraq during a five-week period this summer, killing hundreds of innocent people. The U.S. military is facing a dozen guerilla-style attacks every day. As for the Iraqis, their relief at being rid of Saddam Hussein is tempered by the fact that they now live under an occupation that gives them no control over their government or resources. Rampant crime, looting, and unemployment are facts of every day life, as are accidental shootings of innocent Iraqis by U.S. troops. Back here at home, the fact of life is that the war and occupation are going to cost at least $166 billion, probably significantly more.

As someone who opposed the war from the start, I can't say it's very satisfying to recognize that many of the things the peace movement said were right. The Iraqi people and the U.S. troops in Iraq are in dire straits, and both the peace movement and the U.S. government should be focusing on how to bring true peace and democracy to Iraq and get the troops home as quickly as possible.

But there are lessons to be learned from what the peace movement argued before the war that could guide a better American foreign policy in the future. If we don't pay attention to these lessons, we may just make the same mistakes again ­ in Syria, Iran, North Korea or elsewhere.

Iraq didn't pose a clear and present danger to the United States. Before the war on Iraq, the Bush Administration's main argument for war was the threat of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. On August 26, 2002, Vice President Dick Cheney said, "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." And for the rest of the year, Bush Administration officials repeated that message over and over again. They especially emphasized Iraq's potential nuclear capabilities and warned that if we didn't invade Iraq immediately, we could soon be seeing a mushroom cloud rising somewhere in the United States.

The peace movement said that there was no evidence of Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction ­ the presence of United Nations weapons inspectors in Iraq for most of the 1990s and the effect of UN sanctions on Iraq made it pretty unlikely that Saddam Hussein would be able to re-start his weapons program.

Six months after the attack on Iraq, no chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons have been found. The Iraqi army could not even defend its own capital, much less pose a threat to Western civilization. And it's looking more and more like the Bush Administration lied about or at least exaggerated the Iraqi threat to get support for the war. Isn't it about time for a public evaluation of the pre-emptive strike policy that has the U.S. invading countries that are alleged threats, and an investigation into whether the allegations about the Iraqi threat leading up to the war were really lies?

The Iraq war has made the world less safe from terrorism, not more safe. The other primary justification for the war was a purported link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. "Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda," President Bush said in his January 2003 State of the Union speech.

But intelligence experts and top Bush administration officials now acknowledge that no link was ever established between Al Qaeda and the Saddam Hussein regime. Just this week Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz admitted that his continued claims about an Iraq-Al Qaeda connection "should have been more precise." Even President Bush finally admitted on Wednesday there is no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

The peace movement argued that war against Iraq was a bad way to fight terrorism ­ not only because of the nonexistent link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, but also because war would destabilize the world rather than making its people more safe. Unfortunately, this prediction seems to have become a reality. The United States angered and inflamed people all over the world by conducting a unilateral, unprovoked war against Iraq that killed thousands of innocent Iraqi people. And stability in the Middle East seems more precarious than ever as car bombings in Iraq and guerrilla attacks are making some experts argue that Iraq is literally becoming a terrorist haven before our very eyes.

None of us can go back into the past and change the fact that the war on Iraq did happen and is in fact still in progress in the form of a military occupation. And it's unlikely that George W. Bush will start taking the advice of peace activists anytime soon. But, if he at least listened to our suggestions, here's what he would hear: Start working in partnership with the international community to turn power over to the Iraqis and bring peace to Iraq as quickly as possible. Work against terrorism and repression of human rights through international law, not wars. And drop the policy of pre-emptive attack before we make another mistake like the war against Iraq. The reality of war is not democracy and liberation, as the Bush administration has argued. In the words of hip hop artist Michael Franti, "You can bomb the world to pieces, but you can't bomb it into peace."

*Andrea Buffa is the peace campaign coordinator at Global Exchange. She also works with the national anti-war coalition United for Peace and Justice. For more information about what's going on right now in Iraq, see www.occupationwatch.org.

###