A Peaceful Superpower: The Movement against War in Iraq

February 15, 2004 By David Cortright "Almost ten million protested the preemptive strike, February 15 of the year 2003. . . . That was a moment of hope." - Studs Terkel, author Hope Dies Last: Keeping the Faith in Troubled Times Link to Press Release: A Peaceful Superpower: The Movement against War in Iraq Order Online Table of Contents

Overview

On February 15, 2003 in hundreds of cities across the world an estimated ten million people demonstrated against war on Iraq. More international in character than any previous antiwar effort, the Iraq campaign "was the largest transnational antiwar movement that has ever taken place," according to social movement scholar Barbara Epstein. Built largely through the Internet, the movement involved religious communities, trade unions, students, women's organizations, environmentalists, academics, business executives, Hollywood artists, musicians, and many more. The movement attracted widespread media coverage, as the antiwar cause gained unprecedented recognition and legitimacy.

A few days after the February 15 demonstrations, New York Times reporter Patrick Tyler conferred "superpower" status on the antiwar movement. The huge antiwar demonstrations were indications, wrote Tyler, of "two superpowers on the planet: the United States and world public opinion." The White House faced a "tenacious new adversary" which was generating massive opposition to the administration's war policy.

Author David Cortright writes as an engaged activist who was intimately involved in many of the activities described in A Peaceful Superpower. He helped to create the Win Without War coalition, wrote articles and reports challenging the justification for war, and participated in numerous efforts to build the opposition movement. This is the story of that movement, offered as both testament to history and assessment of impact and relevance.

Introduction

On February 15, 2003 in hundreds of cities across the world an estimated ten million people demonstrated against war on Iraq. It was the largest single day of antiwar protest in human history. More than a million people jammed the center of London, and huge throngs marched in Rome, Barcelona, Berlin, Madrid, Paris, Sydney, and hundreds of other cities. An estimated four hundred thousand braved bitter cold in New York, and tens of thousands demonstrated in San Francisco.¹ The people of the globe spoke out as never before in one unified voice against the planned invasion of Iraq. “The world says no to war,” was the slogan and the reality.

The February 15 demonstrations were the high point of a vast and unprecedented mobilization of public opposition to war. The Iraq campaign “was the largest transnational antiwar movement that has ever taken place,” according to social movement scholar Barbara Epstein.²

In the course of just a few months, the movement in the United States reached levels of mobilization that, during the Vietnam era, took years to develop. The Iraq movement was more international in character than any previous antiwar campaign, as protests were coordinated throughout the world and activists understood themselves to be part of a truly global struggle.³ The movement represented a convergence of antiwar and global justice efforts in a common campaign against military-corporate domination.⁴

It was an expression of what scholar Stephen Gill has called “new . . . forms of global political agency.”⁵ The movement emerged from traditional peace and justice networks and relied extensively on the knowledge and resources of organizations and individuals with previous experience in antiwar action. The roots of the Iraq antiwar movement reached back to the struggle against the first Gulf War, and even further to the nuclear disarmament movement and nuclear freeze campaign, the Central America solidarity movement, the antiapartheid struggle, and the Vietnam antiwar movement.

I was an active participant in the Iraq antiwar movement, and in many previous peace and justice campaigns. I write as an engaged activist, one who was intimately involved in many of the activities described here. Mine is not a detached, ivory tower stance. I strive to uphold rigorous scholarly standards, and document the facts presented, but I bring a perspective. I believe in history from the bottom up, and have participated in movements that attempted to shape history in that way. When I was drafted for the Vietnam War I joined the GI peace movement, organizing petitions and protests while on active duty, and eventually filing a federal lawsuit against the army. I later wrote about that experience in Soldiers in Revolt. Throughout the late 1970s and 1980s I was executive director of SANE, the Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy, and was deeply involved in the nuclear weapons freeze campaign, the Central America solidarity movement, and efforts to block the MX missile program and halt nuclear testing. I wrote about that experience in Peace Works. When the Bush administration threatened war against Iraq, I connected with old and new colleagues to attend the founding meeting of United for Peace and Justice and helped create the Win Without War coalition. I also worked with my partners at the Fourth Freedom Forum and the Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame to produce a series of policy reports rebutting the case for war and presenting alternative options for countering Saddam Hussein.⁶

For months, as the buildup to war intensified, I was constantly engaged in coordinating coalitions, planning actions, raising money, writing articles, publishing reports, participating in protests, and speaking to the media. Millions of others were similarly immersed in continuous antiwar activity. This is our story, offered as both testament to history and assessment of the movement’s impact and relevance.

The Iraq antiwar movement involved religious communities, trade unions, students, women’s organizations, environmentalists, academics, business executives, Hollywood artists, musicians, and many more. The movement was built largely through the Internet, which served as the primary tool for developing and disseminating strategies and actions, and which made it possible to mobilize huge numbers of people on short notice with limited resources. The movement utilized the mass media effectively to communicate its message. The war and the international opposition to it were dominant news stories throughout the world for months, and antiwar activists found themselves in the unaccustomed position of being the center of media attention. For the first time in history, observed writer Rebecca Solnit, the peace movement was portrayed in the media as “diverse, legitimate and representative,” which was a “watershed victory” for the movement’s representation and long-term prospects.⁷

The Iraq antiwar movement was relatively free of sectarian acrimony among left factions. Differences existed, to be sure, as several coalitions emerged to reflect varying political perspectives and organizing strategies, but the sharp political divisions that split the Vietnam antiwar movement did not appear. The movement developed and peaked in a very short period of time, about six months, which provided little opportunity for ideological discussion and debate. It was a “global movement without leaders,” Solnit wrote.⁸ Many brilliant spokespersons and organizers emerged, to be sure, but millions of people stepped forward on their own to oppose the war in countless creative ways. Activists shared a common sense of urgency in attempting to prevent the invasion. Most also shared a common analysis of the Iraq war as a dangerous manifestation of U.S. militarism. Defenders of the Bush administration’s Iraq policy talked openly of empire, which helped antiwar critics see the war as imperialist—as a U.S. effort to gain geopolitical control over vital Iraqi oil supplies, and as part of a neoconservative and Likudnik agenda to make the region safe for U.S. and Israeli political-military interests. The stark political realities of this aggressive policy brought together a wide range of progressive constituencies in a shared movement to resist war. The administration’s radical agenda also alarmed many mainstream Americans, who found themselves for the first time listening to and agreeing with the concerns of the peace movement.

A few days after the February 15 demonstrations, New York Times reporter Patrick Tyler conferred “superpower” status on the antiwar movement. The huge antiwar demonstrations were indications, wrote Tyler, of “two superpowers on the planet: the United States and world public opinion.” The White House faced a “tenacious new adversary” which was generating massive opposition to the administration’s war policy and had left the world’s greatest military power virtually alone in the international community.⁹

How did this “superpower” exert its influence? What, if any, impact did the antiwar movement have on the policies of the Bush administration? This volume analyzes the emergence of the Iraq antiwar movement and traces the extraordinary scale of its development, concentrating on the months prior to and immediately after the beginning of war in March 2003. I provide an overview of different elements of the movement, concentrating on the Win Without War coalition, in which I was most actively involved. I examine the activities of the United for Peace and Justice coalition, consider the role of nonviolent civil disobedience, and discuss the reaction to war in the religious community, among women and people of color, in the labor movement, and in the military. I give special attention to two key dimensions of the movement—the role of Internet-based organizing, and the movement’s strategies for framing and delivering its message. I conclude with some reflections on the movement’s overall impact.