Opposition to the Iraq War
Encyclopedia : O : OP : OPP : Opposition to the Iraq War
| Part of a series on Anti-War topics |
Opposition to...
Iraq War
Agents of opposition
Anti-war organizations Related ideologies
Anti-imperialism Media
Books
|
| [[Portal:Politics|Politics Portal]] |
- This article is about opposition to the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the Iraq War from outside Iraq. For opposition within Iraq, see Iraqi insurgency. For more information see Views on the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Much of the early opposition to the war in 2002 was organised by anti-war coalitions or individuals who had already protested against the invasion of Afghanistan. The opposition to the war manifested itself most visibly in a series of global protests against the Iraq War during February 2003, just prior the Iraq invasion beginning on March 20, 2003.
- "Poll results available from Gallup International, as well as local sources for most of Europe, West and East, showed that support for a war carried out "unilaterally by America and its allies" did not rise above 11 percent in any country. Support for a war if mandated by the UN ranged from 13 percent (Spain) to 51 percent (Netherlands)." -Chomsky,[link]
Reasons for opposition
Critics of the invasion claimed that it would kill thousands of American soldiers and Iraqi soldiers and civilians, that it would have a negative effect on the peace and stability of the surrounding region, and that it would fail to accomplish its stated goals. Some opposed the war on principled pacifistic or anti-imperialist grounds, while others, who supported a right for the United States and allied nations to intervene militarily in foreign countries in some circumstances, nevertheless opposed the invasion of Iraq on pragmatic grounds, or on the basis that without United Nations approval it was a violation of international law [link].
Another mainstream reason for opposition was that some citizens believed that the United States should not intervene with another nation's government, and many people opposed the war simply because of the danger to the troops involved.
Some observers, unimpressed with U.S. claims that Iraq's secular government had any links to Al-Qaeda, the terrorist group that allegedly attacked the U.S., expressed puzzlement that the U.S. would consider military action against Iraq and not against North Korea, which had claimed it already had nuclear weapons and had announced that it was willing to contemplate war with the U.S. Many critics of the American policy did not believe that military actions would help to end terror, and believed that they would actually increase the ranks and capabilities of terrorist groups; some believed that during the war and immediate post-war period there would be a greatly increased risk that weapons of mass destruction would fall into the wrong hands (including Al-Qaeda).
Perhaps the most commonly heard criticism, at least outside of the U.S., was that the Bush Administration's reason for going to war with Saddam was to gain control over Iraqi natural resources (primarily petroleum). Though few doubt that nuclear and WMD proliferation is a serious threat to stability and well-being, many felt that a war in Iraq would not aid in eliminating this threat and that the real reason was to secure control over the Iraqi oil fields (at a time when arguably links with Saudi Arabia were at risk). "No blood for oil" was a popular protest cry prior to the US invasion of Iraq in March 2003.
Many opponents of the war believed that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and thus there was little reason for an invasion. Prominent among these was Scott Ritter, a former U.S. military intelligence officer and then a United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq, and who in 1998 had been hawkish enough toward Iraq as to be admonished by U.S. Senator Joseph Biden, "The decision of whether or not the country should go to war is slightly above your pay grade." However, documents declassified in June of 2006 stated that approximately 500 weapons munitions containing degraded mustard and sarin nerve agents where recovered in Iraq and many are assessed to still exist.
Opposition in the United States
Immediately before and after the 2003 invasion most polls within the United States showed a substantial majority supporting war, though since December 2004 polls have consistently shown that a majority now thinks the invasion was a mistake. As of 2006, opinion on what the U.S. should do in Iraq is split, with a slight majority generally favoring setting a timetable for withdrawal, but against withdrawing immediately. However, in this area responses vary widely with the exact wording of the question.[link]
Anti-war sentiment has led to a number of large protests in the U.S., and some reflection in electoral politics. A significant minority of politicians, mostly Democrats, opposed the invasion of Iraq. John Kerry, the Democratic nominee for President in 2004, voted to authorize the invasion, and said during his campaign that he stood by his vote. Howard Dean, a rival for the nomination, ran on his anti-war position, but did not favor quick troop withdrawal. Dennis Kucinich, another candidate for the Democratic nomination, favored replacement of the U.S. occupation force with one sponsored by the U.N., as did Ralph Nader's Independent Presidential candidacy.
On November 17, 2005, Representative John Murtha introduced to the House a resolution calling for U.S. forces in Iraq to be "redeployed at the earliest practicable date" to stand as a quick-reaction force in U.S. bases in neighboring countries such as Kuwait. In response, Republicans proposed a resolution that "the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately," without any provision for redeployment, which was voted down 403-3.
There has not been any reports of mass resistance to the Iraq war among U.S. soldiers, unlike Vietnam, though there have been several individual refusals to ship (e.g., Pablo Paredes, and 1st Lt. Ehren Watada) or to carry out missions (e.g. 343rd Quartermasters).[link] Soon after the war began, 67% of surveyed US soldiers in Iraq told Stars and Stripes that the invasion was worthwhile, though half described their units' morale as "low."[link]
However, a Zogby poll in March 2006 found that 72% of US soldiers in Iraq say the war should be ended within a year, and a quarter say that all troops should be withdrawn immediately.[link]
Opposition in European countries
Around the 2003 Invasion of Iraq and subsequent occupation of Iraq, polling data indicated that opposition to military action against Iraq was widespread in Europe [link].
'Anti-Bush' and anti-war sentiments were reflected in many western European countries, generally with the populace less sympathetic to the U.S. stance even when politicians in a given country (e.g. the United Kingdom, or Italy) aligned themselves with the U.S. position. Opinion polls showed the population was against the war, with numbers as high as 90% in Spain and Italy, and also in Eastern Europe.[link] The general populations of France and Germany were opposed to the war and it would have been difficult for their governments had they failed to reflect those sentiments in policy. After the first UN resolution, the US and the UK pushed for a second resolution. The French and German governments, amongst others, took the position that the UN inspection process should be allowed to be completed. France's then-Foreign Minister, Dominique de Villepin received loud applause for his speech against the Iraq War at the United Nations on February 14, 2003. Neither of these countries has sent troops to Iraq. However, despite popular opinion in their countries, the governments of Italy and Spain supported the war politically and militarily, although Spain ceased to do so after the election of a Socialist government in 2004 partly due to anger about the war in Iraq.
Opposition throughout the world
Opinion polls showed that the population of nearly all countries opposed a war without UN mandate, and that the view of the United States as a danger to world peace had significantly increased. [link] [link] [link]
Religious opposition
On September 13, 2002, US Catholic bishops signed a letter to President Bush stating that any "pre-emptive, unilateral use of military force to overthrow the government of Iraq" could not be justified at the time. They came to this position by evaluating whether an attack against Iraq would satisfy the criteria for a just war as defined by Catholic theology. [link]The Vatican also came out against war in Iraq. Archbishop Renato Martino, a former U.N. envoy and current prefect of the Council for Justice and Peace, told reporters that war against Iraq was a "preventative" war and constituted a "war of aggression", and thus did not constitute a just war. The foreign minister, Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran, expressed concerns that a war in Iraq would inflame anti-Christian feelings in the Islamic world. On February 8, 2003, Pope John Paul II said "we should never resign ourselves, almost as if war is inevitable." [link]
Both the outgoing Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, and his successor, Rowan Williams, spoke out against war with Iraq.
The executive committee of World Council of Churches, an organization joined by churches with a combined membership of between 350 million and 450 million Christians from over 100 countries,[link] issued a statement in opposition to war with Iraq, stating that "War against Iraq would be immoral, unwise, and in breach of the principles of the United Nations Charter." [link]
Protests against war on Iraq
Across the world popular opposition to the Iraq war has led to thousands of protests since 2002, against the invasion of Iraq. They were held in many cities worldwide, often co-ordinated to occur simultaneously worldwide. After the simultaneous demonstrations, on February 15, 2003, the largest in total turnout, New York Times writer Patrick Tyler claimed that they showed that there were two superpowers on the planet: the United States and world public opinion.
The February 15, 2003, worldwide protests drew millions of people across the world. It is generally estimated that over 3 million people marched in Rome, between one and two million in London, more than 600,000 in Madrid, 300,000 in Berlin, as well as in Damascus, Paris, New York, Oslo, Stockholm, Brussels, Johannesburg, Montreal - more than 600 cities in all, worldwide. This demonstration was listed by the 2004 Guinness Book of Records as the largest mass protest movement in history.
Support for Iraqi resistance
There has been a debate among those opposed to the U.S. invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq in developed countries about how to relate to forces within Iraq.
Prior to the invasion, while it was common to accuse opponents of providing objective, if not intentional, support to Saddam,[link][link] none of the major antiwar organizations declared any support for him, however limited.[link] After the invasion and the toppling of Saddam's regime, many who had opposed it now supported continuing U.S. occupation, arguing that the U.S.' intervention had given it an obligation to stabilize the country. However, those who remained opposed to the U.S. presence had to determine their approach to the developing armed insurgency and peaceful opposition to the occupation carried out by groups like the Worker-Communist Party of Iraq (WCPI).
The most virulent divide has been about whether to support the insurgency. None of the major Western antiwar organizations, such as United for Peace and Justice, Act Now to Stop War and End Racism, and the Stop the War Coalition, have officially taken a stance on this subject. However, many of the smaller groups which participate in these coalitions have. None support suicide bombings of Iraqi civilians, but some support violence against coalition soldiers.
At a 2004 conference in Japan, Eric Ruder, of the U.S.-based International Socialist Organization, presented a case for supporting the guerrillas. Citing the primarily decentralized and domestic nature of the insurgency,[link] the fact that a clear majority of attacks are directed against U.S. and British forces,[link] and widespread Iraqi support for violent resistance,[link] Ruder argues that the insurgents' cause and methods are, on the whole, just and deserves support. He claims that the Iraqi right to self-determination precludes Western opponents of the occupation placing conditions on their support of the Iraqi resistance, and argues that, "If the Iraqi resistance drives the U.S. out of Iraq, it would be a major setback for Bush's agenda and the agenda of the U.S. imperialism. This would be a tremendous victory for our side -- making it much more difficult for the U.S. to choose a new target in the Middle East or elsewhere in trying to impose its will."[link]
Sato Kazuyoshi, President of the Japanese Movement for Democratic Socialism, argues otherwise. Reporting on the discussion at the 2004 conference, he writes that, "We cannot support, nor extend our solidarity to, them on the grounds that their strategy excludes many Iraqi citizens -- above all, women -- and do great harm on the civilians, and will bring the Iraqi future society under an Islamic dictatorship." He cites in turn Mahmood Ketabchi of the WCPI, who criticizes Iraqi guerrilla groups for Baathist and Islamist connections, and attacks Ruder's view as a "Left Nationalism" which ignores divisions within Iraq. Countering the response that the best way to ensure that progressive forces, not reactionary ones, dominate post-occupation Iraq would be for progressives to take the lead in fighting the occupation, Ketabchi argues that this is not possible due to the present situation in Iraq. Nevertheless, he claims, "We do not have to choose between the US and Iraqi reactionary forces. Opposition to the US is not a progressive stand per se. What matters is the kind of future that this opposition represents and objectives it pursues." A third alternative is represented by what Kazuyoshi calls the "Civil Resistance."[link]
Official condemnation
The following countries have protested formally and officially to the conduct of this war. They do not support the Iraq War in principle, citing in some cases that they believe it is illegal, and in others that it required an affirmative United Nations mandate.Quotes
- The option of war can appear initially to be the most rapid. But let us not forget that after winning the war, peace must be built. -Dominique de Villepin, French Foreign Minister, at the United Nations Security Council on February 14 2003[link])
- "Poll results available from Gallup International, as well as local sources for most of Europe, West and East, showed that support for a war carried out 'unilaterally by America and its allies' did not rise above 11 percent in any country. Support for a war if mandated by the UN ranged from 13 percent (Spain) to 51 percent (Netherlands)." - Noam Chomsky, [The Iraq War and Contempt for Democracy]
- When war, as in these days in Iraq, threatens the fate of humanity, it is ever more urgent to proclaim, with a strong and decisive voice, that only peace is the road to follow to construct a more just and united society. Violence and arms can never resolve the problems of man. - Pope John Paul II [link] [link] [link]
- It is not too late to stop this war. We must march until there is a declaration of peace and reconciliation. - Reverend Jesse Jackson [link]
- To a certain extent Saddam Hussein's departure was a positive thing. But it also provoked reactions, such as the mobilization in a number of countries, of men and women of Islam, which has made the world more dangerous. - French President, Jacques Chirac [link]
- If you look at those matters, you will come to the conclusion that the attitude of the United States of America is a threat to world peace. Because what America is saying is that if you are afraid of a veto in the Security Council, you can go outside and take action and violate the sovereignty of other countries. That is the message they are sending to the world. That must be condemned in the strongest terms. - Nelson Mandela [link] [link]
- In an interview with the BBC Kofi Annan said, "[The U.S.-led invasion of Iraq] was not in conformity with the UN Charter." When the interviewer responded by asking "It was illegal?" Kofi Annan replied "Yes, if you wish." [link]
- Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity. - Serj Tankian
See also
- 2003 invasion of Iraq
- Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse
- American government position on invasion of Iraq
- American popular opinion on invasion of Iraq
- Cindy Sheehan
- Civil disobedience
- Criticisms of the War on Terrorism
- Governments' positions pre-2003 invasion of Iraq
- Guantanamo Bay
- Human shield action to Iraq
- Nonviolence
- Opposition to U.S. foreign policy
- Opposition to the Vietnam War
- Pacifism
- Post-September 11 anti-war movement
- Protests against the 2003 Iraq war
- Red Friday
- The UN Security Council and the Iraq war
- Views on the 2003 invasion of Iraq
- War on Terrorism
- Withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq
External links
- [ACT for the Earth]
- [Arms Against War]
- [Anti-War Committee]
- [Toronto Coalition to Stop the War]
- [Canadian Peace Alliance]
- [Human Shields]
- [Women Against Military Madness]
- [Was The Iraq War Legal, Or Illegal, Under International Law?] - Evan Augustine Peterson III, J.D.
- [Polls find Europeans oppose Iraq war]
- [Iraq Antiwar Homepage] on Nonviolence.org
- Articles in Foreign Affairs magazine analysing the war and its aftermath by James Rubin and Madeleine Albright: http://www.foreignaffairs.org/
- [Anti-war train drivers refuse to move arms freight] January 9, 2003, The Guardian (UK).
- [About.com: Iraq War vote in 2002 - Complete Listing of 156 Congress Members Who Voted NAY]
From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Original article here. Support Wikipedia by contributing or donating.
All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License See Wikipedia Copyrights for details.