[lbo-talk] Wittner: Have peace movements ever stopped wars?

Chuck chuck at mutualaid.org
Wed Jan 18 12:09:12 PST 2006


Looks like another academic who has a vested interest in pushing his book and not being open about more fundamental conclusions about the efficacy of anti-war movement.

Comments follow...

Chuck

Michael Pollak wrote:
>
> [From a forum sponsored by Historians Against the War at the annual
> meeting of the American Historical Association. I got it from Sam
> Smith's Undernews]
>
> URL: http://hnn.us/articles/20367.html
>
> U.S. PEACE MOVEMENTS: WIN SOME, LOSE SOME
> Lawrence S. Wittner


> Another example of peace movement effectiveness can be seen in its
> impact upon the Vietnam War. By late 1967, as Lyndon Johnson recalled,
> "the pressure got so great" that Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara
> "couldn't sleep at night. I was afraid he might have a nervous
> breakdown." Johnson himself seemed obsessed with the opposition his war
> policies had generated. Conversations with Cabinet members began: "Why
> aren't you out there fighting against my enemies?" After McNamara
> resigned and Johnson was driven from office by a revolt within his own
> party, it was the Nixon administration's turn to be caught, as Henry
> Kissinger complained, "between the hammer of antiwar pressure and the
> anvil of Hanoi." Kissinger noted: "The very fabric of government was
> falling apart. The Executive Branch was shell-shocked." The war and the
> peace protests, Kissinger concluded, "shattered the self-confidence
> without which Establishments flounder." In a careful and well-researched
> study, Johnson, Nixon, and the Doves, the historian Melvin Small
> concluded that "the antiwar movement and antiwar criticism in the media
> and Congress had a significant impact on the Vietnam policies of both
> Johnson and Nixon," pushing them toward deescalation and, ultimately,
> withdrawal from the war.

The anti-war movment of the 1960s was large and had its impact, but it is quite a reach to claim that it ended the Vietnam War. It didn't.

Yes, the establishment was worried about popular opinion and the anti-war movement. Nixon's obsession with the movement and leading figures such as Daniel Ellsberg led to his eventual downfall. yet, the war did not end on Nixon's watch and it ended several years after the anti-war movement had peaked. By that time the United States had effectively destroyed Vietnam, damaged other countries, and destabilized the region (see Pol Pot).

The anti-war movement had a significant influence, but it did not end the war or shorten it. One could even argue that the movement didn't even tone down the violence of the war.


> Yet another example of the peace movement's efficacy occurred in the
> context of the Reagan administration's determined attempts to overthrow
> the Sandinista-led government of Nicaragua. As in Vietnam, despite the
> immense military advantage the U.S. government enjoyed against a small,
> peasant nation, it was unable to employ it effectively. Popular pressure
> against U.S. military intervention in Nicaragua not only blocked the
> dispatch of U.S. combat troops, but led to congressional action (i.e.
> the Boland amendment) cutting off U.S. government funding for the U.S.
> surrogates, the contras. Although the Reagan administration sought to
> circumvent the Boland amendment by selling U.S. missiles to Iran and
> sending the proceeds to the contras, this scheme backfired, and did more
> to undermine the Reaganites than it did the Sandinistas.

Here Professor Wittner is living in a comfortable academic bubble. This is the first analysis I've ever seen that argues that the Central American Solidarity Movement of the 1980s was a success. I was part of that movement. It was pretty much a failure.

The Reagan administration didn't have to use combat troops because its covert wars were effective. The death squads worked. Look at Central America today--totally tamed for the business interests of the United States.

I guess you could argue that Reagan's schemes backfired. the Iran-Contra scandal damaged his popularity, but they got away with everything. Not only did they get away with everything, but Reagan's image has been totally rehabilitated and his cronies are again in positions of power.

This is failure. Yes, our movements have gotten larger, but we failed to stop the wars in Central America and Gulf War 1 and the current "War on Terrorism." Part of this blame has to be laid at the feet of the "Anybody But Bush" liberals and progressives who have diverted dissent into the black hole that is the Democratic Party.


> There is also considerable evidence that it was the peace movement that
> brought an end to the Cold War. The peace movement's struggle against
> the nuclear arms race and its clearest manifestation, nuclear testing,
> led directly to Kennedy's 1963 American University address and to the
> Partial Test Ban Treaty of that year, which began Soviet-American
> detente. The speech was partially written by Norman Cousins, founder and
> co-chair of the National Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy, America's
> largest peace group. Cousins also brokered the treaty.

Huh? The Cold War continued for roughly another 25 years after 1963?

What kind of pot is this professor smoking?


> When the hawkish Reagan administration revived the Cold War and
> escalated the nuclear arms race, these actions triggered the greatest
> outburst of peace movement activism in world history. In the United
> States, the Nuclear Freeze campaign secured the backing of leading
> religious denominations, unions, professional groups, and the Democratic
> Party, organized the largest political demonstration up to that time in
> U.S. history, and drew the support of more than 70 percent of the
> public. . .

Yes, but it didn't stop the Cold War. Saying the peace movement stopped the Cold War is as absurd as giving Ronald Reagen credit for destroying communism and ending the Cold War.


> We might also give some thought to the wars that, thanks to peace
> movement activism, did not occur.

The U.S. state has had no problem engaging in wars for the past 200 years. When the government doesn't engage in any military action for 20 years because of the peace movement, maybe I'll buy some of the weed this professor is smoking.

I'm personally reminded of this because I'm now part of a military family, thanks to some of the unknown wars of 1959.

Oi vey.

Chuck



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list