There's serious work on the efficacy of peace movements in political science. Matthew Evangelista, an old prof of mine, has a book arguing that the transnational peace movement actually affected Soviet policy:
_________________________________________________________________ Matthew Evangelista, Unarmed Forces: The Transnational Movement to End the Cold War . Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1999. 406 pp. $39.95. Pacifists and peace activists have long claimed that the power of nonviolence exceeds that of more tangible and traditional forms of weaponry. . . . Evangelista contends that a transnational movement of scientists and physicians armed only with ideas, data, aquaintanceship, and an abiding fear of nuclear war managed to convince Soviet leaders on several occasions to pursue a path of de-escalation during the Cold War.
Melvin Small (a historian), in Johnson, Nixon, and the Doves, 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 de-escalation and, ultimately, withdrawal from the war.
My own research, which found its way into Axelrod & Kaku, To Win A Nuclear War (I was the RA), supported Small's conclusions.
--- Jerry Monaco <monacojerry at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/11/07, Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:
> >
>
> > I disagree with those who argue that the anti-war
> movement has "failed,"
> > for such arguments overlook the crucial fact that
> _no_ anti-war movement
> > has ever done any better; and except under very
> special conditions (e.g.
> > the massive black liberation struggle of the '60s)
> few if any anti-war
> > movements have done as well as this one. Anti-war
> movements do _not_
> > stop wars; they contribute in various ways to the
> actual forces that
> > end wars _and_, more importantly, they involve
> more people in practical
> > struggle. For example, if SICKO does trigger a
> serious campaign for
> > medical reform, we are in _much_ better shape to
> build that campaign
> > than we would have been prior to 9/11. If no such
> issue emerges, we've
> > wasted our time more or less -- but so have most
> leftists for 200 years,
> > and that's no argument at all against continuing
> to build the anti-war
> > movement.
> >
>
> Exactly right. But even more. I think like most
> "successful"
> movements this movement has been both a partial
> success and a partial
> failure. The problem is how do you judge success? I
> believe without
> the anti-war movement, here and globally, we would
> be deeper into this
> war, the troop commitment would be massive, and
> there would have been
> a full mobilization, including the draft.
>
> And here are the questions: How much have the
> various anti-war
> movements over the past 30 years contributed to the
> so-called Vietnam
> Syndrome? And how much have those movements limited
> U.S. military
> adventures? The problem is we can never know. We
> can pose thought
> experiments and try to imagine an alternate reality
> where those
> movements never existed. Would have there been a
> full war
> mobilization of all aspects of society after 9/11?
> The Bush Admin
> would have tried. Would there have been larger
> crackdowns on civil
> liberties in the U.S.? I am pretty sure there would
> have been.
> Would the war have expanded across the Middle East?
> Probably.
>
> Jerry
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
____________________________________________________________________________________ Choose the right car based on your needs. Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder tool. http://autos.yahoo.com/carfinder/