The Peace Movement | Introduction
Prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, Stephen Downs, a sixty-year-old lawyer, was arrested at a shopping mall in New York. Downs, who was wearing a T-shirt with the message “GIVE PEACE A CHANCE” on the front and “PEACE ON EARTH” on the back, was asked by guards to leave the mall, but he refused to comply. The guards left and returned with police officers who repeated the request. When Downs again refused, the police arrested him for trespassing. When questioned about the incident, a mall executive initially said that Downs had been disruptive but later admitted that the messages on his Tshirt had prompted the lawyer’s arrest. Incidents such as this one became more prevalent as the United States moved toward a war with Iraq, reflecting a growing tension in the country between antiwar protesters and supporters of President George W. Bush’s policies in the war on terrorism.
In the tense months following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., the initial shock, horror, and grief felt by Americans were followed by feelings of fear and wariness. In his response to the September 11 terrorist attacks, President Bush declared a war on terrorism. In an address to Congress and the American public on September 20, 2001, President Bush stated, “Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.” The U.S. government then began its efforts to track and eradicate worldwide terrorism. It began with an attack on Afghanistan, which at that time was ruled by the Taliban, a fundamentalist Islamic militia that had given refuge to al Qaeda, the Islamic terrorist group believed to have orchestrated the attacks on the United States. Although the U.S. military successfully deposed the Taliban and many al Qaeda members were killed or captured, military forces were unable to apprehend al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. Months later, the Bush administration broadened its war on terrorism to include threats of a war against the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq. On the home front, the administration responded to terrorism with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, an effort to unite and strengthen America by providing law enforcement tools to intercept, deter, and punish terrorist acts against Americans in the United States and around the world.
Peace activists’ responses
Peace activists reacted negatively to both the possible war with Iraq and to the Patriot Act. While the war on Afghanistan had broad support, the war on Iraq was more controversial, leading to more protests and breathing new life into the peace movement. Peace activists believed a war with Iraq was unjustified, that no evidence had ever been found to link al Qaeda with Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and that America’s leaders had questionable motives for wanting to attack Iraq. Educator and editor Barbara Epstein states,
Most of the people who became involved in the antiwar movement did so out of their conviction that the international ambitions of the Bush administration endanger peace, democratic rights, and prosperity in the United States and abroad. It is taken for granted, in the antiwar movement, that the Bush administration wants both oil and power, and that the close relationship between the Bush administration and the oil companies is a factor in the administration’s actions.
Peace activists also felt that the Patriot Act was a mistake because it allowed random searches, unwarranted seizures, and arbitrary arrests not only of potential terrorists, but of innocent civilians as well. In addition, the act created a public climate of tentativeness and reticence, stifling dissent and limiting freedom of speech.
To make their opinion heard, peace activists spoke out against war, using the Internet as a tool for organizing and communicating. The largest antiwar demonstrations in history were held worldwide.
Criticism of the peace movement
By contrast, Americans who strongly supported President Bush and an attack on Iraq thought peace movement activists were unrealistic and naive and that the peace movement’s message of “no war” offered no alternative for fighting terrorism. Prowar advocates also believed that peace activists were unsympathetic to the Iraqi people who were suffering under the tyranny of a cruel dictator, Saddam Hussein. Polls indicated that a majority of Americans supported the president and war in Iraq. For many Americans, patriotism meant love and devotion to America and support for the president. Because peace activists did not support going to war with Iraq, they were seen as unpatriotic and anti-American. Author and right-wing activist David Horowitz described the antiwar protesters as “hate- American radicals” akin to the leftists who supported totalitarian movements during the Cold War. In his words, “The hate America left is attempting to silence right-thinking citizens. It is attempting to divide the home front in the face of the enemy. Even as we go to war.”
The suppression of dissent
Because peace activists were seen as anti-American, they encountered an active resistance to their protests by law enforcement officers, the media, and other Americans. For example, on October 24, 2003, at an airport in Columbia, South Carolina, where President Bush’s plane was scheduled to land, activist coalition director Brett Burnsey raised a sign in the airport crowd that read “NO WAR FOR OIL.” Police ordered Burnsey to leave the area. When Burnsey asked why the people with pro- Bush signs were not being asked to leave, the police informed him that the message on his sign was the reason. Police told Burnsey to move to a “free-speech zone” a mile from the airport. When Burnsey was arrested for refusing to move, he faced federal charges and a possible six-month prison term.
In addition, celebrities who spoke out against the war were condemned on television and on radio stations for using their status to promote their antiwar agendas. When Natalie Maines, the lead singer of the country music band the Dixie Chicks, spoke out against President Bush, her band’s music was banned on some radio stations. As actor Tim Robbins stated, “If you oppose this administration, there can and will be ramifications. Every day the airwaves are filled with warnings, veiled and unveiled threats, spewed invective and hatred directed at any voice of dissent.”
On some college campuses, antiwar protesters met strong reactions. A Yale woman received rape and death threats fol- lowing the publication of an antiwar article she had written for the campus paper. Negative response to the peace movement caused people around the country to remove antiwar bumper stickers in fear of vandalism. Military wives who questioned the necessity of the war in Iraq, where their husbands were deployed, became reluctant to express their opposition for fear of damaging their husbands’ careers.
In response to charges that they are unpatriotic, many peace activists defend their patriotism. As stated by journalist and peace activist Rebecca Solnit, “We were not against the US and for Iraq; we were against war, and many of us were against all war, all weapons of mass destruction—even ours—and all violence everywhere. We are not just an antiwar movement. We are a peace movement.” Peace activists believe that war in the Middle East will further threaten the United States by provoking more terrorist activity. Furthermore, peace activists feel that the freedom to voice their views is at the core of what it means to be American. They believe that a true democracy depends upon the free expression of differing points of view to create a society that is vital and dynamic.
The peace movement was unable to stop the war in Iraq. However, as the example of Stephen Downs illustrates, the movement brought to light underlying tensions, provoked debate, and stimulated ideas about what could be done to strengthen the peace movement. In At Issue: The Peace Movement, authors debate the effectiveness of the peace movement, its tactics and philosophies, and its prospects for achieving its goal of a nonviolent world.
