If the anti-war movement was successful...

[free spirit]

some thoughts to add to those above.

What if we'd followed up on the initial rout of the Taliban with serious efforts to rebuild the countries infrastructure, schools, hospitals etc instead of getting diverted by attacking Iraq, resulting in the Afghan population not seeing the promised improvements from the new government, and allowing the Taliban to regroup?

Would the libyan revolution have been successful without the experienced fighters who'd previously spent time fighting in Iraq?

Would the UK have still be running deficits from 2001 onwards without both wars, and would we have been in a significantly better position debt wise come the 2008 recession without the war spending (and would labour still have lost that election?).

Would the anti-globalisation / neoliberalism movement still have petered out in the early to mid 2000s? (I always felt that the anti-war stuff took over, and it's failure then knocked the wind out of everyone)

 

[Ax^]

There wasn't time for 'much', but that is how the Stop The War Coalition came into being (timeline - the invasion started 7/10/01). There were lots of very prescient placards about Iraq on those early demos too.

I'm aware.. That's the point I was making

 

[smmudge]

do you think that the american public would in any way shape or form have stood for anything less than an assault on afghanistan in pursuit of al qaeda? frankly it was much nearer the famous conception of a 'just war' than the attack on iraq. anyone opposing it in the united states would quite possibly have been lynched as well given the high feelings at the time.

How much is that true though? The US media would have been doing their very best to whip up support for the government, perpetuating, exacerbating or exaggerating existing feelings. I'm sure there were plenty of Americans who didn't want to go to war, and if the government had decided it wasn't a good time, I'm sure the media could have likewise peddled a story that quelled any angry voices.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

6. No civil war in Pakistan

I think that th

i don't see how the us would have been prevented from going to war in afghanistan after the attacks on nyc and washington.

Maybe antiwar protests could have somehow stopped the attacks on NY and Washington.

 

[ymu]

Maybe antiwar protests could have somehow stopped the attacks on NY and Washington.

If they'd succeeded in changing US foreign policy, then yes, quite possibly.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

If they'd succeeded in changing US foreign policy, then yes, quite possibly.

Do you think that might have changed bin Laden's mind about wanting to overthrow the kings of Saudi Arabia and bring about the reinstitution of the Caliphate?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I think it's an indicator of the conceit and egotism of people in the developed world. We just assume that any events that take place must be in reaction to something that we did. People elsewhere sometimes have other motivations for acting aside from just reacting to us.

 

[ymu]

Do you think that might have changed bin Laden's mind about wanting to overthrow the kings of Saudi Arabia and bring about the reinstitution of the Caliphate?

The thought might never have occurred to him, and it certainly would have made it hard for him to recruit anyone else to his cause if Israel wasn't fucking over Palestine and the Middle East wasn't peppered with US military bases.

Terrorism is not some random disease that just happened to infect the Zionists in the 1930s and the Irish in the 1970s and the Muslims in the 1990s (unless they're in Sri Lanka, where it's infected the non-Muslims for half a century). It happens for a reason, the reason usually being foreign powers with better weaponry imposing injustice and offering no political alternative.

FWIW, I don't think any antiwar movement could have decisively shifted the colonialist mindset short of global revolution and probably not even then - but you don't get to pretend that there was no political context to 9/11, just some crazy religious man who would have done it regardless. Al Qaeda isn't even a top-down organisation - getting rid of him had bugger all effect on anything other than Obama's approval ratings.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

The thought might never have occurred to him, and it certainly would have made it hard for him to recruit anyone else to his cause if Israel wasn't fucking over Palestine and the Middle East wasn't peppered with US military bases.

Terrorism is not some random disease that just happened to infect the Zionists in the 1930s and the Irish in the 1970s and the Muslims in the 1990s (unless they're in Sri Lanka, where it's infected the non-Muslims for half a century). It happens for a reason, the reason usually being foreign powers with better weaponry imposing injustice and offering no political alternative.

FWIW, I don't think any antiwar movement could have decisively shifted the colonialist mindset short of global revolution and probably not even then - but you don't get to pretend that there was no political context to 9/11, just some crazy religious man who would have done it regardless. Al Qaeda isn't even a top-down organisation - getting rid of him had bugger all effect on anything other than Obama's approval ratings.

bin Laden's ultimate purpose was to restore the primacy of religious power in the Islamic countries. I think he saw the aggravation of relations with western countries and even between western countries, as a tool to use toward that end. And to a certain degree, he achieved some success.

As for 'terrorism', it's even older than the Thirties, and more widespread than the examples you've given. Arguably, 'terrorism' occurs whenever nonstandard armed groups use force against an establishment. When we approve of it, it is 'guerilla warfare', the participants 'partisans'.

 

[smmudge]

I think it's an indicator of the conceit and egotism of people in the developed world. We just assume that any events that take place must be in reaction to something that we did. People elsewhere sometimes have other motivations for acting aside from just reacting to us.

It's also an indicator of ignorance and naivety when things happen in the world and we think we have nothing to do with it. It's not generally out of sheer luck that we are so much more developed and powerful and others aren't.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

It's also an indicator of ignorance and naivety when things happen in the world and we think we have nothing to do with it. It's not generally out of sheer luck that we are so much more developed and powerful and others aren't.

The truth is probably somewhere in between: we aren't responsible for everything, nor for nothing.

 

[Pickman's model]

Maybe antiwar protests could have somehow stopped the attacks on NY and Washington.

I don't know what thread you think you're posting on, I was posting in response to an op in which 9/11 had happened.

 

[Pickman's model]

How much is that true though? The US media would have been doing their very best to whip up support for the government, perpetuating, exacerbating or exaggerating existing feelings. I'm sure there were plenty of Americans who didn't want to go to war, and if the government had decided it wasn't a good time, I'm sure the media could have likewise peddled a story that quelled any angry voices.

I hope you're not calling me a liar.

I don't know if you recall sept 11 2001, but I suspect most people would agree that the slaughter of thousands of people in one of the largest cities - if not the largest - in the us would be likely to lead to calls for those responsible to be dealt with without any great campaign by the media

 

[barney_pig]

You are misunderstanding me. ((big Snip)). (whow... that was a long post!).

dear jeff,
I am glad that I did take the time to read through your long reply to my post, i think that we are posting at cross purposes, your position is considered and honorable, and I have very little difficulty in sympathising with the bulk of it.
My issue is with politics of the anti war organisations; rather than the impulses that led most to give their support for them, which I think you elucidate very succinctly.
the criticisms of Stop the War have been well exercised on U75 (its uncritical attitude to the despotisms under threat from the west, its alliances with Islamism, libdemism, and gallowayism, its silence when confronted with other wars; the genocide in sri lanka, the Russian invasion of Georgia, the war in south Sudan etc.)
my post was flippant, and not serious,and was in reply to the ultra positivist tone of some of the posts on here, to illustrate that the non intervention of the west would not have resulted in good things.

 

[Random]

Do you think that might have changed bin Laden's mind about wanting to overthrow the kings of Saudi Arabia and bring about the reinstitution of the Caliphate?

If protests in the UK and USA and other countries had led to the end of support for the Saudi monarchy, and the end of bases in Saudi, I can't see why Bin Laden would have seen attacking New York as a priority.

Not that any conceivable protest movement could have caused that change. Support for Saudi is an integral part of N American/European policy.

 

[smmudge]

I hope you're not calling me a liar.

I don't know if you recall sept 11 2001, but I suspect most people would agree that the slaughter of thousands of people in one of the largest cities - if not the largest - in the us would be likely to lead to calls for those responsible to be dealt with without any great campaign by the media

I'm not calling you a liar, I'm questioning just how much the "American public" does anything in seeming unison. September 11 didn't mean every American suddenly became lynching, murderous, and blood-thirsty. Some, including people who lost relatives that day, were disgusted that the attacks were being used as an excuse to slaughter innocent civilians in Afghanistan. And what about the large Muslim contingent of the US, many of which live in New York, do you think they were all calling for war too?

 

[Jeff Robinson]

dear jeff,
I am glad that I did take the time to read through your long reply to my post, i think that we are posting at cross purposes, your position is considered and honorable, and I have very little difficulty in sympathising with the bulk of it.
My issue is with politics of the anti war organisations; rather than the impulses that led most to give their support for them, which I think you elucidate very succinctly.
the criticisms of Stop the War have been well exercised on U75 (its uncritical attitude to the despotisms under threat from the west, its alliances with Islamism, libdemism, and gallowayism, its silence when confronted with other wars; the genocide in sri lanka, the Russian invasion of Georgia, the war in south Sudan etc.)
my post was flippant, and not serious,and was in reply to the ultra positivist tone of some of the posts on here, to illustrate that the non intervention of the west would not have resulted in good things.

I don't disagree that the anti-War leadership in this country has some fairly major shortcomings (and, let's face it - Galloway is a total cunt), but not as significant as those of the erstwhile leftists that lined up behind the wars: the late Christopher Hitchens, Norman Geras et al who, it seems to me, became not only supporters of imperialism but outright defenders of and apologists for the capitalist status quo. Given the intimate connections between imperialism and capitalist expansion it seems to me that such slippages are almost inevitable. Whilst I would not place myself in the Bolshevik tradition, one thing I thought that the radical wing of European social democracy got right during the first imperialist war was the prioritisation of socialist movements in opposing their own ruling classe's drive to war under the slogan 'the main enemy is at home'. It's true that most horrors that take place in the world are not the product of Western military intervention but a great many of them are related to the global political economy that such intervention is bound up with and exists to protect.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

If protests in the UK and USA and other countries had led to the end of support for the Saudi monarchy, and the end of bases in Saudi, I can't see why Bin Laden would have seen attacking New York as a priority.

That could be true.

 

[Pickman's model]

I'm not calling you a liar, I'm questioning just how much the "American public" does anything in seeming unison. September 11 didn't mean every American suddenly became lynching, murderous, and blood-thirsty. Some, including people who lost relatives that day, were disgusted that the attacks were being used as an excuse to slaughter innocent civilians in Afghanistan. And what about the large Muslim contingent of the US, many of which live in New York, do you think they were all calling for war too?

I hate to piss on your parade but I didn't say what you say I said

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I'm not calling you a liar, I'm questioning just how much the "American public" does anything in seeming unison. September 11 didn't mean every American suddenly became lynching, murderous, and blood-thirsty. Some, including people who lost relatives that day, were disgusted that the attacks were being used as an excuse to slaughter innocent civilians in Afghanistan. And what about the large Muslim contingent of the US, many of which live in New York, do you think they were all calling for war too?

In the same way you can't typecast all Americans as lynching, blood-thirsty and murdering, you can't typecast all Americans who are of the muslim religion. It's reasonable to expect that some unknown number of American muslims supported retaliation for 911. I recall news stories from the time about a group of muslim-americans living near Detroit, who were very angry that people were assuming that because they were muslims, they were somehow sympathetic to the terrorists and those who backed them.

 

[smmudge]

I hate to piss on your parade but I didn't say what you say I said

You seem to be saying that on some matters the US public calls the shots on what the US government decides to do. Basically I'm saying that's rubbish.

In the same way you can't typecast all Americans as lynching, blood-thirsty and murdering, you can't typecast all Americans who are of the muslim religion. It's reasonable to expect that some unknown number of American muslims supported retaliation for 911. I recall news stories from the time about a group of muslim-americans living near Detroit, who were very angry that people were assuming that because they were muslims, they were somehow sympathetic to the terrorists and those who backed them.

Yeah I'd be pretty pissed off too, especially if someone were to insinuate that not supporting the war was the same thing as being sympathetic to the terrorists and those who backed them.

 

[Pickman's model]

I wish you'd make up your mind what you're saying

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

You seem to be saying that on some matters the US public calls the shots on what the US government decides to do. Basically I'm saying that's rubbish.



Yeah I'd be pretty pissed off too, especially if someone were to insinuate that not supporting the war was the same thing as being sympathetic to the terrorists and those who backed them.

What I'm saying is you can't assume that because an American was also a muslim, that that person didn't support the war. I'm fairly sure that some did, some didn't.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

What I'm saying is you can't assume that because an American was also a muslim, that that person didn't support the war. I'm fairly sure that some did, some didn't.

I think "some did, some didn't" might not really be an adequate description of the ratio of support to non support, particularly given the subsequent active demonisation of Islam by the state in propaganda and use of that to justify war, which would tend to put people off.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I think "some did, some didn't" might not really be an adequate description of the ratio of support to non support, particularly given the subsequent active demonisation of Islam by the state in propaganda and use of that to justify war, which would tend to put people off.

It's pretty hard to say either way, ten years on.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Also: does anybody really want to be saying that muslims identify as muslims first, and only secondarily as americans, britons, canadians etc? That makes it sound like Islam is some sort of worldwide monolithic entity.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

You mean, like the US government did, often framing the whole affair as a civilising mission against the dangerous influence of Islam, Religion Of Hate? The sort of thing that is likely to put Muslims off the idea, statistically speaking, I would say.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Just googled a survey from 2007 which found that 75% of US muslims thought the Iraq war was the wrong decision, as opposed to 47% of the general US public:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-05-22-poll-muslim-americans_N.htm

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

It's pretty hard to say either way, ten years on.

Not really

 

[likesfish]

Reguarding iraq any baghad spring would have been a bloody affair probably leading to a western intervention and same horror Saddam would have gone the fire and blood route there was no way he was retiring quitely to write a memoir.