Prior to the US attack on Iraq, it was the contention of the peace movement in the US and abroad that invading Iraq would resu

After the Invasion of Iraq

Prior to the attack on Iraq, the peace movement in the US and abroad opposed the war on many grounds. Many of us in the peace movement predicted that invading Iraq would result in the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians. We also held that the occupation of Iraq would not bring about peace or security but instability and turmoil. Most importantly, we believed that the motives behind the invasion had nothing to do with Iraq’s alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction and everything to do with the desire to control middle eastern oil, maximize the profits of US corporations, consolidate the domination of the US government over the region and to further appease Israel by removing one of its potential enemies. Well, a few months into the occupation, the peace movement has been proved right on all counts and the US and British governments have been widely discredited, challenged even by the largely compliant corporate run media.

Did the war cost civilian lives? Most certainly. The bombings took the lives of thousands of innocent civilians. The US military has steadfastly refused to offer its own estimate of civilian casualties but independent journalists and other observers have come up with various estimates that put the casualties well in the thousands. After weeks of targeting the cities of Iraq with some of the most destructive bombs and missiles ever created, how could anyone have reasonably expected a different outcome? Furthermore, in the coming months, war and occupation related deaths are likely to climb as a result of the long-term public health effects of loss of clean water and the radioactive contamination caused by the explosions of countless uranium tipped American missiles.

Has the invasion of Iraq made the world safer? It is hardly debatable that the US and British occupation has not brought stability and security to Iraq, nor has it enhanced security elsewhere in the world. The occupiers were unable to prevent the looting of public buildings, government offices, shops and even homes, a tragedy whose impact will be felt for years. Today, months after the invasion, the Pentagon has yet to offer stability and basic security to the Iraqi people. The lives of 148,000 US troops stationed in Iraq are in jeopardy every day as they are coming under attack by an Iraqi population resentful of the foreign troops on their territory. Granted that Bush and Blaire’s “war against terror” was only a public relations diversion and not the real motive for the war, even measured by the criteria of fighting terrorism, the occupation has been a failure. Supposed Al Qaeda attacks around the world have not decreased in frequency, terrorist training camps have been discovered, terrorist masterminds have not been apprehended and the occupation has likely energized recruitment efforts by Islamic fundamentalists such as Bin Laden.

What about weapons of mass destruction? Well, none were used by Saddam Hussein’s forces defending Iraq and with all of the Iraqi territory under their control for months, the US and British forces have failed to present a shred of evidence of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. But it is safe to assume that those who insisted on waging this war on false pretenses are not really surprised that WMD’s are non-existent. Increasingly, it has become apparent that the so-called evidence of Iraq’s WMD program presented in various reports and dossiers in the months preceding the war was really a compilation of lies, half-truths and gross exaggerations. The fact that Bush brought up the supposed Iraqi purchase of uranium from Niger in his State of the Union address, weeks after his administration had known that the story was a lie, was no careless administrative error but part of a deliberate misinformation campaign. It would be naïve to think that Bush and Blaire actually believed that Saddam could attack the US or the UK with chemical and biological weapons in a matter of 45 minutes. Such statements were obviously intended to alarm the public, using false information in order to justify an unprovoked attack that was clearly against international law.

Even though the peace movement was ultimately unsuccessful in preventing the attack on Iraq, the fact that its prewar positions have withstood the test of time and that the administrations of Bush and Blaire are now on the defensive is a victory in itself. If it were not for the vigilance of the peace movement and the millions who marched the streets around the globe, the administrations of Bush and Blaire would not have had to come up with so many false justifications for war. In the case of Afghanistan, for instance, not seriously challenged by a sizeable international mass movement, the US administration did not have to trouble itself with conjuring up phony justifications. In retrospect, the justification for the attack on Afghanistan was even less plausible than that presented for the invasion of Iraq. Afghanistan was invaded purportedly to capture one individual and to deliver a blow to the Al Qaeda network. Ben Laden was never caught and Al Qaeda, according to the US administration’s own account, is still going strong.

A new US military adventure in the near future is not impossible but less likely. The loss of credibility that Bush and Blaire have suffered makes it more difficult for them to sell their next invasion to the people and this is in no small part thanks to the actions of the millions of people who took to the streets to oppose the war. To evaluate the work of the peace movement, a movement that mobilized unprecedented hundreds of thousands in the US and millions worldwide, it is important to take into account the lasting effect of the movement that made the act of waging war more difficult, more costly, more lengthy, hence more subject to scrutiny. Preventing the bloodshed would have been an ultimate victory but making the act of waging war more difficult for the warmongers and holding them accountable for their actions during the war and occupation has certainly been a worthy cause and one that has borne fruit.

Today, the American people share with the Iraqi people the burden of paying the price for this war. Iraqis have paid and continue to pay with their lives, their health and their future outlook as the result of the destruction of much of their civilian infrastructure. Americans are paying for this occupation with the lives of their troops, their tax dollars to the tune of one billion dollars a week and with the cuts in social services that will result from the fiscal irresponsibility of the administration in squandering limitless funds on this ill-conceived adventure. It would be inaccurate to say that nobody has gained from this war, however. The corporate masters and benefactors of the Bush administration are profiting from the occupation, and the future promises to be even more profitable. After all, it is in their interests that this war was waged.

Iranians abroad, in the Bay Area and elsewhere, shared the view of the majority of the people of the world in opposition to the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq. Having gone through eight years of a bloody and destructive war with Iraq that claimed a million lives, Iranians have no sympathy toward wars. Similarly, having lived under 25 years of the regime of the Shah, a regime that supplanted the democratic rule of Dr. Mossadegh through a CIA engineered coup in 1953, Iranians have no reason to be optimistic about foreign installed regimes that serve foreign interests. The Bay Area Iranians for Peace and Social Justice considers it its task to expose the lies and false justifications used to wage the war against Iraq and to expose the injustices being suffered by the Iraqi people under the occupation forces. Ultimately, along with the rest of a peace movement that is truly international today, our goal is to promote a global political and social climate where lasting peace is accomplished through justice.