What reasons can you come up with, as to why the US Antiwar movement and interests can't find much traction ?

Question

Some may recall, have heard of, or studied the very powerfull effects of the antiwar movement in America, during the similarly protracted, (much more more costly in US lives) Vietnam war.

All taking place well within living memory.

What reasons can you think of as to why Antiwar interests
towards the current conflict, despite so many blunders by
the interests that initiated and continue to promote the Iraqi occupation, still can't seem to get any really powerful traction
and influence events and decisions, the way they did in the Vietnam era ?

Thanks to Laura C.
Consise, interesting
point that probably affect many
Americans. Irronic that in some
sense, you're working
to pay for the war, but left with little
time to question any of it.

Answer 1

The attack of 9-11 is still used as a rationale for the Iraq war. The attack was dramatic, inside of our country, and effective in causing fear and anger. Anger can have a hydraulic quality: it builds and is vented often in inappropriate directions. In nature anger is designed to provoke action and limit deliberation. It’s very hard to launch an effective peace movement while there is still such a sense of righteous anger in our country. It doesn’t seem to matter that we are venting our anger at the wrong people: that’s the nature of anger, and it can be abused anywhere by people in power.

The draft during the Vietnam War and a much higher rate of war casualties than Iraq II probably accounted for a lot of the success of the last peace movement. Since the army is voluntary today, and since there are only 3700 or so US deaths from the war so far, there’s a lot less concern about the cost in terms of death. The death of Iraqis is another matter and news organizations and politicians seem to feel this doesn't matter to Americans.

There was far less at stake economically in Vietnam than in Iraq. I believe the war is being fought over future control of oil reserves, whereas in Vietnam the reasons were far more theoretical or political (the domino effect theory, a perceived need to counter world communism). That being the case, Americans are probably much more willing to carry on this war. American dependency on oil drives much of the war effort.

It seems as if this government carefully prepared for its war long before they came into power, with an equal offensive in mass media, particularly with aggressive networks like FOX news. This aggressive stance has seemed to keep opposition imbalanced and much of the populace in denial. Some Americans for example believe there were WMD in Iraq that justified the war.
.

Answer 2

I'm now not TOO definite that is precise, however to the level that it's, maybe it's on the grounds that there was once a draft then and that the gift stage of American casualties, whilst terrible, had been a lot overshadowed (ultimately?) by way of the ones of Viet Nam... or do I talk too quickly approximately Iraq Nam? Down with Dictator Dumbya!!!

Answer 3

The anti war movement has different people opposed to US in Vietnam, US in Iraq, US in wherever the next major conflict will be.

Perhaps the anti-war movement vs. Vietnam had a better case than the anti-war in Iraq. In both wars there was a lot of government propaganda why we should be there, that included a lot of falsehoods. But there was also stuff, that in retrospect, may have been valid.

What got the US out of Vietnam was not the anti-war movement, it was the US losing the war.
The US lost the war because politicians, not qualified to do so, were micromanaging what the military was doing over there.

With Vietnam there was absolutely no effort to have the South behave in a responsible manner. It was a case of a war between a North painted as evil, and a South that was obviously evil.

The Vietnam conflict spanned several administrations ... JFK, Johnson, Nixon
so far Iraq is only one administration ... Bush

The anti-war movement vs. Vietnam conflict took a while to get traction

Washington Post revealing the Pentagon Papers and Watergate breakins probably played a large role in bringing down the establishment of people of the time that had made bad decisions on behalf of the American people. We have not yet had anything comparable to that with the Iraq war.

Troops sent to Vietnam were mainly draftees, mainly from lower classes.
Troops sent to Iraq volunteered for the military, mainly from middle classes.

There were actions by anti-war activists in Vietnam era that gave anti-war activism a bad name, undermined credibility into the future, such as labeling the returning soldiers as "baby killers." They should have focused their ire on the people calling the shots in Washington DC.

While there have been blunders by the pro-war leadership, there have also been blunders by the anti-war leadership.

For example, in the last Presidentail election, John Kerry thought that using his Vietnam War record would help in his election campaign. He forgot how divisive the war and the aftermath had become. The anti-Kerry ads tied to his anti-war stance and to the nature of his service, they were predictable, a certainty. By placing so much of his campaign rhetoric depending on his role in Vietnam, he was playing a lottery, which he lost. The Democratic party is in denial that they played a lottery.

The Election scandal is antother blot on Democratic strategists. We all know there are problems with the election process, that the voting machines and political machines are rigged. The Democrats screaming about how bad that is, and doing nothing to fix it, virtually guarantees that in the next Presidential election, the same thing will happen. The system needs to be fixed.

It is not just the election process that is shooting itself in the foot, the anti-war movement is alienating the American public. We are severely injured by partisan politics, but it takes a special kind of brain dead total absense of any kind of character morality to go to the cemetary ceremonies of deceased soldiers, and call the families of those soldiers various evil epithets because you are opposed to the war.

Further, while I do not believe this is true, a lot of the anti-war movement seems to be behaving like they want bin Laden to win, like they are in bed with alQuada propaganda much like anti-anti-communists of the 1950's were opposed to anything that was done to try to make America stronger, but had absolutely nothing to say about the bad stuff done by international communism.

There was a lot of evil done by the anti-communists, especially Joe McCarthy, but the anti-anti-communists were not saints.

Answer 4

Because they continue to vote for Democrats. The dem's are too politicaly afraid to do anything. If they pull out the troops, they could get blamed politicaly for losing the war. They are spineless and only doing what is politicaly safe for them to do, instead of taking a stand. Vote Green Party.

Answer 5

No draft.
The black marks that the antiwar moment did last time. As in spiting on the troops and the untold mass killings that happened when the US failed to support south Vietnam after we ran out on them.

Answer 6

Because most of us work 2 jobs and then have to tend to family not anything or any time to do much more life sucks in the U.S.A right now!

Answer 7

Because the Democrats don't yet have enough votes in the Senate to override a veto.
.

Answer 8

Simple, its the spineless Democrats.

Answer 9

Of course it is because people are more informed now...

Answer 10

No solution ?
No oomph!