Milan Rai: We Nearly Won
Milan Rai explains how close the anti-war movement came to derailing Britain’s involvement in the Iraq war. Next time, he says, we will win.
BRITAIN NEARLY DISCONNECTED FROM THE WAR
The goal of the British anti-war movement in early 2003 was to stop the British government participating in the invasion of Iraq, hoping that this could delay or derail the US drive to war. We nearly succeeded.
The mass media and the party political system have never and will never acknowledge how close we came. The history books are and will remain silent on this topic, but it is vital for the anti-war movement to remember that it managed to exert such pressure on the British Government that a week before the war, it seriously considered withdrawing from the invasion of Iraq.
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE BRITISH CONTRIBUTION
Throughout the crisis the US public was very concerned at the prospect of political isolation – polls in the US in June and Aug. 2002 found that while more than half of Americans would approve of military action against Iraq if the US won some allied support, that number shrank to a minority if the United States had to go it alone. (Christian Science Monitor, 17 July 2002; ‘Poll: Most Americans Back War Against Iraq’, Reuters, 12 Aug. 2002)
In March 2003, ‘research from the National Journal showed the importance of the UK in the Bush administration’s domestic political calculation: 77 per cent of people said “we absolutely need” to have British support in the event of war in Iraq.’ (FT, 14 Mar. 2003, p. 2) In other words, the US anti-war movement, while not strong enough to prevent the war, was strong enough to force Washington to seek international support – particularly from Britain.
THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL REFUSES
The problem was that the British anti-war movement was so powerful that Tony Blair was forced to spend months seeking a UN Security Council Resolution which he could present as in some way “authorising” the invasion.
In Feb. 2003, a BBC poll found 40 per cent of people would support a war only if there was UN authorization and only 9 per cent would support it without authorization – which is what happened (45 per cent opposed the war whether or not the Security Council approved; BBC press release, 12 Feb 2003, http://tinyurl.com/ynu6rw)
Permanent members of the Security Council threatened to veto any US/UK war resolution, so Tony Blair moved to a fall-back position. He would regard the war as “UN-authorized” if a substantial majority in the Security Council – if 9 out of 15 members – voted in favour of a war resolution.
However, despite enormous pressure, the smaller “middle six” undecided countries – Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea, Mexico and Pakistan – refused to support the US/UK Resolution, robbing Tony Blair of his majority and his crucial propaganda device. This was in large part because of the protests from the anti-war movements in these countries. More .............
Learn More below:
Link: Reflections on the March
Link: Dying for Nothing
Author of article: Milan Rai
Home page of article: Justice Not Vengeance via ukwatch
Full Story - read the full article
The goal of the British anti-war movement in early 2003 was to stop the British government participating in the invasion of Iraq, hoping that this could delay or derail the US drive to war. We nearly succeeded.
The mass media and the party political system have never and will never acknowledge how close we came. The history books are and will remain silent on this topic, but it is vital for the anti-war movement to remember that it managed to exert such pressure on the British Government that a week before the war, it seriously considered withdrawing from the invasion of Iraq.
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE BRITISH CONTRIBUTION
Throughout the crisis the US public was very concerned at the prospect of political isolation – polls in the US in June and Aug. 2002 found that while more than half of Americans would approve of military action against Iraq if the US won some allied support, that number shrank to a minority if the United States had to go it alone. (Christian Science Monitor, 17 July 2002; ‘Poll: Most Americans Back War Against Iraq’, Reuters, 12 Aug. 2002)
In March 2003, ‘research from the National Journal showed the importance of the UK in the Bush administration’s domestic political calculation: 77 per cent of people said “we absolutely need” to have British support in the event of war in Iraq.’ (FT, 14 Mar. 2003, p. 2) In other words, the US anti-war movement, while not strong enough to prevent the war, was strong enough to force Washington to seek international support – particularly from Britain.
THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL REFUSES
The problem was that the British anti-war movement was so powerful that Tony Blair was forced to spend months seeking a UN Security Council Resolution which he could present as in some way “authorising” the invasion.
In Feb. 2003, a BBC poll found 40 per cent of people would support a war only if there was UN authorization and only 9 per cent would support it without authorization – which is what happened (45 per cent opposed the war whether or not the Security Council approved; BBC press release, 12 Feb 2003, http://tinyurl.com/ynu6rw)
Permanent members of the Security Council threatened to veto any US/UK war resolution, so Tony Blair moved to a fall-back position. He would regard the war as “UN-authorized” if a substantial majority in the Security Council – if 9 out of 15 members – voted in favour of a war resolution.
However, despite enormous pressure, the smaller “middle six” undecided countries – Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea, Mexico and Pakistan – refused to support the US/UK Resolution, robbing Tony Blair of his majority and his crucial propaganda device. This was in large part because of the protests from the anti-war movements in these countries. More .............
Learn More below:
Link: Reflections on the March
Link: Dying for Nothing
Author of article: Milan Rai
Home page of article: Justice Not Vengeance via ukwatch
Full Story - read the full article
Labels: Peace movement, War
posted by Neil Williams @ 3:40 PM
1 Comments:
Thank you for your contribution to this blog.
Even before the US and UK spearheaded the illegal invasion into Iraq, based on a pack of lies, compounded later by expendable soldiers defied international law by carrying out illegal orders and numerous war crimes, I followed the war against the people of Iraqi closely almost every day for 3 1/2 years. Sometimes spending up to 5 hours reading various reports from the US and UK ministries of propaganda as well as the legitimate Iraqi resistance and from independent journalists such as Dhar Jamal and so on.
My reading of Iraq has tailed off over the last 1.5 years but I am still reasonably aware of what is going on over there, and also in the wider Middle East (ME)
There are numerous and documented grandeous lies that have been told about the war against the Iraqi people. Fallujah is one, and I believe the mass graves of US soldiers is also true, drawing upon a number of sources. I'll maintain that position until I have a better reason to believe otherwise.
Although being on the ground over there you have some qualification that I don't, I cannot believe your opinion is definitive on the matter. I also have little doubt your superior officers would not divulge losses to its men outside their unit obviously for reasons of moral.
Not only that, but it depends on what you call a "mass grave". As far as I am aware, a grave of even 5 people would constitute a mass grave, even 2 people buried in a grave would constitute one I guess. I am unaware what you define one as. Perhaps if you read the links about Mazen Dana, you could dispute the specifics.
Here, I make no comparison with the great and glorious struggle by the majority of the Vietnamese people whose babies even today are born severely deformed thanks to the ongoing legacy of Agent Orange. Their defeat of the US is astounding. Although now you mention it, I will say there are parallels. The inspiring struggle by the Vietnamese , is matched by the heroic Iraqi resistance (not insurgents as you wrongly call them - which implying illegality. Every citizen has the right to resist an invading foreign force)
I agree not everything is a conspiracy, but a great many things are. The whole Iraq war was a conspiracy, every part can therefore be attributed likewise.
Why are you fighting over there. You know Iraq posed no threat to the US, you know it was all lies. Does it not bother you sustaining the general effort to maintain the illegal war with hundreds of people being killed each and every week?
We may strongly disagree on Iraq, but I would like to hear how you think about the war if you could spare the time.
Well done Milan for your efforts, but you are very wrong. We didn't "nearly succeeded." We failed miserably by a long way. Let’s admit it.
Frankly the organised anti-war movement has been a disgrace. The day the bombs dropped, coordinated efforts against UK military institutions should have been undertaken, money withdrawn from banks, US petrol firms boycotted, US goods damaged. abstinence towards touring the US encouraged, radio airwaves resonating to the people encouraging them to keep up their actions for the sake of what was always going to be millions of lives, and so on.
The beginning of the war was naturally the most opportune stage to initiate such a legitimate response. War crime legislation should have been publicised. It wasn’t. Why?
Now many people are resigned to the slaughter of more Iraqi’s while the puppets try and consolidate power. Civil disobedience couldn’t be further from peoples minds. Anti war-ites sip Starbucks while feeling good at having ‘marched’ to futility once more against government sponsored terrorism.
Yeah the reality is bleak. An alcoholic must realise his problem before he can deal with his problem. Pity the anti-war movement hasn’t.
R4 Fouler
Post a Comment
<< Home