May 2003

Views expressed are those of the authors, not necessarily of the AFSC.

The Antiwar Movement Then and Now

Paul Joseph is Professor of Sociology and Director of the Peace and Justice Studies Program at Tufts University.

Shane and his sign. Photo: Phyllis Cohen

Many people feel that the movement against the Vietnam War did not accomplish much. Millions mobilized against a war that an increasing proportion of the population thought was unjust, or a mistake, or both. The movement went on for several years, developed a number of different strategies, made important international connections (including with the Vietnamese), and moved beyond the campuses to affect nearly every area of society. But Washington's goal of imposing an anticommunist regime in South Vietnam never changed. The bombing of North Vietnam did stop at the end of the Johnson administration--only to resume again under Nixon, this time in "secret" and extended to Cambodia as well. A ceiling was imposed on the total number of ground troops--yet the war went on, eventually costing more than 58,000 US and at least two million Vietnamese lives. Washington was finally forced to withdraw in 1975 but left behind a country wracked with environmental destruction, a workforce distorted by the overwhelming US presence, and landmines, unexploded ordnance, cancerous defoliants, ruined irrigation systems and other threats to normal agriculture. No wonder a large number of academics, journalists, and even many of the participants in the movement thought that the mobilization against the Vietnam War was unsuccessful.

As we witness a celebration of the Pentagon war machine and the latest tragedy in Iraq, it is important to remember the influence of our movement--then and now. We did, and do, make a difference. Popular opposition to the Vietnam War did make significant contributions, both immediately by denying many of the strategies that the Pentagon thought were necessary to win and, more long-term, by constructing yet another layer to the global moral and cultural tradition opposed to war that has been built over the last century. The movement deprived the Vietnam War of public legitimacy and eventually forced its defenders to surreptitious and illegal means that backfired in the Watergate scandal and the passage of the War Powers Act that forced the military out of Indochina. Of course, we must remember the Vietnamese resistance as well.

The Vietnam-era antiwar movement and the current antiwar movement share important continuities. The movement of the sixties contributed individuals, networks, ideas, and lessons which were essential to building the remarkable resistance to Bush's war in Iraq. Both movements also carried a crucial message to the rest of the world, specifically that Washington's political and military leaders might try to use armed force to impose their will, but an important number of committed US citizens will not only disagree but mobilize against their actions. This winter, I saw several participants in the large New York and Washington marches interviewed by various members of the international media. I was proud of the fact that Italians, Japanese, Jordanians, Mexicans, and others would be able to see and hear individuals from this country speak out against the war. The fact that there is significant opposition in the US is an important counterweight against global despair and helps fuel resistance movements elsewhere in the world.

Can we compare the two movements? Today's antiwar movement mobilized millions of people before the war even started. The Vietnam opposition also involved millions but was relatively small at the outset and reached its peak a full three years after the major escalation of the war.

This movement is more inclusive of age and occupation. It has also enjoyed the support of many trade unions. Significant cracks in the official union support for Vietnam War did not appear until 1969. Indeed, this is one of the broadest-based peace movements in recent history. A large range of the religious community has been involved as have a significant number of racial, ethnic, and occupational groups. Rallies and vigils have been staged in many local communities while several organizations and municipalities passed antiwar resolutions. Some of these activities occurred in the Vietnam movement as well but it took longer and was not as extensive.

By 1969, the Vietnam antiwar movement extended into the armed forces themselves. As Nixon became president, some soldiers continued to fight but many others refused. Search-and-destroy missions were replaced by search-and-avoid. Fragging incidents and the number of soldiers going AWOL rose dramatically. There were several mutinies in the Navy and a significant number of antiwar coffee houses flourished near military bases in the US. In many ways, Nixon and his secretary of state Henry Kissinger had to initiate a troop withdrawal from Vietnam simply because many would no longer fight. Significant opposition within the military has yet to emerge in the current era.

Many people now think that the Vietnam movement was guilty of blaming the soldiers for the Vietnam carnage. In fact, the focus was clearly on Johnson, Nixon, and their generals--not on ordinary grunts. An entire wing of the Vietnam movement was devoted to assisting soldiers in various ways. But perceptions, even when false, are important. Today's movement, while critical of the Bush administration, has also taken pains to avoid blaming the soldiers who carry out those decisions.

A similar point can be made with respect to the US flag. The Vietnam movement was ambivalent about the symbol. Some participants tried to keep the flag. Others rejected it, even, at times, in favor of the colors of the Vietnamese National Liberation Front. During a visit to Vietnam after the war, I can remember being asked by a high-ranking member of the National Liberation Front why the antiwar movement in the United States carried so many NLF flags. His facial expression was a complex mix of disbelief, confusion, amusement, and consternation. I can also remember attending sporting events in the Bay Area when less than half of the audience would rise for the playing of the national anthem. In some ways the refusal to honor the most visible symbol of empire makes sense, especially when the human costs are so high. But losing the flag also makes social protest much more difficult. The current antiwar movement has been more determined to make the point that dissent and patriotism can go hand-in-hand.

Another contrast is in the use of technology, most notably the Internet. Organizers can now more easily provide information necessary to stage rallies, announce bus schedules, and carry out the nuts-and-bolts work involved in generating public opposition. But the implications of virtual mobilization are far greater. Personal computers are now essential for collecting signatures, building regional, national, and global networks, and disseminating crucial information, articles and pictures not readily available in the mainstream media. The Internet is also a key component in the self-understanding of the movement. The Vietnam movement made international connections. The Internet is helping to make today's movement part of a global social force opposed to war.

Mobilization against the Vietnam War nested in the midst of an important series of other challenges to what was then called "the establishment." The civil rights movement predated the antiwar movement, moved alongside it, and eventually evolved into a more militant form of struggle around the concept of black power. The women's and environment movements emerged at the end of the opposition period. Still another type of social movement questioned prevailing cultural priorities and initiated lifestyle changes that are still with us today. In contrast, the current movement is focused more singularly against the war itself--although opposition to market-driven globalization, driven underground after the September 11 attacks, may again emerge.

The impact of the anti-Vietnam movement is still with us today and has been felt during the war in Iraq. Among the public the threshold of "acceptable" casualties is far, far lower than before. When we are able to "see" casualties on the other side, imperfectly because our sight is clouded by a complex media system that carries its own agenda, these human beings seem to "count" more than in the past. And the only accepted public rationale for going to war is to counter evil. Cold War and Vietnam-era justifications such as natural resources, ideology, and geopolitical "balances of power" just won't cut it anymore.

Antiwar movements have yet to abolish war. But we are making more progress than we generally recognize. The cumulative effect of these movements is to maintain a political presence in civil society, reinforce the sanctity of human life, and even to transform war so that it is increasingly fought on tenterhooks.

Previous Article    Next Article