Opposition to the Iraq War: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Undid revision 331850073 by Trackerwiki (talk) - see talk page
mass del wiki contribs
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Dablink|This article is about parties opposing the [[2003 invasion of Iraq]] and the [[Iraq War]] from outside Iraq. For opposition within Iraq, see [[Iraqi insurgency]]. For opposition rationales, see [[Criticism of the Iraq War]]. For more information see [[Views on the 2003 invasion of Iraq]].}}
{{Dablink|This article is about parties opposing the [[2003 invasion of Iraq]] and the [[Iraq War]] from outside Iraq. For opposition within Iraq, see [[Iraqi insurgency]]. For opposition rationales, see [[Criticism of the Iraq War]]. For more information see [[Views on the 2003 invasion of Iraq]].}}
{{POV|date=November 2009}}

[[File:Raised Fist at antiwar demo.jpg|thumb|300 px|right|February 15, 2003: A woman raises her fist in solidarity with the 6,000,000 to 10,000,000 people in over 60 countries who took to the streets in opposition to the [[2003 invasion of Iraq|imminent invasion of Iraq]].]]
[[File:Raised Fist at antiwar demo.jpg|thumb|300 px|right|February 15, 2003: A woman raises her fist in solidarity with the 6,000,000 to 10,000,000 people in over 60 countries who took to the streets in opposition to the [[2003 invasion of Iraq|imminent invasion of Iraq]].]]


There has been significant '''opposition to the Iraq War''' across the world, both before and during the initial [[2003 invasion of Iraq]] by the United States,the United Kingdom and smaller contingents from other nations, and throughout the [[Iraq war|subsequent occupation]]. People and groups opposing the war include the governments of many nations which did not take part in the invasion, and significant sections of the populace in [[Multinational force in Iraq|those which did]].
There was significant '''opposition to the Iraq War''' across the world, both before and during the initial [[2003 invasion of Iraq]] by the United States, the United Kingdom and smaller contingents from other nations, and throughout the [[Iraq war|subsequent occupation]]. People and groups opposed to the war included the governments of many nations which were not part of the invasion, and significant sections of the populace in [[Multinational force in Iraq|those which did]].


Rationales for opposition include the belief that the war is illegal according to the [[United Nations]] Charter, or would contribute to instability both within [[Iraq]] and the wider [[Middle East]]. Critics have also questioned the validity of the war's stated objectives, such as a supposed link between the country's [[Ba'ath]]ist government and the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]] on the United States and its possession of [[weapons of mass destruction]] "certified" by the [[Niger uranium forgeries]]. The latter was claimed by the United States during the run-up to the war, but [[Iraq and weapons of mass destruction|no such weapons]] have since been found.
Rationales for opposition included the belief that the war is illegal according to the [[United Nations]] Charter, or would contribute to instability both within [[Iraq]] and the wider [[Middle East]]. Critics also questioned the validity of the war's stated objectives, such as a supposed link between the country's [[Ba'ath]]ist government and the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]] on the United States and its possession of [[weapons of mass destruction]] "certified" by the [[Niger uranium forgeries]]. The latter was claimed by the United States during the run-up to the war, but [[Iraq and weapons of mass destruction|no such weapons]] have since been found. The other rationales, ridding Iraq of terrorist groups and their influence, liberating its people from Saddam Hussein's neototalitarian regime, as well instituting democracy in the heartland of militant Arab Islamism{{Citation needed|date=December 2009}}, were much less opposed likely due to their appeal to modernity and freedom.


Within the United States, popular opinion on the war has varied significantly with time. Although there was significant opposition to the idea in the months preceding the attack, [[opinion poll|polls]] taken during the invasion showed that a majority of Americans supported their country's action. However, public opinion had shifted by 2004 to a majority believing that the invasion was a mistake, and has remained so since then. There has also been significant criticism of the war from American politicians and [[national security]] and military personnel, including [[General]]s who served in the war and have since spoken out against its handling.
Within the United States, popular opinion on the war has varied significantly with time. Although there was significant opposition to the idea in the months preceding the attack, [[opinion poll|polls]] taken during the invasion showed that a majority of Americans supported their country's action. However, public opinion had shifted by 2004 to a majority believing that the invasion was a mistake, and has remained so since then.


There has also been significant criticism of the war from American politicians and [[national security]] and military personnel, including [[General]]s who served in the war and have since spoken out against its handling. Although widespread sentiment for ending the war ensured public support for stabilizing Iraq during the 2006-2007 Surge operation, the strategy was opposed by officials worried about the strains the massive redeployments would put on army force availability.
Worldwide, the war and occupation have been officially condemned by 54 countries and the heads of many major religions. Popular anti-war feeling is strong in these and other countries, including America's allies in the conflict, and many have experienced huge [[protests]] totaling some millions of participants. There is some disagreement within the [[anti-war movement]] as to whether the cause of armed [[Iraqi insurgency|insurgents within Iraq]] is a worthy one for which they can express solidarity.

Worldwide, the war and occupation have been officially condemned by 54 countries and the heads of many major religions. In contrast, international organizations like the U.N. have announced that the liberation of Iraqi people from Saddam's totalitarian regime which ''"...preyed on the Iraqi people and committed shocking, systematic and criminal violations of human rights..."''.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3776765.stm |title="UN hails end to Saddam-era abuses" |accessdate=4 June 2004 |publisher=bbc.co.uk |date=4 June 2004}}</ref> is a commendable outcome apart from the Coalition's other aims for the invasion. Popular anti-war feeling partly driven by opposition to U.S. standing and behavior in world affairs is strong in many countries, including America's allies in the conflict, and many have experienced huge [[protests]] totaling some millions of participants.


==Early opposition==
==Early opposition==
The opposition to the war manifested itself most visibly in a series of global [[protests against the Iraq War]] during February 2003, just before the [[2003 Invasion of Iraq|Iraq invasion]] starting on March 20, 2003.
The opposition to the war manifested itself most visibly in a series of global [[protests against the Iraq War]] during February 2003, just before the [[2003 Invasion of Iraq|Iraq invasion]] commenced on March 20, 2003.
:"Poll results available from Gallup International, as well as local sources for most of Europe, West and East, showed that support for a war carried out "unilaterally by America and its allies" did not rise above 11 percent in any country. Support for a war if mandated by the UN ranged from 13 percent (Spain) to 51 percent (Netherlands)."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.countercurrents.org/chomsky011103.htm |title="The Iraq War And Contempt For Democracy" |accessdate=15 November 2008 |publisher=Countercurrents.org |date=1 November 2003 |last=Chomsky |first=Noam }}</ref>


"Poll results available from Gallup International, as well as local sources for most of Europe, West and East, showed that support for a war carried out "unilaterally by America and its allies" did not rise above 11 percent in any country. Support for a war if mandated by the UN ranged from 13 percent (Spain) to 51 percent (Netherlands)."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.countercurrents.org/chomsky011103.htm |title="The Iraq War And Contempt For Democracy" |accessdate=15 November 2008 |publisher=Countercurrents.org |date=1 November 2003 |last=Chomsky |first=Noam }}</ref>
==Reasons for opposition==


{{Main|Criticism of the Iraq War}}


==Body of opposition, and the historical outcome==
Critics of the invasion claimed that it would lead to the deaths of thousands of [[Multinational force in Iraq|Coalition]] soldiers and Iraqi soldiers and civilians, and that it would moreover damage peace and stability throughout the region and the [[World]].


Another oft-stated reason for opposition is the [[Peace of Westphalia|Westphalian]] concept that foreign governments should never possess a right to intervene in another sovereign nation's internal affairs (including terrorism or any other non-international affair). [[Giorgio Agamben]], the Italian philosopher, has also offered a critique of the logic of preemptive war.


Others did accept a limited right for military intervention in foreign countries, but nevertheless opposed the invasion on the basis that it was conducted without [[United Nations]]' approval and was hence a violation of [[international law]].<ref>http://www.geocities.com/noelcox/Cox_Ira1.htm</ref> According to this position, adherence by the United States and the other great powers to the UN Charter and to other international treaties to which they are legally bound is not a choice but a legal obligation; exercising military power in violation of the UN Charter undermines the rule of law and is illegal [[vigilantism]] on an international scale. [[Benjamin B. Ferencz]], who served as the U.S.'s Chief Prosecutor of Nazi war crimes at the [[Nuremberg Trials]] following [[World War II]], has denounced the Iraq War as an [[War of aggression|aggressive war]] (named at Nuremberg as "the supreme international crime") and stated his belief that [[George W. Bush]], as the war's "initiator", should be tried for war crimes.<ref>http://us.oneworld.net/article/view/138319/1/</ref>


==Organized opposition in support of regime continuation==
There was also skepticism of U.S. claims that Iraq's [[secular]] government had any links to [[Al-Qaeda]], the [[Islamic fundamentalist]] terrorist group considered responsible for the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]] on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.


Some expressed puzzlement that the United States would consider military action against Iraq and not against [[North Korea]], which claimed it already had nuclear weapons and had announced that it was willing to contemplate war with the United States. This criticism intensified when North Korea [[2006 North Korean nuclear test|reportedly conducted a nuclear weapons test]] on [[October 9]] [[2006]].


There was also criticism of Coalition policy by those who did not believe that military actions would help to fight terror, with some believing that it would actually help Al-Qaeda's recruitment efforts; others believed that the war and immediate post-war period would lead to a greatly increased risk that [[weapons of mass destruction]] would fall into the wrong hands (including Al-Qaeda).


==Reasons for opposition==
Both inside and outside of the U.S., some argued that the Bush Administration's rationale for war was to gain control over Iraqi natural resources (primarily [[petroleum]]). These critics felt that the war would not help to reduce the threat of WMD proliferation, and that the real reason for the war was to secure control over the Iraqi oil fields at a time when US links with Saudi Arabia were seen to be at risk. "No blood for oil" was a popular protest cry prior to the invasion in March 2003.


{{Main|Criticism of the Iraq War}}

[[Benjamin B. Ferencz]], who served as the U.S.'s Chief Prosecutor of Nazi war crimes at the [[Nuremberg Trials]] following [[World War II]] and devoted his later life to instituting non-sovereign international courts of law, has denounced the Iraq War as an [[War of aggression|aggressive war]] (named at Nuremberg as "the supreme international crime") and stated his belief that [[George W. Bush]], as the war's "initiator", should be tried for war crimes.<ref>http://us.oneworld.net/article/view/138319/1/</ref>

Some expressed puzzlement that the United States would consider military action against Iraq and not against [[North Korea]], which claimed it already had nuclear weapons and had announced that it was willing to contemplate war with the United States. This criticism intensified when North Korea [[2006 North Korean nuclear test|reportedly conducted a nuclear weapons test]] on October 9, 2006.


Both inside and outside of the U.S., some argued that the Bush Administration's rationale for war was to gain control over Iraqi natural resources (primarily [[petroleum]]). These critics felt that the war would not help to reduce the threat of WMD proliferation, and that the real reason for the war was to secure control over the Iraqi oil fields at a time when US links with Saudi Arabia were seen to be at risk. "No blood for oil" was a popular protest cry prior to the invasion in March 2003. The other criticism is that the War would initially decrease oil availability due to massive uncertainty introduced into the markets, leading to a short-term increase in oil futures. The second occurred historically as Iraq did not lose ownership or control of its oil reserves to any agency or firm from any of the Coalition countries and in fact garnered windfall profits until markets deflated in 2008, although newer oil concessions do favor U.S. and U.K. firms.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/iraq_iessays/jerry_taylor/html/transcript.stm |title=Is the war with Iraq about oil when all is said and done? |first=Jerry |last=Taylor |date=2003 |publisher=bbc.co.uk}}</ref>
Some opponents of the war also believed that there would be no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and thus there was little reason for an invasion. Prominent among these was [[Scott Ritter]], a former U.S. [[military intelligence]] officer and then a [[United Nations Special Commission|United Nations weapons inspector]] in [[Iraq]], and who in 1998 had been hawkish enough toward Iraq as to be admonished by U.S. Senator [[Joe Biden]], "The decision of whether or not the country should go to war is slightly above your pay grade." Investigations after the invasion failed to produce evidence of WMDs in Iraq (apart from a very small number of degraded chemical weapons shells located after the [[Iran–Iraq War]] ended in 1988). Generally, however, very few opponents of the Iraq invasion publicly expressed doubt as to whether the Saddam Hussein regime possessed weapons of mass destruction.


Some opponents of the war also believed that there would be no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and thus there was little reason for an invasion. Prominent among these was [[Scott Ritter]], a former U.S. [[military intelligence]] officer and then a [[United Nations Special Commission|United Nations weapons inspector]] in [[Iraq]], and who in 1998 had been hawkish enough toward Iraq as to be admonished by U.S. Senator [[Joe Biden]], ''"The decision of whether or not the country should go to war is slightly above your pay grade."'' Investigations after the invasion failed to produce evidence of WMDs in Iraq (apart from a very small number of degraded chemical weapons shells located after the [[Iran–Iraq War]] ended in 1988).
During the occupation, some opponents accused President Bush of being indifferent to the suffering caused by the invasion. In 2006 for example he opined that when the history of Iraq is written the period would "look like just a comma", prompting criticism that he took the more than 2,700 US troop deaths lightly.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100401707_pf.html |title='Just a Comma' Becomes Part of Iraq Debate |first=Peter |last=Baker |date=5 October 2006 |publisher=Washington Post}}</ref>


== Opposition in the United States ==
==Opposition in the United States==
{{See also|Withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq}}
{{See also|Withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq}}


=== Popular opposition ===
===Popular opposition===
[[File:27 Oct 2007 Seattle Demo - memorial 03.jpg|thumb|Combat boots arrayed in memory of the U.S. military war dead as part of an anti-war demonstration (Seattle, 2007).]]
[[File:27 Oct 2007 Seattle Demo - memorial 03.jpg|thumb|Combat boots arrayed in memory of the U.S. military war dead as part of an anti-war demonstration (Seattle, 2007).]]
{{See also|American popular opinion on invasion of Iraq}}
{{See also|American popular opinion on invasion of Iraq}}
Line 53: Line 59:
Since the invasion of Iraq, one of the most visible leaders of popular opposition in the U.S. has been [[Cindy Sheehan]], the mother of [[Casey Sheehan]], a soldier killed in Iraq. Sheehan's role as an anti-war leader began with her camping out near President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, and continued with a nationwide tour and trips to Europe and South America.
Since the invasion of Iraq, one of the most visible leaders of popular opposition in the U.S. has been [[Cindy Sheehan]], the mother of [[Casey Sheehan]], a soldier killed in Iraq. Sheehan's role as an anti-war leader began with her camping out near President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, and continued with a nationwide tour and trips to Europe and South America.


=== Opposition from national security and military personnel ===
===Opposition from national security and military personnel===
[[File:DCprotest.jpg|thumb|300px|[[Iraq Veterans Against the War]] demonstrate in [[Washington, D.C.]] on [[September 15]], [[2007]]. The [[Flag of the United States|U.S. flag]] is displayed upside-down, which under the [[United States Flag Code|flag code]] is a [[distress signal]].]]
[[File:DCprotest.jpg|thumb|300px|[[Iraq Veterans Against the War]] demonstrate in [[Washington, D.C.]] on September 15, 2007. The [[Flag of the United States|U.S. flag]] is displayed upside-down, which under the [[United States Flag Code|flag code]] is a [[distress signal]].]]
Several prominent members of the military and national security communities, particularly those who favor a more realist approach to international relations, have been critical of both the decision to invade Iraq and the prosecution of the War.
Several prominent members of the military and national security communities, particularly those who favor a more realist approach to international relations, have been critical of both the decision to invade Iraq and the prosecution of the War.


Line 71: Line 77:
By January 19, 2003, [[TIME Magazine]] reported that “as many as 1 in 3 senior officers questions the wisdom of a preemptive war with Iraq.”<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101030127/ Donald Rumsfeld, Pentagon Warlord] TIME Magazine, January 19, 2003</ref>
By January 19, 2003, [[TIME Magazine]] reported that “as many as 1 in 3 senior officers questions the wisdom of a preemptive war with Iraq.”<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101030127/ Donald Rumsfeld, Pentagon Warlord] TIME Magazine, January 19, 2003</ref>


On February 13, 2003 Ambassador [[Joseph C. Wilson|Joseph Wilson]], former [[charge d'affaires]] in Baghdad, resigned from the [[United States Foreign Service|Foreign Service]] and publicly questioned the need for another war in Iraq.<ref>Wilson, Joseph [http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030303/wilson Republic or Empire] [[The Nation]], February 13, 2003.</ref> After the War started, he wrote an editorial in the [[New York Times]] titled ''What I Didn't Find in Africa'' that claimed to discredit a Bush Administration claim that Iraq had attempted to procure uranium from Niger.<ref>Wilson, Joseph [http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/opinion/06WILS.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5007&en=6c6aeb1ce960dec0&ex=1372824000&partner=USERLAND What I Didn't Find in Africa] New York Times, July 6, 2003.</ref>
On February 13, 2003 Ambassador [[Joseph C. Wilson|Joseph Wilson]], former [[charge d'affaires]] in Baghdad, resigned from the [[United States Foreign Service|Foreign Service]] and publicly questioned the need for another war in Iraq.<ref>Wilson, Joseph [http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030303/wilson Republic or Empire] [[The Nation]], February 13, 2003.</ref> After the War started, he wrote an editorial in the [[New York Times]] titled ''What I Didn't Find in Africa'' that claimed to discredit the Bush Administration's finding that Iraq had attempted to procure uranium from Niger.<ref>Wilson, Joseph [http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/opinion/06WILS.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5007&en=6c6aeb1ce960dec0&ex=1372824000&partner=USERLAND What I Didn't Find in Africa] New York Times, July 6, 2003.</ref></ref> Although the haphazard work and dishonest claims of Wilson were eventually discredited <ref>{{cite web |http://articles.latimes.com/2005/nov/02/opinion/oe-boot2 |title="Plamegate's real liar" |publisher=latimes.com |date=2 November 2005}}</ref>, the ensuing inquiries ensnared the Bush Administration in the long-run Plamegate scandal which, although it turned out to have no basis, nevertheless enabled political opponents to assail the integrity of Bush cabinet members and distract them in their conduct of the War.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/31/AR2006083101460_pf.html |title='End of an Affair' |date=1 September 2006 |publisher=washingtonpost.com}}</ref>


[[Brady Kiesling|John Brady Kiesling]], another career diplomat with similar reservations, resigned in a public letter in the New York Times on February 27.<ref>Kiesling, John Brady [http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/27/international/27WEB-TNAT.html U.S. Diplomat's Letter of Resignation] New York Times, February 27, 2003.</ref> He was followed on March 10 by [[John H. Brown]], a career diplomat with 22 years of service,
[[Brady Kiesling|John Brady Kiesling]], another career diplomat with similar reservations, resigned in a public letter in the New York Times on February 27.<ref>Kiesling, John Brady [http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/27/international/27WEB-TNAT.html U.S. Diplomat's Letter of Resignation] New York Times, February 27, 2003.</ref> He was followed on March 10 by [[John H. Brown]], a career diplomat with 22 years of service,
Line 97: Line 103:
On September 12, 2007, two retired U.S. Army generals, Lt. Gen. Robert Gard and Brig. Gen. John Johns, joined former Sen. [[Gary Hart]] in publishing a statement calling for withdrawal from Iraq. Robert Gard is the Senior Military Fellow at the [[Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation]], John Johns is on the board of directors for the [[Council for a Livable World]], and Gary Hart is the Council's chairman.<ref>[http://www.clw.org/policy/iraq/resources/clippings/hart_gard_johns_call_iraq_withdrawal/index.html Senator Hart, General Gard, and General Johns Call For Iraq Withdrawal] Council for a Livable World (September 12, 2007)</ref>
On September 12, 2007, two retired U.S. Army generals, Lt. Gen. Robert Gard and Brig. Gen. John Johns, joined former Sen. [[Gary Hart]] in publishing a statement calling for withdrawal from Iraq. Robert Gard is the Senior Military Fellow at the [[Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation]], John Johns is on the board of directors for the [[Council for a Livable World]], and Gary Hart is the Council's chairman.<ref>[http://www.clw.org/policy/iraq/resources/clippings/hart_gard_johns_call_iraq_withdrawal/index.html Senator Hart, General Gard, and General Johns Call For Iraq Withdrawal] Council for a Livable World (September 12, 2007)</ref>


In October 2007, Lieutenant General [[Ricardo Sanchez]], former commander of coalition forces in Iraq, called the 2007 "surge" a "flawed strategy", and suggested that the political leadership in the US would have been court martialed for their actions, had they been military personnel.<ref>US general damns Iraq "nightmare" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7042805.stm</ref>
In October 2007, Lieutenant General [[Ricardo Sanchez]], former commander of coalition forces in Iraq, called the 2007 "surge" a "flawed strategy", and suggested that the political leadership in the US would have been court martialed for their actions, had they been military personnel.<ref>US general damns Iraq "nightmare" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7042805.stm</ref> Sanchez observed that the nation as a whole had failed to take the war seriously enough, and this reflects on the Republican leadership's decision to shield the American public from the reality of fighting remote wars, through their failure to ask the American people to go on a war footing to better support the troops: <blockquote>''"...When a nation goes to war it must bring to bear all elements of power in order to win. . . . [This] administration has failed to employ and synchronize its political, economic and military power . . . and they have definitely not communicated that reality to the American people..."'' <ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/dhenninger/?id=110010748 |title=Gen. Sanchez's Scream |date=2007-10-18 |publisher=opinionjournal.com}}</ref></blockquote>

===Opposition from agenda-driven US broadcast and print media===

Hardly reported, intentionally or otherwise, was that General Sanchez criticized the US media far more harshly for unethical, biased, and inaccurate reporting in Iraq, to the point of berating reporters: <blockquote>"It seems that as long as you get a front-page story there is little or no regard for the 'collateral damage' you will cause. Personal reputations have no value and you report with total impunity and are rarely held accountable for unethical conduct. . . . You assume that you are correct and on the moral high ground... ...The speculative and often uninformed initial reporting that characterizes our media appears to be rapidly becoming the standard of the industry... ...Tactically insignificant events have become strategic defeats... ...The death knell of your ethics has been enabled by your parent organizations who have chosen to align themselves with political agendas. What is clear to me is that you are perpetuating the corrosive partisan politics that is destroying our country and killing our service members who are at war..." <ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.cbc.ca/ombudsman/ombudsmanweb/11.htm |title=Review: Lack of coverage of Lieutenant General (Ret) Ricardo Sanchez’s criticism of the media. |date=2008-03-19 |publisher=cbc.ca}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://thevirtuousrepublic.com/C20070323174905/E20071013191803/index.html |title=Biased Reporting on the Speech Given by General Sanchez-How the Media Lied |accessdate=2007-10-13 |date=2007-10-13 |publisher=the virtuousrepublic.com}}</ref></blockquote>


===Opposition from soldiers===
===Opposition from soldiers===
There have been several individual refusals to ship (e.g., [[Pablo Paredes]], and 1st Lt. [[Ehren Watada]]) or to carry out missions (e.g. 343rd Quartermasters).<ref>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002064795_reluctant16.html</ref> Soon after the war began, 67% of surveyed US soldiers in Iraq told [[Stars and Stripes (newspaper)|Stars and Stripes]] that the invasion was worthwhile, though half described their units' morale as "low."<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32521-2003Oct15?language=printer</ref> A [[Zogby International|Zogby]] poll in March 2006 found that 72% of US soldiers in Iraq say the war should be ended within a year, and a quarter say that all troops should be withdrawn immediately.<ref>http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075</ref>
There have been several individual refusals to ship (e.g., [[Pablo Paredes]], and 1st Lt. [[Ehren Watada]]) or to carry out missions (e.g. 343rd Quartermasters).<ref>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002064795_reluctant16.html</ref> Soon after the war began, 67% of surveyed US soldiers in Iraq told [[Stars and Stripes (newspaper)|Stars and Stripes]] that the invasion was worthwhile, though half described their units' morale as "low."<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32521-2003Oct15?language=printer</ref> A [[Zogby International|Zogby]] poll in March 2006 found that 72% of US soldiers in Iraq say the war should be ended within a year, and a quarter say that all troops should be withdrawn immediately.<ref>http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075</ref>


[[Iraq Veterans Against the War]] (IVAW) was formed in 2004 to help antiwar soldiers network and seek solidarity from one another. IVAW held a [[Iraq Veterans Against the War#Winter Soldier 2008|Winter Soldier event]], from [[March 13]] through [[March 16]], [[2008]], in which U.S. veterans spoke of their experiences during the [[Iraq War]].<ref> Several allegations of misconduct were presented including war crimes[http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/11/30/5538/ "US War Vets to Speak Publicly About War Crimes"]</ref><ref>[http://www.ivaw.org/wintersoldier Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan] Iraq Veterans Against the War</ref> The [[Pacifica Radio|Pacifica Radio network]] is broadcasting the proceedings live,<ref>[http://warcomeshome.org/wintersoldier2008 "Pacifica Radio to Broadcast the Historic Winter Soldier Gathering"]</ref> and streaming audio and video of the event is also available.<ref>[http://ivaw.org/wintersoldier/howtowatch How to watch and listen to Winter Soldier]</ref>
[[Iraq Veterans Against the War]] (IVAW) was formed in 2004 to help antiwar soldiers network and seek solidarity from one another. IVAW held a [[Iraq Veterans Against the War#Winter Soldier 2008|Winter Soldier event]], from March 13 through March 16, 2008, in which U.S. veterans spoke of their experiences during the [[Iraq War]].<ref> Several allegations of misconduct were presented including war crimes[http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/11/30/5538/ "US War Vets to Speak Publicly About War Crimes"]</ref><ref>[http://www.ivaw.org/wintersoldier Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan] Iraq Veterans Against the War</ref> The [[Pacifica Radio|Pacifica Radio network]] is broadcasting the proceedings live,<ref>[http://warcomeshome.org/wintersoldier2008 "Pacifica Radio to Broadcast the Historic Winter Soldier Gathering"]</ref> and streaming audio and video of the event is also available.<ref>[http://ivaw.org/wintersoldier/howtowatch How to watch and listen to Winter Soldier]</ref>
[[John Bonifaz]] file a suit on behalf of 12 Congress membeers and various military families to try to stop the Iraq war.{{Citation needed|date=July 2009}}
[[John Bonifaz]] file a suit on behalf of 12 Congress membeers and various military families to try to stop the Iraq war.{{Citation needed|date=July 2009}}


Line 117: Line 127:
Congressional critics of the war have also opposed President Bush's plan to send an additional 20,000 U.S. soldiers to Iraq. On January 10, 2007, Senator [[Dick Durbin]] gave the Democratic response to this plan by saying: "We have given the Iraqis so much... Now, in the fourth year of this war, it is time for the Iraqis to stand and defend their own nation."<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/10/durbin.transcript/index.html?section=cnn_latest |title=Durbin: 'Time for President Bush to face the reality of Iraq' |publisher=CNN |date=January 10, 2007}}</ref>
Congressional critics of the war have also opposed President Bush's plan to send an additional 20,000 U.S. soldiers to Iraq. On January 10, 2007, Senator [[Dick Durbin]] gave the Democratic response to this plan by saying: "We have given the Iraqis so much... Now, in the fourth year of this war, it is time for the Iraqis to stand and defend their own nation."<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/10/durbin.transcript/index.html?section=cnn_latest |title=Durbin: 'Time for President Bush to face the reality of Iraq' |publisher=CNN |date=January 10, 2007}}</ref>


=== Opposition from presidential candidates ===
===Opposition from presidential candidates===


The Iraq War was the defining issue of the 2004 U.S. presidential campaign. All of the Republican candidates and most of the [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic]] candidates supported the war, although most of the Democrats also criticized the war's prosecution.
The Iraq War was the defining issue of the 2004 U.S. presidential campaign. All of the Republican candidates and most of the [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic]] candidates supported the war, although most of the Democrats also criticized the war's prosecution.
Line 126: Line 136:
[[John Kerry]], the Democratic nominee for [[U.S. presidential election, 2004|President in 2004]], voted to authorize the invasion, and said during his campaign that he stood by his vote. He also argued during the campaign that "the way he (President Bush) went to war was a mistake."<ref>Saletan, William. [http://www.slate.com/id/2105096/ "Would Kerry Vote Today for the Iraq War?"] Slate, Aug. 12, 2004. Retrieved April 17, 2007.</ref>
[[John Kerry]], the Democratic nominee for [[U.S. presidential election, 2004|President in 2004]], voted to authorize the invasion, and said during his campaign that he stood by his vote. He also argued during the campaign that "the way he (President Bush) went to war was a mistake."<ref>Saletan, William. [http://www.slate.com/id/2105096/ "Would Kerry Vote Today for the Iraq War?"] Slate, Aug. 12, 2004. Retrieved April 17, 2007.</ref>


In the [[2008 U.S. presidential campaign]], candidates Representative [[Ron Paul]], then-Senator [[Barack Obama]] (Now President of the United States), Senator [[Chris Dodd]], [[Hillary Clinton]], [[Dennis Kucinich]], and [[Mike Gravel]] were some of the most outspoken critics of the Iraq War. Ron Paul has said that "The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. This war has cost more than 3,000 American lives, thousands of seriously wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars."<ref>[http://www.kptv.com/politics/13791190/detail.html "On the Issues: Ron Paul."] KPTV.com, Jul. 31, 2007. Retrieved December 3, 2007.</ref> Barack Obama (who went on to win the election) was not a senator at the time of the voting of the Iraq War Resolution, but has repeatedly voiced his disapproval of it both before and during his senatorship, saying at an anti war rally in [[Chicago]] on [[October 2]], [[2002]]: "I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars." He also spoke of the "undetermined length... [[Financial cost of the Iraq War|undetermined cost]], [and] undetermined consequences" which even a successful war would bring.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php |title=Remarks of Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama Against Going to War with Iraq |date=2 October 2002 |publisher=BarackObama.com |accessdate=31 December 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.tnj.com/archives/2004/september2004/final_word.php |title=Wars of Reason, Wars of Principle - Setting the record straight |last=Obama |first=Barack |date=26 October 2002 |publisher=The Network Jounral |accessdate=31 December 2008}}</ref> Dodd voted in favor of the [[Iraq Resolution|Iraq War Resolution]] in 2002, but Dodd has since become an opponent of the war.<ref>[http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237 U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes for H.J.Res. 114]</ref> Dodd has said the Iraq War has been waged “for all the wrong reasons” and that it is eroding both the [[homeland security|nation's security]] and its moral leadership.<ref name=0526-AP>{{cite web
In the [[2008 U.S. presidential campaign]], candidates Representative [[Ron Paul]], then-Senator [[Barack Obama]] (Now President of the United States), Senator [[Chris Dodd]], [[Hillary Clinton]], [[Dennis Kucinich]], and [[Mike Gravel]] were some of the most outspoken critics of the Iraq War. Ron Paul has said that "The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. This war has cost more than 3,000 American lives, thousands of seriously wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars."<ref>[http://www.kptv.com/politics/13791190/detail.html "On the Issues: Ron Paul."] KPTV.com, Jul. 31, 2007. Retrieved December 3, 2007.</ref> Barack Obama (who went on to win the election) was not a senator at the time of the voting of the Iraq War Resolution, but has repeatedly voiced his disapproval of it both before and during his senatorship, saying at an anti war rally in [[Chicago]] on October 2, 2002: "I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars." He also spoke of the "undetermined length... [[Financial cost of the Iraq War|undetermined cost]], [and] undetermined consequences" which even a successful war would bring.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php |title=Remarks of Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama Against Going to War with Iraq |date=2 October 2002 |publisher=BarackObama.com |accessdate=31 December 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.tnj.com/archives/2004/september2004/final_word.php |title=Wars of Reason, Wars of Principle - Setting the record straight |last=Obama |first=Barack |date=26 October 2002 |publisher=The Network Jounral |accessdate=31 December 2008}}</ref> Dodd voted in favor of the [[Iraq Resolution|Iraq War Resolution]] in 2002, but Dodd has since become an opponent of the war.<ref>[http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237 U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes for H.J.Res. 114]</ref> Dodd has said the Iraq War has been waged “for all the wrong reasons” and that it is eroding both the [[homeland security|nation's security]] and its moral leadership.<ref name=0526-AP>{{cite web
|url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/05/26/politics/p183134D66.DTL&type=politics
|url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/05/26/politics/p183134D66.DTL&type=politics
|title=Sen. Dodd Calls For End To Iraq War
|title=Sen. Dodd Calls For End To Iraq War
Line 134: Line 144:
===Opposition from Lawyers Specializing in International Law===
===Opposition from Lawyers Specializing in International Law===


[[Benjamin B. Ferencz]] has suggested in an interview given on [[August 25]], [[2006]], that not only [[Saddam Hussein]] should be tried, but also [[George W. Bush]] because the [[Iraq War]] had been begun by the U.S. without permission by the [[UN Security Council]].<ref name="glantz">Glantz, A.: ''[http://us.oneworld.net/article/view/138319/1/ Bush and Saddam Should Both Stand Trial, Says Nuremberg Prosecutor]'', OneWorld U.S., [[August 25]], [[2006]]. URL last accessed [[2006-12-12]].</ref> [[Benjamin B. Ferencz]] wrote the [[foreword]] for Michael Haas's book, ''George W. Bush, War Criminal?: The Bush Administration's Liability for 269 War Crimes''.<ref>{{Cite book| last=Haas | first=Michael | year=2008 | title=George W. Bush, War Criminal?: The Bush Administration's Liability for 269 War Crimes | publisher=Greenwood Publishing Group | isbn= 0-313-36499-0 / 978-0-313-36499-0 }}
[[Benjamin B. Ferencz]] has suggested in an interview given on August 25, 2006, that not only [[Saddam Hussein]] should be tried, but also [[George W. Bush]] because the [[Iraq War]] had been begun by the U.S. without permission by the [[UN Security Council]].<ref name="glantz">Glantz, A.: ''[http://us.oneworld.net/article/view/138319/1/ Bush and Saddam Should Both Stand Trial, Says Nuremberg Prosecutor]'', OneWorld U.S., August 25, 2006. URL last accessed 2006-12-12.</ref> [[Benjamin B. Ferencz]] wrote the [[foreword]] for Michael Haas's book, ''George W. Bush, War Criminal?: The Bush Administration's Liability for 269 War Crimes''.<ref>{{Cite book| last=Haas | first=Michael | year=2008 | title=George W. Bush, War Criminal?: The Bush Administration's Liability for 269 War Crimes | publisher=Greenwood Publishing Group | isbn= 0-313-36499-0 / 978-0-313-36499-0 }}
</ref>
</ref>


Line 146: Line 156:
'Anti-Bush' and anti-war sentiments were reflected in many western European countries, generally with the populace less sympathetic to the U.S. stance even when the government in a given country (e.g. the [[United Kingdom]], or [[Italy]]) aligned themselves with the U.S. position. Opinion polls showed the population was against the war, with opposition as high as 90% in [[Spain]] and [[Italy]], and also widespread in Eastern Europe.<ref>http://www.cer.org.uk/pdf/back_brief_springford_dec03.pdf</ref> Some suggested that the reason for the EU's negative view of the war are Europe's economic interests in the region<ref>[http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/aug2002/iraq-a12.shtml German chancellor speaks against US war vs. Iraq<!--Bot-generated title-->]</ref>. However, the electorates of [[France]] and [[Germany]] were strongly opposed to the war and it would have been difficult for their governments to fail to reflect these views.
'Anti-Bush' and anti-war sentiments were reflected in many western European countries, generally with the populace less sympathetic to the U.S. stance even when the government in a given country (e.g. the [[United Kingdom]], or [[Italy]]) aligned themselves with the U.S. position. Opinion polls showed the population was against the war, with opposition as high as 90% in [[Spain]] and [[Italy]], and also widespread in Eastern Europe.<ref>http://www.cer.org.uk/pdf/back_brief_springford_dec03.pdf</ref> Some suggested that the reason for the EU's negative view of the war are Europe's economic interests in the region<ref>[http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/aug2002/iraq-a12.shtml German chancellor speaks against US war vs. Iraq<!--Bot-generated title-->]</ref>. However, the electorates of [[France]] and [[Germany]] were strongly opposed to the war and it would have been difficult for their governments to fail to reflect these views.


After the first UN resolution, the US and the UK pushed for a second resolution authorizing an invasion. The French and German governments, amongst others, took the position that the UN inspection process should be allowed to be completed. France's then-Foreign Minister, [[Dominique de Villepin]] received loud applause for his speech against the Iraq War at the United Nations on February 14, 2003. Neither of these countries have sent troops to Iraq. However, despite popular opinion in their countries, the governments of Italy and Spain supported the war politically and militarily, although Spain ceased to do so after the election of a [[Spanish Socialist Workers' Party|Socialist]] government in 2004.
After the first UN resolution, the US and the UK pushed for a second resolution authorizing an invasion. The French and German governments, amongst others, took the position that the UN inspection process should be allowed to be completed. France's then-Foreign Minister, [[Dominique de Villepin]] received loud applause for his speech against the Iraq War at the United Nations on February 14, 2003. Neither of these countries have sent troops to Iraq. However, despite popular opinion in their countries, the governments of Italy and Spain supported the war politically and militarily, although Spain ceased to do so after the election of a [[Spanish Socialist Workers' Party|Socialist]] government was brought about by the damage inflicted by the 2004 al-Qaeda bombings of Madrid, which were meant to intimidate the Spanish electorate into withdrawing support for the War.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6357599.stm |title=The legacy of the Madrid bombings |accessdate=15 February 2007 |publisher=bbc.co.uk |date=15 February 2007}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3511540.stm |title='Darkest hour' haunts Spain elections |accessdate=15 March 2004 |publisher=bbc.co.uk |date=15 March 2004 }}</ref>


In the United Kingdom, both the governing [[Labour Party (UK)|Labour Party]] and the official opposition [[Conservative Party (UK)|Conservative Party]] were in favour of the invasion. The [[Liberal Democrats]] insisted on a U.N. resolution; they opposed the war as a result. Outside parliament, anti-war sentiment was more widespread: the [[February 15, 2003 anti-war protest|15 February 2003 protest]] in London attracted between 750,000 and 2,000,000 supporters from various walks of life. Prominent politicians and other individuals expressing anti-war views included: [[Charles Kennedy]], [[Menzies Campbell]], [[Robin Cook]], [[Tony Benn]], [[George Galloway]], [[Chris Martin]], [[Ms. Dynamite]], and [[Bianca Jagger]]. Cook, a former [[Foreign Secretary]] and then [[Leader of the House of Commons]], resigned from the government two days before the start of the invasion, saying <blockquote>Our interests are best protected not by unilateral action but by multilateral agreement and a world order governed by rules. Yet tonight the international partnerships most important to us are weakened: the European Union is divided; the Security Council is in stalemate. Those are heavy casualties of a war in which a shot has yet to be fired.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2859431.stm |title=Cook's resignation speech |accessdate=15 November 2008 |publisher=BBC News |date=18 March 2003 }}</ref></blockquote>
In the United Kingdom, both the governing [[Labour Party (UK)|Labour Party]] and the official opposition [[Conservative Party (UK)|Conservative Party]] were in favour of the invasion. The [[Liberal Democrats]] insisted on a U.N. resolution; they opposed the war as a result. Outside parliament, anti-war sentiment was more widespread: the [[February 15, 2003 anti-war protest|15 February 2003 protest]] in London attracted between 750,000 and 2,000,000 supporters from various walks of life. Prominent politicians and other individuals expressing anti-war views included: [[Charles Kennedy]], [[Menzies Campbell]], [[Robin Cook]], [[Tony Benn]], [[George Galloway]], [[Chris Martin]], [[Ms. Dynamite]], [[Bianca Jagger]], and Baroness Thatcher. Cook, a former [[Foreign Secretary]] and then [[Leader of the House of Commons]], resigned from the government two days before the start of the invasion, saying <blockquote>Our interests are best protected not by unilateral action but by multilateral agreement and a world order governed by rules. Yet tonight the international partnerships most important to us are weakened: the European Union is divided; the Security Council is in stalemate. Those are heavy casualties of a war in which a shot has yet to be fired.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2859431.stm |title=Cook's resignation speech |accessdate=15 November 2008 |publisher=BBC News |date=18 March 2003 }}</ref></blockquote>
<!--Removed deleted image: [[File:Iraq war graffiti.jpg|thumb|right|Graffiti protesting about the invasion of Iraq in 2003 {{deletable image-caption|1=Wednesday, 1 August 2007}}]]-->
<!--Removed deleted image: [[File:Iraq war graffiti.jpg|thumb|right|Graffiti protesting about the invasion of Iraq in 2003 {{deletable image-caption|1=Wednesday, 1 August 2007}}]]-->


Former Spanish Prime Minister Aznar, a staunch supporter of both the Coalition/U.N. mission in Iraq from the start, has acknowledged that he had over-estimated the threat posed by Saddam Hussein: <blockquote>"The whole world thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and they didn't, I know that now. When I didn't know, no-one knew."</blockquote>
== Opposition throughout the world ==

==Opposition throughout the world==
{{See also|The UN Security Council and the Iraq war}}
{{See also|The UN Security Council and the Iraq war}}


[[File:Iraq protests before UK Parliament 501588 fh000036.jpg|thumb|Protests against the war, in front of the [[British Parliament]]]]
[[File:Iraq protests before UK Parliament 501588 fh000036.jpg|thumb|Protests against the war, in front of the [[British Parliament]]]]
[[File:Anti-war.jpg|thumb|[[Anti-war]] protests in France]]
[[File:Anti-war.jpg|thumb|[[Anti-war]] protests in France]]
Opinion polls showed that the population of nearly all countries opposed a war without UN mandate, and that the view of the United States as a danger to world peace had significantly increased.<ref>http://www.glocom.org/special_topics/social_trends/20030224_trends_s28</ref><ref>http://english.people.com.cn/200306/18/eng20030618_118439.shtml</ref><ref>http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/185.pdf</ref> UN [[Secretary-General of the United Nations|Secretary-General]] [[Kofi Annan]] described the war as illegal, saying in a September 2004 interview that it was "not in conformity with the Security Council."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661134.stm |title=Iraq war illegal, says Annan |accessdate=15 November 2008 |publisher=BBC News |date=16 September 2004}}</ref> Brazilian President [[Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva]] said that the invasion "disrespects the United Nations" and failed to take world opinion into account. <ref>[http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/3/19/211836.shtml Brazil: Iraq, U.S. Guilty of 'Disrespect'<!--Bot-generated title-->]</ref>
Opinion polls showed that the population of nearly all countries opposed a war without UN mandate, and that the view of the United States as a danger to world peace had significantly increased.<ref>http://www.glocom.org/special_topics/social_trends/20030224_trends_s28</ref><ref>http://english.people.com.cn/200306/18/eng20030618_118439.shtml</ref><ref>http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/185.pdf</ref> UN [[Secretary-General of the United Nations|Secretary-General]] [[Kofi Annan]] described the war as illegal, saying in a September 2004 interview that it was "not in conformity with the Security Council."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661134.stm |title=Iraq war illegal, says Annan |accessdate=15 November 2008 |publisher=BBC News |date=16 September 2004}}</ref> Brazilian President [[Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva]] said that the invasion "disrespects the United Nations" and failed to take world opinion into account.<ref>[http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/3/19/211836.shtml Brazil: Iraq, U.S. Guilty of 'Disrespect'<!--Bot-generated title-->]</ref>


[[Nelson Mandela]], former [[President of South Africa|President]] of [[South Africa]], called the US's attitude five months before the invasion a "threat to world peace". He said they were sending a message that "if you are afraid of a veto in the Security Council, you can go outside and take action and violate the sovereignty of other countries"; a message which "must be condemned in the strongest terms."<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2251067.stm "US threatens world peace, says Mandela"]. [[BBC News]]. September 11, 2002.</ref><ref>[http://www.ilaam.net/Opinions/USAThreat.html "Nelson Mandela: The U.S.A. Is a Threat to World Peace".] (full interview extracted from the August 28, 2002 issue of ''[[Newsweek]]'').</ref>
[[Nelson Mandela]], former [[President of South Africa|President]] of [[South Africa]], called the US's attitude five months before the invasion a "threat to world peace". He said they were sending a message that "if you are afraid of a veto in the Security Council, you can go outside and take action and violate the sovereignty of other countries"; a message which "must be condemned in the strongest terms."<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2251067.stm "US threatens world peace, says Mandela"]. [[BBC News]]. September 11, 2002.</ref><ref>[http://www.ilaam.net/Opinions/USAThreat.html "Nelson Mandela: The U.S.A. Is a Threat to World Peace".] (full interview extracted from the August 28, 2002 issue of ''[[Newsweek]]'').</ref>



== Religious opposition ==
==Religious opposition==
On [[September 13]], [[2002]], US Catholic bishops signed a letter to President Bush stating that any "preemptive, unilateral use of military force to overthrow the government of Iraq" could not be justified at the time. They came to this position by evaluating whether an attack against Iraq would satisfy the criteria for a [[just war]] as defined by Catholic theology.
On September 13, 2002, US Catholic bishops signed a letter to President Bush stating that any "preemptive, unilateral use of military force to overthrow the government of Iraq" could not be justified at the time. They came to this position by evaluating whether an attack against Iraq would satisfy the criteria for a [[just war]] as defined by Catholic theology.


US civil-rights leader the Reverend [[Jesse Jackson]] condemned the planned invasion, saying in February 2003 that it was not too late to stop the war and that people "must march until there is a declaration of peace and reconciliation."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/15/sprj.irq.protests.europe.quotes/ |title=Jackson: Not too late to stop war |accessdate=15 November 2008 |publisher=CNN |date=16 February 2003 }}</ref>
US civil-rights leader the Reverend [[Jesse Jackson]] condemned the planned invasion, saying in February 2003 that it was not too late to stop the war and that people "must march until there is a declaration of peace and reconciliation."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/15/sprj.irq.protests.europe.quotes/ |title=Jackson: Not too late to stop war |accessdate=15 November 2008 |publisher=CNN |date=16 February 2003 }}</ref>


The [[Holy See|Vatican]] also spoke out against war in Iraq. Archbishop [[Renato Raffaele Martino]], a former U.N. envoy and current prefect of the Council for Justice and Peace, told reporters that war against Iraq was a [[preventive war]] and constituted a "war of aggression", and thus did not constitute a just war. The foreign minister, Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran, expressed concerns that a war in Iraq would inflame anti-Christian feelings in the Islamic world. On February 8, 2003, [[Pope John Paul II]] said "we should never resign ourselves, almost as if war is inevitable."<ref>http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2193088</ref> He spoke out again on March 22 2003, shortly after the invasion began, saying that violence and arms "can never resolve the problems of man."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.cjd.org/paper/jp2war.html |title=Pope John Paul II calls War a Defeat for Humanity: Neoconservative Iraq Just War Theories Rejected |accessdate=15 November 2008 |publisher=Houston Catholic Worker |date=July-August 2003 |first=Mark |coauthors=Louise Zwick last=Zwick }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,80875,00.html |title=Vatican Strongly Opposes Iraq War |accessdate=15 November 2008 |publisher=Fox News |date=12 March 2003 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2605367.stm |title=Pope warns against Iraq war |accessdate=15 November 2008 |publisher=BBC News |date=25 December 2002 }}</ref>
The [[Holy See|Vatican]] also spoke out against war in Iraq. Archbishop [[Renato Raffaele Martino]], a former U.N. envoy and current prefect of the Council for Justice and Peace, told reporters that war against Iraq was a [[preventive war]] and constituted a "war of aggression", and thus did not constitute a just war. The foreign minister, Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran, expressed concerns that a war in Iraq would inflame anti-Christian feelings in the Islamic world. On February 8, 2003, [[Pope John Paul II]] said "we should never resign ourselves, almost as if war is inevitable."<ref>http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2193088</ref> He spoke out again on March 22, 2003, shortly after the invasion began, saying that violence and arms "can never resolve the problems of man."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.cjd.org/paper/jp2war.html |title=Pope John Paul II calls War a Defeat for Humanity: Neoconservative Iraq Just War Theories Rejected |accessdate=15 November 2008 |publisher=Houston Catholic Worker |date=July-August 2003 |first=Mark |coauthors=Louise Zwick last=Zwick }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,80875,00.html |title=Vatican Strongly Opposes Iraq War |accessdate=15 November 2008 |publisher=Fox News |date=12 March 2003 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2605367.stm |title=Pope warns against Iraq war |accessdate=15 November 2008 |publisher=BBC News |date=25 December 2002 }}</ref>


Both the outgoing [[Archbishop of Canterbury]], [[George Carey]], and his successor, [[Rowan Williams]], spoke out against war with Iraq.
Both the outgoing [[Archbishop of Canterbury]], [[George Carey]], and his successor, [[Rowan Williams]], spoke out against war with Iraq.
Line 171: Line 184:
The executive committee of the [[World Council of Churches]], an organization representing churches with a combined membership of between 350 million and 450 million Christians from over 100 countries,<ref>http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/who/index-e.html</ref> issued a statement in opposition to war with Iraq, stating that "War against Iraq would be immoral, unwise, and in breach of the principles of the United Nations Charter."<ref>http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/international/exco03-iraq.html</ref>
The executive committee of the [[World Council of Churches]], an organization representing churches with a combined membership of between 350 million and 450 million Christians from over 100 countries,<ref>http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/who/index-e.html</ref> issued a statement in opposition to war with Iraq, stating that "War against Iraq would be immoral, unwise, and in breach of the principles of the United Nations Charter."<ref>http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/international/exco03-iraq.html</ref>


[[Jim Wallis]] of ''[[Sojourners Magazine]]'' has argued that, among both [[evangelicalism|evangelical Christians]] and [[Catholic]]s, "most major church bodies around the world" opposed the war.<ref>[http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2006/s1615247.htm Transcript of interview] broadcast by the [[Australian Broadcasting Corporation]] on [[December 4]], [[2006]]</ref>
[[Jim Wallis]] of ''[[Sojourners Magazine]]'' has argued that, among both [[evangelicalism|evangelical Christians]] and [[Catholic]]s, "most major church bodies around the world" opposed the war.<ref>[http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2006/s1615247.htm Transcript of interview] broadcast by the [[Australian Broadcasting Corporation]] on December 4, 2006</ref>


== Protests against war on Iraq ==
==Protests against war on Iraq==
{{Main|Protests against the Iraq war}}
{{Main|Protests against the Iraq war}}


Across the world popular opposition to the Iraq war has led to thousands of protests since 2002, against the invasion of Iraq. They were held in many cities worldwide, often co-ordinated to occur simultaneously worldwide. After the [[February 15, 2003 anti-war protest|simultaneous demonstrations, on February 15, 2003]], the largest in total turnout, ''[[New York Times]]'' writer Patrick Tyler claimed that they showed that there were [[Second Superpower|two superpowers]] on the planet: the [[United States]] and world public opinion. As the war drew nearer, other groups held candlelight vigils and students walked out of school.
Across the world popular opposition to the Iraq war has led to thousands of protests against the War in Iraq. They were held in many cities worldwide, often co-ordinated to occur simultaneously worldwide. After the [[February 15, 2003 anti-war protest|simultaneous demonstrations, on February 15, 2003]], the largest in total turnout, ''[[New York Times]]'' writer Patrick Tyler claimed that they showed that there were [[Second Superpower|two superpowers]] on the planet: the [[United States]] and world public opinion. As the war drew nearer, other groups held candlelight vigils and students walked out of school.


The [[February 15]], [[2003]], worldwide protests drew millions of people across the world. It is generally estimated that over 3 million people marched in [[Rome]], between one and two million in [[London]], more than 600,000 in [[Madrid]], 300,000 in Berlin, as well as in [[Damascus]], [[Paris]], [[New York]], [[Oslo]], [[Stockholm]], [[Brussels]], [[Johannesburg]], [[Montreal]] - more than 600 cities in all, worldwide. This demonstration was listed by the 2004 ''[[Guinness World Records|Guinness Book of Records]]'' as the largest mass protest movement in history.
The February 15, 2003, worldwide protests drew millions of people across the world. It is generally estimated that over 3 million people marched in [[Rome]], between one and two million in [[London]], more than 600,000 in [[Madrid]], 300,000 in Berlin, as well as in [[Damascus]], [[Paris]], [[New York]], [[Oslo]], [[Stockholm]], [[Brussels]], [[Johannesburg]], [[Montreal]] - more than 600 cities in all, worldwide. This demonstration was listed by the 2004 ''[[Guinness World Records|Guinness Book of Records]]'' as the largest mass protest movement in history.


== Support for Iraqi resistance and insurgency ==
==Support for Iraqi resistance and insurgency==
There has been a debate among those opposed to the U.S. invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq in developed countries about how to relate to forces within Iraq.
There has been a debate among those opposed to the U.S. invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq in developed countries about how to relate to forces within Iraq.


Prior to the invasion, while it was common to accuse opponents of providing objective, if not intentional, support to Saddam,<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0226/p11s02-coop.html</ref><ref>http://instapundit.com/archives/006056.php</ref> none of the major antiwar organizations declared any support for him, however limited.<ref>http://www.icl-fi.org/english/leaflets/oldsite/2003/SLB-800.HTM</ref> After the invasion and the toppling of Saddam's regime, some who had opposed it now supported continuing U.S. occupation, arguing that the U.S.'s intervention had given it an obligation to stabilize the country. However, those who remained opposed to the U.S. presence had to determine their approach to the developing armed [[Iraqi insurgency|insurgency]] and peaceful opposition to the occupation carried out by groups like the [[Worker-Communist Party of Iraq]] (WCPI).
Prior to the invasion, while it was common to accuse opponents of providing objective, if not intentional, support to Saddam,<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0226/p11s02-coop.html</ref><ref>http://instapundit.com/archives/006056.php</ref> none of the major antiwar organizations declared any support for him, however limited.<ref>http://www.icl-fi.org/english/leaflets/oldsite/2003/SLB-800.HTM</ref> After the invasion and the toppling of Saddam's regime, some who had opposed it now supported continuing U.S. occupation, arguing that the U.S.'s intervention had given it an obligation to stabilize the country. However, those who remained opposed to the U.S. presence had to determine their approach to the developing armed [[Iraqi insurgency|insurgency]] and peaceful opposition to the occupation carried out by groups like the [[Worker-Communist Party of Iraq]] (WCPI).


During the early period of the insurgency, at a 2004 conference in Japan, Eric Ruder, of the U.S.-based [[International Socialist Organization]], presented a case for supporting the guerrillas. Citing the primarily decentralized and domestic nature of the insurgency,<ref>http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=2241</ref> the fact that a clear majority of the attacks then were directed against U.S. and British forces (in the later years most insurgent attacks are directed at Iraqi forces and in particular Iraqi civilians),<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2135859/sidebar/2135843/</ref> and widespread Iraqi support for violent resistance in the early years,<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml</ref> Ruder argues that the insurgents' cause and methods are, on the whole, just and deserve support. He claims that the Iraqi right to [[self-determination]] precludes Western opponents of the occupation placing conditions on their support of the Iraqi resistance, and argues that "If the Iraqi resistance drives the U.S. out of Iraq, it would be a major setback for [[George W. Bush|Bush]]'s agenda and the agenda of the [[American Empire (term)|U.S. imperialism]]. This would be a tremendous victory for our side{{ndash}} making it much more difficult for the U.S. to choose a new target in the Middle East or elsewhere in trying to impose its will."<ref name="mdsweb.jp">http://www.mdsweb.jp/international/magazine/r56/i_r56t1.html</ref>
The most virulent divide has been about whether to support the insurgency. Of the major Western antiwar organizations, [[United for Peace and Justice]] has never supported the insurgency, but [[Act Now to Stop War and End Racism]] and the [[Stop the War Coalition]] have a more ambivalent stance on this subject. Of the smaller groups which participate in these coalitions, none support [[suicide bombings]] of Iraqi civilians, but some support violence against [[Multinational force in Iraq|coalition soldiers]].


[[Sato Kazuyoshi]], President of the Japanese [[Movement for Democratic Socialism]], argued otherwise. Reporting on the discussion at the 2004 conference, he wrote that, "We cannot support, nor extend our solidarity to, them on the grounds that their strategy excludes many Iraqi citizens{{ndash}} above all, women{{ndash}} and do great harm on the civilians, and will bring the Iraqi future society under an Islamic dictatorship."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3812411.stm |title="Evolving tactics of Islamic militants" |publisher=bbc.co.uk |date=21 July 2004}}</ref> He cited in turn [[Mahmood Ketabchi]] of the WCPI, who criticized Iraqi guerrilla groups for [[Baathist]] and [[Islamist]] connections, and attacked Ruder's view as a "[[Left-wing politics|Left]] [[Nationalism]]" which ignored divisions within Iraq. Countering the response that the best way to ensure that progressive forces, not reactionary ones, would dominate post-occupation Iraq would be for progressives to have taken the lead in "fighting" the occupation, Ketabchi argued that this was not possible due to situation then prevailing in Iraq. Nevertheless, he claimed, "We do not have to choose between the US and Iraqi reactionary forces. Opposition to the US is not a progressive stand per se. What matters is the kind of future that this opposition represents and objectives it pursues." A third alternative was represented by what Kazuyoshi calls the "[[civil society|Civil]] Resistance."<ref name="mdsweb.jp"/>
At a 2004 conference in Japan, Eric Ruder, of the U.S.-based [[International Socialist Organization]], presented a case for supporting the guerrillas. Citing the primarily decentralized and domestic nature of the insurgency,<ref>http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=2241</ref> the fact that a clear majority of attacks are directed against U.S. and British forces,<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2135859/sidebar/2135843/</ref> and widespread Iraqi support for violent resistance,<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml</ref> Ruder argues that the insurgents' cause and methods are, on the whole, just and deserve support. He claims that the Iraqi right to [[self-determination]] precludes Western opponents of the occupation placing conditions on their support of the Iraqi resistance, and argues that "If the Iraqi resistance drives the U.S. out of Iraq, it would be a major setback for [[George W. Bush|Bush]]'s agenda and the agenda of the [[American Empire (term)|U.S. imperialism]]. This would be a tremendous victory for our side{{ndash}} making it much more difficult for the U.S. to choose a new target in the Middle East or elsewhere in trying to impose its will."<ref name="mdsweb.jp">http://www.mdsweb.jp/international/magazine/r56/i_r56t1.html</ref>


In Britain, positions ranged from groups including the [[Socialist Workers Party (Britain)]] and [[Workers Power]] that took a similar line to the ISO as mentioned above, to groups such as the [[Alliance for Workers Liberty]] (who identified with the [[third camp]] tradition within [[Trotskyism]]) which opposed the insurgency, while supporting the democratic, working-class anti-occupation movement in Iraq.
[[Sato Kazuyoshi]], President of the Japanese [[Movement for Democratic Socialism]], argues otherwise. Reporting on the discussion at the 2004 conference, he writes that, "We cannot support, nor extend our solidarity to, them on the grounds that their strategy excludes many Iraqi citizens{{ndash}} above all, women{{ndash}} and do great harm on the civilians, and will bring the Iraqi future society under an Islamic dictatorship." He cites in turn [[Mahmood Ketabchi]] of the WCPI, who criticizes Iraqi guerrilla groups for [[Baathist]] and [[Islamist]] connections, and attacks Ruder's view as a "[[Left-wing politics|Left]] [[Nationalism]]" which ignores divisions within Iraq. Countering the response that the best way to ensure that progressive forces, not reactionary ones, dominate post-occupation Iraq would be for progressives to take the lead in fighting the occupation, Ketabchi argues that this is not possible due to the present situation in Iraq. Nevertheless, he claims, "We do not have to choose between the US and Iraqi reactionary forces. Opposition to the US is not a progressive stand per se. What matters is the kind of future that this opposition represents and objectives it pursues." A third alternative is represented by what Kazuyoshi calls the "[[civil society|Civil]] Resistance."<ref name="mdsweb.jp"/>


There is still disagreement within the [[anti-war movement]] as to whether the cause of armed [[Iraqi insurgency|insurgents within Iraq]] was a worthy one for which they can express solidarity.
In Britain, positions have ranged from groups including the [[Socialist Workers Party (Britain)]] and [[Workers Power]] that take a similar line to the ISO as mentioned above, to groups such as the [[Alliance for Workers Liberty]] (who identify with the [[third camp]] tradition within [[Trotskyism]]) which opposes the insurgency, while supporting the democratic, working-class anti-occupation movement in Iraq.

As the criminal behavior of many insurgents became more pronounced over the years <ref>{{cite web |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4714601.stm |title="Iraqi insurgents 'war criminals'" |publisher=bbc.co.uk |date=25 july 2005}}</ref>, the world publics have joined with the Iraqi majority in their condemnation and rejection of the unpalatable aims and brutal methods of many insurgents, in particular the predatory practices of al-Qaeda militants in Iraq <ref>{{cite web |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3528905.stm |title="Press horror at Iraqi massacres" |publisher=bbc.co.uk |date=3 March 2004}}</ref>, a historical pattern repeated in many Muslim nations from the 1980s onwards.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6914959.stm |title="Fewer Muslims 'support bombings'" |publisher=bbc.co.uk |date=25 july 2007}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_18_59/ai_n27386002/pg_2/?tag=content;col1%29. |title="A matter of pride: anthropological discernment in our current conflict" |publisher=national review |date=8 October 2007}}</ref> The international consensus that much of the insurgency behaves criminally in attitudes and tactics in their indiscriminate, yet deliberate targeting of even Iraqi civilians in terror bomb attacks, assassinations, and kidnappings, has come to dispell much of the support they once enjoyed among the world public, even in Muslim nations.


==Official condemnation==
==Official condemnation==
Line 210: Line 225:
* {{flag|Belgium}}<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jun/13/nato.warcrimes|title=US threatens Nato boycott over Belgian war crimes law |accessdate=17 November 2008 |publisher=The Guardian}}</ref>
* {{flag|Belgium}}<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jun/13/nato.warcrimes|title=US threatens Nato boycott over Belgian war crimes law |accessdate=17 November 2008 |publisher=The Guardian}}</ref>
* {{flag|Brazil}}<ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/3/19/211836.shtml "Brazil: U.S. Guilty of 'Disrespect'"]. NewsMax.com. March 20, 2003.</ref>
* {{flag|Brazil}}<ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/3/19/211836.shtml "Brazil: U.S. Guilty of 'Disrespect'"]. NewsMax.com. March 20, 2003.</ref>
* {{flag|Canada}}<ref>[http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2003/03/18/chretieniraq030318.html "Chrétien restates opposition to Iraq war"]. [[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation|CBC]]. [[March 18]] [[2003]]</ref>
* {{flag|Canada}}<ref>[http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2003/03/18/chretieniraq030318.html "Chrétien restates opposition to Iraq war"]. [[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation|CBC]]. March 18, 2003</ref>
* {{flag|Chile}}<ref name="autogenerated1">[http://www.terra.com/noticias/articulo/html/act137726.htm "México y Chile más inmunes ante presión EE.UU. por Iraq"]. Terra (from Reuters). March 10, 2003.</ref>
* {{flag|Chile}}<ref name="autogenerated1">[http://www.terra.com/noticias/articulo/html/act137726.htm "México y Chile más inmunes ante presión EE.UU. por Iraq"]. Terra (from Reuters). March 10, 2003.</ref>
* {{flag|China}}<ref>[http://www.thestar.com/News/article/189632 "China condemns U.S. for Iraq war"]. TheStar.com (from Associated Press). March 7, 2007.</ref>
* {{flag|China}}<ref>[http://www.thestar.com/News/article/189632 "China condemns U.S. for Iraq war"]. TheStar.com (from Associated Press). March 7, 2007.</ref>
Line 242: Line 257:


==Quotations==
==Quotations==
*"The attacks of September 11, 2001, show what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states ''could do with weapons of mass destruction''" {{ndash}} Former United States President, [[George W. Bush]] ([[March]], [[2003]]) <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7297592.stm ''Iraq key players, then and now ], bbc.co.uk, 14 March 2008</ref>

*"Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein's government, then what are you going to put in its place? That's a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off: part of it, the Syrians would like to have to the west, part of it{{ndash}} eastern Iraq{{ndash}} the Iranians would like to claim, they fought over it for eight years. In the north you've got the Kurds, and if the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey. It's a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq."{{ndash}} Former United States Secretary of Defense, [[Dick Cheney]] (April 15, 1994)<ref>http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/08/13/dick-cheney-explains-why-the-us-shouldnt-invade-iraq-in-1994-quagmire/</ref>


*"The option of war can appear initially to be the most rapid. But let us not forget that after winning the war, peace must be built."{{ndash}} [[Dominique de Villepin]], French Foreign Minister, at the [[United Nations Security Council]] on February 14, 2003<ref>http://www.ambafrance-il.org/diplomatie/archive.php?rub=1&periode=2003-02#</ref>
*"Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein's government, then what are you going to put in its place? That's a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off: part of it, the Syrians would like to have to the west, part of it{{ndash}} eastern Iraq{{ndash}} the Iranians would like to claim, they fought over it for eight years. In the north you've got the Kurds, and if the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey. It's a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq."{{ndash}} Former United States Secretary of Defense, [[Dick Cheney]] ([[April 15]], [[1994]])<ref>http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/08/13/dick-cheney-explains-why-the-us-shouldnt-invade-iraq-in-1994-quagmire/</ref>


*"To a certain extent Saddam Hussein's departure was a positive thing. But it also provoked reactions, such as the mobilization in a number of countries, of men and women of Islam, which has made the world more dangerous."{{ndash}} French President [[Jacques Chirac]], November 17, 2004<ref>{{cite web |url = http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/nov/17/france.iraq |title = Chirac: Iraq war has made world more dangerous |date = 17 November 2004 |accessdate = 12 December 2008 |publisher = The Guardian}}</ref>
*"The option of war can appear initially to be the most rapid. But let us not forget that after winning the war, peace must be built."{{ndash}} [[Dominique de Villepin]], French Foreign Minister, at the [[United Nations Security Council]] on [[February 14]] [[2003]]<ref>http://www.ambafrance-il.org/diplomatie/archive.php?rub=1&periode=2003-02#</ref>


*"Make no mistake about it, the ultimate aim that the Bush and Blair regimes have embarked upon is nothing less than "universal or world domination". Iraq is merely a stepping stone along the way."{{ndash}} [[David Comissiong]] (Barbadian Politician)<ref name=comusa>[http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/HL4invaders.html ''Rome, Hitler And Bush - Facing Reality], Barbados Daily Nation, 24 March 2003</ref>
*"To a certain extent Saddam Hussein's departure was a positive thing. But it also provoked reactions, such as the mobilization in a number of countries, of men and women of Islam, which has made the world more dangerous."{{ndash}} French President [[Jacques Chirac]], [[November 17]], [[2004]]<ref>{{cite web |url = http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/nov/17/france.iraq |title = Chirac: Iraq war has made world more dangerous |date = 17 November 2004 |accessdate = 12 December 2008 |publisher = The Guardian}}</ref>


*"The problem we face is that before the war, not only did the U.S. administration and U.S. intelligence, but the French, British, Germans and the U.N. all thought Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Not discovering them tells us we've got a more fundamental problem... ...In fact, I think at the end of the inspection process, we'll paint a picture of an Iraq that was far more dangerous than even we thought it was before the war. It was of a system collapsing. It was a country that had the capability in weapons-of-mass-destruction areas and in which terrorists, like ants to honey, were going after it."{{ndash}} [[David Kay]], [[Iraq Survey Group]] Chief Weapons Inspector, in testimony before the [[Senate Armed Services Committee]] on January 29, 2004 <ref>{{cite web |url = http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2004/01/iraq-040129-afps01.htm |title = Iraq May Have Been 'Far More Dangerous' Than Believed, Kay Tells |date = 29 January 2004 |accessdate = 29 January 2004 |publisher = globalsecurity.org}}</ref>
*"Make no mistake about it, the ultimate aim that the Bush and Blair regimes have embarked upon is nothing less than "universal or world domination". Iraq is merely a stepping stone along the way."{{ndash}} [[David Comissiong]] (Barbadian Politician)<ref name=comusa>[http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/HL4invaders.html ''Rome, Hitler And Bush - Facing Reality], Barbados Daily Nation, 24 March 2003 </ref>


== See also ==
==See also==
{{portal|Iraq War|Flag_of Iraq.svg}}
{{portal|Iraq War|Flag_of Iraq.svg}}
*[[2003 invasion of Iraq]]
*[[2003 invasion of Iraq]]
Line 275: Line 293:
*[[Oil price increases since 2003]]
*[[Oil price increases since 2003]]


==Notes and References==
==Notes and references==
{{reflist|2}}
{{reflist|2}}


== External links ==
==External links==
{{wikiquote|Iraq War}}
{{wikiquote|Iraq War}}
===Websites opposing the Iraq war===
===Websites opposing the Iraq war===

Revision as of 19:51, 15 December 2009

February 15, 2003: A woman raises her fist in solidarity with the 6,000,000 to 10,000,000 people in over 60 countries who took to the streets in opposition to the imminent invasion of Iraq.

There was significant opposition to the Iraq War across the world, both before and during the initial 2003 invasion of Iraq by the United States, the United Kingdom and smaller contingents from other nations, and throughout the subsequent occupation. People and groups opposed to the war included the governments of many nations which were not part of the invasion, and significant sections of the populace in those which did.

Rationales for opposition included the belief that the war is illegal according to the United Nations Charter, or would contribute to instability both within Iraq and the wider Middle East. Critics also questioned the validity of the war's stated objectives, such as a supposed link between the country's Ba'athist government and the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States and its possession of weapons of mass destruction "certified" by the Niger uranium forgeries. The latter was claimed by the United States during the run-up to the war, but no such weapons have since been found. The other rationales, ridding Iraq of terrorist groups and their influence, liberating its people from Saddam Hussein's neototalitarian regime, as well instituting democracy in the heartland of militant Arab Islamism[citation needed], were much less opposed likely due to their appeal to modernity and freedom.

Within the United States, popular opinion on the war has varied significantly with time. Although there was significant opposition to the idea in the months preceding the attack, polls taken during the invasion showed that a majority of Americans supported their country's action. However, public opinion had shifted by 2004 to a majority believing that the invasion was a mistake, and has remained so since then.

There has also been significant criticism of the war from American politicians and national security and military personnel, including Generals who served in the war and have since spoken out against its handling. Although widespread sentiment for ending the war ensured public support for stabilizing Iraq during the 2006-2007 Surge operation, the strategy was opposed by officials worried about the strains the massive redeployments would put on army force availability.

Worldwide, the war and occupation have been officially condemned by 54 countries and the heads of many major religions. In contrast, international organizations like the U.N. have announced that the liberation of Iraqi people from Saddam's totalitarian regime which "...preyed on the Iraqi people and committed shocking, systematic and criminal violations of human rights...".[1] is a commendable outcome apart from the Coalition's other aims for the invasion. Popular anti-war feeling partly driven by opposition to U.S. standing and behavior in world affairs is strong in many countries, including America's allies in the conflict, and many have experienced huge protests totaling some millions of participants.

Early opposition

The opposition to the war manifested itself most visibly in a series of global protests against the Iraq War during February 2003, just before the Iraq invasion commenced on March 20, 2003.

"Poll results available from Gallup International, as well as local sources for most of Europe, West and East, showed that support for a war carried out "unilaterally by America and its allies" did not rise above 11 percent in any country. Support for a war if mandated by the UN ranged from 13 percent (Spain) to 51 percent (Netherlands)."[2]


Body of opposition, and the historical outcome

Organized opposition in support of regime continuation

Reasons for opposition

Benjamin B. Ferencz, who served as the U.S.'s Chief Prosecutor of Nazi war crimes at the Nuremberg Trials following World War II and devoted his later life to instituting non-sovereign international courts of law, has denounced the Iraq War as an aggressive war (named at Nuremberg as "the supreme international crime") and stated his belief that George W. Bush, as the war's "initiator", should be tried for war crimes.[3]

Some expressed puzzlement that the United States would consider military action against Iraq and not against North Korea, which claimed it already had nuclear weapons and had announced that it was willing to contemplate war with the United States. This criticism intensified when North Korea reportedly conducted a nuclear weapons test on October 9, 2006.

Both inside and outside of the U.S., some argued that the Bush Administration's rationale for war was to gain control over Iraqi natural resources (primarily petroleum). These critics felt that the war would not help to reduce the threat of WMD proliferation, and that the real reason for the war was to secure control over the Iraqi oil fields at a time when US links with Saudi Arabia were seen to be at risk. "No blood for oil" was a popular protest cry prior to the invasion in March 2003. The other criticism is that the War would initially decrease oil availability due to massive uncertainty introduced into the markets, leading to a short-term increase in oil futures. The second occurred historically as Iraq did not lose ownership or control of its oil reserves to any agency or firm from any of the Coalition countries and in fact garnered windfall profits until markets deflated in 2008, although newer oil concessions do favor U.S. and U.K. firms.[4]

Some opponents of the war also believed that there would be no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and thus there was little reason for an invasion. Prominent among these was Scott Ritter, a former U.S. military intelligence officer and then a United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq, and who in 1998 had been hawkish enough toward Iraq as to be admonished by U.S. Senator Joe Biden, "The decision of whether or not the country should go to war is slightly above your pay grade." Investigations after the invasion failed to produce evidence of WMDs in Iraq (apart from a very small number of degraded chemical weapons shells located after the Iran–Iraq War ended in 1988).

Opposition in the United States

Popular opposition

Combat boots arrayed in memory of the U.S. military war dead as part of an anti-war demonstration (Seattle, 2007).

The Iraq War has met with considerable popular opposition in the United States, beginning during the planning stages and continuing through the invasion subsequent occupation of Iraq. The months leading up to the war saw protests across the United States, the largest of which, held on February 15, 2003 involved between 300,000 - 400,000 protesters in New York City, with smaller numbers protesting in Seattle, San Francisco, Chicago, and other cities.

Consistent with the anti-war sentiment of the protests, in the months leading up to the Iraq War, American public opinion heavily favored a diplomatic solution over immediate military intervention. A January 2003 CBS News/New York Times poll found that 63% of Americans wanted President Bush to find a diplomatic solution to the Iraq situation, compared with 31% who favored immediate military intervention. That poll also found, however, that if diplomacy failed, support for military action to remove Saddam Hussein was above 60 percent.[5]

Days before the March 20 invasion, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll found support for the war was related to UN approval. Nearly six in 10 said they were ready for such an invasion "in the next week or two." But that support dropped off if the U.N. backing was not first obtained. If the U.N. Security Council were to reject a resolution paving the way for military action, only 54% of Americans favored a U.S. invasion. And if the Bush administration did not seek a final Security Council vote, support for a war dropped to 47%.[6]

Immediately after the 2003 invasion most polls within the United States showed a substantial majority of Americans supporting war, but that trend began to shift less than a year after the war began. Beginning in December 2004, polls have consistently shown that a majority thinks the invasion was a mistake. As of 2006, opinion on what the U.S. should do in Iraq is split, with a slight majority generally favoring setting a timetable for withdrawal, but against withdrawing immediately. However, in this area responses vary widely with the exact wording of the question.[7]

Since the invasion of Iraq, one of the most visible leaders of popular opposition in the U.S. has been Cindy Sheehan, the mother of Casey Sheehan, a soldier killed in Iraq. Sheehan's role as an anti-war leader began with her camping out near President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, and continued with a nationwide tour and trips to Europe and South America.

Opposition from national security and military personnel

Iraq Veterans Against the War demonstrate in Washington, D.C. on September 15, 2007. The U.S. flag is displayed upside-down, which under the flag code is a distress signal.

Several prominent members of the military and national security communities, particularly those who favor a more realist approach to international relations, have been critical of both the decision to invade Iraq and the prosecution of the War.

On July 28, 2002, eight months before the invasion of Iraq, the Washington Post reported that “many senior U.S. military officers” including members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff opposed an invasion on the grounds that the policy of containment was working.[8]

A few days later, Gen. Joseph P. Hoar (Ret.) warned the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the invasion was risky and perhaps unnecessary.

Morton Halperin, a foreign policy expert with the Council on Foreign Relations and Center for American Progress warned that an invasion would increase the terrorist threat.[9]

In a 2002 book, Scott Ritter, a Nuclear Weapons Inspector in Iraq from 1991-98, argued against an invasion and expressed doubts about the Bush Administration’s claims that Saddam Hussein had a WMD capability.[10]

Brent Scowcroft, who served as National Security Adviser to President George H.W. Bush was an early critic. He wrote an August 15, 2002 editorial in The Wall Street Journal entitled "Don't attack Saddam," arguing that the war would distract from the broader fight against terrorism and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which should be the U.S.'s highest priority in the Middle East.[11] The next month, Gen. Hugh Shelton, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, agreed that war in Iraq would distract from the War on Terrorism.[12]

Retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, former head of Central Command for U.S. forces in the Middle East and State Department's envoy to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, echoed many of Scowcroft's concerns in an October 2002 speech at the Middle East Institute. In a follow-up interview with Salon, Zinni said he was "not convinced we need to do this now," arguing that deposing Saddam Hussein was only the sixth or seventh top priority in the Middle East, behind the Middle East peace process, reforming Iran, our commitments in Afghanistan, and several others.[13]

By January 19, 2003, TIME Magazine reported that “as many as 1 in 3 senior officers questions the wisdom of a preemptive war with Iraq.”[14]

On February 13, 2003 Ambassador Joseph Wilson, former charge d'affaires in Baghdad, resigned from the Foreign Service and publicly questioned the need for another war in Iraq.[15] After the War started, he wrote an editorial in the New York Times titled What I Didn't Find in Africa that claimed to discredit the Bush Administration's finding that Iraq had attempted to procure uranium from Niger.[16]</ref> Although the haphazard work and dishonest claims of Wilson were eventually discredited [17], the ensuing inquiries ensnared the Bush Administration in the long-run Plamegate scandal which, although it turned out to have no basis, nevertheless enabled political opponents to assail the integrity of Bush cabinet members and distract them in their conduct of the War.[18]

John Brady Kiesling, another career diplomat with similar reservations, resigned in a public letter in the New York Times on February 27.[19] He was followed on March 10 by John H. Brown, a career diplomat with 22 years of service, [20] and on March 19 by Mary Ann Wright, a diplomat with 15 years of service in the State Department following a military career of 29 years.[21] The war started the next day.

Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski (Ret.) was political/military desk officer at the Defense Department’s office for Near East South Asia (NESA) in the months before the war. In December 2003 she began to write an anonymous column that described the disrupting influence of the Office of Special Plans on the analysis that led to the decision to go to war.[22]

On June 16, 2004 twenty seven former senior U.S. diplomats and military commanders called Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change issued a statement against the war.[23] The group included:

Richard Clarke, former chief counter-terrorism adviser on the National Security Council for both the latter part of the Clinton Administration and early part of the George W. Bush Administration, criticized the Iraq war along similar lines in his 2004 book Against All Enemies and during his testimony before the 9/11 Commission. In addition to diverting funds from the fight against al-Qaeda, Clarke argued that the invasion of Iraq would actually bolster the efforts of Osama bin Laden and other Islamic radicals, who had long predicted that the U.S. planned to invade an oil-rich Middle Eastern country.

Similar arguments were made in a May 2004 interview[24] and an August 2005 article by Lt. Gen. William Odom, former Director of the National Security Agency.[25]

In April 2006, six prominent retired generals publicly criticized Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's handling of the war, and called for his resignation.[26] The group included two generals who commanded troops in Iraq: Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack, Jr. (Ret.) and Maj. Gen. John Batiste (Ret.).[27] One of the generals, Lieut. Gen. Greg Newbold (Ret.), who served as the Pentagon's top operations officer during the months leading up to the invasion, also published an article that month in Time Magazine entitled "Why Iraq Was a Mistake."[28]

On September 12, 2007, two retired U.S. Army generals, Lt. Gen. Robert Gard and Brig. Gen. John Johns, joined former Sen. Gary Hart in publishing a statement calling for withdrawal from Iraq. Robert Gard is the Senior Military Fellow at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, John Johns is on the board of directors for the Council for a Livable World, and Gary Hart is the Council's chairman.[29]

In October 2007, Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, former commander of coalition forces in Iraq, called the 2007 "surge" a "flawed strategy", and suggested that the political leadership in the US would have been court martialed for their actions, had they been military personnel.[30] Sanchez observed that the nation as a whole had failed to take the war seriously enough, and this reflects on the Republican leadership's decision to shield the American public from the reality of fighting remote wars, through their failure to ask the American people to go on a war footing to better support the troops:

"...When a nation goes to war it must bring to bear all elements of power in order to win. . . . [This] administration has failed to employ and synchronize its political, economic and military power . . . and they have definitely not communicated that reality to the American people..." [31]

Opposition from agenda-driven US broadcast and print media

Hardly reported, intentionally or otherwise, was that General Sanchez criticized the US media far more harshly for unethical, biased, and inaccurate reporting in Iraq, to the point of berating reporters:

"It seems that as long as you get a front-page story there is little or no regard for the 'collateral damage' you will cause. Personal reputations have no value and you report with total impunity and are rarely held accountable for unethical conduct. . . . You assume that you are correct and on the moral high ground... ...The speculative and often uninformed initial reporting that characterizes our media appears to be rapidly becoming the standard of the industry... ...Tactically insignificant events have become strategic defeats... ...The death knell of your ethics has been enabled by your parent organizations who have chosen to align themselves with political agendas. What is clear to me is that you are perpetuating the corrosive partisan politics that is destroying our country and killing our service members who are at war..." [32][33]

Opposition from soldiers

There have been several individual refusals to ship (e.g., Pablo Paredes, and 1st Lt. Ehren Watada) or to carry out missions (e.g. 343rd Quartermasters).[34] Soon after the war began, 67% of surveyed US soldiers in Iraq told Stars and Stripes that the invasion was worthwhile, though half described their units' morale as "low."[35] A Zogby poll in March 2006 found that 72% of US soldiers in Iraq say the war should be ended within a year, and a quarter say that all troops should be withdrawn immediately.[36]

Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) was formed in 2004 to help antiwar soldiers network and seek solidarity from one another. IVAW held a Winter Soldier event, from March 13 through March 16, 2008, in which U.S. veterans spoke of their experiences during the Iraq War.[37][38] The Pacifica Radio network is broadcasting the proceedings live,[39] and streaming audio and video of the event is also available.[40] John Bonifaz file a suit on behalf of 12 Congress membeers and various military families to try to stop the Iraq war.[citation needed]

Congressional opposition

Opinion in the U.S. Congress leading up to the Iraq War generally favored a diplomatic solution, while supporting military intervention should diplomacy fail. The October 11, 2002 resolution that authorized President Bush to use force in Iraq passed the Senate by a vote of 77 to 23, and the House by 296 to 133.[41][42] Leading opponents of the resolution included Senators Russ Feingold and Edward Kennedy.

As the war progressed and the insurgency began to develop into what many believe is a civil war in Iraq, Congressional support for the Iraq campaign began to wane. A flashpoint came on November 17, 2005, when Representative John Murtha, a Vietnam combat veteran who voted to authorize the war and is widely regarded as an ardent supporter of the military, introduced a resolution calling for U.S. forces in Iraq to be "redeployed at the earliest practicable date" to stand as a quick-reaction force in U.S. bases in neighboring countries such as Kuwait.[43]

Since the introduction of the Murtha resolution, many members of Congress, particularly in the Democratic Party, have rallied around the strategy of a phased troop withdrawal. In the 2007 Congressional session, critics of the war have sought to tie additional war appropriations to a specific timetable for withdrawal. On March 23, 2007, the House of Representatives passed an Iraq spending bill that requires that troops begin withdrawing in March 2008 and that most US forces be out of Iraq by August 31, 2008.[44] This bill is still under debate in the U.S. Senate.

Congressional critics of the war have also opposed President Bush's plan to send an additional 20,000 U.S. soldiers to Iraq. On January 10, 2007, Senator Dick Durbin gave the Democratic response to this plan by saying: "We have given the Iraqis so much... Now, in the fourth year of this war, it is time for the Iraqis to stand and defend their own nation."[45]

Opposition from presidential candidates

The Iraq War was the defining issue of the 2004 U.S. presidential campaign. All of the Republican candidates and most of the Democratic candidates supported the war, although most of the Democrats also criticized the war's prosecution.

Howard Dean, former governor of Vermont, was notable for his opposition to the war, in particular because his early lead in the polls was largely attributed to his anti-war position. [46]Dennis Kucinich, another candidate for the Democratic nomination, favored replacement of the U.S. occupation force with one sponsored by the UN, as did Ralph Nader's independent presidential candidacy.

John Kerry, the Democratic nominee for President in 2004, voted to authorize the invasion, and said during his campaign that he stood by his vote. He also argued during the campaign that "the way he (President Bush) went to war was a mistake."[47]

In the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign, candidates Representative Ron Paul, then-Senator Barack Obama (Now President of the United States), Senator Chris Dodd, Hillary Clinton, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel were some of the most outspoken critics of the Iraq War. Ron Paul has said that "The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. This war has cost more than 3,000 American lives, thousands of seriously wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars."[48] Barack Obama (who went on to win the election) was not a senator at the time of the voting of the Iraq War Resolution, but has repeatedly voiced his disapproval of it both before and during his senatorship, saying at an anti war rally in Chicago on October 2, 2002: "I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars." He also spoke of the "undetermined length... undetermined cost, [and] undetermined consequences" which even a successful war would bring.[49][50] Dodd voted in favor of the Iraq War Resolution in 2002, but Dodd has since become an opponent of the war.[51] Dodd has said the Iraq War has been waged “for all the wrong reasons” and that it is eroding both the nation's security and its moral leadership.[52]

Opposition from Lawyers Specializing in International Law

Benjamin B. Ferencz has suggested in an interview given on August 25, 2006, that not only Saddam Hussein should be tried, but also George W. Bush because the Iraq War had been begun by the U.S. without permission by the UN Security Council.[53] Benjamin B. Ferencz wrote the foreword for Michael Haas's book, George W. Bush, War Criminal?: The Bush Administration's Liability for 269 War Crimes.[54]

Benjamin B. Ferencz, an American lawyer, was an investigator of Nazi war crimes after World War II and the Chief Prosecutor for the United States Army at the Einsatzgruppen Trial, one of the twelve military trials held by the U.S. authorities at Nuremberg, Germany. Later, he became a vocal advocate of the establishment of an international rule of law and of an International Criminal Court. From 1985 to 1996, he was Adjunct Professor of International Law at Pace University.

Opposition in European countries

File:AntiBush.jpg
Anti-war graffiti in Venice, Italy.

Around the 2003 Invasion of Iraq and subsequent occupation of Iraq, polling data indicated that opposition to military action against Iraq was widespread in Europe.[55]

An anti-war Tank Stencil

'Anti-Bush' and anti-war sentiments were reflected in many western European countries, generally with the populace less sympathetic to the U.S. stance even when the government in a given country (e.g. the United Kingdom, or Italy) aligned themselves with the U.S. position. Opinion polls showed the population was against the war, with opposition as high as 90% in Spain and Italy, and also widespread in Eastern Europe.[56] Some suggested that the reason for the EU's negative view of the war are Europe's economic interests in the region[57]. However, the electorates of France and Germany were strongly opposed to the war and it would have been difficult for their governments to fail to reflect these views.

After the first UN resolution, the US and the UK pushed for a second resolution authorizing an invasion. The French and German governments, amongst others, took the position that the UN inspection process should be allowed to be completed. France's then-Foreign Minister, Dominique de Villepin received loud applause for his speech against the Iraq War at the United Nations on February 14, 2003. Neither of these countries have sent troops to Iraq. However, despite popular opinion in their countries, the governments of Italy and Spain supported the war politically and militarily, although Spain ceased to do so after the election of a Socialist government was brought about by the damage inflicted by the 2004 al-Qaeda bombings of Madrid, which were meant to intimidate the Spanish electorate into withdrawing support for the War.[58][59]

In the United Kingdom, both the governing Labour Party and the official opposition Conservative Party were in favour of the invasion. The Liberal Democrats insisted on a U.N. resolution; they opposed the war as a result. Outside parliament, anti-war sentiment was more widespread: the 15 February 2003 protest in London attracted between 750,000 and 2,000,000 supporters from various walks of life. Prominent politicians and other individuals expressing anti-war views included: Charles Kennedy, Menzies Campbell, Robin Cook, Tony Benn, George Galloway, Chris Martin, Ms. Dynamite, Bianca Jagger, and Baroness Thatcher. Cook, a former Foreign Secretary and then Leader of the House of Commons, resigned from the government two days before the start of the invasion, saying

Our interests are best protected not by unilateral action but by multilateral agreement and a world order governed by rules. Yet tonight the international partnerships most important to us are weakened: the European Union is divided; the Security Council is in stalemate. Those are heavy casualties of a war in which a shot has yet to be fired.[60]

Former Spanish Prime Minister Aznar, a staunch supporter of both the Coalition/U.N. mission in Iraq from the start, has acknowledged that he had over-estimated the threat posed by Saddam Hussein:

"The whole world thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and they didn't, I know that now. When I didn't know, no-one knew."

Opposition throughout the world

Protests against the war, in front of the British Parliament
Anti-war protests in France

Opinion polls showed that the population of nearly all countries opposed a war without UN mandate, and that the view of the United States as a danger to world peace had significantly increased.[61][62][63] UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan described the war as illegal, saying in a September 2004 interview that it was "not in conformity with the Security Council."[64] Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva said that the invasion "disrespects the United Nations" and failed to take world opinion into account.[65]

Nelson Mandela, former President of South Africa, called the US's attitude five months before the invasion a "threat to world peace". He said they were sending a message that "if you are afraid of a veto in the Security Council, you can go outside and take action and violate the sovereignty of other countries"; a message which "must be condemned in the strongest terms."[66][67]


Religious opposition

On September 13, 2002, US Catholic bishops signed a letter to President Bush stating that any "preemptive, unilateral use of military force to overthrow the government of Iraq" could not be justified at the time. They came to this position by evaluating whether an attack against Iraq would satisfy the criteria for a just war as defined by Catholic theology.

US civil-rights leader the Reverend Jesse Jackson condemned the planned invasion, saying in February 2003 that it was not too late to stop the war and that people "must march until there is a declaration of peace and reconciliation."[68]

The Vatican also spoke out against war in Iraq. Archbishop Renato Raffaele Martino, a former U.N. envoy and current prefect of the Council for Justice and Peace, told reporters that war against Iraq was a preventive war and constituted a "war of aggression", and thus did not constitute a just war. The foreign minister, Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran, expressed concerns that a war in Iraq would inflame anti-Christian feelings in the Islamic world. On February 8, 2003, Pope John Paul II said "we should never resign ourselves, almost as if war is inevitable."[69] He spoke out again on March 22, 2003, shortly after the invasion began, saying that violence and arms "can never resolve the problems of man."[70][71][72]

Both the outgoing Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, and his successor, Rowan Williams, spoke out against war with Iraq.

The executive committee of the World Council of Churches, an organization representing churches with a combined membership of between 350 million and 450 million Christians from over 100 countries,[73] issued a statement in opposition to war with Iraq, stating that "War against Iraq would be immoral, unwise, and in breach of the principles of the United Nations Charter."[74]

Jim Wallis of Sojourners Magazine has argued that, among both evangelical Christians and Catholics, "most major church bodies around the world" opposed the war.[75]

Protests against war on Iraq

Across the world popular opposition to the Iraq war has led to thousands of protests against the War in Iraq. They were held in many cities worldwide, often co-ordinated to occur simultaneously worldwide. After the simultaneous demonstrations, on February 15, 2003, the largest in total turnout, New York Times writer Patrick Tyler claimed that they showed that there were two superpowers on the planet: the United States and world public opinion. As the war drew nearer, other groups held candlelight vigils and students walked out of school.

The February 15, 2003, worldwide protests drew millions of people across the world. It is generally estimated that over 3 million people marched in Rome, between one and two million in London, more than 600,000 in Madrid, 300,000 in Berlin, as well as in Damascus, Paris, New York, Oslo, Stockholm, Brussels, Johannesburg, Montreal - more than 600 cities in all, worldwide. This demonstration was listed by the 2004 Guinness Book of Records as the largest mass protest movement in history.

Support for Iraqi resistance and insurgency

There has been a debate among those opposed to the U.S. invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq in developed countries about how to relate to forces within Iraq.

Prior to the invasion, while it was common to accuse opponents of providing objective, if not intentional, support to Saddam,[76][77] none of the major antiwar organizations declared any support for him, however limited.[78] After the invasion and the toppling of Saddam's regime, some who had opposed it now supported continuing U.S. occupation, arguing that the U.S.'s intervention had given it an obligation to stabilize the country. However, those who remained opposed to the U.S. presence had to determine their approach to the developing armed insurgency and peaceful opposition to the occupation carried out by groups like the Worker-Communist Party of Iraq (WCPI).

During the early period of the insurgency, at a 2004 conference in Japan, Eric Ruder, of the U.S.-based International Socialist Organization, presented a case for supporting the guerrillas. Citing the primarily decentralized and domestic nature of the insurgency,[79] the fact that a clear majority of the attacks then were directed against U.S. and British forces (in the later years most insurgent attacks are directed at Iraqi forces and in particular Iraqi civilians),[80] and widespread Iraqi support for violent resistance in the early years,[81] Ruder argues that the insurgents' cause and methods are, on the whole, just and deserve support. He claims that the Iraqi right to self-determination precludes Western opponents of the occupation placing conditions on their support of the Iraqi resistance, and argues that "If the Iraqi resistance drives the U.S. out of Iraq, it would be a major setback for Bush's agenda and the agenda of the U.S. imperialism. This would be a tremendous victory for our side– making it much more difficult for the U.S. to choose a new target in the Middle East or elsewhere in trying to impose its will."[82]

Sato Kazuyoshi, President of the Japanese Movement for Democratic Socialism, argued otherwise. Reporting on the discussion at the 2004 conference, he wrote that, "We cannot support, nor extend our solidarity to, them on the grounds that their strategy excludes many Iraqi citizens– above all, women– and do great harm on the civilians, and will bring the Iraqi future society under an Islamic dictatorship."[83] He cited in turn Mahmood Ketabchi of the WCPI, who criticized Iraqi guerrilla groups for Baathist and Islamist connections, and attacked Ruder's view as a "Left Nationalism" which ignored divisions within Iraq. Countering the response that the best way to ensure that progressive forces, not reactionary ones, would dominate post-occupation Iraq would be for progressives to have taken the lead in "fighting" the occupation, Ketabchi argued that this was not possible due to situation then prevailing in Iraq. Nevertheless, he claimed, "We do not have to choose between the US and Iraqi reactionary forces. Opposition to the US is not a progressive stand per se. What matters is the kind of future that this opposition represents and objectives it pursues." A third alternative was represented by what Kazuyoshi calls the "Civil Resistance."[82]

In Britain, positions ranged from groups including the Socialist Workers Party (Britain) and Workers Power that took a similar line to the ISO as mentioned above, to groups such as the Alliance for Workers Liberty (who identified with the third camp tradition within Trotskyism) which opposed the insurgency, while supporting the democratic, working-class anti-occupation movement in Iraq.

There is still disagreement within the anti-war movement as to whether the cause of armed insurgents within Iraq was a worthy one for which they can express solidarity.

As the criminal behavior of many insurgents became more pronounced over the years [84], the world publics have joined with the Iraqi majority in their condemnation and rejection of the unpalatable aims and brutal methods of many insurgents, in particular the predatory practices of al-Qaeda militants in Iraq [85], a historical pattern repeated in many Muslim nations from the 1980s onwards.[86][87] The international consensus that much of the insurgency behaves criminally in attitudes and tactics in their indiscriminate, yet deliberate targeting of even Iraqi civilians in terror bomb attacks, assassinations, and kidnappings, has come to dispell much of the support they once enjoyed among the world public, even in Muslim nations.

Official condemnation

See also Governments' positions pre-2003 invasion of Iraq for pre-war positions.

The following countries have protested formally and officially the prosecution of this war. They oppose the Iraq War in principle, citing in some cases that they believe it is illegal, and in others that it required a United Nations mandate.

Quotations

  • "The attacks of September 11, 2001, show what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of mass destruction" – Former United States President, George W. Bush (March, 2003) [108]
  • "Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein's government, then what are you going to put in its place? That's a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off: part of it, the Syrians would like to have to the west, part of it– eastern Iraq– the Iranians would like to claim, they fought over it for eight years. In the north you've got the Kurds, and if the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey. It's a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq."– Former United States Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney (April 15, 1994)[109]
  • "To a certain extent Saddam Hussein's departure was a positive thing. But it also provoked reactions, such as the mobilization in a number of countries, of men and women of Islam, which has made the world more dangerous."– French President Jacques Chirac, November 17, 2004[111]
  • "Make no mistake about it, the ultimate aim that the Bush and Blair regimes have embarked upon is nothing less than "universal or world domination". Iraq is merely a stepping stone along the way."– David Comissiong (Barbadian Politician)[112]
  • "The problem we face is that before the war, not only did the U.S. administration and U.S. intelligence, but the French, British, Germans and the U.N. all thought Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Not discovering them tells us we've got a more fundamental problem... ...In fact, I think at the end of the inspection process, we'll paint a picture of an Iraq that was far more dangerous than even we thought it was before the war. It was of a system collapsing. It was a country that had the capability in weapons-of-mass-destruction areas and in which terrorists, like ants to honey, were going after it."– David Kay, Iraq Survey Group Chief Weapons Inspector, in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on January 29, 2004 [113]

See also

Notes and references

  1. ^ ""UN hails end to Saddam-era abuses"". bbc.co.uk. 4 June 2004. Retrieved 4 June 2004.
  2. ^ Chomsky, Noam (1 November 2003). ""The Iraq War And Contempt For Democracy"". Countercurrents.org. Retrieved 15 November 2008.
  3. ^ http://us.oneworld.net/article/view/138319/1/
  4. ^ Taylor, Jerry (2003). "Is the war with Iraq about oil when all is said and done?". bbc.co.uk.
  5. ^ Poll: Talk First, Fight Later, Americans Want Weapons Evidence Before Starting War With Iraq - CBS News
  6. ^ http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-16-poll-iraq_x.htm
  7. ^ http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
  8. ^ Ricks, Thomas Some Top Military Brass Favor Status Quo in Iraq The Washington Post, July 28, 2002 p A01.
  9. ^ New York Times August 1, 2002.
  10. ^ Pitt, William R. War On Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know 2002, Context Books, New York. ISBN 1-893956-38-5
  11. ^ Scowcroft, Brent. "Don't attack Saddam". The Wall Street Journal, August 15, 2002. Retrieved April 17, 2007.
  12. ^ Graham, Bradley Officers: Iraq Could Drain Terror War The Washington Post, September 1, 2002.
  13. ^ Boehlert, Eric. "I'm not sure which planet they live on". Salon, October 17, 20002. Retrieved April 17, 2007.
  14. ^ Donald Rumsfeld, Pentagon Warlord TIME Magazine, January 19, 2003
  15. ^ Wilson, Joseph Republic or Empire The Nation, February 13, 2003.
  16. ^ Wilson, Joseph What I Didn't Find in Africa New York Times, July 6, 2003.
  17. ^ ""Plamegate's real liar"". latimes.com. 2 November 2005. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help); Text "http://articles.latimes.com/2005/nov/02/opinion/oe-boot2" ignored (help)
  18. ^ "'End of an Affair'". washingtonpost.com. 1 September 2006.
  19. ^ Kiesling, John Brady U.S. Diplomat's Letter of Resignation New York Times, February 27, 2003.
  20. ^ Letter of Resignation by John H. Brown, Foreign Service Officer CommonDreams.org, March 12, 2003.
  21. ^ Third U.S. Diplomat Resigns Over Iraq Policy Reuters, March 21, 2003.
  22. ^ Cooper, Marc Soldier for the Truth L.A. Weekly, February 20, 2004.
  23. ^ Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change Official Statement (June 16, 2004)
  24. ^ "Ex-National Security Agency Head Calls For U.S. Troop Withdrawal From Iraq". Democracy Now!. 2004-05-12. Retrieved 2008-04-05.
  25. ^ William Odom (2005-08-03). "What's wrong with cutting and running?". Retrieved 2008-04-05.
  26. ^ Cloud, David S., Eric Schmitt and Thom Shanker. "More Retired Generals Call For Rumsfeld's Resignation". The New York Times, April 14, 2006. Retrieved on March 23, 2008.
  27. ^ Whalen, Richard J. Revolt of the Generals The Nation, October 16, 2006.
  28. ^ Newbold, Greg. "Why Iraq Was a Mistake". Time Magazine, April 9, 2006. Retrieved on April 16, 2007.
  29. ^ Senator Hart, General Gard, and General Johns Call For Iraq Withdrawal Council for a Livable World (September 12, 2007)
  30. ^ US general damns Iraq "nightmare" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7042805.stm
  31. ^ "Gen. Sanchez's Scream". opinionjournal.com. 2007-10-18.
  32. ^ "Review: Lack of coverage of Lieutenant General (Ret) Ricardo Sanchez's criticism of the media". cbc.ca. 2008-03-19.
  33. ^ "Biased Reporting on the Speech Given by General Sanchez-How the Media Lied". the virtuousrepublic.com. 2007-10-13. Retrieved 2007-10-13.
  34. ^ http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002064795_reluctant16.html
  35. ^ http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32521-2003Oct15?language=printer
  36. ^ http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075
  37. ^ Several allegations of misconduct were presented including war crimes"US War Vets to Speak Publicly About War Crimes"
  38. ^ Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan Iraq Veterans Against the War
  39. ^ "Pacifica Radio to Broadcast the Historic Winter Soldier Gathering"
  40. ^ How to watch and listen to Winter Soldier
  41. ^ U.S. Senate roll call vote on the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114).
  42. ^ House roll call vote To Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.
  43. ^ Schmitt, Eric, David Sanger and Sheryl Gay Stolberg. "Fast Withdrawal of G.I.'s is urged by Key Democrat". The New York Times, November 18, 2005. Retrieved on March 23, 2008.
  44. ^ Collinson, Stephen. "US House ties Iraq war funding to withdrawal timeline". Yahoo News, March 23, 2007. Retrieved on April 17, 2007.
  45. ^ "Durbin: 'Time for President Bush to face the reality of Iraq'". CNN. January 10, 2007.
  46. ^ Buchana, Patrick J. :Is it Bush vs. Dean"?
  47. ^ Saletan, William. "Would Kerry Vote Today for the Iraq War?" Slate, Aug. 12, 2004. Retrieved April 17, 2007.
  48. ^ "On the Issues: Ron Paul." KPTV.com, Jul. 31, 2007. Retrieved December 3, 2007.
  49. ^ "Remarks of Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama Against Going to War with Iraq". BarackObama.com. 2 October 2002. Retrieved 31 December 2008.
  50. ^ Obama, Barack (26 October 2002). "Wars of Reason, Wars of Principle - Setting the record straight". The Network Jounral. Retrieved 31 December 2008.
  51. ^ U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes for H.J.Res. 114
  52. ^ "Sen. Dodd Calls For End To Iraq War". Associated Press. 2007-05-26.
  53. ^ Glantz, A.: Bush and Saddam Should Both Stand Trial, Says Nuremberg Prosecutor, OneWorld U.S., August 25, 2006. URL last accessed 2006-12-12.
  54. ^ Haas, Michael (2008). George W. Bush, War Criminal?: The Bush Administration's Liability for 269 War Crimes. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 0-313-36499-0 / 978-0-313-36499-0. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
  55. ^ http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-02-14-eu-survey.htm
  56. ^ http://www.cer.org.uk/pdf/back_brief_springford_dec03.pdf
  57. ^ German chancellor speaks against US war vs. Iraq
  58. ^ "The legacy of the Madrid bombings". bbc.co.uk. 15 February 2007. Retrieved 15 February 2007.
  59. ^ "'Darkest hour' haunts Spain elections". bbc.co.uk. 15 March 2004. Retrieved 15 March 2004.
  60. ^ "Cook's resignation speech". BBC News. 18 March 2003. Retrieved 15 November 2008.
  61. ^ http://www.glocom.org/special_topics/social_trends/20030224_trends_s28
  62. ^ http://english.people.com.cn/200306/18/eng20030618_118439.shtml
  63. ^ http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/185.pdf
  64. ^ "Iraq war illegal, says Annan". BBC News. 16 September 2004. Retrieved 15 November 2008.
  65. ^ Brazil: Iraq, U.S. Guilty of 'Disrespect'
  66. ^ "US threatens world peace, says Mandela". BBC News. September 11, 2002.
  67. ^ "Nelson Mandela: The U.S.A. Is a Threat to World Peace". (full interview extracted from the August 28, 2002 issue of Newsweek).
  68. ^ "Jackson: Not too late to stop war". CNN. 16 February 2003. Retrieved 15 November 2008.
  69. ^ http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2193088
  70. ^ "Pope John Paul II calls War a Defeat for Humanity: Neoconservative Iraq Just War Theories Rejected". Houston Catholic Worker. July–August 2003. Retrieved 15 November 2008. {{cite web}}: |first= missing |last= (help); Missing pipe in: |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: date format (link)
  71. ^ "Vatican Strongly Opposes Iraq War". Fox News. 12 March 2003. Retrieved 15 November 2008.
  72. ^ "Pope warns against Iraq war". BBC News. 25 December 2002. Retrieved 15 November 2008.
  73. ^ http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/who/index-e.html
  74. ^ http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/international/exco03-iraq.html
  75. ^ Transcript of interview broadcast by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation on December 4, 2006
  76. ^ http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0226/p11s02-coop.html
  77. ^ http://instapundit.com/archives/006056.php
  78. ^ http://www.icl-fi.org/english/leaflets/oldsite/2003/SLB-800.HTM
  79. ^ http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=2241
  80. ^ http://www.slate.com/id/2135859/sidebar/2135843/
  81. ^ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml
  82. ^ a b http://www.mdsweb.jp/international/magazine/r56/i_r56t1.html
  83. ^ ""Evolving tactics of Islamic militants"". bbc.co.uk. 21 July 2004.
  84. ^ ""Iraqi insurgents 'war criminals'"". bbc.co.uk. 25 july 2005. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  85. ^ ""Press horror at Iraqi massacres"". bbc.co.uk. 3 March 2004.
  86. ^ ""Fewer Muslims 'support bombings'"". bbc.co.uk. 25 july 2007. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  87. ^ ""A matter of pride: anthropological discernment in our current conflict"". national review. 8 October 2007.
  88. ^ "Africans back France on Iraq". CNN February 21, 2003.
  89. ^ "Arab states line up behind Iraq". BBC News. March 25, 2003
  90. ^ "Argentina, Brazil Condemn the US Bombing Over Iraq". Pravda.ru (News from Russia). March 22, 2003.
  91. ^ "Nation also bans military overflights: Austria bars U.S. troops from crossing country". International Herald Tribune. February 15, 2003.
  92. ^ "Statement of the deputy permanent representative of Belarus to the UN". Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Belarus. Retrieved 15 November 2008.
  93. ^ "US threatens Nato boycott over Belgian war crimes law". The Guardian. Retrieved 17 November 2008.
  94. ^ "Brazil: U.S. Guilty of 'Disrespect'". NewsMax.com. March 20, 2003.
  95. ^ "Chrétien restates opposition to Iraq war". CBC. March 18, 2003
  96. ^ a b "México y Chile más inmunes ante presión EE.UU. por Iraq". Terra (from Reuters). March 10, 2003.
  97. ^ "China condemns U.S. for Iraq war". TheStar.com (from Associated Press). March 7, 2007.
  98. ^ "Cuba rejects Iraq war". People's Weekly World. August 28, 2002.
  99. ^ a b c "France and allies rally against war". BBC News. March 5, 2003.
  100. ^ "Statement by Ministry of External Affairs Spokesperson on the commencement of military action in Iraq". Indian Embassy. March 20, 2003.
  101. ^ "Ahmadinejad Slams Iraq War". The Washington Post. Retrieved 17 November 2008.
  102. ^ Shamsul, Amri Baharuddin (March 2004). "Moderate Muslims and the Iraq War". Qantar.de. Retrieved 16 November 2008.
  103. ^ "Malaysia regrets Iraq strike, urges restraint on anger". Kyodo News International. 2003. Retrieved 15 November 2008.
  104. ^ "New Zealand PM says sorry". The Sun-Herald. April 6, 2003
  105. ^ "War draws condemnation" BBC News. 20 March 2003. Retrieved on 20 April 2009.
  106. ^ "Pope condemns any war on Iraq". CNN. January 13, 2003.
  107. ^ "Venezuela's Chavez Says Iraq War Creates Uncertainty". Xinhua News Agency. November 28, 2003.
  108. ^ Iraq key players, then and now , bbc.co.uk, 14 March 2008
  109. ^ http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/08/13/dick-cheney-explains-why-the-us-shouldnt-invade-iraq-in-1994-quagmire/
  110. ^ http://www.ambafrance-il.org/diplomatie/archive.php?rub=1&periode=2003-02#
  111. ^ "Chirac: Iraq war has made world more dangerous". The Guardian. 17 November 2004. Retrieved 12 December 2008.
  112. ^ Rome, Hitler And Bush - Facing Reality, Barbados Daily Nation, 24 March 2003
  113. ^ "Iraq May Have Been 'Far More Dangerous' Than Believed, Kay Tells". globalsecurity.org. 29 January 2004. Retrieved 29 January 2004.

External links

Websites opposing the Iraq war

Articles and resources about opposition to the Iraq war