Rohan Pearce
For many people watching US President George Bush's March 19, 2003, declaration that US had begun its invasion of Iraq there would have been a sense of disbelief. Just one month before, half-a-million people had filled the Sydney CBD in protest against the war.
During the February 14-16 peace protests, around 1 million people mobilised — 220,000 in Melbourne, 100,000 in Brisbane and Adelaide, and tens of thousands more in other cities across the country.
It was a spectacular manifestation of what was pervasive anti-war sentiment. On December 29, Sydney's Daily Telegraph reported that 50% of participants in a poll conducted by the paper opposed Australia taking part in a new Gulf War, and only 41% supported it.
Even among the country's elite, there was unease about the "unilateralism" of the US-British-Australian alliance.
But with the start of the war there came a sense of failure. How was it that, despite more than 12 million people mobilising worldwide on February 14-16, that the war had not been prevented?
The movement, while massive, was too short-lived to begin to create the kind of political crisis for the rulers in Washington and Canberra that could force them to abandon their plans. But that doesn't mean it wasn't worth it.
The movement had an impact — that the US went along with the facade of weapons inspections for a time was clearly a concession to popular opinion. Furthermore, the decsion to limit the (still horrific) "shock and awe" bombardment that preceded the entry of troops into Iraq prevented an untold number of deaths, and limited the demoralisation of the Iraqi people. This has helped the resistance to develop.
Despite its public triumphalism, there is no doubt that Washington is worried about public opposition to the occupation. A March 9 Los Angeles Times article reported on a report issued by the Council on Foreign Relations: "Public support for a large, sustained US involvement in Iraq has grown fragile, and leaders of both political parties should help shore it up to prevent a foreign policy catastrophe, according to a report released today by an influential think tank."
James Schlesinger, a former defence secretary and a member of team that drafted the report, told the paper that the council was encouraging both the Democrats and Republicans "to recognise that this is a continuing American commitment". "They need to sustain it because the effect of not sustaining it and failing in Iraq would be a substantial blow, if not catastrophic, for American foreign policy."
"It's an alert: Don't let this get out of hand in an election year", another author of the report warned.
The small size of the Australian force in Iraq has meant that there is not yet a similar level of unease about the occupation here. But there is outrage at the lies the government told about Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction, which has led even some of those who supported the war to question its value and purpose.
The March 20 protests, in Australia and around the world, will help to rebuild a movement capable of forcing the Canberra-Washington-London imperialist alliance to abandon their new colony. This won't be through appeals to the moral integrity of the ruling class, but through a mass movement that forces them to act.
People across the globe, including many of the families of the soldiers in Iraq, will be marching on March 20 to demand that the troops go home. The bigger these protests, the more chance we have of ultimately winning.
From Green Left Weekly, March 17, 2004.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.