Chapter summaries Chapter resources Bonus chapter      Introduction      Part 1      Part 2 About the author Order the book			Online Chapter: Peace Symbols: Posters in Movements against the Wars in Vietnam and Iraq Antiwar and/or Peace Movements The U.S. branch of the movement against the occupation of Iraq is formed by two interrelated phenomena: an “antiwar movement” focused specifically on the U.S. intervention and a “peace movement” that is part of the larger set of forces arrayed against “neo-liberal globalization” policies and practices. To chart the relationship between the movement against the Iraqi war and occupation on the one hand, and the movement against corporate globalization on the other, I want to offer a distinction between “anti-war” movements and “peace” movements. I take antiwar movements to be aimed primarily at specific conflicts (Vietnam, Iraq, and so on), while peace movements, which continue and sometimes thrive even in the doldrums between wars (though there have been few such times in recent decades), have a wider agenda—they seek not just to end a particular conflict but to establish conditions that will forestall future conflicts. The Vietnam era had both these components, but they are even more fully developed in the current era.12 The antiwar movement is at once broader and narrower than the peace movement. It is broader because the range of positions opposed to this particular war and occupation force run the gamut, as in the opposition to the Vietnam War, from reactionary isolationists to cautious conservatives to moderates and liberals opposed to unilateralism or “pre-emptive war” to radical pacifists and leftists. Not all of these constituencies are inherently interested in “peace” as a lasting, long-term possibility resting on significant social change. Alongside this “big tent” breadth, there is a narrowness to the antiwar movement when contrasted to a peace movement that grows out of a full analysis of global inequalities at the roots of war. Yet at least some in each of the varied antiwar constituencies may contribute to a more sustained peace movement, and each is certainly important to the more immediate task of restraining preemptive U.S. power. 12 My distinction might well be compared to Johann Galtung’s well-known discussion of the difference between “negative peace” (the absence of war) and “positive peace” (peace based on sustainable justice, including elimination of the “structural violence” of poverty as well as domestic violence, in addition and as part of ending armed military conflict). <<       >>