Why America urgently needs a new antiwar movement – and how it can succeed
Why America urgently needs a new antiwar movement – and how it can succeed

In spring 2004, General Anthony Zinni warned that the Iraq war was following the same trajectory as Vietnam. A year after President George W. Bush declared 'mission accomplished', the conflict had become a quagmire, with an insurgency, the Abu Ghraib scandal, and nearly 1,000 US casualties. For the first time, a majority of Americans considered the war a mistake, echoing the predictions of millions who had opposed it from the start.

By 2005, with Iraq descending into civil war, public support eroded further. The 2006 midterm elections saw Democrats win decisively by opposing the war, and the bipartisan Iraq Study Group concluded it had to end. Barack Obama’s election sealed its fate, though US forces later returned to fight the Islamic State. By 2019, 62% of American adults and 58% of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans judged the war 'not worth fighting', reflecting a bipartisan consensus that Iraq was a 'stupid war' not to be repeated.

Today, the capture of Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro may signal a similar disaster. President Donald Trump has shown contempt for international law, treaties, and congressional consent, boasting: 'I don’t need international law.' He has used military strikes, special operations, and threats against weak states, insisting the US is not at war with Venezuela even as its leader is kidnapped. Democratic leaders and some traditional Maga loyalists have invoked Iraq to warn against escalation.

Trump is at a crossroads. He could pursue a maximalist course of regime change in Venezuela or Cuba, or opt for 'imperialism lite' through remote killing and threats. The outcome may depend on a robust antiwar movement. The movement of the early 2000s showed that protest works, but it must act before destruction begins in earnest.