Win Without War

Last updated
Win Without War
Founded2002
TypeNon-profit
NGO
Headquarters Washington, D.C.
Location
  • Global
FieldsMedia attention, public awareness campaigns, lobbying
Website www.winwithoutwar.org

Win Without War is a public education and advocacy coalition based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 2002 in the runup to the Iraq War, Win Without War remains active as a coalition of national, multi-issue organizations dedicated to advancing progressive national security solutions. The coalition comprises 37 national organizations including MoveOn.org, CREDO Action, the Council for a Livable World, and the NAACP. [1] Win Without War is a program of the Center for International Policy. [2]

Contents

History

Win Without War was founded in 2002 in opposition to the impending American invasion of Iraq. Original coalition members included the National Council of Churches, Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities, the Conference of Major Superiors of Men, the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, Move On, the National Organization for Women, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Rainbow/PUSH, Sojourners, Women's Action for New Directions, and Working Assets. Its founding co-chairs were former Congressman and general secretary of the National Council of Churches Bob Edgar, and former executive director of Women’s Action for New Directions Susan Shaer. Edgar was later replaced as co-chair by David Cortright, Director of Policy Studies at the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame.

The original goal of the coalition was to oppose a preemptive war in Iraq while still allowing for weapons inspections and monitoring to prevent Iraq from obtaining weapons of mass destruction. In a launch press conference, coalition co-chair Bob Edgar noted that the group believed that preemptive war with Iraq would be detrimental to America, noting: "We believe that a preemptive military invasion of Iraq will harm American national interests. Unprovoked war will increase human suffering, arouse animosity toward our country, increase the likelihood of terrorist attacks, damage the economy and undermine our moral standing in the world. It will make us less, not more, secure." [3]

The coalition was previously run by former US Representative Thomas Andrews (D-ME), and its current director is Stephen Miles.

Issues

Since the invasion of Iraq Win Without War has continued to advocate against US military intervention abroad and has developed campaigns around the core issues of reducing American militarism and upholding and protecting the rule of law in national security and foreign policy. Related issues have included the closing of the Guantanamo Bay detention center and the reduction of wasteful US military spending. [4]

Opposition to US use of force in Syria

In 2014 Win Without War opposed the US military intervention on the Syrian Civil War on the grounds that it would be ineffective and cause civilian suffering. [5] The coalition crafted a plan for alternatives to bombing to end the conflict in Syria. This plan called for financial sanctions, the disruption of supply lines, the addressing of local grievances, and an increase in humanitarian assistance. [1] Win Without War continues to oppose US military intervention in Syria while promoting a negotiated settlement that brings the quickest possible end to hostilities. [6]

Support of the Iran Nuclear Deal

In 2015 Win Without War was a vocal public supporter of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal. Coalition efforts helped generate more than 1.8 million petition signatures and more than 1 million emails to members of Congress in support of the deal. [9] On September 10, 2015 the US Senate voted to uphold the JCPOA clearing the way for implementation. The adoption of the plan was considered a major foreign policy victory both for President Obama and for the progressive movement. [7] [8]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Opposition to the Iraq War</span>

Opposition to the Iraq War significantly occurred worldwide, both before and during the initial 2003 invasion of Iraq by a United States–led coalition, and throughout the subsequent occupation. Individuals and groups opposing the war include the governments of many nations which did not take part in the invasion, including both its land neighbors Canada and Mexico, its NATO allies in Europe such as France and Germany, as well as China and Indonesia in Asia, and significant sections of the populace in those that took part in the invasion. Opposition to the war was also widespread domestically.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United Nations Security Council and the Iraq War</span> Security Council positions before war

In March 2003 the United States government announced that "diplomacy has failed" and that it would proceed with a "coalition of the willing" to rid Iraq under Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction the US and UK claimed it possessed. The 2003 invasion of Iraq began a few days later. Prior to this decision, there had been much diplomacy and debate amongst the members of the United Nations Security Council over how to deal with the situation. This article examines the positions of these states as they changed during 2002–2003.

A preemptive war is a war that is commenced in an attempt to repel or defeat a perceived imminent offensive or invasion, or to gain a strategic advantage in an impending war shortly before that attack materializes. It is a war that preemptively 'breaks the peace' before an impending attack occurs.

A preventive war is an armed conflict "initiated in the belief that military conflict, while not imminent, is inevitable, and that to delay would involve greater risk." The party which is being attacked has a latent threat capability or it has shown that it intends to attack in the future, based on its past actions and posturing. A preventive war aims to forestall a shift in the balance of power by strategically attacking before the balance of power has had a chance to shift in the favor of the targeted party. Preventive war is distinct from preemptive strike, which is the first strike when an attack is imminent. Preventive uses of force "seek to stop another state. .. from developing a military capability before it becomes threatening or to hobble or destroy it thereafter, whereas [p]reemptive uses of force come against a backdrop of tactical intelligence or warning indicating imminent military action by an adversary."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Samantha Power</span> American academic, author and diplomat (born 1970)

Samantha Jane Power is an American journalist, diplomat, and government official who is currently serving as the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development. She previously served as the 28th United States Ambassador to the United Nations from 2013 to 2017. Power is a member of the Democratic Party.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Turkey–United States relations</span> Bilateral relations

The Republic of Turkey (Türkiye) and the United States of America established diplomatic relations in 1927. Relations after World War II evolved from the Second Cairo Conference in December 1943 and Turkey's entrance into World War II on the side of the Allies in February 1945. Later that year, Turkey became a charter member of the United Nations. Since 1945, both countries advanced ties under liberal international order, put forward by the US, through a set of global, rule-based, structured relationships based on political, and economic liberalism. As a consequence relationships advanced under G20, OECD, Council of Europe, OSCE, WTO, the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, IMF, the World Bank and the Turkey in NATO.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States foreign policy in the Middle East</span> Activities and objectives of the United States in the Middle East

United States foreign policy in the Middle East has its roots in the early 19th-century Tripolitan War that occurred shortly after the 1776 establishment of the United States as an independent sovereign state, but became much more expansive in the aftermath of World War II. With the goal of preventing the Soviet Union from gaining influence in the region during the Cold War, American foreign policy saw the deliverance of extensive support in various forms to anti-communist and anti-Soviet regimes; among the top priorities for the U.S. with regards to this goal was its support for the State of Israel against its Soviet-backed neighbouring Arab countries during the peak of the Arab–Israeli conflict. The U.S. also came to replace the United Kingdom as the main security patron for Saudi Arabia as well as the other Arab states of the Persian Gulf in the 1960s and 1970s in order to ensure, among other goals, a stable flow of oil from the Persian Gulf. As of 2023, the U.S. has diplomatic relations with every country in the Middle East except for Iran, with whom relations were severed after the 1979 Islamic Revolution, and Syria, with whom relations were suspended in 2012 following the outbreak of the Syrian Civil War.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Iran–United States relations after 1979</span> Overview of Iranian–American relations after the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran

Since the Iranian Revolution in 1979, the Islamic Republic of Iran has been embroiled in tense relations with the U.S. and its allies. Following the hostage crisis, both countries severed relations. Since then, both countries have been involved in numerous direct confrontations, diplomatic incidents, and proxy wars throughout the Middle East, which has caused the tense nature of the relationship between the two to be called an 'international crisis'. Both countries have often accused each other of breaking international law on several occasions. The U.S. has often accused Iran of sponsoring terrorism and of illegally maintaining a nuclear program, as well as using strong rhetoric against Israel, of which Iran has questioned its legitimacy and its right to exist while supporting Hamas, an antizionist terrorist group in the Gaza Strip. Meanwhile, Iran has often accused the U.S. of human rights violations and of meddling in their affairs, especially within the Iranian Democracy Movement.

The United States government has been involved in numerous interventions in foreign countries throughout its history. The U.S. has engaged in nearly 400 military interventions between 1776 and 2023, with half of these operations occurring since 1950 and over 25% occurring in the post-Cold War period. Common objectives of U.S. foreign interventions have revolved around economic opportunity, social protection, protection of U.S. citizens and diplomats, territorial expansion, fomenting regime change, nation-building, and enforcing international law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration</span> United States foreign policy from 2009 to 2017

The term Obama Doctrine is frequently used to describe the principles of US foreign policy under the Obama administration (2009–2017). He relied chiefly on his two highly experienced Secretaries of State—Hillary Clinton (2009–2013) and John Kerry (2013–2017)—and Vice President Joe Biden. Main themes include a reliance on negotiation and collaboration rather than confrontation or unilateralism.

The Barack Obama administration's involvement in the Middle East was greatly varied between the region's various countries. Some nations, such as Libya and Syria, were the subject of offensive action at the hands of the Obama administration, while nations such as Bahrain and Saudi Arabia received arms deliveries. Notable achievements of the administration include inhibiting the Iranian nuclear program, while his handling of certain situations, such as the Syrian civil war, were highly criticized.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Institute for the Study of War</span> American think tank

The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) is an American nonprofit research group and think tank founded in 2007 by military historian Kimberly Kagan and headquartered in Washington, D.C. ISW provides research and analysis regarding issues of defense and foreign affairs. It has produced reports on the Syrian civil war, the War in Afghanistan, and the Iraq War, "focusing on military operations, enemy threats, and political trends in diverse conflict zones". ISW currently publishes daily updates on the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine as well as the Mahsa Amini protests in Iran and the Israel-Hamas War.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Foreign involvement in the Syrian civil war</span> Political, military and operational support to parties involved in the ongoing conflict in Syria

Foreign involvement in the Syrian civil war refers to political, military and operational support to parties involved in the ongoing conflict in Syria that began in March 2011, as well as active foreign involvement. Most parties involved in the war in Syria receive various types of support from foreign countries and entities based outside Syria. The ongoing conflict in Syria is widely described as a series of overlapping proxy wars between the regional and world powers, primarily between the United States and Russia as well as between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Since the 19th century, the United States government has participated and interfered, both overtly and covertly, in the replacement of many foreign governments. In the latter half of the 19th century, the U.S. government initiated actions for regime change mainly in Latin America and the southwest Pacific, including the Spanish–American and Philippine–American wars. At the onset of the 20th century, the United States shaped or installed governments in many countries around the world, including neighbors Hawaii, Panama, Honduras, Nicaragua, Mexico, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against the Government of Syria to Respond to Use of Chemical Weapons</span> 2013 US Senate Joint Resolution

The Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against the Government of Syria to Respond to Use of Chemical Weapons is a United States Senate Joint Resolution that would have authorized President Barack Obama to use the American military to intervene in the ongoing Syrian Civil War. The bill was filed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on September 6, 2013 in a specially scheduled pro forma Senate session that took place during the last week of the August recess. The bill would have authorized only 60 days of military action, with the possibility of a one-time extension of 30 days. The bill would have specifically prohibited the use of ground troops. However, this bill never received a floor vote in either the House or Senate.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">War against the Islamic State</span> Military actions against the Islamic State

Many states began to intervene against the Islamic State, in both the Syrian Civil War and the War in Iraq (2013–2017), in response to its rapid territorial gains from its 2014 Northern Iraq offensives, universally condemned executions, human rights abuses and the fear of further spillovers of the Syrian Civil War. These efforts are called the war against the Islamic State, or the war against ISIS. In later years, there were also minor interventions by some states against IS-affiliated groups in Nigeria and Libya. All these efforts significantly degraded the Islamic State's capabilities by around 2019–2020. While moderate fighting continues in Syria, as of 2024, ISIS has been contained to a manageably small area and force capability.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">US intervention in the Syrian civil war</span> Ongoing military intervention in West Asia

On 22 September 2014, the United States officially intervened in the Syrian civil war with the stated aim of fighting the terrorist organization ISIS in support of the international war against it, code named Operation Inherent Resolve. The US currently continues to support the Syrian rebels and the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces opposed to both the Islamic State and Syrian president Bashar al-Assad.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">US-led intervention in Iraq (2014–2021)</span> Coalition against the Islamic State

On 15 June 2014, U.S. President Barack Obama ordered United States forces to be dispatched in response to the Northern Iraq offensive of the Islamic State (IS) as part of Operation Inherent Resolve. At the invitation of the Iraqi government, American troops went to assess Iraqi forces and the threat posed by ISIL.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict</span> Indirect conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia

Iran and Saudi Arabia are engaged in an ongoing struggle for influence in the Middle East and other regions of the Muslim world. The two countries have provided varying degrees of support to opposing sides in nearby conflicts, including the civil wars in Syria and Yemen; and disputes in Bahrain, Lebanon, Qatar, and Iraq. The struggle also extends to disputes or broader competition in other countries globally including in West, North and East Africa, South, Central, Southeast Asia, the Balkans, and the Caucasus.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Syrian civil war ceasefires</span> Attempts to broker ceasefires in the Syrian civil war

Several attempts have been made to broker ceasefires in the Syrian Civil War.

References

  1. 1 2 "Today's Antiwar Movement: Win Without War's Alternatives to Bombing IS" . Retrieved September 7, 2016.
  2. "CIP" . Retrieved September 7, 2016.
  3. "Religious, Civic Leaders Form 'Keep America Safe: Win Without War'" . Retrieved September 7, 2016.
  4. "Win Without War" . Retrieved September 7, 2016.
  5. "Activists say Obama's ISIS plan could still hurt human rights" . Retrieved September 7, 2016.
  6. "Tell President Obama to Halt Operations in Syria" . Retrieved September 7, 2016.
  7. "First take: Obama's winning streak continues with Iran deal" . Retrieved September 7, 2016.
  8. "The Unheralded Force That Helped Win the Iran Deal and Reshape US Foreign Policy" . Retrieved September 7, 2016.

https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/831345865

https://www.rbf.org/grantees/win-without-war-education-fund