In the spring of 2004, General Anthony Zinni uttered a cautionary phrase in the context of Iraq: “I spent two years in Vietnam, and I’ve seen this movie before.” This remark resonated just a year after President George W. Bush declared “mission accomplished” amid a rapidly deteriorating situation. Once riding high with public support peaking at 74%, the invasion had devolved into chaos, marked by a fierce insurgency and rising U.S. casualties, bringing public opinion to a critical turning point. For the first time, a majority of Americans deemed the Iraq war a “mistake,” reflecting the apprehensions shared by millions even before it commenced.

By the summer of 2005, as civil war erupted in Iraq, public support for the war weakened further. Comparisons to Vietnam became commonplace. In the 2006 midterm elections, Democrats successfully campaigned against the war, leading to significant electoral gains. The newly-formed Congress subsequently empaneled a bipartisan Iraq study group, which concluded that U.S. military engagement needed to end. The election of Barack Obama solidified this trajectory, as he fulfilled his promise to withdraw U.S. troops, though military presence would later return to combat the rise of the Islamic State.

Fast forward to 2019, and a staggering 62% of American adults, including 58% of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, judged the Iraq war as “not worth fighting.” This sentiment underscores a broader, bipartisan consensus that the Iraq conflict epitomized a “stupid war,” a mistake unlikely to be repeated. An “Iraq syndrome” appears to have taken root, causing hesitance towards significant military interventions reminiscent of Vietnam.

The capture of Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela may signal the emergence of a sequel to Iraq. Former President Trump’s aggressive posture is bolstered by his blatant disregard for traditional war-making constraints, including international treaties and congressional approval. While Bush pursued some legal avenues, Trump’s leadership operates with an ethos of defiance, boasting that he “doesn’t need international law.” He seems willing to provoke challenges, undeterred by impending ramifications.

Thus, the emergence of a robust antiwar movement becomes crucial—essential not just to challenge potential foreign engagements, but to assert that the American public will not accept a new era of unbridled military action led by a leader with questionable legitimacy who claims omnipotence. The stakes involve not only foreign policy but the essence of democracy in America and its civic engagement.

Interestingly, the concept of an “Iraq syndrome” might offer some hope. Trump’s rhetoric includes a commitment—important to his base—to avoid “stupid wars.” This is not an endorsement of peace; rather it reflects a preference to steer clear of conflicts deemed unwinnable due to high costs in American lives and resources. Consequently, his strategy thus far has avoided “boots on the ground,” opting instead for airstrikes, naval blockades, and covert operations against vulnerable states.

Democratic leaders have aptly framed the urgency of the current situation by invoking the lessons from Iraq. Senator Ruben Gallego, reflecting on his service, pointed out the moral imperative in opposing another intervention. Some traditional Trump loyalists are similarly wary of repeating the mistakes of the past.

Trump stands at a critical juncture. Confident that his base will remain loyal, he may choose a course of military engagement in Venezuela or elsewhere, driven by desires for regime change and access to resources. Alternatively, he could opt for minimal commitments, leveraging threats instead of full military mobilization. The outcome of these decisions likely hinges on a concerted opposition to war, as reflected in past movements against the Iraq campaign.

The antiwar movement in the early 2000s did not single-handedly shift public perception regarding the Iraq war. It was, in part, the war’s catastrophic unfolding that eroded faith in its justification. Antiwar activists played a pivotal role in shaping public discourse, continually appealing to the American consciousness and challenging the official narrative of the war’s purpose.

The cries of Cindy Sheehan, a Gold Star mother questioning the noble cause of her son’s death, resonated powerfully. Voices from veterans also contributed to a growing antiwar sentiment that ultimately trickled up to influence political leaders, leading figures like Representative John Murtha to advocate for troop withdrawal. This narrative illustrates that even amidst disappointment, determined protest can undermine the legitimacy of a war and expedite its conclusion.

The task for today’s antiwar movement is to intervene before new conflicts escalate. Assembling a cohesive coalition may prove challenging, especially given Trump’s adversarial stance toward dissent within his party. Yet, bipartisanship is essential to apply pressure for peace. Engaging antiwar Republicans and fostering collaboration across party lines will be crucial, despite potential ideological rifts.

Progressives may hesitate to team up with traditional Trump supporters over war policy. Historical differences abound, particularly regarding perceptions of the Iraq conflict. However, the present challenges necessitate collaboration, even among those with fundamentally differing views on interventionism. Past movements show that real progress can occur when fragmented opposition bands together against a common threat.

Ultimately, the antiwar movement must maintain realism while aspiring for a broader vision. Stopping a war before it starts is key to avoiding future devastation—in line with lessons learned from the Iraq and Afghanistan experiences. The appetite for military adventure often leads to overreach and an inability to recognize the value of restraint.

Despite the challenges, there is hope for a resurgence of civic engagement and antiwar sentiment. Recent protests signal that citizens are increasingly rejecting unchecked aggression, both domestically and abroad. With commitment to the U.S. Constitution and mutual respect, Americans can instigate a meaningful transformation. Emerging voices against Trump’s aggression possess the potential for substantial impact if united.