our four panelists are first david cortright eight, who is professor emeritus at the university of notre dame and the former director of policy studies at the kroc institute for international peace studies.

he's the author of many books, including peace works the citizen's role in ending the cold war peace a history of movements and ideas and as the springboard for this session, a peaceful superpower. lessons from the world's largest antiwar movement, which was just published this year on the 20th anniversary. more or less of the start of the u.s. war in iraq and i think all of you who registered in advance for the conference received a pdf of that of that book. from 1978 to 1988. david was the executive director of sane first and then sane freeze after. the two organizations merged. he was an anti-vietnam war activist as an an enlisted soldier, and he was later in 2000 to a founder of win without

war, which he discusses in the in the book a peaceful superpower. we will next go to my right, carolyn, rusty isenberg, who is professor of history at hofstra university. she just published this year fire and rain, nixon, kissinger and the wars in southeast asia. her first book drawing the line the american decision to divide germany. 1944 to 1949 won the banat prize from the society for historians of american foreign relations, an activist as well as a historian. rusty was a co-founder of brooklyn for peace, which is where i first met her in the early 1990s, when it was called brooklyn parents for peace. she was legislative coordinator for united for peace and justice during the iraq war and a of the

steering committee of historians against the war. third, we have the honor of being joined from london on zoom. we're being honored by joint, being joined by kate hudson, who is who has been the general secretary of the campaign for nuclear disarmament, cnd, since 2010. and she served earlier as chair of cnd since 2003. kate became active in the peace movement in the 1980s in the upsurge against placement of cruise missiles in britain. and she is especially proud of helping to quote the base at greenham common in 1982, along with 30,000. she says other women, her cnd and other antiwar work has led to much international cooperation. as you can imagine.

she's also a historian by profession. she was the head of social and policy studies at london's southbank university, and she is the author of several books, including the new european left a socialism the 21st century i believe there's a question mark there. and cnd at 60, britain's most enduring mass. last but not least, we are joined by jonathan hutto senior, who is an a.p. russian organizer who, embraced his activist, calling as an undergraduate at howard university city in the late 1990s. in 2006, as enlisted member of the u.s. navy, jonathan co-founded the appeal for peace. the i'm sorry co-founded, the appeal for redress from the iraq war through which almost 3000 active duty national guard and

reserve personnel wrote to congress, calling for an end to the wars and occupations in and out of iraq and afghanistan. the appeal received wide media coverage, including being featured on 60 minutes, and it was awarded the letelier, moffitt human rights award from the institute for policy studies in 2007, that same year. jonathan received the social courage award from the peace and justice studies the peace and justice studies association. jonathan is the author of antiwar soldier right there, how to dissent within the ranks of the military, which was published in 2008 and for which david cortright wrote the introduction. and jonathan also wrote a chapter in the important.

2022 collection paths of descent. soldiers speak out against americans. i'm sorry, america is misguided wars. so very distinguished panel to talk about the movement against the war in iraq. we will start with david cortright. well, thank you for that very kind introduction. and thank you all. it's rarely been more difficult to talk about peace history right at a time with two major wars raging, great risk of escalation of those wars and dozens of other armed conflicts around the world. and we think especially about the wars now in gaza and and ukraine. but i think precisely because of that, it's all the more urgent and necessary that we talk about peace, history. and very appropriate. i think, to discuss this book and the history of the iraq anti-war movement, the debate about the iraq war. and as i do that, i'd like to

say a few words about its relevance to the armed conflict. now, in gaza and in ukraine. it was interesting the other day when president biden was in jerusalem, in israel, and he he warned the israeli leaders not to make the mistakes that we did in the united states, in the aftermath of 911. and we remember that period. fear and anger and a vengeful mood in the public. and too quickly, our country went to war. and it's interesting to remember that the anti-war movement arose at precisely that moment when a whole number of groups together began to call for a just and peaceful response to the 911 attacks and, warned that war is not answer, that war creates more terrorism, not less, that we have to address the underlying conditions that give rise to this kind of violent

extremism. and we talked in that movement and throughout the whole effort to try to stop the invasion about the viable alternatives that exist. at that time, there were u.n. inspections were resuming in iraq. get the inspectors more time to work. work with the united nations address. some of the problems that cause communities to rise up in violence with this kind of extremism activity. so we really tried to from the very beginning point to the evidence and to show that from what we know in other cases, historically terrorism does not end through war. it actually increases. it takes a political settlement. it takes good policing. it takes good governance and the communities that are affected. but war is not the answer. we also at time talked about the human cost. inevitably, more people would die. we could never bring back the 3000 americans who died. now or we can't bring back the more than 1300 israelis who were massacred in that brutal

atrocity by hamas. more war will only add to the death toll. and of course, we saw that in iraq, not just with the 45 american troops who died, but we seldom think about and during the 20th anniversary occasion of the war, very few people mentioned that the best science will tell us that at least 400,000, maybe 500,000 iraqis died from the time when we started this war until we left in 2011. this is the cost of war. and we're seeing it rise daily in gaza and in ukraine. and it's such an important motivation for us to constantly that. i want to say a word about the international dimension, the transnational nature of this movement and of the movement today. now, to try to respond to the war in gaza. kate can say more about it, but it's really important to recognize that we were not only mobilizing here, but all over the world. and as we know, february 15, 23, the largest single day of

antiwar protest in history, more than 10 million people around the world protested. and people will say, well, what good reason? they went ahead with the invasion a month later. but if you look at what happened politically in many other countries, the fact that germany never joined the so-called coalition. turkey refused to join that. canada refused to join. that's pain went along for a while. but then a new government came in less than a year later and they left as well. and the so-called coalition of the willing was a threadbare, ineffective arrangement that had no real contribution to the war. there was an international movement which had a real impact, and this was, i think, evident in the debate at the united nations right before the war. and you recall that in november of oh two, the u.n. security council adopted this resolution 1411, which authorized the renewal of the inspections and the u.s. and the u.k. tried to include in that resolution

language, calling for, quote, all necessary means for the use of force if the sanctions weren't effective. the states in the security council refused to accept that. and so when the resolution was adopted was no reference, no authority for any use of force. blair and bush came back in early oh three to try to get a resolution specifically for that. they brought it to the security council. they were turned that they were turned down. and that, in my view, was part of a process of synergy between the anti-war movements all around the world and the diplomats and delegates to the united nations in the corridors at the united nations. because we as a movement argued we can't use force without the authority of the u.n. security council. the security council had backup then by the movement. and in his memoirs, bush talks about how he he called governments to try to get them to support the resolution. and they wouldn't do it even long standing american allies would not support this

resolution because their own publics were demanding not to join the war. percent or more in mexico and other such countries. so there was, i think, a really unique example of civil society mobilize to give some backbone to the delegates at the united nations who turned down the authority for the u.s. and you recall that the bush administration said, well, you view the security council has not fulfilled its mission, but i would say it fulfilled a beautifully. and it was really one of the great moments for the united nations to say no to its most powerful member state. and probably the first time when the u.n. really tried to push for something that it could not get its way. so i think there's something really valuable that can help us in thinking about where we go today and how to build a more internationalized transnational movement to try to stop these wars in ukraine and gaza and in other places, to try to restore and build the authority of the

united nations. i don't have the answers exactly. i hope we can in discussion here, begin to develop some ideas. but i think one thing certainly is to work with other nations to work with other international organizations. when we think about gaza there's a clear consensus emerging, there has to be a cease fire. we have to stop the killing now and then begin to get some kind of international process going to build a genuine peace process in palestine, israel. i would say to bring to justice those in hamas who authorized and carried out this monumental atrocity against israeli civilians and israeli leaders who are responsible for these policies of killing of civilians that are going on. so we can look at that and we can look at the ways in which the united states can use its clout both in israel, but also in ukraine, to push for a peace process. we say, well, it's all it's up

to the israelis, it's up to the ukrainians. yeah, ultimately it is. but we have an interest in seeing a negotiated settlement. and the united states, i think, should take more proactive stance and then recognize that if there is a peace process, if there is a cease fire, that's not enough. it's it's only the beginning. there needs to be international monetary. there needs to be international authority. the united nations has to be involved. and nations together can work to try to police a peace process in these places. so with those few thoughts and but just to say that i think that that history from iraq remains important and that we can apply it now to try to end these terrible conflicts that we're facing today. okay. thank you, david. we'll move to carolyn eisenberg. okay. it's working. yes. okay. so in my remarks this afternoon, i'm going to do to think that i've managed to avoid for the

last 60 years, which is one giving a talk where i don't have it written out in advance. and also, i want to speak my personal plea. and so then i say, well, okay, why don't i have a talk here, spend good time? why do i not have a prepared talk? and if i was my students, my students always are like not having what they need because they're driving their grandmother to the hospital. but i can't claim that i'm driving my grandmother to and my dog did not eat my homework or anything. but i actually want to say part of why i'm coming and prepare. first of all, i teach the history of american foreign policy, which means i get to talk about these things as my job all the time. so yesterday afternoon, i was, you know, was a teaching day. and i have two different seminars and i had asked my students, you know, what? what's going on in the middle east? and both of these classes, it's a long silence. and then everybody says about how israel is horribly attacked. and then i said, well, okay,

what's happening in gaza? silence. and then i said, what about the siege? silence. and so forth and so on. and, you know, so obviously the things i'm going to do about them just going to say stay silent. but i think it's very significant and then i suggested to members of my colleagues that given the fact that situation in gaza is so grave, maybe they would like to bring this up in their classes. and there's great reluctance to do it. and also suggested to colleagues that maybe we could write a statement. great reluctance to do it. so that was like the first part of my day. the second part of my day, i finally got home and i wasn't on the phone in meetings about what to do about that. and what's happening in the middle east. and everybody's arguing with each and people are really mad at each other. and these are very difficult conversations to have right now, because they're great disagreeing about how we talk how does a peace movement talk

about what's happening in the middle east? what language do we use, what grievances do we emphasize? and some people may think that that's, you know, easy. but i'm not noticing that it's easy. i think people really struggling in the peace movement to find footing that really is good footing. so that is actually why i'm not prepared being in those conversations. and i suspect, frankly, that as several of you in this room who are also being involved in those processes, in those discussions, but i wanted to say that i'm going to now go back to topic was iraq and. in 2001, when the attack came on 911, i was actually on a fellowship to write my book, fire and rain nixon, kissinger and the wars and southeast asian. i was actually at nyu with the fellowship and john prados, who's an expert on these things,

and we're sitting there. so i was doing research on my book, but also then you know, the war in afghanistan and, then what was happening in iraq. so i didn't really think it was reasonable that i would just sit in this office, you know, just keep doing my research because there was a lot of work to be done. but what i would say i'm going to just clarify that a little bit is, that in many ways. so first, it took me 20 years to write this book, but that's partly because of all the antiwar things that needed to get done. but i would also say that what i learned about the nixon administration and actually did inform some of my role in the what to do about iraq and being i was on the steering committee for u of p.j. and as robert said, i was a legislative coordinator with gail murphy from code pink. well, what i'm saying is, in my brain, these things were absolutely, you know, sort of in and out together. so what did i learn from my research and how would that

apply? and people should know that even though you think that every single thing it needed be know about richard nixon and kissinger known 25 years ago it's not true, you know, because there are pretty good so many bad things seen what you couldn't even begin. but in addition to that, you know, there was thousands and thousands of pages that we're getting declassify. so from 2001 to this morning, they still haven't fully declassified it all their deeds. but from that declassified record, one of the things that i got to see was what was the impact of the anti-war movement right on on administer and policy, because you couldn't really know that back. i mean, you certainly had hints about it and but i would say, speaking for myself and every friend i had, we all felt was working. now that we felt like we're, you know, we're at demonstration or we're doing that or we get arrested or whatever we do, you

know? and people were like totally grim and nothing and we're doing is making any difference. and so one of the things that was really surprising to me when i was starting to go through these records is that i think we made a lot more of a difference than we ever thought. so one point about this, which might be controversial here is, you know, thing that happened from nixon fourth month in office is that he began pulling troops out and every couple of months he was taking another 50,000 troops out and 30,000 troops. and again, i would say in the land that i was in, we all hated that, you know, we always said, well, okay, he's taking the troops out, but he's taking over laos, he's taking over cambodia. it's a trick. whatever, you know, didn't any credence to that. but actually it was kind of a big deal in a double way. one is about its own. the election of whatever that year is, 1972 happened. there were no combat troops left in vietnam. or if there were just, you know, very small number. that was a very big deal because

there were no combat troops there, we might not have paid attention. but it really you know, that was pretty pretty substantive and and something richard nixon would not have done if it wasn't for the domestic clamor. you know, that was that was being caused. now that domestic clamor has a number of segments to and the thing i'm not going to mention right now. is about the impact of what was happening in the military, basically, because our other speakers know much more about it. so i don't want to say anything, but obviously that's one part of the story. what about vets home and protesting dissent in the army inside vietnam? these are all really important things. but another important thing and this has to do with politics and election and is that what was electorally and in congress mattered? now again, most of the people i knew, including me, you know, this is never get anyone. how stupid is congress anyway?

they're all these resolutions over, over. we get our hopes up and then. in fact, they never pass these resolutions. and then they didn't pass them until, you know, the war was over. right. that was sort of the feeling i had. but when i started reading the record, i wasn't sure. and to try compress in a simple way, what you could see is that the fact that these resolutions were about to pass right shaped policy. right, and that was really big. nixon had a term for this. he always say we're one step ahead of the sheriff. and, you know, and that translated is we got to get more troops out because otherwise we're going to have a very big problem. and another thing that i didn't pay any attention to in 1972 was that that that is the case, that in the election of 72, when had

this, you know, terrible loss, more peace candidates got to congress, i didn't notice. maybe some people who did nothing. and so why did that matter? it mattered because one week after the election, goldwater and hal and senator towers, senators standish go up to the white house and they say to nixon, we don't have the votes anymore. so henry needs to stop dithering around in paris, because when that new congress comes in, it's over. and as far as nixon was concerned, it was over. part his wrath was expanded by bombing hanoi and how far. but the point is that he was hemmed in and to some significant degree, all those resolutions that never passed. they made a very, very big difference, the white house and had those things not happened, we would have had a much longer and even more brutal war. so was it an unqualified success? no. but was this a success? yes. so to iraq. because for me and i feel i one

of the weird things about, my experience in upgrade working on legislation weirdly was that the my main ally in this was actually tom hayden. and oddly i think because we are coming from a similar place in and actually we didn't know him i mean we just like an important person i never met. but in he was very involved in you fpga on legislative stuff and he really had the attitude. there were a lot of ways that legislative work and could really advance the cause and that even when it didn't look like that at a given moment, no know. yeah. the other resolution didn't pass. he really was very temperate in saying, you know what you to look a little more it doesn't mean that that's unsuccessful is great. i don't want to be seen but a lot of things that feel unsuccessful made a difference. now we don't have the declassified record of those years and god knows what will

happen if we ever see them. but i think one way, you know that it really mattered that you could see was iraq was that the bush administration ended up having to get out of iraq and as well as, you know, pulling troops out of afghanistan, much than they would have wanted to do. so one of the things in the nixon i'm sorry, they're all in my brain, you know, like nixon and bush start to blur when you have too many or this is what happens. you argue all day and the day before you can't. right. but but bush had something that many of us have now forgotten which is he signed a status of forces agreement. he signed that in 2008. it wasn't he loved doing, but it was saying, in effect, that by a certain date, all u.s. troops were out of cities in iraq. and by 2011, they all to be out completely unless iraqi

government at that time would allow them to stay. so that seemed to a lot of people like a big yawn, but in point of fact, it wasn't a big deal because it made a difference whether you had u.s. troops marching around and all these iraqis cities, etc. so, you know, again, we won't really fully know, you know, what is the impact of that. but i think it one of the things that united for peace justice did with its associate aid groups was it did actually make a commitment to work on legislation. and those that i dated probably this there was like a big meeting in washington in i guess like in 2004, maybe where all different groups came together. and it a discussion do we think it's worth putting resources into legislative activity how you know how do we feel about and so different groups were in that peace action and code pink and everybody else you could

probably think of. and so there was actually a concrete decision that was made, which was not that this was the only thing for people do. right. and even the legislative work was partly fed by demonstrate and vigils and civil disobedience. they're not really separated from each other. but you fpga did make that commitment and these other groups wanted that to say we're going to do something with congress. and they actually, you know, put some money into it initially. and we were able to hire an executive director, a person in washington who represented united for peace and justice, who is a paid person and who also was extremely competent person and gave gail murphy and i were the co-chairs. we nobody paid us, but the person in washington was great and it was actually a way for grassroots groups to to get to become in one way or another. so you have p.j. had very strong connections to a lot of grassroots groups, as well as

national organizations. so, you know, it's different congressional were put forward, you know, peace groups all around the country had a role to play in trying to advance it. and again, some people would argue, i think that's too many. i'm covering a lot of territory. this is what happens when you don't have an outlay. so i found you. but i think it's again, you know with respect to vietnam and also with respect to iraq and afghanistan, mean nobody is going to say that this is just a happy story, right? i mean, all of us experience you know heartbreak at the course of what what was happening. but nevertheless, the question is, could we effect do effective things? that could least bring the thing to an end. was that was that something that was possible? and i actually think during the vietnam war that to some degree

and i don't know how tom hayden feels about this to some degree, that feeling that was so to the peace movement that nothing we did that constant grumpiness actually led people to do something that weren't like particularly helpful at all. but again, you know, i don't think you can say that any activity that it's just strictly i mean, one could really debate this, you know, for more than the one minute that i have left, but i do think in understanding what happened in the in iraq and afghanistan and that there was a significant legislative that did not in end result in great resolution, but did in the end force the administration to pull back at a time when they didn't really want do it. so, you know, i'm going to stop there, except to say that we're looking at history, but we're looking at what's happening now. and one thing i deeply believe from this experience of all these other wars and everything else is, how important it is that advocates find a language

each that a language to talk about our concerns in a way that is accessible and relatable to a large number of people. i mean, i think that was an important challenge. know back in the sixties, i think it was a challenge. you know, after 2001. i think it's a challenge right now is is sort of less important from my point of view. my students were sitting there like black, you know, is is has most revolutionary language you could have. but to find everyday language where we can talk with people, involve them and try to prevent a catastrophe that i'm sure everybody this room is feeling. it's got it's ongoing. it's going to get and we need to do something, need to do it fast and we need to build movement that can a large number of people. thank. you. hold on that hand. okay. thank you, rusty. we will now move. kate hudson from, london, hello.

thanks very much for inviting me. and of course, a big you to david for producing this fantastic new book. of course, it's brought back a lot of memories, good ones as well. challenges of some kind to talk about that time from the perspective of my own organized nation, the campaign for nuclear tourism and the wider anti-war movement in britain, and of course, the for that whole movement, for the february, the 15th march and so on, couldn't have been more profound for the world as a home, as a whole. and because, of course, the crimes of 911, as you in the states know better than anyone else, have been more profound for the world as a whole. and events changed very rapidly

following those attacks that was the death declaration, of course, of war on terror and so on. and over here it was hard to be immediately sure how the movement would react. but as it turned opinion within cnd was incredibly united, our annual conference for 2001 actually took place just a few days after 911, and i think we first started on the friday and the attacks had been on the monday. and in fact the conference was overwhelming united. it was united in condemning the terrorism, but it was also, you noted, in condemning all forms of terrorism by states to, as well as by non-state actors, and having agreed that we were also united in the view that war was not the answer and that war

against whole nation. afghanistan was obviously emerging as the likely target at this time. and that kind of war would undoubtedly result in many civilian casualties, but it would not achieve the goal of capturing those responsible for the attacks, bringing them to justice. and of course, it turned out many people in britain, around the world shared the same view shortly after this. and as david outlines in his book, a new was initiated by a number of groups on the left. they perhaps felt that cnd was too state or too traditional. you know, we were a mass organization that. we'd been around a long time, mostly focused on nuclear and nuclear stuff. and they felt we perhaps couldn't meet the current situation. and so this new organization was

called the stop the war coalition, and it was committed to stopping bush's war on terror cnd nationally. never joined the stop the war coalition. that's a little area that david's in your book. sorry about that. but we worked closely in partnership with stop the war to oppose the war in iraq to end the occupation. and of course we continue to work with the stop the war coalition on a number of antiwar issues, including organized thing the current enormous protests in london against the war on gaza. so last weekend with a number of other organization, we mobilized around 300,000 people. tomorrow we have another demonstration and. we may have more and i think the particularly interesting thing it will fantastic thing really

is that when we first marched, mps or union leaders joined us. now we have many asking to join us and public opinion is overwhelmingly with us. 75% of the population want an immediate ceasefire, so 20 years ago, one of the key factors in building the movement was that we were actually trying to stop the war taking place. so to stop it before it started, not to wait until it got going and then oppose it. and there was a very strong rejection of the way our government was handling the situation and the lies of the government, the dodgy dossier they became apparent and and there was a huge public revulsion that and in fact, there was an appeal court of appeal for a new morality in public life. this became of the anti war process and there was a deep

humanitarianism in the movement as well. it was said that people were marching for a country and a people. they didn't know. you know, millions, you know, many didn't know where iraq was on the map, but they were marching for this principle of peace and justice. and i think the coalesced ring of support around the developing movement was helped by the way that we approached the issue. calls for action were always based on the broadest possible appeal in order to be as as possible, people didn't have to signed up for a range of political positions to, support us just simply the desire to stop the war. numerous trade unions gave the support together with employees from a range of parties, celebrities, figures, and an enormous cross-section of british society. in terms of the movement itself,

the kind of core of the movement seemed stop the war also worked with the muslim association of britain on these issues. and we came be known as the triple alliance and we organized together the major demonstrations against the war and parts of the significant of the alliance was that the breadth of forces it was able pull together because each of the three organizations represented susan was able to mobilize the different of society so cnd, perhaps more mainstream than the others, you know, that kind of pacifist element but also faced most elements very kind of not associated with any political party or perspective. then there was stop the war, which brought the left organizations people who identified as anti-imperial and so on. and then the muslims of britain brought much of the muslim

community. so these three sections of society were already a formidable force. and as kind of what was going on with the government by the government, with blair and bush. and so on, as that became apparent, more and more people became they came to identify with us and also to become more actively involved. there's an enormous proliferation of local groups growing and the support grew exponentially. and by the time of the march on february the 15th, all the major national newspapers were publishing the root of the march. in their pages and one the daily mirror, which is one of the largest mass tabloid newspapers that even produced anti war placards for the march itself. so amazing the muslim association did something that was very significant.

it helped to develop the largest of britain's muslim community ever in the anti-war movement. and it was a kind of real politicization of the muslim community in britain it was a remarkable development. so of course, demonstrating march wasn't the only way that the movement organized to bring a halt to the war or to to prevent the war. there was a legal challenge led by cnd against going to war on the basis of a un resolution 1441. so it was a bit massive legal challenge and but eventually it was stopped in the higher courts because it claim english. it was not in the national interest for it to be pursued, but was that it's attracted a lot of attention and engagement. it was a kind of another strand, another strand of how movement

was able to organize. and then, of course, parliamentary lobbying, too. that was a very strong strand. well, and of course, this was a labor government blair was a labor prime minister and there was huge in amongst the labor mps. there was huge opposition. and so within parliament really, really strong opposition to the war in the summer of 2003, i visited hiroshima for the annual commemoration of the atomic bombing and i was invited to give a lecture at nagoya university about what made the anti-war movement in britain so strong. and i just was thinking back over that in david's writings made me make me reflect on this and my conclusion at that time was that it rested on unity, diverse city and international cooperation. and, you know, these were the three facts that made our

movement so strong. and looking back, i stand by that the unity of the anti-war movement was remarkable. we resisted all attempts to fragment so as to drive wedges between the organizations, you know, and there were many attempts to do that. we resisted them all. the diverse city of the movement was also remarkable. and the inclusivity of it, as was the increasing awareness as almost from the start of how so many issues are linked together and not in britain, but globally too. and in some of the demonstrations leading up to february the 15th, which were also huge, all kinds different issues were represented on on those marches. now, people were understanding different things about war and what drivers of war were and what the impacts of war were.

and so go on to march along a chair. but just to say just to say a little bit about the the international links and the international solidarity because that was incredibly important and and david touched on that just earlier in his remarks. and that, of course, remains absolutely fundamental today. and one of the things the in which we pursued international links and cooperation in the early past the century was through the world social forum movement. and david makes a couple of references to this in his book and of course, its slogan coined by our inductee, another world is possible. you know, that was such a profound and inspiring slogan. so the movement and wider organization and the positive role of the european social forum in linking up organizations and movements was

very clearly shown. the social forward movement took us of our silos and brought all the different issues together in a very significant way. and of course it was from the european social forum in, florence, in november 2002 that the call came for a global day of action against war on the 15th. in fact, the red cross, the rest, as we know it, was history and all that. but that that was actually helped to shape the way we've worked subsequently a sea and in a number of internet tional networks and organizations. and i very clearly remember in such a positive way i relationship with united for peace and justice at that time and also the exchanges had between conferences in the and britain and demonstrated in the us and britain and we were always so delighted welcome people. the movement in the states to

britain to share and learn your experience and that international solidarity. so to conclude as david rightly outlined in his book and that made sure political impact of the anti-war movement continued for quite some time in britain, it was a significant factor in the eventual unseating of blair in 2007. pretty much forced to resign as prime minister and course, the vote against war on syria in 2013, which also impacted on the obama administration's actions at that time. so the lessons of building that movement and the principles on which it was based remain with us. and of course, today we face a difficult situation our call peace negotiations to end the war in ukraine, for example, is

often, as is our long standing opposition to nation. but as we continue with our principled stand, peace from which we will be diverted, we draw from the history of our movement and it provides us with a strong foundation across society as we continue our work for peace. thank you very much much. okay, thank you, kate. and now to jonathan. all right, can you hear me okay? great. awesome. well, first and foremost, let me thank the peace history society and dr. michael clinton and those who worked with to bring this this conference to meeting. i want to thank david cortright. this has been a years, decade

long relationship. now that dave and i have have built, has sustained, has has grown. you know, david is a number of things to me. but most importantly he's my friend, big brother, mentor x comrade in this struggle. i want to thank him for being an example of what a practice, an academic, intellectual should be. from my vantage point, within the academy, someone who publishes some who research, but also someone who is able to spark and be a catalyst for young people, for students to in struggle. and we talk about struggle. we talk about the basic qualifying case of life. in the words of the late frederick douglass, the abolitionist, that in the absence of struggle, there is no progress. so we have to keep on keeping on. and i want to thank david for that. and bring me into relationship with the practitioners and fighters, peace advocates. they are meeting here today.

so thank you again. we come here. in the spirit of george orwell, we come here in the spirit of james form and in cleaves cell as the student nonviolent coordinating committee george orwell. of course, how mr. kant, a loner from the frontlines of the spanish civil. we don't come here today solely as those who are struggling to only understand the world. all of us in this room, in some way or another actually struggling to change the situation in which we find ourselves. we come here in the spirit of andy. step the late andy, step the pub is up against the brass who was involved during the gi movement to build. at that time, the american service members union, which became an inspiration to the man sitting to my left here today who published in my view, the most comprehensive study of that movement that's sitting right here, the soldiers in revolt this book arrived, to me, i tell

this story. any i have to tell it. i was on board the uss theodore as an enlisted sailor off the coast of iraq. in 2006, engaged in anti-racist struggle in my shop, an intense anti-racist struggle. roughly two months before the end of my where i had a hangman's noose dangling before my face engaged in serious struggle. and as a gentleman in this photo here, i'm getting ahead of myself a little bit here. but name is dr. rodney green. he's a retired economics professor. from how university at that time his relationship to me was as a veteran of the gi movement, a movement that was just coming into knowledge of it was dr. green who sent that book soldier the revolt that i began to read. i began to study. i began to internalize the principles in that book as a chapter in that book on black and white, that deals with the

deep anti too racist struggles with energy movement. but also there's a chapter in that book that deals with the struggle for justice and the basic grievances of the gi so that those chapters in that himself begin to add meat to the bone in terms of the struggles that we were involved in out the coast of iraq in 2006 and then begin to germany in my mind as i began to not only think about what we could do, but then to reach for it to david, who asked expeditiously in terms our wants and desires to bring him to norfolk, if and i'm going to get into how that became a movement that inspires me to this very day. i think first and foremost, we want to talk about or speak to some of the the principles, if you will, or the subject matter that that we've been asked to speak today. we're going to have a

discussion, maybe a debate. one of the pieces that i was asked to speak to was potential limitations of the anti-war movement. and as a practitioner. and we maintain that you only know what those limitations are if you engage as a practitioner, meaning if you engaged in conscientious intentional risk taking. okay, we talk about risk taking. that means that there's something that you might lose as a result of engaging in struggle. it might be a job, it might be a promotion. we know from our experience, either personally or through study of the sadly some people even lose their lives is taking place right now as we speak. so winded the limitations that we learn firsthand from our engaged as risk takers. but i want to tie that limitation to distill it to a stress. i don't want to talk about in a total negative sense. i just want to talk about it from a factual is that we were

engaging in a movement that in terms of is tragic its projection to the populace these spoke earlier about we have to be able to use a language this understandable to the grass that in terms of his projection the base of the movement against the iraq war to end the war and in the occupations was not one that was based in the directly impacted persons. let me say that again that the movement in the wars and occupation of iraq and afghanistan was not a movement where the trajectory was in the directly impacted persons. what do i mean by that? i'm a student of not a student. i remember i'm an extension of the civil rights movement in the united face of america. i was born in atlanta, georgia, in 1977. post-civil rights. we were the kids of dr. king growing up in the 1980s, you were hear ad nauseum his i have

a dream speech, agonizing him you know in fact his that part way says free at last, free at last. thank god you hear that right with the pledge of allegiance. i mean, seriously, my elementary school, that's how that's how interwoven it within our psyche. but i say all that to say that if you don't know anything else about the march on washington if you know nothing else about it, nothing else about from from the controversy was snick that statement to the different movement organizations that spoke that that you know about dr. king's oration that his would be a lot different if the major that day was given say by sammy davis junior or omar and brando or sidney poitier. all those persons were at the march and it but they were there in support of the frontline organizations. you are following me here in fact, dr. king giving i have a dream speech, which he not going to the day it in of him being

probed and pushed by the late mahalia jackson he had given that speech two months early in detroit as he's getting to in she as she's getting ready to end as he excuse me as he's getting ready and she's saying to martin what about dream mine? tell him about your dream is that that there is is symbolizes the relationship between this the conscientious celebrity to the front line movement leader at time. and so we came to the antiwar movement as active duty. this was a movement where the projection was people. danny glover we loved danny glover, by the way, people like tim robbins, for example. note it politicians. dennis kucinich we love dennis, by the way, reverend jesse lewis jackson was such an inspiration. but these but these were not persons in at that point in the with their participation it meant that they might lose

something as a result. okay the reason why richard nixon really spoke this earlier had to remove ground troops from vietnam a generation earlier is because that the g.i. it was based in a directly impacted it was based in the grant. it was based in the working class to the point where no matter how you may feel about this, the the military at that point when nixon came into had become mutinous. i mean, written with mutiny, written with drug, written, in fact, the the ruling class of this country characterize it in an essay as the collapse of the armed forces. they stated the morale and discipline battle worthiness. you are read these words of the u.s. forces are this was in 1971 publish what a few salient examples exception excuse me lower and worse than at any time in this century, and possibly in the history of united states.

this particular colonel, robert de heyl, went further to say that by every can civil indicator army that now remains a vietnam is in a state approaching collapse were individual units avoiding or having refused combat? sadly murdering the officers noncommissioned, drug ridden and dispirited we're not near muteness. that is the that's the difference when you have a movement that is based in the grass roots in a directly impacted. i want to talk about these directly impacted persons because i work with them directly work with them personally through the appeal for redress, the appeal for redress was a was a very straightforward statement, three sentences. it was dave advice to us. these conversations went lone that the statement should be not ideological, that it should be brought there should not be this longer cumbersome, but something that in coming back to rusty in language that people can

understand and can and can understand, you know, quickly nothing. he got to really battle through okay there was a genius to the statement i want to the statement from appeal for redress the appeal for redress was based in the military whistleblower protection act. let state that in 1995 military whistleblower protection act which states to this very day the any member of the united states armed forces without prior command approval can't communicate with their member of congress on any issue or on any issue. okay we were working to ensure that we were we were within the legal framework of the military to have as much protection as possible. this was an invitation to, dave, in the spring of 2006 when he came to north of virginia and spoke to the peace community there in norfolk, out of about 80 plus persons, roughly about of us were active duty military. okay even marines who had

traveled now from quantico, virginia, this is before slightly before social media. so we still had to throw the leaflets in the streets. right. and they landed. awesome, awesome, awesome. good there. right. so through that strategy session and through the months there, after we began to build this out. so i want to talk about who these persons were, some of them. this in this photo here that some of you might be able to see. this was the united for and justice demonstration january of 2007. and if you see those two front banners there, one is from iraq veterans against war and the other is the appeal for redress. and you see me in the middle there and i'm davis book i'm holding it back was that that book has been through a lot by the way that this page is coming out of it. i it quite a bit. well right there to my immediate to my me it left to my right is photo that is dr. rodney green, retired economics professor who was draft that out of yale

university in 70. and because of his membership in the progressive labor party was david documents and soldiers in revolt. he did not resist the draft. he entered the military to organize as that was taking place an intentional, conscientious risk taking to organize within the ranks to rise left is a young lady named tessie mckee who was an appeal for redress an attention. mckee was a language in essay now security at fort meade, maryland. she marched with us that day and she made a statement in the new york times against the war and calling for troops and bases to come out of iraq and afghanistan. we're going to talk about this risk taking. and when she reported back to nsa, she was essentially locked out of a building, a clearance had been poor. she was standing before her commanding officer answering questions as to why she made those statements. okay, tacitly, we then engaged in struggle.

atassi filed a got in contact with the inspector general, the ig and within a few months also with the support of the center for conscience in war, she was returned back to a work assignment. but that's what we mean by conscientious risk taking this gentleman over here to almost on the far right. they're not politically, but they're holding the iraq veterans side train was another enlisted young man out of fort stewart who, after going to not this march, but the one in front of the pentagon in march sponsored by the anti-coalition due to the to the intense stress that he felt on being a potentially deploy to iraq. he never went back, went awol i never went back to fort stewart, georgia. the young man who's on the far left there holding the appeal banner. his name is brian hill, national guard member. now, brian.

was a part of one of the 13 appeals signers who was on 60 minutes in february 2007, was mentioned that we want 60 minutes. and again this this, this, this piece. when we deal with the quantitative scuse me, the qualitative aspect of our organizing, not when we had 3000, almost 3000, that we had 300, we 65 signers of the appeal for redress this simple this very straightforward three sentences that i haven't read yet. they basically stated as a patriotic american, proud to serve the nation the uniform i respect artfully urge my political leaders congress to support the prompt withdrawal of all american military forces bases from iraq, staying in iraq would not work and is not worth the price. it's time for u.s. troops to come home. we had about 600 plus signers with all the corporate media. i'm amazed i got to with all the corporate media covering us.

brian here wrote a statement to the producer there, 60 minutes, right before we right before we aired. i'm going to end by reading excerpts because he hits on his principle of risk taking and what it means when someone, like brian hill steps forward. okay. national guard member roughly about a quarter of those who were sent to iraq were coming from national guard and reserves. brian's states here to put it in perspective for you, the national guard is the only thing i've got really going for me right? i may rank relatively fast and plan on finally obtaining my undergrad sometime next year. i also have hopes of getting my in as well. i'm a poor college student with no health on a shoestring budget. i'm 27 and i can't be around too much longer. i fear i'm taking a huge chance. this is no way standard that others haven't considered what they die. each person is different in sample fourth more consideration than others. i feel strongly that the appeal is the right thing to do. i'm not sure about the piece

they're supposed to air. i'm not backing out, but i'm asking you. he's speaking to the producer. 60 minutes to do us right. and to do us justice. finally, finally. we, we, we end. we affirm, we affirm wendell holmes that we've shared the action in the passion of our time. lastly lastly, we affirm john edgar wideman. we are not what we we are. we're not what we profess. we are not even what we hope or aspire to be at. the end of the day, we are what we do. thank you so much. okay. thank you to all the panelists. i would like at this time to see if of the panelists want to comment out on what they've heard from from the other panelists. well, i would just add one piece, you know, in response, the last talk, which because they didn't say it before, which is that i think an important

part of united for peace and justice as coalition. and i don't mean to just, you know, imply that there were no problems. you know, of course there are always problem. but was was the involvement of military personnel in the group? i that military family speak out you know vets against the war that these entities these were really an important part of that coalition in terms of having any kind of at all. and also, you know in in a more general way. i actually think it made the movement more ground. did you know in actual experience that people were having so i mean that was really and i know also even with our grass roots lobbying that went and again the you know there were often military people who are part of that or military families who are part of it. so, i mean, it really was a very important dimension of the movement. if i might just say a couple of words in response. i like, rusty, your reference

to, the way in which the nixon administration was responding to the various congressional actions, and there is this debate within the movement why bother with congress? we should be out in the streets, but it's it's not either or. it's both. and and as i point out in the book, was also a similar effort in iraq to get resolutions before congress to withdraw all the troops. the iraq issue was, dominant in the oh six election, helped to turn congress, to the democrats and a lot of antiwar members were elected and three times in 2007, the congress adopted and passed a resolution for a timetable for withdrawal. bush vetoed it and they had this filibuster rule that killed it. but so looked like nothing happened but it clearly was putting this issue on the agenda. and as you pointed out, a few months later, bush went to the iraqis and negotiated a timetable for withdrawal. that's also what obama picked up in terms of his own policy.

i mean, he had said he was opposed to the war and ran an anti-war candidate, but this was the the agenda for how to do it became. essentially, what had developed in that led translation and just one other point to follow up on jonathan's point and this last point about the role of people, the military, because of my history and i was contacted a few months ago, but almost a year ago now by a number of russian draft resisters and more recently by a group of deserters from the russian army who are in kazakhstan and these are young mostly were drafted. some of them are contracts. as one said, i signed up to defend my country, not to give putin a better ratings and to fight against a country that's not my enemy. but this is a real going on in the russian military and we should be conscious of that. it's i don't if they have their

own appeal for redress not in such a dictatorial dictatorial police state, but what we in the u.s. can do is welcome these people when they come to our country. there are russian draft resisters and we're resisters, deserters who are here and to build a movement to get our country to offer our humanitarian visa entry for these courageous people in russia who are opposing the war. i one of the best hopes we have for ending this war and undermining this horrendous criminal war of aggression by russia is to encourage resistance, russian society and within the military. so it's a there's echo of our own history there that we can perhaps try to address. back in time. if i could chime in real brief, i think, one, i agree with david and rusty in principle in terms of it not being an either or that you we have to have for lack of a better frame and boots on the ground in terms of the

movement to to have pressure on the ground and any time just from a practical standpoint, we should be engaging legislators and, engaging in progressive legislation. however, the the greatest fallacy of this of this generation's movement in view, the greatest fallacy was that in was that the movement with the election obama, for lack of a better frame, it went home. it wasn't movement. it did not remain seen in the streets. okay, you can not sacrifice your street element to the electoral process. i never forget as an undergraduate, howard university, someone mentioned this when i started my my my activist career, for lack of a better frame in the late ac burke peace activist, who was very active in the rainbow coalition and a number of peace goals i'll never forget because as he saw me as someone who was an admirer of reverend jackson, i never forget he made the point

to me that the rainbow should have never went. oh, he said, demobilize, educate me on things, you know, literally demobilize, he said, these electoral campaigns. that was not the example that the reverend dr. king left us with right. that that during the during the administration, lyndon baines johnson, this is lyndon johnson who signed the civil rights act. this is meningitis on the voting rights act. this is lyndon johnson. they initiated the poverty programs. this is lyndon johnson. it did more on a domestic front than other president since fdr and abraham lincoln. there's no other president they had they had a progressive agenda quite like that in the background of that or the foreground of that that did not stop dr. king from for peace and from us making that speech from riverside church. a time to break silence in which he he stated verbatim that he would not speak against the urban rebels in the cities across america in terms of their

monitoring cocktails near violence until he has clearly spoken to the greatest purveyor of ours in the world, his own. that is that's the example that i believe we have, that we have to move for that. we're not going to demobilize. we're not going to stand down no matter who's in public office, that we have to maintain an activist front, an organizing front to maintain accountability all across the board. kate, would you like to comment now? okay. we'll open it up to the floor, identify yourself. name, affiliation, academic affiliation. if you had a particular role in the anti-war anti-iraq war, you may, of course, state that george. george leakey. i was there. and in that massive turnout, very happy to have been and i'm appreciating conversation because i'm an organizer and it was 95% a discussion of organizing a movement and how do

that powerfully and i appreciated that a whole lot and at the same time i'm so happy with what we're getting to now and what i want to encourage, which is to look at the strategic dimension because whenever we fail and i feel plenty of times in my various efforts, i don't only look at myself as an organizer, i also look myself as a strategist. i ask, did i pull out the the the that's available you know, do i really go into the technical strategic side of action in order to win as effectively as i might, for example? and that's i learned that from dr. king, because dr. king and slc lost the campaign in albany, georgia. they had a major retreat and they and they'd done a great job of organizing and they lost. and they asked, well, what could we have done differently that

would enable us to won? what kinds of actions would have enabled us to win? and of course they figured it out and then the very next year, 1963, they went to birmingham and they won because they learned from 62. so they they didn't need to up their organizing so much. and in birmingham, what they needed to do was look at the action they took and that's the the point the labor movement is full of this kind of thing. when you when the the the steelworkers went went to michigan to organize the auto industry in the thirties. they were great organizers. they already knew they were great organizers and they weren't winning strikes. so they asked themselves, what do we have to do? what's additional thing besides what what you folks have been talking about is mobilization. the additional thing they figured out we need to actually take over the factory not just

strike. we need to take it over, occupy it. that's what they did and that's what they won against general motors. the most powerfully. well, arguably the most powerful corporation in american. so i'm i'm very to hear the panel do another hour, but maybe not everybody wants that. but anyway on what are the differences that they would make in each of the campaigns that they describe? because i it's the action that is the opponent to change not only how well we organize how many people i'm going to ask you to stop there so any particular changes you would make a strategic i mean you were arguing jonathan with regard to at once obama came in the necessity to have kept up the pressure that certainly one lesson that one might learn and

anybody else want to comment at this point. okay. another question i would ask you to. okay. i'm sorry. thanks to just very quickly, i kind of do and don't agree with that contribution and the way i just say the way in which i because i'm very much in favor of action, you know, choosing the right to meet a particular situation and and so on. so i agree with it. and sense, but i think sometimes it's wrong to think that we haven't done something because of a particular failure on our part or because we've done something wrong, you know? i mean, sometimes people say, well, look, and you still got nuclear weapons. you know, you should have done something different. well, that's not necessarily the case because the such a thing as a balance of forces in any given situation, you know, so it's not we should have done direct action. instead of going on a march or

lobbying parliament. it's a question of how you build the forces to change the balance of forces. and that's why mobilization is so important and why continuing to build that public sentiment. sometimes the reality is that the power of the ruling class or whatever you want to call it is so great that particular time it's not possible to break through, you know, so it's not of kind of necessarily a strategic or tactical fault on the part of the movement. if it doesn't have a victory, a particular time. okay, rusty, just to come in for a moment on this, i don't exactly thinks a movement demobilized. so i remember like after obama elected, i think, you know, peace and justice, you know, had its conference very shortly after that. and i don't think there a sense there. oh, well, you know, now has happened. we could all just, like go home, if anything. i think people were, you know, kind of in courage, you know,

that that had this person in the white house. and if things might change. but i think different happened which is that, you know, a lot of the organizing around iraq mean and again i'm talking about the civilian part, not the military part that there were a lot of people that came into the peace movement who marched that february were not particularly left wing people, much of they were politically pretty moderate, but that they were galvanized by the insanity of the bush administration was going to do. and i know that more from my experience locally than all kinds of people got involved that point because the iraq project seemed so crazy and i think that's what changed after obama that people who had come specifically of iraq, you with the status of forces agreement that was happening and not so much focus on afghanistan which

in fact obama sent more troops then. so i think a lot of these people faded away from the movement at that time. and i think some this points to a bigger problem that we have, which i have no solution for, which is that apart from particular wars that are terrible and we haven't been very successful awful in organizing around us as a concern you know, and i think you just look around happening even right now is really testimony to the fact that these wars might end somehow the national security state has kept growing and we haven't really created a movement that adequately addresses that. renee. you first. oh, i could use my i can use my professor voice and just be loud. so i want to pick up on something. rusty, you said earlier about language that's appropriate,

approachable. that's not quite how you put it. but that has a wider appeal. and i wondered if you could comment on in the popular discourse of popular imagination and peace is often reduced. peace more often reduced to binaries where either at war, at peace, bullets are flying or they're not flying right. and i'm wondering how i know he said didn't have the answers to those but i want to throw out there how we might broaden the discourse to broaden number of stakeholders in peace rather than war and in disrupting a sort of master narrative that sees war as a driver of history. and instead, in develops more people in as stakeholders in peace. it seems to me that that that a real obstacle. anyway i wonder what he had to

say. you know i don't have a solution to that. i don't know what just goes away. i mean, you know, i see you know, again, you know, i'm coming at it really also, as a professor in the academy. so, you know, part what i that's my little world as well as our brooklyn for peace group which actually does still exist although not anywhere near the strength that that has happened. did you know what earlier you know i think the more concretely speak about some of these things it's like my class which i've just spent many hours in yesterday and they don't know what's on in gaza. okay. so i have a choice. i can use the word genocide, which being used all over the place and i could say, aren't you worried about genocide? no. you know what the word i'm when i said to my class, look kids aren't they turn the electric

city off. if you have babies and ventilators, they're dying in gaza now while we're sitting comfortably in our classrooms saying that that you could talk to them medicine, you could talk to them about you could talk to them about clean water. you know, there's language that could break through. i'm just using because this is the most current example because i'm sitting here racking my brains and with a group of kids and a perfectly loving, you know, it's not a criticism of the kids, but it's like, how am i going to get them to really grab the seriousness of this moment, right? i mean, i think everybody here is probably wrestling with that. but as a professor, what am i doing? but i know that i have to talk to them in a way that is concrete that they can understand. and so some of the marches just have these slogans. i mean, i'm not saying they should or shouldn't do it, but i know it doesn't work very well until you can really connect. and just one more thing. i want to go back for a moment

about the military during iraq, because i would say one of the most effective things on our campus during the iraq war was the the military people who came to campus and talked about their experience. and that was very effective. and it really like very vibrant conversation. but as far as education going our public about militarism, a feature of american policy so that everything that happens in the world we make worse. but i don't think done that job and i also think to some extent that's a failure of those of us who are in the universities, though we haven't an effective job of that. okay. anybody else want to comment on language issue? i would just i would just say that there wasn't i would just say that i come from a popular education, understanding, which basically says that those persons who face the brunt of

potential economic compulsion and meaning that that's what's driving, you know, enlistment in military these days, economic compulsion. right. one of the inconvenient truths, david, documented soldiers, soldier, revolt. the average activist in jamjoom was not a draftee was actually a volunteer. okay dave himself technically was a volunteer about to be drafted but chose to volunteer to. well, you you could say why, but but the point is that. that for those persons where there is that there's that interest right that their lives could be potentially sacrificed to be cannon fodder for the imperialist. the question is really not one of politicization is one of organized action. it's one of how do we organize those persons so we talk about students, youth on campus, students, youth, though campus can potentially engage that level of risk taking to, actually build a reach flow is a

once you hear from the active duty member, the military, then the question becomes, well, what are we going to do? what is to be done? okay. and a general, should that go, that meant that when a sailor named sammy was killed, it tuskegee institute in 1966, early six attempted to use a toilet in a gas station was murdered. the student by the coordinating committee became the first to arise or to come out against the vietnam war again. the student evacuated. nakamba was the first civil rights organization major one, to come out against vietnam due to the killing of a navy veteran in 1966. so that's that's the connection. do i has to be made. yeah. i was a draft induced was the terminology the day and but many people in the military are drafted by economic.

i do think working with people in the military the veterans for peace organization that i'm of and jonathan is part of as they go out schools and they try to talk about their own experience and and that they have the credibility and even veterans who may not be antiwar as such but they've been through these and they know they don't work and they know that iraq was a disaster and even in the military, at the senior ranks, you have general milley and others talking about, you know, are these the right moves be making and engaging the military. the problems are usually problems of militarism come from all the armchair. these people who sit comfortably in congress and send troops off to die. and from the profiteers in the arms sector. and why can't we find language that, you know, identifies that problem that's going on right now? they're all making big bucks by selling more and more weapons to ukraine.

and now to israel. this is not helping. so working with the veterans having language, that's a respectful of people who join the military for often economic and personal reasons, they're not warmongers. often they know, as i say, better than others, the folly of war. so i think that's a part of it. it's not the whole answer, but it's it's a it's an important element. okay. i think we have time. one, one more. matt. so i'll make a quick comment and then identify yourself, please. matt. matt meyer. i am the secretary general of the international peace research association and talking tomorrow is a longtime war is justice league person for the hundredth anniversary so we'll deal with this long anti-military thing later there. i love what george asked and the unanswerable theory of it. i think correct.

we could talk for hours about strategy, but sometimes this history doesn't allow to figure out the right strategy, win something and that in that way and, rusty, i think, has shared that strategy, always super local. so yesterday or tomorrow, using the word might be absolutely necessary in one context and absolutely useless in another. so strategy is always something extremely local. effused best. and so i guess my question is this there is a nexus between academia and activism, between research and, you know, being there on the street and like has been said many times by all the panelists. it's not one thing i know that we've got to do other things. and part of what i love, absolutely love about this panel is that i believe that we have extraordinarily important examples of the best uses of history, because in rusty's book

and in david's book, we have this information that goes against the grain. it wasn't a failure. that thing that's called the failure and they weren't not carrying that movement that. we thought, oh, we you know, vietnam war was ended because the vietnam armies or because of the soldiers. yes and yes. but also some other things. so that information that news that history is vital in developing the strategy. and i guess the question i have and maybe it can't be answered in 4 minutes, but maybe it's time for all of us to ponder is for this moment for this moment and the wars facing now. what is best nexus? what are the best strategic things that we can to build this academic, activist connectivity. thank you for that. i don't know. well well, i'll jump in. i'll jump in as one who was as a student. matt, you and have had this

conversation to try to be quick expeditious about this. there's a photo i brought with me here. i mean, this is this a photo of me when i was 20 years old? i'm still young, by the way. this was 1997. and a gentleman in his photo is the late, lawrence guyot. it's many. all of you in this room know who devised chairwoman of the mississippi freedom democratic party. he was a chairperson who made it to atlantic city, was jailed never made it to the historic challenge in l.a. andrew young documents, having liberated the three other women rights workers who had been viciously beaten and why no one in mississippi. but the point i make there the guy when i bumped into him as a 57 year old active is the struggle with eternal for him was living adjacent universe to a neighborhood college park where i could access him from a voter registration campaign i was involved and bumped into him

on a street corner and there began a relationship. so i believe that that's example of that nexus between activism, the campus, you have professors on campus who i believe must must go beyond. i mean, with this must must go beyond. i sound like an ideologue. yeah, but i believe must go beyond the the intellectual rigors to, the actual what is to be done. and i believe that that they're merged with professors such as rusty and david can you can us forward do you want to comment, kate? i don't know if you're still there it looks she ended maybe not she she's no longer part of the zoom. okay. okay. so it is about 330. i would like to thank you your participation. i'd like to before end another round of appreciation for david carolyn eisenberg kate hudson,

who can no longer hear us and. jonathan hutto for their participation.

good evening, everyone. welcome to politics and prose. i'm brad graham, a co-owner of a bookstore along with my wife lissa muscatine and we're very pleased to be hosting professor, author