Huge anti-war protests are taking place all over the world against the invasion of Iraq by the US. Several reasons underlie these protests in the western countries including America. Most of these protests are occurring because US actions are not justifiable. The world appreciates that people and nations have the right to determine their own destiny, free from military coercion by the United States. A majority of Americans oppose this war, and are criticizing their President, refusing to accept that the war is being fought for their benefit. They have come out with cries “Please do not fight this war for us, at least not in our name”.

But the million-dollar question is, ‘Is Bush listening’? He has already dismissed anti-war protests as a factor in his plans for confronting Iraq, and believes that his government’s overriding goal is to protect the American people and is deciding his policy based on the security concerns of his nation. Is he clueless? Is he adamant? Or is he convinced that ultimately he is going to have the last laugh. Why is he gambling with his own political career? Is he making his assessment on facts?  What is his current support base?

There are no clear answers yet to these questions. But, there are many followers of Bush’s policy in America. Besides, media attention has concentrated on anti-war protests alone but pro-war views are not highlighted. There are many including prominent liberals, social democrats, left wing feminists, and writers, blasting the anti-war movement for its lack of patriotism, its hostility to mainstream American values, and its blanket opposition to US military power.

For President Bush this Iraqi adventure is a high-stakes gamble. On what calculations would he be making his assessment? Is he drawing parallels from Vietnam and more recent Pakistan and Kosovo experiences? There were many demonstrations against the war in Vietnam, but Americans had continued with it for quite sometime. Post- Hiroshima-Nagasaki many anti-nuclear movements occurred all over the world, but countries like India and Pakistan went nuclear. Nobody stopped dealing with China after the Tiananmen Square incident.

Many analysts argued that Clinton will meet his waterloo in Kosovo. He faced stiff resistance within his country because many Americans felt that Yugoslavia poses no threat. Public opinion in many NATO countries was also in favour of stopping air strikes and starting peace talks. However, NATO forces pressed on despite of more than 70 per cent of the public expressing their opposition in opinion polls.

Post-September 11, 2001 when America decided to attack Taliban forces in Afghanistan, General Musharraf helped it despite resistance within his own country. Comparing reactions on the basis of local populations’ anti-war sentiments in military regimes and democratic governments is unjustifiable. Bush may be thinking that if a General can get away by going against the sentiments of even militant Islamic elements, then he can easily fool the Americans.

It appears that Bush will have to do some media management because the anti-war sentiment is spreading all over the world like wildfire. He may not face problems in managing CNN and BBC and print media publications. But managing the Internet will be virtually impossible. There is plenty of evidence of a global grassroots sentiment opposing the war, and more is pouring in everyday. In fact, the Internet’s crucial role in public debates has never been more evident.

Apart from anti-war demonstrations Bush must be worried about the other risks involved in the Iraq adventure. If Iraq puts up an unexpectedly stiff resistance and war prolongs like the Vietnam conflict, then the entire region could rise in revolt. Iraq could descend into anarchy, if America is not able to manage the Iraq post-invasion situation. And, most importantly, all these factors will have a great impact on the US economy. But it seems that he is not left with any choice because he has failed to divest Saddam of his WMD capabilities.  Here he has a problem. He cannot admit to the world that he is looking for weapons that were probably procured by the Iraqis from the Americans themselves. This is why he is trying to defend his decision on grounds of national interests.

Bush is not worried about anti-war sentiments. He knows that, in spite of pro-war sentiments during the Gulf War, his father lost the elections, while Richard Nixon had earlier got two terms despite the fog of pro- and anti-war sentiments.