The antiwar movement in the U.S. has all but vanished. Whatever once existed is now a shell of its former self. Sure, there are various individuals and paltry organizations who continue to speak-out against U.S. imperialism, but they are isolated, powerless and lacking any meaningful exposure in the broader American political landscape.

To be clear, this didn’t happen overnight. When I first became involved with the movement, back in 2006, organizers routinely told me about the days and months prior to the March 19 bombing and invasion of Iraq, when hundreds of thousands of people were mobilized in opposition to Bush and Blair’s criminal war. At the time, I lacked perspective. After all, I was new to activism.

Yet, there was plenty of energy in those days (2006-2008); people were speaking out; rallies were being held; and some groups even staged direct actions and engaged in civil disobedience, although not on a large scale and lacking coordination with ongoing campaigns. Moreover, the movement never had a cohesive vision. Back then, and even today, libertarians have been much more consistent in their opposition to U.S. Empire than their progressive or left-wing counterparts.

During the 2006 midterm elections, Democrats swept into office and regained control of the U.S. House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate, the majority of governorships and state legislatures. Democrats won primarily due to the incompetence (ongoing scandals) and neglect (Hurricane Katrina) of the Bush regime, and also because the majority of Americans had grown tired of never-ending and catastrophic counterinsurgency operations in the Middle East.

Before long, it was quite clear the Democrats were utterly unwilling to cut off funding for the war in Iraq. Since this option was clearly off the table, the Democrats conceded the length and duration of the war to the Bush administration and their lackeys abroad. As a result, a significant portion of the antiwar movement went home, or moved on to work with other political movements after the elections ended.

Then, the Bush administration announced the Surge in 2007 – 20,000 more ground forces were to be sent to Iraq while U.S. and Iraqi forces supplied weapons and training to various Shia militias, some of whom had previously fought against the West. Death squads were armed. Sunnis throughout Iraq, alienated and devastated after four years of occupation and Maliki’s Shia-dominated government, were displaced, tortured and slaughtered. Meanwhile, Democrats refused to cut-off funding.

Some progressive and left groups found a temporary home in Obama’s 2007-08 campaign for U.S. President. Since Obama voted against the war in Iraq, some groups viewed him as an antiwar candidate. It should be noted, however, that Obama was very clear during his campaign: if elected, more troops (47,000) would be sent to Afghanistan and drone strikes would escalate.

Furthermore, Obama’s worldview wasn’t drastically different from Bush’s, something else that was ignored by his supporters. In other words, Obama espoused the notion that the U.S. has the right to intervene abroad when American interests are challenged or threatened. Plus, Obama willfully accepted the War on Terror’s warped ideological framework. Obama’s supporters, on the other hand, heard what they wanted and continued to promote him as the peace and justice candidate.

The Great Financial Crash of 2008 drove the final nail into the coffin of the U.S. antiwar movement. After the U.S. economy collapsed, the national conversation drastically shifted from being dominated, or at least colored by foreign policy considerations, to being largely focused on economic policies and rightly so, as the 2008 crash was the worst economic collapse since 1929.

Unsurprisingly, Wall Street responded to the crisis by pushing for austerity measures. Consequently, the Occupy Movement was born. Meanwhile, the connections between war and austerity were never properly articulated. Some protestors and organizers attempted to make the connection, but the broader American public never heard their message, and the Occupy Movement never cohesively vocalized such concerns. Movements often have a limited opportunity to frame issues, and unfortunately Occupy never clearly made the connection between empire abroad and austerity at home.

Since then, the only major antiwar action in the U.S. took place in Chicago in 2012, where NATO was met by 15,000 peace and justice activists in Chicago. During the NATO protests, the connections between austerity at home and empire abroad were mentioned, but only in conversation and protest, never in the context of a campaign or ongoing set of coordinated political actions.

To be fair, several antiwar protests took place when Obama proposed bombing Syria in 2013, but those actions were small in number and dominated by sectarian groups. In Chicago, for example, the group responsible for organizing protests in opposition to Obama’s plan to bomb Syria also blatantly supported the dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad, which hindered the possibility that such actions could develop into long-lasting relationships or coalitions. It should also be noted that a significant portion of the opposition to Obama’s plans to bomb Syria were right-wing elements, including the Tea Party. Remember, the congressional opposition to Obama’s bombing strategy was thoroughly bipartisan. In fact, more Republicans than Democrats opposed Obama’s Syria strategy. In other words, Democrats supported their party’s leader while Republicans saw a chance to stick it to the opposition and side with the vast majority of Americans (70 percent) who opposed bombing Syria.

Today, over 10 nations have bombed Syria, with many more providing arms, equipment and intelligence to opposing sides in the now four-year-long war. The spectrum of debate concerning Syria in the 2016 U.S. Presidential elections is very restricted. The options are: 1) focus military strikes on the Islamic State group, 2) simultaneously bomb the Islamic State group and Assad’s forces, or 3) bomb and put boots on the ground. The idea that the U.S. shouldn’t respond to events in the Middle East with militarism is not up for discussion or debate. According to Bernie Sanders, the U.S. has the right to defend our interests. On the other side of the aisle, Republicans seek to put U.S. ground forces in Syria. The GOP also wants to dismantle Obama’s agreement with Iran, leaving only one alternative: war. Drone strikes? They will continue and most likely increase regardless of who wins the White House in 2016. To be clear, this is the result of a non-existent antiwar movement: critical discussions concerning U.S. Empire are absent from the 2016 fray.

On the other hand, progressive political movements in the domestic arena are influencing the national conversation. Republican Senators Lindsey Graham and Rand Paul openly discuss climate change, conceding its impacts and potential consequences. All three Democratic candidates have responded to progressive political movements in the U.S. – immigrant rights, environmental, labor, LGBTQ, Black Lives Matter, feminist and human rights organizations are influencing Democratic positions on any number of issues. State power acknowledges their legitimate interests and concerns. Hell, even GOP candidates are talking about wealth and income inequality (their responses are absurd, but that’s not the point). Progressive movements are having an impact.

In the end, political movements shouldn’t primarily gauge their success through the scope of presidential extravaganzas. That being said, conversations that take place within the context of national elections are a decent indication of whether or not movements are having any influence on power. Right now, unfortunately, antiwar activists in the U.S. have practically no influence on the political system.

Vincent Emanuele can be reached at [email protected].