The difference between Anti War and Pro Peace is not a semantic difference.  People tend to interchange the two terms.  Yet someone who is pro peace could rightfully have grave differences with an Anti War camp.

Anti War movements are historically short term. They tend to dissolve once a conflict has subsided, leaving way for aggression to return.  Pro Peace is about continued conflict resolution and making progressive policies that hopefully last.

Anti War is often very divisive, pitting "us vs them" and creating righteous camps.  Pro Peace can talk to anyone to find common ground and foundations to progressively move forward.

It is possible for Anti War to engage in practice that is less than peace.

Having said this, can anyone really explain our American mixology of guns and Jesus. How on earth can those mix? Actually, they can mix on earth where our weakness creates a self rationalized comfort zone. Those who believe in guns and Jesus are simply protecting themselves from self destruction.  It is about them.  Their self.  We keep hearing about a greater good.  Yet teachings of the concept of greater good describe a sense so pure it does not even hold evil as an opposite. It can't because it is pure good. Greater good. 

There is a greater chance of bringing an end to war by adopting concepts of pro peace as opposed to anti war. The later is somewhat exclusionary and we need to unite. Such unification can also support troops who have given all they have and all that they are.  There is a greater chance of ending the next war by adopting pro peace policies and making them law.

There is no victory in war.  There is no victory in peace.  There is only war in war.  There is only peace in peace.  There is no such thing as "giving peace a chance".  You either adopt concepts of peace or abandon them

"There can be no peace if National policy adopts as a deliberate instrument, the threat of war."  Franklin D Roosevelt