Divisions in the military and the ruling class in general always exist on the occasion of imperialist war, but they exercise their own version of "democratic centralism" once the bullets start flying. Latest evidence was the Gulf War. The importance of the antiwar movement is that it exacerbated these divisions and forced them to become public. Once they became public, the fighting morale of US imperialism began to decrease. The definitive account of how this took place is in Tom Wells's "The War Within." He interviews people like Dean Rusk who explain how the mass demonstrations eroded the resolve of the government. This, of course, is why the ruling class has been so anxious to overcome the "Vietnam syndrome."
>Of course the major mobilisation of the anti-war movement
>only took place when it became obvious that the US could not win. Those in
>the military who supported continued conflict then could then point to
>dissenters, 'doves' and the media and blame them for the forthcoming
>defeat. And such was the narcisism of the anti-war movement (epitomised
>here by Louis), they too celebrated the defeat of the US as their victory,
>when in reality it was achieved with Vietnamese blood.
Narcisism [sic]? There is nothing narcissistic about the claim that the Vietnam antiwar movement and the Vietnamese resistance interacted with each other. As long as the Vietnamese fought, the antiwar movement protested in the streets. As long as the protests went on, the ruling class divisions deepened.
>
>As for the the political consciousness of the anti-war movment, well once
>the acid had worn off, it soon degenerated into various forms of me-ness
>and consumer-hippydom, especially the cosy deleria of the tree-huggin
>Greens.
Cosy deleria of the tree-huggin greens? Hiccup. Lesh have another drink of whiskey, get into our car, light up a cigarette, and go shoot some foxes.
Louis Proyect
(http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)