Although the literal words of the last sentence would mean this, I cannot believe that Carrol is really in all circumstances a pacifist or an anarchist. I presume he must mean in the context of this war.
That is why the arguments Nathan puts forward are right - about how to *approach* this question. It is important to identify and work with what is positive in the feelings of the mass of people, in order to isolate what is wrong.
Americans are very insular, but even among them, there is a sense of justice. The slogans and strategic goals should be around justice juridically and justice economically, world wide. As citizens in the US worry more about the costs and inconvenience of protecting against anthrax and having to think twice before taking a local flight, reality seeps in.
There is a difference between how to pitch the main slogans at a rally and how to develop the critique of the war policy in speeches at such a rally. And what can be got across in say a letter to a paper or a phone in programme is something else.
It is vital not to adopt an ideological pacifist position or one of permanent oppositionism on principle.
1) to unite with peoples sense of the need for some sort of state power and order at a frightening time.
2) to battle for ideological hegemony within civil society. Th first step in the revolution is to win the battle of democracy. That cannot be done by sectarian oppositionism, by pacificism or anarchism.
None of these points is meant to imply any desire actively to promote a ground war in Afghanistan at the moment. But agitation against the air war,including by pointing out how a ground war would be somewhat more preferable, is a way of getting a hearing for a deeper campaign.
Chris Burford
London