Anti-War Movements

[Chris Burford]

At 16/10/01 18:06 -0500, you wrote:
>The plural is important here.
>
>No anti-war movement ever has stopped a war in any of its early stages,
>nor will any anti-war movement _ever_ wucceed in that.
>
>There is absolutely nothing, nothing whatever, that we can do now that
>will have any effect on U.S. government actions within the next 12
>months or so. This is axiomatic and other assumptions can merely be
>ignorned as childishness.
>
>Carrol

While it is right that anti-war movements should judge tactics and 
strategy, this is too sweeping. The anti-war movement has already prevented 
the US from lashing out in the first couple of weeks. It has prevented an 
attack on Iraq. It could well force the US to suspend the bombing raids, 
much as these are easier to continue than to opt for a more rational policy.

It could force a rethink on Israel. It can force a shift in the nature of 
the Atlantic alliance.

None of this is separate from the very difficult tactical and strategic 
calculations that the US administration has to make. But it is the 
generals, and there is one heading the State Department now, who are often 
the most cautious. The main weakness of the peace movement at the moment is 
that it has failed to make a strong strategic link with the the movement 
for global economic justice that was developing so fast up to 10th September.

Chris Burford

London