"The best way to persuade the elite that THIS war is not a good way to rule the world would be to expose the war as an example of why the US elite should not be permitted by the rest of the world, and even by its subjects in the US, to rule the world. An example of an undisguisable instance of stupid brutal arrogant murder for imperial control of oil will tend to illuminate all the disguisable instances. When the elite understands this danger perhaps they will stop this warmongering. We should be doing the illuminating."
This implies the elite rules without interference and only reacts when it sees fit to, in light of broad political threats. I think there is enough democracy for public opinion to affect policy. The rules matter, although they are never absolutely dependable in every situation. You can persuade non-elites to constitute a sufficient political presence to exert some control over policy. You don't need to be able to threaten to smash the state in order to move public policy in less malign directions.
Going strictly by JM's schema, it seems to me that elite opinion already tilts against the Bush plans, on balance. But they lost a political struggle commonly understood as an "election."
As far as agitation goes, there is no operational difference in our views in this context (tho I don't buy the characterizations of BDL and Newman!). We stop the war by mobilizing everyone who can be mobilized, with nearly any argument that flies. Right?
mbs