> >So while we don't know for sure whether a soft approach can work, we do
> >know for sure, without even trying it out, that a hard approach can't.
> >The soft approach is the only possible option.
>
> Yeah, but you can't win elections with the "soft" stuff - real men do
> invasions! Note that Bush, in his Memorial Day speech, referred to
> the "battles of Afghanistan and Iraq" - mere moments in the 50-year
> war. As Michael Hardt put it when I interviewed him last week, war
> used to be considered an exception; now the state of exception has
> become the norm.
This is horrible, but it's also our opportunity.
The problem with all previous anti-war movements was always that they were episodic and that they never stopped wars. But now that we have permanent war, we have an object for continuous demonstrations to express our outrage against it, agianst the idea that world domination is the solution to our problems, aginst the idea that lying is truth, that war is good and that giving our money to the rich is the cure for depression.
Clearly the time to start protesting the war in Iran is now. They're already planning the invasion. But more optimistically, protests that precede actual war, and that aren't pressured by events, can afford to be against the whole thrust of policy. They can devote themselves to what demonstrations really are good at: manifesting a counterview, making people feel they are not alone and fertilizing their connections. In short, to push the country to the left.
There are lots of outraged people in this country who feel impotent and alone. We should bring ourselves together and make ourselves visible.
Michael