Carrol>>
I'm willing to give him the benefit of a doubt, since his analysis of the situation in Iraq and the US's occupation is so cogent. So, about the situation in the US, I would prefer to think that Hayden, like so many of us, just hasn't got a clue how to make the first log roll out of the jammed up pile so the rest can go thundering down the mountain slope. There is no anti-war movement to dissolve as far as I can see. There is a small 'anti-war' stasis trying to connect with a mythic populist, nationalist mass suspicious of the federal government and critical of wars because it wastes the holy blood of the sons of the soil.
And then there is the Democratic Party. The question for many is simply work within or outside the party, WHICH or BOTH or NEITHER? The Kucinich candidacy, if you take it at face value, seems to indicate real anti-war people can not work within the Democratic Party. On the other hand, anti-war groups who still hold with the sacred cult of mother, God=country and the holy blood of the warrior native sons aren't going to take an anti-war movement anywhere either. If you want me to waste more time on saying how much I support our troops, well, I have no more time for you.
The only anti-war movement there is right now is in Iraq, and it exists because of a variety of Iraqi nationalist groups. The US occupation forces think they have split the more militant Sunni from the more militant Shia, but this could just be that their propaganda wears down our ability to believe otherwise. Iraqis would be better informed about just which way it's going to go before the election in Jan. 2005. Regardless, the election whether held or not probably means very little for how things are going to go in the next year.
F
-- _______________________________________________ Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.asp?SRC=lycos10