What does "joining the antiwar movement" mean?
All of the factors I have seen here describing the difference between now and Vietnam seem like a lot of nonsense. First of all, there was a DRAFT back then, an issue of concern to many young men (and their families). No more burning draft cards or pouring pig's blood over them. A professional, all-volunteer army is different than the old one. Secondly, Vietnam broke the taboo of protesting against this sort of war. Before the mass protests, going to an anti-war demonstration was considered quite radical just like workplace strikes used to be considered quite radical. Thus we had massive protests against the invasion even before the war.
Perhaps people are more cognizant of what they can and can't do. SDS leaders saw the mass demonstrations and thought that it would mean a quick withdrawal - something that didn't happen until 1975. Of course the anti-war movement had an effect on things, but a quick withdrawal was not one of them. I'm sure even what are called the neo-cons would be willing to withdraw after they molded Iraq to their liking.
And then there is what Yoshie is talking about. Let's say one doesn't have a couple of hours to spare every week to be involved in the War Resisters League or UFPJ or ANSWER, but does wish to have some involvement. Right now ANSWER has split into two factions. UFPJ has not had a major demonstration for a year. I also heard that at the last UFPJ meeting, they decided to not work with ANSWER and ANSWER's March 19/20 anti-war demo. Not to mention all of the people constantly carping about ANSWER, while they seem to be happy with UFPJ, which hasn't done much for a year and counting except say that they won't work with ANSWER. So to answer your question, yes, when the leadership or organizers or whatever you want to call them are in disarray like this, yes, it affects whether or not ordinary people will get involved. You can't have people go to a demonstration when there is no demonstration.