Other factors?
1) The failure of the anti-war activists to reject ANSWER at an early stage in the post-9/11 movement. ANSWER stepped into the power vacuum as most sectarian organizations would and set itself up as THE coalition and THE movement. The shallow understanding of politics, especially of the sectarian left kind, by rank-and-file activists allowed ANSWER to assume power. 2) The inability of anti-war activists to understand that national mobilizations don't work. They may have some effect in the lead-up to the war, but nobody pays attention to national protests in Washington unless they are bigger than the biggest mobilizations (Promise Keepers, MMM). People in the red states tend to dismiss Washington protests as something that always happens in Washington. This is most aptly symbolized by Washington tourists who like to pose for pictures in front of protests. 3) Mythology about the efficacy of past movements that clouds judgment about what the current movement should do. The myth that the 60s peace movement "stopped the war" when the movement died out years before the war ended. This mythology also fails to give credit to forms of activism, such as the G.I. coffeehouse movement which had a significant effect on dissent among the troops. This mythology has also unfairly elevated nonviolence as a false solution when a diversity of tactics is needed to stop the war machine. 4) A failure by anti-war activists to understand why the anti-globalization movement was successful. After 9/11, all the old school peace activists got involved and they revived all of the old ineffective methods, such a hierarchical coalitions, self-appointed leaders (see Cagan, Benjamin, and the Beckers). Of course, this was compounded by sectarian groups who had been frustrated by the anarchistic nature of the anti-globalization movement. Some of this falls on radical anti-globalization activists who didn't step up more to explain "how we did it." 5) A corollary to #4: Radicals in the anti-war movement have dropped the ball in doing our own organizing. We've opted too often for pointless radical spectacles at national mobilzations. We haven't set our own agenda, we haven't organized our own campaigns, and we've been generally lazy. 6) The movement has done a poor job of talking about the history of anti-war activism in the U.S. 7) The movements have done a poor job of training new activists. 8) There is a movement of movements against the war, but we've permitted people to refer to it as "THE MOVEMENT," which only helps sectarians claim ownership and leadership of said movement. In reality there are several movements. There is the religious-based peace movement. The traditional peace and justice movement. The left-based movement. The anti-capitalist and anarchist anti-war movement. And there are smaller movements, including the military families movement and the conservatives and libertarians against the war. 9) We've done a poor job of dealing with the "circular firing squad" problem. The discourse in our movements has gotten too personal and nasty, which alienates many folks. 10) We have failed to think outside of the box. Our rhetoric and strategies are as shallow as the thinking of those who support the war. "No blood for oil" is a simplistic slogan that obscures the real reasons for these wars. The national mobilizations in Washington demonstrate a second grade level understanding of appropriate targets. Marches in Washington are conducted because "the government is there." No, the government is everywhere, especially in the heads of those who support Bush and his wars. There have been ZERO efforts to organize national mobilizations in the Midwest or the South. If you want to organize a national mobilization, do it in a place where it will be noticed! The main anti-war coalitions haven't made an effort to go after the PR industry, the right wing spin machine, the corporate media, defense plants, corporations, and so on. 11) Radicals haven't been very radical. Let's face it, "breakaway" and "feeder" marches are still *marches*. The best examples of radical anti-war dissent have been seen in the Bay Area. Lately there have been some isolated attacks on recruiting centers, but for the most part, American radicals have been living in a comfortable bubble. We need to "bring the war home." 12) Not enough work has been done to motivate and inspire those who withdrew from activism after 9/11. I've concluded that one of our biggest challenges is all of our comrades who sit on their hands. Perhaps this should be at #1 and not #12. We have the numbers, but many of our comrades won't even spend one hour a week on activism. Some of this has to do with disillusionment and disempowerment, some of it has to do with not knowing what to do or how to plug in. 13) We need to do a better job of making dissent visible. More graffiti. More banners on freeway overpasses. More posters in public spaces. 14) Add your analysis here...
Chuck0