Let's see-- people see a few thousand people mindlessly marching for no apparent reason with no power, versus the Democratic activists who put an anti-war critic, Dean, as chair of the Party. Frankly, the antiwar Dems at least have something to show for their efforts; the sectarian antiwar folks look ridiculous and useless by comparison.
=====================================
Perhaps, perhaps.
Setting aside the eternal back and forth about demonstrations versus electoral politics for a moment, I find myself very interested in this phrase you used, "antiwar Dems".
I'm not enough of a Dem watcher to claim familiarity with every elected party member's stance on the war so I turned to the Democratic National Committee's homepage at www.democrats.org/ for guidance.
As it happens, the party platform the Kerry/Edwards campaign used is available for download here --
<http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v002/www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf
>
Although this may be a bit past its prime -- it does mention the Kerry/Edwards plan, now a moot point -- it's still presented as the party's statement on various pressing issues.
Now I think the word 'antiwar', when applied to the US' occupation of and continued military operations in Iraq, in order to have any meaning, must mean a call for an end of hostilities. And, for hostilities to end (or, at least, hostilities Americans inspire by their presence and/or actions or initiate for shifting strategic reasons, such as the destruction of Fallujah) US forces must leave. They can leave in an orderly fashion or they can leave in a hurry but they must vacate the premises.
If a demand for an end to warfare in Iraq - and therefore, a withdrawal of American forces - is the definition of being antiwar, from my reading of the DNC platforms' statement on Iraq I don't think it's accurate to say the Dems, at least at the leadership level, are 'antiwar'.
It would be more accurate to call them anti-operational-inefficiency. There are numerous knocks against the Bush admin's failures to "win the peace" which are fair enough, if a bit off-target since they have not only failed to "win the peace" but, fundamentally, failed to create any sort of peace at all.
But these shots at Bush administration sloppiness seem to have the purpose of saying 'we'd do it better' which is not really an antiwar position at all is it?
.d.
...
Strong At Home, Respected in the World -- The Democratic Platform for America.
<snip>
7. PROMOTING DEMOCRACY, PEACE, AND SECURITY
We know that promoting democracy, human rights, and the rule of law is vital to our long-term security. Americans will be safer in a world of democracies. We will work with people and nongovernmental organizations around the world struggling for freedom, even as we work with their governments to protect our security from weapons of terror. We will restore America's credibility and commitment as a force for democracy and human rights, starting in Iraq.
<snip>
People of good will disagree about whether America should have gone to war in Iraq, but this much is clear: this administration badly exaggerated its case, particularly with respect to weapons of mass destruction and the connection between Saddam's government and al Qaeda. This Administration did not build a true international coalition. This Administration disdained the United Nations weapons inspection process and rushed to war without exhausting diplomatic alternatives. Ignoring the advice of military leaders, this Administration did not send sufficient forces into Iraq to accomplish the mission.
And this Administration went into Iraq without a plan to win the peace. Now this Administration has been forced to change course in order to correct this fundamental mistake. They are now taking up the suggestions that many Democrats have been making for over a year. And they must – because having gone to war, we cannot afford to fail at peace. We cannot allow a failed state in Iraq that inevitably would become a haven for terrorists and a destabilizing force in the Middle East. And we must secure more help from an international community that shares a huge stake in helping Iraq become a responsible member of that community, not a breeding ground for terror and intolerance.
<snip>
The President has not given our troops the clarity of mission, the equipment or the international support they need and deserve. We have a different approach based on a simple commitment: Troops come first. Our helicopter pilots have flown battlefield missions without the best anti-missile systems. In a Democratic Administration, that will change. Too many of our nation's finest troops have died in attacks, because tens of thousands were deployed to Iraq without the best bulletproof vests, and there is a shortage of armored vehicles on the ground. In a Democratic Administration, that will change.
[...]
full at --
<http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v002/www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf
>