Nathan Newman wrote:
> The "antiwar movement" has completely marginalized itself by ignoring vast
> numbers of antiwar people in this country. I went to all the early
antiwar
> rallies but I've given up bothering. The rallies have no coherent
message
> and the organizers no strategy, so why bother?
-A coherent message is not the problem. We all know that over half of -Americans oppose this war.
Ah yes-- and if it was that simple, Bush wouldn't have been reelected. What's amazing is that the antiwar movement is so pathetically ineffective DESPITE broad public support for its goals. Many Americans fear terrorism, think Hussein's regime was a repugnant dictatorship AND this the war was a bad idea. Unfortunately, the antiwar movement addresses only the last point, leaving Bush to dominate the message on the other two issues, which keeps dislike for the war from becoming actual opposition to the Bush regime's military policies.
The idiotic belief that message is irrelevant is exactly why the antiwar movement is irrelevant.
-What is needed now is more civil -disobedience, sabotage, protest, direct action and so on. Bring the war -home by raising the economic stakes of continuing the war. -Sit down and disrupt the war supply chain... -Organize a strike in the transportation industries...
One-- the ineffectiveness of the antiwar movement means you don't have the numbers to significantly effect the war supply chain. Two, if you did, you'd go to jail in enough numbers that the effect will be quickly erased. And three, even a hint that the antiwar movement is denying soldiers in danger the help they need will quickly move the middle of the population over to the pro-Bush camp.
If you actually had the numbers to be effective, it might be an interesting debate on tactics, but since you don't, it's all symbolic acts. Talking about "disrupting the war supply chain" is complete fantasy and is just an evasion of discussing tactics and strategy that might actually have any effect on government policy.
Nathan Newman