From observing past debates regarding the usefulness, or lack thereof, of marches I know there's a great deal of strong feeling about this on both sides of the question.
Still, I note what seems to be a trend: the staging of counter-demos as a nullifying tactic.
NPR --
<http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4860476>
-- is reporting that in addition to antiwar groups, pro-war organizations (perhaps we could call them the most vocal 'Stay the Course'ers') arrived in force.
I don't know what the comparative numbers are -- which camp can boast the biggest head count -- but if the purpose of a march is to demonstrate opposition and convey a unified message to the viewing world it might be useful to examine what effect counter-demos have on the visual communique's strength.
...
Counter-demos of various sorts can work to our advantage -- for example, the anti Minuteman projects that have complicated, and hopefully blunted, the vigilante offensive.
Still, we seem to have entered an age of endless swerves in which antagonists borrow each others' tactics and methods creating, perhaps, a sort of message, anti-message self devouring ouroboros --
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros>
No doubt, this isn't true in every case. A march focused on economic matters for example, would probably fail to inspire a strong anti movement (it's difficult to imagine a "Justice and Jobs" march being countered with an "Injustice and Unemployment" counter-march...some topics such as war, lend themselves more easily to pro and con firing positions).
Then again, perhaps I'm seeing more there than is really there (if you know what I mean).
.d.
---
http://monroelab.net <<<< strontium 90 free (mostly) since 1982 >>>>