>Do you think the antiwar movement's fortunes are tied to the
>reactions by elected officials (i.e., a bigger, louder, meaner
>movement might change they way they vote)? Or would it work through
>some extraparliamentary magic?
If you're asking what extraparliamentary activities the antiwar movement should undertake to end the war, I honestly don't know. If you are really confused about what I had written, I should restate: The antiwar movement *should not let* its self-image be tied to the fortunes of elected officials. That would be the definition of folly, it seems to me. The state must have its bloodletting, and I think only unobtainable levels of opposition to the war would make it end. A change of regime *might* end the war, but neither history nor the public statements of forces that could take control of the war machine indicate that would actually happen.... I'm now thinking of Einstein's definition of madness.