"C. G. Estabrook" wrote:
>
> We're having similar experiences in our local anti-war group, but I'm
> actually a bit more concerned about "Americans Against Escalation in
> Iraq," a well-funded Democratic party front. Nell Lancaster writes
> correctly about AAEI in her blog, "these organizations aren't led by the
> grassroots, but by electoral operatives. They don't want to end the war;
> they want to get it out of the way as an issue." --CGE
Indeed. That could be nasty.
I disagree with those who argue that the anti-war movement has "failed," for such arguments overlook the crucial fact that _no_ anti-war movement has ever done any better; and except under very special conditions (e.g. the massive black liberation struggle of the '60s) few if any anti-war movements have done as well as this one. Anti-war movements do _not_ stop wars; they contribute in various ways to the actual forces that end wars _and_, more importantly, they involve more people in practical struggle. For example, if SICKO does trigger a serious campaign for medical reform, we are in _much_ better shape to build that campaign than we would have been prior to 9/11. If no such issue emerges, we've wasted our time more or less -- but so have most leftists for 200 years, and that's no argument at all against continuing to build the anti-war movement.
But the _apparent_ failure of the anti-war movement (an appearance stemming from unrealistic expectations of what it could achieve) _does_ open it up to disruption both from conspiracism and from DP maneuvering such as CGE describes here. Carrol