> 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.
>
Exactly right. But even more. I think like most "successful" movements this movement has been both a partial success and a partial failure. The problem is how do you judge success? I believe without the anti-war movement, here and globally, we would be deeper into this war, the troop commitment would be massive, and there would have been a full mobilization, including the draft.
And here are the questions: How much have the various anti-war movements over the past 30 years contributed to the so-called Vietnam Syndrome? And how much have those movements limited U.S. military adventures? The problem is we can never know. We can pose thought experiments and try to imagine an alternate reality where those movements never existed. Would have there been a full war mobilization of all aspects of society after 9/11? The Bush Admin would have tried. Would there have been larger crackdowns on civil liberties in the U.S.? I am pretty sure there would have been. Would the war have expanded across the Middle East? Probably.
Jerry