****Some of Washington Square's assembled seemed frustrated with the event's muddled message. "It's so irresponsible," a woman sighed in exasperation as Al Sharpton concluded his rousing antiwar polemic. "He doesn't say what we should do." The left is accustomed to refusal. But there may be aspects of Bush's "war on terrorism" that peace activists should support, if they are to persuasively oppose its murderous violence. The current bombing campaign is killing innocent people, creating a relief crisis in a destitute country and further destabilizing an already-perilous region. It is dangerously limitless in its scope and military insiders are expressing serious concerns about whether it will even accomplish its goals. Yet given that terrorism is an immediate and continuing threat, protesters must be able to discuss alternative approaches to national security. "We'd like to see a united international effort to bring [the terrorists] to justice," rally organizer Reecha Upadhyay said, admitting that the movement was finding it difficult to figure out how this would work. "We know what we shouldn't do."****
I'm curious whether anyone on this list would still consider this to be a sensible comment?
At the time I argued that we should think only of what would be useful in 6 months or so. That was wrong only in that I should have said two or three years. Opposition movements think in the future. They don't mess around with bureaucratic remedies for the immediate situation.
Carrol