The Georgetown action looked pretty successful to me and I've read favorable comments from its participants. They even had a tight shield wall at the front of the bloc.
> On Monday, about 60 anti-war protesters were arrested for blocking an
> intersection on Capitol Hill, blocking traffic for about 30 minutes.
> Another group of protesters were arrested for blocking the entrance to
> a Congressional office building. No one threw any bricks, no one got
> hurt, and it made the war at least a little inconvenient for a few
> people in Washington.
Now, if these folks had thrown some bricks, these protests may have made the evening news. I'm down with these blockade actions, but I'm getting pretty sick of reading half-ass support for these tactics over more militant tactics such as smashing stuff. This civil disobedience is significant, because the mainstream anti-war groups have derailed this type of protest in D.C. Of course, people do CD in other cities where anti-war recuperators don't have to worry about their image problem.
I know this won't go over well on this list, but the anti-war movement in this country is not going to stop or slow down the current wars until it escalates its actions. It's still mired in the comfort zone of the movement activists who are, for the most part, not affected by the war.
> If commuters in more American cities had to deal with protests like
> this on a regular basis, I think you'd see more progress on the war --
> if only because protests were making more people late for work.
I agree. I think both types of action should be organized on a frequent basis.
> So, really, which action had a more positive impact?
>
> This one: http://www.flickr.com/photos/nowarnowarming
> ...or this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evAmWEw4dEM
None of these actions had a significant impact in the current day. If they lead to more militant protests and civil disobedience, then they will have had a significant and positive impact.
> Tactically speaking, there's a lot to be said for peaceful protests
> because they tend to give you the moral high ground -- the more brutal
> the pigs are, the better the protesters look. (Wasn't Nixon even said
> to be disturbed by the Kent State shootings?) Violence, property
> damage and sabotage should never be ruled out, but it seems to me that
> there should always be a strong presumption in favor of peace.
I strongly disagree. I have no interest in seizing the moral high ground. This is war against the strongest war machine ever in existence. The people in control have shown little interest in stopping the war. Yes, many people have changed their minds and many in the military oppose the war, but they oppose THIS war and aren't against the U.S. engaging in military actions in the future.
We are a long way away from disbanding the U.S. military and achieving anything resembling real peace.
It's going to take the whole armamentarium of tactics to get the state to blink.
Chuck