In 2001 a number of leftists around the nation and on various lists argued that the "US had been attacked and the government must take some action." After the war began the argument appeared that the U.S. had to stay in Afghanistan to remedy the damage it had done, et. Cet. Then after the invasion of Iraq again the argument appeared that the u.s. must repair the damage it had done before leaving Iraq. (The assumption was that of course the U.S. would leave at some point..)
It seems to me that these sorts of views reflect the failure of so many to take in just how utterly destructive, how utterly without restraint, the U.S. engaged in deliberate mass killing of civilians during the Vietnam War. Once that fact has been fully grasped, it should be hard to support _any_ u.s. military activity anyplace.
We really can't build anti-war movements; we really can't understand and build opposition to u.s. military activity unless we fully accept that we do not need any additional facts to oppose such activity. It will always be wrong; it will always be utterly brutal. That has to be a Kneejerk reaction, and no demand for "knowing the new facts" must be allowed to interfere with that kneejerk reaction. Any other standpoint will always lead to fucked-up politics.
And understanding the full horror of the Vietnam war (and thus beginning to understand the nature of the anti-war effort) is essential to understanding the structure and dynamic of the u.s. state.
That's why a focus that changes the understanding of the Anti-War movement to the personal motives of the protestors rather than the political content of the protests is so destructive to leftist thought.
Carrol