#41567: — 09/25  at  10:31 AM
Am I the only one who hangs his head in embarrasment at this? Is this all the left amounts to: a shrill costume parade? No wonder we're losing the country, particularly middle America. Granted, I've always disliked protests and the protestor culture (who generally seem to be the sort of people who enjoy raising a ruckus but are never around when you want to do the hard work of political organizing and volunteering). But still: can anyone tell me what any of this accomplishes? When

"[Name of Missing Person]... Please meet your Mom at the Socialist Liberation tent. I repeat: [Name of Missing Person] Please meet your Mom at the Socialist Liberation tent. Thank you."

is the sort of circus the right gets to quote endlessly? When the whole thing is so disorganized that every nutty conspiracy theory and leftist cause is all piled into one incoherent, inconsistent hubbub? This is just red meat for the right, unfortunately, and does little to nothing to help in any substantive way other than making the participants feel like they've done something fun.

#41569: — 09/25  at  11:05 AM
I somewhat agree with plunge. I was in D.C. yesterday for the march and there were too many other causes addressed during the speaker presentations. I think many agreed with me. This is a problem the organizers should address. However, the vast majority of the attendees were there to protest the quagmire in Iraq. This was evident in the way they responded to the speakers and in the signs and T-shirts.

I disagree that protests don't accomplish much. They have in the past and will continue to do so. I think history has proven so. You may not see the results in a week, but you will in time. I think it's the MTV generation that wants to see results quickly, but watch how this changes administration priorities in the next few months. Rove is no dummy. He knows he's losing support and will try to save his man's presidency before he loses the 2006 elections. Look, if we don't protest, then surely Bush and Rove will think we don't care at all and Bush can go back to playing, as Maureen Dowd said, the Today Show weatherman (see Katrina and Rita photo ops).

#41570: Alon Levy — 09/25  at  11:20 AM
It really has nothing to do with the MTV generation. In the 1960s the counterculture movement was just like that: it protested Vietnam loudly and vehemently, but it didn't get the United States to stop destroying the country a single day earlier.

#41573: sort of buddhist — 09/25  at  11:42 AM
I was in those "loud and vehement" Vietnam protests (in fact, I was in one of the first ones, in front of the Dem. Party convention at the Atlantic City convention hall in 1964, when the escalation was just starting -- it was rather quiet and unvehement, though). All I can say is that the effectiveness of this sort of demonstration has been debated for a long time, and will continue to be.

I wasn't at yesterday's DC demo; personally, I can't work up a lot of enthusiasm for them. But I am glad it happened, and was at least a lot larger than the pro-war one the Pentagon tried to organize. The fact is that the "middle America" that plunge claims we're losing is in fact turning against the war and against Bush in very large numbers, as every poll these days demonstrates. Even without a lot of Vietnam-era-style marching in the streets, the public is gradually turning against the war, just as it did then.

The whole media structure, with the Internet, is very different today. Then, our only hope of getting noticed by the public was to stage huge events that could get some coverage on the evening TV news programs, probably because of the fear -- or expectation -- that they might turn rather riotous, which would really give the cameras something to look at. And in fact there were riots in those days, especially after King's assassination. But today there is probably less need for this kind of demonstration, because the political controversy goes on 24 hours a day on the Internet, at least among the politically aware part of the public. That's why not only network TV news but even newspapers are declining in importance.

Whether this will lead to a better and brighter democratic tomorrow or not is hard to say. But the means of waging political struggle are certainly changing.

#41574: tom — 09/25  at  12:16 PM
First, I disagree that protests are useless - history has proven this and it is a very democratic way to strengthen an opinion - that's why freedom of assembly is such a basic thing.

Second, although I think that the protest is a great thing and have always been opposed to this poorly justified war, I think the USA has a responsibility to somehow fix the mess that they created before they leave. Of course, I have no smart solution myself - neither does the US government it seems. :-(

#41575: Niket — 09/25  at  12:30 PM
What about the pottery barn rule, PZ?

#41576: PZ Myers — 09/25  at  12:38 PM
The pottery barn rule is a good one, except that I think the proprietors might want to throw you out without fixing things if your thrashing about is doing more damage than good.

I don't think we're helping things over there.

#41578: Alon Levy — 09/25  at  12:56 PM
Judging by American actions in Iraq, the best thing the USA can do for the country right now is to leave it alone.

#41579: Kagehi — 09/25  at  01:03 PM
I am not going to comment, except to say that not everyone is in agreement and isn't it amazing how the biggest problems in Iraq always seem to coincide with some idiot paying the terrorists to release someone or after they have taken some massive defeat? Talafar being a good example. Place was being terrorized by terrorists using it as a staging area, take it out and suddenly Al Queda has to make a big demonstration of how they were not hurt by it, their leader goes nuts and declares all out war on the Shia, then a week later, when he has time to cool off, suddenly realizes how stupid that was and changes it to "Well, only actually the ones collaborating..." Sure... It was so much better back when we were not involved and all the attrocities were being commited by Saddam's Baathist party.

You know what is making this a quagmire, even more than the mistakes and stupidity shown by Bush? The fact that a mess of mass murderers that showed up there, including the asses in Saudi Arabia that recently both declaired that they are "Not supporters of terrorists", then went on their own national TV and said, "We must all support Jihad!", ***know*** that the mistakes made have convinced most of the US that staying is a bad thing and know that the same believe all the one sided press it has gotten, so they, as far as they are concerned, can still win, no matter how many loses they take, how ineffective and disinterested they have become in targetting coalition forces (you would think it they could manage to kill 100 civilians, it wouldn't be that hard to kill 100 soldiers in one hit...), etc., all they need to do is avoid getting their leaders caught and keep killing people.

The Taliban are trying the same tactic to regain control of Afghanistan, striking targets the Afghani government can't yet protect, in the assumption that if the US and others will run away in Iraq, which seems likely, they can also take back Afghanistan.

I don't agree with 90% of how things happened, even 1% of the screw ups, nor do I think the situation isn't unstable. But you have to be a complete fool, when dealing with the kind of insane religious fanatics driving this (without them, the 'real' Ex-Baathists in Iraq and others wouldn't be able to sustain it), to argue for something that only a) makes them stronger and b) convinces them that their delusion that Allah wants them to conquer the middle east, then the rest of the world is even more 'right' than they already believe it to be.

I think, as much as I would prefer to end it, that doing so is like dumping gasoline on dynomite and shooting firecrackers at it. If we do withdraw sooner than the Iraqi themselves want us to, then I desperately hope I am wrong, because the consequences of being right would make the Crusades look like someone's slightly humorless version of a Sunday picnic. Only, this time the western world will be the pinyata. You can't drag every insane lunitic religious fanatic in a dozen countries into a fight with you, then tell, them, "Well, we are leaving now. But you haven't actually won. Honest, we just sort of well..." I see that as kind of the equivalent of being female back in old England, going to costume party dressed up like a hooker, then handing the real Jack the Ripper a knife and suggestively implying he might want to cut the cake. Sane people would see a withdrawal for what it was, but we are not dealing with sane people.

#41580: Alon Levy — 09/25  at  01:13 PM
I suspect that most Iraqis want the USA to leave now. Absent terrorists things would be better, but given that the USA has a penchant of pissing people off until they support the said terrorists, and given that the USA itself is causing major mayhem in the country, I'd say leaving will cause fewer problems than staying.

#41581: — 09/25  at  01:17 PM
Too little too late. America's the Red Queen now.

#41585: — 09/25  at  02:10 PM
I think the headlines are interesting. Here's one from CNN:
Defenders of Iraq war counter-rally

The focus in on the small counter-protests, not the huge anti-war rally. That darn liberal media!

War supporters said the scale of the anti-war march didn't take away from their cause.

"It's the silent majority," said 22-year-old Stephanie Grgurich of Leesburg, Virginia, who has a brother serving in Iraq.

I wouldn't be too sure about that. Last poll numbers I saw didn't back up his presumption.

#41588: — 09/25  at  02:50 PM

Judging by American actions in Iraq, the best thing the USA can do for the country right now is to leave it alone.

What actions? If you're just going to point to hurtful actions I think this is the only area terrorists have us beat over there.

#41589: Kagehi — 09/25  at  02:54 PM

I suspect that most Iraqis want the USA to leave now.

Your half right. I actually read Iraqi blogs. The general consencious seems to be that the ones not actively trying to retake Iraq for the Baathists would prefer the US leave as soon as possible, but at the same time they realize that as much as they would prefer to completely take over the task of protecting their country themselves, they are at a critical point in which they haven't yet got an official constitution, their forces are still insufficient to protect themselves and some cities are so heavilly in control of terrorists (and I do mean terrorist as in killing people at random in the cities to keep everyone else in line, no 'resistance'), that even if they had the forces to defend themselves in a stable situation, the situation can't ever 'be' stabalized without outside help. But I also know from all I have read from numerous sources, that if you told them tomarrow that you have invented a time machine and planned to go back to 2003, to stop it ever happening, you would probably find yourself buried in a large hole, with the remains of the time machine. They don't want Saddam back and even the Baathist's trying to regain power are allied with other external elements only so long as they provide useful tools. In at least one case, where they had been temporarilly isolated in one city, and unable to attack in Baghdad or against the coalition, they starting shooting each other. The return to Saddam's way bunch trust the Al Queda and other foreigners only as long as they are blowing up Shia and anyone who looks like a colaberator. But without them, they wouldn't last five minutes.

#41591: Kagehi — 09/25  at  03:04 PM

What actions? If you're just going to point to hurtful actions I think this is the only area terrorists have us beat over there.

Yes, but to the anti-war crowd, this is also our fault. See, the logic is that if they blow up 100 people in a bus station in Palastine its 'not' our fault, its just terrorists being terrorists. If we however have the gall to wipe out a terrorist strong hold and badly bloody their noses, *then* they blow up 100 people in a bus station in the same country we pissed them off in, then its 'our fault', since they would have been some place else, blowing up other completely irrelevant people instead, if we hadn't dragged them kicking and screaming into wanting to blow up Iraqis instead...

Simple fact. These people, when they need to recruit, recruit. If that means recruiting 100 a day to fight a war they can't win by killing the very people they claim they are *helping*, then great. If it means recruiting 100 people a year to plan to fly more airplanes into buildings 10 years from now, then great. They don't @@$%@% care. And at least half the recent 'recruits' have not been professionally trained Jihadi, but people dragged off the street in those, "We don't support terrorists!", countries like Saudi Arabia, drugged, dragged into Iraq, strapped with explosives and told to, "Wander into the crowd over there." They are not even people that 'want' to fight, just any poor slob that isn't going to be missed and some terrorist group pulls a 1700s British Navy trick of forced recruitment on. Wake up the next morning and find yourself in the Jihad.

#41592: — 09/25  at  03:23 PM
When the 'not hurtful' actions are limited to rebuilding things that the US "shocked in awed" to the ground in the first place, the 'stop only pointing to hurtful actions' crowd really needs to STFU.

#41594: — 09/25  at  04:08 PM
I joined in a local support demo Saturday, and counted unambiguous waves from drivers-by: of the first 100 in my sample, 81 were thumbs up and 19 were thumbs down or finger out. That's an amazingly positive balance for a street demo of any kind.

#41630: — 09/26  at  05:01 AM
I did see an interesting opinion piece somewhere (I'll try to find it) about what we (the UK and USA) should do about our occupation of Iraq. The piece showed the evidence that SOME force needs to remain in the region to maintain the peace (ha!) until the Iraqi government is on its feet, but it suggested that this force should be comprised of soldiers from predominatly Muslim nations like Pakistan and Turkey, and the surrounding Arabic states. In other words, naughty white folks out, naughty brown folks in. That should stop this cry of "imperialist occupation" etc.

Sounded quite sensible to me at least on the surface of it.

#41690: Kagehi — 09/26  at  01:37 PM
Oh right.. Why not just add in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc. to the list, then they all divide Iraq up between them, without having to blow more people up in the process... Probably half of 'anyone' volunteering to stabalize Iraq from "Muslim" nations want a) religious rulership, which the Iraqis are so disinterested in that secularists are split on if having a constitution is more important than having one that doesn't need ammending (and might not ever be), while the rest of the country are split 50-50 on if they should even vote on it at all, never mind for or against it. And then there are the Muslim's in such military groups who would guard building X one day, then the next be caught blowing up building Y, because it contained 'infidels'. People badly need to get through their heads that one of the points of a secular Iraqi government that isn't run by a lunitic is to promote some semblence of sanity, in a region in which the guy standing next to you in a the same uniform might spend his weekends making bombs for the local terrorist group, while you are both actually supposed to be trying to stop the same.

Having other neighboring countries, of which only Kawate, possibly Turkey, though..., and maybe Jordan now, are the only trustworthy ones, drop in to 'protect' people that see themselves as their own independent people, is like asking astrologists to promote a science education seminar at NASA, or DI to host a fund raiser for the same at some major genetics lab.

Yep, nothing like insisting that the fox guard the hen house, because you don't trust the dog.

#41740: — 09/26  at  06:28 PM
I was in DC.

I'm a member of the "MTV generation" (though we didn't get cable in my house till after I had been at college for two years) and I'm one of those people who shows up at rallies but doesn't do much of the hard work of organizing. I think however I have some legitimate reasons for not being an organizer; a)I'm working on a biochem degree, b) I'm in the middle of nowhere, and c) I really do suck at organizing. That doesn't mean there isn't a place for me at these things. Imagine if no one but the organizers of protests showed up, that would be a pretty freaking sad protest.

Secondly, the diversity of groups there. From my experience you're more likely to find that the far left groups are organized enough to have a tent and papers and such, because they have more points to push, so they have to be organized. Those of us in the middle have less to complain about (since were not pushing for revolution or anarchy) therefore less reason to be super organized. I saw plenty of middle aged, humdrum people there. Sure the Black Bloc was there too, but they were a minority. When my mother told me to be safe, I told "Don't worry, there are lots of middle aged people here." I should have added that there were lots of kids, too. Middle aged was just a blanket term for the sort of people who don't bash in windows and tear down light poles. Many also weren't actually for immediate withdrawal, but there aren't protests titled "Bring the troops home as soon as possible, but your timetable for 'as soon as possible' is based upon the wrong things, Mr. President."

The concert by the way was the best concert I've been to in a while, much less a free one. Got to bed at 4am. Second best protest I've been to, after the March for Women's Lives last year.

#42014: — 09/28  at  11:03 AM
What happens is Iraq if the U.S. pullss out immediately? Should we wait until stability returns? These are good questions, but they must not inhibit people from shouting their rage in the streets. Bush and Rumsfeld, no lovers of objective truth, launched an unnecessary war, which is perhaps the single most immoral act of which human beings are capable. Many thousands of people have been pointlessly killed, or horrifically disfigured. Bush should be on his knees begging the forgiveness of the five-, six- and seven-year-olds whose faces and futures he has ruined. No matter what happens in Iraq now, we owe the Iraqi people and the people of the world an apology and reparations.