The thing to do is, on the contrary, to bombard those in power with strategically well-selected, precise, finite demands, which can’t be met with the same excuse.

I still find the most persuasive (and most disturbing) analysis of the protests to be from Slavoj Zizek in the London Review of Books:

The big demonstrations in London and Washington against the US attack on Iraq a few years ago offer an exemplary case of this strange symbiotic relationship between power and resistance. Their paradoxical outcome was that both sides were satisfied. The protesters saved their beautiful souls: they made it clear that they don’t agree with the government’s policy on Iraq. Those in power calmly accepted it, even profited from it: not only did the protests in no way prevent the already-made decision to attack Iraq; they also served to legitimise it. Thus George Bush’s reaction to mass demonstrations protesting his visit to London, in effect: ‘You see, this is what we are fighting for, so that what people are doing here – protesting against their government policy – will be possible also in Iraq!’

In retrospect, I suspect that one of the things that made the protests so ineffectual might have been how much they were a purely popular movement, one that was too aloof from getting embroiled in the messiness of Washington politics. Doing so makes for a good demonstration, but ultimately, it left the war resolution free to pass the Senate 77/23 and the House 297/133. Those numbers should be seared in our memories! We utterly failed to persuade elected representatives that they would lose their jobs if they voted for a pointless war.

thanks for this post and link (love the blog although i don’t comment much).