Losing the battle but changing the war?

[khaosworks]

Peaceniks lost the war but changed the shape of battle
The anti-war movement transformed the landscape and our leaders have had to respond
Jonathan Freedland
Saturday March 22, 2003
The Guardian

The peace movement may have lost the war, but it is fighting on. Indeed, it even seems to have won the odd battle. For in ways that few could have predicted, the anti-war campaign has helped shape the way the war itself is being fought.

Start with the evidence that the peace camp is refusing to wave the white flag, in Britain and beyond. As promised, the first day of military action brought protesters on to the streets in every major city in the land. In London, police found themselves stretched to capacity as they dealt with one sit-down protest after another, sprouting all over the capital. Yesterday, peaceniks got on their bikes, holding up traffic in London and Sheffield. Today there will be another anti-war demo in London. No one expects the gargantuan figures achieved on February 15, but the commitment is still there.

As it is around the world. US embassies have been besieged with protesters from Quito to Bangkok, Buenos Aires to Cairo, with a candlelit vigil in Berlin and a general strike in Athens. The German protest was led by schoolchildren, a sign that the phenomenon of youth protest which has surprised so many here is not confined to Britain: if anything, this war seems to have politicised a whole new generation. Those kids who skipped school to protest against a faraway war, whether in Bristol or Berlin, will never forget the experience.

The mood at some of the demos is doubtless one of anger but also gloomy resignation. After all, the peaceniks lost the big campaign: they did not, despite their efforts, stop the war. They could be forgiven for feeling like New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, who wrote yesterday: "Those of us who have opposed this war need to recognise that we lost the debate. It's time to move on."

No wonder American peaceniks feel that way: according to one poll yesterday, more than 70% of Americans back George Bush's decision to go to war against Iraq. But public opinion outside America, including in Britain, breaks the opposite way. Peace activists outside the US have no reason to feel they "lost the debate". In many ways, they won it.

Which brings us to the strange, unexpected influence the anti-war effort seems to have had on the first stages of the conflict. Last night appeared to mark, at last, the beginning of the long-threatened "shock and awe", a ground-quaking, sky-burning display as America pounded Baghdad from the air.

But the start, at least, of Operation Iraqi Freedom was not like that; it did not come as previously advertised. Instead, it seemed to have been devised with one eye on the concerns of the anti-war movement.

More in the rest of the article. This is why the peace movement should go on. It still changes things, and it reminds the warhawks that the anti-war movement is still watching them. Even if it doesn't stop the bombing, it may make them realize that every civilian life lost in the liberation is a black mark against them.