http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/08/1049567654614.html Why are there still anti-war protests going on? Protests made sense before the war started in that they revealed, to the decision-makers, that a large number of people opposed war. But now that it’s started, it’s not going to stop before Saddam is gone. (And as Marc Cooper writes, “To call off the tanks at this juncture, thereby saving Saddam’s skin, would be a double betrayal of the Iraqi people.”) How do protests, right now, serve the Iraqi people? For protesters to vent their spleen whilst bombs fall is a great extravagance.

What the anti-war protesters should do is not plant banners on warships, but work to ensure Bush, etc. sticks to his promises. Cooper again puts this well: “The responsibilities of the peace movement are far too weighty to be squandered in sputtering and ultimately politically irrelevant feel-good acts of blocking traffic or ripping down fences at military bases. … The peace movement should take an active role in debating and trying to shape the post-Saddam outcome by fighting, first of all, for a thorough roll-up of the Ba’ath regime, for indictment and prosecution of Hussein and his gang, for the fullest democracy possible, respect for the Shiahs and Kurds, for a postwar government that respects human rights. That formula includes an authentic U.S. and international commitment to fund reconstruction and development. And let’s not forget the Bush-Blair promise to finally get serious about the Palestinians.”

William Saletan is more direct: “If you want to minimize the killing, stop resisting the war. Instead, do what you can to make the war transparent and to hold your government accountable for unnecessary deaths. Help the media and human rights organizations monitor the battlefield. Help them get reports and pictures to the people of your country and the world. Build an incentive system that will strengthen your government’s will to spare lives. Its ability will do the rest.” 11:52