Are we supposed to be surprised that the most militarily powerful nation in the history of the world successfully invaded a Third World country that had been under economic and military sanctions for more than a decade? Many are acting as though this victory proves all other assumptions about the situation correct. We’ve barely made it through the introduction, much less the first chapter. The peace in Iraq, in the Middle East, in the world, and especially in this country is going to be a lot more difficult than any war. The administration is already thinking about our next war, and one poll showed about 50% of the American people support invading either Syria or Iran. The idiocy of either of those invasions should be more than obvious, but I felt that way about Iraq.
Lest what I said last week be misinterpreted, I was against this war before it began and wish we hadn’t invaded (though the end of Hussein’s dictatorship has to be regarded as a positive, except by the most deluded, even if the method was so outrageously misguided). Traditional Vietnam-era protests, however, reinforce the convinced but don’t convince the uncertain. If we want to make sure this country remembers its commitment to Iraq and does not get into other military misadventures, a new kind of political activism must evolve. Attacking Bush — as directly responsible as his administration may be — encourages resentment and alienation rather than creating the necessary coalitions. The time has come to reach out to our neighbors, not simply register our own feelings. We must think about how those who would be inclined to be against another war, or could be convinced to oppose another war, think, and to talk to them in those terms.
We have a responsibility not just to the world, but to the ideals upon which this country exists and to future generations of Americans, to turn around our twisted foreign policy. I’m not sure what community and political tools we need to innovate. The right has brilliantly reduced their message to simple sentences with deep national resonance. Traditional protests and Bush-insulting tactics play right into their hands, serving as ample proof that their depiction of the anti-war movement is accurate. We can’t afford to continue righteously spinning our wheels, using political models that don’t work.
I’m not sure what the new models should be, but I’m passionately convinced our current international policies are in the worst possible long-term interests of this country (not to mention the administration’s truly inane economic vision). The time of expressing rage, dissent, and frustration is over — we must figure out how to instigate change. We owe it to the future. 
This article appears in April 11 • 2003.