I'm going to keep reposting this until everybody gets it. (View ad for free access).

I get a lot of crap when I say much of the antiwar movement is an anti-Bush movement, and little more.

I give you the raw core of the antiwar movement, and this from someone at least honest enough to try and examine his motivations. For more blatant examples, browse the rest of the Salon site while the free pass is working.

(boldface mine)

...I have a confession: I have at times, as the war has unfolded, secretly wished for things to go wrong. Wished for the Iraqis to be more nationalistic, to resist longer. Wished for the Arab world to rise up in rage. Wished for all the things we feared would happen. I'm not alone: A number of serious, intelligent, morally sensitive people who oppose the war have told me they have had identical feelings.



Some of this is merely the result of pettiness -- ignoble resentment, partisan hackdom, the desire to be proved right and to prove the likes of Rumsfeld wrong, irritation with the sanitizing, myth-making American media. That part of it I feel guilty about, and disavow. But some of it is something trickier: It's a kind of moral bet-hedging, based on a pessimism not easy to discount, in which one's head and one's heart are at odds.

Many antiwar commentators have argued that once the war started, even those who oppose it must now wish for the quickest, least bloody victory followed by the maximum possible liberation of the Iraqi people. But there is one argument against this: What if you are convinced that an easy victory will ultimately result in a larger moral negative -- four more years of Bush, for example, with attendant disastrous policies, or the betrayal of the Palestinians to eternal occupation, or more imperialist meddling in the Middle East or elsewhere?

Wishing for things to go wrong is the logical corollary of the postulate that the better things go for Bush, the worse they will go for America and the rest of the world. It is based on the belief that every apparent good will turn into its opposite. If this is true, then it would be better for bad things to happen to Bush. But who knows for sure that it is true? Perhaps pro-war leftist Christopher Hitchens was right when he spoke of the "cunning of history" -- perhaps the genius of Historical Progress chose Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz to be its unlikely instruments. Dialectical pessimism is the dirty little secret of the antiwar camp -- dirty because there is something distasteful about wishing for bad outcomes when the future on which those wishes are based is unknown.

I say that knowing that I will probably find myself going around in circles on this issue again.



"What if you are convinced that an easy victory will ultimately result in a larger moral negative -- four more years of Bush, for example"

For those of you who beat on me and others for stipulating that the loss of some lives in Iraq now will mean better lives for Iraqis in the future: get a load of that.

A victory that is "not easy" means countless lives lost, and vastly increased tragedy like the little armless boy. And this person is balancing that against what he considers the greater evil of Bush winning reelection.

Get it yet??

And this person is not a freak exception, a weirdo pulled off a soapbox. He is the editor of Salon, and says himself he represents the thinking of many others.