The Art of War for the anti-war movement?

Scott Ritter:

It is high time for the anti-war movement to take a collective look in the mirror, and be honest about what they see. A poorly organized, chaotic, and indeed often anarchic conglomeration of egos, pet projects and idealism that barely constitutes a "movement," let alone a winning cause. I have yet to observe an anti-war demonstration that has a focus on anti-war. It often seemed that every left-wing cause took advantage of the event to promote its own particular agenda, so that "No War in Iraq" shared the stage with the environment, ecology, animal rights, pro-choice, and numerous other causes which not only diluted the anti-war message which was supposed to be sent, but also guaranteed that the demonstration itself would be seen as something hijacked by the left, inclusive of only progressive ideologues, and exclusive of the vast majority of moderate (and even conservative) Americans who might have wanted to share the stage with their fellow Americans from the left when it comes to opposing war with Iraq (or even Iran), but do not want to be associated with any other theme.

The anti-war movement, first and foremost, needs to develop a laser-like focus on being nothing more or less than anti-war.

Right on.

Then, this:

In order to even have a chance of prevailing with the American people, the anti-war movement is going to need much more than just good ideals and values. It needs to start thinking like a warrior would, in full recognition that we as a nation are engaged in a life-or-death struggle of competing ideologies with those who promote war as an American value and virtue.

The anti-war movement needs to study the philosophies of those who have mastered the art of conflict, from Caesar to Napoleon, from Sun Tzu to Clausewitz. It needs to study the "enemy" learning to understand the pro-war movement as well as it understands itself. It needs to comprehend the art of campaigning, of waging battles only when necessary, and having the ability to wage a struggle on several fronts simultaneously, synchronizing each struggle so that a synergy is created which maximizes whatever energy is being expended. The anti-war movement needs to understand the pro-war movement's center of gravity, and design measures to defeat this. It needs to grasp the pro-war movement's decision-making cycle, then undertake a comprehensive course of action that learns to pre-empt this cycle, getting 'inside' the pro-war system of making decisions, and thereby forcing the pro-war movement to react to the anti-war agenda, instead of vice versa.

Huh? This, frankly, is over thinking. It's practically what the Democrats and the MoveOn.org ilk have institutionalized: triangulating, writ large.

The anti-war movement needs to be focused, but it needs to avoid replicating the tactics of the "pro war movement," as Ritter calls it. If the goal is to try to play the game on the same level, then the battle will be conceded. The system is rigged to the pro war interests, from the media to the way Congress works.

The only way the anti-war movement is going to have any success is if it can reconnect with direct action: massive protests, boycotting, and various actions that "raise social costs" for war making.

You're not going to be able to lobby your way, however effectively, out of a prowar mindset in the Beltway. We've long crossed that rubicon. The only thing that has a remote chance of succeeding is for mass numbers of people to get up off their asses and start making life more uncomfortable for the overlords down in DC.