To: JohnM who wrote (75931 ) 2/20/2003 11:44:42 AM From: Nadine Carroll Read Replies (1) | Respond to My own impression, at the level of generality you are working, is that the Afghanistan attack was almost universally supported, left, right, middle. Lots of squabbling over means--McCain was prime among them. But little if any squabbling over ends Leftist opposition to the war in Afghanistan faded in November and December of last year, not only because of the success of the war but also because of the enthusiasm with which so many Afghanis greeted that success. The pictures of women showing their smiling faces to the world, of men shaving their beards, of girls in school, of boys playing soccer in shorts: all this was no doubt a slap in the face to leftist theories of American imperialism, but also politically disarming. There was (and is) still a lot to worry about: refugees, hunger, minimal law and order. But it was suddenly clear, even to many opponents of the war, that the Taliban regime had been the biggest obstacle to any serious effort to address the looming humanitarian crisis, and it was the American war that removed the obstacle. It looked (almost) like a war of liberation, a humanitarian intervention. www2.kenyon.edu The last couple of sentences imply that Saturday's demonstrators are manipulated. I doubt that. Conspiracy theory doesn't work well when you get this level of turnout. In the US and overseas. Large public demonstrations are about political ends, not means. Give the vote to women; get out of Vietnam; etc. Several reporters noted that a great many demonstrators in both European cities and the US considered doing something about Saddam a worthy end; just didn't trust the way the Bush folk were going about it. It's definitely striking just how quickly the Bush folk converted all the favorable positioning for their foreign policy which came from 9-11, to something that is perceived so negatively.
