The Administration's recent reversals of rhetoric, if not policy, were stunning--even though they were followed by efforts to make it sound as though the changes didn't mean what they clearly did mean. No more "global war on terror." (Instead, the ridiculously phrased "global struggle against violent extremism.") Withdraw some troops in the spring. (And to provide cover, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld telling Iraqis they had to patch together a Constitution right away, or else.) The struggle is "political," not military. (Most shocking: Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, saying he'd never liked the phrase "war on terror" because it meant people "in uniform" would have to fight it. And this from Douglas Feith, outgoing Under Secretary of Defense for Policy: "It's not a military project alone, and the United States cannot do it by itself alone.") So: no war on terror, no troops to fight one and an acceptance of the need for genuine international cooperation! Have White House and Pentagon officials secretly been reading The Nation?

Now, of course, the "war on terror" is back--says Bush, our lexicographer-in-chief--thus making things more confusing than ever. (This is the flip-flop of all time; indeed, it's a flip-flop-flip, now that the "war on terror" is on again. This is extreme disarray, to the point of farce.) But certainly such a broad rhetorical shift, accompanied by the explicit desire to draw down troops, means that a real change of policy is at least under discussion. Clearly the Administration wants to get into withdrawal mode, at least on the level of appearances, soon enough before the 2006 elections that it won't be seen as doing so for political reasons. The concern with appearances is well-founded: The latest AP poll shows support for the war at an all-time low of 38 percent, while Iraq veteran and Democratic war critic Paul Hackett nearly won a House seat in a solidly GOP district in Ohio.

If we are in withdrawal mode--as we were, let's remember, for four full years in Vietnam--then a new set of questions emerges, or at least a new version of the same old questions. But before getting to those, the antiwar movement needs to take note of its success in converting the American people to its view, this in turn leading to the changes--or beginnings of changes--within the Bush Administration. Democracy in action: The antiwar movement leads the way to a shift in public opinion that forces a change in policy. Now the antiwar forces must stay focused and organized, bringing in new allies from across the political spectrum.

Subscriber Login

User Name

Password

Subscribe Now!

The only way to read this article and the full contents of each week's issue of The Nation online is by subscribing to the magazine. Subscribe now and read this article -- and every article published since for the past five years -- right now.

There's no obligation -- try The Nation for four weeks free.

• Get The Nation at home (and online!) for 75 cents a week!
• If you like this article, consider making a donation to The Nation.