Cindy's movement: is this what the antiwar people really want?(Cindy Sheehan)

IN mid-August, the liberal Internet organizing group MoveOn.org sponsored a series of candlelight vigils across the country to support Cindy Sheehan, the woman camped outside President Bush's Texas ranch to protest her son's death in Iraq. As part of the effort, MoveOn offered what might be called pre-fab vigil kits to would-be protesters who wanted to project an organized and professional image. There were signs, pre-designed to be printed out poster size, that read MOMS FOR PEACE and MEET WITH CINDY. And there was a "sample media advisory," a press release that the leaders of local MoveOn protests could send to newspapers and TV and radio stations:

 
   Mothers in [YOUR TOWN] to 
   President Bush: Meet With Mother 
   Whose Son Was Killed In Iraq 
 
   Candlelight vigil in front of [YOUR 
   LOCATION] 
 
   [YOUR CITY]--Local mothers, 
   family members of fallen soldiers, 
   and other concerned citizens will 
   hold a vigil in [CITY] in support of 
   Cindy Sheehan ... 

Just fill in the blanks and you've got yourself a protest. The release even contained a heartfelt, pre-written quote that declared, "'Many of us have children in Iraq and have the same questions as Cindy,' said [XXXX], [CITY] MoveOn member."

MoveOn's click-and-protest vigil raised a question: Are the group's antiwar demonstrations a natural, organic outgrowth of increasing disapproval of the war? Or are they the product of a relatively small core of antiwar organizers determined to make their movement appear more significant than it is?

The same could be asked of the antiwar movement as a whole. Certainly MoveOn's vigils--the organization says there were 1,627 of them on August 17--were relatively small affairs. Fifty thousand people were said to have registered to take part nationwide, with MoveOn estimating that the number who actually showed up might have been somewhat higher. For a national event, it wasn't very big. And the Sheehan protest, for all the attention it has received in the press, is downright tiny. Indeed, today--with setbacks in Iraq and a death toll of U.S. troops inching toward the 2,000 mark--the striking thing is that the antiwar movement is not bigger than it is. Instead, the movement is deeply divided, lacking focus, energy, and--the Sheehan protest aside--visibility.

Signs of division are everywhere. The most bitter split now is between the groups preparing for what organizers say will be a massive antiwar demonstration in Washington on September 24. On one side is United for Peace and Justice, which claims to represent about 1,300 antiwar groups, including the National Council of Churches, the Green party, and Not in Our Name. On the other side is International ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism), a group so far out on the fringes of the left that it includes Stalinists, Trotskyites, and fans of North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il.

The conflict between the two groups is clear from the promotional materials they have prepared for the rally. United for Peace and Justice says the demonstration will "send a clear message to the White House and Congress: The Iraq war must end. It's time to bring all the troops home, leaving no U.S. military bases behind, and to stop the corporate theft of Iraq's resources." While that position puts United for Peace and Justice well to the left of almost every Democrat in Washington, it is nevertheless what might be called centrist, for the antiwar movement.