Many antiwar protesters, though, seemed unprepared to contemplate that the war could have any positive effects on the Iraqi people all. All acknowledged that Saddam is a monster, but few imagined that Iraqis might hate him even more than war and occupation, and that the imperfect salvation of a savagely repressed people might be a positive side effect of even the most unjust and cynical war.

"I don't think that will happen," said Ching-Lin Weng, a 32-year-old interior designer, when asked how she would feel if Iraqis cheered American forces. "The media can lie and nobody will know the truth. They prefer to have their own government rather than a government from another country, even though their government is bad."

In an article in AlterNet last week, Mark Levine chided the left for failing to prepare itself for a Bush victory in Iraq. With the best-case scenario of stopping the war increasingly unlikely, he wrote (apparently without irony), "the movement is being forced to fall back on a second scenario, 'Everyone Loses,' in which the warnings of a protracted and bloody war that destabilizes the Middle East and increases terrorism bear their bitter fruit. However unpalatable in terms of destroyed lives and infrastructure, this latter scenario would at least quash the Administration's imperial dreams and force the kind of soul searching of United States' policies that is a major goal of the movement."

But the left might not get such a contradiction-heightening catastrophe. It might be proven wrong. "[T]he antiwar movement would be well advised to plan for a third scenario: 'Bush Wins,'" Levine wrote. "In such a scenario, especially if there is no major upsurge in domestic terrorism, the antiwar movement will find itself publicly discredited and politically marginalized; remember the Y2K dooms-dayers? ... If the movement doesn't move with full effort to lay the groundwork for a Bush Wins scenario the massive organizing and consciousness raising of the last year could well prove fleeting, forcing the movement to start from scratch in mobilizing public opinion a year or two down the road when the chickens of an over-extended empire come home to roost."

In the streets, though, not many were having the discussions Levine wants to spark. Instead, there was a hint of denial Saturday in the way some demonstrators explained away the footage of cheering Iraqis in Safwan.

"You saw 'Wag the Dog,'" said Richard Frumess, in response to a question about Safwan. A 55-year-old business owner from Kingston, N.Y., he conceded that camera people "may have found a few celebrating, but they showed images of Afghans celebrating, and look what's happening there."

One woman made a sign specifically to defy reports of an Iraqi welcome for the United States. Erika Bernabei, a 22-year-old from Brooklyn, taped a newspaper headline to her red and black-striped poster saying, "Troops to Surrender and Avoid All Out Attack." Beneath it, the poster said, "Fear != Consent. In solidarity with the people of Iraq."

Bernabei, a nonprofit worker with spiky, cinnamon-colored hair, was chanting, "We're queer! We're cute! We're antiwar to boot!" She explained that she was unconvinced by reports about Safwan. "What I believe is that they're being complacent because they're so fucking afraid. I have no doubt they'll smile at soldiers with huge guns. I really truly doubt the people of Iraq are cheering bloodshed."

Jef Leroy, a Belgium-born 28-year-old Ph.D. student at Cornell, also dismissed the reports. "How objective is that footage? I have a hard time trusting footage that comes out of a war zone, especially if it's from the American media."

Mary Callaghan, an attorney wearing a "Patriots for Peace" sign around her neck, asked, "What if Osama bin Laden had the power George Bush has and he conquered New York City? Do you not think there are people in New York City who would greet him with open arms?"

One marcher who has contemplated a Bush victory, at least in the short-term, was Taubes. "I don't mind going down as, 'You fool, he was a Hitler and the U.S. came in and liberated the country.'" Why? Because she's convinced that if nothing else, the massive global peace movement has changed the way the war is being waged. The protests, she says, have increased pressure on the administration to avoid human casualties and not to exploit Iraq's resources after the war.

"He's trying to prove the peace movement wrong, and I'm all for that," she says. "Maybe this war will be shorter and more humane because of these demonstrations."

Recent Stories