The whole world in marching. American activists love to abuse the rhetorical device of the "International Day of Protest." On Saturday, February 15, 2003, for the first time in history, there actually was one.

Bush, and politicians who share his arrogance, have been driving new recruits into the anti-war movement. Around the world, a generation was inspired by the dream of universal democracy that came with the collapse of the Berlin Wall. That has been followed, in many places rather quickly, by the sinking realization that the global corporate priorities which supplanted the Cold War have heralded less, not more, democracy.

Unfortunately, the Bush man-children are reacting to their 10-million-person focus group like very spoiled children, told, for the very first time, "No." Puerile taunts and bullying aside, they still have the capacity and the intent to unleash a genocidal firestorm on Baghdad: Eight hundred cruise missiles in two days, as only the opening, Hiroshima-style salvo in a "war" that horrifies the world in large part because it will be a cold-blooded massacre, killing hundreds of thousand of innocent people [see accompanying article).

Here in Seattle, beyond the now-ubiquitous "No Iraq War" lawn signs, the second most popular protest placard was one of another version of "Impeach Bush!"

People are wistfully (or angrily) talking impeachment across the country--not out of the belief that Bush has violated one or another law, but because they believe he is violating the very spirit of what Americans were all taught, in our state-funded schools, makes America a unique and wonderful nation. Whether it was true or not--and the record is at best mixed--that mythology, of freedom, democracy, justice, opportunity for all, has been turned into a mockery by an administration that just may be the most radical, venal, arrogant, and greed-motivated in history.

In less than 18 months Bush has turned the United States from a receptacle for the world's sympathy and support into the world's most feared and hated rogue state--with virtually no public debate.

Given such stakes, Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are a red herring, for protesters for well as an administration that benefits enormously from the distraction. A strict focus on Iraq risks backfiring when the invasion reaches full throttle. That's exactly what happened during 1991's Gulf War.

And pity any protester the day after Islamic terrorists--who've been preparing for D-Day at least as long as the Pentagon--unleash any counter- attack, especially on US soil. To any neutral observer, accustomed to the world of global violence (which the US is heavily involved in, but rarely experiences at home), Islamic fundamentalists have every right to defend themselves. Under attack by every US-sponsored "moderate" dictatorship in the region, having witnessed first-hand the Americans' lack of concern for innocent lives, and with no other way to respond to the world's most powerful military, of course they'll choose guerrilla tactics. We call it terrorism.

Many Americans, of course, won't see it that way; they'll demand, and probably receive, the imperialist (and horrifically racist) formulation of ten or a hundred brown lives being worth one white life. The losses of 9/11 gave Bush a free ride, politically, for nearly a year and a half. Good luck to the anti-war activist, after a terrorist attack on US soil, making the (accurate) case that it's been the belligerence of the Bush Administration, not any "clash of civilizations" or those inscrutable, implacable, or just plain jealous brown people, that has fueled record anti-Americanism and been an ideal recruiting tool for the world's bin Ladens. That's an intellectual argument at a time when the White House's recklessness may be putting all Americans in an unaccustomed emotional state of vulnerability, fear, and anger.

The biggest 2/15 demonstration were in precisely those European countries where public sentiment runs 80-90% against invasion, but their governments have pledged cooperation or military support: Spain, Italy, Britain. In each of those countries, the issue was seen as not just the war, but democracy itself. Here in the United States, where, should Bush follow through on his obsession with war, a terrorist counter-attack and public backlash is most likely, the anti-war movement's best hope for remaining relevant no matter what happens lies in shifting the debate.

The issue for this movement should not be weapons of mass destruction, or at least not Iraq's. It's a testimony to the sophistication of the Bush propaganda onslaught that Americans even think Iraq might pose a threat to the US. Instead of deconstructing the White House's daily lies--only to be confronted with fresh ones the next day--movement activists need to change the focus from the dubious threat posed by Saddam Hussein to the very real threat posed by Bush (and his Democratic enablers).

The Bush Administration proposes nothing less than a century-long war pitting America against the world. It's completely reasonable that an anti-war movement position itself not by defending the world's behavior, but by questioning Bush's.

The "Seattle model" has reflected a demographic shift across the country that probably worries Bush's crew far more than we know. These are voters, not street punks, out marching. Nationally, variations on the neighborhood model have extended the opposition far beyond the cloistered protest left and its reflexive protesting. It's given that movement something positive--community-building and empowerment--to offer in the face of headlines that promote powerlessness and despair. This is not Vietnam; the zeitgeist is of patriots of all stripes, alarmed that their beloved country is being visibly transformed into a country that appalls the world. The alternative to Bush, and his global corporate (i.e., fascist) agenda, is democracy itself.

Republican or Democrat, America's leader is the world's most powerful person. That power corrupts, absolutely. Ultimately, it can only be checked by grass roots democracy, by an attentive public that demands, at minimum, that our own safety not be endangered by the arrogance and brutality of unaccountable leaders, that the globe not be splattered with war crimes committed in our names.

Bush's proposed invasion of Iraq, whether it happens or not, is being seen by the White House's empire-builders as only one skirmish in a much longer war. Anti-war crowds need to be thinking in similar terms, lest next week's headlines render them irrelevant. Stopping an invasion of Iraq is not the end; but, with any luck, it can be the beginning of an end.