Michael J. Totten comments on this article from the Independent on what the Iraqis (remember them?) actually want:
So did the people of Iraq plead for us to take to the streets to stop this war? No — the opposite. Even in a country where the price for this kind of dissidence is often torture and murder, large numbers explained they want the Americans and British to help them dislodge Saddam through war.
I wish more of our “anti-war” people could read the British press.
Hmmn, perhaps you haven’t had occasion to support liberation movements in exile until now? There are plenty of historical examples to draw on. You may not be very popular with your own government if you become involved with the struggles of others, but leaving these struggles in the hands of businesspeople like bin Laden or government organizations the CIA cuts non-violent and law-abiding working people out of the loop. A big part of the process of supporting liberation movements is getting outsiders in to the sad, totalitarian parts of the world to start building bridges. You start with something that is genuinely friendly and acceptable, like little Samantha Smith, the American Friends Service Committee, or a ping pong team. Think 4th generation warfare and networks. The problem we face goes beyond the old-fashioned agenda of competing state sovereignty and securing the territory in a military sense. The first part of our problem is opening up the darker areas of the world to accountability for WMD matters, darker areas which may be on our own territory or elsewhere. The second part of our problem is diffusing the “us vs. them” jihad, and building solid, legitimate solidarity between people on different sides of religious and national borders. In this sense, the big peace demonstrations serve a very useful purpose.
There’s also this: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/16/weekinreview/16BURN.html