Commentary : Perspectives On The New Anti-War Movement : Errors of ‘60s Dissent Mustn’t Be Repeated Now : Lessons: We who opposed the Vietnam War overreached, turned off potential alliesand detoured into fantasies of revolution.

New stirrings of dissent against U.S. intervention in the gulf recall the early years of the movement against the Vietnam War--a war that dominated my entire higher educational experience. Now I ask myself what lessons I can offer a new generation of anti-war activists from my decade of protest.

Today, most people identify the anti-war movement with its later phase, when tens of thousands marched and rioted against the war. The early days were different. Then we were only a small fragment of the population. The media and pro-war forces portrayed us as a lunatic fringe. But photographs of the first anti-war march in Washingtonin 1965 show that most of the protesters were conservatively dressed young Americans.

Later, the few exploded into a mass movement, fueled by an enraged generation. Our successes are indisputable. We helped force Lyndon Johnson to abandon a second term in office; we made it difficult for Nixon to pursue his secret war in Cambodia. We created the Vietnam Syndrome--the conviction that an unpopular war cannot be won and causes massive civil unrest.

But we did not stop the war. Perhaps we could have, had we not committed fundamental errors that a new generation of war resisters must not repeat:

* We came to romanticize the enemy. If the United States was evil enough to destroy Vietnam, we naively reasoned, then the Vietnamese must be virtue incarnate. This led many to underestimate the grotesque horrors of communism and the anti-democratic intentions of the North Vietnamese.

* We were so determined to link every social issue to the movement, to raise the stakes of militancy, to express our alienation from American society, we ended up offending much of mainstream America. By 1969, we had helped to persuade a majority of Americans that the war was wrong. But an even larger majority despised the anti-war movement.

* The movement became so factionalized, so filled with self-righteous radicalism, that a political coalition against the war became impossible. As young people who prided ourselves on trusting no one over 30, we cut ourselves off from the wisdom of an older generation. Racist attitudes among white activists alienated black activists who, consumed with ideas of black power, largely ignored a war that disproportionately killed the poor and minorities. Young men, filled with fantasies of revolution and power, treated women as their personal secretaries and sexual playmates; straights treated calls for gay rights as a joke. Many women and gay and lesbian activists left the movement to redress their own grievances.

* Not enough of us did our homework. In 1965, faculty, students and experts organized “”teach-ins” to help us learn about Southeast Asia and America’s long intervention in their civil wars. But later, many activists thought that history began in 1965 and were too pigheaded to learn about the roots of American foreign policy. This led to simplistic slogans and bizarre analyses, as well as to the collective hallucination that a revolution was imminent. Adopting Maoism or Marxism, some anti-war activists began speaking in unintelligible revolutionary tongues.

* We were so ashamed of our country’s destruction of Vietnam that rage was turned against inappropriate targets, such as universities, local police or the American flag. We allowed the pro-war forces to appropriate patriotism.

What, then, should we do about the impending gulf war?

First, we should condemn Saddam Hussein for the monstrous dictator he is; we should march with the flag; we should demand as patriots that America live up to its democratic ideals and laws; we should create a movement that honors differences and cultivates personal decency.

Until now, the media have taken their cues from the Administration. We must try to shape the agenda by publicizing our active resistance to war and our alternative agendas through teach-ins and nonviolent demonstrations.

Protest is a lonely affair. It requires conviction and patience. We may fail to prevent the war. As in Vietnam, we may fail to end it if it starts. But each generation is given its chance to come to the rescue of history and it must take that chance, not because there is a guarantee of success, but because without the attempt there is only a guarantee of failure.