There's an exchange here between Pip Hinman and John Pilger. It's very short but also very revealing. These are two of Hinman's questions and Pilger's answers:
Do you think the anti-war movement should be supporting Iraq's anti-occupation resistance?'[W]e cannot afford to be choosy'. Hmmm. This is a form of words covering the random killing of Iraqi civilians, to say nothing of Red Cross and UN personnel - despite Pilger's profession of abhorrence for the loss of innocent life. For the Iraqi 'resistance', which has had no scruples about those whom it targets, must be supported, he says. Why? To stop the 'Bush gang'. Well, that expresses the primary motivation clearly enough. In Pilger's second answer, note how 'democracy' functions. It starts out as a 'semblance', but one sentence along it is plainly more than just a semblance.
Yes, I do. We cannot afford to be choosy. While we abhor and condemn the continuing loss of innocent life in Iraq, we have no choice now but to support the resistance, for if the resistance fails, the "Bush gang" will attack another country. If they succeed, a grievous blow will be suffered by the Bush gang.
Shouldn't this supposedly endless "war on terror" make us feel rather gloomy about prospects for peace?
I don't know about "gloomy". I don't think we have time to be gloomy: too much to do! The US warmongers fear public opinion, because they must pay lip service to a semblance of democracy. We must give them good cause to go on fearing it.