The failure of the anti-war protest at Fairford (air base) is symbolic of the failure of the anti-war movement. Not just in Britain, but all over Europe.

The B-52 bombers took off from Fairford this morning, for the first of the heavy raids on Iraq. There has been a consistent anti-war protest at the base, but it failed to have any effect on the war. All over Europe there were large anti-war demonstrations, and more are planned, but that has no effect on the course of the war.

Why this failure?

Partly because the anti-war protesters do not have the courage of their convictions. That has to be said. The American and British troops entering Iraq directly risk death. But in contrast, most anti-war protesters are not prepared to risk a few months in jail, let alone their lives. How many people are prepared to illegally enter US bases? In the whole of Europe, perhaps a few hundred. No wonder that is no obstacle for a military force of 300 000 troops.

I realise it is easy for me to say this, but otherwise people are simply deluding themselves about the impact of their protests.

In Britain, the underlying problem is that the protesters continue to recognise the Blair government as legitimate. In political science 'legitimate' means that people continue to accept the authority of the government even if they oppose it's decisions. Their protests remain peaceful and lawful. But if the government is determined enough, it can use this legitimacy to survive periods of protest. Blair has done that before, and he will probably do it again. If 99% of the anti-war demonstrators continue to regard him as their lawfully and democratically elected Prime Minister, why should he worry?

In other European countries, more or less pro-American governments will survive anti-war protests in a similar way. Peaceful protest does not diminish the political authority of democratic governments. The anti-war demonstrators demonstrate, then they go home. That is no obstacle to a massive military operation, thousands of kilometres away. The United States is so powerful, its government is so determined, and its people so committed to this war, that even protests ten times larger would have no impact.

Contrast these. On the one side the determination of Bush and Blair, and their belief that what they are doing is right, fully loyal armies, massive and effective armament, the readiness to be ruthless, the absolute readiness to kill to reach their goals. On the other side, an almost totally non-violent anti-war movement, who believe that war should be opposed only within the existing political structures - even if that means the war continues. Obviously, in such historical circumstances, war is the probable outcome. The failure of the anti-war movement was pre-programmed.