What kind of peace movement is this? George W. Bush already has his answer: an irrelevant peace movement.

But what about us — the marchers on the streets, the people making the case against war in classrooms and on bar stools across the country?

The uncomfortable fact is that the pro-war camp is merrily interpreting even its staunchest opposition on pro-war terms. Under that rubric, there’s no doubt that there’s a “just war” to be fought in Iraq — the only problem is sorting out the fine print. And sort it out they will. Building a coalition for war, like putting together an Olympic bid, is purely a matter of diplomatic pyrotechnics. (Who can forget 1990, when impoverished Yemen cast its United Nations vote against the Gulf War and lost $70 million in U.S. aid within a week?)

It doesn’t take a degree in statecraft to see that the new “compromise” war plans — the Canadian Plan is a shining example — are designed to move toward straight-up co-optation. First, give some ground to those who, like Scotty on Star Trek, demand more time for United Nations diplomacy. Second, set a deadline for diplomacy to end and bombing raids to take over — with U.N. approval. Third, look over your shoulder at the peace movement and sniff, “Some people are just impossible to please.”

In other words, the strategic challenge of the moment is to reject, loudly, the false choice between a war led by the U.S. and a war led by the U.S. with a U.N. pat on the head. So far we haven’t done that, and so a bogus dichotomy continues to pass for a public debate.

Peace activists in my hometown of Vancouver — longtimers like Irene MacInnes of the newly renamed StopWar coalition and Elsie Dean of End the Arms Race — say the thousands who have taken the streets are opposed, full stop, to war in Iraq. For the most part, I suspect they’re right. But the message of the movement remains ambivalent. We cheer for France and Russia (uncomfortable bedfellows for any peacenik) because they’re getting up George W.’s nose, but what happens when they win political concessions and sign off on a war?

I see the slogan, “Inspections Work, War Won’t,” but how will we respond when the Security Council agrees, through endless leverage, that the inspections are a failure?

This movement, while attracting millions and millions and millions of people, has not yet convinced the majority of Americans that the war is in principle a mistake,” said Michael Lerner, the editor of the progressive Jewish magazine Tikkun. “The best we get is liberal Democrats who are saying, ‘Well, we should go more slowly, we should have more nations backing us, we should have the United Nations backing us.’ But they won’t say — as they ought to be saying — that this war is immoral, that it’s a fundamental mistake.”

The same is true in Canada. Polls show that a third of us oppose any war in Iraq, but many more support a conflict if it comes with U.N. approval. That majority — not a genuine anti-war majority — is still the most radical voice to be given fair hearing. It took enormous effort even to get to that point, but we’ve earned the breathing room to turn up the volume. No more opposition to “unilateral war.” The message now is, “No goddamn war in Iraq.”