The war in Libya--the one that the President said would take "days, not weeks"--is now one month old. We got involved to stop the killing of civilians, remember? But civilians are being mutilated and killed in such numbers now that the hospital in Misrata is glutted with blood. We don't do enough to enable a rebel victory; we do just enough to prevent a government victory.

Still, the Mall in Washington, D.C. is a scene of vernal bliss. In Harvard Yard the frisbees blow, beneath the proctors, row on row. Gentlemen of Berkeley now abed can almost hear the echoes of percussion bands. "We are the grass roots, we cover all."

It turns out that the anti-war movement in recent years was never anti-war, just anti-Republican wars. A new study from the University of Michigan puts that thesis forth.

Write Michael Feaney and Fabio Rojas: "Overall, our results convincingly demonstrate a strong relationship between partisanship and the dynamics of the antiwar movement. While Obama's election was heralded as a victory for the antiwar movement, Obama's election, in fact, thwarted the ability of the movement to achieve critical mass."

Since the University of Michigan study was reported about two weeks ago there have been few commentaries, let alone denials, from the Left. NPR's coverage tried to chalk it up to the absence of a draft, which would explain why this isn't the Vietnam War, but does not explain the anti-Iraq marches of the past decade. It also is suggested that people are less interested in contesting U.S. efforts to combat terrorism than they were to contest wars. Except that Libya is not about terrorism, per se, is it?

The anti-war movement is essentially the Democratic Party taking to the streets in times when a Republican holds the White House. The same made be said of the government employee union marchers in state capitals like Madison or Columbus.