1.) As a movement, trying to become a broad-based, effective oppositional front, the antiwar crowd needs a leader. As it stands now, there are a multitudinous amount of groups with different ideological, tactical and practical differences, some of which are as opposed to each other as much as the war itself. Apparently, some of the bigger antiwar groups did not contribute to or publicize the march, seeing protest as an ineffective tactic. My guess is, it's less a disdain for marching, than a disdain for the week of direct action to follow. Regardless, since infighting only benefits the powers-that-be, unifying these factions is going to be of the utmost importance in moving forward from this time. Right now, in light of Gen. Petraeus' report, it seems that surge forces may return home within the next year, in favor of a long-term engagement for the next decade or so. That is a long time to support a mass movement, and an even longer one to support one faction of many.
And in light of the fact that here is no Gandhi or Martin Luther King for the antiwar movement, that next decade could seem even longer. There is no spokesperson with an irreplaceable clarion call to lead the movement, which is of the utmost importance. Look at the current marches in Burma, led by legions of Buddhist monks- they have reopened an issue that has been tenuous at best since the slaughter of 1988. I believe that Iraq Veterans of the War (IVAW) are the closest thing the movement has to a moral leader- just hearing them speak at the Lafayette Square rally was awe-inspiring. They have a moral weight to their words and experiences that so many just do not have. I definitely would follow them to the Capitol. In a broad-based movement, there are infinite roles that need to be filled. The civil rights movement wasn't just MLK and Malcolm X- it was groups like SCLC and SNCC, initiatives like Freedom Summer and the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party, and a massive network of operatives that fulfilled unheralded, specialized roles that ensured the movement kept going. I think the antiwar movement has that impressive infrastructure, just no head at the top using it to the most effective ends.
That said, the anointing of Cindy Sheehan so many years ago is a symptom of that need. However, she was clearly unable to fill that role, one she was thrust into by opportunists and manipulators. She even "retired" as such, sick of the talk, talk, talk, always talk, no action. She also fills a role, but she's not the leader.

2.) Speaking of Sheehan, at her speech at Lafayette Square, she stated that antiwar protests used to be people "marching, then [going] home and [having] a beer," in order to illustrate her support for direct action against the war regime. I think her words were more illustrative than she may have known.
I could feel that pervasive attitude, that of a exercise in tourism and routine, as I participated in the march. It felt like a hell of a lot of middle-class people with an infinite number of pet causes out for a stroll on a beautiful day. At least from where I stood (walked), the energy seemed rote, routine, well-practiced and low-energy. There was little rigor, vigor or intensity in the vast majority of participants. Now, granted, a riot has intensity and vigor, and no one wants that. But there is something to be said about a well-executed, vocal and powerful expression of indignation.
The spirit of sacrifice in this particular movement was very low indeed- out of the hundred or so that faced arrest during the die-in, participation in that move was extended to all. Most were content to lounge in the grass in front of the Capitol. That's everyone's choice to make. But I had to notice that, not unlike the war itself, the sacrifice associated with taking part is limited to a very small group of individuals. Military families sacrifice for the war as their members fight and die in Iraq, and antiwar activists sacrifice in terms of herculean effort for limited payoff and fear of arrest. The rest of us march, post on blogs, put magnets on our cars and pat ourselves on the back.

3.) During the whole march, despite the lack of individual energy, you couldn't help but feel like part of a tsunami of discontent, on an inexorable path to the breakers of power. The tidal force moved with unstoppable power, until it broke into a million droplets of seaspray on the walls of the Capitol. There was hardly any coordination of our impressive numbers upon arrival. We had heard to listen for an air raid siren as the signal for the die-in, with sections for those willing to risk arrest and those not, but that signal was not forthcoming. Instead, thousands of people milled about for an hour, until finally one guy strolled through the crowds asking for solidarity in the die-in, support those that have died... which is a great symbol, but one poor sap can't coordinate that many people. They just looked at him as he passed by. Lounging ensued. No rigor, but also no leadership. I think that these two deficiencies are inextricable from each other.

4.) Falling under the rubric of poor planning, one of the numerous rallies at Lafayette Square comes into view. Namely, Ralph Nader. He is great for grinding someone down in the boardroom, for painfully extracting concessions from recalcitrant CEOs; he is not a rallying cry, pump-you-up speaker. On the other hand, Etan Thomas is, yet he got tacked onto the tail end as the march started. Bummer.

5.) There is a certain allure and respect for the black bloc, in all their infinite manifestations. Whether that respect is out of genuine admiration, or out of the wariness afforded to all masked men, I know not. Yeah, I get it, the black represents a lack of identity, only the existence of the group as a spontaneous action matters, etc. etc., ad nauseum. That's weak. In a country such as America, you better have balls enough to speak your mind with your face out in the open. If you care enough about something, put yourself and your beliefs on the line. Don't put yourself behind a mask. This isn't Chiapas, and DC police aren't going to arbitrarily shoot you after the march is over. Wearing a mask in protest activity doesn't do anything but suggest criminal activity, and give itchy police more of a reason to get active. This suspicion can be spread out over the entire action. Furthermore, it gives more of a reason for police provocateurs to slip into the ranks and start the riot themselves. Seems crazy, right? There's better ways to show solidarity than to mask yourself. It all goes back to the spirit of sacrifice.

6.) Speaking of the police, they are not the enemy. Symbolically, they are the armed weapons of the state, beholden to local, state or federal governments in enacting the law, no matter how racist, unconstitutional or otherwise awful it may be. However, laws change over time, and police are not to be held accountable for these laws- the brokers of power should. Second, police are not a monolithic entity, even when they are in getups like a state-owned black bloc of riot shields and gas masks. They are individuals, with emotions, feelings and priorities that may just mirror your own. This is not a plea for hand-holding empathy- it is hardheaded practicality. If you are a cop, staring down ten thousand protesters marching towards your line, you know that you and your comrades are tasked with maintaining law and order. If you are a cop at the Capitol that day, it was probably a day off, one you just wanted to spend with your kids or your girl. You pull a wage and support your family, and just want to go home. Now, amongst those ten thousand, you have various cliques of black-masked kids giving you shit about being a fascist, pig, Nazi, whatever. You don't know what these loudmouth kids are up to, but you do know that there are only a few dozen of your buddies there. You have rubber bullets, Mace, and it's starting to feel hotter. Your pulse quickens, hairs stand on edge, feeling a thousand pairs of eyes on you. Yes, that cop is already probably agitated, nervous, and maybe a little jumpy. So yes, let's piss them off on top of that.
True, there's bad cops out there. Like any classification of people, there's bad and good. But for every successful mass movement in history, the participation and support of the police was necessary, either in terms of action or conscious inaction. Look at Serbia in 2001, Ukraine in 2004. For comparison, look at Seattle in 1999. You absolutely have to involve them in the process. Cops are involved with law and order, and you can't cut them out of the loop. You're much better off placing flowers in rifle barrels than throwing eggs.
Furthermore, at least the Capitol police made it so you had the absolute choice on whether you wanted to get arrested or not. If you don't climb the wall, stay and shout whatever abuse you want. But once you climb that wall, it's all over. It's up to you. Except for when they maced the crowd over by the metal barricade. Like I said, there's bad cops. Doesn't change the equation one bit, though.

7.) The protest march as an institution and act hinges on the very real disconnect between the people and representative democracy. Obviously, the United States was founded on the representative democracy, wherein the people as a whole vote to elect those that will represent them in a national body, making laws under threat of voting-out at the next electoral period. Direct democracy, on the other hand, is the flavor favored by those at the march. Under such a system, every American gets to vote directly on what the government does or does not do.
This is not the time or place to debate the virtues of one democracy against the other. But that clash was very evident on the streets of DC that day. When your voice is limited to actions such as casting a vote every other year, can you really hope to have enough voice? How much is enough? There are valid Constitutional limits based on this debate. On the one hand, you have politicians who are more beholden to corporations and wealthy donors than the people as a whole, dependent on campaign funds to even run in an election, and repaying that favor with access or other sundries. On the other, you have the mandated restrictions preventing the Tyranny of the Majority, where the greatest number of voters wins, even if it's for a blatantly awful policy. There's really no way out of it easily. Perhaps the march as an institution is that extra bit of voice that is needed, but if that were true, we would need tangible results. I don't know if there are enough of us. That said...

8.) ...in the featured article in the Washington Post, the antiwar marchers are referred to as "a vocal minority," first by a pro-war activist, then dubiously repeated as headline by the author: "We just want a chance to show America we don't agree with the vocal minority." Despite the limited veracity of this claim at first glance, let's look at it more closely. Does the antiwar movement have such support as claimed by organizers, polls and activists? Does it represent a true cross-section of society, or just that leftist-activist core? From multiple glances over several hours, it sure as hell seemed like there were a lot of diverse and committed people there. I don't know if several thousand people that traveled from all across the country, despite the active refusal of some groups to support or participate, constitutes a minority.
And that's the thing. Was it really a vocal minority? The ANSWER Coalition has been noted as tending to attach several issues to the antiwar movement, possibly in an effort to boost numbers. Not a bad idea, really. But the message can't help but be muddled when you have dozens competing all at once for camera space, and for the imaginations of the thousands that likely largely agree with them. Then you have the 9/11 Truth guys with their bullhorns annoying the piss out of everyone, or maybe just me, and it becomes a cacophony of unfocused, unrestrained discontent. So many issues, so little time. Are people really there because they want us out of Iraq, or is it for LGBT rights? Palestinian freedom? Opposing the Real ID act? In favor of immigration? Is everyone there to oppose the war, or is it to oppose the war while getting some much-needed publicity for another pet cause?
So the true value of numbers is deceptive. It's hard to draw a link between the sixty-whatever percent of people that want the US out of Iraq, statistically drawn from as representative a population as possible, and the tens of thousands walking down Constitution Avenue. Were we a vocal minority? Or just the tip of the iceberg?

9.) Whatever the case, I got a full-on taste of those that rally in support of unrestricted US warfare in the middle east. At this point, unwavering support for the war in Iraq is mostly bankrupt however you want to look at it- ideologically, rationally, economically, you name it. It doesn't matter how many schools you build, how many elections you hold, as long as the people don't have running water or electricity, have to dodge mercenary caravans tearing through cities without fear of reprisal, and still are in search of what even Saddam Hussein had provided- day-to-day security. Hussein's crimes are well documented, but if you can't offer daily security, you can't offer anything. At the least, the very least, a thinking person must absolutely question whether we have done the right things in the right ways, and whether we can really do right by the Iraqis in the long term. Not having hard questions for those in power suggest either willful ignorance or outright stupidity.
Support for the troops does not necessarily mean support for the mission. Men in suits make the missions and line their pockets with the spoils. Men in fatigues carry them out and die for it. It's simple, likely the most immutable truth since the dawn of time. Just change the various garb in the anecdote, and you've got the law of society number one, from Sumer and Babylon on to the present day.
Personally, what I gained from the pro-war activists was what I read in many of their eyes. Some refused to show it, but others couldn't help it- one part astonishment, one part defeat, and two parts the realization of futility. Tens of thousands marching past against the war against the true vocal minority. Unwavering support for the war with no questions asked is dying. I saw it in the eyes of more than one likely strong and capable man, likely a realization of an inner truth, that the charade is just about over. They fought back to the end, no doubt; with critique that rarely strays from calls of hippie!, traitor!, coward!, or the employ of random stinkbombs. But, their time is winding down. Keeping them down is everyone's responsibility.

10.) Unofficial police sources put the crowd at 10,000; the ANSWER coalition puts the crowd at nearly 100,000. Expect to find the truth somewhere in between. And much like that figure, the answer to the war is the same. Pulling out immediately would leave a definite power vacuum, to be filled by whoever has the most guns in a country awash with weaponry. At the same time, staying indefinitely provides the Iraqis with no incentive to take matters into their own hands. Like all things, the truth always lies bloodied somewhere in between two combative parties. God willing, we will find it soon.