How anti-war is the anti-war movement?

I was listening to the Michael Medved Show last week when I heard Jonathan Leaf talk about his new book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Sixties. He made an interesting point: the anti-war movement wasn't really anti-war. It was anti-America-winning-a-war. I thought of that while thinking of Chicago ANSWER, the local arm of the national left-wing extremist group Act Now to Stop War and End Racism. ANSWER was very successful in organizing marches against the war in Iraq during the Bush Administration. The Chicago chapter is now jumping into the parking meter debate. How does the city's parking meter lease connect to an anti-war movement? It doesn't. I believe Chicago ANSWER is using the very unpopular parking meter lease--an easy issue to latch onto--in order to publicize its more extreme views. For example:

--ANSWER continues to blame Israel for Gaza's problems despite the fact Israel has not controlled Gaza since 2005 and has not had a presence in Gaza at all except for a brief period in 2008. This incursion was intended to stop the rocket barrage from Gaza into the Israeli town of Sderot.

--anti-war ANSWER opposes any U.S. intervention in the Darfur conflict, preferring to allow the Sudanese government to continue its massacre of innocent black Africans by Arabs. Sounds pretty racist to me.

--ANSWER supports the dictatorship of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe--a dying nation with worthless currency and a corrupt government in desperate need of reform. But ANSWER supports the dictatorship.

Let's be perfectly clear. ANSWER is not absolutely opposed to war. If Syria invaded Israel, ANSWER would gleefully support Syria's actions against "Western imperialism." If Cuba brutally suppressed a revolt, ANSWER would celebrate another victory for the Revolution. ANSWER's opposition to war depends on which side is winning.