Wounded by Friendly Fire

Abstract

Political movements seek influence in policy-making, but are typically marked by intra-movement conflict, which, analysts argue, reduces the achievement of social change. This article examines the effects of conflict within the Gulf War illness movement on its influencing government policy-making. Using in-depth interviews, participant observation and document analyses, the article assesses the movement’s policy outcome, examines the substance of the conflict and analyzes the ways in which it hampered the movement’s execution of policy-relevant tasks. It is found that intra-movement conflict over activists’ divergent views of the government’s intentionality with regard to veterans’ hazardous exposure impaired the movement’s execution of tasks that would have had a critical influence on policy-making. As a consequence, public pressure was insufficient to precipitate a legitimation crisis for the state, permitting government officials to evade the movement’s demands and liability while imparting the image of responsiveness through weak policy formulations and implementation. The outcome was one of policy palliatives rather than curatives.