The success vel non of Malachi's action as an anti-war action depends entirely on its propaganda value. And that depends largely on two things: (1) whether it is publicized, and (2) how people react to the publicity.

(1) is now being taken care of -- media across the planet are now picking up the story (big thanks to CIMC, which broke the story.)

(2) is in process. The reactions are still coming in, and they vary widely.

It remains to be seen whether Malachi's sacrifice was in vain. But I suspect it won't be, and I'll do my best to see to it that it wasn't.

That's the annoying thing about information war. You don't really know if an action is successful until long after it's happened.

The jury's still out.

As I stated to J. in a reply (deleted) to an earlier comment of hers (also deleted), she is confusing two very different concepts: passive-aggressive behavior and passive resistance. Strikes, boycotts, and hunger strikes are all excellent examples of passive resistance, which is often a very effective tactic.

Bobby Sands, perhaps the most famous IRA hunger striker, was in prison at the time, and a hunger strike in prison is definitely a confrontational tactic. It poses a grave risk to the prisoner's health, but the stakes are high, and there are few other options for resistance tactics.

Malachi Ritscher was under no such duress when he set himself on fire. He was tired of the long hard work involved in anti-war activity, and frustrated with the lack of progress, so he elected to make one last, spectacular (and ultimately futile) public gesture. His action is getting a certain amount of media attention right now, but all media spectacles eventually fade away.

As someone else stated in this thread, it is the activists who stay alive and continue the struggle who will make the most difference in the long run.