I've gotten the explanation straight from the top. I will not defend it because the strategy they used is based on the premise that the USA has a better hope of a 2012 medal in the keelboat event than the multihull. The other five men's events were foregone conclusions - that placed the keelboat and multihull at odds for the sixth and final spot. The US delegation was instructed to get the keelboat - they executed as they are expected to, through lobbying, discussion and a bloc vote. Multihulls lost out because A) the assertion that US keelboats are better positioned to medal than multihulls went unchallenged, and B) we were vastly outnumbered by sailors from other classes (like the Finn and the Star) who understand the importance of showing up.
What has happened is unfair - no bones about it. One approach to preventing this from happening again is to continue to "infiltrate." Another approach is to stand up and walk out. To put this in Sun Tzu terms, if you cannnot understand the people that made the decision, you will never be able to effect a change and your cause will not prevail.
For my part, I feel we need to redouble efforts and build on recent gains - there can be two multihull sailors on the Board of Directors in a year. There can be a multihull sailor appointed to the ISAF Delegation for the next Quad. This is not pie-in-the-sky. We are positioned to make it happen if we decide that is the direction we want to go. Does this exclude the possibility of a new international multihull organization? Of course not. The people volunteering on the MHC are multihull sailors who are involved with USSA, not vice versa. We lost this time because we weren't part of the team formulating the game plan. If we want to be, then we can make it happen. If collectively we don't see any value in that, then there are a lot of other options for us out there.
