Reaching For A Broader Demographic

By: JohnBruhns
Published On: 3/15/2008 9:23:29 PM

Cross-posted from Huffington Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Since my discharge from active duty 3 years ago, I have worked hard to end the war in Iraq -- so far without any success. Lately, I have been pondering why the anti-war movement as a whole, myself included, has not been effective in influencing members of Congress, primarily the Democrats who won in 2006 on a platform of "changing course in Iraq" to follow through on their campaign promise.

Who is to blame? Of course, George W. Bush & Dick Cheney. But it goes further.

Democrats in Congress automatically assume they will get the anti-war vote just because of their vocal opposition of the Bush administration. Therefore, they become lax and complacent being that they feel their seats are safe. They boast that they are fighting for change, only to lose every showdown. Pathetic and inexcusable even -- being that they have more votes than their Republican colleagues who prevail every time, only because a substantial number of Democrats vote the same way the Republicans do, at least in regard to the war in Iraq.

Many Democrats vote for the funding, they just complain about doing it. That makes it worse since they fully acknowledge that they are voting for something that is wrong, and that they themselves don't believe in.

I can no longer buy the argument that we need to elect more Democrats in order to end the war -- that is just nonsense. However, I fully acknowledge that a Democrat in the White House will be far better than John McCain, who will certainly carry on Bush's Iraq policy and quite possibly start another war.

Right now the Democratic candidates are promising an end to the war in Iraq. Once the nomination is secured, watch how the nominee softens their language on the issue. Instead of ending the war, they will argue we need to leave behind residual forces for counter-insurgency operations, protecting U.S. infrastructure, and training the Iraqi military. McCain will probably gravitate closer toward the center and argue for something similar.

Even with Hillary or Obama in the White House, there is no way they will start pulling troops out within their first 60 days of office, as both have pledged to do. It will take years, and that is why the 110th Congress should have immediately started this process once they took control of both Houses in 2006.

I know Bush has veto power, and I know the Republicans have the power to filibuster, however, so do the Democrats. Sometimes I feel like the inaction of Congress regarding the war is purposely aimed at prolonging the war to make it an election issue. Yes, I am a Democrat, so naturally it pains me to write this.

Switching gears ...
Another contributing factor is the American people who, for the most part, are not effected by the war in Iraq. Most of my friends wouldn't even know an Iraq veteran if they didn't know me. So if it isn't their problem, why would they care? It is like crime -- the people in the suburbs don't worry about it until it starts creeping in to their neighborhoods from the city. Then they demand action.

Not until the American people are called on to sacrifice themselves will they resist. That is why the anti-war movement of the late 60s and early 70s was far more powerful than that of today. Primarily because there was a draft, and people were being ripped from their lives to go and fight a war they didn't believe in. Once it is your blood or money in the game everything changes -- everything. Even for the cowards and chicken-hawks chanting "victory" on behalf of our lame duck joke of a President.

If we in the anti-war movement, or anti-Iraq war movement, or whatever you want to call it, are going to be successful, somehow we have to reach the silent majority, who are the millions of Americans who are completely fed up with the war, but have no idea where to turn for their voices to be heard.

Why is that?

Most Americans are totally turned off by anti-war groups infiltrating official Congressional hearings where important facts need to be heard, then seeing outrageous disruptions. People being drug away by Capitol police officers, who are just doing their jobs, but are unfairly being labeled as some modern day Gestapo force or agents of Bush. God bless the brave activists that put themselves out their for justice in such a manner, but this is something that Joe Q. Public just isn't going to participate in, ever -- and more than likely will be 100 miles off the grid when it happens.

People are volunteering to be "water boarded" in public, in front of members of Congress, all in an effort to raise awareness that our government has engaged in acts of torture on prisoners of war. I understand their point, especially because it is true. The only problem is that they are scaring the shit out of people who are walking by witnessing these demos in horror. Those very same people are probably equally as outraged, however, they are not going to be affiliated with these organizations in any way shape or form because of a total fundamental disagreement in methodology.

Persecuting the military is a total "buzz kill" for any rational American. Furthermore, it is a total setback for the movement. The war in Iraq is not the fault of our troops, it is the fault of the policy makers in the Bush Administration, and their enablers in Congress. And lets get real -- we are not going to dismantle our military, EVER. We need a military to protect us and our country. However, it is wrong when our leaders force our military to fight an illegal war for their self-serving interests, such as oil and global dominance. And in the meantime, bankrupt our country.

Here is the news, people: Congress has the power to end the war. But they won't do a damn thing to end it until they feel that their jobs are on the line. One thing they truly care about is getting reelected. What it will take is average Americans, mothers, fathers, teachers, cops, and students walking right into their offices and voicing strong opposition to the war. When they become convinced that it isn't just the anti-war activists (who Congress could care less about) who are raising hell, but also "average & everyday" people who have been silent for so long -- members of Congress will reevaluate their past ineptitude and dysfunctional legislative approaches, and maybe, just maybe, actually do their jobs and bring us the necessary and positive changes that our country desperately needs.


Comments



Great Diary John (Flipper - 3/15/2008 10:52:12 PM)
You articulated your thoughts quite well.  

I have argued repeatedly about Democrats in the Senate who continue to fund this war.  They have the power to end it by cutting off funding for the war but they do not have political courage to do so.

I have castigated the Dems over this, and Senator Webb in particular, and taken a lot of heat over it, but I stand by my word and my principles.  

The Dems have really lost the public relations battle over the war.  Support for the war has increased according to most polls, and as the economy sinks into the abyss, it is off the radar more and more.

Thank you for your words today and keep up the good work.  Perhaps one day ww will see an end to this disaster.

 



Thanks Flipper (JohnBruhns - 3/16/2008 10:46:54 AM)
I'm with you  


a bit more optimistic on troops coming home (jsrutstein - 3/16/2008 8:23:12 AM)
The real story behind Fallon's "resignation" seems to have less to do with his relative dovishness on Iran and more to do with a disagreement with Petraeus on the extent of a "pause" in ending the "surge."  When someone like Fallon sees a benefit to fewer troops, it raises my hope that the next Democratic President will be able to bring home our troops more quickly and in greater numbers.

I'd like to see 100% withdrawal, too.  But, if it were clear that any residual troops were there in a true peacekeeping capacity and not just re-occupiers in reserve, or pre-positioned invaders of another country, I could support that, especially if those troops were simply guarding our civilians providing aid and support to the Iraqis and protecting those Iraqis who have been working with us.

I'm not sure how Bush, Petraeus, McCain, and the others who want to keep well over 100K troops in Iraq indefinitely can successfully make the case that those troops being there are a factor in themselves in preventing a truly independent self-sufficient, and self-defending Iraqi government from standing up.  Even if you concede that the "surge" has worked in lessening violence, there doesn't seem to be any momentum in Iraq toward the type of power sharing and protection of minority groups that would enable the country to survive, as opposed to splitting up into three parts.

It is sad to know that violence will rise as our troops withdraw, but the leaders of the various Iraqi factions ought to be even more motivated to come to terms with each other if they know there won't be another "surge."  It may also be dangerous when our troops withdraw, both in the short term due to terrorists, some of whom we paid and armed ourselves to rat on other Sunnis, and in the long term due to Iran interfering.

The reason why the economy is dominating the headlines is because it's truly bad and getting worse.  I don't think any "peace dividend" will amount to much, but the public is going to demand that our next President and our next Congress make taking care of our problems here at home more of a priority than bringing governments friendly to us to the middle east.  If that latter aspiration was ever truly a goal of Bush, it was a foolish one, anyway, given how we chose Iraq as the guinea pig, messed that country up, and have done virtually nothing on progress in any of the neighboring countries.  In fact, not only have we strengthened the hand of Iran, but also we've seen things get worse in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

It's too bad that the Republican Party nominated someone who explicitly promises an indefinite occupation of Iraq by well over 100K troops.  The polls now may show that McCain runs about even with Clinton or Obama, but come September, if not sooner, I think McCain's numbers will plummet.  Of course, this may be more because he's as clueless on the economy as Bush than because of the war, but our next Democratic President and our next even more Democratic Congress will come into office with a clear mandate to bring our troops home and clean up all of Bush's messes.

This is not to say that the protesting should stop.  To the contrary, I completely agree with John about the brave activists and all they've done, and I also agree that more average citizens should speak up now and not wait until election day.  Speaking of acting now, on Wednesday antiwar activists are promising to blockade the main IRS building downtown where I work.  Should I and my fellow employees cross the peace picket line?



The perils of the double negative. (jsrutstein - 3/16/2008 10:43:31 AM)
In the first sentence of my third paragraph, I meant to say Bush, Petraeus, and McCain can't make the case that our troops being in Iraq are NOT a factor in preventing a successful Iraqi government from developing.


My oped in the PDN (JohnBruhns - 3/16/2008 10:48:35 AM)
http://www.philly.com/dailynew...


All they can do (tx2vadem - 3/16/2008 1:20:42 PM)
is refuse to take up appropriation bills for the occupation.  But even then, it would be difficult for Democrats to hold their caucus together to do that.  They don't have the votes to override a presidential veto, so they can't pass any law that would undo the force authorization or require troops to be withdrawn.  They would need bipartisan support, but there is not a bipartisan consensus on how, when, and whether to end the occupation of Iraq.  That lack of political consensus is reflective of where the populous of this country is.  And this is also why defunding the war is not probable at the moment.

The entire issue is being overshadowed at the moment by the economy.  As you point out, the occupation of Iraq does not have an immediate effect on most people.  However, the economic situation here does have an immediate effect.   It is hard to compete with that issue.  I think the economic situation makes for a stronger case for leaving because we are unable to reprioritize that spending.  But most people are not realizing the huge opportunity cost that the occupation presents.  And politicians and media outlets are not saying that if we weren't spending so much money on Iraq, we would have more money to address these economic problems.  Instead we paint the picture that the money supply is endless and we can pay for everything without raising taxes.



true but to what end (Alter of Freedom - 3/17/2008 6:11:16 PM)
in terms of the economic assessment and its power over the Iraq issue it is to the point but what has Congress done really to address any of those issues other than bandaid legislation that in an election year Democrats would have had a hard time opposing the so-called rebate checks. These checks or "just go shopping" II address nothing regarding the economic and trade policy that has brought this economy to the brink--and now with this Bear Sterns scenario playing out and the housing crisis which has drifted away from the mainstream media will certainly come back around this week. How can a company be valued at 30 billion on Friday and then be bought out on Monday for 230 million or pennies on the dollar in a firesale backed by the government at least in good faith? Democrats and Republicans seating on Banking and FInance committees ought to be ashamed that we are in this situation brought about by their lack of true oversight on any of these issues whether lending or capital financing.


Great diary (IechydDa - 3/16/2008 11:39:27 PM)
I agree completely. It's very disturbing that the death and destruction goes on at still a very high level, yet because of the surge and our economic problems (not unrelated to war spending) the war is on page 3 or 5. Let's review where we are.

Today, at least 3,987 American soldiers have died. Coalition deaths are 4,295. Iraqi deaths due directly to this conflict are probably over 100,000. The country has been in such a state of chaos, accurate figures are impossible but estimates range from 60,000 to over 600,000.

Injured Americans will pay the price of this war for years to come - over 30,000 have been injured so far. The estimates of veterans returning from Iraq with PTSD range up to 150,000. No one has a reasonable estimate of Iraqi injured, but it is certainly in the hundreds of thousands. And in Iraq the damage to the whole society is catastrophic. Over four million Iraqis have become refugees; two million internally and two million in exile.

The country's infrastructure and economy are in shambles. These conditions will take decades to overcome. In the United States, the costs to our economy have skyrocketed. At the beginning of this war, administrative officials estimated that the war would cost $50 to $60 Billion. Recently, Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel economist estimated that the war - IF IT STOPPED TODAY - will cost THREE TRILLION DOLLARS. This terrible debt has limited our ability to deal with economic problems at home, such as the housing crisis.

Indeed, John Bruhns is correct. Without ordinary people taking a stand at their Congressman or Congresswoman's door, it will continue. I fear John McCain's statement about our presence in Iraq lasting 100 years is more accurate than I want to believe. Thanks to peaking oil production and our national refusal to develop renewables, I fear that McCain's estimate is well-substantiated by our presence over 50 years in South Korea, less strategic to our direct national interests than the world's #2 oil reserve.