WASHINGTON (By Jonathan
Brand, Online News Hour) April 28, 2997
—
Long-time peace advocates, joined by some military personnel and their
families, are strengthening the anti-Iraq-war movement, which is gaining
traction in the general public and producing a valuable voting bloc for
Democrats in 2008.
"It is amazing how across-the-board the opposition is.
It's not just one group of people, it's all people from different,
varied constituencies who are against the war," said Leslie Cagan, the
national coordinator for United for Peace and Justice, an anti-war
organization. "The sentiment is bigger now more than ever, there are
more people against the war."
This anti-war voting bloc, a diverse group ranging
from those who support an immediate withdrawal from Iraq to those who
oppose President Bush's handling of the war, will again be critical to
Democratic candidates' success in the 2008 presidential election as it
was in the 2006 midterm elections that swept Democrats to power in
Congress.
"In Kansas, Montana — solidly red states — incumbent
Republicans lost to Democrats who are now clearly in office because of
the public's revulsion with the war and Bush's policies," said Kevin
Martin, executive director of U.S. Peace Action, a group founded to
promote peace and nuclear disarmament in 1957.
These activists credit Democratic political gains in
Western states and their taking control of Congress as directly tied to
the issue of Iraq. A claim they are now using to push Democratic
candidates to be more clearly opposed to the American presence in the
war-torn nation.
Since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003 and the
toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime soon after, popular support for the
Iraq war has been in steady decline. At the start of the conflict, 83
percent of Americans expressed confidence in the war, according to a CNN
poll taken in 2003. But that number dropped dramatically to 56 percent
in 2004, and a March 2007 CNN poll revealed that just 35 percent of the
country supports the conflict in Iraq.
As public support fell, the anti-war movement
broadened beyond traditional peace and anti-violence groups to include
organizations not typically associated with war-related activism, such
as the American Historical Association and military personnel.
In February 2007, the AHA passed a resolution urging
their members to do "whatever they can to bring the Iraq war to a speedy
conclusion."
And groups of former and current military personnel
have become some of the largest, fastest-growing, and most visible
opposition groups, according to Cagan.
"Military families, Iraq veterans, and veterans of
other wars have come out and opposed it. People who have been most
directly touched by the war, that's been the most dramatic increase,"
she said.
A December 2006 poll of 6,000 military personnel,
published in the Military Times, showed that only 35 percent of troops
approve of President Bush's handling of the war, down from 63 percent in
2004. Thirteen percent of respondents said that the United States should
not even be in Iraq.
Much like the broader anti-war movement, these
veterans' groups hold differing opinions on how to handle Iraq.
Some, such as the Iraq Veterans Against the War, call
for an immediate withdrawal. Others, such as VoteVets.org, an
organization founded by former Army Capt. Jon Soltz, who worked on
Democratic Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry's 2004 presidential race, are
opposed to President Bush's policies in Iraq and concerned about the
war's implications on the domestic front.
"We're not a traditional anti-war group," said Soltz,
adding that VoteVets.org is associated with another anti-war and
staunchly liberal organization MoveOn.org. "We feel that the Iraq war is
detrimental to national security."
Despite the differences, he said his group shares the
same focus as other organizations.
"I think when you talk about getting out and
anti-escalation, it's really an opposition to the president as a whole,"
he said. "You have people who are pacifists to people who are in the
military uniting against the administration's policies."
A February 2007 poll taken by the Washington Post
showed that the Iraq war was the single most important issue to
Democrats when choosing a presidential candidate.
And many Democratic presidential contenders are
responding, hoping to court these voters. Former North Carolina Sen.
John Edwards has repudiated his 2002 vote to authorize military action
in Iraq; Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, who was not in Congress when it
voted to authorize military action, has reiterated that he has been
against the war since its inception; and Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich
continues to demand that Congress cut off funding for the war.
In recent weeks, Obama has received the most support
from anti-war voters. Obama led an April poll by MoveOn.org surveying
thousands of members following a virtual forum on Iraq.
Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., has lagged behind in
surveys of anti-war voters and has repeatedly been questioned about her
refusal to apologize for her 2002 vote authorizing the war. But
Clinton's campaign thinks that her steadfastness will prove to be an
asset.
"She is in a box now on her Iraq vote, but she doesn't
want to be in a different, even worse box — the vacillating,
flip-flopping Democratic candidate that went to defeat in 2000 and '04,"
one Clinton adviser told the New York Times in February. "She wants to
maintain a firmness, and I think a lot of people around her hope she
maintains a firmness. That's what people will want in 2008."
With the first primary elections still almost a year
away, some anti-war organizations are wary that the issue will remain as
significant in the coming months.
"Right now it's easy for candidates to address the
movement. Bush's approval rating is low and it's easy for Democrats to
be seen as anti-war," said Martin. "If the intensity and fervor is lost,
some of the progress might be countered. They can't take the anti-war
vote for granted."
Candidates, especially current officeholders, will
have to not only talk about ending the war, but make some tangible
progress over the next year in order to maintain support of the anti-war
constituency.
"What's important for people is what candidates are
going to do as their plan to end the war," said Cagan. "Those people who
happened to be in the Senate are going to be scrutinized. People are
going to be pushing the candidates into answering questions about their
actions."
But whether
the emerging hard-line anti-war policies being pushed by many Democratic
primary voters in the Democratic Party will help or hamper their party's
candidate won't be clear until Americans vote for the next president 18
months from now.