Invasion Anniversary Next Month Is Date Of Campaign Kickoff

By Evelyn Nieves Washington Post Staff Writer

On Feb. 15, 2003, as millions of people worldwide took
to the streets to protest the imminent U.S. invasion of
Iraq, Marine Lance Cpl. Michael Hoffman was in Kuwait,
awaiting deployment to Baghdad.

Two years later, Hoffman, 25, is a civilian on the
lecture circuit, introducing himself as an Iraq Veteran
Against the War. On March 19, when war opponents plan
to converge near Fort Bragg in Fayetteville, N.C., to
mark the date of the invasion, Hoffman, who co-founded
the Iraq veterans group, will be one of the lead
speakers.

"I disagreed with the war before I went over," said
Hoffman, the son of a steelworker from Allentown, Pa.
"But now, I can talk about the reality of war — what
it’s really like, the lack of support the troops have,
the civilians being killed. The biggest problem with
Iraq right now is the occupation."

Along with Gold Star Families for Peace, which is made
up of people who have lost loved ones in Iraq, Iraq
Veterans Against the War holds a powerful claim among
peace groups as ones who can speak from experience
about the consequences of the war. Together, they will
be front and center among the scores of peace groups
that are hoping to keep the war — and its
repercussions — in the public consciousness.

Peace groups have been relatively quiet in recent
months, especially after President Bush’s reelection.
But antiwar leaders say they are on the verge of
reemerging. Leaders of dozens of peace groups plan to
meet in St. Louis this weekend to plot strategies for a
new push against the war, from ad campaigns to long-
term, grass-roots organizing. They plan to use March 19
and 20, the anniversary weekend of the war’s start, as
the beginning of an all-out effort to convince the
public that the best course for Americans and Iraqis is
for the war to end and the troops to come home.

"We’re just in the beginning of this process; until
recently, there hasn’t been any conversation about
ending the war," said Andrea Buffa, a spokeswoman for
United for Peace and Justice, an umbrella group of more
than 800 antiwar organizations.

In a way, the antiwar groups’ task is easier than it
was before the U.S. invasion, when the idea of then-
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein attacking the United
States with weapons of mass destruction convinced many
people that a preemptive strike was necessary. Polls
show that support for the war has eroded as its cost in
lives, the economy and the social fabric of communities
throughout the nation has climbed.

Politicians from both major parties want to know if
there is an exit strategy. The Jan. 30 elections in
Iraq bolstered support for the war, but Sen. Chuck
Hagel (R-Neb.), a member of the Foreign Relations and
intelligence committees, said the elections, while
significant, did not change the fact that the war is
forcing great sacrifices for the United States and
Iraq.

"Americans need to see more tangible, meaningful
developments to answer whether the sacrifice is worth
it," Hagel told the Associated Press after Iraqis
voted. "Over 1,400 Americans are dead, 11,000 are
wounded, and we’ve spent over $100 billion. Is that
sacrifice worth what we’re getting?"

Antiwar organizers say that as dialogue about an exit
strategy builds, part of their task is to keep
reminding the public that the administration’s
rationale for invading Iraq was wrong — that Iraq had
no weapons of mass destruction or working relationship
with al Qaeda.

"The fact that we’re now seeing in Congress resolutions
calling for the first steps towards bringing the troops
home is an indication that that’s no longer a sideline
extreme position," said Phyllis Bennis of the Institute
for Policy Studies here.

The institute, a progressive think tank, had sponsored
a "cities for peace" campaign in which 165 cities
nationwide adopted resolutions opposing the U.S.
invasion. Now it is sponsoring a similar campaign for
cities to pass resolutions to bring the U.S. troops
back.

But while a majority of Americans say that the invasion
of Iraq was not worth it, the public is divided over
whether pulling U.S. troops out while Iraq is in
turmoil is the right thing to do.

"In terms of withdrawing, we see a lot of tension
between those who feel that pulling out is right and
those who don’t," said Eli Pariser, executive director
of MoveOn.org, which became one of the most prominent
antiwar groups leading up to the invasion. While
MoveOn.org is a member of one of the largest antiwar
coalitions, Win Without War, it is now focusing its
energies on the Social Security debate and other
domestic concerns, Pariser said.

Leaders of the largest antiwar groups say that
garnering massive support for the withdrawal of troops
will require a massive education effort. While groups
will still organize rallies marking important
benchmarks, they say, the large public protests seen
before the war are giving way to a more focused energy.
The new strategy might be called think nationally, act
locally.

"It’s not enough for us to say, ’Come to us’; we have
to go to the people," Bennis said. "We have to convince
people that the U.S. troops are the problem, not the
solution. As long as they’re there, they’re providing
the largest direct target and the largest indirect
target. But it doesn’t mean that pulling out the troops
is the end of our obligation. We owe a huge debt to
Iraq. We owe reparations."

Many groups are planning teach-ins and forums in
colleges, churches and community centers. Win Without
War, with members such as the NAACP and the National
Council of Churches, is planning to lobby Congress
intensively to encourage an examination of the costs of
the war. Again, that involves organizing public
support. "Politicians act when they see a groundswell,"
said Tom Andrews, national director of Win Without War
and a former Democratic representative from Maine.

Military Families Speak Out, an antiwar group launched
in November 2002 for families whose loved ones were
being deployed to Iraq, is planning a campaign that
asks elected officials to look at the impact of the war
on communities.

"We would like to have state legislators begin to have
hearings on the impact of the war," said Charley
Richardson, who founded Military Families Speak Out
with his wife, Nancy Lessin.

"We think that the war is an issue for politicians on
all levels. . . . One thing we know is that the
National Guard is disproportionately composed of police
officers, EMTs, firefighters and other first
responders," Richardson added. "Family and community
structures are not set up for the kind of deployment
that these people in the Guard are enduring. The idea
of 18-month deployments, and now they’re talking about
two-year deployments, is devastating. . . . This is an
underground impact of this war that is incredibly
significant and needs to be discussed."

(c) 2005 The Washington Post Company

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32902-2005Feb17.html