SPONSORED BY:

Peace Out

Bush's Iraq surge drew howls of fury from the left. Now that Obama wants the same for Afghanistan, where's the peace movement?

ARLINGTON, VA - MARCH 21:  A man walks with a peace symbol dduring the "National March on the Pentagon" to protest the 6th anniversary of the US war in Iraq March 21, 2009 in Arlington, Virginia.  Protesters gathered to rally against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the conflict between the Israeli and Palestinian people and other conflicts while marching from Washington, DC to the Pentagon and offices of defense contractors.  (Photo by Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images)
Brendan Smialowski / Getty Images
A Movement Deflated: Antiwar protests, like this one in March, have been sparsely at-tended since Obama's inauguration.
 

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

Separate multiple addresses with commas

SPONSORED BY
 

During the 2008 presidential campaign, liberal voters beheld Barack Obama and saw a man of peace. No, Obama himself never pretended to be a pacifist. But for some of his most fervent supporters, few things were more bedazzling than Obama's clearly stated opposition to the Iraq War in the autumn of 2002, and his campaign's emphasis on getting America out of that country.

 
PHOTOS
The Human Toll

A look at the impact of the war on terror in Afghanistan

 

But Obama's presidency has hardly lifted America out of war. In Afghanistan, in fact, he has gotten America in deeper. Since taking office, Obama has ordered an additional 21,000 soldiers to Afghanistan—lifting U.S. troop levels there to nearly 70,000 by the end of this year. And there's likely more to come. The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Stanley McChrystal, is reportedly preparing to ask Obama for as many as 40,000 more soldiers. And while the White House is debating its plans for Afghanistan, no one in the administration is ruling out an increase of that size.

Thus far, however, the political heat on Obama has been mild—a candle flame compared to the blowtorch of fury directed at George W. Bush's war in Iraq. Sure, Democrats in Congress have begun to ask skeptical questions. But so far their doubts have been aired cautiously, in forums like this week's Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings on Afghanistan, where the committee's chairman, John Kerry, has merely raised concerns about the conflict without directly challenging his president. Notably absent are the sort of theatrical protesters who routinely disrupted Bush-era congressional hearings on Iraq. (At one 2007 hearing, a member of the infamous antiwar outfit Codepink lunged at Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice with fake-blood-covered hands.) By comparison, when it comes to Afghanistan, the antiwar left has been remarkably docile. There are no mass demonstrations in the streets, no vigils outside the White House, no shrieking activists haranguing startled members of Congress in Capitol Hill hallways.

What happened to all that outrage? There are four key explanations.

1. The first is the most obvious: The partisan factor. Liberals certainly don't like seeing more Americans march off to battle. But when it comes to Obama, the old saying seems to prevail on the left: "He may be an SOB, but he's our SOB." Antiwar demonstrators were eager to shame and embarrass Bush, but many liberals would rather apply behind-the-scenes pressure on Obama. With the president fighting to pass health-care reform, stop global warming, and reform the financial system, few on the left want to make inadvertent common cause with the likes of Glenn Beck in eroding the president's political capital.

Label

Newsweek Top Stories
Gone Rogue
Gone Rogue

How Sarah Palin hurts the GOP … and America.

The Decade's Best Quotes
The Decade's Best Quotes

NEWSWEEK's 20/10 Project recalls the lines we'll never forget.

Best Celebrity Mugshots
Best Celebrity Mugshots

10 unforgettable arrest photos from the 2000s.

An Evolutionary Edge
An Evolutionary Edge

How grandmas may play favorites.

Discuss

Sponsored by

Member Comments

  • Posted By: bojack27 @ 10/05/2009 4:29:45 PM

    What drugs are you on?

  • Posted By: sieg6529 @ 10/02/2009 11:21:16 AM

    Neither war was justifiable. The Iraq war was completely Bush's pet project, and even Afganistan was an over-reaction. 9/11 was not an act of war, perpetrated by one sovereign nation against another like Pearl Harbor. 9/11 was a crime, a huge, despicable, and terrible crime. The proper response would have been a sweeping, nimble, empowered, and thorough criminal investigation. We would have garnered much more international support and would have found ourselves, in the twilight of 2009, with a lot of much-needed cash. Oh, and a lot less dead soldiers.

  • Posted By: concerned liberal @ 09/30/2009 12:15:14 PM

    As I recall during the Bush years of military blunders Code Pink (the Cindy Sheehan crew) got about 1-2hr weekly on all news shows (including Fox) to push for the antiwar agenda. Where they at now? Now that the liberal news media got their messia into office and he has got over 100,000 troops in Iraq still after 9 months in office and has even increased the troops in Afganistan to an extreme volume (with little or no positive net on either front), where the hell is the antiwar news coverage? I believe that liberal bias of the media is being showcased as well as the viscious carsenoma of the hypocracy tumor in a failing third rail!

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse

My Take

Customize the NEWSWEEK homepage
to feature your favorite columnists.

Customize Now