DLR'sCock
02-20-2005, 05:15 PM
Groups Preparing New Push Against Iraq War
By Evelyn Nieves
The Washington Post
Friday 18 February 2005
Invasion anniversary next month is date of campaign kickoff.
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."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Go to Original
Activist Nuns Take Aim at Military Companies
By Leslie Wayne
The New York Times
Saturday 19 February 2005
New York - Decades ago, and during a different war, many churches were at the forefront of antiwar efforts, whether it was the high-profile activism of the Catholic Berrigan brothers, who splattered blood on draft records, or mainstream church marches against nuclear weapons.
While most of that activism has since fallen away, a hardy band of Catholic nuns has remained true to the cause of peace - though activism today takes them to corporate boardrooms and shareholders' meetings. Nuns from dozens of orders are completing resolutions to be introduced at shareholder meetings this spring.
Of course, no one is saying that companies like Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics or Raytheon are about to lay down their arms. But military companies, faced with the persistent nuns on their doorsteps, have begun to meet with them, and, in some cases, have begun to see their business in different ways.
"We are raising questions that no one asks but us," said Valerie Heinonen, a Catholic nun and social responsibility consultant in New York. "Part of what we are doing is planting seeds. These companies have an overwhelming influence wherever they operate and I don't think religious bodies should be separate from that."
The shareholder proposals to be offered by the nuns would make any military executive squirm. At the top of the agenda is limiting foreign military sales in countries where the arms can fall into the hands of child soldiers or perpetuate never-ending wars. The nuns are also promoting an ethical code of conduct that holds arms makers accountable for the impact of their business on the environment, and on the political and social stability of countries where they operate.
One company that has met with the nuns is Raytheon, where the ethical conduct proposal was discussed in November in Boston and, more recently, by phone.
"We didn't always agree, although it was all respectful," said Jack Kapples, Raytheon's corporate secretary. "The nuns had a lot of questions about our business and there were a couple of questions that our guys thought were interesting. There were questions that led us to think that we hadn't looked at things that way."
Sister Mary Ellen Gondeck, of the Sisters of St. Joseph of Nazareth in suburban Detroit, was at the Raytheon meeting, along with representatives of about a half-dozen orders.
"If we can dialogue seriously with these companies, that's part of the success," said Sister Mary Ellen, who is the coordinator of the office of peace and justice for her order. "If they are willing to talk to us on our issue, surely we are working toward something."
To the nuns, success is measured in small ways - a new willingness on the part of corporate executives to meet with them and a greater backing for the shareholder resolutions they submit each year. Dozens of religious groups, mainly Catholic orders but also some Protestant churches, have submitted shareholder resolutions to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that will be put on the ballot of seven military companies this spring.
Last year, shareholder proposals from religious orders gained 11 percent of the vote at Textron, nearly 9 percent at Raytheon and 5 percent at General Dynamics. Religious groups say this compares with 2 percent to 3 percent in years past. Moreover, this vote has come about without any shareholder solicitations or other politicking. The only way the nuns promote their ideas is when they speak at annual shareholder meetings.
"Our resolutions don't win or lose, although that's how a lot of people like to put the spin on it," said Gary Brouse, a program director at the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, a New York-based nonprofit group that promotes corporate social responsibility. "We are trying to illuminate these issues for other people and educate shareholders to these issues."
At General Dynamics, the chief executive, Nicholas Chabraja, has met with representatives of the Sisters of Loretto and other groups.
"They raise interesting questions, though it is probably in the wrong forum," Chabraja said. "I suspect that they are frustrated in they cannot get either the administration or Congress to have a full debate on national policy or arms proliferation, so they are coming to the only place they can be heard."
Even so, Chabraja said that he had given serious thought to some of the issues raised by the nuns, especially in the area of foreign military sales. While he said he was comfortable when selling arms to foreign countries at the request of the U.S. government, in the smaller number of cases where the U.S. government was not party to the transaction, the words of the nuns gave him pause.
"On that issue, I am quite careful," Chabraja said. "I don't know if it is because of my own philosophy or if some of the things the sisters said has rubbed off. It has had some impact, but it's hard to measure. I suspect it has made me more thoughtful."
By Evelyn Nieves
The Washington Post
Friday 18 February 2005
Invasion anniversary next month is date of campaign kickoff.
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."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Go to Original
Activist Nuns Take Aim at Military Companies
By Leslie Wayne
The New York Times
Saturday 19 February 2005
New York - Decades ago, and during a different war, many churches were at the forefront of antiwar efforts, whether it was the high-profile activism of the Catholic Berrigan brothers, who splattered blood on draft records, or mainstream church marches against nuclear weapons.
While most of that activism has since fallen away, a hardy band of Catholic nuns has remained true to the cause of peace - though activism today takes them to corporate boardrooms and shareholders' meetings. Nuns from dozens of orders are completing resolutions to be introduced at shareholder meetings this spring.
Of course, no one is saying that companies like Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics or Raytheon are about to lay down their arms. But military companies, faced with the persistent nuns on their doorsteps, have begun to meet with them, and, in some cases, have begun to see their business in different ways.
"We are raising questions that no one asks but us," said Valerie Heinonen, a Catholic nun and social responsibility consultant in New York. "Part of what we are doing is planting seeds. These companies have an overwhelming influence wherever they operate and I don't think religious bodies should be separate from that."
The shareholder proposals to be offered by the nuns would make any military executive squirm. At the top of the agenda is limiting foreign military sales in countries where the arms can fall into the hands of child soldiers or perpetuate never-ending wars. The nuns are also promoting an ethical code of conduct that holds arms makers accountable for the impact of their business on the environment, and on the political and social stability of countries where they operate.
One company that has met with the nuns is Raytheon, where the ethical conduct proposal was discussed in November in Boston and, more recently, by phone.
"We didn't always agree, although it was all respectful," said Jack Kapples, Raytheon's corporate secretary. "The nuns had a lot of questions about our business and there were a couple of questions that our guys thought were interesting. There were questions that led us to think that we hadn't looked at things that way."
Sister Mary Ellen Gondeck, of the Sisters of St. Joseph of Nazareth in suburban Detroit, was at the Raytheon meeting, along with representatives of about a half-dozen orders.
"If we can dialogue seriously with these companies, that's part of the success," said Sister Mary Ellen, who is the coordinator of the office of peace and justice for her order. "If they are willing to talk to us on our issue, surely we are working toward something."
To the nuns, success is measured in small ways - a new willingness on the part of corporate executives to meet with them and a greater backing for the shareholder resolutions they submit each year. Dozens of religious groups, mainly Catholic orders but also some Protestant churches, have submitted shareholder resolutions to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that will be put on the ballot of seven military companies this spring.
Last year, shareholder proposals from religious orders gained 11 percent of the vote at Textron, nearly 9 percent at Raytheon and 5 percent at General Dynamics. Religious groups say this compares with 2 percent to 3 percent in years past. Moreover, this vote has come about without any shareholder solicitations or other politicking. The only way the nuns promote their ideas is when they speak at annual shareholder meetings.
"Our resolutions don't win or lose, although that's how a lot of people like to put the spin on it," said Gary Brouse, a program director at the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, a New York-based nonprofit group that promotes corporate social responsibility. "We are trying to illuminate these issues for other people and educate shareholders to these issues."
At General Dynamics, the chief executive, Nicholas Chabraja, has met with representatives of the Sisters of Loretto and other groups.
"They raise interesting questions, though it is probably in the wrong forum," Chabraja said. "I suspect that they are frustrated in they cannot get either the administration or Congress to have a full debate on national policy or arms proliferation, so they are coming to the only place they can be heard."
Even so, Chabraja said that he had given serious thought to some of the issues raised by the nuns, especially in the area of foreign military sales. While he said he was comfortable when selling arms to foreign countries at the request of the U.S. government, in the smaller number of cases where the U.S. government was not party to the transaction, the words of the nuns gave him pause.
"On that issue, I am quite careful," Chabraja said. "I don't know if it is because of my own philosophy or if some of the things the sisters said has rubbed off. It has had some impact, but it's hard to measure. I suspect it has made me more thoughtful."