I can understand Mr. Bruhn's frustration and anger, but certainly he must realize that the loyalists of Bush are also using the war as a propaganda tool, a tool against Democrats and other anti-war groups to the same extent as Democrats use the war to advance their party against the Republicans.  So the bottom line should be seen thusly:  Whether or not the aim of the anti-war "special interest" groups is to smear pro-war opponents, mainly Republicans, at least the message is anti-war.  Further, it was the latter group that brought on this war and supported Bush in his "crusade."  Though the Dems gave Bush the authority, he did not HAVE to attack Iraq.  Now, whatever uses the Democratic Party find in their anti-war rhetoric, the language stll, bottom line, attempts to bring troops home and is better than the rhetoric that attempts to continue this meaningless quest for "victory of the mission."

Mr. Bruhn's anger at those who did not fight hard enough to pass Webb's "dwell time" bill is justified, but again certian members of Congress (mostly Republican) have been placed in the untenable position of voting against a bill they probably would like to see passed. They are afraid they will anger those pro-Bush elements that provide the votes and the monetary support thet congressmen require to stay in office and collect the fabulous lifetime perks that you and I only dream of.

So, my take is that when you deal with a Congress of 500 people whose main responsibility is seen as their own enrichment, you support the group that will give at least a little of the pie to social enrichment, and to me that is the Democratic Party.  As Paul Krugman so truthfully stated, the Republicans only vote for tax cuts for the wealthiest and take away all opportunity for the rest, and no compromise is possible with a Party in which the idealogs have prevailed.  And that's why Mr. Bruhn should stick with the Democratic Party despite its warts. 

The Democratic leadership has been a tremendous disappointment and failure, especially Harry Reid. They talk a good game every 2 or 3 months, threaten to make the Republicans actually filibuster, and then allow the obstructionist tactics to continue unabated. Bruhns is absolutely right that more should have been done to get Webb's dwell-time amendment passed. That should have been the 'grand bargain' of war funding  -- fine, we can't end this war until 2009, but the Congress gets to express its will in the form of its constitutional obligation to set rules for the governing of the armed forces. Otherwise, no funding. Period. Instead, we get this 'Groundhog Day' routine.

I hope John finds a better and more productive outlet for his passion.

Your friend,
John

Way to go, John!  Have fun in obscurity.

PS  Personally, I'm much more forgiving of the Democratic leadership and would not criticize them like this.

I appreciate what John's saying to some degree and the aggravation of not being able to achieve a political end (every progressive can sympathize completely) and what his ultimate mission is, but this is absolutely ridiculous.  To attack these groups, the ones doing the actual legwork of making the candidates' adherence to Bush's failed administration stick to them, is counterproductive and merely an act of frustration.  It's the political equivalent of taking his ball and going home.  In fact "counterproductive" and "ridiculous" aren't enough to describe it:  "insulting" fits a lot better.  To attack his former colleagues, who are busting their ass to get this idiotic war over, is simply a slap in the face.  There's no better way to describe it.  I think he owes these groups, which house some of the most fervent anti-war voices in the nation, a great big apology.  Perhaps when he's calmed down a little bit.

The closest analogy is Cindy Sheehan.  He, like Cindy, has, in my opinion at least, let his ego become the issue and is trying to dominate the discourse to the detriment of those doing the hard work.  I like them both and I like where they stand on many issues, even those considered by most to be far to the left of the Democrats, but there's a time for realism and that time is now.  We can all work toward a fantasy of perfect progressive peace-loving leadership or we can get on board with the gang most likely to do this country right.  The Democrats are not perfect and when they betray us (like Webb did with FISA), we still need to tell them who they work for; don't get me wrong, I still very much believe that.  Throwing a little fit about your own like-minded allies accomplishes nothing positive. 

I am far from trying to become Cindy Sheehan.  I wrote this for no gain of my own at all.  This is just the honest truth. I'm not looking for followers, attention, or a Congressional seat. 

As an Iraq vet who is strongly against the war this is just the least I could do to preserve my own integrity.

No offense, but when you are on the outside trying to look in you should think twice before you question my motives or what caused me to write this ... I know you probably don't believe me anyway, but it was very serious and detrimental to all those who are in this for justice, not money or political power.

Cindy Sheehan ... ?? Me ?? You have no idea what you are talking about and must be oblivious to what I have done for the anti-war movement.

I have every right to feel the way I do not that I expect you, playing the spectator sport, to understand any of it.

However, don't worry about me.  I have plenty of people who stand in solidarity with me and whatever route I pursue will surely be effective to say the least.  And I have my fellow veterans -- the ones I served with for that matter.  A true bipartisan coalition.

Leg work to end the war?  You have no idea how much leg work I have done for years now, on my own even, with no backing from multi-million dollar lobbying groups.

http://www.americabl...

http://www.americabl...

http://www.huffingto...

http://www.huffingto...

http://www.huffingto...

So continue to watch from the sidelines and put out your petty comments about a situation and organization you no nothing about except for what you see on tv.

I'll continue to view the likes of you with pure disdain. 

You use words like counterproductive, fantasy, ridiculous, and insulting ... what a joke you are .  In your case I would rather stand alone and don't even want you to like me or respect my opinion.

John Bruhns
Iraq Veteran

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

I never read that before , but I am moved by the power of those words.

Your friend,
John

Thank you for the kind words of support and understanding. It was not easy for me to write the op-ed, but it is the truth, how ever painful that may be to some, it is the truth and it needed to be said.

The message you left me is encouraging.

As an Iraq veteran, I was never in this for money, power, influence, or political leverage.

I actually really care about ending the war and I felt terrible/guilty campaigning off it. 

That is why I had to confess publically what is the true nature and true goals of these high profile & well financed "so-called" anti-war groups.  I placed a lot of blame on myself as well.

Like I said in the op-ed, it is the only way for me to restore my integrity.

And as you read it there is nothing that I will get out of it ... no personal gain whatsoever.

We vets have gone through too much to have our experiences used for another group's political agenda.

Plus, vets are very disposable to them as well ... there is not a whole lot of concern within these organizations as to what Iraq veterans actually went through over in Iraq.

I'm just looking for an end to the war so I can continue the rest of my life in peace.  As long as the war drags on I feel compelled to fight it -- without any special interest groups involved.

Thank you again.

Your friend, in solidarity,
John Bruhns

What respect I had for you once is gone.  With leaders like you in the anti-war movement, I can understand why it's been going so poorly. 

Good riddance.

The day after they get the word they'll go home in two weeks, a group of soldiers from Spokane are ambushed in an Iraqi city. Back stateside we follow four of them - a surgeon who saw too much, a teacher who's a single mom and who lost a hand in the ambush, an infantry man whose best friend died that day, and a soldier who keeps reliving the moment he killed a civilian woman. Each of the four has come home changed, each feels dislocation. Group therapy, V.A. services, halting gestures from family and colleagues, and regular flashbacks keep the war front and center in their minds. They're angry, touchy, and explosive: can a warrior find peace back home?

No movie can do them justice but this one at least begins to explain some of the frustrations John seems to be feeling. 

Your Friend,
John

John Bruhns gives his opinions at the Moran/Murtha Town Hall on Iraq 

This division was very clear in January, when the grassroots antiwar lobbying began.  At the United for Peace & Justice (hard-core antiwar) lobby day training, it was clear that the vets in Appeal for Redress, IVAW, and Military Families Speak Out were the hardliners against the passage of the supplemental.  Win Without War, composed of many long-term DC interest groups with paid lobby staff and a commitment to the Democratic party, were ooching around trying to find a way to finesse the issue -- they didn't want to force Democrats to vote against the funding, period.  Their hoped-for vehicle was Murtha's proposal to tie funding to readiness requirements (similar to Webb's bill, but it got immediately sabotaged through the efforts of The Politico and Dem leadership passivity). VoteVets was clearly aligned with the Dem tendency.

AAEI, not participating in the lobby day, was something even further from "the antiwar movement" -- a completely electoral coalition. Their decision not to target any Democrats in Congress, only Republican Senators and House members, speaks volumes.  I saw them for what they were from the get-go (because I used to work for one of the major member organizations) and blogged about it:

They don't want to end the war; they want to get it out of the way as an issue. "Americans Against Escalation in Iraq"? As a representative of "Americans for Getting U.S. Troops Out of Iraq Two Years Ago," I see this as a party front, a potential obstacle to ending the occupation -- at best a high-maintenance ally. Americans are already against escalation in Iraq, in huge numbers. The point is to turn that into effective pressure on Congress to end the war.
...
[T]hey're not the enemy. But their arrogance, cynicism, and complacency make them dubious allies.

John, you have immense courage to speak the truth: this war (and occupation) is not just a "strategic blunder", it's not just "mismanaged":  it's wrong and immoral, and it needs to end. NOW.

You've learned what many of us learned, just as painfully, an earlier war: electoral politics isn't the path to ending this country's serial wars of aggression.  It can be a useful tactic at certain moments, but it can never accomplish the goal.  For that you have to have organizations and people willing to push all the way, that won't compromise themselves. 

Thanks, John, for all you've done so far, and all that you're going to do.  You've inspired me to get back in the struggle.

"You've learned what many of us learned, just as painfully, an earlier war: electoral politics isn't the path to ending this country's serial wars of aggression.  It can be a useful tactic at certain moments, but it can never accomplish the goal.  For that you have to have organizations and people willing to push all the way, that won't compromise themselves." 

Those are true words of wisdom and thank you very much for sharing them with me.

You also said ...

"AAEI, not participating in the lobby day, was something even further from "the antiwar movement" -- a completely electoral coalition. Their decision not to target any Democrats in Congress, only Republican Senators and House members, speaks volumes.  I saw them for what they were from the get-go (because I used to work for one of the major member organizations) and blogged about it:"

You hit the nail on the head.  It is not an authentic anti-war movement .. it is money, politics, self promotion, and gaining political power within the establishment.  And it is all done at the expense of this war.

Thank you again for your words of support.

In friendship and solidarity,
John Bruhns