Iraq withdrawal and MoveOn.org.

President George W. Bush told reporters in mid March that he has no intention of setting any timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. "Our troops will come home when Iraq is capable of defending herself," he said. Powerful pundits keep telling us that a swift pullout of U.S. troops would be irresponsible. And plenty of people have bought into that idea--including quite a few progressives. Such acceptance is part of what Martin Luther King Jr. called "the madness of militarism."

Sometimes an unspoken assumption among progressive activists is that the occupation of Iraq must be tolerated for tactical reasons--while other issues, notably domestic ones, are more winnable on Capitol Hill. But this acceptance means going along with many of the devastating effects of a militarized society: from ravaged budgets for social programs to more authoritarian attitudes and violence in communities across the country.

"The bombs in Vietnam," King said in 1967, "explode at home; they destroy the hopes and possibilities for a decent America." He rejected the insistent claims that it would be more prudent to avoid clear opposition to the war in order to concentrate on domestic issues. "I speak for those whose land is being laid waste, whose homes are being destroyed, whose culture is being subverted," he said. "I speak for the poor in America who are paying the double price of smashed hopes at home and death and corruption in Vietnam."

Many who like to praise Martin Luther King are nonetheless going out of their way to evade the fundamental destructiveness of this war. This is nothing new. Throughout the 1960s and into the 1970s, a prevailing argument was that removing U.S. troops would be a betrayal of U.S. responsibility to the people of South Vietnam. Today, likewise, opposition to a swift U.S. pullout from Iraq is often based on the idea that the American military must stay because of a responsibility to the people of Iraq.

But most Iraqis want the U.S. military out of their country--pronto. As Newsweek reported in its January 31 edition: "Now every major poll shows an ever-larger majority of Iraqis want the Americans to leave." Yet we hear that U.S. troops must stay for the good of the Iraqi people--even though most of those people clearly want U.S. troops to leave. (Are we supposed to believe that Americans know better than Iraqis whether American troops should stay in Iraq?)

To paper over such illogic, a media-stoked myth tells us that getting out of Iraq is a notion remaining outside the boundaries of what the U.S. public could take seriously. Most politicians and pundits insist that it's off the table. But polls are telling a different story.

"According to a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll taken after the Iraq elections, 59 percent of the public believes the United States should pull its troops out of Iraq in the next year," Amy Quinn of the Institute for Policy Studies wrote in early March. "Yet the ranks of those actively demanding that the president produce an exit strategy from Iraq are slim."

In mid March an ABC News/Washington Post poll found that a large proportion of the U.S. population has a negative view of the war. For instance, the poll asked, "All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war with Iraq was worth fighting or not?" Only 45 percent said it was "worth fighting," while 53 percent said "not worth fighting."

Such nationwide poll numbers hardly indicate a country where few people are interested in proposals for extricating U.S. troops from Iraq. But the point isn't only that political space exists in the United States for a grassroots movement to effectively organize for a swift pullout. It's also the best alternative for Iraq.

Consider the perspective of David Enders, a brave American journalist who has been in Iraq most of the time since the invasion. While writing for such outlets as MotherJones.com, the Nation magazine and the British daily Independent, he actually covers Iraqi society first hand rather than staying behind American lines. Enders, responding to my questions via email from Iraq, provided some of the reasons for his assessment that American troops should leave rather than stay. For instance:

* "It is the will of the Iraqi people." Enders cites a recent survey by Iraqi pollster Saadun Al-Dulaimie, who found that 85 percent of Iraqi people want U.S. troops out of their country as soon as possible.

* "The U.S. does not provide security for the average Iraqi, and it never has."

* "The U.S. has not prevented a civil war from taking place. If anything, it has exacerbated it."

* "It is not morally derelict to pull out; it's morally derelict to stay. Returning real control and sovereignty to Iraqis is the most effective way to prevent the country from breaking apart. U.S. troops complain Iraqis don't want to stand up and fight for themselves, and a big part of the reason is the occupiers' presence."

Meanwhile, Enders voices enthusiasm for the resolution introduced in late January, sponsored by Representative Lynn Woolsey and more than two dozen other members of the House of Representatives, "expressing the sense of Congress that the President should develop and implement a plan to begin the immediate withdrawal of United States Armed Forces from Iraq" (House Concurrent Resolution 35, http://www.woolsey.house.gov/newsarticle.asp?Reco rdID=401).

As U.S. activists work to build a strong movement against the war, the need to pressure Congress is clear. What's less apparent is the need to also push--and, if necessary, confront--hesitant progressive organizations that are taking the easy way out by refusing to challenge the ongoing war.

For example, the online powerhouse MoveOn.org--which built most of its member base with a strong antiwar message--isn't pushing for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. With a network of more than 3 million "online activists," the MoveOn leadership has decided against opposing the American occupation of Iraq.

House Concurrent Resolution 35 would seem a natural peg for the kind of kinetic activism that established MoveOn's reputation. A movement serious about ending U.S. military activities in Iraq could use the resolution as a way to cut through political tap dances and pressure members of Congress to take a stand. Down the road, generating grassroots support for a get-out-of-Iraq resolution has potential to clear a congressional pathway for measures cutting off funds for the war.

But, tragically, MoveOn's leadership has been vague. From mid February to mid March, the word "Iraq" appeared on the MoveOn.org home page only in a plug for a documentary released last year. Inches away, a blurb told the website's visitors: "Support Our Troops: Contribute your frequent-flyer miles so that American troops can get home." (But not stay home.) Many soldiers are returning to the killing grounds of Iraq, while a growing number are vocally opposed to this war.

Two years after the invasion of Iraq, why won't MoveOn "support our troops" by clearly supporting their withdrawal from Iraq? "We believe that there are no good options in Iraq," MoveOn.org Executive Director Eli Pariser told me. "We're seeing a broad difference of opinion among our members on how quickly the U.S. should get out of Iraq. As a grassroots-directed organization, we won't be taking any position which a large portion of our members disagree with."

In sharp contrast, early in the 2004 primary campaign, MoveOn committed itself to endorsing any Democratic presidential candidate receiving more than 50 percent of the Internet ballots cast by its activists. (Howard Dean fell shy of a majority so there was no MoveOn endorsement.) But now, evidently, a majority of MoveOn members in favor of swift pullout from Iraq would be insufficient if a "large portion" disagreed.

When I asked Pariser for clarification he replied: "We've been talking with our members continuously on this issue. We've surveyed slices of our membership in January and in December, and surveyed our whole membership last spring. That's how we know there's a breadth of opinion out there."

But any surveying of "slices of our membership in January and in December" came before the Woolsey resolution offered an opportunity to find out how the MoveOn base views the measure. In any event, there will always be "a breadth of opinion" about this war--a fact that doesn't trump the crucial need for clarity of purpose.

If MoveOn leaders were willing to submit the House get-out-of-Iraq resolution to MoveOn's rank and file in an up-or-down vote, the chances of a substantial majority would be excellent. Too bad the leadership of MoveOn.org is currently unwilling to find out.

The twenty-nine members of the House now sponsoring the resolution are hardly radicals. They recognize the kind of grisly consequences of equivocation that occurred during the Vietnam War: refusal to speak forthrightly about the urgent need to end military involvement only fuels the war's deadly momentum.

It's all well and good for MoveOn.org to do superb work in the current battle over the future of Social Security. And it's very helpful to excoriate President Bush for his many big lies in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq. But such activities don't make up for going along with the basics of the present day Iraq war.

When a large progressive organization takes the easy way and makes peace with war, the abdication of responsibility creates a vacuum. And other groups are bound to emerge to fill it.

Among such emerging organizations is Progressive Democrats of America (www.pdamerica.org), a fledgling national group with an activist focus on the Iraq war that is laudably straightforward. "We're organizing a new campaign in every Congressional district we can to call for the end of funding for war and occupation, and for the transfer of reconstruction assistance to Iraqis themselves," says Tim Carpenter of PDA. He contends that "public pressure can awaken Congress to an opposition role."

War in Iraq requires continual funding, of course, so President Bush's new supplemental boost of $80 billion in war appropriations has moved through Congress. Tacitly accepting the war's continuation, MoveOn declined to take a stand against the essence of congressional backing for the war--the money that keeps paying for it. Meanwhile, PDA launched an effort against the $80 billion; the organizing included a National Call-In Day on March 10 aimed at members of Congress.

Other national organizations are also providing forthright leadership to pursue the goal of getting U.S. troops out of Iraq. Those groups--such as United for Peace & Justice, Military Families Speak Out, TrueMajority, Iraq Veterans Against the War, Code Pink, Campus Antiwar Network, Veterans for Peace, Iraq Pledge of Resistance, American Friends Service Committee, Democracy Rising, and U.S. Labor Against the War--inspire as they organize.

MoveOn.org pioneered the use of e-mail and web technologies as creative tools to further its political agenda. Now that the MoveOn agenda on the Iraq war has tumbled into the shallow Potomac, some similar online activism will be needed if MoveOn's dive is going to merely be temporary.

Friends don't let friends drive drunk, and peace advocates do a lot more than shrug when a previously great antiwar organization starts to get lost. If MoveOn abandons its antiwar base, that base will get the picture--and move on.

Norman Solomon's latest book, War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death, will be published in early summer. His columns and other writings can be found at: www.normansolomon.com.