Frustrated by the lack of progress toward surrender in Iraq, veteran John Bruhns has quit the anti-war group AAEI:
I have a ‘personal connection’ to Bruhns: I’ve received at least one robocall from him (and if memory serves, several). I found the call an annoying interruption and an insult to my intelligence. Bruhns wanted to let me know that my Congressman had voted against an immediate withdrawal from Iraq–which improved my opinion of the Congressman considerably. But the question everyone seems to be asking, what does Bruhns’s departure mean for the antiwar movement? Here’s the Hill:
‘An early sign of trouble?’ You mean, like the departure of Rumsfeld was an early sign of trouble for the Bush administration–or the way Saddam’s capture in a hole was an early sign of trouble for his brutal regime? It would be premature to say that the anti-war campaign has run its course; it clearly has not. But unless Iraq gets dramatically worse, it’s all over but the shouting. Even in Berkeley, antiwar activist now find themselves outnumbered–what does that mean for the antiwar movement?
