Mustering the courage to end war
SENATOR Edward M. Kennedy's proposal last week to withhold funds for escalating the war in Iraq is a bold effort to stop what many Americans perceive as a lost cause. While the president's veto power makes it unlikely that Kennedy and his allies will succeed, history suggests that the tactic may ultimately be an effective way to end the war -- but only if its supporters are willing to endure short-term political setbacks.
Opposing war has long been politically risky. Despite significant opposition to the Mexican-American War, leaders of the Whig Party in 1846 believed they had little choice but to fund President James K. Polk's bold effort to seize vast regions of land from Mexico.
Recalling how the Federalist Party had destroyed itself over its hostility to the War of 1812, most Whigs opposed Polk's war policies while supporting the troops with continued appropriations. Representative Alexander Stephens of Georgia explained this philosophy well, observing that "the fires of war are raging on our frontier, all good citizens should render their willing aid, as I most cheerfully do."
More than a century later, in 1970, Senators George McGovern and Mark Hatfield were far from cheerful about the course of the Vietnam War. Although the South Dakota Democrat and Oregon Republican had once supported US military policy in Southeast Asia, their support had expired by the time Richard Nixon entered the White House. In September 1970, the two men introduced legislation -- similar to Kennedy's proposal for Iraq -- to stop funding for the war and withdraw all US troops by Dec. 31, 1971.
Like today, the debate took place as public confidence in the war was low. Though public opinion polls showed 55 percent of Americans favored the McGovern-Hatfield plan, the Senate rejected it, 55-39. Like McGovern 36 years ago, Kennedy and his allies should be applauded for risking the condemnation of those who will argue that withholding funding for the escalation is a betrayal of our troops.
Even as Kennedy spoke out, some leading congressional Democrats are reportedly tentative, fearful that cutting off funds for the war will cost them politically. They might be correct. Ending a disastrous war, however, demands more than short-term political calculation. Unlike McGovern in 1970, Kennedy no longer has presidential aspirations, which gives him more latitude to oppose the war than some of his Senate colleagues. Any member of Congress with designs on the White House will almost certainly approach the issue with more caution than Kennedy.
Yet, in this instance, McGovern's bold dissent is worth emulating, if only because American military involvement in Iraq will probably not end during the Bush administration unless Congress musters the courage to choke off the money.
Taking the Senate floor to argue for his amendment on Sept. 1, 1970, McGovern scorned senators who had abdicated their constitutional responsibilities regarding the conduct of the war. "Every senator in this chamber is partly responsible for sending 50,000 young Americans to an early grave," he said. "This chamber reeks of blood."
To those who ridiculed his dissent as "cut and run," McGovern -- a decorated World War II bomber pilot -- had this blunt rejoinder: "Do not talk to [the wounded] about bugging out or national honor or courage. It does not take any courage at all for a congressman or a senator or a president to wrap himself in the flag and say we are staying in Vietnam, because it is not our blood that is being shed." A similar speech would be no less appropriate in today's Senate.
While Nixon's operatives would later ridicule his dissent and question his patriotism, it was McGovern and his allies who were ultimately correct about the futility of the Vietnam War. Although their amendment received only 39 votes, the vote was a powerful signal of the changing climate in Congress. It legitimized a bolder form of dissent and signaled the beginning of the war's end. By 1975, American involvement ended when Congress finally refused continued appropriations for the fighting.
Today, history treats the dissenters far more favorably than Nixon and Lyndon Johnson. Some of them jeopardized their political careers in an effort to save the country from the recklessness and duplicity of two successive presidents. Bold, aggressive dissent is what a healthy democracy requires and it's needed now more than ever.
In the short term, the public may not honor dissenters -- but history most assuredly will.
Robert Mann is author of "A Grand Delusion: America's Dissent Into Vietnam." 
