Change in leaders, not wars

Did you know there are more U.S. troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan now than before the antiwar candidate, Barack Obama, took office eight months ago?

Joe Colgan, of Kent, knows. He lost his son Ben in one of these wars. So it's no stretch to say he is painfully aware.

"I guess it was naive, but I thought things might be getting a little easier by now," Colgan says. "It isn't — it's getting harder. Everything's still headed in Cheney's direction. It's confounding."

I am standing with Colgan in front of a giant antiwar banner he has stretched across part of a downtown Seattle plaza. He's been coming every Tuesday for more than three years. Partly as a vigil to his lost son, partly to bang the antiwar drum.

He was here when Democrats won control of Congress in 2006. It felt then that change might be in the air, but it wasn't.

Then last year, when Obama got elected, Colgan thought about ending his vigil. Why protest when you've won?

Now, he is rueful about those chestnuts, hope and change.

"About the only change we've seen is that we've had to add a second war to our sign." (It now reads "U.S. Out of Iraq and Afghanistan.")

I dropped by Colgan's vigil because I've been wondering: Where did the antiwar movement go?

It seems nonexistent, even as we're mounting a major troop surge in Afghanistan.

Maybe people think it's enough Obama is trying to get out of Iraq. Maybe people are giving him time, or are simply weary.

Or maybe war waged by your guy isn't as outrageous as war waged by the other guy.

Recently the Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg surveyed a group of liberal activists about their top issues and concerns. Surprisingly, ending U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan came in dead last.

The dozen or so folks at Colgan's vigil were blunt about what's going on.

"It's political," said Lou Truskoff, a retired postal worker. "All these groups like MoveOn that used to organize against the wars now have morphed into supporting whatever the Democrats want."

Even if it's more war the Democrats want?

"I don't see that our doctrine with Bush has changed much without Bush. Do you?"

Gunnel Clark, a cabinetmaker, said the euphoria of getting rid of Bush blinded the left to the reality that Obama is no peacemaker. Obama did say in the campaign he would send more troops to Afghanistan.

"I cried with everybody else when he won, but I never had high hopes he would be that different," Clark said. "Afghanistan will be his Vietnam."

One man at the rally, retired Seattle homicide Detective Dave Kannas, was holding a sign that channeled Obama. It read "End War? Yes We Can!"

"I still believe that," he said, when I asked about the sign.

Kannas, a Vietnam vet, has a son, Dylan, who has served three tours in Iraq. He said he retains high hopes that Obama, unlike Bush, would at least listen to the people.

"One man can't end a war," Kannas said. "Vietnam didn't end until a huge chunk of America said 'No more.' Millions took to the streets. Not this paltry number you see here."

How is that going to happen today, exactly?

August was the deadliest month for U.S. troops in the eight-year war in Afghanistan, surpassing the previous most-deadly month, July. Nine soldiers from the Fort Lewis' 5th Stryker Brigade were killed there in two weeks.

Yet there's scarcely a peep. Only the sound of Obama's generals, pledging to send tens of thousands more troops.

Our wars have lost their boogeyman, Bush. The result is that it's quieter in the land as we dig the hole deeper.

Danny Westneat's column appears Wednesday and Sunday. Reach him at 206-464-2086 or dwestneat@seattletimes.com.