Combat vets attempt to sway Iraq debate

updated 11:19 a.m. ET Aug. 14, 2007

WASHINGTON - Despite their opposing views on the war, soldiers Pete Hegseth and Jon Soltz have much in common, not the least of which is time spent in Iraq.

Both profess their love of the Army. They are young, athletic and clean-shaven, and they speak eloquently about honor - and a sense of duty, as though plucked from central casting to play the role of the patriotic soldier. Above all, they draw heavily on their experiences in combat to justify their views on Iraq, hoping their message will resonate with voters because they - unlike most of America - have witnessed combat.

They also represent dueling activist groups that are fast becoming a powerful lobbying force on Capitol Hill. And to politicians trying to make their case in anticipation of a critical assessment on the war this September, such groups have become valuable public relations tools in the deeply partisan, pull-no-punches Iraq debate.

"The Democrats, unfortunately, are trying to undermine the efforts of our troops and restrict the ability of our generals to carry out their mission," Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said at a July news conference with Hegseth and other members of the group Vets for Freedom, which supports a continued U.S. presence in Iraq.

Later that week, Hegseth - a National Guard soldier who worked as a civil affairs officer in Samarra last year - stood behind President Bush in a news conference chastising Democrats for not passing a spending bill for the troops.

"These patriotic Americans who are behind us deserve an opportunity to be heard," McConnell said.

When will all U.S. troops leave Iraq?

Democrats agree they should rely on the counsel of troops. They just opt to listen to Soltz, a captain in the Army Reserves who deployed logistics convoys in Iraq with the 1st Armored Division in 2003. His group, VoteVets.org, says Bush should bring troops home.

Military authenticity
Politicians play on the expectation among voters that because the military is supposed to be apolitical and service members experience combat first-hand, troops will offer an unvarnished assessment of the war.

"Their status as combat veterans gives them an authenticity that politicians don't have," said Darrell West, political science professor at Brown University. "Voters will always see them as combat veterans first, not advocates."

Still, advocates they are, with extensive political ties and budgets for televised political ads.

Both Vets for Freedom and VoteVets.org are tax-exempt nonprofits, but they are not charities. Such groups deliberately do not accept tax-deductible donations - making it tougher to raise money but giving them free reign to lobby on Capitol Hill.

MORE FROM POLITICS

Politics Section Front

Advice for Obama: Knock heads on health care Obama marks win, but challenges mount High court looks at life in prison for juveniles GOP says Dems put agenda ahead of country House Roll Call: Health care 2010 elections: Democratic fears, GOP hopes NYC mayor not humbled by close election Clinton: Berlin Wall festivities not just a party Obama to meet Netanyahu at White House Cheney blasts probe of CIA interrogations Politics Section Front   Add Politics headlines to your news reader: