Democrats are turning hawkish, largely backing expanded U.S. military presence in the Middle East, despite years of pushing for America to withdraw from conflicts there.
Some of the the party’s most liberal lawmakers, who once demanded troop withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan, are suddenly talking up the need to bomb Syria and allow U.S. troops to conduct training missions in the region.
One of the Democrats leading the charge is Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., who was a regular speaker at anti-war protests during the presidency of George W. Bush. In 2005, she co-founded the Out of Iraq Caucus, a group of 75 lawmakers who pushed to end the war during the Bush presidency.
“Clearly your government has done an enormous disservice to you, particularly to military families, their brave loved ones in Iraq, and peace in this world,” Schakowsky said in April 2004, during an Evanston, Ill.,event to protest the war in Iraq, according to the Daily Northwestern. Schakowsky told the crowd, “I’m sorry.”
But as the country faces new and prolonged military action in the region, Schakowsky is no longer apologizing. In fact, she has gone public with her support for President Obama’s plan to conduct expanded air strikes and training missions in the region.
When asked recently on CNN whether she would back an authorization request by Obama for more air strikes, Schakowsky. who is a member of the House Intelligence Committee, was unequivocal.
“I absolutely would and I think there would be overwhelming support for that,” Schakowsky said. “If he asked for money, I think that there will be support from the Congress to do that.”
Other liberal Democrats are also defending new military action, Rep. Mike Honda, a California Democrat who once described himself as a “proud member of the Out of Iraq Caucus” said he was open to approving Obama’s proposal, including more spending, even though he led the charge against Obama’s $33 billion war supplemental request in 2010.
“This is kind of a different situation,” Honda told the Washington Examiner. “The supplemental was for the war. It’s finished now. But, we still have folks there so I’m open to it. It’s the only fair thing to do.”
Political observers say the Democratic change of heart stems from the renewed threat to America posed by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, a terrorist organization that is destabilizing the Middle East and recently produced two videos showing the horrific beheading of two American journalists.
“What’s driving this is a very real sense that fundamental American interests are at risk, combined with polls showing the American people strongly supporting a more aggressive hawkish response,” Democratic strategist Doug Schoen told the Examiner.
Back in August of 2006, just months before the November election, polls showed more than 60 percent of Americans opposed the Iraq war. Democrats at the time seized on the public’s opposition, joining the call for troops to come home. It played a role in helping the party win back the House majority from Republicans, who were largely tied to Bush on the war issue.
But eight years later, the polls are reversed. Americans are now less opposed to a new military conflict, registering largely in favor of taking action against ISIS.
A Fox News poll conducted recently found that 78 percent of respondents think the United States “should be doing more” to combat ISIS, with 50 percent declaring they believe ground troops will be needed to get the job done.
Of those polled, 56 percent said Obama should “kill them now,” when asked about ISIS, versus 30 percent, who said Obama should not “overreact.”
Pollster Ron Faucheux said Democrats are closely watching the those polls in addition to Obama’s sinking approval ratings when it comes to foreign policy.
“By being strong and resolute on a national security issue now, it gives Democrats a chance to distance themselves from President Obama, who many voters see as too tentative and nuanced on foreign policy issues,” Faucheux, president of the nonpartisan Clarus Research Group polling firm, said.
Not all Democrats back new military action, notably Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, who is not running for re-election, as well as some Senate Democrats in tough re-election races.
Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, for example, said he was opposed to Obama’s plan to train and arm rebel forces in Syria to help defeat ISIS because U.S. weapons could fall into the wrong hands.
Rep. Chaka Fattah, D-Pa., who voted against entering the Iraq War but supported sending troops to Afghanistan, told the Examiner that Democrats are most concerned not about the polls, but about the effects of ISIS on national security and how best to ensure America is protected from terrorism.
“It’s not a one-sided deal,” Fattah said. “There are people on both sides who from time to time disagree with this president, or other presidents.”
