The above approach is controversial within the U.S. peace movement. It is a more difficult approach than some to get off the ground. It does not have the support of many in Congress. In particular, not one single senator has yet stepped out in favor of a filibuster. But, even while conceding that this approach is more difficult to get started, it is possible to make a strong case that it is the most likely approach to, in the end, actually succeed. We could much more easily get 10 or 20 congress members to start promoting a bill. But getting that bill through the Senate and past a veto will be much harder than succeeding with the approach described above. So, we have to ask ourselves whether our goal is to start something that's doomed to fail, or to try to start something that may get nowhere but is still more likely to succeed, and also more likely to build toward success in future years.
1. It's simple and clear and consistent, making it easier to communicate and generate activism around. It does not involve a muddled message, as does, for example, supporting an amendment but opposing the bill it amends. With this approach we are quite simply for bringing the troops home now. And the same message will stay our message for months or years until it succeeds.
2. It's more likely to succeed than the other approaches. It requires fewer Congress Members and does not require the president's help at all. And it is made more appealing as the economic recession worsens.
3. If it succeeds, it will make further funding of the occupations illegal and obviously impeachable, and if impeachment fails, at least the next president will have to end the illegal funding or face impeachment on day 1. (It is not clear that a bill to ban the occupation even while funding it would have the same result, even if miraculously signed into law.)
5. It energizes people by informing them that Congress CAN end the occupation, and by trying something new that hasn't already been tried and failed. That increased energy makes success more likely.
6. It puts pressure on presidential candidates to take clear-cut positions. And once they've taken the right position, they will do everything in their considerable power to make it succeed.
7.If it fails, it builds the understanding and the movement to make it work next year, regardless of how the elections go.
Here's a group that's onto the right approach: