Protesters Reach a Lull in Their Battle to End the War : Dissent: Groups say they expect more support when a ground offensive starts and the casualty count increases. In the meantime, they are trying to broaden the appeal of their message.

They have been chastised by the polls and, much to their chagrin, thanked by Saddam Hussein. Now, after more than three weeks of protests, participants in America’s anti-war movement find themselves in a lull, facing their own Catch-22.

The dissenters want to stop the war by exerting political pressure through massive public demonstrations. The paradox, organizers say, is that would-be protesters won’t hit the streets in huge numbers until after the ground war starts and American troops are killed by the hundreds or thousands.

The relatively few U.S. casualties so far--caused more by “friendly fire” and mechanical failures than by Iraqi forces--is seen as one reason attendance at anti-war rallies dropped off substantially last week from larger showings during the first two weeks of war.

The early protests--topped by a Washington demonstration Jan. 26 that drew a crowd estimated from 75,000 to more than 150,000--required weeks of planning, organizers say. Not only is a lag in excitement expected, but it’s needed, activists say.

“Right after the war started, there was a lot of adrenaline, and obviously things have calmed down quite a bit since,” said Leila Rand, an organizer with the Los Angeles Coalition Against U.S. Intervention in the Middle East. A Westwood rally last week drew about 2,000; two earlier protests had attracted at least three times that number.

“Now people are taking time to really think in terms of a long-term strategy,” Rand said. “ . . . We’re hunkering down for the long haul.”

Broadening the appeal of the anti-war message is considered a crucial task by some organizers.

“The anti-war movement as a whole has a problem in terms of tactics and strategy at this point,” said Bill Zimmerman, a Santa Monica-based political consultant who has produced anti-war TV ads. “The anti-war movement comes in danger of being marginalized because the only tactics it’s utilized so far are mass demonstrations. . . . We have to develop tactics that allow mainstream Americans to participate in ways that don’t alienate them.”

His firm, Zimmerman Markman & Hunter, is working with the Military Family Support Network--an alliance of anti-war activists with family members stationed in Saudi Arabia--to produce a TV ad promoting a halt to hostilities.

In another effort to promote anti-war sentiment, SANE/Freeze, a national organization opposed to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, is circulating among Congress a one-sentence petition stating: “It is our belief that there is no need to escalate the war in the Persian Gulf.”

“They’ll see how many signatures it gets. Then they’ll make some determination on how to use it,” said Mark Harrison, a legislative aide for SANE/Freeze in Washington.

Anti-war activists, however, are pessimistic that such efforts will have substantial impact before a ground war starts.

In the meantime, anti-war activists are emphasizing persistence. Drumbeating protesters across from the White House have continued a rhythm that President Bush says has bothered his sleep. Former U.S. Atty. Gen. Ramsey Clark journeyed to Iraq with a video crew in hopes of documenting civilian casualties. In Los Angeles, activists were calling for a march today from Santa Monica’s Palisades Park to the RAND Corp., a think tank and a major defense contractor.

The march on RAND is indicative of a strategic shift for street protesters. Rather than trying to organize massive demonstrations, activists are waging smaller protests at specific targets. Members of the Chicano-Mexicano Coalition to Stop the War picketed the Los Angeles Times last Saturday. Other likely targets, activists say, include oil companies, media outlets and defense contractors. New York activists are already planning a march on Wall Street Feb. 21 targeting corporations they say are profiting from the war.

Meanwhile, the anti-war activists also are trying to cope with bad publicity.

The swipes from Vice President Dan Quayle, who last week said the media has given anti-war protests “much more attention than they deserve,” are considered a compliment in some quarters. By contrast, many anti-war activists accuse the media of “cheerleading” the war while giving little coverage to their arguments.

But many protesters groaned when Saddam Hussein told CNN’s Peter Arnett: “All of the people of Iraq are grateful to the noble souls demonstrating against the war in France, Germany and Spain and all the others.” His comments contributed to the argument that anti-war activists are, in effect, helping Iraqi forces and harming U.S. and allied military efforts.

Hussein’s comments were “embarrassing,” said Neal Bonner, a member of the L.A. Coalition. That group recently endorsed a position voicing opposition to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, a gesture aimed in part at erasing the perception that opposition to the war translates into support for Iraq.

Such public relations troubles add up to one reason that opinion surveys, in addition to showing broad support for the war effort, have registered disapproval for the anti-war movement. In a Newsweek poll, for example, 57% of the respondents said people opposed to military action should stop protesting. And 23% of the respondents said the government should ban such demonstrations.

Those polls, activists insist, fail to reveal the public’s ambivalence toward the war. Nor do they reveal the depth of conviction that exists among anti-war activists, they say.

“It’s not surprising to us that the Pentagon has pulled out all stops to try to build popularity for the war,” said Sara Flounders, a New York organizer with the National Coalition to Stop U.S. Intervention in the Middle East. “But we’re a political movement and a force representing millions of people and growing stronger every day.”

Protesters proffer a poll to show that Americans are against a ground war. A survey by ICR Survey Research Group of Media, Pa.--sponsored by two groups opposed to the war, the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation and Operation Real Security--found that 65% of 1,009 people surveyed from Jan. 30 to Feb. 2 favored diplomatic efforts to get Iraqi troops out of Kuwait, while continuing bombing if necessary. An additional 14% favored the declaration of a temporary cease-fire and using economic sanctions and diplomacy to evict Iraqi forces. Only 15%, the survey found, favored a ground war that could cost thousands of lives.

“Pause for Peace,” an alliance of anti-war activists that has called for a cease-fire and a return to diplomacy before the ground war starts, has also accelerated its efforts, organizer Carl Rogers said.

Activists cite the Pause strategy as a response to the frequent criticism that the protesters lacks a practical alternative to war. With Iraq’s military machine already crippled, they argue, a cease-fire would enable U.S. and allied forces to exhibit mercy and proceed toward a diplomatic halt.

Coalition troops, activists say, could be replaced by a United Nations peacekeeping force.