A story The Nation broke eight weeks ago about the growing movement of active-duty military dissenters against the war will get a nationwide television audience Sunday on CBS News' 60 Minutes.

The soldiers and sailors who organized the Appeal for Redress and who petitioned Congress last month to bring the troops home from Iraq will be interviewed and profiled by CBS correspondent Lara Logan. At the time The Nation published its story, we found about 1,000 officers and rank and file personnel had signed on to the effort, from all branches of the military, some stationed stateside and others on the frontlines in Iraq.

At latest count that number had grown to more than 1,300. After 60 Minutes airs its report, that number could multiply quickly. Read our original report here.

Comments (23)

1. 1,300, some state side..out of how many? And the MSM discovered them?...Why hasn't the MSM discovered the 100,000s of those who perhaps take a different view than the ,ah, 1300,(could be they can't find them)...wouldn't that be news to America, since stories of this sort are NEVER reported,er,discovered...?

   Posted by john maasch at 02/23/2007 @ 12:14pm

2. Jack Murtha has the best idea. Cutting the funds is a bad strategy. Lets require the troops be adequately sent to their deaths. The Republican Party doesnt want our troops being sent anywhere with proper equipment and training so they might survive. Conservatives in the Republican Party are against giving our troops time to rest when they are told they are going to have time to rest, and see their families.

   But we got to prevent this attack on Iran. It would be followed by occupation. We are in Iraq! Training a govt with ties to Iran! We cant just bomb Iran casually and then not occupy it, and we cant occupy it! Non-options must all be off the table!

   Posted by conshame at 02/23/2007 @ 12:25pm

3. JM The IAVA,an anti war group, has thousands of members.Pro war groups have very few members.

   Posted by i'm nobody at 02/23/2007 @ 12:25pm

4. Ever thought that your lopsided numbers may have something to do with the fact that it is considered "mutiny" on the part of military personnel to speak out against the "War." Ya really think the framing of your comparison is fair?

   Posted by OneVote at 02/23/2007 @ 12:29pm

5. Posted by ONEVOTE 02/23/2007 @ 12:29am | ignore this person

   This is very important, for not falling in line is inconceivable to the robotic soldier. Do you think the people torturing all those innocent people in Abu Ghraib actually believed that what they were doing was not only acceptable, but also vital to the "war on terror"? Anyone who assumes the vast majority of US soldiers in Iraq are for the war and what the mission has engendered is denying the existence of morals in those troops, for what they've seen and done cannot cause anyone reason for back-slapping or high-fiving. This war is not what all the traditional anthems and slogans are about...

   Posted by chimichenga at 02/23/2007 @ 12:39pm

6. Maybe if all of the war supporters here at home would put their money (or life, rather) where their mouths are and enlist, the 1300 soldiers who have come out against the war would look less significant.

   Or could it be that the war supporters here at home just "don't have the stomach for the fight?"

   Posted by bjkron at 02/23/2007 @ 12:45pm

7. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 02/23/2007 @ 12:14am

   Sorry, JOHN...that don't cut it. Unless ALL veterans of the war are almost exclusively part of the "30% Club" with RIO, CPT, LVLIB (yourself?)...they break down demographically just like the rest of America.

   Which means the majority of them would oppose the war, oppose the Surge, and dislike Bush.

   Posted by Mask at 02/23/2007 @ 12:46pm

8. they break down demographically just like the rest of America.

   Which means the majority of them would oppose the war, oppose the Surge, and dislike Bush.

   Posted by MASK 02/23/2007 @ 12:46am |

   Given the level of indoctrination in the military (particularly boot camp), its likely the "30%-ers" are more heavily represented in the armed forces than in the general populace.

   There's an interesting article on the CounterPunch website by a former Marine Sgt that describes his boot camp training back in 1997. In practice drills, the enemy to be dealt with was almost exclusively Middle Eastern, even back then. He said it was clear to the trainees that they were being trained for a war in the Middle East. Certainly, this level of indoctrination is going to result in higher %ages of war supporters compared to civilians.

   http://www.counterpunch.com/smith02202007.html [url]

   Posted by bjkron at 02/23/2007 @ 12:59pm

9. Dementia rules me. Posted by RIO BRAVO 02/23/2007 @ 12:56am | ignore this person

   Posted by johannesrolf at 02/23/2007 @ 1:00pm

10. Posted by MASK 02/23/2007 @ 12:46am

    That may be true, but to "discover" 1300 anti war military...I would guess all miloitary are anti war....I am just suspect of articles as weak as many on this site have become...

    Another example of weakness is the previous thread, FOX and shut them down...so much for the free speechers here..so much fraud...

    Posted by john maasch at 02/23/2007 @ 1:00pm

11. http://www.counter punch.com/smith02202007.html [counterpunch.com]

    Try this link instead, I screwed up the 1st time. That's what happens when I try to think and eat lunch at the same time...

    Posted by bjkron at 02/23/2007 @ 1:05pm

12. con, air attacks on Iran are possible and perhaps likely. an invasion or occupation impossible. where would they get the troops? Iran is four times as large as Iraq and has four times as many people. in addition, unlike Iraq, it has a homogeneous population. it just cannot be done.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/23/2007 @ 1:05pm

13. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 02/23/2007 @ 1:05pm

    Iraq couldn't be done either and people like us were saying so 4 years ago. That sure as hell didn't stop these madmen then and I don't think cold logic will stop them now.

    Posted by bjkron at 02/23/2007 @ 1:07pm

14. I don't think cold logic will stop them now.

    Posted by BJKRON 02/23/2007 @ 1:07pm | ignore this person

    cold facts will. Saddam and his regime were a basket case, with north and south effectively lopped of. that is the reason the brits in south Iraq did not face the same violence as the US.

    the american people will no longer countenance the kind of adventurism of Iraq.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/23/2007 @ 1:11pm

15. the american people will no longer countenance the kind of adventurism of Iraq.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 02/23/2007 @ 1:11pm

    Agreed.

    But US citizens do not control the US government. We are irrelevant.

    Posted by bjkron at 02/23/2007 @ 1:14pm

16. But US citizens do not control the US government. We are irrelevant.

    Posted by BJKRON 02/23/2007 @ 1:14pm | ignore this person

    who returned control of congress to dems? I think you are joining zero in his complete pessimism. you have reasons to do so, I agree, but I am eternally an optimist.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/23/2007 @ 1:38pm

17. Posted by BJKRON 02/23/2007 @ 12:59am

    While I haven't had the chance to follow your link, I think the premise sounds entirely plausible.

    Still, no one is about to be swayed by the argument that 1300 is such a small percentage of the armed forces head count, when the price that the services exact for honest speech precludes an accurate sampling.

    It is a completely disingenuous assertion.

    Posted by drhammer at 02/23/2007 @ 1:40pm

18. In fact, I have no doubt that Mask's evaluation is far closer to being accurate than that of the wingnut naysayers.

    !!!

    Posted by drhammer at 02/23/2007 @ 1:47pm

19. Rio Bravo Is English your first language?

    Posted by i'm nobody at 02/23/2007 @ 2:42pm

20. Posted by RIO BRAVO 02/23/2007 @ 12:56am

    Speaking of math...care to show mathematically how "40 years of Democrats cutting the defense budget" caused the Walter Reed Army Hospital to fall apart....when 25 of those years were under Republican Veterans' Admins or DVAs; and the last 12 years were under Republican Congresses?!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 02/23/2007 @ 3:05pm

21. Posted by BJKRON 02/23/2007 @ 12:59am

    Disagree...with no basis I admit. I think the guys who FIGHT the wars are usually more disinclined to support failed ones than even the average vet. Look in Congress, how many combat vets supporting "the Surge" or even staying in Iraq from Kerry on the Dem side to Hagel on the Repub side.

    Sure the indoctrinated are there...after all, look at CPT, LVLIB (is RIO a vet...or did he play one on TV?). Happy to be corrected but I don't think those guys ever served in combat.

    Posted by Mask at 02/23/2007 @ 3:12pm

22. JM The IAVA,an anti war group, has thousands of members.Pro war groups have very few members.

    Posted by I'M NOBODY 02/23/2007 @ 12:25am

    Ever heard of the American Legion or Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW)? I've never seen anti-war vets well received at any Hall I've been to.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 02/23/2007 @ 3:31pm

23. LvLiberty I've never had any problems in any V.F.W. or American Legion.I've been in V.F.W.s all over the country and I,very much,look like an anti war vet,but had only a good time.Most real combat vets know that they fight for democracy and not just those that agree with them.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 02/23/2007 @ 4:20pm