http://www.winwithoutwar.org/ en Copyright 2012 2012-05-16T23:00:27+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/bipartisan-group-of-representatives-call-on-congress-to-end-the-war-in-afgh/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/bipartisan-group-of-representatives-call-on-congress-to-end-the-war-in-afgh/ A bipartisan group of Representatives have called on Congress to end the war in Afghanistan. After releasing a letter to the President signed by 91 Members of Congress calling for an end to the war, Reps. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Jim McGovern (D-MA), Walter Jones (R-NC) and others urged the House to stand with the American public in opposition to America’s longest war. Later this week, the House of Representatives will have an opportunity to do exactly that when they vote on amendments to the FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act. As Rep. Lee said, “it is time for Members of Congress to stand with seven out of ten Americans who oppose the war in Afghanistan.” The letter to the President is copied below. May 16, 2012 The Honorable Barack Obama President of the United States 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear President Obama: Earlier this month you visited Afghanistan to sign a Strategic Partnership Agreement. As you stated at Bagram Air Base, “this time of war began in Afghanistan, and this is where it will end.” The core of al Qaeda has been greatly reduced in size and ability to attack Americans. Our brave men and women in uniform have done everything that we have asked of them. With over 17,000 dead and wounded U.S. servicemen and women, and long term costs estimated at $4 trillion for the past decade of unfunded wars, the overwhelming majority of American people want to bring the war in Afghanistan to an expedited end. While many of us would prefer an immediate full withdrawal from Afghanistan, there is broad, bipartisan consensus in Congress and across America that it is time to accelerate the transition from U.S. to full Afghan control. We also remind you that any agreement committing U.S. troops to Afghanistan must have congressional approval to be binding. Therefore, at the upcoming NATO summit in Chicago, we ask that you announce an accelerated transition of security responsibility to the Afghan government and security forces and the expedited withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan as quickly as these can be safely and responsibly accomplished. Sincerely, Members of Congress: Adam Smith, Becerra, Baldwin, Bass, Blumenauer, Boswell, Braley, Campbell, Capps, Castor, Chu, Cicilline, Yvette Clarke, Clay, Cleaver, Clyburn, Cohen, Conyers, Costello, Courtney, Cummings, John Duncan, DeFazio, DeLauro, Edwards, Ellison, Farr, Filner, Frank, Garamendi, Grijalva, Gutierrez, Hahn, Hanabusa, Alcee Hastings, Heinrich, Hinchey, Holt, Honda, Jackson Jr., Eddie Bernice Johnson, Hank Johnson, Tim Johnson, Kucinich, Rick Larsen, John Larson, Barbara Lee, Lewis, Loebsack, Lofgren, Lujan, Maloney, Markey, McCollum, McDermott, McGovern, Michaud, George Miller, Moran, Moore, Chris Murphy, Nadler, Napolitano, Olver, Pastor, Paul, Pingree, Polis, Quigley, Rangel, Richardson, Rush, Loretta Sanchez, Schakowsky, Schiff, Serrano, Sherman, Sires, Slaughter, Speier, Stark, Mike Thompson, Tierney, Tonko, Towns, Tsongas, Velazquez, Waters, Watt, Waxman, Welch, Woolsey, Yarmuth.   2012-05-16T22:00:27+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/win-without-war-statement-on-the-signing-of-u.s.-afghanistan-strategic-part/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/win-without-war-statement-on-the-signing-of-u.s.-afghanistan-strategic-part/ “We are pleased to continue to hear President Obama express his support for ending the war in Afghanistan,” said Win Without War Coalition Coordinator Stephen Miles. “Unfortunately, what we did not hear tonight was a clear, unequivocal commitment to bringing American troops home from Afghanistan now. The American people, in record numbers, agree that is past time for our men and women in uniform to come home. We simply cannot ask our troops to keep fighting a battle through 2014 that has no military solution. The time to bring our troops home is now." Win Without War Co-Chair David Cortright added, “President Obama has signed a Strategic Partnership Agreement no one has read that apparently pledges another decade of U.S. involvement on terms that are not known. He should announce instead an end to combat operations, the withdrawal of all U.S. troops, a major UN-led peace mission, and continued support for social and economic development.” “While we need a long term commitment to Afghanistan, that commitment should be to making peace and creating a civil society that represents all Afghan people, especially women whose voices are paramount in creating a lasting peace,” said Win Without War Co-Chair Susan Shaer. “We should end this war now. The people of Afghanistan are just as tired of war as Americans and we simply cannot afford the costs in both blood and treasure.” This evening from Afghanistan, President Obama announced the signing of a U.S. – Afghanistan Strategic Partnership Agreement. Reports indicate that this Agreement outlines guidelines governing the U.S.-Afghan relationship post-2014 including the possibility of a continued U.S. military mission in Afghanistan to be governed by a soon-to-be negotiated Bilateral Security Agreement. 2012-05-01T23:01:10+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/the-growing-consensus-against-war-with-iran/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/the-growing-consensus-against-war-with-iran/ There is a growing consensus that war with Iran would be a catastrophically diasterous idea. While Washington continues to allow politics to hijack the debate over the Iranian nuclear program, nearly all experts agree that we must not go to war with Iran.  While no one believes the world would be better off with a nuclear armed Iran, experts – from the Pentagon to academia - agree that an attack on Iran would be disastrous. Such an attack would at best delay, not prevent, Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and would have dramatic repercussions for both regional and global security threatening both American lives and interests throughout the world. In the Washington Post, Fareed Zakaria draws out the point that Iran is not the greatest nuclear threat--it is only the newest. A number of countries, not least of which are Pakistan and Russia, pose far greater threats of nuclear attack. In fact, there is agreement among experts that a nuclear-armed Iran is still quite a ways off. As such, the use of nuclear scare tactics to garner support for military action should not be taken seriously. While the nuclear threat is a serious one, bombing uranium enrichment facilities, which are often underground and therefore difficult targets, would only stall Iran's enrichment attempts by one to three years. In a New York Times op-ed, foreign ministers Bildt and Tuomioja put the problem clearly: "It is difficult to see a single action more likely to drive Iran into taking the final decision to acquire nuclear weapons than an attack on the country." They, among others, predict that a military attack on Iran could drive neighboring states to consider the nuclear option. Setting off another round of nuclear proliferation is entirely counter-productive. President Obama has cautioned against the “loose talk of war" that we are currently seeing. In his speech to AIPAC the President warned, “[o]ver the last few weeks such talk has only benefited the Iranian government by driving up the price of oil, which they depend on to fund their nuclear program." If halting Iran's nuclear program is our top concern, war is not a solution. So where does that leave us? The solution gaining support among a wide community of experts and policy practitioners is a policy of deterrence. Fareed Zakaria explains deterrence as a counterintuitive policy: "The prospect of destruction produces peace." Yet Zakaria goes on to explain that such a prospect of destruction producing peace is exactly what the US carried out throughout the Cold War and quotes Charles Krauthammer as saying, "Deterrence, like old age, is intolerable, until one considers the alternative.” Even America’s military leaders recognize the folly of war against Iran. As the New York Times recently reported, a “war game” designed to assess the repercussions of an Israeli attack on Iran found that such a strike would likely spark a regional war that would inevitably draw the US quickly into another armed conflict. When the simulation was over, General Mattis, the commander of all American forces in the Middle East, Persian Gulf and Southwest Asia, was reported to have told aides that an Israeli strike would have "dire consequences" for US forces in the region. These findings are supported by a growing number of military leaders standing up against war with Iran. Recently a number of retired military and intelligence officials took to the pages of the Washington Post with an open letter to the President urging restraint and opposing the use of military force. Above all, experts agree that only diplomacy will ultimately advance American interests in Iran. The recent opening of diplomatic negotiations is a welcome development that must be allowed time to play out. While diplomacy is not easy or quick, it is the only true solution available. As Michael O'Hanlon and Bruce Riedel note, "[t]he Iranian regime, while dangerous, does not have suicidal tendencies." In all of this war talk, the effects of sanctions, diplomatic talks, and negotiations with the IAEA often fall by the wayside. These shouldn't be overlooked. Ultimately, we cannot allow the mistakes of Iraq to be repeated with an unbridled rush to war in Iran. With such a clear consensus that a war with Iran would be a devastating folly that would not even achieve the goal of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, now is the time to stand up and demand, no war with Iran!   2012-04-17T16:40:04+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/enough-is-enough-its-time-to-end-the-war-in-afghanistan/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/enough-is-enough-its-time-to-end-the-war-in-afghanistan/ By now you’ve heard the horrific story of an American soldier in Afghanistan who killed 16 Afghan civilians, including 9 children, in an unprovoked series of attacks. Over the past few weeks we’ve also seen waves of violent protests and the killing of 6 American soldiers in response to the burning of copies of the Quran. Every day another news story paints a more troubling picture than the last and they all add up to one simple message: Enough is Enough! It’s time to end the war in Afghanistan! The American people overwhelmingly support bringing our troops home now, but policymakers are insisting that we ‘stay the course’ on a path that only guarantees more death and suffering for American soldiers and Afghan civilians. In Washington, war hawks talk of not only fighting through 2014, but 'an enduring presence' that could see US troops in Afghanistan for another decade or more. Over the past few weeks we have been tragically reminded of the horrors of war, and that is why we need your voice to help end this war today. Please take a moment to sign our petition to tell the President to end the war in Afghanistan, now! Experts agree that there is little more that our troops can accomplish between now and 2014, yet current plans call for nearly 70,000 troops to remain in Afghanistan after this year. Our continued military presence only serves to enflame anti-American sentiment, threatens to destabilize the region, and delays the path towards a political settlement. As Eugene Robinson said in the Washington Post this week: "It was clear before Sunday’s horrific massacre of civilians that it’s past time for the U.S. mission in Afghanistan to end. Now the only question should be how quickly we can get our troops onto transport planes to fly them home." [1] Stand up for peace and tell the President to bring all US troops home from Afghanistan this year! 2012-03-19T13:11:37+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/the-war-in-afghanistan-members-of-congress-support-an-end-to-combat-operati/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/the-war-in-afghanistan-members-of-congress-support-an-end-to-combat-operati/ The below is reposted with permission from the Council for a Livable World's Chain Reaction Blog On February 1, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announced that the United States will end its combat missions in Afghanistan by “mid- to the latter part of 2013.” This announcement – whether intended by the Obama Administration at this time is not clear – marks a welcome and accelerated withdrawal timetable. Previously, combat operations were supposed to end in 2014. The New York Times called the pronouncement “a major milestone toward ending a decade of war in Afghanistan.” The sooner American military forces exit from Afghanistan – after spending so many lives and treasure – the better. This step was pressed for in amendments offered last year in the Senate by Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and in the House by Jim McGovern (D-MA) and Walter Jones (R-NC). Many questions still remain. While Sec. Panetta has indicated a shift towards an "training, advice and assist" role, there has been too little clarity on what this means, including whether there will be what Panetta calls “an enduring presence” in Afghanistan that could continue for years and what will be the actual timetable for the withdrawal. In support of the Administration’s decision, a bipartisan group of six House members is circulated for signatures a letter to go to President Obama. The 20 signers thus far as of 2/8 are (and this list will be updated daily): Justin Amash (MI) Bruce Braley (IA) Lois Capps (CA) Judy Chu (CA) John Conyers, Jr. (MI) Jimmy Duncan, Jr. (TN) Sam Farr (CA) John Garamendi (CA) Raul Grijalva (AZ) Janice Hahn (CA) Martin Heinrich (NM) Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL) Walter Jones (NC) Barbara Lee (CA) John Lewis (GA) Ben Ray Luján (NM) Jim McGovern (MA) Gary Peters (MI) Henry Waxman (CA) Lynn Woolsey (CA) (Republicans bolded)   The letter follows: The Honorable Barack Obama President The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, D.C. 20500 Dear Mr. President, We write to express our support for the Administration’s announcement on February 1st that the United States will complete combat operations in Afghanistan by the end of next year. From information reported in the media, the U.S. intends to transition from major combat operations in Afghanistan to a “training, advice and assist role” by the middle-to-latter part of 2013. We applaud this announcement by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta to accelerate the transition away from combat operations, and it provides assurance that the timeframe outlined in your 2009 speech at West Point will be carried out. As you know, many of us support an even more rapid withdrawal of all our troops from Afghanistan. The majority of Americans want a safe and orderly military withdrawal from Afghanistan as quickly as possible, as recent public opinion polls indicate. The desire by the American people for an accelerated transition in Afghanistan was reflected in votes taken in Congress last year, in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate during their respective debates on amendments offered by Representatives McGovern and Jones and by Senator Merkley to the FY 2012 National Defense Authorization Act. These votes show there is strong bipartisan political support to take bold steps regarding U.S. policy in Afghanistan. The past 10 years have cost America dearly in the blood and sacrifice of our military servicemen and women and their families, and in our nation’s fiscal health and security. The United States intervened in Afghanistan to destroy al Qaeda’s safe haven, remove th Taliban government that sheltered al Qaeda, and pursue those who planned the September 11th attacks on the United States; those objectives have largely been met and no longer require a large presence of combat troops in Afghanistan. While questions remain about the details of the announced transition – when and how quickly U.S. troops will be coming home, the number and purpose of troops that might remain in Afghanistan and for how long a period, the costs and the savings of accelerating the completion of combat operations – the February 1st announcement clearly signals that now is the moment to initiate the transition, end the war in Afghanistan and bring our troops home. Sincerely, Members of Congress   2012-02-10T01:05:43+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/pentagons-strategic-review/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/pentagons-strategic-review/ Earlier today, President Obama joined Secretary of Defense Panetta at the Pentagon to announce the administration’s new national security strategy. Speaking at the formal release of “Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense,” the president wanted everyone to know that the new strategy did not mean a cut in defense spending. In fact he assured the gathering of reporters and military brass that under his watch the Pentagon budget will continue to grow: “Over the next ten years, the growth in the defense budget will slow, but the fact of the matter is this—it will still grow.” The President’s declaration of support for yet more Pentagon spending increases - while everything else in the federal budget gets sliced and diced - is an indication that the White House believes that its political interests are best served by bowing to pressure from right-wing hawks. The relentless attacks on the administration from all but one of the Republican presidential candidates on its “weak” or “soft” national security policy is clearly having an impact. When every corner of government is being decimated by extreme cuts, when Social Security and Medicare are under threat, and when the economy remains fragile and struggling, everyone outside of the military-industrial complex has now become even more at risk. What’s next? The intensifying drum beat for war against Iran from the neo-con right and leading presidential candidates like Rick Santorum should make us all nervous. There could not be more compelling proof of the need for strong, sustained pressure from OUR side of this debate. The multi-million dollar lobbying and PR campaign of military contractors and their right-wing allies is clearly paying off. Calls for war with Iran and the dire consequences of “losing” Afghanistan are getting more and more shrill. The stakes for the rest of us could not be higher. That’s why we have already begun to fight back. With our allies we are highlighting ways to save hundreds of billions of dollars of wasteful Pentagon spending that does nothing to keep America safe. Working with our allies in Congress, we are pushing to save $2 billion every week by ending the war in Afghanistan. And above all, we are fighting to make sure that the American people - who do not want more war or wasteful military spending – have their voice heard throughout this national debate. In the coming weeks and months we will be sharing more ways for you to help in this fight. And, we will give you updates as details of the administration’s new national security strategy are revealed. There is a lot of work to do and a lot at stake.  2012-01-05T17:05:03+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/election-2012-is-foreign-policy-helping-or-hurting-ron-paul/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/election-2012-is-foreign-policy-helping-or-hurting-ron-paul/ Heads up from Iowa! While we won’t know the final results for a few more hours, pollsters are now predicting that Congressman Ron Paul will be among the top vote getters in the Iowa Presidential caucuses. So far the race to be the Republican Presidential nominee has been all over the map with one frontrunner after another. Yet all the while, Congressman Paul has maintained strong, consistent support placing him at or near the top of the field. No matter where he finishes tonight in Iowa, it is clear, he is very much in this race. Why Ron Paul? What explains his consistent support? Well, there are many factors, of course, but one of the unmistakable reasons he stands out in this field is because he has been the strongest and most consistent critic of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and wants the strongest cuts to wasteful Pentagon spending. If Ron Paul doesn’t win tonight, you’re likely to hear from the “spin doctors” on the network news outlets that his foreign policy views are “unacceptable” to mainstream Republicans (not to mention those in the military-industrial complex pouring large amounts of campaign dollars into this race who HATE the recent talk of cuts to military spending). The reality is that Paul's foreign policy views are a large part of what has attracted voters to him and continue to drive a significant portion of his support. A recent CNN poll found that 60% of Republican voters support the decision to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq [1], yet the major GOP candidates continue to decry this as a 'mistake' and 'the wrong decision.' While every other GOP candidate races to start a war with Iran, another CNN poll found that only 22% of Republican voters support military action against Iran. [2] The simple reality is that all Americans, even Republican voters, are looking for candidates willing to stand up against war. We thought you should know. Meanwhile, today’s New York Times featured a front-page article [3] on the upcoming Congressional battle over whether and how to cut the bloated Pentagon budget. We will be keeping you in the loop on this important debate from here in Washington and asking for your help to overcome the pressure being wielded by military contractors and their Congressional allies. Thanks for being a part of a national network determined to bring sanity to the defense budget and peace in the world. We are glad you are with us! Happy New Year! **Please Note ** Win Without War does not endorse or support any candidates. We encourage all voters to strongly consider candidates and their record/positions on all issues before making an informed decision. Win Without War seeks to educate voters on progressive national security issues. [1] CNN Poll: Americans agree on bringing troops home from Iraq [2] CNN/ORC Poll – November 18-20 – Foreign Policy [3] New York Times: Panetta to Offer Strategy for Cutting Military Budget 2012-01-03T21:56:11+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/americas-war-in-iraq-finally-ends-a-war-that-never-should-have-started-fina/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/americas-war-in-iraq-finally-ends-a-war-that-never-should-have-started-fina/ As you read these words, the last US troops are finally coming home from Iraq. The US war in Iraq is coming to an end. Nearly a decade ago, we came together to stand up against an unnecessary war, built on lies and fear. Win Without War was formed to help bring together Americans who understood that this war would endanger our national security while threatening countless American and Iraqi lives while wasting our nation’s limited resources. Today we come together again to mark the culmination of our struggle for peace, honor those who served and recommit to fully turning the page on a long decade of war. The end of the Iraq War would not have been possible without the principled advocacy of millions of Americans. What began in 2002 as an effort to avert George W. Bush’s march to war in Iraq grew to a chorus of millions who changed the political landscape and kept fighting until all of our troops came home. It was the tireless work of advocates like you that made this day possible. Even while we welcome our troops home, we must remember the painful costs of war. Unfortunately, the end of the Iraq war comes far too late for the nearly 4,500 American soldiers who lost their lives, the tens of thousands wounded in combat, and the untold number of Iraqi civilians killed or injured in the war. Unconscionably, those who led us into this war, also refused to pay a single dime of its costs, placing the entire war on our nation’s credit card, wasting trillions of taxpayer dollars. Above all, we honor the brave men and women who served in Iraq. For the more than 1 million Americans who served in this war, we owe both a debt of gratitude and a commitment to honor their service by fighting against current efforts to balance the budget on the backs of our veterans. As the final US troops leave Iraq, we recognize there are many challenges that remain for both Americans and Iraqis. We hope that you will continue to lend your voice to the struggle for peace and recommit to the work that remains ahead. Thank you for all your work to end this war. It would not have been possible without you. 2011-12-17T20:17:03+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/win-without-war-applauds-u.s.-senate-call-for-an-accelerated-drawdown-in-af/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/win-without-war-applauds-u.s.-senate-call-for-an-accelerated-drawdown-in-af/ Earlier today, the United States Senate joined the growing consensus of the American people that it is time to bring our troops home from Afghanistan. The Senate adopted by voice vote a bipartisan amendment, offered by Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) on behalf of 21 Senators to the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2012. The Merkley amendment called for the President to submit a plan for “expediting the drawdown of United States combat troops in Afghanistan.” “The Senate just sent a clear message in support of ending the war in Afghanistan, now the longest war in our nation’s history,” said Win Without War Coalition Coordinator Stephen Miles. “By passing Sen. Merkley’s amendment the Senate is joining the American public who support accelerating the drawdown of US troops. With Osama bin Laden dead, al Qaeda significantly diminished, and the future of Afghanistan now in the hands of the Afghan people, our brave men and women in uniform have done everything asked of them. Now it is time to bring them home” The adoption of the Merkley amendment shows a remarkable growth of opposition to the war in the Senate, with only 18 Senators having supported similar legislation offered by former Sen. Feingold (D-WI) in the previous Congress. With a recent CNN poll published earlier this month showing a record high 63% of Americans opposed to the war in Afghanistan, the Senate’s action today shows they have clearly heard the voice of the American people.   2011-11-30T22:47:59+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/Senate-NDAA-Letter/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/Senate-NDAA-Letter/ Twenty three organizations from across the political spectrum and representing a variety of constituencies have sent a letter urging the Senate to adopt bipartisan amendments by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Rand Paul (R-KY) to the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act. Sen. Merkley's amendment would call for an accelerated drawdown of US troops in Afghanistan and help end the longest war in American history. Sen. Paul's amendment would repeal the 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Iraq and finally put the Iraq War behind us. Together these amendments represent a unique opportunity to turn the page on a relentless decade of war that has brought our nation to the brink of bankruptcy and cost the lives of over 6,200 American men and women in uniform.  The full text of the letter and a list of signers follows:  November 28, 2011 Dear Senator, We are writing today to urge you to support Amendment 1174 offered by Senator Jeff Merkley and Amendment 1064 offered by Senator Rand Paul to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (S. 1867). Sen. Merkley’s amendment calls for an accelerated drawdown of U.S. troops from Afghanistan and an expedited transition of security responsibility to Afghans. Sen. Paul’s amendment would recognize U.S. policy to finally end the Iraq War by repealing the 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Iraq. Together, these important, bipartisan pieces of legislation turn the page on a decade of war. After more than 10 years in Afghanistan, it is time to bring our troops home. American men and women in uniform have done everything asked of them. Today, Osama bin Laden is dead, al Qaeda has been significantly diminished, and the future of Afghanistan is firmly in the hands of Afghan people. It is time for our troops to come home. Congress is in the midst of a debate over how to right our economy and address our growing federal debt. With the U.S. currently spending nearly $2 billion every week in Afghanistan, an accelerated drawdown would free up tremendous resources desperately needed here at home. While even our military leaders have admitted that the current challenges in Afghanistan can only be solved with a political solution, we simply cannot justify continuing down our current path in Afghanistan. Sen. Merkley’s amendment recognizes the need to focus on nation building at home, not in Afghanistan, while allowing for a responsible drawdown that honors the sacrifices made by our troops. In Iraq, the President has reaffirmed U.S. policy to remove all troops by the end of this year. Sen. Paul’s amendment is a responsible reflection of U.S. policy that will help ensure a complete drawdown of U.S. troops in Iraq. It is time to repeal the 2002 AUMF and finally turn the page on the Iraq War. We strongly urge you to support these important, bipartisan amendments by Senators Merkley and Paul. Sincerely, 3P Human Security: Partners for Peacebuilding Policy Appeal for Justice Center for International Policy Church of the Brethren Council for a Livable World CREDO Action DownsizeDC.org, Inc. Friends Committee on National Legislation International Justice Network Just Foreign Policy Minnesota Peace Project MoveOn National Council of Churches of Christ, USA Peace Action Peace Action West Peace and Justice Resource Center United Church of Christ: Justice & Witness Ministries United for Peace and Justice United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society USAction U.S. Labor Against the War (USLAW) Win Without War Women’s Action for New Direction 2011-11-28T15:14:36+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/merkley-amendment/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/merkley-amendment/ Today Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) announced he is introducing an amendment to the FY 2012 National Defense Authorization Act calling for an accelerated drawdown in Afghanistan. The text of Sen. Merkley’s amendment is below. The amendment is #1174. Additional Co-Sponsors (as of November 30): Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK) Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) Sen. John Rockefeller IV (D-WV) Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) Read the Huffington Post story on this amendment here. SEC. 1230. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON TRANSITION OF MILITARY AND SECURITY OPERATIONS IN AFGHANISTAN. (a) FINDINGS.—Congress makes the following findings: (1) After al Qaeda attacked the United States on September 11, 2001, the United States Government rightly sought to bring to justice those who attacked us, to eliminate al Qaeda’s safe havens and training camps in Afghanistan, and to remove the terrorist-allied Taliban government. (2) Members of the Armed Forces, intelligence personnel, and diplomatic corps have skillfully achieved these objectives, culminating in the death of Osama bin Laden. (3) Operation Enduring Freedom is now the longest military operation in United States history. (4) United States national security experts, including Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta, have noted that al Qaeda’s presence in Afghanistan has been greatly diminished. (5) Over the past ten years, the mission of the United States has evolved to include a prolonged na1tion-building effort in Afghanistan, including the  creation of a strong central government, a national police force and army, and effective civic institutions. (6) Such nation-building efforts in Afghanistan are undermined by corruption, high illiteracy, and a historic aversion to a strong central government in that country. (7) Members of the Armed Forces have served in Afghanistan valiantly and with honor, and many have sacrificed their lives and health in service totheir country. (8) The United States is now spending nearly $10,000,000,000 per month in Afghanistan at a time when, in the United States, there is high unemployment, a flood of foreclosures, a record deficit, and a debt that is over $15,000,000,000,000 and growing. (9) The continued concentration of United States and NATO military forces in one region, when terrorist forces are located in many parts of the world, is not an efficient use of resources. (10) The battle against terrorism is best served by using United States troops and resources in a counterterrorism strategy against terrorist forces wherever they may locate and train. (11) The United States Government will continue to support the development of Afghanistan with a strong diplomatic and counterterrorism presence in the region. (12) President Barack Obama is to be commended for announcing in July 2011 that the United States would commence the redeployment of members of the United States Armed Forces from Afghanistan in 2011 and transition security control to the Government of Afghanistan. (13) President Obama has established a goal of removing all United States combat troops from Afghanistan by December 2014. (b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that— (1) the President should expedite the transition of the responsibility for military and security operations in Afghanistan to the Government of Afghanistan; (2) the President should devise a plan based on inputs from military commanders, the diplomatic missions in the region, and appropriate members of the Cabinet, along with the consultation of Congress, for expediting the drawdown of United States combat troops in Afghanistan and accelerating the transfer of security authority to Afghan authorities prior to December 2014; and (3) not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President should submit to Congress a plan with a timetable and completion date for the accelerated transition of all military and security operations in Afghanistan to the Government of Afghanistan. 2011-11-17T19:39:55+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/election-2012-GOP-foreign-policy-debate/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/election-2012-GOP-foreign-policy-debate/ Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. This phrase played over and over in my mind as I watched Saturday’s Republican Presidential debate. Dubbed “the Commander in Chief debate” by its hosts, CBS and the National Journal, the 90-minute back and forth provided the first deep examination into the candidates’ views on national security and foreign policy. It was scary. Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich want to bring back torture. Rick Perry wants to eliminate foreign assistance. Michelle Bachmann believes the ACLU is running the CIA. Most frightening of all Mitt Romney and nearly everyone else on stage appears ready to go to war with Iran. It was left to Ron Paul to sum up what we were all hearing: this sounds an awful lot like the run up to the war in Iraq. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. It was startling to listen to the GOP hopefuls each try to outdo one another on who would bomb Iran quicker. The lessons of Iraq were nowhere to be found. There was no discussion of the unintended consequences of war, no consideration of alternatives to military action, no concern over what happens after regime change. It was as if the Iraq War had never happened. In fact, perhaps the most striking thing about Saturday’s debate was how little the Iraq War was mentioned. Many of us have spent the past 9 years fighting against George W. Bush’s disastrous decision to wage this unnecessary and costly war. The mistakes of Iraq will be taught for decades, yet here were the Republican candidates ignoring all of those lessons, once again beating the drums of war, only this time for Iran. A day after Veterans Day, there was scant mention of the over 4,400 Americans who paid the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq, save for Michelle Bachmann’s strange belief that their loss should be compounded by staying in Iraq longer. In the midst of a national debate over how to pay down our debt, there was no discussion of the trillions put on the nation’s credit card to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And while America continues to spend nearly $2 billion a week in Afghanistan, only Jon Huntsman argued that money could be better spent rebuilding our own nation and economy. Over the next few months, the 8 candidates who want to be our next Commander in Chief will have several more opportunities to lay out their vision of American foreign policy. Americans overwhelmingly support the decision to finally end the Iraq war, want our troops home from Afghanistan too and certainly do not want to start a new war with Iran. Only time will tell if the Republican Presidential hopefuls listen to these voters or if they continue to ignore the tragic lessons of our recent history. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.   2011-11-14T20:23:04+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/all-u.s.-troops-finally-coming-home-from-iraq/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/all-u.s.-troops-finally-coming-home-from-iraq/ The President’s announcement today that all U.S. troops in Iraq will return home by the end of the year is a major step in the right direction for our nation. As the President said, “After nearly nine years, America’s war in Iraq will be over.” “Today is a great day for America and a moment of celebration that this long ordeal is finally over,” remarked Win Without War Co-Chair David Cortright. “We thank President Obama for fulfilling his campaign pledge to end this war and bring home American troops. This decision reflects the will of the American people who helped elect the President in 2008 to end the war in Iraq.” Unfortunately, today’s announcement comes far too late for the nearly 4,500 killed and over 32,000 wounded Americans and an untold number of Iraqis who lost their lives during the war.  While the President’s announcement is an important step towards ending American conflict in Iraq, the President failed to address significant concerns over the unprecedented growth of private military contractors in Iraq or the role of America’s intelligence community’s increasingly lethal arsenal. Until the Administration addresses these serious questions, the ultimate role of U.S. force in Iraq will continue to be unclear, despite the departure of U.S. military personnel. As our troops return home from Iraq, we must also remember the nearly 90,000 troops who continue to risk their lives in Afghanistan. While the President reiterated his plans for a gradual drawdown of U.S. troops, how many more lives will be lost before we finally see the President step to the podium and announce that all of our brave men and women in uniform are finally coming home from Afghanistan? Susan Shaer, Co-Chair of Win Without War, commented, “This is a good news-bad news story.  I feel relief that’s it’s over, and pain for the lost years, lives, and money.  The sorrow for the families both here and in Iraq is irrepressible. Now we must push on to end the war in Afghanistan and get a realistic policy for how this country handles conflicts abroad.” 2011-10-21T17:07:39+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/election-2012-mitt-romney-doubling-down-on-endless-war-and-wasteful-pentago/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/election-2012-mitt-romney-doubling-down-on-endless-war-and-wasteful-pentago/ On a day in which America marked a decade of war in Afghanistan, Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney called increased military spending and the continuation and expansion of war. In what his campaign dubbed a major foreign policy speech today in South Carolina, Romney promised to reverse “massive defense cuts” and to re-examine plans to drawdown from Afghanistan. While the 2012 Republican nomination had largely avoided foreign policy issues, today, Romney made clear that he intends to return these issues to the center of debate. In his speech and the accompanying white paper , Romney proposed a series of specific polices that represent some of the worst foreign policy ideas of the past several decades including: Increasing military spending including dramatically increasing Navy shipbuilding and bringing back Cold War-era “Star Wars” ballistic-missile defense; Aggressive action towards Iran including the deployment of 2 carrier groups to the Middle East; Re-examining military plans for Afghanistan and deferring to military commanders who have resisted any drawdown; and Passing a new Authorization for the Use of Military force to wage endless war. While Romney’s proposed policies are not surprising given his recently announced team of Bush-era advisers, America can ill afford another decade of limitless Pentagon spending and endless war. The reality is that the United States now spends more on its military than anytime since World War II. The President has announced plans to slow the rate of growth in spending at the Pentagon, but under these plans, military budgets would unfortunately continue to grow for the foreseeable future, not be cut. The “doomsday” scenario derided by some as a potential outcome if the “Super” Committee fails in its deficit reduction goals, would in fact only return military spending to 2007 levels, a level few would argue was insufficient. After a decade of war that has cost our nation dearly in both blood and treasure, now is the time to turn the page, not double down. Unfortunately, today Mitt Romney chose the latter. UPDATE: Chris Preble of the Cato Institute has put numbers to Romney's national security plans. His estimate is that after already having nearly doubled in the past decade, Romney's plans would increase military spending by a further $2 trillion over the next decade. Read his full analysis here. Read More:  Wall Street Journal: Romney Backs Increased Military Spending  Washington Post: Mitt Romney calls for new ‘American century’ with muscular foreign policy NY Times: In Foreign Policy Speech, Romney Calls for an 'American Century'   2011-10-07T20:02:10+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/a-decade-of-war-turning-the-page-on-10-years-of-war/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/a-decade-of-war-turning-the-page-on-10-years-of-war/ On October 7, 2001, the United States officially began Operation Enduring Freedom and the war in Afghanistan. Now, ten years later, America finds itself struggling to conclude a decade of relentless war that has cost trillions of dollars and an untold number of lives. While we have begun the process of bringing our troops home, the Pentagon currently plans to maintain tens of thousands of troops in Afghanistan, fighting a war that even their commanders admit has only a political solution. Our brave men and women in uniform have done their duty. Now it’s time to bring them home and finally turn the page on a long decade of war. American national security depends on a less militarized foreign policy. It did not take 100,000 troops in Afghanistan to get Osama bin Laden, and it will not take another decade of war to keep America safe. American national security depends on the effective use of all the instruments of our foreign policy, not just the military. By turning the page on war, America can focus on 21st century national security solutions, while rebuilding the foundations of America’s strength and security by growing our economy, putting Americans back to work, and paying down our federal deficit. Afghanistan’s future depends on Afghans, not American soldiers. There is unanimous agreement that the future of Afghanistan depends on Afghans and their regional allies implementing a political solution. There is simply no military solution to the current challenges faced in Afghanistan and maintaining an American military presence only delays the inevitable political process while needlessly putting our troops in harms way. The human and economic costs of a decade of war are simply unsustainable. American soldiers have paid dearly for a decade of war with over 6,200 having made the ultimate sacrifice while nearly 50,000 have been wounded. Unwilling to pay a cent for the war when the troops were deployed, the price tag for a decade of war is at least $3-5 trillion , paid for entirely on the nation’s credit card. Without a change of policy, America is poised to spend hundreds of billions more in the decade to come, adding to our nation’s deficit and wasting precious resources desperately needed at home. Now is the time to turn the page on a decade of war and bring our troops home!  2011-10-07T19:02:44+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/debt-deal/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/debt-deal/ One month after the debt deal, you’re not alone if you’re still wondering what exactly was agreed to and how it all affects the Pentagon. So far, Washington has been focused on the big numbers: $917 billion in spending reductions via discretionary budget caps for the next 10 years; A “super” committee tasked with finding $1.2-1.5 trillion in additional deficit reduction; and A $1.2 trillion “trigger” that kicks in if they fail composed of automatic spending cuts evenly split between defense and non-defense spending over 9 years. Experts of all stripes are now debating what all of this means for the Pentagon and its out-of-control budget. While numerous analysts have long pointed to wasteful spending at the Pentagon, others argue that potential cuts would be “draconian” and “devastating” to our nation’s security. As Washington fights this out over the next several months there are several key points to keep in mind.    1) Don’t believe everything you read. To read some of the propaganda coming out in defense of the Pentagon, you’d think that Congress was considering taking a chainsaw to the military budget. Various “experts” have claimed that the Pentagon is on the chopping block of anywhere from $850 billion to $1.3 trillion in cuts. Back here in reality, the story is very different. One of the most quoted numbers is that the first phase of the debt deal created $350 billion in cuts to “defense.” The origin of this number is a White House estimate that can at best be called wishful thinking and more accurately a complete fabrication. The debt deal created discretionary spending caps for the next 10 years, with specific “security” and non-security caps for only the next two fiscal years (see the next point to see why “security” does not mean “defense”). The White House arrived at their $350 billion number by taking these separate caps and assuming they would stay in place for the remaining 8 years. There is absolutely nothing in the debt deal, or any other law, that requires or even encourages such an assumption. Rather, after fiscal year 2013, Congress can choose to make 100% of any cuts required to keep funding under the discretionary cap from any accounts they choose. If history is any indication, the Pentagon can feel pretty safe knowing that they will be the last place Congress goes looking for cuts. The second large cut to the Pentagon presumed to come from the debt deal is through the automatic “trigger” which kicks in if the “super” committee fails to reach an agreement. The logic goes that in a hopelessly deadlocked Congress, the “super” committee is doomed to failure and the $1.2 trillion trigger is all but inevitable. This trigger would result in $600 billion in deficit reduction coming from the more narrowly defined category of “defense” spending (technically budget code 050), comprised primarily of the Department of Defense. Again, the details are a little less dire. For starters, at least $100 billion of these savings will be attributed to lower interest payments. That leaves roughly $50 billion a year left to be “cut” from defense spending. Of course, since these “cuts” would be measured against future growth, they may not actually reduce in smaller Pentagon budgets at all, but simply a reduction in the rate of growth in Pentagon spending.   2) “Security” does not mean the Pentagon. In the short term, there’s a very important battle looming on Capitol Hill thanks to the debt deal. For the next two years, discretionary spending on “security” is capped at $684 and $686 billion respectively. For the purposes of the debt deal, “security” is defined as Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Veterans Affairs, the National Nuclear Safety Administration, the intelligence community management account, and all discretionary spending in the “international affairs” budget account (namely the State Department). This would mean that in total these accounts are in line for roughly $4 billion in cuts from their 2011 levels. Since the Pentagon makes up approximately ¾ of this spending in this category, one might think that they’d be in line for a real haircut this year.  By looking at what the House has already passed for Fiscal Year 2012, we can see why these cuts to “security” are a far cry from meaning the Pentagon is in trouble. Recently released OMB analysis of the House’s action thus far on spending bills concluded that they are $10 billion over the spending caps. But wait, I thought they only had to cut $4 billion? The difference comes largely from a $17 billion increase in the Pentagon’s budget. While the Senate is farther behind on its appropriations bills and thus an analysis is not yet available, it’s reasonable to assume that they will not be too far off the House’s efforts. Thus, even if Congress were to take the entire $10 billion in needs this year from the Pentagon, we’d see a $7 billion increase in the Pentagon’s budget.  Of course, it is far from certain that we’d see the Pentagon feel the brunt of these cuts. More likely we can expect to see further cuts to Veterans, diplomacy, humanitarian aid, border control, and other important efforts to stave off cuts to military accounts. By creating the “security” category for the next two years, Congress has created an inevitable battle for limited funds between the well-resourced Pentagon and every other aspect of American foreign policy and domestic security.   3) The 10-year Binge. The Pentagon’s budget has been on somewhat of a feeding frenzy for the last 10 years. Today, America spends more on security than at any other time since World War II and roughly as much as the rest of the world combined. Even if defense spending were reduced by a $1 trillion over 10 years, we would find ourselves spending at 2007 levels, in real terms. By any measure, this would not be a “draconian” cut but a responsible step in response to unsustainable growth. If all of this extra spending had gone to make the US safer, one might be able to make an argument to maintain it. Unfortunately, today our national security policy is more defined by a lack of spending restraint than by a reasonable response to 21st century threats. We have wasted trillions on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, while we continue to waste hundreds of billions on Cold War weapon systems designed to defeat enemies that disappeared before today’s West Point cadets were even born. And for some reason still have over 100,000 US troops stationed in Europe and Japan on missions that started with World War II. In a world where budget resources are scarce, we can simply no longer afford to waste massive amounts of money on programs divorced from a rational analysis of current and future threats.   4) What about war? You may have noticed that we haven’t mentioned cuts to war spending yet. That’s because the entirety of US spending on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, estimated to have been excess of $4 trillion in the last 10 years, is exempted from the debt deal. While spending in Iraq and Afghanistan is trending down, the US still spends over $2 billion every week fighting these wars. Recent estimates indicate that even at greatly reduced troop levels, we will continue to spend tens of billions every year on these wars. Equally troubling, because of the safety of these accounts from cuts, we are all but assured of the return of Bush-era efforts to sneak programs like missile defense and weapons acquisition into war funding. This will be one of the most important areas of the budget to watch over the next few years to see if the Pentagon budget actually shrinks.   5) Don’t count your chickens before they hatch. At the end of the day, even after all of the tricks and slight of hands listed above, there’s one important caveat to remember to the debt deal and the Pentagon budget: very, very little of this is likely to ever become law.  The “super” committee is empowered to theoretically tackle any aspect it chooses of the federal budget and it can change any of the details in this deal. And if they fail, Congress will have a full year to make any changes it wants before the trigger will actually take effect in January of 2013. In the interim, there will be an election that will change the makeup of Congress and perhaps even the Presidency. The next Congress and President can choose to abide by this deal, or not. More likely, they will have campaigned on their own “solutions” to the debt crisis that will replace the debt deal, its spending caps, the trigger…perhaps everything. Only time will tell how much of the debt deal of 2011 ultimately comes to be and what impact it will have on the Pentagon’s budget. Despite all of this uncertainty, one thing is clear: we are at the beginning of a very long process, not the end. The next few years will be integral to defining whether America continues down the path of massive Pentagon budgets and an over militarized foreign policy focused on yesterday’s enemies, or if we will shift towards a more balanced approach that confronts the challenges of tomorrow. Now is the time to organize, coordinate, and advocate for the policies we believe in. You can be sure our opponents already are.   2011-09-02T18:28:19+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/while-iraqis-seek-to-continue-iraq-war-new-legislation-introduced-in-congre/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/while-iraqis-seek-to-continue-iraq-war-new-legislation-introduced-in-congre/ After more than four hours of closed-door meetings, Iraq’s leading politicians emerged around midnight Tuesday and announced that they are officially laying the foundation for a continued US military presence in Iraq. While the 2008 Status of Forces Agreement between the United States and Iraq requires all US troops to be removed by December 31, 2011, the Pentagon has been pushing the Iraqis for months to allow thousands of soldiers to remain indefinitely. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi have reportedly put aside their differences and reached an agreement to “authorize the government of Iraq to start negotiations with the American side” on a continued military presence. There is no doubt in the outcome of these “negotiations”: US troops will remain in Iraq for years to come. Our allies in Congress are already fighting back. Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) recently introduced the Iraq Withdrawal Accountability Act of 2011 (H.R. 2757) calling on the US to stick to the December 31 deadline and requiring that any new commitment of US troops be approved by Congress. Currently, the Pentagon insists that the Iraqi Parliament authorize any continued US presence, yet claims it needs no such new authorization from Congress. Under the Pentagon’s plans, the Iraqi Parliament will have a greater say in US troop levels in Iraq than Congress. That is simply unacceptable. It has been more than eight years since George W. Bush’s campaign of fear and lies helped launch the Iraq War. We have lost nearly 4,500 brave men and women and wasted trillions of dollars desperately needed here at home. It is long past time to finally end the Iraq War, not extend it indefinitely. Please take a moment to click here and ask your Representative to cosponsor H.R. 2757, the Iraq Withdrawal Accountability Act of 2011.    Related Articles: Christian Science Monitor: Iraq signals willingness to allow some US forces to stay LA Times: Iraq, U.S. to discuss extended stay for troops   2011-08-03T20:25:11+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/bipartisan-group-of-representatives-calls-on-the-president-to-bring-all-of-/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/bipartisan-group-of-representatives-calls-on-the-president-to-bring-all-of-/ In the wake of news reports that the Pentagon is pushing to leave thousands of US troops in Iraq indefinitely, Representatives Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Walter Jones (R-NC) were joined by 91 of their colleagues in a bipartisan letter strongly urging the President to bring all of our troops home from Iraq by the end of this year. The Status of Forces Agreement between the Bush Administration and the government of Iraq, requires that the United States remove all of its forces from Iraq by December 31, 2011. Now, less than 6 months before that deadline, the Pentagon is actively pushing the Iraqi government to “request” thousands of US troops remain in Iraq indefinitely.  As Representatives Lee and Jones say: “Leaving troops and military contractors in Iraq beyond the deadline is not in our nation’s security interests, it is not in our nation’s strategic interests, and it is not in our nation’s economic interests.” For over 8 years we have been fighting to end the Iraq war. During that time nearly 4,500 Americans have lost their lives and tens of thousands more have been wounded in Iraq because of George W. Bush’s lies. We can be sure that keeping US troops in Iraq will mean one thing: American soldiers will continue to die and be wounded. Win Without War will continue to monitor the drawdown of US forces from Iraq and work with our allies in Congress to make sure that we finally end the Iraq War and bring all of our troops home. ~~~ Huffington Post on Lee-Jones Letter: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/28/obama-iraq-withdrawal-deadline_n_911850.html?1311868464 The Lee-Jones letter to the President and a full list of co-signers is copied below. ~~~ July 27, 2011 The Honorable Barack Obama President of the United States The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20500 Dear Mr. President: We are writing to urge you to hold to our nation’s Status of Forces Agreement with the government of Iraq that commits our nation to bringing all of our troops and military contractors home at the end of this calendar year. The American people have made it clear that the war in Iraq must end. By wide and overwhelming margins, Americans approve of your plan to remove all the troops from Iraq by the end of this year. We are deeply concerned to learn that your Administration is considering plans to keep potentially thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the end of this year. Extending our presence in Iraq is counterproductive - the Iraqi people do not support our continued occupation. Remaining in Iraq would only further strengthen the perception that we are an occupying force with no intention of leaving Iraq. Leaving troops and military contractors in Iraq beyond the deadline is not in our nation’s security interests, it is not in our nation’s strategic interests, and it is not in our nation’s economic interests. Mr. President, we look forward to working with you in maintaining our nation’s Status of Forces Agreement with the government of Iraq and bringing all of our troops and military contractors home at the end of this year. Sincerely, Barbara Lee Member of Congress Walter B. Jones Member of Congress   Full list of co-signers: 1. Baldwin 2. Bass (Calif.) 3. Boswell 4. Braley 5. Capps 6. Capuano 7. Chu 8. Cicilline 9. Clarke (Mich.) 10. Clarke (N.Y.) 11. Clay 12. Cleaver 13. Clyburn 14. Cohen 15. Conyers 16. Costello 17. Danny Davis 18. Defazio 19. DeLauro 20. Deutch 21. Doggett 22. Doyle 23. Duncan (Tenn.) 24. Edwards 25. Ellison 26. Farr 27. Filner 28. Frank 29. Fudge 30. Garamendi 31. Grijalva 32. Gutierrez 33. Hahn 34. Hanabusa 35. Hastings (Fla.) 36. Heinrich 37. Hirono 38. Holt 39. Honda 40. Jackson Jr. 41. Jackson Lee 42. Johnson (Ill.) 43. Johnson (Texas) 44. Jones 45. Kaptur 46. Kucinich 47. Larson 48. Lee 49. Lewis (Ga.) 50. Loebsack 51. Lofgren 52. Lujan 53. Maloney 54. Matsui 55. McCollum 56. McDermott 57. McGovern 58. Michaud 59. Miller (Calif.) 60. Moore 61. Nadler 62. Napolitano 63. Norton 64. Olver 65. Paul 66. Payne 67. Pingree 68. Polis 69. Rangel 70. Richardson 71. Rush 72. Sanchez (Calif.) 73. Sanchez (Calif.) 74. Schakowsky 75. Schrader 76. Scott (Va.) 77. Serrano 78. Sewell 79. Slaughter 80. Speier 81. Stark 82. Thompson (Calif.) 83. Thompson (Miss.) 84. Tonko 85. Towns 86. Tsongas 87. Velazquez 88. Waters 89. Watt 90. Welch 91. Wilson (Fla.) 92. Woolsey 93. Yarmuth 2011-07-28T20:06:13+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/new-year-same-war-a-response-to-the-presidents-announcement-on-afghanistan-/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/new-year-same-war-a-response-to-the-presidents-announcement-on-afghanistan-/ While President Obama is correct to call for a change of strategy in Afghanistan, his actions do not match his rhetoric. A token withdrawal that leaves 90,000 U.S. troops in place through the end of this year and tens of thousands of troops in place for years to come does not meet the President’s promise of significant troop reduction, and it certainly doesn’t foreshadow a foreseeable end to the war in Afghanistan. Simply removing the 30,000 “surge” troops from Afghanistan means that by the end of 2012, we will be in the exact same position we were in late 2009. Tens of thousands of American soldiers will continue to fight a war that policymakers now realize and insist can only end with a political solution, not a military solution. By failing to significantly drawdown the number of troops in Afghanistan, the President will continue to needlessly risk the lives of American soldiers. Over 1,600 American soldiers have been killed and over 11,000 have been wounded in Afghanistan over the last decade. Despite being 18 months into the “surge,” our casualties are in fact increasing. Experts estimate that there are no more than 100 al Qaeda members remaining in Afghanistan. In other words, for every one al Qaeda member, the U.S. is currently committing 1,000 troops and $1.2 billion a year. With rising deficits, unfunded domestic needs and a weak economy, the United States simply can no longer afford to spend billions we do not have for a war we do not need. This reduction in troop strength will only correspond to a minimal reduction in costs to American taxpayers. Continuing the current strategy for the war in Afghanistan diverts our national security resources from other, more imminent threats, provides a false sense of security and wastes limited American resources.   2011-06-22T21:55:45+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/merkley-letter/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/merkley-letter/ A bipartisan group of 27 Senators have sent a letter to President Obama calling for a sizable and sustained” withdrawal from Afghanistan next month. The signers include nearly half of the Democratic caucus, including 10 committee chairs and Senate Majority Whip Dick Durban (D-IL). In the letter, authored by Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Mike Lee (R-UT), and Tom Udall (D-NM), the senators point out the U.S. has reached its original objectives in Afghanistan: Osama bin Laden is dead, and al Qaeda has largely been disrupted with at most 100 members remaining in Afghanistan. The senators continue: We will never be able to secure and police every town and village in Afghanistan. Nor will we be able to build Afghanistan from the ground up into a Western-style democracy… While it is a laudable objective to attempt to build new civic institutions in Afghanistan, this goal does not justify the loss of American lives or the investment of hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars. The Senate letter follows the recent strong vote in the House in which 204 Representatives voted for an “accelerated transition” out of Afghanistan and comes just days before the President is anticipated to announce the size of his planned July drawdown of forces from Afghanistan. The full text of the letter including a list of the 27 signers is below. For news coverage of the Senate letter, please visit:  Politico: Senators call for Afghanistan drawdown  The Hill: Democratic senators press Obama on Afghanistan pullout  The Seattle Times: Speedy Afghan exit draws more support    June 15, 2011   The President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President: We write to express our strong support for a shift in strategy and the beginning of a sizable and sustained reduction of U.S. military forces in Afghanistan, beginning in July 2011. In 2001 the United States rightfully and successfully intervened in Afghanistan with the goals of destroying al Qaeda's safe haven, removing the Taliban government that sheltered al Qaeda, and pursuing those who planned the September 11 attacks on the United States. Those original goals have been largely met and today, as CIA Director Leon Panetta noted last June, "I think at most, we're looking at maybe 50 to 100, maybe less" al Qaeda members remaining in Afghanistan. In addition, over the past few years, U.S. forces have killed or captured dozens of significant al Qaeda leaders. Then, on May 2, 2011, American Special Forces acting under your direction located and killed Osama bin Laden. The death of the founder of al Qaeda is a major blow that further weakens the terrorist organization. From the initial authorization of military force through your most recent State of the Union speech, combating al Qaeda has always been the rationale for our military presence in Afghanistan. Given our successes, it is the right moment to initiate a sizable and sustained reduction in forces, with the goal of steadily redeploying all regular combat troops. There are those who argue that rather than reduce our forces, we should maintain a significant number of troops in order to support a lengthy counter-insurgency and nation building effort. This is misguided. We will never be able to secure and police every town and village in Afghanistan. Nor will we be able to build Afghanistan from the ground up into a Western-style democracy. Endemic corruption in Afghanistan diverts resources intended to build roads, schools, and clinics, and some of these funds end up in the hands of the insurgents. Appointments of provincial and local officials on the basis of personal alliances and graft leads to deep mistrust by the Afghan population. While it is a laudable objective to attempt to build new civic institutions in Afghanistan, this goal does not justify the loss of American lives or the investment of hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars. Instead of continuing to be embroiled in ancient local and regional conflicts in Afghanistan, we must accelerate the transfer of responsibility for Afghanistan's development to the Afghan people and their government. We should maintain our capacity to eliminate any new terrorist threats, continue to train the Afghan National Security Forces, and maintain our diplomatic and humanitarian efforts. However, these objectives do not require the presence of over 100,000 American troops engaged in intensive combat operations. Mr. President, according to our own intelligence officials, al Qaeda no longer has a large presence in Afghanistan, and, as the strike against bin Laden demonstrated, we have the capacity to confront our terrorist enemies with a dramatically smaller footprint. The costs of prolonging the war far outweigh the benefits. It is time for the United States to shift course in Afghanistan. We urge you to follow through on the pledge you made to the American people to begin the redeployment of U.S. forces from Afghanistan this summer, and to do so in a manner that is sizable and sustained, and includes combat troops as well as logistical and support forces. We look forward to working with you to pursue a strategy in Afghanistan that makes our nation stronger and more secure. Sincerely, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR)   2011-06-16T21:00:40+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/republican-presidential-candidates-voice-war-opposition/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/republican-presidential-candidates-voice-war-opposition/ Four years ago, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) was the only Republican presidential candidate publicly raising concerns over the costs of the Afghanistan war and calling for an immediate withdrawal of American troops. Oh how the times have changed: the Republican presidential debate on Monday night showcased leading Republican candidates wanting to withdraw American troops from Afghanistan as quickly as possible. Mitt Romney said it was “time for us to bring our troops home as soon as we possibly can.” Tim Pawlenty added, “Our mission in Afghanistan is not to stay there forever or to stay there for 10 more years to rebuild the country.” Jon Huntsman, who is set to officially announce his bid for the White House next Tuesday, said in an interview with The New York Times that most Americans wanted “to begin phasing out as quickly as possible.” He added that “this would mean that the very expensive boots on the ground may be something that is not critical for our national security needs. Nor is it something we can afford at this point in our economic history. I think most Americans would say it’s probably a good transition point.” The reasons for the candidates’ willingness to adopt a quicker withdrawal strategy vary from the death of Osama bin Laden’s to the indefensible war costs. Above all, Republican candidates clearly understand that the majority of American people support an immediate withdrawal of troops. The strength of war opposition amongst leading GOP Presidential candidates is the clearest indication yet that the hawkish foreign policy of GOP stalwarts such as Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is increasingly losing favor within the Republican party.  Read more here: NYT- Candidates Show G.O.P. Less United on Goals of War 2011-06-16T13:32:06+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/bipartisan-group-of-senators-calling-for-sizable-and-sustained-drawdown-of-/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/bipartisan-group-of-senators-calling-for-sizable-and-sustained-drawdown-of-/ A growing, bipartisan group of Senators is finalizing a letter to the President calling for a “sizeable and sustained” reduction in forces from Afghanistan beginning in July. As interest in this letter has continued to grow, the deadline has been extended for signatures to accommodate additional support. Currently 17 Senators have signed on in support including Sen. Durbin (D-IL), the second highest-ranking member of the Democratic leadership, and 3 Committee Chairmen, Sen. Inouye (D-HI Appropriations), Sen. Leahy (D-VT Judiciary) and Sen. Harkin (D-IA Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions). It’s not too late to ask your Senator to join. Please take a moment to call your two Senators at (202) 224-3121 and ask them to join the “Merkley-Lee-Udall letter to bring our troops home from Afghanistan.” If your Senator has already signed, please thank them for their support. The current deadline for signatures is the close of business Monday, June 13.   Below is a copy of the letter, including the 17 current signers. June X, 2011 The President The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President: We write to express our strong support for a shift in strategy and the beginning of a sizable and sustained reduction of U.S. military forces in Afghanistan, beginning in July 2011. In 2001 the United States rightfully and successfully intervened in Afghanistan with the goals of destroying al Qaeda’s safe haven, removing the Taliban government that sheltered al Qaeda, and pursuing those who planned the September 11 attacks on the United States. Those original goals have been largely met and today, as CIA Director Leon Panetta noted last June, “I think at most, we’re looking at maybe 50 to 100, maybe less” al Qaeda members remaining in Afghanistan. In addition, over the past few years, U.S. forces have killed or captured dozens of significant al Qaeda leaders. Then, on May 2, 2011, American Special Forces acting under your direction located and killed Osama bin Laden. The death of the founder of al Qaeda is a major blow that further weakens the terrorist organization. From the initial authorization of military force through your most recent State of the Union speech, combating al Qaeda has always been the rationale for our military presence in Afghanistan. Given our successes, it is the right moment to initiate a sizable and sustained reduction in forces, with the goal of steadily withdrawing all regular combat troops. There are those who argue that rather than reduce our forces, we should maintain a significant number of troops in order to support a lengthy counter-insurgency and nation building effort. This is misguided. We will never be able to secure and police every town and village in Afghanistan. Nor will we be able to build Afghanistan from the ground up into a Western-style democracy. Endemic corruption in Afghanistan diverts resources intended to build roads, schools, and clinics, and some of these funds end up in the hands of the insurgents. Appointments of provincial and local officials on the basis of personal alliances and graft leads to deep mistrust by the Afghan population. While it is a laudable objective to attempt to build new civic institutions in Afghanistan, this goal does not justify the loss of American lives or the investment of hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars. Instead of continuing to be embroiled in ancient local and regional conflicts in Afghanistan, we must accelerate the transfer of responsibility for Afghanistan’s development to the Afghan people and their government. We should maintain our capacity to eliminate any new terrorist threats, continue to train the Afghan National Security Forces, and maintain our diplomatic and humanitarian efforts. However, these objectives do not require the presence of over 100,000 American troops engaged in intensive combat operations. Mr. President, according to our own intelligence officials, al Qaeda no longer has a large presence in Afghanistan, and, as the strike against bin Laden demonstrated, we have the capacity to confront our terrorist enemies with a dramatically smaller footprint. The costs of prolonging the war far outweigh the benefits. It is time for the United States to shift course in Afghanistan. We urge you to follow through on the pledge you made to the American people to begin the redeployment of U.S. forces from Afghanistan this summer, and to do so in a manner that is sizable and sustained, and includes combat troops as well as logistical and support forces. We look forward to working with you to pursue a strategy in Afghanistan that makes our nation stronger and more secure. Sincerely, (17 Signatures as of 6/10/11) Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) Sen. Daniel K. Inouye (D-HI) Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT) Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) 2011-06-10T19:39:15+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/democratic-opposition-to-the-war-in-afghanistan-grows-louder/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/democratic-opposition-to-the-war-in-afghanistan-grows-louder/   Congressional Democrats are growing louder in their opposition to what has now become the longest war in US history. Rep. Norm Dicks (D-WA), the top House Democrat on defense and appropriations and a previous supporter of the "surge" in Afghanistan, is now calling for an accelerated drawdown from Afghanistan. In the Senate, Max Baucus (D-MT) has gone even further calling for the complete withdrawal of combat troops by the end of 2012. These strong calls for a change of course in Afghanistan are part of growing Congressional opposition to the war as the President continues to analyze the scale of his planned July drawdown of forces.  Read more: Top Democrat Norm Dicks becomes war critic Max Baucus Calls For A 'Change Of Course' In Afghanistan: Withdraw Troops By End Of 2012 Congressional Democrats are growing louder in their opposition to what has now become the longest war in US history. Rep. Norm Dicks (D-WA), the top House Democrat on defense and appropriations and a previous supporter of the "surge" in Afghanistan, is now calling for an accelerated drawdown of military forces. In the Senate, Max Baucus (D-MT) has gone even further calling for the complete withdrawal of combat troops by the end of 2012. As the President continues to evaluate the scope of his planned July drawdown, these Congressional leaders are joining a growing chorus of voices calling for the President to live up to his promise of an "accelerated transition" out of Afghanistan.    Read more: Top Democrat Norm Dicks becomes war critic Max Baucus Calls For A 'Change Of Course' In Afghanistan: Withdraw Troops By End Of 2012     2011-06-06T13:04:27+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/house-vote-shows-growing-opposition-to-the-war-in-afghanistan/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/house-vote-shows-growing-opposition-to-the-war-in-afghanistan/ As the President continues to debate the size of a troop drawdown from Afghanistan, Congress has just shown its strongest support yet for what the President promised in December of 2009, an ‘accelerated transition’ out of Afghanistan beginning in July. Today's vote on Representative McGovern's amendment to the Defense Authorization bill shows that Congress is catching up to the American people, who overwhelmingly support bringing our troops home now. Earlier today, the House of Representatives narrowly failed to pass a bipartisan amendment calling for an end to the war in Afghanistan sponsored by Representatives Jim McGovern (D-MA) and Walter Jones (R-NC). The amendment was offered as part of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2012. The 204 votes in favor of the McGovern-Jones Amendment demonstrate strong and growing Congressional opposition to the war in Afghanistan.    Below are two stories on the vote and the growing Congressional opposition to the war.  From The Hill: House narrowly rejects amendment to speed up Afghanistan withdrawal  From Politico:26 Republicans join Democrats on Afghan withdrawal vote     2011-05-27T13:10:06+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/ndaa-amendments/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/ndaa-amendments/   The President and the press measure Congressional opposition to the war in Afghanistan every year by one vote. That vote could take place as early as this afternoon, and your Representative needs to hear from you. Call the Capitol Switchboard toll-free at 1-888-231-9276 to be connected to your Member of Congress and tell them: “It’s time to end the war in Afghanistan and prevent the next one. Please support Amendment 55 by Representatives McGovern and Jones and Amendment 50 by Representatives Amash and Lee to the National Defense Authorization Act.” Today the House of Representatives begins to debate and vote on H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA). Two important amendments have been offered that will measure Congressional support for ending the war in Afghanistan and preventing the authorization of endless war: Amendment 55 – Sponsored by Representatives Jim McGovern (D-MA) and Walter Jones (R-NC): This bipartisan amendment calls for an end to the war in Afghanistan by requiring the President to provide a plan and timeframe for an accelerated drawdown of military operations in Afghanistan. Amendment 50 – Sponsored by Representatives Justin Amash (R-MI) and Barbara Lee (D-CA): This bipartisan amendment would remove a radical new authorization of endless war anywhere in the world. The media and the President will be using these amendments to gauge Congressional sentiment. Pass or fail, every vote counts in sending a strong message to the President and the media: bring the troops home, now. Congress is already debating this legislation so please call now toll-free the Capitol Switchboard now at 1-888-231-9276 and ask your Member of Congress to vote yes on Amendments 55 and 50 to H.R. 1540. A full list of amendments that will be considered to the NDAA is available here. Each amendment will receive 10 minutes of debate on the floor.   Amendment 55 – Sponsored by Representatives Jim McGovern (D-MA) and Walter Jones (R-NC): This bipartisan amendment is similar to legislation previously introduced by Reps. McGovern and Jones (The Afghanistan Exit and Accountability Act, H.R. 1735) and would call for an end to the war in Afghanistan.  The time is now for Congress to act on this important bipartisan legislation. The President has said that he will begin a substantial drawdown of troops beginning in July. This important legislation will keep him to that promise and help tell the American people when all of our troops will be coming home. Specifically, the amendment would: Require a plan and timeframe on accelerated transition of military operations to Afghan authorities allowing for a drawdown of US troops; Require a plan and timeframe on negotiations leading to a political solution and reconciliation in Afghanistan; and Require a new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on al-Qaeda.   Amendment 50 – Sponsored by Representatives Justin Amash (R-MI) and Barbara Lee (D-CA): This bipartisan amendment removes the unprecedented expansion of war currently under consideration in Congress. Inserted into the NDAA by Rep. Buck McKeon, Section 1034 cedes unlimited war-making power to the Executive branch and authorizes an open-ended, global war far beyond Iraq and Afghanistan. Specifically, this new authorization is: Global in scope. With no geographic boundary, the president could take America to war in any country in the world – including America itself – where a suspected terrorist resides. Never ending. This language never expires and doesn’t require the President to return to Congress for additional authority, setting America on the course for decades of war. Divorced from national security concerns. Unlike the 2001 authorization that ties the authority to a direct attack on America, this language is not linked to any attack or imminent threat to American citizens.  A threat to American citizens. This language has no statutory limitation on whether or how it can be invoked domestically or abroad to supersede Constitutional protections of American citizens.   2011-05-25T13:15:42+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/new-republican-leadership-against-the-war/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/new-republican-leadership-against-the-war/ Freshman Congressman Justin Amash (R-MI) has written an op-ed strongly arguing against the radical expansion of war currently under consideration in Congress. Language inserted into the Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act by Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA) would replace the existing Authorization for the Use of Military Force passed immediately following the September 11 attacks in 2001. Rep. McKeon's new authorization would allow for worldwide, endless war and forever remove the need for Congressional authorization of military force.  Rep. Amash has joined a growing, bipartisan group of Congressmen in standing up in opposition to this unprecedented expansion of war. Read Rep. Amash’s op-ed by clicking here.   2011-05-23T13:26:17+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/pat-tillmans-mother-shocked-by-general-mcchrystals-new-role-in-white-house/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/pat-tillmans-mother-shocked-by-general-mcchrystals-new-role-in-white-house/ Retired General Stanley McChrystal will be returning to the White House to join a new initiative led by Michelle Obama and Jill Biden to support and honor military families. The program, called Joining Forces, “‘aims to educate, challenge, and spark action from all sectors of society’ to address the unique challenges [of] American troops, veterans and their families.” But Mary Tillman, mother of former-NFL star Pat Tillman, is rallying against the White House’s decision. In an interview with ABC News, Mrs. Tillman made the case against McChrystal’s newest appointment, arguing, “Someone who has a heartfelt desire to help families would not have been involved in the cover-up of a soldier’s death, especially one that they used to promote a war.” To watch the interview with Mrs. Tillman, click here. This isn't the first time Mrs. Tillman has spoken out against McChrystal. In 2004, her son, Corporal Pat Tillman, was killed in Afghanistan by friendly fire. When Mrs. Tillman launched an investigation into her son’s death, she discovered that a chain of officers leading all the way to General Stanley McChrystal had covered up the facts surrounding Corporal Tillman’s final days, claiming he had been killed in combat by enemy forces. The Pentagon’s inspector general recommended that McChrystal be held “accountable for the inaccurate and misleading assertions.” Instead, in 2009, he was promoted to commander of all US and ISAF forces in Afghanistan, prompting Mrs. Tillman to write an appeal to President Obama and the US Senate to follow the inspector general’s recommendations. But the plea of a heroic soldier’s mother felt on deaf ears. In the same ABC News exclusive, the director of a documentary detailing Pat Tillman’s last days and McChrystal’s subsequent cover-up, “The Tillman Story,” summed up the White House’s offer to the former general: “Putting Stanley McChrystal in charge of a commission on military families is a little like putting Bernie Madoff in charge of a commission on pensions.” 2011-04-15T01:17:18+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/new-poll-record-number-of-americans-oppose-the-war-in-afghanistan/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/new-poll-record-number-of-americans-oppose-the-war-in-afghanistan/ A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll reveals that disapproval against the war in Afghanistan has reached its highest point since the war began nearly 10 years ago. Sixty four percent of Americans say that the war in Afghanistan is “not worth fighting.” In the wake of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, Americans have lost the endurance to waste money on a war with no end in sight when those funds could be used to create much-needed jobs. After a decade of chasing bin Laden’s shadow around the deserts and caves of the Af-Pak region, Americans have come to terms with the reality that al Qaeda is not in Afghanistan and that the Taliban were not responsible for 9/11. They understand that you cannot win a war against terrorism no more than you can win a war against war. Nearly 75 percent of Americans are calling for the withdrawal of a “substantial number” of combat troops from Afghanistan this summer. However, only 39 percent of respondents expect that outcome. Time will tell if President Obama meets those expectations. The will of the American people overwhelmingly demand it, and so do the president’s Democratic constituents, only 19 percent of whom believe the war in Afghanistan is worth fighting according to the survey. American public opinion is on the right track. It's time for Washington to catch up.To learn more about the results, visit the Washington Post-ABC News poll.   2011-03-17T01:28:51+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/fire-lt.-gen.-caldwell-now-and-end-the-psy-ops-war-against-congress/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/fire-lt.-gen.-caldwell-now-and-end-the-psy-ops-war-against-congress/ Lt. General William Caldwell needs to be fired. Now. General Caldwell, a three star general in charge of training Afghanistan troops allegedly ordered that the Army’s arsenal of psychological weapons of war be trained on Members of Congress and other “VIPs” in order to manipulate them into giving the Army more money and troops for its Afghanistan operation. According to Rolling Stone, the head of an Army “Information Operations” unit in Afghanistan, Lt. Colonel Michael Holmes, has been under orders from Caldwell to find “pressure points” to use against the visiting Congressional delegations and secretly manipulate them without their knowledge. Holmes quoted the general’s Chief of Staff: “What do I have to plant inside their heads?” General Caldwell should face court marshal proceedings for violating his oath of office and US law. The Justice Department should launch an immediate investigation to determine just how widespread this propaganda operation is and how high up the chain of command it goes. Congress should act immediately as well. The House and Senate Armed Services Committees should schedule public hearings and the investigative arms of both houses, as well as the General Accounting Office, should launch investigations. This latest Rolling Stone bombshell needs all the attention that the Obama administration and the Congress gave reporter Michael Hastings’ last story on an out-of-control General, Stanly McChrystal. This is worse. General McChrystal was guilty of frat boy style insubordination. Lt. General Caldwell, and whoever else was involved in this outrage, was attempting a form of military coup by attacking elected civilian leaders through psychological warfare. If you are frustrated by civilian control over your military, take them out. In this case the weapon of choice was the arsenal available to them by the Army’s psychological warfare operation.  As a Member of the House Armed Services Committee, I was cognizant of the Pentagon’s use of spin to get the result that they wanted. I was in office for less than a month when I was invited for a personal “consultation” with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I am certain that Chairman Powell was less interested in my views of military strategy than he was of my vote.  You can also see this dynamic at play in Bob Woodward’s account of President Obama’s “war” with the Pentagon when he was formulating his Afghanistan strategy. According to “Obama’s Wars”, the President was incensed and frustrated by generals who would only provide him with options that were anything but. As Woodward put it, “This was a contest that pitted the president against the military establishment.” The contest ended with the announcement of a significant escalation of US forces in Afghanistan.  The manipulation described in the Rolling Stone article, however, is different. This is the wholesale use of a weapon of war – “psy ops” in the military vernacular – to take out the independent judgment of those who are responsible for overseeing and holding accountable the US military. As Lt. Col. Holmes put it “My job in psy-ops is to play with people’s heads, to get the enemy to behave the way we want them to behave.” To Lt. Gen. Caldwell, the enemy was not al-Qaeda or even the Taliban, but the U.S. Congress. This is a serious offense, not just against Members of Congress, but against the United States and civilian control of the military. It must be met with a response that is as equally serious. 2011-02-24T17:25:36+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/possible-amendments-to-fy2011-continuing-resolution/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/possible-amendments-to-fy2011-continuing-resolution/ Federal budget cutting fever hits the floor of the House of Representatives tomorrow.  Defense spending, however, seems to have received a cost cutting inoculation by Republican leaders who have reserved all of the pain for the domestic side. While Republicans have cut billions of dollars from important domestic programs in the name of fiscal responsibility, funding for the Department of Defense has increased by $8.1 million. A number of Members seek to end this budget hypocrisy and plan to introduce amendments targeting wasteful defense spending, including funding for the war in Afghanistan. Here's the lineup as we have it, check back tomorrow for breaking updates: Rep. Walter JonesCutting $400 million for the newly created Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund.Rep. Tom RooneyCutting $450 million for the F-35 alternate engine program. Rep. Jerry NadlerCutting $90 billion for the war in Afghanistan. (Leaving approx. $10 billion to fund the withdrawal of troops.)Rep. PolisIn line with recommendations from the Sustainable Defense Task Force report, we expect he'll call for a cut to the force structure by 33,000 troops. The bill will also limit the number of troops stationed in Europe to 35,000. Rep. StarkI haven't confirmed details with his staff but it is believed he'll introduce an amendment following on his stand-alone bill cutting DoD funding back to 2008 levels.Rep. TierneyLong an advocate of ending the war, Rep. Tierney may also offer an amendment. As Sen. Rand Paul put it last weekend at the Conservative CPAC convention: "If you say you won't reform military spending then you are a big government conservative and you can’t lay claim to shrinking the deficit." 2011-02-14T23:00:48+00:00