http://www.winwithoutwar.org/ en Copyright 2012 2012-01-05T18:05:03+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 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/state-of-the-union-and-state-of-the-war-in-afghanistan-the-good-the-bad-and/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/state-of-the-union-and-state-of-the-war-in-afghanistan-the-good-the-bad-and/ Since President Obama first announced his surge of 30,000 troops into Afghanistan, and committed that we will "begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011," the administration has been relentless in its insistence that this withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan will be strictly "conditions based".  OK. What are these conditions? If the president’s claims in his State of the Union constitute even a hint at what the administration has in mind by conditions, then US forces should either start to be removed immediately or they are staying put for a very long time.  First the president claimed that the US has "taken the fight to al Qaeda". This might be so, but not in Afghanistan. Gen. James Jones, President Obama’s former National Security Advisor, stated in October 2009 that "the al Qaeda presence [in Afghanistan] is very diminished. The maximum estimate is less than 100 operating in the country." Last June CIA Director Leon Panetta reduced that estimate further, saying "the number of Al Qaida is actually relatively small. I think at most, we're looking at maybe 50 to 100, maybe less." And in 2009 Gen. David Petraeus agreed with the assessment offered by CNN’s John King that there are "no al Qaeda at all in Afghanistan."  If there are no al Qaeda in Afghanistan than we have "taken the fight" to the wrong place. It is time to get out so that national security resources can be focused where they are needed. If the president insists that Afghanistan remains a threat, even when there is no evidence of al Qaeda, then our forces could end up in Afghanistan for a very long time. Second, the president claimed, "fewer Afghans are under control of the insurgency." This claim defies the record. According to the Pentagon’s most recent biannual report to Congress in November 2010 "38 percent of the population live in areas rated as having ‘emerging’ or ‘full authority’ Afghan governance. This reflects no substantial change since March 2010." Shadow governments run by insurgent forces continue to operate in many parts of the south and east, "extracting taxes and carrying out ‘official’ functions like trials and determining land and marriage disputes."[ii] According to Pentagon polling, 80.6 percent of Afghans believe that corruption affects their daily lives and "remains a key reason for Afghans supporting the insurgency." It should come as no surprise, then, that the Pentagon reports: "the insurgency continues to adapt and retain a robust means of sustaining its operations, through internal and external funding sources and the exploitation of the Afghan Government’s inability to provide tangible benefits to the populace." No number of US troops in Afghanistan can change the endemic corruption there, to say nothing of the safe haven afforded insurgents across the border in Pakistan. The result? The number of insurgent fighters in Afghanistan has risen exponentially with the presence of US forces from 7,000 in 2006[iii] to an estimated 40,000 by October of last year[iv]. Violence has dramatically increased in Afghanistan over the last year [v] and American and allied casualties are higher than ever.[vi] If President Obama is serious about his commitment to start withdrawing US forces from Afghanistan in July – and insistent upon making the withdrawal "conditions based" - then he needs to spell out the conditions that will determine the size and speed of that withdrawal. I recommend that they include the condition that the war not bankrupt the country. To date, every penny for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have added to the federal debt. Nearly one quarter of the federal deficits racked up since 2003 are the result of borrowing for the wars. As the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen noted this past August, "The most significant threat to our national security is our national debt." The conditions for withdrawal might also include whether, since the massive US military buildup, Afghanistan has become more or less violent (it’s more), the Afghanistan government more or less corrupt (more) and the Taliban more or less powerful, be it measured in numbers, influence or lethality (again, more). Or how about the condition that what we do in Afghanistan should make America safer and more secure? It doesn’t. At the very least, the President needs to stop delivering speeches that include misleading and unfounded claims and make a meaningful withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan less likely in July 2011 or beyond. http://www.defense.gov/...  [ii] http://www.reuters.com/...  [iii] http://www.reuters.com/...  [iv] http://articles.latimes.com/...  [v] http://www.defense.gov/...  [vi] http://icasualties.org/ 2011-02-01T13:08:23+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/what-the-president-wont-say-about-afghanistan/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/what-the-president-wont-say-about-afghanistan/ Few were surprised that the Obama Administration reports "signs of progress" in Afghanistan in their assessment of strategy in Afghanistan, released today. Yet numerous publicly available analyses – including the Pentagon’s own November 2010 "Report on Progress Toward Security and Stability" to Congress – point to fundamental problems with the current military-led strategy. The significant escalation of troops over the past 22 months has only exacerbated these problems, and a long-term foreign military presence will only continue that trend. In light of these sobering facts, the President should immediately begin taking the political and diplomatic steps necessary to end the war and withdraw U.S. forces from Afghanistan Nationwide, security in Afghanistan has not improved. According to the Pentagon’s own report to Congress in November 2010, the portion of the population living in districts with a ‘satisfactory’ security rating "remains relatively unchanged over the past three quarters." In fact, "the number of Afghans rating their security situation as ‘bad’ is the highest since the nationwide survey began in September 2008. This downward trend in security perception is likely due to the steady increase in total violence over the past nine months." Violence has dramatically increased in Afghanistan over the last year. Kinetic events – Pentagon speak for violence – "are up 300 percent since 2007 and up an additional 70 percent since 2009."  The Afghanistan NGO Safety Office reports a 59% increase in insurgent-led attacks in the 3rd quarter of this year over and above the 2009 level. They state: "By any measure 2010 has been the most violent year since ANSO’s records began in 2002." Any progress toward increased security in the south has been more than offset by increased violence elsewhere in Afghanistan. Insurgent attacks in Kunar province in eastern Afghanistan "rose 200% in June compared with June 2009."  There are reports that "in northern Afghanistan, security has been deteriorating for the past two years in Kunduz and surrounding provinces" and that "the Taliban also have spread their influence in western Afghanistan and now control several districts." American and allied casualties are higher than ever. Taliban small-arms attacks against U.S. and allied troops are nearly twice what they were a year ago and more than 680 international troops have been killed so far this year, well above the 502 killed in the whole of 2009. Troop increases have fueled the growing insurgency. A U.S. intelligence estimate presented to President Obama in October 2009 showed that the number of fighters in the insurgency had ballooned to 25,000 from only 7,000 in 2006.  Now Matt Waldman, former Head of Policy and Advocacy for Oxfam International in Afghanistan, reports that "today [the NATO force] estimates the Taliban as 35,000 to 40,000. One of the points we have to bear in mind is they have a very large pool of recruits inside Afghanistan and Pakistan." The Taliban’s capacity to fight remains undiminished. The Pentagon recently reported to Congress: "Efforts to reduce insurgent capacity, such as safe havens and logistic support originating in Pakistan and Iran, have not produced measurable results... the insurgents will retain operational momentum in some areas as long as they have access to externally supported safe havens and support networks... The insurgency continues to adapt and retain a robust means of sustaining its operations, through internal and external funding sources and the exploitation of the Afghan Government’s inability to provide tangible benefits to the populace." Corruption runs rampant, fueling the insurgency. The Pentagon’s own polling from September 2010 "shows that 80.6 percent of Afghans polled believe corruption affects their daily lives. This is consistent with the view that corruption is preventing the Afghan Government from connecting with the people and remains a key reason for Afghans supporting the insurgency..." As the New York Times reported, after a meeting with President Karzai’s brother, Ahmed Walid Karzai, Ambassador Eikenberry wrote that "one of our major challenges in Afghanistan [is] how to fight corruption and connect the people to their government, when the key government officials are themselves corrupt." And just this past weekend, Afghanistan’s Attorney General asked their Supreme Court to nullify the results of recent parliamentary elections due to allegations of fraud and to "issue sentences against 14 top officials who organized the vote and oversaw fraud investigations." Nationwide, governance has not expanded. The Pentagon reports that only "38 percent of the population live in areas rated as having ‘emerging’ or ‘full authority’ Afghan governance. This reflects no substantial change since March 2010."  "Shadow governments" run by insurgent forces continue to operate in many parts of the south and east, "extracting taxes and carrying out ‘official’ functions like trials and determining land and marriage disputes." The militarization of aid is failing those we seek to help. Over 100 aid workers have died this year, far more than in previous years , and a recent report of 29 aid organizations led by Oxfam International found the likelihood of attacks on aid workers has been increased because the distinction between military and civilian efforts has been "severely blurred to the point of being unrecognizable to many Afghans." The report continues that a failure "to re-establish the civil-military distinction in Afghanistan ... will have dire consequences for the Afghan civilian population – particularly once the IMF [International Military Forces] withdraw." The war is undermining the American economy and burying the nation in debt. As Les Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, recently explained: "Afghanistan itself is no longer a vital interest of the United States, but continuing the war there tears at our own nation’s very vitals. With America drowning under a $1.5 trillion deficit for next year and an almost $15 trillion overall debt, we are verging on banana republic-hood. Most of the $125 billion being spent in and for Afghanistan could better be deducted from those bills. How on earth can the administration justify spending billions to build roads, schools, and hospitals in Afghanistan when America’s physical and intellectual infrastructure is simply collapsing? Of course, I feel for the Afghans; but I feel far, far more for Americans"  In fact, 23% of the combined budget deficits since 2003 are a result of spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Nobel Laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard budget guru Linda Bilmes now believe the wars will cost the American economy between $4 and $6 trillion in total. Even Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, noted this past August that "the most significant threat to our national security is our debt."  In writing his Final Orders for Afghanistan Pakistan Strategy, President Obama selected December 2010 to assess that strategy because one year would provide "sufficient time to assess progress and proof of the operational concept."  And while senior military officials tout an "expansion of the security bubbles"  in parts of Afghanistan, an overall assessment of the war only shows proof that Petraeus’ current strategy is failing. The United States should immediately begin the political and diplomatic process necessary to withdraw U.S. forces from Afghanistan. Sources: DOD November 2010 Report on Progress Toward Security and Stability  http://www.afgnso.org/...  http://online.wsj.com/... http://www.npr.org/...  http://www.usatoday.com/...  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... http://www.reuters.com/...  http://www.latimes.com/...  http://www.nytimes.com/...  http://news.yahoo.com/...  http://www.reuters.com/...  http://www.nytimes.com/...  http://www.oxfam.org/...  http://www.thedailybeast.com/...  http://www.businessinsider.com/...  http://www.thedailybeast.com/... http://www.defense.gov/...  Woodward, Bob, Obama’s Wars 2010, p. 388 http://online.wsj.com/... 2010-12-16T17:30:14+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/center-for-american-progress-reduce-u.s.-military-footprint-in-afghani/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/center-for-american-progress-reduce-u.s.-military-footprint-in-afghani/ Recent reports out of Afghanistan show that violence is sky-high, the Taliban are incredibly resilient, and the government in Kabul is so corrupt that its citizens would rather turn to the Taliban than their own government for justice. The growing mountain of evidence illustrating the futility of our endeavor in Afghanistan is now too much to ignore for even some of President Obama’s most vocal supporters of surge. The Center for a New American Security (CNAS), the home of pro-counterinsurgency (COIN) thought on the left and the Center for American Progress (CAP), an early political supporter of the President on Afghanistan, are calling for the significant reduction of U.S. military forces in Afghanistan. Speaking of the CAP’s influence on the Obama administration, Michael Scherer of Time magazine remarked, “...not since the Heritage Foundation helped guide Ronald Reagan's transition in 1981 has a single outside group held so much sway.” John Podesta, the President of CAP, led Obama’s transition team after he won the presidency. Here is CAP’s call for the reduction of U.S. forces in Afghanistan:  U.S. forces should begin repositioning within Afghanistan in January 2011 to reflect a renewed emphasis on stability operations in parts of the north and west. The forces should commence an orderly withdrawal beginning now consistent with providing enough manpower to perform counterterrorism operations and training, as well as to contain insurgent growth. By the end of 2012 the U.S. military should have no more than 40,000 troops in Afghanistan. The United States should aim to reduce its total force to no more than 15,000 troops or less by 2014 at the latest as part of its long-term strategic partnership agreement with the Afghan government. Michelle Flournoy is the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and a potential future Secretary of Defense. Prior to becoming the Deputy Secretary, Flournoy co-founded the Center for a New American Security which has been, up until recently, a die-hard backer of COIN in Afghanistan. Furthermore, Andrew Exum, a CNAS fellow, helped write the army field manual on COIN with Gen. David Petraeus. The manual is the guidebook for soldiers implementing COIN in Iraq and Afghanistan. In a remarkable change of philosophy, recognizing the continuing gamble of U.S. lives and resources to be too great of a risk, CNAS is also calling for the drawdown of U.S. forces in Afghanistan. In a newly released report Exum writes:   To preserve the security of the United States and its interests throughout the world, we recommend a "Responsible Transition" to a sustainable end game in Afghanistan, specifically...The United States and its allies should begin a phased transition, starting in July 2011, from a large-scale mission employing in excess of 140,000 troops to a more sustainable presence of 25,000-35,000 troops. This enduring U.S. military presence will be sized to both support and enable sustained ANSF combat against the Taliban and maintain relentless U.S. pressure on al Qaeda. For a summary and full copy of the CAP report, click here. For a summary and full copy of the CNAS report, click here. 2010-12-02T17:34:50+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/new-york-times-some-skeptics-questioning-rosy-reports-on-war-zone/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/new-york-times-some-skeptics-questioning-rosy-reports-on-war-zone/ While Gen. David Petraeus and his staff attempt to project a unified front of optimism on the war in Afghanistan, their are many in the State Department and the Pentagon who really know that all is not well with the administration's surge in the desolated country. Per Elisabeth Bumiller in the latest edition of The New York Times: The recent reports circulating in Washington’s national security establishment about the Afghan battleground of Marja show glimmerings of progress: bazaars are open, some 1,000 children are in school, and a new (and only) restaurant even serves goat curry and kebabs. In Kandahar, NATO officials say that American and Afghan forces continue to rout the Taliban. In new statistics offered by American commanders in Kabul, Special Operations units have killed 339 midlevel Taliban commanders and 949 of the group’s foot soldiers in the past three months alone. At the Pentagon, the draft of a war assessment to be submitted to Congress this month cites a shift in momentum in some areas of the country away from the insurgency. But as a new White House review of President Obama’s strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan gets under way, the rosy signs have opened an intense debate at the Defense Department, the White House, the State Department and the intelligence agencies over what they really mean. Are they indications of future success, are they fleeting and not replicable, or are they evidence that Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top United States and NATO commander in Afghanistan, is simply more masterful than his predecessor at shaping opinion? Bumiller then gives us this gem: A former C.I.A. official with longtime experience in Afghanistan said that the recent statements about American progress in Afghanistan reminded him of what was sometimes written about the Russians before they began withdrawing from Afghanistan in defeat in 1988, when they had been at war there for nearly 10 years. “I don’t find many people I talk to who really believe any of this,” he said. The rest of the article here. 2010-11-08T19:29:29+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/new-york-times-mental-health-visits-rise-as-parent-deploys/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/new-york-times-mental-health-visits-rise-as-parent-deploys/ In today's New York Times, Benedict Carney gives us a tragic view into the effects of repeated deployments of military service members on the mental health of their children: In the study, a research team led by Dr. Gregory H. Gorman of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences analyzed the health records of 642,397 children ages 3 to 8 with parents in the military. It compared the frequency of health visits from 2006 to 2007 when a parent was deployed with those when the parent was home. The researchers found that the children saw a doctor or other health professional about six times a year and about once every two years for a mental health reason. During deployment of a parent, however, the visit rate dropped by about 11 percent for physical problems but rose by 11 percent for psychological complaints. Stress, anxiety and attention-deficit problems were among the more common diagnoses, and mothers were far more likely than fathers to take a child to a doctor. Read the whole article here 2010-11-08T16:48:45+00:00