Responding to the State of the Union

by Peter Deccy, Peace Action

President Obama’s third State of the Union message began and ended in homily honoring our men and women in uniform.  The President referred to them as the one institution that actually worked like it should.  Mission focused, trusting one another, working as a team.

He encouraged our government to be just like them.  We’ll see…

If you were watching the address on the CSPAN website, you could see Members of Congress furiously tweeting their thoughts which then appeared below the screen.  Many of them apparently didn’t hear the clarion call for togetherness, instead engaging in accusations of class warfare and decrying higher taxes for the rich as soon as the President’s words on those topics left his lips.

The President made a great case for the rich paying its fair share, a call for fundamental fairness in taxation.  He called for investment in energy independence and job creation as expected, but still, welcome words to the progressive wing of his party.

He was passionate.  He was confident. In response, Governor Daniels provided an uninspired regurgitation of the standard Republican line, very Herbert Hoover, circa 1928. Very 1%.

Peace advocates however, should be concerned.  The President seemed to be capping Pentagon cuts at $500 billion, far below what is possible, leaving spending at intolerable and unsustainable levels. It’s just as he described in his speech; “somebody else has to make up the difference— like a senior on a fixed income; or a student trying to get through school; or a family trying to make ends meet.”

He basically promised Iran he would order a military strike on their alleged nuclear facilities if he became convinced they were about to build their first nuclear bomb.  He made no reference to abolishing nuclear weapons, his claim to Nobel fame, his Prague pledge.

Afghanistan? The President recommitted himself to withdrawing the remaining surge troops this summer, but then spoke of an “enduring partnership” to prevent the return of al-Qaida. With some 65,000 troops left in Afghanistan after the summer drawdown, the President may well be signaling a long and costly US military presence. Given the levels of corruption in Afghanistan’s government, which really controls very little of the country, the grinding poverty and an insurgency that is unlikely to disappear as long as foreign troops remain, very long and very costly.

A Veterans Job Corps sounded good, but he really didn’t have enough to say about our returning veterans either.  Will they, each and everyone, receive the medical care they need, and everything else the recruiter promised them.

In the end, the President returned to honoring the dedication and professionalism of our military. He used the raid on bin Laden as his touchstone.  This is how all America should confront its challenges; working together, focused on the mission at hand.  How could Republicans possibly resist working with the President for the sake of America.

Nicely done, but the tweets told me don’t get my hopes up.

2012: Ending the War in Afghanistan

by Paul Kawika Martin, Peace Action

On the heels of nearly all U.S. troops leaving Iraq, thanks to your pressure and others in the peace movement, troops are slowly coming out of Afghanistan.  In 2012, we will continue to push to accelerate the withdrawal and ensure all foreign troops leave as soon as possible.

The NATO Summit in Chicago in May represents our first opportunity.  Already, our affiliate, Chicago Area Peace Action, is organizing various grassroots events to pressure NATO to get out of Afghanistan.

We suspect that in this election year, Congress will have few if any opportunities to vote on Afghanistan policy.  We will continue to pressure congress and use non-legislative methods to pressure the President.

For example, last year, we successfully organized 27 Senators on a letter asking the President for a “sizable and sustained reduction of U.S. military forces in Afghanistan, beginning in July 2011.”  This year, we plan a more strongly worded letter.

After last year’s letter, President Obama announced the withdrawal of 33,000 troops by this September.  Along with our allies, we will continue to pressure for a quicker drawdown of troops with a definitive end date as soon as possible.

As November draws near, we will use the elections to pressure the President, lawmakers running for reelection and congressional hopefuls.  We have questions about Afghanistan in our candidate questionnaire and will endorse, raise money and help elect a congress that will get the U.S. out of the country.  Additionally, our affiliates will distribute tens of thousands of voter guides comparing candidates on Afghanistan and other peace issues.

There will be no rest for the weary in 2012 on the Afghanistan issue.  Last year, we accomplished much and plan to do even more this year.  Watch your inbox for opportunities to take action.

We can’t afford to wait until the bombs drop

by Peter Deccy, Peace Action

Last week, Peace Action launched its petition to President Obama calling on the President to prevent a military strike on Iran, by either the US or Israel.  We’re presently making arrangements to deliver the petitions to the White House on Thursday, February 2.  If you haven’t yet signed our petition, please do so.  And if you have friends you know are concerned about the prospects of a new war in the Middle East, please share this link with them: http://bit.ly/yDlbjn

For the past several weeks, tensions have been rising as a new round of sanctions on Iran were approved and Iran responded with a threat to close the Strait of Hormuz, a move certain to invite a military response from the US.

In Tuesday’s State of the Union address, the President took a menacing tone toward Iran, stating: “Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal.“

The President noted that “peaceful resolution of this issue is still possible, and far better” and he’s certainly right about that.

But wait a minute…the US and Israel seem to agree that Iran has not yet decided whether to become a nuclear weapons state.  Earlier this month on Face the Nation, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta asked and answered the question directly;  “Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No.”  For its part, Israel is reported to have offered the same conclusion to Joint Chief Chair General Martin E. Dempsey last week in the form of an intelligence assessment.

So if Iran isn’t actually trying to develop a nuclear weapon, why all the talk of war?

Thirty-five percent of the world’s seaborne oil shipments, and twenty percent of oil traded worldwide travels through the Strait of Hormuz. It’s a 34-mile stretch of water between Iran and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

In his final State of the Union address in 1980, President Jimmy Carter announced the United States would use military force if necessary to defend its interests in the Persian Gulf region. Today its known as the Carter Doctrine and its objective is to ensure the free flow of oil.

In the 30 years that followed, the US has increased its influence in the region through hundreds of billions of dollars in weapons deals to Gulf states and nations in the Middle East aligned with the US and two wars launched against Iraq.

In December, The Obama administration announced an arms deal with Saudi Arabia valued at nearly $30 billion, an agreement that will send 84 F-15 fighter jets and assorted weaponry to the kingdom. That followed news that the administration was planning to provide the UAE with thousands of advanced “bunker-buster” bombs and other munitions.

Another weapons deal with Bahrain was delayed when Representative James McGovern (D-MA), a close friend of Peace Action, and Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) introduced resolutions to prevent the sale “until meaningful steps are taken to improve human rights” there, a response to Bahrain’s violent suppression of ‘Arab Spring’ activists.

Along with a series of punishing sanctions and US aircraft carrier groups operating in the Gulf, these efforts to bring Iran to heel have done more to set the stage for a military strike than resolve the dispute over Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program.

This policy appears more intent on pushing Iran into the arms of the nuclear genie than it is intent on preventing Iran from joining the so-called ‘nuclear club.’

And North Korea?  The US and its allies have been bargaining with them for over a decade now. They have no oil and no one appears to be losing sleep over their nuclear weapons.

The other key difference is our ‘special relationship’ with Israel. Again, the President in Tuesday’s State of the Union speech: “Our iron-clad commitment to Israel’s security has meant the closest military cooperation between our two countries in history.”

A military strike on Iran – by either the US or Israel – would cause a dramatic spike in the cost of oil, threaten US forces in the area and potentially lead to a prolonged conflict the US can ill-afford.

That’s why Peace Action believes now is the time to act.  We can’t afford to wait until the bombs to drop.