Action Alert: Call Congress and Demand Cuts to Pentagon Pork!

In the next few days the House of Representatives will vote on Pentagon funding. Some of our friends in Congress will offer amendments to cut overflowing Pentagon coffers.

While our communities lack money for vital services, should shoveling more of our tax dollars to the wasteful, reckless Pentagon really be our nation’s priority?”

Make a free call to your Representative NOW at 877-429-0678 and say:

“Please vote for amendments that cut the Pentagon budget without affecting troop benefits and bring all our troops home from Afghanistan before 2014.”

Your Representative is deciding now on how to fund the Pentagon. They need to hear from you that we need more funding for our communities, not for Pentagon waste.  Your Representative will need to decide on how to vote on likely amendments that:

*Bring our troops home from Afghanistan before the President’s deadline of 2014;

*Axe unneeded and wasteful weapons such as the F-35 Jet, V-22 Osprey plane and Abrams tank;

*Cut nuclear weapons and troops abroad.

You can reach your Representative in their Washington, DC office by calling toll-free 877-429-0678 between 9-6 PM Eastern.  Or you can find their local number here:  
http://www.contactingthecongress.org

We will know more about which amendments will make it to the floor on Wednesday and we will post updates on our blog to keep you informed as it happens.

There are only a few times a year that Congress votes on the important Peace Action issues you care about.  Please call now and forward this email to your friends, family and colleagues.

Humbly for Peace,

 

Kevin Martin
Executive Director
Peace Action

P.S. – Stop out-of-control Pentagon spending by calling your Rep. now, toll-free, 877-429-0678 and forward this important email to as many people as possible!

*Thanks to our friends at Friends Committee on National Legislation for the toll-free number.

9 bases in Afghanistan, 1 outside Philadelphia

According to an Associated Press article from last Thursday, Afghanistan’s President Hamid Karzai says the United States wants to keep nine military bases in the country, which Karzai has said could be agreed, with certain conditions (namely the U.S. continuing to provide military training and economic development aid).

We’ll need to press Congress and the Obama Administration on this issue, as zero is the correct number of U.S. bases that should remain. Significantly, the U.S. Embassy spokesperson in Kabul took pains to say the U.S. doesn’t want permanent bases in Afghanistan. Cost and mission will of course be the focus, with cost likely to be the determining factor. Also, a “strategic partnership agreement” should not be the formal document between the two countries, as this avoids the issue of direct Congressional oversight, unlike a treaty, which needs a 2/3 Senate ratification vote. Oh yeah, and tens of thousands of our troops are still there, not all coming home until the end of next year. They should all come home sooner, with no troops remaining. (Another AP article from Saturday covered the negotiations between the two countries on some of these issues.)

Then there are the drone strikes, in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but also Yemen and other countries. So far, the drone bases, as far as we know, have been at U.S. Air Force bases, like Creech in Nevada and Hancock near Syracuse, New York. Comes now a plan to use an Air National Guard Station in Horsham, PA, just north of Philadelphia, as a drone warfare command center.

Not surprisingly, peace activists in the Philadelphia area loathe this idea, as they should (as we all should). Our friends at the Brandywine Peace Community, who have long protested war and the biggest war profiteer, Lockheed Martin (which has a major facility near Philly) and the American Friends Service Committee have called a protest at the Horsham base for Saturday, May 25 at Noon, and then the last Saturday of each month leading up to the proposed opening of the drone command center in October. Here is some info from our friends at Brandywine:

 

 “Extra-judicial assassinations,” “targeted killings,” the “global war on terror,” U.S. Drones (UAVs, or Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) — armed with Lockheed Martin Hellfire missiles — are remotely controlled through space-based satellites(also produced by Lockheed Martin) from command centers in the continental United States,
such as the one planned for the Horsham Air Guard Station outside of Philadelphia.

 

STOP-IT BEFORE IT-STARTS

Drone War Command Center at Horsham Air Guard Station

Sat., May 25, 12Noon  – Protest Demonstrations begin at Horsham Air Guard Station, Easton & County Line Roads, in Horsham, PA , continuing on the last Saturday of each month through September.

For more information: Events at  www.brandywinepeace.com 

 

“Blowback” in Boston, Fort Hood, Iraq, Afghanistan…and Syria?

by Eric Swanson

The term “blowback,” the consequences of a covert or military operation that has repercussions for the aggressor or the result of supplying weapons to a conflict only to see those same weapons turned on the supplier, has been used for decades by national security elites. It has been used long enough that the previous definition of “unknown and unintended consequences” has become obsolete. The consequences are well known and openly discussed in national security circles.

In analyzing the tragedy in Boston, the concept of blowback is made clear in a Washington Post article by Scott Wilson, Greg Miller and Sari Horowitz (April 23 “Boston bombing suspects cite US Wars as motivation, officials say.”)  The surviving suspect told interrogators the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan motivated his actions.  The US engages in war internationally, and local tragedy results.

When one looks at how the US national security apparatus has discussed previous instances of blowback and how it appears they will analyze this horrific event in Boston, they treat blowback as a law of nature, an inevitable consequence of immutable causes; as inexorable as an earthquake, as inescapable as an avalanche. Blowback is something that can be interdicted with good intelligence and vigilant law enforcement. It can be diverted with deft diplomacy. It can be muted some with the appearance of solid multinational alliances. But, in the collective understanding of the US foreign and military officials, blowback can never be prevented, and in fact may just factored in as an externalized cost of US war-making. So, in this case, it’s the innocent civilians in the Boston area who paid the cost.

We have seen blowback in the 2004 killing of US contractors in Fallujah, Iraq, the shooting deaths of 13 people and the wounding of 30 more at Fort Hood, Texas in 2009, and the proliferation of drone technology with drones now seen in the hands of non-state actors in just the last few days. At this point there is nothing unpredictable about it. Violence committed and weapons technology sold will pay in kind.

Blowback isn’t a law of nature. It is the predictable result of specific policy decisions. It is mutable. Drones flying overhead and raining death on a civilian population creates, understandably, anti-US sentiment. Wholesale aggressive destruction of entire villages, cities, and regions creates fear, anger, and yes, terror. And that creates individuals and populations ready to send that terror back.

These are equations that can be changed. Moving away from a militarized foreign policy moves us away from blowback. Moving away from selling arms to parties in conflict zones moves us away from blowback. Moving away from accepting our current policies as good business and expecting blowback as the cost of doing that business moves us away from that day when tragedy becomes the norm.

In just the last two days we are seeing the next possible incarnation of blowback as the US ramps up hawk-ish talk about the conflict in Syria. Whether the US floods weapons into the country or directly intervenes with military force there will be consequences. Under those conditions there will be blowback. But, as it is predictable, it is also preventable with a sane foreign policy that isn’t based on militarism and short-term profit but on restraint, humility, diplomacy and international cooperation.

 

Eric Swanson has served as Peace Action’s Database Manager since 1998. He served in the US Army from 1987-1990. Peace Action is the country’s largest peace and disarmament organization with over 200,000 members, donors and online supporters.
http://www.peace-action.org/

 

That’s Where the Money Goes – Larry Wittner, Peace Action board member, on Huffington Post

Great piece on Huffington Post, as always, by SUNY-Albany emeritus professor of history and politics and Peace Action board member Larry Wittner, on U.S. and global military spending.

According to a report just released by the highly-respected Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), world military expenditures in 2012 totaled $1.75 trillion.

The report revealed that, as in recent decades, the world’s biggest military spender by far was the U.S. government, whose expenditures for war and preparations for war amounted to $682 billion — 39 percent of the global total. The United States spent more than four times as much on the military as China (the number two big spender) and more than seven times as much as Russia (which ranked third). Although the military expenditures of the United States dipped a bit in 2012, largely thanks to the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, they remained 69 percent higher than in 2001.

U.S. military supremacy is even more evident when the U.S. military alliance system is brought into the picture, for the United States and its allies accounted for the vast bulk of world military spending in 2012. NATO members alone spent a trillion dollars on the military.

Thus, although studies have found that the United States ranks 17th among nations in education, 26th in infant mortality, and 37th in life expectancy and overall health, there is no doubt that it ranks first when it comes to war.

This Number 1 status might not carry much weight among Americans scavenging for food in garbage dumpsters, among Americans unable to afford medical care, or among Americans shivering in poorly heated homes. Even many Americans in the more comfortable middle class might be more concerned with how they are going to afford the skyrocketing costs of a college education, how they can get by with fewer teachers, firefighters, and police in their communities, and how their hospitals, parks, roads, bridges, and other public facilities can be maintained.

Of course, there is a direct connection between the massive level of U.S. military spending and belt-tightening austerity at home: most federal discretionary spending goes for war.

The Lockheed Martin Corporation’s new F-35 joint strike fighter plane provides a good example of the U.S. government’s warped priorities. It is estimated that this military weapons system will cost the U.S. government $1.5 trillion by the time of its completion. Does this Cold War-style warplane, designed for fighting enemies the U.S. government no longer faces, represent a good investment for Americans? After twelve years of production, costing $396 billion, the F-35 has exhibited numerous design and engineering flaws, has been grounded twice, and has never been flown in combat. Given the immense military advantage the United States already has over all other nations in the world, is this most expensive weapons system in world history really necessary? And aren’t there other, better things that Americans could be doing with their money?

Of course, the same is true for other countries. Is there really any justification for the nations of Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America to be increasing their level of military spending –as they did in 2012 – while millions of their people live in dire poverty? Projections indicate that, by 2015, about a billion people around the world will be living on an income of about $1.25 per day. When, in desperation, they riot for bread, will the government officials of these nations, echoing Marie Antoinette, suggest that they eat the new warplanes and missiles?

President Dwight Eisenhower put it well in an address before the American Society of Newspaper Editors 60 years ago:

“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed … This world in arms is not spending money alone; it is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children … This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.”

 

That sentiment persists. On April 15, 2013, people in 43 countries participated in a Global Day of Action on Military Spending, designed to call attention to the squandering of the world’s resources on war. Among these countries was the United States, where polls show that 58 percent of Americans favor major reductions in U.S. military spending.

How long will it take the governments of the United States and of other nations to catch up with them?

Lawrence Wittner is Professor of History emeritus at SUNY/Albany. His latest book is Working for Peace and Justice: Memoirs of an Activist Intellectual (University of Tennessee Press).

This Blogger’s Books from

Confronting the Bomb: A Short History of the World Nuclear Disarmament Movement (Stanford Nuclear Age Series)
by Lawrence Wittner

Toward Nuclear Abolition: A History of the World Nuclear Disarmament Movement, 1971-Present (Stanford Nuclear Age Series)
by Lawrence S. Wittner 

Tax Day and The Pentagon. Op-Ed on Common Dreams

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/04/14-1

Published on Sunday, April 14, 2013 by Common Dreams

Tax Day and the Pentagon

by Kevin Martin

This month, as budget and policy issues in Washington muddle along inconclusively as usual, grassroots peace activists are busy organizing, educating, protesting and lobbying.

Last weekend, Historians Against the War hosted an ambitious, illuminating conference at Towson University north of Baltimore on “The New Faces of War” with speakers and participants examining rapidly-changing foreign and domestic policies.

Anti-Nuclear activists will converge on Washington next week for the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability’s D.C. Days, for strategizing, training and lobbying on nuclear weapons, power, waste and cleanup issues.

Around the country, peace and social justice organizers will convene local actions on Tax Day, April 15, to educate taxpayers on the country’s skewed budget priorities that favor the Pentagon over human and environmental needs. This year, April 15 is also the Global Day of Action on Military Spending, with activities around the world and in over 30 U.S. states drawing attention to the world’s addiction to militarism and exorbitant “defense” budgets. If you can’t organize or attend a Tax Day event, you can still join our Thunderclap “It’s Our Tax Day, Not Theirs” online social media action.

The prestigious, independent Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) will release its annual report on world military expenditures on Monday, which will show the United States continues to spend over 40% of the world’s $1.7 trillion annually allocated to weapons and war. Randy Schutt of Cleveland Peace Action put together an impressive article titled Our Tax Dollars are off the War – 2013 edition on Daily Kos with charts, graphs and citations comparing U.S. military spending to the rest of the world, and to domestic spending, which serves as a nice complement to the upcoming SIPRI report.

Lastly, an impressive national coalition has come together to organize days of action throughout the month to stop U.S. drone warfare.

All these actions focus on crucial issues, and they come at a time when there is hope not just to impact those specific policies, but when a confluence of events give us an opportunity not seen in at least a decade to fundamentally question the mission and role of the U.S. military in both domestic and foreign policy.

In short, it’s time for the Pentagon to stop weaving all over the road, to get back in its lane, and to stay there.

On domestic policy, the most obvious issue is the metastasis of the Pentagon budget, which has doubled since 9/11. The total “national security budget,” which includes not just the Pentagon but also intelligence agencies, Department of Homeland Security and nuclear weapons spending under the Department of Energy is over $1 trillion per year. Globally, the U.S. accounts for about 43% of total military spending, and more than the next 13 countries (most of which are U.S. allies) combined. The opportunity cost of this Pentagon pig-out is investment in the things we really need to make our country more secure – improved education, health care, jobs, rebuilding our infrastructure and addressing climate change.

While not necessarily the fault of the Pentagon, a creeping militarization of social policy, as seen in policing, prisons, the “war on drugs” and immigration, among other areas, is cause for grave concern and corrective action.

Constitutionally, the arrogation of power by the Obama Administration to assassinate anyone, anywhere on the planet, anytime it wants to by drones or other weapons with little or no congressional or judicial oversight can hardly be what the president ran on as “change you can believe in.”

(The president’s home state senator and former colleague, Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin, plans a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearing later this month to address this issue, including the Administration’s assertion of the Authorization of the Use of Military Force after 9/11 as the legal justification for drone strikes in countries with which we are not at war.)

Militarization of U.S. foreign policy has been a bipartisan project since at least the end of World War II. And perhaps that’s not surprising for a country founded on and consolidated by the extreme violence of the genocide of the First Americans and imposition of slavery on Africans brought here in chains.

Quick, name the last real diplomatic success by the United States. Anything really significant since Carter’s Camp David peace accords between Egypt and Israel? That was in 1978 (and of course Palestine is still waiting for justice while Israel gets over $3 billion in U.S. military aid annually).

Look at U.S. foreign policy under our current Nobel Peace Prize laureate president. It’s less obviously and ham-handedly belligerent than Bush’s, okay. But in addition to ongoing drone strikes in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and other countries, he says “all options are on the table” with regard to Iran’s nuclear program, when even military leaders themselves say there is no military solution, only a diplomatic one. The U.S. and South Korea evidently think putting out the fire with gasoline is the right approach to North Korea’s nuclear test and recent threats, evidenced by ongoing war games, simulated nuclear attacks on the North using B-2 and B-52 bombers, and rushing F-22 fighter jets to South Korea to beef up the already robust U.S. military presence in the region as part of the “Asia-Pacific Pivot” aimed at isolating our main banker, China. And last but not least, despite voting for the Arms Trade Treaty at the United Nations this week, the U.S. remains the world’s number one exporter of conventional weapons.

Certainly the tens of millions of dollars annually spent on lobbying and campaign contributions by the largest war profiteers — Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, Raytheon and others — have a toxic effect on our national priorities. It’s doubly galling, in that their profits come almost entirely from military contracts paid for by our tax dollars, which they then use to impact legislation and elections to benefit their interests, to the detriment of those of the taxpaying public.

It is not necessary to pinpoint cause and effect on this state of affairs, where Pentagon interests and macho militarist approaches seemingly run roughshod over everything else, to declare that it is wrong, and needs to be changed. And there is no blame, only respect, for those serving in the military, who need the very best care we can provide as they return home from our misguided wars and far-flung military bases abroad (over 800 of them!).

So what is the mission of the U.S. military supposed to be? According to United States law, it is “Preserving the peace and security and providing for the defense of the United States, the Commonwealths and possessions and any areas occupied by the United States; Supporting the national policies; Implementing the national objectives; Overcoming any nations responsible for aggressive acts that imperil the peace and security of the United States.”

I see nothing there about “full-spectrum dominance” of the rest of the world, as the Pentagon’s joint Vision 20/20 doctrine released in 2000 advocates, and which has seemingly become the military’s de facto mission.

Regardless of what anyone in the military says its mission is, they work for us, the taxpayers that provide their salaries and buy their weapons. So we can overrule them and force the Pentagon to reduce its role and get back in its lane.

It shouldn’t be hard to see how we can get the Pentagon back in its lane, and let more peaceful, just and sustainable priorities prevail in our domestic and foreign policies. Slash the Pentagon budget by at least 25%, and invest those savings in human and environmental needs in order to jump start our economy. Let diplomacy take precedence in foreign policy over military threats and false solutions. I suspect many people, even in the military hierarchy, might welcome such a reduced role in U.S. policy, and in the world. It must be tiring driving all over the road. Staying in one’s own lane can have its advantages.

Kevin Martin is Executive Director of Peace Action, the country’s largest peace and disarmament organization with 100,000 members and over 70,000 on-line supporters.

.

On Wisconsin! Another Op-Ed in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, This One on Drones

Peace Action Wisconsin has been doing some slammin’ media work lately, here’s another op-ed in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, this one on drones, by PA WI board member Conor McMullen.

After years of slumber, Congress is finally starting to wake up to its responsibilities to question the legality, the wisdom and the morality of the administration’s officially and absurdly “secret war” using drone strikes to try to kill alleged members of terrorist groups in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, far from any legally recognizable battlefield.

When President Barack Obama nominated John Brennan to head the CIA, which has been carrying out the officially “secret” drone strike policy, a bipartisan group of 11 senators wrote to the administration and said: You need to hand over to Congress the secret memos written by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel that purport to justify the legality of the drone strike policy, which we have been seeking for more than a year. If you don’t hand over the memos, they said, Brennan’s nomination could be in trouble.

As a result of the threat, the administration finally shared some of the memos with the Senate and House Intelligence Committees, which are supposed to oversee the CIA. The administration still has not shared the memos with the Judiciary Committees, which are supposed to oversee the Justice Department, which produced the memos, even though Attorney General Eric Holder admitted in Senate testimony that access to the memos was necessary to understand the policy.

Some members of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees have threatened to issue subpoenas for the drone strike memos if the administration doesn’t hand them over, but they have not yet followed through. Wisconsin Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner is a member of the House Judiciary Committee; he could be doing more to press the administration to release the memos to the committee.

When the Senate Intelligence Committee asked Brennan if the administration was claiming that it had the legal authority to conduct drone strikes in the United States, Brennan answered: “This administration has not carried out drone strikes inside the United States and has no intention of doing so.” That was clearly a dodge of the question.

The question wasn’t about what the administration intended to do. The question was about what legal authority the administration was claiming. The Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, has claimed that the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force, passed days after the Sept. 11 attacks, legalized a global war without borders in every corner of Earth. This claim logically begs the question: If the war is legal everywhere on Earth, does that include the U.S.? If not, why not? If it does not include the U.S., what exactly does it include?

Brennan’s subsequent confirmation shouldn’t mean the end of congressional scrutiny of this policy, and it won’t. On April 16, the Constitution subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee is holding its first ever public hearing on the drone strike policy. This subcommittee is chaired by Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, and the hearing is expected to include witnesses who can testify to the reality of who is being targeted by drone strikes and who is being killed.

Until now, the administration has publicly claimed that only top terrorist leaders are being targeted and that civilian casualties have been extremely rare. But the record of independent reporting suggests that the standards for targeting have been extremely loose – something along the lines of “military age male in an area controlled by insurgents who looks like a terrorist” – and that civilian casualties have been quite common, with around 20% of the killings from CIA drone strikes in Pakistan since 2004 being civilians.

Progressive Students of Milwaukee and Peace Action Wisconsin are sponsoring a public forum Thursday on the drone strike policy. We’ll be discussing what is known about the policy from independent reporting and what the public can do to help bring this policy into transparent compliance with U.S. and international law.

Conor McMullen is a student at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and a member of Progressive Students of Milwaukee.

Believe it or not, Congress has your budget – Take Action now to support the Back to Work Budget!

That’s right the Congressional Progressive Caucus just released its alternative budget called the Back to Work Budget which cuts Pentagon bloat, makes the wealthy pay their fair share and protects Social Security and Medicare benefits for everyone.  On the other hand, Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget would dismember Medicare, slash spending on education and infant nutrition, and repeal ObamaCare.  Which one more represents your values?

These budgets could be voted on soon, so call your Representative now at (202) 224-3121 and ask them to support the “Back to Work Budget” by the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

The “Back to Work” budget saves money by fully funding troop withdrawal from Afghanistan within a year, significantly reducing the Nuclear Weapons complex, cutting private contractors and wasteful weapons systems all while protecting important veterans benefits.

Additionally, the Back to Work Budget provides a roadmap to economic recovery and progress.  It will create 7 million jobs in the first year, bring in taxes by closing corporate tax loopholes and taxes on those who can afford it, preserve services our people depend on, and balance the budget.

Please call the Congressional Hotline at (202) 224-3121 between 9 AM and 6 PM EDT.  They will connect you to your Representative.  Or you may click here to find the direct line to your Rep. and possibly leave a message after hours.

Now is the time to for your voice to be heard as Rep. Ryan wants to destroy Medicare so the ultra-wealthy can have tax breaks and some Democrats are willing to make weak compromises.  Call now to support the progressive solutions in the Back to Work Budget.

For a more just budget,

Paul Kawika Martin
Political Director
Peace Action

P.S. – Votes are expected soon on the U.S. budget.  Call your Representative now to support the “Back to Work Budget” which cuts wasteful Pentagon spending and protects vital services Americans depend on.

Lockheed Martin Made How Much Money Last Year? And They Still Need to Shake Down Maryland Taxpayers?

Thanks for Stephen Miles of Win Without War for this legwork. To put this amount of money in context, Lockheed Martin’s sales last year were more than double the gross domestic product for the country of Afghanistan. And Lockheed needs $1.4 million in corporate welfare from me and other Maryland taxpayers (whose federal tax dollars already fund Lockheed’s war profiteering)? Seems they need to look up “chutzpah” in the dictionary.

From LM’s 2012 Annual Report and 2013 Proxy Statement. A few fun facts to keep in mind.

- 2012 was another banner year for LM with a record sales of $47.2
billion.
- Former LM CEO Robert Stevens actually did see a dip in his pay last
year, bringing in a meager $16.5 million in total compensation. Rest easy
though as LM’s Proxy Statement indicates he’s in for a golden parachute of
$36.6 million. He’ll also continue to earn a healthy salary in his new role
as Executive Chairman of LM’s Board of Directors.
- In 2012, LM increased its dividend by 15%, representing the 10th
consecutive annual double-digit percentage increase in dividends
- LM ended 2012 with a total backlog of $82.3 billion (another record,
up from $80.7 b in 2011), $35.0 or 43% of this is expected to be converted
to sales in 2013. The majority of this backlog is already funded ($54.8 b).
The backlog only includes firm orders and does not include existing
unexercised options or potential indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity
orders.
- As in 2011, LM earned 82% of its sales directly from the US government
(61% from DoD), 17% from international sales (roughly half of which were
Foreign Military Sales contracted with the US government and half were
Direct Commercial Sales) and 1% from everything else. Bonus points to
anyone who can figure out how much of that 17% in international sales is
derived from foreign military assistance funding (ie money the US gives
other countries to buy weapons from us).

Peace Action and Peace Action Education Fund’s 2013 Campaign Plans

The political frame of our work is building a new, more peaceful, less militaristic U.S. foreign policy based on democracy, human rights, justice and sustainability. This framework can help us reach new audiences, members, supporters and coalition partners, especially in our Move the Money campaign and, potentially, a new campaign of boycott and divestment targeting corporations invested in nuclear weapons.

 

Organizational Development Priorities for 2013: Goals: Increase integration between organizing, educational, legislative and organizational development efforts. Promote more effective collaboration between and among the affiliate network and national office for greater national impact. Realize a net increase of national PA/PAEF members and donors by at least 5% to approximately 10,200, also continue increase in the number of major donors. Realize a net increase of at least 5% in national PA/PAEF Action Alert e-subscriber list to approximately 71,000.

 

Key Strategies and Tactics:

 

-Implement initiatives for consistency in building the member/donor base, including major donors and online donors, building online e-activist lists, recruiting new affiliates, chapters and associate member organizations.

 

-Continue process of more coordination of campaign efforts from local to national level for bigger PA political impact.

 

-Also, related to this, continue to improve regular member/donor data exchanges between national PA and affiliates.

 

-  Continue to work with affiliates on win-win joint fundraising, member/donor acquisition and list-building strategies. Conduct pilot projects in Massachusetts and New Jersey, as well as other one-time or ad hoc efforts with other affiliates. -  Schedule next round of organizational development retreats for late summer and fall.  Proposed regions: Big Sky Country (West Coast, Rocky Mountain. Great Plains & Southwest) and Mid-Atlantic/Upper South.

 

-  Continue ongoing consultation and support for affiliates on organizational development priorities by national staff, and also affiliate to affiliate skill-share collaborations.

 

-  Coordinate communications and media work jointly with affiliate network with focus on the letter to the editor/op-ed campaign. Affiliates agreed to set goals for number of LTEs & op-eds based on the North Carolina Peace Action campaign model. A conference call briefing with North Carolina leaders will be held. Work closely with allies and media consultants on placement of LTEs and op-eds. Key is targeting Senators/Representatives in the content as part of Congressional pressure work.

 

 

Program Priorities for 2013

 

I.                   Move the Money/Cut Pentagon spending – Policy Goal: Cut Pentagon budget by at least 25%.

 

Campaign overview: A multiyear process to fulfill the Peace Action’s Long Range Strategic Plan which says, “Cutting unnecessary and self-defeating military spending will enable us to free up resources to address our real needs at home—decent jobs, quality schools for our children, universal health care, affordable housing, and a sustainable environment. In short, reordering our nation’s priorities–away from militarism and towards peace and justice–will make the world safer and our lives better. 

 

Key strategies:

• Organizing alliances and coalitions to build pressure on Congress.

• Promote grassroots organizing to demilitarize the federal budget as a critical step towards de-militarizing foreign policy.

• Develop local and national initiatives to promote solutions, programs and research into the transition from an economy dependent on military corporations for good jobs to a sustainable, green economy.

 

2013 Plans:

 

Federal budget debate: Prioritize engagement in the federal budget debate from national to local level. Provide materials and information for local organizing, which is focused on joining with allies in the environment, faith-based labor, economic, immigrant and racial justice groups to change national spending priorities.

 

Legislative and electoral action: Build support for Congressional Progressive Caucus alternative budget, Balancing Act, Audit the Pentagon Act and amendments to National Defense Authorization Bill that cut Pentagon spending and the SANE Act (or other bills introduced) to cut money for nuclear weapons. Target key members of Congress with LTEs/op-eds, lobbying, town hall meetings, etc. Begin to prepare for 2014 Congressional mid-term elections. Promote local Move the Money resolutions and work with local elected officials.

 

Promote initiatives that spur on federal action to transition to a “new economy” focused on workers and their communities who are impacted by cuts in the Pentagon budget. Develop special ways to circulate the “jobs transition” proposal by the Institute for Policy Studies.

 

Alliance building: Strengthen and initiate relationships with a core group of economic and racial justice groups, environmental and labor on national and local levels. Continue to build the New Priorities Network, work with the Budget Priorities Working Group and join coalitions that emerge in the course of the federal budget fights. Serve as U.S. coordinator for the Global Day of Action on Military Spending on April 15, Tax Day. Maintain a Wiki to record our progress,

 

Base building: Conduct yearlong campaign with goals on LTE and Op-eds.  Plan a series of webinars to promote common messaging. Continue the Move the Money trainings with National Priorities Project with a focus on targeted Congressional districts and to strengthen the work of Peace Action affiliates. Develop or participate in one online campaign to build Peace Action elists.

 

Produce and organize a national distribution of the Fund our Communities yard signs designed in 2012. Produce a Move the Money promotional brochure. Create a Wiki site to share new materials, presentations, articles and other resources as well as collect information on progress in local organizing.

 

II.                Ending the war in Afghanistan – Policy Goals: advocate earlier withdrawal (than the president’s timeline of the end of 2014); oppose enduring presence of up to 25,000 troops for a decade. Support legislation to fund Afghanistan civil society-led development efforts.

 

Legislative action: Focus on pressuring the administration regarding residual forces – no decision made yet on how many troops/contractors will be staying behind; originally 25,000 was the number floated around – now 0 – 15,000 = somewhat of win and clearly open to public opinion. –   Pressure Congress to tell the president: no contractors or troops left behind.  

-   Support Rep. Barbara Lee’s legislation: HR 200, Responsible End to the War in Afghanistan Act (same as previous) – 70 co-sponsors last session – Goal: at least 100 –  Support various amendments in the authorization and appropriation processes regarding quicker troop withdrawal, no residual forces or permanent bases and support for Afghan-led development -  Keep Afghanistan in the media

-Continue to lead Afghanistan Policy Working Group            

 

III.  Stopping Drone Warfare and Surveillance

 Legislative action:  Top 3 ideas for action or Congressional pressure:          1. Call on Congress for more transparency on the decision making process of the administration/Pentagon/CIA on how/when drones are used (the military and CIA have separate drone campaigns). 2. Get armed drones out of CIA completely. 3. Bring up this issue in the media in a more in-depth way. Media paying more attention as are members of Congress.

 

Base building and alliance building: main tactics are public education and media work. Participate in and promote April Days of Action against drones, targeting bases, corporations and universities engaged in drone warfare and research.

 

IV.             Building Peace with Iran – Policy Goals: Build support for diplomacy, prevent military intervention and end sanctions that hurt the Iranian people.

 

-  Legislative Action: Build support for Rep. Barbara Lee’s Diplomacy with Iran legislation. Oppose AIPAC legislative proposals designating Israel as a “major strategic ally” of the U.S. and calling for U.S. support if Israel attacks Iran.

-Media Action Opportunities: -  Next round of P5+1 talks Feb. 26; Op-eds before, during, after talks and LTE on stories on need for diplomacy.

 

-Netanyahu put summer deadline on Iran halting enrichment – may be stepping back from this so watch as gets closer, again mostly a media opportunity.

-  Weapons of Mass Destruction Free Zone in the Middle East conference to be held in Finland has not yet been rescheduled, we’ll support if and when it happens. Possible NGO side summit we might promote and participate in, otherwise mostly a media opportunity.

            V. Nuclear Disarmament

 

1. Campaign Goals

 

A. Radically Downsize the Budget for Nuclear Weapons “Modernization” of the Production Complex and Delivery Systems

           

Cutting the Nuclear Weapons Complex

-Stop construction of new nuclear weapons facilities that would increase nuclear weapons production capacity, the CMRR at Los Alamos, NM, and the UPF at Oak Ridge, TN.

-Stop Life Extension Programs for obsolete weapons, or that would make changes to a warhead giving it new capabilities, such as LEPs for the B61 and the W78.

-Increase funding for dismantlement and increase dismantlement rates.

-Stop the MOX fuel fabrication program and construction of the fuel fabrication facility.

-Redirect funding from MOX to and increase funding for genuine nonproliferation programs.

 

Cutting Boondoggle Delivery Systems

-Cut funds for the planned fleet of 80-100 new long-range bombers

-Cut funds for the planned fleet of 12 new ballistic (SSBNX) submarines

 

B. Obama Administration Executive Actions

 

• Push the Obama administration to issue a nuclear “policy directive” that moves nuclear policy towards a nuclear weapons free world
• Have the President direct the Pentagon to change targeting requirements and take the nuclear alert posture off of hair trigger alert.
• Push the Obama administration to start negotiations with Russia that reduce nuclear weapons stockpiles further, and include all types of nuclear weapons (e.g. tactical and reserve)
• Push the Obama administration and members of Congress to keep emphasis on the ultimate goal of getting to zero.
• Push the administration to quickly get to New Start Stockpile Levels
  
  

2.  Strategies, Outputs, Activities

 

Increase congressional support for changing priorities in the nuclear weapons budget, cut funding for facilities and programs that undermine nonproliferation and disarmament, and increase/preserve increases for nonproliferation and disarmament.

 

A. Leadership Strategy:

 

• Build robust grassroots/grasstops coalitions in districts to push MOCs with credibility to become stronger champions on nukes spending, new “Markeys” (First half of the year, tell MOCs how to take pro-active steps. Lay groundwork for specific decisions made (e.g. amendments to cut money) in second half of the year)

 

Possible Targets:Rep. Loretta Sanchez, Rep. Adam Smith, Rep. Marcy Kaptur, Democratic Senators

 

• OUTPUTS
  • Letter to the President supporting the Prague Agenda
  • Author Dear Colleagues about further cuts
    • Dear Colleagues to Committees recommending specific cuts?
  • Introduce Legislation
    • SANE Act Style?
    • More specific short list of cuts?
    • Topline number cut?
  • Introduce Amendments in Committees/Floor
  • OpEds around nuclear or budget hooks in news

• ACTIVITIES
  • Find new grasstops, build list of in-district assets
  • Travel into the district to meet in person
  • Set up and attend in-district meetings with MOCs/Staff
  • Set up Virtual Lobby meetings with DC Staff
  • Group Sign-on letters
  • OpEds/LTEs
  • Phonebanking: push calls into the MOCs office
  • Keep indistrict assets informed on breaking news, opportunities to weigh in with MOCs
  • Sample Email alerts, press releases, postcards, other advocacy resources
  • Educational events
  • Media events

B. Budget-Power Targets/ Grassroots Pressure Strategy

 

• Build constituent contact in districts to push MOCs that are targets of the larger nukes budget campaign. Pressure them to support the targeted cuts prioritized by the nukes budget campaign. (Second half of the year- Committee decisions on Approps/Authorization bills, push to get votes on bills/amendments.)

 

• Targets Sens Corker & Alexander, Sen Def Approps, House Def Approps

• OUTPUTS
  • Get Committees to vote for cuts (less likely on the Floor)
  • Introduce amendments in Committee

 

• ACTIVITIES
  • Find grasstops, build list of in-district assets, relationships from New START efforts
  • Nationwide In-district lobby days
    • Focus on grasstops in target districts having in-district meetings w/ MOCs/staff
  • OpEds/LTEs in local media
  • Phonebanking: paid or coordinated phonebanking into district before committee votes with general message
  • Group Sign-on letters
  • Keep in-district assets informed on breaking news, opportunities to weigh in with MOCs
  • Sample Email alerts, press releases, postcards, other advocacy resources

 

 

Possible New “Don’t bank on the Bomb” Boycott/Divestment Campaign

 

National PA/PAEF staff, in consultation with affiliate leaders and our Nuclear Disarmament Strategy Group, will decide in the first half of 2013 whether to launch a new boycott/divestment campaign targeting not only nuclear weapons corporations, but the companies that finance them.  If we go forward the campaign would likely be a mostly educational, public relations, online/social media campaign. It could have two possible levels: a “broad brush” listing of all companies in the Don’t Bank on the Bomb report, and also a more targeted approach (Bank of America or Wells Fargo and TIAA-CREF, for example). The campaign would afford us possible opportunities to build alliances with other boycott/divestment or corporate accountability campaigns and perhaps bring new folks into nuclear disarmament work.

 

 

VI.             Peace Voter

 

–Participate in special elections such as helping Rep. Markey in his Senate race in Massachusetts. Be prepared for other possible special election opportunities.

 

–Fundraise for Peace Action PAC.

 

–Plan and prepare for 2014.

A bit more on military and foreign policy in the State of the Union

Just a few points to add to Brother Matt Rothschild’s comprehensive commentary on the speech:

It took the president almost 45 minutes to mention foreign policy. Understandably, he still wants to focus on the economy, but this seemed extreme, especially since there is no good reason to “silo” domestic and foreign policy when there are great opportunities to connect the dots. For instance, the president’s mention of rebuilding our infrastructure, and specifically repairing 70,000 bridges in this country – great! Why not connect that with the need to drastically cut Pentagon spending in order to reinvest in community needs, stimulate the economy and create jobs? Why not bring the troops home from Afghanistan sooner, some of them can surely help rebuild bridges? The answer of course is the president is far too timid and afraid to take on the military-industrial complex (or by this point he is just “one of them”).

On Afghanistan, the “No drama Obama, I got this, we’re ending two wars” act is wearing thin. The president seems to want kudos for announcing that 34,000 troops will come home from Afghanistan in a year (meaning about that many would remain until the end of 2014, and then the Pentagon wants 8,000 or more to stay after the “end of the war.”).

Sorry, but I think it’s incumbent on the president to make the case why U.S. troops should continue to fight, kill and die in this pointless war for almost another two years. Polls show a solid majority of the public want all the troops, not half of them, home in a year. The president needs to listen to the public, not the generals and their talk of “fighting seasons” and foot-dragging on troop withdrawal.

The president’s quick “you can trust me” justification on drones, kill lists and targeted assassinations was abominable. This issue is moving rapidly at the grassroots, in the media and even in Congress, and the administration surely knows it is on very shaky moral and legal ground.

There was nothing new on any olive branch or changed policy on Iran in advance of the next round of negotiations later this month. Maybe that’s okay, the negotiating stance will be more important than anything he could have announced in the speech.

On nuclear disarmament, the administration evidently decided to back off earlier plans to specify a modest proposal to cut deployed strategic nuclear weapons by about one-third, to 1,000 – 1,100 warheads, instead only mentioning pursuing further reductions with Russia. This was likely a political choice not to raise Republican hackles, but once again shows timidity. Going deeper with nuclear weapons reductions, initiating negotiations on a Nuclear Weapons Convention to eliminate nukes worldwide, scrapping plans to “modernize” the entire nuclear weapons production complex and arsenal (with a projected price tag of over $200 billion over the next decade) – all of these should be on the table and need U.S. leadership, and would be wildly popular in the U.S. and around the world.

Lastly, I couldn’t help but think that when the president said, “we’ll maintain the best military the world has ever known,” the world must have said, “uh oh!”