On the 10th Anniversary of the Disastrous War on Iraq, We Must Learn from and Not Repeat Our Mistakes

At a recent meeting in Washington to discuss overall peace movement strategy moving forward (more on that soon!), our colleague and friend Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies agreed to write a brief statement on the tenth anniversary of the U.S. war of aggression on Iraq. We signed on as did a number of esteemed colleagues, and The Nation published it a few hours ago. I urge you to read and circulate the whole piece, it’s not long. It begins thusly:

“It didn’t take long for the world to recognize that the US invasion and occupation of Iraq constituted a dumb war, as then Senator Barack Obama put it. But “dumb” wasn’t the half of it.

The US war against Iraq was illegal and illegitimate. It violated the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions and a whole host of international laws and treaties. It violated US laws and our Constitution with impunity. And it was all based on lies: about nonexistent links between Iraq and Al Qaeda, about never-were ties between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, about Iraq’s invisible weapons of mass destruction and about Baghdad’s supposed nuclear program, with derivative lies about uranium yellowcake from Niger and aluminum rods from China. There were lies about US troops being welcomed in the streets with sweets and flowers, and lies about thousands of jubilant Iraqis spontaneously tearing down the statue of a hated dictator.

And then there was the lie that the US could send hundreds of thousands of soldiers and billions of dollars worth of weapons across the world to wage war on the cheap. We didn’t have to raise taxes to pay the almost one trillion dollars the Iraq war has cost so far, we could go shopping instead.

But behind these myths the costs were huge—human, economic and more. More than a million US troops were deployed to Iraq; 4,483 were killed; 33,183 were wounded and more than 200,000 came home with PTSD. The number of Iraqi civilians killed is still unknown; at least 121,754 are known to have been killed directly during the US war, but hundreds of thousands more died from crippling sanctions, diseases caused by dirty water when the US destroyed the water treatment system and the inability to get medical help because of exploding violence.”

Also writing on this anniversary for Time magazine, former Sane/Freeze Executive Director and Peace Action Education Fund board member David Cortright, now with the University of Notre Dame’s Kroc Institute for Peace, warns against the possibility of another disastrous military attack, this time on Iran, as many misguided warmongers currently advocate. Unfortunately, 63 U.S. senators already are co-sponsors of a resolution pledging U.S. support for Israel should it attack Iran. Senator Chuck Schumer of New York has gone so far as to send letters to constituents with the erroneous information that Iran has a nuclear weapons capability. Apparently he thinks he knows something the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is carrying out ongoing inspections in Iran, and the U.S. intelligence community, which not only says Iran lacks such capacity but also has not made a decision to pursue nuclear weapons capability, don’t know.

The facts are this – Iran has no nuclear weapons, while Israel has at least a few hundred.

Negotiations with Iran are currently somewhat promising, so President Obama would do well to ignore this unsolicited “advice” from the Senate.

Lastly, David’s colleague at Notre Dame, Mary Ellen O’Connell, succinctly outlines the case that an Israeli attack on Iran over concerns about its nuclear program would be illegal, published on the Syracuse University Law School’s website. 

On this sad anniversary we must acknowledge the huge debt we owe the people of Iraq, while foreswearing making the same mistake again.

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!”

 

Towards a Foreign Policy for the 99%

published by Foreign Policy in Focus

Towards a Foreign Policy for the 99 Percent

By Kevin Martin, December 18, 2012

Relief, rather than elation, was probably the emotion most U.S. peace activists felt when President Barack Obama won re-election. While Obama has been very disappointing on most peace issues, Mitt Romney would have been all the worse. So what now to expect from a second Obama term?

Most likely, more of the same; anyone expecting Obama to be decidedly more pro-peace this time around is likely to be sorely dispirited. However, there is a diverse, growing peoples’ movement in the United States linking human and environmental needs with a demand to end our wars and liberate the vast resources they consume. This, combined with budgetary pressures that should dictate at least modest cuts in the gargantuan Pentagon budget, could lead to serious constraints on new militaristic ventures such as an attack on Iran, “modernization” of the entire U.S. nuclear weapons enterprise at a cost of over $200 billion, a permanent U.S. force of up to 25,000 troops in Afghanistan after 2014, or an absurd military “pivot” toward the Asia-Pacific aimed at isolating Russia and especially China.

We in the peace movement need to be able to think, and act, with both a short- and long-term perspective. In the near term, swiftly ending the war in Afghanistan and ensuring no long-term U.S./NATO troop presence, stopping drone strikes, preventing a war with Iran and building support for a WMD-free zone in the Middle East, pushing for serious cuts to the Pentagon budget, and advocating progress toward nuclear disarmament will consume most of our energies. Renewed emphasis on a just and lasting peace between Palestine and Israel should also garner more attention and activism. Finally, peace activists will need to lend solidarity those working to save social programs from austerity-minded elites and to address climate chaos.

In the longer term, we need to hasten what Professor Johann Galtung calls “The Decline of the U.S. Empire and the Flowering of the U.S. Republic.” We have an opportunity in opposing the outrageous “Asia-Pacific Pivot,” which the military-industrial complex has concocted without asking the American people if we support it or want to continue borrowing from China to pay for it (too weird, right?). We can point out the insanity of this policy, but we can also devise a better alternative, including building solidarity with the peoples of Okinawa, Jeju Island, Guam, the Philippines, Hawaii, and other nations in the region opposing the spread of U.S. militarism and advocating peaceful relations with China.

Defining the Democratic Deficit

This pivot is just the latest example of the fundamentally undemocratic nature of U.S. foreign policy.

The more we in the peace movement can point out that our tax dollars fund policies contrary to our interests, the easier it will be not just to build specific campaigns for more peaceful and just policies, but also to create a new vision for our country’s role in the world—to create a new foreign policy for the 99 percent.

So we peace activists need to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. We need to offer credible, sustainable alternatives on the issues listed above, with specific actions ordinary people can take that make a difference. But we must go further and advocate a foreign and military policy that is in the interest of the majority of this country, one that comports with widely shared ideals of democracy, justice, human rights, international cooperation, and sustainability.

It’s no news flash that elite and corporate interests have long dominated U.S. foreign policy. Illustrating this democratic deficit has two related aspects. The first is the question of access: “he who pays the piper calls the tune.” Currently, although it technically foots the bill, Congress—let alone the public—has barely any say in how U.S. foreign policy is set or implemented. On a second and integrally related note, in whose interest is it to perpetuate a gargantuan military budget, maintain a vast and expensive nuclear arsenal, or start an arms race with our banker, China? It’s hard to imagine that any ordinary person could conclude these policies serve anyone but the 1 percent.

Notions of justice and human rights are widely resonant in the United States, but they require careful consideration and explanation. “Justice” should not be invoked simply as it concerns parties to a conflict, but rather should entail racial, social, and economic fairness for all those who are affected by the grinding military machine. Emphasizing the broader social consequences of militarism will be key for growing our ranks, especially among people of color, community activists, and human needs groups. And while “human rights” is a no-brainer, it requires courage and commitment to communicate how U.S. foreign policy constantly contradicts this ideal abroad, even as our government selectively preaches to other countries on the subject.

International cooperation, while it can seem vague or milquetoast—especially given the neglect or outright stifling of “global governance” structures by the United States—is a highly shared value among people in this country and around the world. Selling cooperation as a meaningful value is fundamentally important for undermining the myth of American exceptionalism, which so many politicians peddle to sell policies that only harm our country in the long run.

Finally, while the environmental movement still has loads of work to do, the successful promulgation of the concept of sustainability is an important achievement, one we can easily adapt to military spending, the overall economy, and a longer-term view of what kind of foreign policy would be sustainable and in the interest of the 99 percent. Climate activists and peace activists need to know that they have a vital stake in each other’s work.

A glimpse of the power of democracy was in evidence on Election Day, and not just in the legalization of gay marriage and recreational marijuana in a few states. When given a choice, as in referenda in Massachusetts and New Haven, Connecticut advocating slashing military spending and funding human needs, people will choose the right policies and priorities; both initiatives won overwhelmingly.

Contrary to the hopes many people in this country and around the world invested in Barack Obama (which he didn’t deserve and frankly he never asked for), it’s never been about him. It’s about the entrenched power of the U.S. war machine, and about how we the peoples of this country and around the world can work together to create more peaceful, just, and sustainable policies. We can do it; in fact we have no choice but to do it.

Kevin Martin has served as Executive Director of Peace Action and Peace Action Education Fund since September 4, 2001, and has worked with the organization in various capacities since 1985. Peace Action is the country’s largest peace and disarmament organization with 90,000 members nationwide.

Recommended Citation:

Kevin Martin, “Towards a Foreign Policy for the 99 Percent” (Washington, DC: Foreign Policy In Focus, December 18, 2012)

It’s Not About Obama, It’s About Us!

–Kevin Martin

I was asked by our colleagues at the French Peace Movement (Mouvement de la Paix) to write an article a couple of weeks ago for their excellent magazine Planete Paix on the outcome of the presidential election and what it will mean for our work in the next few years. Here it is, and it may appear in longer form somewhere else soon. I’d be interested in your comments!

Relief, rather than elation, was the emotion most U.S. peace activists felt November 6 when President Obama won re-election. While President Obama has been very disappointing on most peace issues (and right now most peace activists are furious at him for drone strikes killing civilians in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and maybe other countries), Mitt Romney would have been awful as president. So what now to expect from a second Obama term?

Most likely, more of the same policies of the first term. Anyone expecting Obama to be decidedly more pro-peace than in his first term is likely to be sorely dispirited. However, there is a diverse, growing peoples’ movement in the U.S. linking human and environmental needs with a demand to end our wars and liberate the vast resources they consume. This, combined with difficult budgetary pressures (which should dictate at least modest cuts in the gargantuan Pentagon budget) could lead to serious restraints on possible militaristic policies such as an attack on Iran, “modernization” of the entire U.S. nuclear weapons enterprise at a cost of over $200 billion, a permanent U.S. force of 25,000 troops in Afghanistan after 2014 and an absurd military “pivot” toward the Asia-Pacific aimed at isolating Russia and especially China.

We in the peace movement need to be able to think, and act, with both a short- and long-term perspective. In the near term, swiftly ending the war in Afghanistan and ensuring no long-term U.S./NATO troop presence, ending drone strikes, preventing a war with Iran and building support for a WMD Free Zone in the Middle East, pushing for serious cuts to the Pentagon and advocating progress toward nuclear disarmament (including building new boycott/divestment campaigns utilizing the excellent International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons  “Don’t Bank on the Bomb” report) will consume most of our energies. Also, peace activists will build alliances with and lend solidarity to efforts to those working to save social programs and address climate chaos.

In the longer term (and looking through a broader lens), the U.S. is hopefully heading toward, in the analysis of Johann Galtung, “The Decline of the U.S. Empire and the Flowering of the U.S. Republic.” We need to understand and hasten that process as much as we can. We have an opportunity in opposing the outrageous “Asia-Pacific Pivot” (which the military-industrial complex has concocted, without asking the American people if we support or want to pay for it, as an obvious attempt the justify its continuing rasion d’etre), building solidarity with the peoples of Okinawa, Jeju Island, Guam, Hawaii and other nations in the region opposing the spread of U.S. militarism there and advocating peaceful relations with China and all in the region. Surely that is a better idea than trying to isolate China militarily, politically, economically and geo-strategically.

Contrary to the hopes many around the world invested in him (which he didn’t deserve and frankly he never asked for), it’s never been about Obama. It’s about the entrenched power of the U.S. war machine, and about how we the peoples of this country and around the world can work together to demand and create more peaceful and just policies.

 

Mitt Romney sounded like Gandhi last night, and Au Revoir to a true man of peace

Mitt Romney sure mentioned the word “peace” an awful lot in the last presidential debate Monday night. While my take is that he did so in a pretty cynical way, trying to make folks think he is less of a dangerous guy than he really is, it was interesting, and I think good sign, perhaps counterintutively.

Now I don’t for a moment want Mitt Romney to be president. His proposals to amp up Pentagon spending, his hawkish views regarding Iran, his desire to build up U.S. nuclear forces instead of reducing them, his kowtowing to Bibi Netanyahu and conservative Jews in the U.S., to name just a few policies that are out of whack with the interests of the American people, speak much more loudly than his kumbaya-ing last night.

However, it’s clear that Romney and his campaign handlers want to at least appear to be breaking with some of the policies of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney (and with some of his own previous bellicose positions), to appear kinder and gentler, more acceptable as a possible commander in chief. And even if it was cynical, the fact that he thought he had to appear to be more of a peacenik is a good sign. “Peace” shouldn’t be a dirty word in presidential campaigns, especially in a country nearly always at war (and where the current Nobel Peace Prize-winning president presides over drone strikes to get folks on a “kill list,” yet who is also talking like he wants his second term to be more peaceful, many contradictions with his current policies notwithstanding).

I guess for me it comes down to being somewhat surprised, but glad, that the two main presidential candidates are talking about peace, even when we know their policies don’t live up to their words. Peace is one of the values that human beings hold dearest, but it shouldn’t be used cynically. And of course our job is to hold them accountable to actually carrying out more peaceful policies after the election.

How did you react to Romney’s peace prose last night? Please share your thoughts and feelings.

Remember the last true peace candidate for president (of the “major” parties that is)? Senator George McGovern passed away at the age of 90 over the weekend. I couldn’t add anything to this moving tribute by William Greider at The Nation, so I won’t try, except to say he was the first candidate I can remember. My mom volunteered for him, and in the straw poll in my 5th grade class (I think it was 5th grade), I may have been the only McGovern “supporter.” Rest in peace, good man, and thanks for all your peace-and-justice-mongering and truth-telling. Would that we had some leaders like you today.

Suggested Actions for the International Day of Peace – Today!

Did you know today is celebrated as the International Day of Peace? No? Don’t be embarrassed, it’s not a real big deal in the U.S., maybe because our country is nearly always making war. Anyway September 21 was established as the International Day of Peace by the United Nations in 1981. On September 7, 2001 (four days before 9/11), the UN General Assembly unanimously declared September 21 should also be observed as a global day of cease-fire and nonviolence.

Here are four completely subjective suggestions for actions you can take to honor this day:

1. Contact your Members of Congress and tell them no war on Iran! See our blog post and action alert on this from yesterday.

2. Support the civil society initiative led by young Afghans, 2 Million Friends for Peace in Afghanistan, in their call for a cease-fire and negotiated end to the war there. The 2 million refers to the approximate number of Afghans killed in nearly forty years of war. They aim to deliver a petition to the United Nations on December 10, International Human Rights Day.

3. Celebrate the 20th anniversary of the end of U.S. nuclear weapons testing! The U.S. conducted 1,030 nuclear weapons test explosions (will the Earth ever forgive us for this violence against her?), the last was September 23, 1992. But with our continued vigilance and hard work, not only will the U.S. never test again, we’ll abolish nuclear weapons worldwide! Please sign onto a letter to President Obama encouraging further nuclear weapons reductions, and for him to push for Senate ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

4. Give as generous a gift as you can to Peace Action!

President Obama’s Speech – What did you think?

Here’s my quick take on the President’s acceptance speech at the Dem Convention last night, but I’d love to know what you thought of it as well. (The New York Times has the transcript and video of the president’s speech with sidebar analysis from Times reporters).

Overall, there was a pretty good “feel” in terms of connecting with Democratic Party and even broader American values (several strong nods to the importance of investing in education, for example, though there are lots of critics of Administration education policies). But often, as when describing environmental and energy policy (more on this later), it sounded like the president struggled to reconcile progressive, pro-people policies with the priorities of the party’s corporate overlords (as he spoke in the Time Warner Cable Arena, moved from Bank of America, oops we mean Panthers, Stadium!). To be sure, this is the reality of the struggle within the party all the time, and I think most neutral observers would posit the corporate interests are overwhelming the progressive elements of the party. Which is why Peace Action and other peace and social justice, environmental, human rights and other progressive forces need to maintain our integrity as independent, nonpartisan advocates for a better world.

Starting with the good on wars/Pentagon spending/re-investing in priorities here at home, the president said, “And while my opponent would spend more money on military hardware that our Joint Chiefs don’t even want, I’ll use the money we’re no longer spending on war to pay down our debt and put more people back to work – rebuilding roads and bridges; schools and runways.  After two wars that have cost us thousands of lives and over a trillion dollars, it’s time to do some nation-building right here at home.”

Pretty good, let’s hold him to it. And of course the logic of this would lead to efforts to end the war in Afghanistan ASAP, not at the end of 2014. Also very troubling (unmentioned by POTUS in his speech) are plans in the works to keep 10-15,000 U.S. troops there for at least another 10 years after that.

Also not bad was the fact there was relatively little fear-mongering about “threats” the country faces. Yes, China was mentioned twice as a bogeyman, but in economic, not military terms. Al Qaida, the Taliban, generic “terrorists” and Iran were mentioned, but almost as a pro forma “well we have to mention some threats out there” exercise.

Not so good or truthful – the president claimed credit for ending the Iraq war. True, he did oppose the war before it started in 2003 (when he was an Illinois State Senator) and consistently spoke out against it, but as president all he did was accept the agreement to withdraw our troops President Bush had made with the Iraqi government. Well, actually there is controversy even about that, as the president and others in his administration sent up at least trial balloons, and perhaps more serious overtures, about keeping troops there longer if the Iraqi government asked for it (perhaps knowing full well it couldn’t do that).

Lastly, I was struck by huge contradictions on energy and environmental policy, but allow me to turn to folks who know these issues much better than I do (thanks to the Institute for Public Accuracy for these quotes):

DAPHNE WYSHAM, via Lacy MacAuley, lacy@ips-dc.org, daphne@ips-dc.org,
http://www.ips-dc.org

Wysham is a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies and is the founder and co-director of the Sustainable Energy and Economy Network. She said today: “While it is heartening to hear President Obama affirm that climate change is not a hoax, he — like his Republican opponent — seems to place a higher value on achieving ‘energy independence’ via expanded oil and gas drilling than on action on climate change. The Obama administration has promoted policies that will result in enormous greenhouse gas emissions being released from the expanded mining and burning of coal — regardless of whether it is burned via unproven ‘clean coal’ technology — and via the poisonous and dangerous practice of fracking for gas, as well as via expanded offshore oil drilling. He has also signaled that, after the election, it will be full steam ahead for a pipeline for the dirtiest of all fossil fuels — tar sands from Canada. This is what happens when moneyed fossil fuel interests, like the Koch brothers, maintain their grip on our nation’s politics.”

TYSON SLOCUM, bholzer@citizen.org,
http://www.citizen.org

Director of Public Citizen’s Energy Program, Slocum said today: “It was important that President Obama made clear his belief that climate change remains a major threat — a contrast to Governor Romney’s use of climate change as a punchline to a joke in his speech. But more important will be what policy solutions President Obama proposes to tackle climate change — and how his ‘all of the above’ strategy may undermine that commitment. This election, fossil fuel corporations will spend millions to not only shape voters’ opinions of the candidates, but their attitudes on energy policy –- namely that producing and using more fossil fuels will liberate our economy. The fact is that the longer we remain with the fossil fuel status quo, the farther we fall behind on the sustainable era of renewable energy. There is no such thing as benign fossil fuel production and consumption, and the future of fossil fuels will only become more expensive.”

RICHARD STEINER, richard.g.steiner@gmail.com,
http://ricksteineralaska.com

A retired professor at the University of Alaska, Steiner was deeply involved in the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. He said today: “Neither the Republican Party, nor the Obama administration seem to grasp the severity of the energy/climate crisis we are in. While the Republicans are further from an energy plan that addresses the situation, both are playing games with something that is truly a life and death situation.

“That Romney belittled sea level rise and the global ecological crisis in his convention speech one night, and the very next day toured southern Louisiana, flooded with sea water from Hurricane Isaac, was one of the most spectacular ironies in the history of American politics. I suppose we expect this sort of delusion from the Republicans.

“But the Obama administration has had several years to make serious inroads into our carbon-intensive economy, and their performance has been an utter disaster. With only a few small achievements to tout, such as the recent auto fuel efficiency standards a decade or so in the future, this administration has failed miserably to live up to what those of us who voted for them expected.

“In energy efficiency and alternative fuels, we are now at a place we should have been at 40 years ago. Here in Alaska, and across the Arctic, we are presently experiencing the lowest sea ice extent since records have been kept. Walrus and polar bears are struggling on thin ice, and in open water. At this rate, the Arctic Ocean will be ice-free in summer within a few years.

“But instead of a crash emergency program to do everything possible to save the Arctic Ocean ecosystem from this unfolding disaster, the administration just approved Shell’s oil drilling in offshore waters. In addition to the chronic degradation from increased industrialization in the Arctic, and the very real risk of a catastrophic oil spill, every carbon atom produced from the Arctic Ocean seabed will simply wind up in the global atmosphere and oceans, further exacerbating the death spiral from climate warming. It’s a lose-lose proposition, and everyone who knows this issue knows that.

“In fact, the administration’s offshore drilling program for the coming five years is worse than that of the former Bush administration. It harkens back to the 1980s days of James Watt and Ronald Reagan.

“We cannot continue dancing around the edges of this beast, and if we care about our common future, we need immediate, emergency action on the part of the U.S. government, and world governments to reduce carbon emissions some 80 percent. Nothing short of this will do. The continuing denial of the severity of this crisis by both main political parties could be our collective undoing.”

Honor Nuclear Weapons Treaty

Salt Lake City Tribune

By Christine Meecham And Deb Sawyer

Published August 9, 2012 1:01 am

 

For much of this year, the prospect of Iran becoming a nuclear weapons state has been a major international concern. As members of the Utah Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, we have a perspective we’d like to share concerning the potential proliferation of nuclear weapons.

We both grew up in Utah during the Cold War, when the threat of mass annihilation was very real. As young adults we were hopeful when the Non-Proliferation Treaty was put into force in 1970. The grand bargain of the NPT was simple: Nations that did not have nuclear weapons agreed never to acquire them, while the five nuclear states, China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States, agreed to share the peaceful benefits of nuclear technology as they pursued the elimination of their nuclear arsenal. Making sure that both ends of this agreement are honored is essential to the long-term viability of the NPT.

Now the countries with nuclear weapons also include Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea. Unlike the Cold War, today our greatest national security threats come from the breakdown of the non-proliferation regime and nuclear terrorism. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, there are at least 40 other nations with the capacity to develop nuclear weapons, which brings us back to the current conflict with Iran.

Despite the censures, sanctions and embargoes, Iran continues its nuclear program claiming that it is within its rights to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and threatening to withdraw, as did North Korea, from the Non-Proliferation Treaty. If Iran withdraws from the NPT, efforts to ensure that its enriched uranium not be diverted to develop nuclear weapons would no longer be subject to oversight by the UN nuclear agency. In addition, it would bring us one step closer to another war in the Middle East.

We believe it is time to take another tack. Many of the NPT non-nuclear states believe that the nuclear-weapon states have not complied with their side of the bargain. In an attempt to reassure the non-proliferation regime, President Obama, in his Prague speech in April 2009, outlined a series of initiatives that would honor our disarmament commitment and lead to a nuclear-weapons free world. One of the first steps toward this end is putting a permanent ban on nuclear weapons testing.

Twenty years ago in 1992, President George H. W. Bush signed a moratorium on nuclear testing and other states followed. In 1996, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was signed, but the Senate failed to ratify it in 1999.

What if the United States surprised the world and ratified the test ban treaty? Since our experts maintain that we don’t need to test nuclear weapons to keep them viable, doesn’t it make sense to make this moratorium permanent? Wouldn’t it go a long way in affirming our commitment to nuclear disarmament?

One thing is certain, if we continue to bolster our nuclear capabilities, no amount of persuasion or sanctions will keep non-nuclear states, particularly our political foes, from eventually acquiring these weapons of mass destruction. In contrast, if we honor our commitments under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, we will be leading the global community towards a greater security for all.

Christine Meecham and Deb Sawyer are members of the Utah Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons. Both live in Salt Lake City.

(Note – the Utah Campaign is an organizational member of Peace Action.)

Shaky Assumptions About Military Spending – North Carolina Peace Action’s Betsy Crites in the Durham Herald-Sun

 
http://www.heraldsun.com/view/full_story/19167965/article-Shaky-assumptions-about-military-spending
?

By Betsy Crites
HERALD-SUN GUEST  COLUMNIST
Fear can be a great motivator – and a great manipulator. Those  who oppose cuts to military funding play on our fears to convince us that any  reduction in the defense budget would be a dangerous threat to our national  security and to our economy. But is this level of panic justified?  An  examination of the assumptions that underlie the fears will expose just how  shaky those assumptions are.
Shaky Assumption 1:  The US must control, by  force, the air, seas, and land of the entire planet.
Why such  overwhelming military power?  The United States spends more on our military than  our next 14 military competitors combined — six times more than China, 13 times  more than Russia, and 73 times more than Iran.  While we funnel roughly half of  our discretionary tax dollars into military programs, China is capturing the  market for solar panels.  Most countries are fearlessly investing in health care  and education for their citizens while the U.S. is pulling funding from those  very hallmarks of a great society.  The result is that the U.S. now ranks 37th  on health indicators and our students rank 14th in reading, 17th in science and  25th in math.
Shaky Assumption 2:  We need high priced weapons systems  such as the F-15 and the “advanced multi-role stealth fighter jet” to keep us  safe.
Our current “enemies” have no air force and no navy, and it is a  stretch to claim that terrorists even have an army.  The Rand Corporation, a  think-tank allied with U.S. government military and intelligence forces,  concluded that there is no battlefield solution to terrorism.  Since 1968, only  7 percent of all terrorist groups were taken down by military force.  In  contrast, 40 percent of those groups were defeated through police and  intelligence work, and 43 percent gave up their terrorist tactics as they were  integrated into the political process.
Shaky Assumption 3:  The military  is a good jobs program.
According to analysts at the University of  Massachusetts-Amherst, spending $1 billon on education and mass transit would  produce more than twice as many jobs as spending $1 billion on defense.   Spending on healthcare and construction for home weatherization and  infrastructure would produce about 1-1/2 times as many jobs. The Pentagon spends  $1 million a year to field a soldier in Afghanistan.  With that same amount, we  could hire nearly 30 teachers for a year.  Additionally, many jobs learned in  the military do not translate to civilian employment, so the jobless rate for  returning veterans is far higher than for the general population.
Shaky  Assumption 4:  Reducing military industries will hurt our economy.
Many  people are employed by military contractors and in service industries near  military bases, but does our economic health depend on this? Military spending  has grown by 81 percent in the past decade, the period of the worst recession  since World War II.  Clearly, high military spending is not the key to our  economic well-being.  People employed in weapons industries, making products  that kill people and destroy property and ecosystems, could just as well be  working in jobs that improve our communities and our quality of life here at  home.
Shaky Assumption 5:  We need the military for innovations such as  the microwave oven, the GPS and the Internet.
The U.S. military has a  very large budget to fund research and development, but innovation can, and  does, come from anywhere.  On June 26, 100 university presidents from across the  U.S. sent a letter to President Obama calling for an easier path to permanent  resident status for foreign students.  Why?  Because they found that of the  1,500 patents awarded to the top 10 patent-producing universities in the U.S.,  three-quarters had at least one foreign inventor. All-told they represented 88  countries.
Rather than triggering that old “fight or flight response “at the mere mention of reducing military spending, let’s develop a new adaptive “stop and think” response.  We will survive a reduction in military spending.   We could even thrive if we redirected our tax dollars to productive and  innovative ways of improving the well-being of our citizens and the world at  large.
Betsy Crites lives in Durham. She is former director of NC Peace  Action and remains a member and supporter of that organization.