Action Alert – Tell the Senate, “War Isn’t Working!”

August 21, 2014

DSCN0476

The United States has been bombing Iraq off and on (mostly on) for about twenty-three, yes 23, years.

Has it worked? Is Iraq peaceful, stable, secure? Have we eliminated potential threats to the U.S. and our allies, or have we exacerbated them?

Has U.S. military engagement in the region, whether by bombing, invasion, occupation or providing weapons transfers and military aid, been effective?

I think “abject failure” is the only way to describe U.S. policy.

Can we afford to keep doing this, at an exorbitant cost, when it’s been so spectacularly unsuccessful, and we have such pressing needs in our communities that need our attention and our tax dollars?

President Obama has spoken wisely about the limits of U.S. military might to solve the problems in Iraq and the Middle East, and rules out a large troop presence on the ground, yet U.S. military actions in Iraq are escalating, and the mad momentum of war often defies presidential good intentions.

Last month the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed H. Con. Res. 105 stating clearly there is no legal authority for U.S. military involvement in Iraq without express Congressional approval. The Senate needs to do the same.

Write your senators today and tell them enough is enough – stop bombing Iraq, stop flooding the region with weapons, emphasize humanitarian aid and diplomacy as the primary tools of U.S. foreign policy to bring peace and security to the region.

Please act now, before another catastrophic war escalates out of control.

Peace, Salaam, Shalom,

Kevin Martin
Executive Director
Peace Action

P.S. -The Constitution grants Congress, not the president, authority over decisions to engage in war. Write your senators today and tell them to end the bombing of Iraq. Enough is enough.


Interview on U.S. intervention in Iraq on Chinese television

August 11, 2014

Executive Director Kevin Martin was interviewed on the situation in Iraq on Saturday by Susan Roberts for CCTV-America, the U.S. division of the Chinese global television network. This was at the beginning of the broadcast, Kevin’s interview starts 3:40 into the show.

CCTV-America Interview


Action Alert and Press Release on U.S. Bombing in Iraq

August 8, 2014

ACTION: Call the White House at 202.456.1111 before 5:00 eastern time today. The message: “Yes to humanitarian aid, but no bombing, no new Iraq war!”

Just two weeks ago, you helped us send a strong message to policy-makers in Washington when the House of Representatives passed H. Con. Res. 105 stating clearly there is no legal authority for U.S. military involvement in Iraq without express Congressional approval. While a similar measure has not yet passed the Senate, this message from the American people couldn’t be more clear – NO NEW WAR IN IRAQ!

Unfortunately, the spreading, hideously violent civil war in Iraq (flowing from the civil war in Syria, which U.S. weapons and support for opposition forces helped fuel) has President Obama considering military strikes, along with air drops of food, water and medicine to beleaguered Yazidi and other persecuted minorities stranded on a mountain top in northern Iraq, besieged by the fighters of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

Certainly this rapidly evolving humanitarian crisis – people are dying for lack of food and water — deserves U.S. and international action to deliver badly needed life-saving supplies to civilians fleeing the rampaging ISIS forces. But this gut-wrenching situation must not be used to justify U.S. escalation of the war, entailing certain if unknown disastrous unintended consequences, as we’ve seen before in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.

Please take action in support of humanitarian relief for people who desperately need it, but against escalating the killing. Call the White House today at 202.456.1111 before 5:00 pm eastern time.

Humbly for Peace,

 

Kevin Martin
Executive Director
Peace Action

###

For Immediate Release:  August 8, 2014

Contacts:    Kevin Martin, Executive Director, 301.537.8244 cell, kmartin@peace-action.org
Paul Kawika Martin, Political and Policy Director, Peace Action, 951-217-7285 cell, pmartin@peace-action.org (Note: Paul Kawika Martin is currently in Nagasaki participating in events around the 69th anniversary of the atomic bomb dropping and is 13 hours ahead of Washington, DC)

Iraq: Drop Humanitarian Aid not Bombs

Washington, DC — August 8, 2014 — In response to President Obama’s announcement that he approved the possibility of air strikes in Iraq, Peace Action, the largest peace group in the U.S. reaffirmed its continued opposition to military intervention in Iraq.

“This gut-wrenching situation in Iraq does not justify the U.S. escalation of the civil war, entailing certain if unknown disastrous unintended consequences, as we’ve seen before in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and elsewhere,” stated Peace Action’s executive director, Kevin Martin.

The group reacted to Obama’s statement on the rapidly evolving humanitarian crisis where people in Iraq are dying from lack of food and water.  They agree the situation deserves U.S. and international action to deliver badly needed life-saving supplies to civilians fleeing the rampaging Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) forces.

The spread of the violent civil war in Iraq (flowing from the civil war in Syria, which U.S. weapons and support for opposition forces helped fuel) has President Obama considering military strikes, along with air drops of food, water and medicine to beleaguered Yazidi and other persecuted minorities stranded on a mountain top in northern Iraq, besieged by the ISIS fighters.

Last month, the House of Representatives passed H. Con. Res. 105 stating clearly there is no legal authority for U.S. military involvement in Iraq without express Congressional approval.  While a similar measure has not yet passed the Senate, polls still show Americans opposing a new war in Iraq.

Leading Paul Kawika Martin (no relation to Kevin Martin), the political and policy director of Peace Action to observe, “We applauded President Obama for doing what he said on his first presidential campaign trail, bringing the troops home from Iraq.  It’s time to remember how he got elected to the White House; his opposition to the Iraq War.  Americans want the Iraq War finished, not started anew.”

Opposing the Iraq War from the start, Peace Action participated in the February 2003 protest where tens of millions from around the world voiced their opposition.  Afterwards, Peace Action continued to help organize several large demonstrations and was a key group focusing opposition on Congress.

The group noted that the U.S. will continue to pay the costs of the war with debt and honoring our commitments to our veterans bringing the total cost of the Iraq War to over $3 trillion.

“Dropping humanitarian aid is a wise investment in humanity.  But we cannot afford the likely bad consequences of bombing Iraq again,” concluded Paul Kawika Martin.

###

Founded in 1957, Peace Action (formerly SANE/Freeze), the United States’ largest peace and disarmament organization, with over 100,000 paid members and nearly 100 chapters in 36 states, works to abolish nuclear weapons, promote government spending priorities that support human needs, encourage real security through international cooperation and human rights and support nonmilitary solutions to the conflicts with Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq. The public may learn more and take action at http://www.Peace-Action.org. For more up-to-date peace insider information, follow Peace Action’s political director on Twitter. http://twitter.com/PaulKawika

Editors Note:

H. Con. Res. 105 (https://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-concurrent-resolution/105)


Some good news on the extension of nuclear talks with Iran

July 22, 2014

Amid the mostly awful daily news from the Middle East, one piece of good news came late last week. Iran and the “P5 +1″ (the U.S., Russia, England, France, China and Germany) agreed to continue negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program for another four months. The interim Joint Plan of Action deadline was July 20, but as expected, all parties agreed enough progress and benefits have been seen to continue negotiations.

Our colleagues at Win Without War (a coalition Peace Action has been a part of since 2002) compiled supportive statements from editorial boards and experts and also from Members of Congress.

You can show your support for continued diplomacy with a FaceBook graphic from our friends at Council for a Livable World or by writing a letter to the editor of your local newspaper (or posting on a blog), and here are some talking points from Rethink Media and National Security Network to help you write your letter or post:

Extending the negotiations is a “win/win” for the US.

 

  • The nuclear inspectors on the ground in Iran have confirmed that Iran has frozen and even rolled back its nuclear activities – living up to its promises under the current deal.

 

  • By continuing the talks, Iran’s nuclear program remains frozen, and we get extra time to work on eliminating the possibility of an Iranian bomb.

 

  • Soundbite: It’s far better to secure a deal in overtime than quit and go home.

 

Continuing diplomacy is better than rushing to war.

 

  • If Congress kills the negotiations by imposing new sanctions or unworkable terms for a final agreement, Iran will unfreeze its nuclear program without restriction…which means either Iran gets a nuclear bomb or we have to fight another war in the Middle East.

 

  • After more than a decade of war, Americans strongly oppose the prospect of another military conflict. As their representatives, we owe it to them to explore every diplomatic opportunity.

 

  • Soundbite: What we’re doing now is exactly what we should have done instead of invading Iraq. 

 

Adding more sanctions will do more harm than good.

 

  • Exploiting the extension as an opportunity to impose new sanctions or terms for a final deal would kill the talks and likely lead to the collapse of international sanctions.

 

  • All of the countries that matter support the negotiations. We should continue to work with our allies rather than taking unilateral action and undermining the talks.

 

  • Soundbite: Sanctions brought Iran to the table, but sanctions didn’t roll back Iran’s nuclear program – negotiations did.

July 15, 2014

Your opposition to the Iraq War forced the Bush administration to lie and dupe the American public to allow the invasion.  Our opposition ended that war earlier than the Bush administration wanted though at the cost of many American and Iraqi lives as well as trillions of tax payer dollars.  Don’t let the Obama Administration make the same mistake.

Tell your Member of Congress:  No New Iraq War!

The current situation in Iraq has grabbed the nation’s attention, and President Obama has already deployed around 750 American troops to Iraq in response to the crisis. While some of these troops were understandably sent to protect our embassy, hundreds were sent as ‘advisers’ to the Iraqi security forces. The American public has been clear: the Iraq War was a mistake and we don’t want to send our troops back into the middle of a civil war. As more and more Americans are sent into harm’s way in Iraq, Congress needs to hear from you.

Help stop the march to war: email your Representative today!

Thankfully, Reps. Jim McGovern (D-MA), Walter Jones (R-NC), and Barbara Lee (D-CA) have introduced legislation to force a debate and vote on this buildup of U.S. troops in Iraq. Last week, these champions for peace introduced H Con Res 105, which would invoke the War Powers Resolution, and, if passed, would bring home the American advisers and prevent any further military intervention in Iraq. While the resolution would allow for the U.S. to continue protecting its embassy and diplomatic personnel, it would be a crucial step in preventing America from sliding back to a war in Iraq.

Please take two minutes to ask your Representative to cosponsor the bipartisan resolution!

Washington is once again full of hawks calling for war. Dick Cheney penned an op-ed defending the Iraq War and calling for new airstrikes and boots on the ground. You would think that after costing nearly 4,500 Americans their lives, wasting trillions of taxpayer dollars, and having been exposed for selling the Iraq War on lies, no one would bother listening to Cheney anymore. But sadly, many Members of Congress are ready to do just that. That is why your voice is so important. We weren’t quite able to stop Cheney in 2003, but, if we speak up now, we can stop him before we repeat the same mistakes again!

Make your voice heard: Urge your Representative to cosponsor the Iraq War Powers Resolution!

The situation in Iraq is difficult as the nation continues to be roiled in a complex sectarian crisis. But the solution is not American bombs or troops. Help make clear that America will not go back to war in Iraq by asking your Representative to cosponsor this important resolution.

Humbly for Peace,

Kevin Martin
Executive Director
Peace Action

P.S. – We helped end the Iraq War and we don’t want the U.S. embroiled in another war there again.  Write your Member of Congress now! 


Interview on Iraq on Radio New Zealand

June 30, 2014

Our executive director Kevin Martin was interviewed about the situation in Iraq by Radio New Zealand on Saturday, give it a listen, it’s the second link on this page. Kevin’s interview follows an excellent commentary by Wayne Brittenden at about 4:50 minutes in.

 

 


Breaking News and Perspectives on Iraq

June 19, 2014

no good war banner pic

 

President Obama just spoke on Iraq, here are some points from Win Without War, a coalition Peace Action helped found to oppose the Iraq war in 2002:

Moments ago, the President finished a brief press conference in which he discussed the situation in Iraq. He announced that the US would be sending up to 300 special operations forces as advisors to Iraq (they will reportedly be broken into teams of 10-20 and forward deployed with Iraqi units). He also stressed that the US is now ready to make ‘limited, targeted’ air strikes if the situation the ground dictated it. While the President also made several positive statements stressing his opposition to ‘ground troops’ and that this remains an Iraqi problem that will require an Iraqi solution, we are troubled by some of these developments.

Here are our top line message responses.

  • This is a dangerous escalation of US military involvement in a problem the President himself has said has no military solution. It is also a dangerous retreat from the conditions that the President set for US engagement
  • What in needed in Iraq is a political solution, and any US support must only be made after changes to the policies of Prime Minister Maliki that are fueling sectarian tensions and growing this conflict.
  • History has shown that advisors can become ground troops, despite the best intentions.
  • President is still threatening airstrikes which would be counterproductive and firmly make America part of what is a growing Iraqi civil war.
  • President Obama needs to listen to the American people who do not want to restart the Iraq war.

Longtime Peace Action board of directors member Lauri Kallio of Albuquerque wrote this summary yesterday, which prompted a thoughtful reply by Bj, an activist with our Sacramento chapter:

President Barack Obama’s initial statement on the insurgency in Iraq was that all options are open. All options would include boots on the ground and bombing, with nuclear bombs not being ruled out. Later, Obama specifically excluded sending U.S. troops in, but reports were that the White House was mulling over the bombing option. Bombing attacks would would almost certainly produce noncombatant casualties and would likely provoke Sunni anger over the U.S. siding with the increasingly Shiite-dominated government. On June 16, media reports were that 100 Special Forces troops would be sent in to train Iraqi security forces.

 

President Obama also said that U.S. military aid would be premised on Iraqi government assurances to make political accommodations to relieve Sunni and Kurdish grievances about being largely excluded from power sharing. The U.S. troop surge well into the war was primarily designed to achieve some 18 socioeconomic and political goals — some hard to measure. I wrote a piece in my almost daily logbook on the war in Iraq, sometime after the surge took place, in which I demonstrated that there had been little or no progress on the goals, particularly on the two key goals of resolving Kurdish territorial land claims and an equitable sharing of oil revenues. The failure to resolve land claims alienated the Kurds and the failure to craft a plan to share oil revenues disadvantaged the Sunnis the most.

 

Staying with the theme of the futility of relying on the Iraqi government to become more inclusive,shortly before the troop surge took place, the U.S. began paying stipends for Sunni tribal groups to fight al-Qaeda in Iraq  Later, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki was to strike a major blow against the Sunnis by cutting off the stipends.

 

When Nuri al-Maliki achieved his latest grip on power, his faction actually received fewer parliamentary seats than a competing faction led by a former foreign minister of Iraq; however, by more adroit political maneuvering, al-Maliki made deals with other small political factions to be elected prime minister.

 

After al-Maliki consolidated political power, he began a campaign to discredit the Sunni vice president, culminating in a murder charge for running a death squad, causing the vice president to flee the country.

 

Reports coming out of Baghdad form a pretty consistent picture of Prime Minister al-Maliki building an increasingly Shiite-dominated regime; thereby making it a naive move on the part of Obama to trust any promise of a more politically inclusive regime in Iraq.

 

If the argument is made that we must come to the aid of a democratically elected government in Iraq, given the extreme weakness of the Iraqi parliament and the ability of al-Maliki to rule largely by decree, the aid-to-a-democracy argument becomes very suspect.

 

If the argument is made that the U.S. should supply more arms to help the Iraqi security forces fight the insurgents. the last major clash should give one pause. Reports are that 30,000 Iraqi troops fled when confronted with 800 armed insurgents. Many of the fleeing Iraqi troops discarded their uniforms in the apparent hope that having no uniforms would save their lives if they fell into the hands of the insurgents. The insurgents found themselves with a yet-to-be-determined cache of U.S.-supplied weapons.

 

The word that the  U.S. may send in 100 Special Forces to train Iraqi security forces hinges on the absurd. Not only have Iraqi security forces failed to stand up to numerically inferior insurgent forces, but they have not been able to stop the ongoing mass violence against Iraqi citizens since the U.S. forces left.

 

U.S. training of foreign military forces has been a history of failure over the past half-century. After years of the U.S. training the South Vietnamese military, it quickly crumbled before the invasion of North Vietnamese armed forces. Part of the mission of the U.S. Marines sent into Lebanon by President Ronald Reagan was to train forces deemed favorable to U.S. interests. That training was washed away in the chaotic and very destructive civil war that raged in Lebanon. Central and South American military personnel schooled at the School of the Americas — since renamed — went back home and many committed atrocities against the very citizens they were committed to protect. We haven’t seen the final result of the long period of U.S. training of Afghan recruits; however, what we know of it shouldn’t inspire much confidence. Ann Jones, who taught school in Afghanistan for six years and was still there in 2009 to witness U.S. training methods, said of the 2009 incursion into Helmand Province that it consisted of 4,000 U.S. and allied troops and only 600 Afghan security forces, some of them police forces. Jones said she didn’t know of a single Afghan who had seen a 90,000 man Afghan army, as claimed by the U.S. in 2009. She even suggested tongue-in-cheek that it probably consisted of one man enlisting for training 90,000 times. Ann Jones personally knew of a number of men who went through the training, went home and went through again under another name. She was also convinced that Taliban men would go through the training course to learn of U.S. military tactics and also get a paycheck.

 

Overall, it would seem that all U.S. military options in Iraq are fraught with disaster. Diplomacy and a political settlement have also been suggested; however, I don’t see the U.S. as having the leverage to achieve a settlement. Realistically, we in the United States must come to the realization that there are situations in nation states that the intervention of the mighty U.S. military machine will only worsen the situation, and we shouldn’t set ourselves up for the burning we will get by setting the fires.

 

Unfortunately, the U.S. cannot serve as a role model for the world, given that we have attacked at least one nation that hasn’t attacked us in every decade since World War II. Youngsters just entering their teen years have never known a time when we were not at war and many have lived through two major wars.

 

Although I am generally opposed to dividing the world into smaller political enclaves of people based on religious or ethnic identification, perhaps the best solution would be for the U.S. to propose and work for splitting Iraq into Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish political divisions. The Sunnis and the Shiites are at one another’s throats. The Kurds are largely autonomous in their own territory, even making their own oil concession deals, despite incurring the wrath of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.

###

The US/Iran situation since the ouster of the Shah in 1979 has been ridiculous and I am very much in favor of a rational and pragmatic relationship between the US and Iran. That said, with regard to Iraq, things may not be so simple.

 

Also with regard to dividing Iraq among the sectors (Shi’a, Sunni and Kurd — who are mostly Sunni by the way) things are also not that simple. Between 1991 and 2003, those divisions were encouraged and promoted by the US through the Northern (Kurdish area) and Southern (Shi’a area) No Fly Zones during the 13 years of intense sanctions. Saddam Hussein was essentially restricted to the central, Sunni-Shi’a mixed, part of the country. And during the 2003-11 invasion and occupation, those divisions were also encouraged and promoted, it seems.

 

Were the Kurdish region of Iraq to get full nation status, a bloody chain reaction would likely follow as the Kurdish military attempted to expand into those parts of Syria, Turkey, and Iran which have significant Kurdish populations — widening and deepening an already very destructive situation in the region. It may happen, but it is not something that we should encourage.

 

I highly recommend watching today’s Democracy Now. The after-headlines-segment is with UN Special Envoy Lakhdar Brahimi. It is long, but his insights are so valuable to understanding the situation.  Below is an excerpt (my bolds). Bj

 

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Ambassador Brahimi, on the question of sectarianism, there have been several reports that suggest that in the initial days of the Iraq invasion in 2003, there were some neoconservative members of the Bush administration that actively fostered sectarianism between Sunnis, Shias and Kurds as a way of—as a policy of kind of divide and rule. Could you comment on that?

LAKHDAR BRAHIMI: … President Bush had given full, total responsibility to the Pentagon over Iraq. What was discussed there and what they did there, I don’t know. But as somebody from the region just looking at what was actually taking place, it was extremely hard not to believe that sectarianism was being promoted and that the people that were being put in charge were—I mean, of course the Kurdish region was given to Kurds 100 percent, and no—the rest of the Iraqis had no part in it. But in the rest of Iraq, the impression one had was that the people that were preferred by the occupying powers were the most sectarian Shia and the most pro-Iranian Shia, so, you know, that Iran—that Iraq is now very, very close to Iran. Again, from the point of view of somebody who looks at things from outside, I have absolutely no knowledge of what went on in the high spheres of power in Washington. The impression we had is that these people were put in charge either out of total ignorance—and that is extremely difficult to accept—or intentionally. But the fact is, you know, that the system that was established was very sectarian.

 


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 13,288 other followers

%d bloggers like this: