“Patriots who oppose this war” must push Obama to end it
Tonight, President Obama sat at the same desk from which George W. Bush announced the bombing in Iraq in 2003 to declare the end of “combat operations.” The war in Iraq has faded to the background for most people in America, while soldiers and Iraqis have had their lives upturned and will continue to do so whether the “Operation Iraqi Freedom” portion of the war has ended or not.
As Peace Action West has been arguing since the debate around Iraq withdrawal began, leaving a residual force of 50,000 troops does not constitute the end of a war. In addition to the transitional force, who will still be armed and likely see combat, the number of private contractors is going to double. While it is encouraging that the Obama administration has followed through on its original timeline, we must be vigilant in remembering that the occupation of Iraq continues and make sure that at a minimum the troops are withdrawn by the end of 2011 as promised.
When President Obama discussed the end of the war in Afghanistan, it was clear that the voices of those of us who oppose the war are being heard, and congressional impatience about the war is having an impact. The president acknowledged the plummeting support for the war, and reemphasized his plan to start withdrawing troops in 2011, stating, “But make no mistake: this transition will begin – because open-ended war serves neither our interests nor the Afghan people’s.” Unfortunately, he gave no indication of a clear end date for withdrawal, citing conditions on the ground as the deciding factor, and offered the same tired justifications for the war that fail to hold up to scrutiny.
While the war in Iraq is not over for the 50,000 troops, their families, and the people of Iraq, it’s only getting worse in Afghanistan. President Obama acknowledged flagging public support for the war, but implored Americans not to lose sight of what’s at stake. We have seen all too clearly what is at stake this week, as 22 American troops were killed in just the last 5 days, and civilian casualties have spiked. Afghan President Hamid Karzai said, “the strategy of the war on terrorism must be reassessed. . . . The experience over the past eight years showed that fighting [the Taliban] in Afghan villages has been ineffective and is not achieving anything but killing civilians.” In addition to the cost in lives, President Obama explicitly pointed out the cost here at home, with over $1 trillion spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan so far.
In his attempt to rally support for the counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan, President Obama did not offer anything new or convincing. He is still asking for the tremendous sacrifice he eloquently described in the service of a strategy that is inappropriate to the threat from Al Qaeda and if anything is making the violence worse in Afghanistan. I have written many times before about why a military strategy is a tragic waste of resources, and President Obama did not offer any evidence to justify spending $1.7 billion per Al Qaeda member in Afghanistan every year.
President Obama talked about the tough decisions that will have to be made to deal with our country’s fiscal problems, but cutting our exorbitant military spending didn’t surface as one of them. In discussing the war in Iraq, President Obama said, “there were patriots who supported this war, and patriots who opposed it.” It is our duty to respond not by accepting the misguided assumptions driving this war, but by redoubling our efforts to hold the president and Congress to defining a clear end game for Afghanistan and bringing our troops and tax dollars home.
Look who’s profiting from Iran sanctions
The LA Times has the latest evidence that Iran sanctions are not working: well-connected businesses and government operations are dodging the sanctions. Even more shocking, some profit directly from sanctions through the emerging “sanction-breaking” industry.
This sad truth confirms our point: Ahmadinejad and pro-government elite profit from the sanctions while ordinary citizens suffer.
Tightened international sanctions meant to punish Iran for its nuclear program may be strengthening the country’s hard-line elite, as blacklisted firms linked to the powerful Revolutionary Guard manage to circumvent and even profit from the embargo.
Businesspeople, officials and analysts inside and outside the Islamic Republic describe the sanctions as taking a toll on the economy and ordinary citizens, increasing the cost of everything from the production of medicine to the manufacture of baguettes.
But they also say key businesses and government operations controlled by the Revolutionary Guard have found ways to skirt the sanctions, which ban trade with state-run firms connected to the nuclear program, by enlisting private-sector firms as fronts.
…
Well-connected companies are even finding ways to profit directly from the sanctions. Businesspeople say a sanctions-breaking industry is emerging, with firms specializing in helping others overcome the restrictions for a price. When one channel is blocked, managers seek others.
…
Later in the article, ordinary Iranian citizens describe how their non-sanctioned businesses are severely weakened due to skyrocketing costs and international trade restrictions:
One wholesale importer of precision timing equipment said he’s been forced to increase his prices by as much as 35% in part because he must use currency exchange shops instead of banks to conduct transactions with foreign suppliers.
A manufacturer of elevators said simple electronic parts that used to cost $2 before the sanctions now cost nearly $9, increasing the cost of repairing lifts. A manager at one of Iran’s leading pharmaceutical firms said an inability to obtain letters of credit from Western banks hurts Iran’s ability to produce high-quality medicine.
“When we produce vitamins or aspirin … it is not important whether it is 302 or 310 milligrams,” he said. “But when we produce sleeping pills or sensitive tranquilizers, the difference between 5 and 10 milligrams is vital. For that, we need German or Swiss-made machines.”
The elevator manufacturer said because of increased costs, his company is losing ground to a firm affiliated with the Defense Ministry.
Mohammad-Reza Behzadian, a former Iranian lawmaker, describes the predicament: “The Iranian people are like cannon fodder caught between the barrage of two enemies: the West and the government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.”
Al-Qaeda is “afterthought” in Afghan War
WikiLeaks continues to shed light on the US strategy in Afghanistan. According to the Washington Post, the documents show just how little the war in Afghanistan is about hunting down al-Qaeda terrorists. And the controversy is not over – WikiLeaks announced plans to release another batch of documents in the near future.
The Washington Post explains that as the war drags on, the US focuses less and less on the hunt for Osama bin Laden:
Although U.S. officials have often said that al-Qaeda is a marginal player on the Afghan battlefield, an analysis of 76,000 classified U.S. military reports posted by the Web site WikiLeaks underscores the extent to which Osama bin Laden and his network have become an afterthought in the war.
The reports, which cover the escalation of the insurgency between 2004 and the end of 2009, mention al-Qaeda only a few dozen times and even then just in passing. Most are vague references to people with unspecified al-Qaeda contacts or sympathies, or as shorthand for an amorphous ideological enemy.
Bin Laden, thought to be hiding across the border in Pakistan, is scarcely mentioned in the reports. One recounts how his picture was found on the walls of a couple of houses near Khost, in eastern Afghanistan, in 2004.
….
Other al-Qaeda leaders are similarly invisible figures. One report describes a botched June 2007 attempt to capture or kill Abu Laith al-Libi, a senior al-Qaeda military commander. U.S. Special Forces missed their target, instead accidentally killing seven children in a religious school in Paktika province.
In June, CIA Director Leon Panetta estimated that, “at most,” only 50 to 100 al-Qaeda operatives were present in Afghanistan. His assessment echoed those given by other senior U.S. officials. In October, national security adviser James L. Jones said the U.S. government’s “maximum estimate” was that al-Qaeda had fewer than 100 members in Afghanistan, with no bases and “no ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies.”
…
Meanwhile, WikiLeaks plans to reveal the additional 15,000 documents. In an interview with Al Jazeera on Sunday, WikiLeaks founder Jullian Assange said the documents would be released “within the next two to four weeks.” He declined to discuss the content of the unreleased documents, but hinted “there’s very significant material in there.”
Republican hypocrisy: Similar Treaty, Different Response
This week, a Washington Post writer called out Republican hypocrisy by examining Republican support for The Moscow Treaty, negotiated under President Bush.
The Moscow Treaty passed unanimously in 2003 under President Bush. Yet twenty-four of the Republicans who voted for the previous treaty are in the Senate today, dragging their feet on START. Walter Pincus of The Washington Post writes:
“This treaty is a masterstroke. . . . It is shorn of the tortured bench marks, sub-limits, arcane definitions and monitoring provisions that weighed down past arms control treaties,” said Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.). “It assumes a degree of trust between nations that are no longer on the precipice of war.”
…In fact, Kyl and many of the 23 other senators are critical of elements of New START that they readily accepted or ignored in the agreement they embraced seven years ago.
At an Armed Services Committee hearing in June, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said first among his areas of concern on New START was to feel “confident that the treaty is verifiable.” Back in 2002, McCain did not attend the Armed Services hearing at which Rumsfeld said, “One reason we saw no need for including detailed verification measures in the treaty” was “there simply isn’t any way on earth to verify what Russia is doing with all those warheads.” Despite the lack of means to verify compliance in 2003, McCain voted to ratify the Moscow Treaty.
Republicans have sought some guarantee that promises in the Obama administration’s 10-year plan to modernize the nuclear weapons complex will be carried out. This year, directors of the nation’s nuclear laboratories have testified, as has the director of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), in support of New START. Kyl and others are visiting the labs, seeking further information from the directors.
Eight years ago, only one witness from the NNSA appeared at a hearing that just three Republicans attended. The NNSA’s Everet H. Beckner said his agency had a “fairly aggressive” five-year budget plan for the future, but he never was asked for details. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) attended the Aug. 1, 2002, session and asked about the capability to produce more nuclear “pits,” the plutonium triggers for thermonucluear weapons. Beckner’s answers led Sessions to say, “So for a decade or so we have a window where this is problematic,” but nothing else was done or said.
Last month, at an Armed Services hearing, [Senator James] Inhofe questioned the number of hearings being held and the failure to call opponents of the pact. As an example, Inhofe noted that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, of which he is a member, had held 12 hearings and heard 25 witnesses but that only two had voiced criticism of the treaty. He and other Republicans requested that Levin hold additional Armed Services hearings to give opponents a chance to testify. Armed Services has now had eight hearings on New START.
Eight years ago, it was different. In the months after the Moscow Treaty was signed, the Foreign Relations Committee held only four hearings and Armed Services just two. Two nongovernmental witnesses testified and noted that the pact had no verification procedures, though neither opposed its passage. Neither Inhofe nor any other Republican requested additional hearings or witnesses.
In fact, at the second and last of the Armed Services hearings in 2002, Inhofe said he was “going to be very quick” with only one question to ask. Why? Because, he said, “we have had so many of these hearings, I have run out of questions.”
“Our national security is at risk,” warned Hilary Clinton on Wednesday as she called for the Senate to ratify New START. Ploughshares Found President Joe Cirincione reinforced her message and demanded that Republican senators quit “dragging their feet“:
What prompted Secretary Clinton’s passionate warning? Deep concern that partisan politics and parochialism will trump national security interests in an election year.
The fix is at hand. The administration has negotiated a workman-like extension of the treaty. It improves the inspections, streamlines their implementation and reduces both sides’ long-range nuclear weapons by about 30 percent from previous allowed levels. Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ), the Republican whip, calls it “relatively benign.”
“I believe that this treaty is too important,” Clinton said. “It should not be in any way caught up in election year politics.” She warned, “There is an urgency to ratify this treaty…Our ability to know and understand changes in Russia’s nuclear arsenal will erode without the treaty. As time passes, uncertainty will increase.”
Jon Kyl: hypocrite holding our security hostage
Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) gazes adoringly at a nuclear weapon
While the media was obsessed with its favorite kidnapping story, they have failed to notice that Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) has been holding our security hostage by using partisan tactics to delay ratification of New START in exchange for $10 billion in ransom money for the nuclear weapons complex.
From the beginning, we knew that false claims about the need to “modernize” our nuclear arsenal (read: build new nuclear weapons) would enter into the debate around New START and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Despite scientific evidence that current programs in place can safely maintain our arsenal as we reduce its size, Jon Kyl and other members of Congress are trying to argue that the exorbitant amount of money the Obama administration is allocating to the nuclear weapons complex is insufficient.
In an example of what I would consider an unwise negotiating strategy, the Obama administration anticipated these arguments and increased the budget for the nuclear weapons complex by 10% (while declaring a spending freeze on critical domestic funding no less) prior to any debate on New START. While the Obama administration’s Nuclear Posture Review states that they have no intention of building new nuclear weapons, they are setting the stage for future weapons development by increasing the US’s capacity to build weapons. New weapons production could quickly and easily be ramped up by a president who does not share President Obama’s commitment to nuclear nonproliferation (or as one of my colleagues puts it when arguing against this increase, President Palin. Shudder). While many viewed this investment in the nuclear weapons complex, along with a ten year modernization plan promising $180 billion for the complex and delivery vehicles, as a way to isolate Kyl in the debate around nuclear weapons treaties, quite the opposite has happened. While only two senators have stated their intention to vote against New START, many are waiting to hear that Kyl is satisfied before they are willing to throw in their support. Kyl is slowing down the entire process, and has far more power than he should in this debate, not less.
New START is a modest but important treaty. Similar arms agreements have passed by large bipartisan margins. As of today, it has been 252 days since the previous START agreement expired, meaning 252 days without on-site monitoring and verification of Russia’s arsenal. Reinstating that verification and demonstrating a US commitment to reducing nuclear weapons are critical to US national security, but Sen. Kyl is hijacking the process for $10 billion in unneeded nuclear weapons pork.
Given Kyl’s obstinacy on this key national security issue, I was struck by the irony of his position regarding President Obama’s immigration policy:
Last month, Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona accused the administration of holding the Southwest border “hostage” by using border security as an immigration-reform bargaining chip.
Apparently using security as a bargaining chip is only OK when Jon Kyl does it. Kyl and other Republican senators who are delaying consideration of New START need to stop playing politics with nuclear security and accept the scientific evidence that the nuclear weapons stockpile is safe and reliable. If they don’t, the Obama administration and their fellow senators need to call them on their obstruction, and force them to choose in a floor vote on New START if they are really going to oppose a treaty that every reasonable foreign policy expert supports.
Brad Sherman wants to hurt Iranians
collateral damage in Brad Sherman's harsh Iran policy.
See more photos of my 2009 trip to Iran here.
Amidst the constant political posturing on Iran, most people at least acknowledge that measures should be taken to minimize the impact of sanctions on the Iranian people. People around the world were moved and inspired to see Iranians bravely fighting for their rights, and most at least gave lip service to the idea of trying to shield them from actions meant to target their repressive government (though the vast majority in Congress betrayed this ideal when voting to pass the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act). In an illogical defense of the broad unilateral sanctions in The Hill, Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA-27) removes any veneer of concern for the Iranian population:
Critics also argued that these measures will hurt the Iranian people. Quite frankly, we need to do just that.
I suppose Rep. Sherman gets points for honesty for not even pretending to care about the impact many have warned about. Not surprisingly, his explanation for this callous stance is deeply flawed:
In the 1980s, the U.S. and other countries enacted tough sanctions against apartheid South Africa. Those sanctions did not just hit the elite white population; they were not “targeted.” They hit the South African economy and hit it hard. The very people we were trying to help — the non-white population — were hurt. But the sanctions created enough economic dislocation and unrest that they literally drove a regime to provide for its own destruction through democratic elections – elections guaranteed to bring the ANC to power. Ultimately, Nelson Mandela thanked us for the sanctions.
Sherman leaves out the fact that the African National Congress called on the international community and the UN to impose sanctions on the apartheid regime in 1980. In contrast, dissidents in Iran, from Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi to presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi have explicitly stated that anything other than very targeted sanctions would be harmful to their cause. That “ultimately” seems to imply that even if these brave and dedicated activists, who are far more qualified to predict the outcome of this policy in their country, don’t understand how helpful Congress’ harsh sanctions are, they’ll come around.
My favorite part of the op-ed is when Sherman dismisses the mountain of evidence that sanctions against Iran are not going to work in eliciting positive changes in the Iranian regime’s behavior.
Critics also claim that there is no guarantee that they will work. No one can guarantee anything, especially in foreign policy. But these sanctions provide the best hope for convincing Iran’s government that it literally risks its own existence by continuing its nuclear program.
If this policy falls flat on its face, don’t blame Brad Sherman. No one can guarantee anything, so what’s the point of looking at decades of history of failure with sanctions or the opinions of people who actually know a thing or two about Iranian history, culture and politics. No Iran expert worth his or her salt will say that these kinds of sanctions are our “best hope”, but they will give the regime fodder for cracking down on internal dissent and provide opportunities for the Iranian government to benefit economically. Rather than recognizing that the US needs to pursue serious diplomacy and offer incentives as opposed to just making demands, Sherman is gearing up to introduce legislation to further turn the screws on Iran. Given his “nothing is guaranteed” standard, I’m afraid to see what that might look like.
Sherman’s quackery apparently knows no bounds when it comes to Iran. In 2000, when the Clinton administration allowed imports of Iranian carpets, pistachios and caviar (“the stuff that we don’t need and they couldn’t sell anywhere else”) he went to the House floor to dramatically declare “There’s blood in the caviar!” (whose blood I’m not sure, since he doesn’t seem too concerned about what happens to Iranians). Apparently, Brad Sherman lives in a world where Iranian carpets pose a dire threat and crazy Iranians are about to smuggle a nuclear weapon into the US in a bale of marijuana.
It’s tempting to laugh at the sheer ridiculousness of Sherman’s Iran paranoia, but I’m afraid to say he’s not alone and certainly not outside the mainstream of Congress. (A congressional staffer once told me he wakes up every morning afraid Iran is going to nuke the US). Hyperventilating about the threat from Iran is driving counterproductive policies and an increased level of chatter about the feasibility of a military attack, which any reasonable person knows would be disastrous. The debate around Iran policy in this country is lacking in substance and rationality, and as the Iran hawks ramp up their rhetoric, we must make sure more reasonable and credible voices are heard.
We need Raul Grijalva in Congress
One thing that keeps me going in our challenging work to end wars is the confidence that there are some members of Congress who will tirelessly fight for what is right. Rep. Raul Grijalva is one of those people, and he needs your help. Click here to help re-elect this progressive champion.
As Co-Chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Raul Grijalva doesn’t just vote the right way. He is at the forefront of congressional efforts to promote healthcare and jobs instead of bankrupting Americans through unnecessary wars. Before a massive war-funding vote, he boldly challenged the hypocrisy of so-called deficit hawks who vote for billions for war, stating, “That’s the essential hypocrisy. We are required to offset anything for education, we are required to offset anything for jobs, and now this war is reaching $280 billion for taxpayers, all under an emergency supplemental category which doesn’t require offsets of pay-fors.”
With the rise of the irrational and xenophobic Tea Party, Rep. Grijalva has emerged as a target of the right in Arizona for his strong progressive leadership, especially in opposition to Arizona’s new harsh anti-immigrant law. Republicans are taking advantage of the political climate and mounting the first serious challenge to Rep. Grijalva in years. His opponent Ruth McClung is bashing Rep. Grijalva’s pro-peace stances and complaining that Obama isn’t threatening to nuke other countries. Click here to donate to Raul Grijalva’s reelection campaign.
Rep. Raul Grijalva needs your help to show that his progressive vision has the support of Arizona’s voters and people all around the country who want Congress to fight for us. Thank you for contributing to keeping a strong pro-peace voice in the House.
Paid for by the Peace Action West Voter Fund.
Encouraging Israel to bomb Iran: A really bad idea
Conservative politicians and pundits have been working to normalize the idea of military strikes on Iran. The newest ploy is to help open the way for an Israeli strike. If Israel did attack Iran, the US would inevitably be drawn in.
The National Iranian American Council describes the “neoconservatives agenda” that would force the US into its third war in the Middle East:
Late last week, Republicans in the House or Representatives unveiled H.Res.1553, a resolution providing explicit support for an Israeli bombing campaign against Iran. The measure, introduced by Texas Republican Louie Gohmert and forty-six of his colleagues, endorses Israel’s use of “all means necessary” against Iran “including the use of military force”.
…While Democrats continue to tout newly imposed “crippling” sanctions as evidence of their commitment to pressure, Republicans appear to be moving on to the next phase and are openly endorsing an Israeli strike. Gohmert even argued that instead of sanctions, Congress should have passed his resolution green-lighting military strikes on Iran.
…[Supporters] are playing games with US national security and could provoke the US into a third war in the Middle East.
Another war in this region would generate a new humanitarian crisis in a volatile region already overwhelmed with war, and the human and financial cost astronomical. It’s an unthinkable prospect, despite the rising chorus of voices insisting it’s not just conceivable but doable.
Patrick Barry of Democracy Arsenal notes that the US “bomb, bomb Iran” crowd turned to Israel after failing to “persuade anyone to support a U.S. military strike on Iran.” He sums-up the severe consequences of military action with 3 reasons why bombing Iran is a bad idea:
Iran’s asymmetric response: Ambassador Nicholas Burns, former Bush administration Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, offered the Senate Foreign Relations Committee grim summation of how Iran might respond to an attack: “Air strikes would undoubtedly lead Iran to hit back asymmetrically against us in Iraq, Afghanistan and the wider region, especially through its proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas. This reminds us of Churchill’s maxim that, once a war starts, it is impossible to know how it will end.”
Inability to eliminate nuclear program: A military strike would not substantially set back Iran’s nuclear program, and may even incentivize Iran to build a weapon. In February, Brookings Institution Fellows Michael O’Hanlon and Bruce Riedel wrote, “even a massive strike would not slow Iran’s progress towards a bomb for long. We cannot be sure we know where all existing Iranian facilities to enrich uranium are located – as the revelation of yet another previously unknown site near Qom last year reminded us.” Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East Colin Kahl took this a step further, suggesting that a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities might “incentivize the Iranians to go all the way to weaponize.”
Consequences for Iran’s opposition movement: Fareed Zakaria recently cited noted Iranian dissident Akbar Ganji, who wrote: “Even entertaining the possibility of a military strike, especially when predicated on the nuclear issue is beneficial to the fundamentalists who rule Iran. As such, the idea itself is detrimental to the democratic movement in my country.” Similarly, when he was CENTCOM commander, General David Petraeus warned that the military option risks unleashing a popular backlash that would play into the hands of the regime. “There is certainly a history, in other countries, of fairly autocratic regimes almost creating incidents that inflame nationalist sentiment,” said Petraeus. “So that could be among the many different, second, third, or even fourth order effects (of a strike),” he added.
Afghanistan War Logs Visualization
Drew Conway, an NYU political science graduate student, has created some remarkable graphs from the enormous amount of information provided by Wikileaks on the war in Afghanistan. His latest graph focuses on the increasing scale of the war from 2004 to 2009. Wired’s Danger Room blog has a good summary of Conway’s work.
It’s one thing to read about individual Taliban attacks in WikiLeaks’ trove of war logs. It’s something quite different to see the bombings and the shootings mount, and watch the insurgency metastasize.
NYU political science grad student (and occasional Danger Room contributor) Drew Conway has done just that, using an open source statistical programming language called R and a graphical plotting software tool. The results are unnerving, like stop-motion photography of a freeway wreck. Above is the latest example: a graph showing the spread of combat from 2004 to 2009. It’s exactly what you wouldn’t want to see as a war drags on.
Jon Rainwater, Executive Director. For over 25 years, Jon has been active in campaigns on issues of peace, nuclear disarmament, social justice and environmental sustainability. 
Rebecca Griffin, Political Director. Rebecca is spearheading campaigns to get Afghanistan right, and promote a diplomatic solution with Iran. 