Despite lingering concerns about implementation of any changes by the Bahraini government, the Obama administration used a sneaky move to proceed with a limited arms sale to Bahrain, circumventing Congress. Josh Rogin reports:

The State Department has not released details of the new sale, and Congress has not been notified through the regular process, which requires posting the information on the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) website. The State Department simply briefed a few congressional offices and is going ahead with the new sale, arguing it didn’t meet the threshold that would require more formal notifications and a public explanation.

At today’s State Department press briefing, The Cable asked spokeswoman Victoria Nuland about the new sale. She acknowledged the new package but didn’t have any details handy.

Our congressional sources said that State is using a legal loophole to avoid formally notifying Congress and the public about the new arms sale. The administration can sell anything to anyone without formal notification if the sale is under $1 million. If the total package is over $1 million, State can treat each item as an individual sale, creating multiple sales of less than $1 million and avoiding the burden of notification, which would allow Congress to object and possibly block the deal.

Sanjeev Bery of Amnesty International USA explains why this sale is so troubling:

Given this record, Amnesty International finds these additional US arms sales to the Bahraini government troubling. Because the details are secret, it is difficult to independently determine whether the US government is providing the kinds of weapons, ammunition, and/or equipment that Bahraini security forces could use in the commission of further human rights violations.

It is worth noting that just four months ago, the Obama Administration proposed a $53 million arms sale (PDF) to Bahrain that included armored Humvees, tow missiles, and night vision goggles. In October of 2011, the State Department’s Victoria Nuland described that proposed sale as “designed to support the Bahraini military in its external defense function.”

Note the use of that same phrase – “external defense.”

For a Bahraini government with a track record of violating human rights, the difference between “external defense” and internal crackdowns may be less than obvious. Bahraini security forces already used military vehicles in the commission of human rights violations when they surrounded a hospital with tanks. Inside the hospital, doctors were treating wounded protestors. The doctors were arrested.

Eighteen representatives and three senators wrote to Secretary of State Clinton opposing the sale and arguing that the administration has not justified sending the arms given the documented human rights violations in Bahrain.

From both a security and a moral perspective, it is shortsighted (though unfortunately not atypical) for the US to reward countries that repress their own people. With a meeting on an international Arms Trade Treaty coming up this July, which would set global standards for weapons sales, it’s an important time to show our support for a policy that respects human rights.

Davis discusses the report he wrote (as of now, Army Public Affairs has not decided whether he can release the unclassified version publicly) in a piece in Armed Forces Journal. He shares incidents he witnessed traveling 9,000 miles around Afghanistan last year:

In August, I went on a dismounted patrol with troops in the Panjwai district of Kandahar province. Several troops from the unit had recently been killed in action, one of whom was a very popular and experienced soldier. One of the unit’s senior officers rhetorically asked me, “How do I look these men in the eye and ask them to go out day after day on these missions? What’s harder: How do I look [my soldier’s] wife in the eye when I get back and tell her that her husband died for something meaningful? How do I do that?”

One of the senior enlisted leaders added, “Guys are saying, ‘I hope I live so I can at least get home to R&R leave before I get it,’ or ‘I hope I only lose a foot.’ Sometimes they even say which limb it might be: ‘Maybe it’ll only be my left foot.’ They don’t have a lot of confidence that the leadership two levels up really understands what they’re living here, what the situation really is.”

While he is limited in what he can share with the public, Davis shares some representative experiences that bring him to the conclusion that the mission in Afghanistan is failing [emphasis mine]:

In all of the places I visited, the tactical situation was bad to abysmal. If the events I have described — and many, many more I could mention — had been in the first year of war, or even the third or fourth, one might be willing to believe that Afghanistan was just a hard fight, and we should stick it out. Yet these incidents all happened in the 10th year of war.

Davis ends his piece by condemning military leaders for withholding the truth from the American people:

If Americans were able to compare the public statements many of our leaders have made with classified data, this credibility gulf would be immediately observable. Naturally, I am not authorized to divulge classified material to the public. But I am legally able to share it with members of Congress. I have accordingly provided a much fuller accounting in a classified report to several members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, senators and House members…

…Likewise when having to decide whether to continue a war, alter its aims or to close off a campaign that cannot be won at an acceptable price, our senior leaders have an obligation to tell Congress and American people the unvarnished truth and let the people decide what course of action to choose. That is the very essence of civilian control of the military. The American people deserve better than what they’ve gotten from their senior uniformed leaders over the last number of years. Simply telling the truth would be a good start.

Davis’ report highlights how deference to the military in the public and Congress can be detrimental to US security and our ability to make the right decisions about war, as Martin Cook notes in the New York Times’ coverage of the report:

But Martin L. Cook, who teaches military ethics at the Naval War College, says Colonel Davis has identified a hazard that is intrinsic to military culture, in which a can-do optimism can be at odds with the strictest candor when a mission is failing.

“You’ve trained people to try to be successful even when half their buddies are dead and they’re almost out of ammo,” he said. “It’s very hard for them to say, ‘can’t do.’ ”

Lt. Col. Davis recognizes the potential backlash he faces, telling the Times, “I’m going to get nuked.” Davis briefed several members of Congress, and hopefully they will be able to shield Davis to some extent, and more importantly to ensure that these revelations get the attention they deserve and the leadership is held accountable. Republican Rep. Walter Jones (R-SC), one of the members who was briefed on the report, said “For Colonel Davis to go out on a limb and help us to understand what’s happening on the ground, I have the greatest admiration for him We owe a debt of gratitude to Davis for his brave stand.

The big question now is what the media and our political leaders do with this information. For the good of our nation, they should take Lt. Col. Davis’ message to heart: “How many more men must die in support of a mission that is not succeeding?”

In a pleasant departure from his hyperbolic defense of high levels of military spending. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced this week that the US and NATO are hoping to end “combat operations” in Afghanistan in mid-2013, rather than sometime in 2014 as they had implied earlier.

There has been much discussion about the political nature of this decision:

The Obama administration is betting that Americans are tired of the financial and human cost of the war and would welcome an exit strategy so long as they believed it ensured U.S. national security. Obama has asserted that the completion of the phased Iraq withdrawal, promised during his 2008 campaign, is evidence of U.S. strength and his own resolve.

Opposing the war in Afghanistan should be a no-brainer in this election. A solid majority of voters, including people of all political persuasions, support a military withdrawal. The main reason we’ve seen such an increase in congressional opposition to the war is that it is a foregone conclusion that the war is terribly unpopular; the phones in Congress are not ringing off the hook with people calling to urge a “stay the course” approach in Afghanistan.

But the decision the administration is making is not just smart from a political angle; it also makes the most sense for our security. A large ground force in Afghanistan is not going to protect us from a small group of potential terrorists dispersed around the globe.  As the National Security Network points out, many security experts recognize it is time to shift to a new strategy in Afghanistan:

Defense experts: shifting the focus of the mission in Afghanistan from combat to training Afghan security forces is the best way to protect long-term U.S. interests. As Lieutenant General David W. Barno, USA (Ret.), Andrew Exum and Matthew Irvine of the Center for a New American Security wrote last December: “It is time for a change of mission in Afghanistan. U.S. and coalition forces must shift away from directly conducting counterinsurgency operations and toward a new mission of ‘security force assistance’: advising and enabling Afghan forces to take the lead in the counterinsurgency fight. This shift is more than rhetorical. With a 2014 transition looming in Afghanistan, U.S. and allied military leaders must recognize that U.S. and coalition forces will not defeat the Taliban and its allies in the next three years. Instead, they must direct the military effort toward working by, with and through the Afghans. This effort will protect long-term U.S. security interests without a never-ending commitment of immense U.S. resources.” This idea has currency inside the Pentagon as well. General John Allen, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, said last December he would accelerate the role played by Afghan security forces. [CNAS, 12/11. John Allen via NY Times, 12/13/11]

Despite the fact that this decision is both smart and necessary, leading Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has decided to attack it as naïve. As Alex Roarty points out in National Journal, it’s a bit puzzling that Romney would be “tethering himself to an unpopular agenda.” Though why not add squandering lives and dollars on an unnecessary and unpopular war to dismissing the plight of the poor and making awkward and inappropriate jokes? He still has to compete with ditching child labor laws and building moon colonies.

Of course Romney’s misguided support is based on specious policy grounds:

Conservatives immediately responded to Panetta’s announcement by criticizing the decision to further align U.S. commitment with our interests there. But they have criticized tactics – setting a date certain, specific withdrawal numbers – without offering an alternative policy that meets both realities on the ground and the war-weariness of Americans.  As the Huffington Post’s Amanda Terkel wrote last month, “How do you win? Well, by beating your opponent, of course. And how do you beat your opponent? By winning. That tautology was essentially former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney’s answer when he was asked about how, as commander in chief, he would end the war in Afghanistan without talking to the Taliban.”

Romney complained that the US shouldn’t tell the people they’re fighting when they are going to pull out troops. Apparently Romney either thinks he is going to come up with a plan to eradicate the Taliban militarily, something that has eluded the US and NATO for more than ten years, or he is going to pull a fast one on the Taliban with a surprise withdrawal, leaving them so stunned and confused that they can’t retake power.

While this recent development is encouraging, this is hardly a time to take our foot off the gas in pushing for an end to the war. The White House downplayed Panetta’s announcement, saying only that it “could happen,” perhaps trying to have it both ways. During the announcement about shifting in 2013, Panetta also said there would be some kind of military presence in Afghanistan indefinitely. Despite the administration’s talking point that the “tide of war is receding,” there is still no clear end date for when all US troops will come home.

Also, as Mark Thompson explains on the Battleland blog, the distinction between combat and non-combat troops is a fuzzy one:

Yet shifting from a combat role to a training and assist role – what Panetta wants to happen sometime next year – is a fuzzy line that commanders can blur for certain units and in certain provinces. “A shift in mission statement has been talked about for several months, and that not much may change on the ground,” says an officer heading into the fight shortly. “The mission statement can say partnering/mentoring instead of combat, but if a Afghan-U.S. patrol gets in a fight, those U.S. troops will still fight the same way they were doing before. A lot of that is already going on.”

This announcement is an important sign that all of our work over the last couple of years is bearing fruit—the administration sees the writing on the wall and is looking for a way to end the war. Now we must be vigilant and make sure they don’t cave to the pressure of the Romneys and McCains of the world and instead listen to the clear voice of the majority of Americans and put Afghans in control of their own future.

After last night’s special election in Oregon’s first district, we have a new ally in Congress. Congratulations to Rep.-elect Bonamici and all the people who worked so hard on her campaign, and thank you to all of you who donated and cast your votes to help her win. Rep. Bonamici will become the only woman in Oregon’s congressional delegation, a delegation with many great leaders who have been working with us to end wars and cut wasteful military spending.

We look forward to working with Rep. Bonamici in Congress and helping her keep her seat in the upcoming election this year. You can donate to her and our other endorsed candidates here.

Paid for by the Peace Action West Voter Fund.

Tomorrow, voters in Oregon’s first district will vote in a special election to decide who will fight for their priorities in Washington, DC.

In 2012 we will see major fights in Congress to roll back wasteful military spending and fund needs in our communities. Please donate to Suzanne Bonamici’s campaign so she can carry that message to Congress.

State Senator Suzanne Bonamici faces a tough battle in the special election to replace Rep. David Wu. Last week, week, Republicans released a poll showing her opponent was polling within 5 points in this Democratic-leaning district. Republicans nationwide are responding by pouring money into the district to try to add to their majority in the House.

Last year, we made tremendous progress in building opposition in Congress to the costly war in Afghanistan, but with the Pentagon pushing back against any additional military withdrawals, we need allies  now more than ever. Suzanne’s campaign is launching a major grassroots effort to get out the vote in these last critical days. Can you donate $10 to help them reach voters this week?

Over the years, I have seen the real difference it makes in our work to have partners we helped elect sitting in Congress, working with us to change the way we do foreign policy. Please donate today to help Suzanne Bonamici get to DC.

Paid for by the Peace Action West Voter Fund

In less than two weeks, voters in Oregon’s first congressional district will decide who will be their voice in Washington, DC. Suzanne Bonamici is the peace candidate in this race and she needs your help.

Can you join the Martin Luther King Day of Service Canvass to send Suzanne to Congress? Click here to RSVP.

We need Suzanne in Congress, fighting to bring our troops and war dollars home so we can reinvest in our communities. Thousands of dollars are pouring in to help Republican Rob Cornilles go on TV with negative attack ads before the January 31st special election. Can you help defeat him with the power of the grassroots? Click here to sign up to talk to voters on Monday.

Thank you for pounding the pavement for peace.

Paid for by the Peace Action West Voter Fund

It’s important that progressives get an early start in 2012, a year where we have an opportunity to make a real impact in November.

Kick off the year by joining Peace Action West-endorsed candidate Norman Solomon in a series of events with television pioneer Phil Donahue. 

Donahue, a winner of 20 daytime Emmy awards, has long been an active voice in support of progressive causes, even losing his MSNBC program over his principled questioning of the rush to war in Iraq. He and Ellen Spiro produced and directed the intimate and moving documentary “Body of War,” following an Iraq veteran’s recovery process after he is paralyzed from a bullet in his spine.

Please join Norman and Phil for one of these events coming up this week:

I hope you can make it to one of these exciting events. Thank you for helping us send a progressive leader to Congress.

Paid for by the Peace Action West Voter Fund.

The New York Times reported, however, that the Pentagon hadn’t even made contingency plans for cuts because they were afraid they would leak to the media and prove that it is in fact perfectly reasonable to make significant cuts to the Pentagon’s budget. The experts in the Sustainable Defense Task Force managed to identify nearly a trillion dollars that could be cut in the next decade without detrimental effects on US security. (You can read our recommendations to the deficit super committee here.)

Today the New York Times has a new tool that gives you the opportunity to show just how doable it is to cut $450 billion from the Pentagon budget. Do you think you can do better than Leon Panetta in finding waste in the Pentagon budget? Click here to use the tool and find out.

In 2001, when Congress authorized an open-ended “war on terror,” there was only one member of Congress brave enough to stand up and say “no.” That’s why it’s crucial we do everything we can to push for more leaders who are willing to speak up for peace, even when it’s unpopular.

Norman Solomon is one of those leaders. Can you pitch in $5 to send a committed peace activist to Congress?

Author and activist Norman Solomon isn’t a newcomer to the movement for global peace and justice. In the 1980s, he was writing about the need for a comprehensive nuclear test ban and participating in nonviolent actions to block the transportation of nuclear warheads. He has visited both Iraq and Afghanistan to highlight the human cost of war there, and co-chairs a national “Healthcare Not Warfare” campaign. Now that Rep. Lynn Woolsey is retiring, we have an opportunity to send him to Congress in California’s new 2nd district.

Norman is running in a crowded field, and he is refusing money from any corporate PACs. Please help build his grassroots campaign by donating $5 today.

This is a rare chance to support a candidate with experience in the peace movement and knowledge of what it takes to get things done in Congress. Norman has been laying the groundwork for an effective people-powered campaign. He needs your early support to show he is a force to be reckoned with in this race. Please contribute today.

Paid for by the Peace Action West Voter Fund.

The Senate spent much of this week debating the 2012 Defense Authorization bill, plowing through a slew of amendments.  The debate had some low points and high points in moving our foreign policy in a more peaceful and productive direction.

Afghanistan

By far the most exciting outcome of the week was the Senate’s passage by voice vote of Sen. Jeff Merkley’s amendment requiring a plan for accelerated withdrawal from Afghanistan. Sen. Merkley sums up the significance of the vote well:

It was an historic moment. Never before has the U.S. Senate urged the President to speed up the process of bringing our troops home. The last similar amendment, in 2010, garnered only 18 votes. This year in June, 27 Senators signed on to a letter asking the President to draw down troops. The tide is turning.

You all have been persistent and powerful in your pressure on Congress around this issue, and the momentum continues in our direction. Sen. Merkley recognized Peace Action West supporters and others who helped build support for the amendment, and highlighted the importance of your efforts: “Yesterday’s vote shows that a smart, engaged, fierce grassroots effort can make a difference.”

This is an exciting achievement and we thank Sen. Merkley for his leadership. We will continue to build on this victory to increase pressure on the administration to end the war.

Iran

Unfortunately, the Senate stuck with its usual penchant for being “tough on Iran” no matter the cost. They unanimously passed an amendment to sanction entities that conduct transactions with Iran’s Central Bank. The Obama administration expressed strong opposition to the sanctions, pointing out the dire consequences, but the Senate plowed through those objections.

As Jamal Abdi of the National Iranian American Council noted:

Sanctions, hostility with the west, outside threats, and isolation are the lifeblood of this regime.  If the Iranian people were able to be a part of the rest of the world, the Iranian government’s repression could not stand the test of time.  Unfortunately, the Senate voted today to further punish the Iranian people, to entrench the regime, to punish the U.S. and its allies, and to pave the pathway to war.

The House has teed up a bill that is even worse, with provisions that effectively outlaw diplomacy. Congress has a long way to go to find a productive way of dealing with concerns about Iran’s nuclear enrichment program.

Indefinite detention

One of the reasons the NDAA took so long to get to the floor was alarm over some dangerous provisions inserted in the Armed Services Committee that require military detention of suspected terrorists and allow for indefinite detention, including of American citizens.

Shamefully, multiple attempts to rein in this horrible policy were defeated. The debate on the provisions was rife with hyperbole and scare tactics (I think Sen. Lindsey Graham was trying to set a record for the number of times the word “Nazis” was used in a Senate debate). Sen. Mark Udall’s amendment to remove the provisions and require hearings and examination of the policy failed 38-60. Sen. Dianne Feinstein offered two more modest amendments, one that stipulated that they applied to people captured abroad, and the second stating that the provisions wouldn’t apply to American citizens. Each was defeated, 45-55.

The Senate ended up with a compromise amendment that leaves things open to interpretation. Adam Serwer at Mother Jones explains:

The reason the compromise amendment worked is that it leaves the question of domestic military detention open, leaving the matter for Supreme Court to resolve should a future president decide to assert the authority to detain a US citizen on American soil. Senators who defended the detention provisions can continue to say that current law allows Americans to be detained based on the 2004 Hamdi v Rumsfeld case in which an American captured fighting in Afghanistan was held in military detention. Opponents can continue to point out that the Hamdi case doesn’t resolve whether or not Americans can be detained indefinitely without charge if captured in their own country, far from any declared battlefield. They have the better of the argument.

The compromise amendment however, does nothing to address the Obama administration’s concerns about the bill. The Directors of the FBI and CIA, the secretary of defense, and the director of national intelligence have all said that the bill’s provision mandating military detention of non-citizen terror suspects apprehended on American soil would interfere with terrorism investigations and harm national security. That hasn’t changed. The question is whether or not the administration is willing to make good on its threat to veto the bill, or whether it was just bluffing.