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 fact, the only year that sees a drop in spending is 2013, with a baseline number of $525 billion, $6 billion less than 2012. On top of that the administration asks for $88 billion for “overseas contingency operations”, which include the war in Afghanistan. Spending is then projected to increase every year, with the baseline rising to $567 billion by 2017, and the additional overseas contingency ominously marked as “TBD” from 2014-2017.

There are some good things in this budget, like moving two army brigades out of Europe. Taxpayers for Common Sense has a great breakdown of the positive steps made as well as some of the more glaring examples of lard left in this budget. A lot of the real savings in 2013 come from withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan. But this administration’s proposal, which brings spending down by 8% from what we were projected to spend over the next 5 years, is far more modest than previous presidents’ post-war build downs that reduced military spending by as much as 30% — especially given the massive buildup in spending over the last decade. Here’s some historical context from Robert Dreyfuss:

Thanks to the Project on Defense Alternatives, we have a pretty good idea of what the long-term trends look like. Base-budget spending skyrocketed 55 percent between 1998 and 2010, adjusted for inflation. (Unadjusted, Pentagon spending pretty much doubled in twelve years.) And “base budgets” don’t include the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on war in Iraq and Afghanistan. As PDA notes, Panetta’s new budget plan sets 2013 spending at $525 billion, which is 46 percent above the 1998 level.” Some cut!

Members of Congress are already putting out proposals to undo even these minor reductions. Given the hyper-partisan reaction to any discussion of cuts, even this modest progress made in the Pentagon’s proposal could be reversed. Fortunately, public opinion and the climate of budget cuts are on our side. We’ll be watching the budget battles in 2012, and will alert you when your action can make a difference.

On a related note, David Dayen and Spencer Ackerman note the strategic shift to covert ops and drones represented in this budget. It’s an important reminder that the new face of war, as practiced by the Obama administration, isn’t any prettier than the old one. From Dayen:

During the Obama Presidency we’ve seen the advance of the new American way of war, with covert ops taking precedence over conventional forces. Drones and Navy SEALs are the future; counter-insurgency and its need for large masses of troops may be the past. Basically you’re moving the military from an accountable to an unaccountable position where they have plausible deniability for all their activities.

While many advocates and experts focus on the numbers I think this shift commands a bit more attention.

“Yes, we’ve made gains against the Taliban around Kandahar,” a minister and former Kandahar governor told me recently. “But it takes 18,000 men for a single district. We can’t sustain that.”

And there have been other costs. As troops moved into rural districts the Taliban had held, they built dirt roads right through farmers’ vineyards and orchards. I saw the results when I went to visit a friend’s family land. Debris had been shoved into an irrigation channel that once watered the whole village, razor wire had been looped across a road, and buildings where families dry their grapes to make prized raisins had been destroyed.

There were good tactical reasons for inflicting such damage. Many of the buildings had been booby-trapped by the retreating Taliban, or they obstructed the troops’ lines of sight. But the local economy, already one of the most threadbare on Earth, has been badly hurt. Compensation money was paid out, but still, success against the Taliban came at great cost to residents.

They are left with the question: What now? If their grapevines or fruit trees dry out, what should they plant? If insurgents offer poppy seeds, should they accept? And what about the Afghan soldiers who stole the furniture out of the blown-up buildings? Villagers can’t take them to court because the judicial system is deeply corrupt. So who can give them recourse? A sense of justice? Maybe the Taliban.

And this doesn’t help clarify matters:

The aggressive efforts by some to spin perceptions of Afghanistan have grown unseemly as well as dangerous. I’ve seen dissent disappear from interagency documents. I’ve heard officials tell public affairs officers to pressure reporters about their stories.

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.

Rose Gottemoeller, the chief negotiator of the treaty with Russia, has a post on The Hill today celebrating the anniversary and the major victory for arms control the Senate vote represents:

This great bipartisan effort is paying big dividends now in strengthening U.S. national security. … The New START Treaty entered into force on February 5th of this year and immediately entered implementation. It is going very well.

Our experience so far demonstrates that the New START Treaty is enhancing our national security by building predictability and stability between the United States and Russia, still the world’s two largest nuclear powers. We are also setting the stage for the future, since new nuclear reductions will build on the success of New START and the innovations we are putting in place as we implement it.

Earlier this fall, the State Department released the latest totals of the deployed nuclear warheads restricted by the treaty.


This is down 178 from the 1968 strategic warheads that the US had deployed in May of 2010, according to the Federation of American Scientists.

In less than a year the process has been moving pretty quickly, with US warheads already approaching the 1700 limit of New START. This is a great sign, and reinforces our position that the State Department should start another round of negotiations with Russia ASAP to lower the limits much sooner than the treaty’s current expiration date of 2021.

So, here’s one more thank you and congratulations from me to you, for everything you did to help us flip 13 Republicans and achieve a decisive victory for arms control and nuclear disarmament. Have a Happy Birthday, New START!

Three years ago, Americans elected a president who rose to prominence on the basis of his opposition to the war. Now, after sustained grassroots pressure, President Obama will finally withdraw the last US troops from Iraq by year’s end.

And the war that started with a bang, with millions rising up in protest, will quietly end. But our journey towards peace won’t end here. We need your help to prepare for the new year.

Peace Action West campaigned tirelessly to turn the tide against a war that was once popular. And while we have much more to do, we’ve made a difference. That’s the way peace works.

Unlike war, peace progresses quietly and slowly, and takes patience. But people like you and me understand the stakes, and keep working. Peace is quiet. But it demands action. 

Because when we raise our voices together, we make a real difference in the world. If it weren’t for those Americans who steadfastly stood for peace, the war in Iraq would not be ending. In the 1960′s, experts predicted that by now there would be 20 to 30 nuclear-armed nations in the world. That didn’t happen, and it’s because the people of the world insisted their governments sign and uphold the agreements that have kept nuclear weapons in check.

Ninety-eight percent of our annual budget comes from individual donors, people just like you. That’s why it’d be impossible to look ahead to 2012 without folks like you by our side.Can you help us prepare for 2012 with a year-end contribution? For a gift of $40 or more, we’ll send you our new Peace Demands Action stainless steel sports water bottle. 

As you know, America is facing serious challenges, including a military commander who is pushing to extend the war in Afghanistan, a Congress that is planning to ramp up nuclear weapons spending while beating the war drum on Iran, and a string of presidential candidates who are frighteningly ignorant when it comes to foreign policy.

If you’ve gotten this far in this email, it’s because you know that we can’t afford more open-ended war, and more expensive foreign policy mistakes. And we know from history that nothing changes unless people who believe in peace take action.

Eleanor Roosevelt once said, “It isn’t enough to talk about peace. One must believe in it. And it isn’t enough to believe in it. One must work at it.” 

Inspiring, right? That’s why we put that quote on our new Peace Demands Action sports water bottle. We’ll send it to you as a thank you for a gift of $40 or more, but please give whatever you can afford before the year’s end. 

Thank you.

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.