Thank you to all of you who sent emails last week. Now, I’m asking you to join groups around the country in a national call-in day.

Call the congressional switchboard at (202) 224-3121. Ask for your representative’s office. When you’re connected, use this sample message as a guide and add your own words:

My name is [your name] and I live at [your address]. I oppose keeping US troops in Afghanistan for another 12 years. I strongly encourage [your representative's name]  to vote for amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act to speed up military withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Then, click here to tell me how your call went.

Thank you for raising your voice.

• Supporters Riley and Becky Newman have put together a really helpful chart on Senate races around the country, and are generously sharing it with people who want to know all the key info- who are the candidates, how much have they raised, who’s endorsed them, and more. Click here to download the PDF.
• Cook Political Report is constantly updating its ratings on how competitive House and Senate races are.
• The FEC’s campaign finance portal lets you see how much money candidates have raised and who is funding their campaign.
• The blogosphere is full of interesting analysis and on-the-ground updates, from Nate Silver to Talking Points Memo to Roll Call and more.

Of course, if you’re looking for peace candidates who have been vetted for their support of a foreign policy based on diplomacy, smart security spending, and reducing the nuclear threat, visit Peace Action West’s 2012 election center. Our list of peace candidates is constantly growing, so check back to see how you can help us build the peace vote in Congress.

For decades, we have pointed out that bloated military spending takes money away from programs that have a much more positive impact on society–health care, education, the social safety net, and on and on.

Last week, House Republicans decided to put those out of whack priorities into stark relief by voting to save the Pentagon from modest budget cuts by slashing food stamps and other social programs. Attacking those programs is unwise and immoral at any time, but it’s even worse in the middle of an economic downturn with people struggling all over the country. Sorry kids, no food today. We need to be able to shoot down missiles that could theoretically someday possibly be launched at the East Coast, even if the Pentagon says we don’t.

Every Democrat present voted against the bill, which passed 218-199. Credit should be given as well to the 16 Republicans who recognized the folly of this approach. See the roll call here. 

Thankfully, this bill will never go anywhere in the Senate and has virtually no chance of becoming law. But it does demonstrate how horribly out of touch these politicians are with the needs and desires of the American public, especially on the heels of a poll that shows that 90% of Democrats and 67% of Republicans want to cut Pentagon spending.

Last week, President Obama announced an agreement with the Afghan government that could mean thousands of troops on the ground until 2024.

Congress must tell the president that twelve more years is twelve too many. Tell your representative to vote for a swift end to the war in Afghanistan.

The House will vote on amendments calling for a quicker end to the war in Afghanistan next week. This is Congress’s chance to send a message to NATO countries gathering this month in Chicago to talk about commitments to Afghanistan’s future.

The administration is already responding to the drumbeat of pressure from Congress and the public. Now let’s show him it’s not going away until we get a real plan to end the war.

In a tough election year, President Obama recognizes that it’s smart to sell this agreement as an end to the war. Democrats, Republicans and swing voters alike want our troops to come home.  Hawks who oppose even modest withdrawals won’t stop pushing, and we can’t either.

Thank you for taking action.

One of the president’s justifications for maintaining a military presence is to preserve gains the US has made against the Taliban. However, a new report by the chairs of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees contradicts this assessment, arguing that the Taliban has actually become stronger since 33,000 additional troops were sent to Afghanistan.

Despite the administration’s effort to sell this deal, it seems Americans aren’t buying it.

By a margin of 63 percent disapproval to 33 percent approval, respondents rejected a description of the deal that will include a US troop presence and billions of dollars in monetary support for Afghan forces in the decade after 2014, according to a Monitor/TIPP poll conducted April 27 to May 4.

Unusually for a key issue facing Americans in an election year, the lack of support was bipartisan, showing only small differences across the ideological spectrum.

The idea of war in Afghanistan for another twelve years does not sit well with the public. How will Congress respond?

Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee seem poised to ignore both public opinion and clear evidence that the war isn’t working. In their markup of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), they give lip service to the idea that “combat operations” shouldn’t be indefinite, but push back against significant troop reductions and leave long-term troop numbers open-ended. The bill states that the president should “maintain a force of at least 68,000 troops through December 31, 2014,” contradicting the vague promise President Obama made of steady withdrawals after this summer. It also advises that a “credible force” should be kept beyond 2014, codifying the general commitment in the US-Afghan strategic partnership agreement.

Thankfully, there will surely be pushback from members of Congress who understand the need to change strategy. Next week, the NDAA will come to the House floor, and there are likely to be votes on amendments pushing for a speedier end to the war. Last year, 204 representatives voted in favor of requiring a plan for accelerated withdrawal. The war has only become more unpopular since then. Check back later this week for action alerts to make sure your representative sends a clear message to the president that the war must end sooner.

And rumor has it he is scheming to turn back the clock to the Cold War arms race. The good news is, he isn’t the only one who knows how to scheme.

Congress will be voting soon on the bill that authorizes all defense spending for 2013. If what we are hearing is true, there’s a major battle brewing over nuclear weapons spending this summer.

On one side, we have a push from Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH) to put money for a new bomb factory back in the budget. On the other, we have several possible amendments to chip away even more money from the bloated nuclear weapons complex.

Click here to tell your Representative to vote for any amendments that would cut nuclear pork, and support efforts to keep the new nuclear bomb factory in New Mexico out of the budget.

Rep. Turner is resorting to scare tactics to get his nuclear payday. He said that without a brand new bomb plant “the United States would find itself, simply put, without the capability required to remain a nuclear weapons state.” But we are currently spending more money than at the height of the Cold War, when we only have a quarter of the bombs.

Your representative needs to hear from you now before voting begins. Click here to tell Congress to vote to cut spending on nuclear weapons.

There is bipartisan support to cut back on plans for new bomb plants, especially in these times of financial difficulty where many politicians are beginning to worry about bloated defense spending. With enough bipartisan support we can win on these votes. But your representative needs to hear from you to cut wasteful nuclear weapons spending. Take action today.

The White House has been telling Americans fed up with the war that the deal signed Tuesday with the Afghan government is the light at the end of the tunnel. Meanwhile, the Obama administration is selling the same deal to NATO allies as a sign of the United States’ enduring commitment.

The reality is that the new strategic partnership agreement is not all things to all people. By the end of this summer, there still will be 68,000 troops in Afghanistan. The new agreement authorizes the U.S. military to “advise and assist” the Afghan military through at least 2024. That could translate to another 12 years of repeating our mistakes, with tens of thousands of soldiers still in harm’s way.

This means that a large majority of Americans have reason to be disappointed. According to a recent CNN poll, 77 percent of Americans want all U.S. troops out of Afghanistan by the end of 2014, with 55 percent wanting them out sooner. Last month, a Pew poll found that 59 percent of swing voters want them home as soon as possible. Americans want out of a war that costs us $2 billion a week. The NATO summit coming up this month is a chance to take real steps toward that goal.

The U.S. occupation is the primary target for the Afghan insurgency, which makes an enormous military presence inherently destabilizing to the Afghan nation. Recent revelations have underscored this reality, such as the photos of soldiers posing with dead insurgents, and the accidental mass burning of Qurans. It is no surprise that Afghans are growing more resentful of the American military presence. The international community could play a constructive role in helping Afghans rebuild their country and strengthen their government. But the trust needed to build that kind of partnership between Afghans and Americans is sorely lacking. A clear and responsible plan to withdraw U.S. troops as soon as possible would be a first step in building that trust.

Withdrawing should not mean abandoning Afghanistan. The United States has a responsibility to keep its commitment to Afghans. We also have an interest. After more than 10 years of war, our futures are linked. Afghanistan’s many challenges – from the lack of public support for the Karzai government to widespread corruption – are rooted in politics. These problems require political solutions that can’t be delivered at gunpoint. Ending the occupation could provide an opening for a diplomatic and development mission that would be not only more effective, but much less deadly and costly.

At the May 20-21 summit in Chicago, NATO will address its role in Afghanistan, and could lay groundwork for making this crucial strategic shift. This week marks one year since Osama bin Laden was killed in Pakistan. His death, along with a diminished al Qaeda presence in Afghanistan, removed the primary justification for this war. The next few weeks will be an opportunity to set forth a clear commitment and timeline to bring the troops home.

That means now is the time to act. If you want this war to end, call your congressional representative now. The House will be taking up a defense policy bill the week before the NATO summit. Tell your elected representative to use this debate to take a stand for a serious, detailed plan to end this war.

Rebecca Griffin leads Peace Action West’s campaigns for alternatives to war. www.peaceactionwest.org

Some argue Iran has no intention of curtailing its nuclear program and that any talks are bound to fail, but I believe circumstances finally may be right to negotiate an agreement.

But given the looming threat of an Israeli military strike and the potentially catastrophic reaction in the Middle East, a diplomatic solution offers the best outcome for Iran, Israel and the international community. We must support those efforts.

Read the rest here. 

Thankfully, the pushback against a military attack on Iran appears to be having an impact. The New York Times reports today that experts believe the chance of war with Iran in the near future has “significantly decreased.”

It’s important for us to monitor this debate and continue to push for a diplomatic resolution. If you haven’t yet, you can click here to tell your representative and senators to support diplomacy and oppose bills that move the US closer to war.

If we want to see a peaceful outcome to all of this and avoid the slow slide into yet another illegal and costly war, we need to impress upon Congress the need for peaceful alternatives NOW and signal that we are paying close attention to the gathering clouds.

The first step is getting informed. So, we put together a short blog series to help clear up some of the murkiness that’s out there and point you in the direction of helpful information.

Part 1 – Is Iran close to having have a nuclear weapon?

Despite the fear-mongering by the media, the IAEA’s November 2011 report offers no new evidence contradicting a 2007 National Intelligence Agency finding  citing high confidence on the part of American spy agencies that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003.  Yes you read that right.  Halted. A decade ago.

According to Reuters,

The Obama administration, relying on a top-priority intelligence collection program and after countless hours of debate, has concluded that Iranian leaders have not decided whether to actively construct a nuclear weapon, current and former officials said.

So what is all this talk about an Iranian bomb?  Iran has been enriching uranium as part of its nuclear energy program, a right granted to it under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT).  The fear is that Iran could put in place the capacity to quickly move to developing a nuclear weapon should it decide to do so.

Fortunately, as a signatory to the NPT, Iran is subject to regular inspections by the IAEA.  If Iran were to ramp up its program to the point of developing a weapon, it would be nearly impossible to do so without ejecting the inspectors, thus raising alarm bells in the international community.

This explains why hawks in Congress are pushing to move the “redline” for military action from having a nuclear weapon to having a weapons capability, and why doing so is especially counterproductive and troubling.  Capability is a vague term, and the sponsors of the legislation have not provided a definition. Moving the redline to ‘capability’ effectively means that the United States should have bombed Iran yesterday, in the words of Trita Parsi, according to some definitions of nuclear weapons capable.

Military officials agree that while bombing Iranian enrichment facilities would at the very most set any supposed nuclear weapons program back 2-3 years,  it would most certainly provide cause for Iran to immediately work to develop a nuclear weapon. Having been attacked, Iran would likely withdraw from the NPT and kick out IAEA inspectors, leaving the international community with no way of knowing how far along such a program may be.  In short, the military activity that Congressional hawks are pushing for would result in a more robust, determined and clandestine Iranian nuclear program then ever.

Anyone living in a post-Iraq war era should understand the importance of getting one’s facts straight before rushing into another war.  Let’s also not forget the ease with which inconclusive data can be molded to fit political and short-term strategic gains.

I’ll leave you with this timeline from the Christian Science Monitor, which reminds us of the fact that officials have been estimating that an Iranian nuclear bomb is just around the corner since 1979.

Up next: What happens if there is a military strike on Iran (by Israel or the US)?

I was in Iran in 2009 when a family invited me into their home for dinner. Over kebabs and rice, I chatted about school and video games with their 6-year-old son. He and his mother sang us a song about flying like a balloon, and I struggled to keep up with his uncle’s many American movie references.

The family lives in Esfahan, a likely target of any Israeli or American military attack. Esfahan is home to part of Iran’s nuclear energy program and less than two hours from another potential target, the Natanz uranium enrichment facility. Whenever I hear talk of war with Iran, I think of these kind people.

On April 13, the United States and its allies will resume negotiations with Iran aimed at resolving the conflict over Iran’s nuclear program. Congress should give diplomacy time to work, rather than pushing the United States closer to a military confrontation nobody wants.