Are you smarter than the Pentagon?
At the very least, you are surely less resistant to making reasonable cuts in the Pentagon budget. Over the last few months, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has been spouting hyperbole about the supposed dangers of cutting the bloated military budget, saying cuts would turn the dominant US military into a “paper tiger” and would spell “doomsday” for our national defense.
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.
Happy First Birthday, New START Treaty
On this day last year, I was glued to CSPAN’s live feed of the Senate floor. Late in the evening, they finally started to vote on ratification of the New START Treaty, and I realized that years of hard work had finally paid off. By a vote of 71 yeas to 26 nays, with 13 Republicans voting in favor, the New START Treaty had been ratified! We jumped up and down a bit, sent off our victory email to thank all of you, and I was able to head out and enjoy my early holiday present.
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!
TODAY: Iraq war officially ends
Today, the Iraq war officially ends.
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.
A peace activist in Congress
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 Defense Authorization votes: the high(and low)lights
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.
Victory! Senate passes Merkley Afghanistan amendment
Earlier today, the US Senate passed Sen. Jeff Merkley’s amendment requiring a plan for an accelerated withdrawal from Afghanistan by a voice vote. No matter how loudly Sen. John McCain shouted “NO!” on the Senate floor, he couldn’t out-yell the growing opposition to the costly and unnecessary war in Afghanistan.
Thank you to all of you who called and emailed your senators urging them to support the amendment. Our power is growing, and we will continue to build on this opportunity to keep pushing to bring our troops and tax dollars home.
Update: Read Sen. Merkley’s press release here.
Vote this week: call to end the war in Afghanistan
Thank you to all of you who took action last week urging your senators to cosponsor the Merkley amendment for a quicker withdrawal from Afghanistan.
The Senate is back in session this week, and they need to feel the heat on this. Will you take a minute to call your senators and urge them to vote yes?
Senate switchboard: 202-224-3121
Here’s a sample message. Please add your personal thoughts about why you want to end the war in Afghanistan:
My name is ___________ and I live at _________. I am calling to urge Senator ________ to vote yes on the Merkley amendment supporting a quicker withdrawal from Afghanistan.
This vote offers a rare opportunity to get the Senate on record on ending the war.
Thank you so much for holding them accountable.
Senators: vote to end the war in Afghanistan
Can you imagine US troops on the ground in Afghanistan in 2024?
That’s what’s on the table right now in discussions between the US and Afghan governments. Now is the time to send a message to the administration that ten years of war in Afghanistan is already far too long.
Tell your senators to vote in favor of a quicker withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Thanks to your efforts, the administration is getting the message that Congress is growing impatient with this endless war. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) has introduced a bipartisan amendment that shows Senate support for a quicker end to the war in Afghanistan. The vote could happen early next week, so we need to use these final days to build up pressure on as many senators as possible.
You helped us get twenty-seven senators signed on to a letter to the president calling for withdrawal last summer. Can you help us beat that record next week? Please ask your senators to support the Merkley amendment.
Billions of dollars and thousands of lives are still on the line in Afghanistan. We need to show the Senate that we will not stay quiet on this issue until all of the troops come home. Take action today.
Thank you for your persistence.
US out of the UN?
John Bolton and his UN-hating friends must be celebrating right now. Earlier this month when the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) voted overwhelmingly to admit Palestine as a member state, it triggered a 20-year-old law requiring the US to withdraw its funding for the agency.
Blocking one-fifth of UNESCO’s budget isn’t going to help bring peace to the Middle East. And it’s just the beginning. Tell Congress today to change this counterproductive law.
Even though more than a hundred countries supported Palestine’s UNESCO membership, the US is taking a my way or the highway approach that ultimately will hurt US interests. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) even said it would be “catastrophic” for the US-UN relationship. And yet he won’t step in to stop it.
Cutting off funds to an organization that helps teach people in Afghanistan to read and promotes education in South Sudan is only the start. If Palestine is admitted to other UN agencies, the US would cut off funding to other bodies like the International Atomic Energy Agency, meaning fewer inspectors on the ground stopping the spread of dangerous nuclear material. [1]
This move by the US could cripple these critical agencies, and diminish the US’s ability to be an effective global partner. Tell Congress the US government needs to stop shooting itself in the foot with this shortsighted bill.
Right now, Congress is headed in the wrong direction on this, reinforcing this outdated law rather than working to change it. The State Department is making the case that this funding is crucial, but Congress is only going to feel the heat if they hear from you. Take action now.
Try a little diplomacy
engaging in some grassroots diplomacy in Shiraz, Iran
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I’m going to say that now would be a good time to engage in serious diplomacy with Iran.
A new report from the IAEA has reinvigorated calls for harsh action against Iran. While the conclusions of the report point to the possibility that Iran wants to have a nuclear weapons capability, it’s still not clear that they have make a definitive decision to build a bomb. The key point, as the Arms Control Association points out, is that “it remains apparent that a nuclear-armed Iran is still not imminent nor is it inevitable.”
Despite this important fact, politicians and pundits from both sides of the aisle are predictably calling for counterproductive responses. Congress was already lining up broad, sweeping sanctions. The House Foreign Affairs Committee passed sanctions that would block attempts at diplomacy with Iran, and hurt regular Iranians though measures like preventing the president from allowing the sale of civilian airplane parts to Iran. When I took a couple of short flights within Iran a two years ago, it was the only time I ever had an ashtray in my armrest. We are talking about some old planes in dire need of repair, and hundreds of Iranians have suffered the consequences in plane crashes in recent years. Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) is leading the charge for what the National Iranian American Council calls the “nuclear option” of sanctions: going after Iran’s central bank, another move that would put a terrible burden on regular Iranians.
Sen. Joe Lieberman did his whole Lieberman thing, saying that the US must consider military force against Iran. And he’s not alone. I won’t spend a lot of time explaining why this would obviously be a horrible idea, but here are 5 reasons to start.
Joe Lieberman is right about one (only one?) thing: “what we have already been doing, that clearly hasn’t been working.” Barbara Slavin, who has spent much more time than many of these politicians studying and understanding Iran, called on the US to double down on diplomacy:
Washington and its partners should provide Iran with a clearer sense of what the international community would accept in terms of uranium enrichment and civilian nuclear activity — if Iran clarifies its behavior and accepts stringent safeguards against diversion to weapons. The Obama administration has been quick to pivot from talking to punishing. Iran needs to know that sanctions are not an end in themselves.
There is understandable frustration that sanctions have not forced Tehran to curb its nuclear program. As Congress and the administration contemplate further measures to increase pressure on Iran, however, they should focus on improving implementation of existing sanctions that target nuclear proliferation and Iranian officials rather than Iranians in general.
There are people who are highly pessimistic about engaging in diplomacy with Iran, and many have already declared it a failure. But many of the approaches recommended by experts on Iran haven’t even been tried. As Laicie Olsen of the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation aptly pointed out, we’ve given the war in Afghanistan more than a decade (without much in the way of success to show for it); how about devoting even a fraction of that much time to serious, comprehensive diplomacy with Iran? Despite the political rhetoric, “all options” haven’t really been on the table. It’s time to put comprehensive, pragmatic diplomacy on the table before we head down an even more dangerous path with Iran.
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. 
Katie Heald, Deputy Political Director. Katie is the national coordinator of the Campaign for a Nuclear Weapons Free World. 
