http://www.winwithoutwar.org/ en Copyright 2013 2013-04-29T20:42:38+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/david-cortright-red-lines-in-syria/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/david-cortright-red-lines-in-syria/ By: David Cortright, Win Without War Coalition Co-Chair and Director of Policy Studies at Notre Dame's Kroc Institute for InternationalPeace Studies If the Assad regime has used chemical weapons and crossed the red line President Obama warned against, urgent international action is needed. This does not mean the United States should take military action. Instead Washington should work through the United Nations to confirm the evidence and if necessary mobilize diplomatic action against those responsible. The first task is to get UN inspectors into Syria to verify if chemical weapons have been used, and by whom. The UN Secretary General has assembled a team of experts, but the Assad regime so far has refused the demand for unrestricted access and has denied them entry. The U.S. should support efforts to negotiate terms of reference for the inspection team so that it can enter the country and begin collecting evidence. It is important to acknowledge that the information available so far is very uneven and limited. No soil samples are available from a physical site. Most of the evidence reportedly comes from tissue and blood samples that have been transmitted by multiple handlers. The ‘chain of custody’ of the detected elements and the identities of those responsible remain unclear. It is not clear who may have used chemical weapons. Initially the Assad regime claimed that the rebels were responsible for the injuries and deaths that were reported last month. The rebels claim the government is responsible. The amounts of sarin and other toxic agents reportedly used were quite small. Some analysts have suggested that the use of chemical weapons shells may have been inadvertent. These and other questions need to be clarified before any action can be taken. If the evidence shows that the Syrian government has indeed used these weapons, the Obama administration should work with key allies and members of Security Council to apply pressure on the Assad regime. The goal should be to take diplomatic steps that could lead to the adoption of targeted Security Council sanctions directed at those responsible for the command and control of chemical weapons systems. Hopefully Russia and China could be persuaded to support such measures. This would be a major diplomatic setback for Assad and would isolate and weaken his regime. None of this will be possible without firm evidence of actual chemical weapons use by government forces. No justification exists for even considering military action. Crossing that dangerous red line would have severe negative consequences. It could involve U.S. forces in another Middle East conflict and perhaps drag us into the deadly Syrian civil war, worsening an already grave security crisis in the region. Bombing strikes would not be sufficient to neutralize Syria’s vast arsenal of chemical weapons, and they could cause explosions that would release the very deadly toxins we seek to contain. The use of force would squander any opportunity to win Russian and Chinese support for UN action and would hand the Assad regime a lifeline of continued diplomatic support. Multilateral action through the UN offers the best path for determining if the regime has used chemical weapons and if so for mobilizing international pressure against those responsible. (Crossposted with permission from www.DavidCortright.net) 2013-04-29T19:42:38+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/win-without-war-mourns-passing-of-founding-co-chair-bob-edgar/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/win-without-war-mourns-passing-of-founding-co-chair-bob-edgar/ Win Without War joins the chorus of voices mourning the sudden loss of Bob Edgar and in commemorating his lifelong dedication to public service. Bob was a founding Co-Chair of the Win Without War coalition and his leadership was instrumental in the fight against the Iraq War. “We are all deeply saddened by Bob’s sudden passing,” said Coalition Co-Chair Susan Shaer. “I was proud to serve with Bob at the beginning of Win Without War. Bob was a champion for peace whose graceful demeanor for controversial issues, strategic saavy, and brilliant bonhomie were second to none. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family and his colleagues at Common Cause.” “Bob was a stalwart and tireless advocate for peace, social justice and human rights,” added Coalition Co-Chair David Cortright. “He will be sorely missed. We are all shocked and saddened by this sudden loss.”   2013-04-24T13:27:56+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/david-cortright-on-iraq-war-anniversary-yesterday-iraq.-tomorrow-iran/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/david-cortright-on-iraq-war-anniversary-yesterday-iraq.-tomorrow-iran/ This article was originially posted on Time.com.  By: Daivd Cortright, Co-Chair of Win Without War and Director of Policy Studies at Notre Dame's Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies. It was 10 years ago this week that George W. Bush launched his ill-fated war of choice in Iraq. The anniversary comes as politicians in Washington and Israel continue to discuss the option of military action against Iran. The parallels with a decade ago are striking. Once again, we hear claims of a grave threat from weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East and the possibility of military action. Vice President Joe Biden recently told the convention of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) that “all options, including military force, are on the table.” Then as now we are warned of the need to take action before it’s too late. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sent a video message to the AIPAC convention claiming that Iran will soon cross a nuclear “red line.” We’ve heard this story before. Who can forget former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s infamous line “We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud”? Or former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s ludicrous attempt to explain the whereabouts of Iraq’s WMD: “They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.” Some of us reported at the time that no evidence existed of Iraqi WMD, and that U.N. inspections during the 1990s had dismantled Saddam Hussein’s nuclear, ballistic-missile and chemical-weapons threat, but our voices were ignored in the march to war. Official investigations during the occupation confirmed the complete absence of any WMD threat. Some politicians apparently never learn. Today, prominent Democratic and Republican Senators are lining up behind Senate Resolution 65, which declares that “if the government of Israel is compelled to take military action in self-defense, the United States government should stand with Israel and provide diplomatic, military and economic support.” The resolution is in effect a backdoor authorization for war. It sets the stage for the U.S. being dragged into a future Israeli attack on Iran. One of the authors of the resolution is Democratic New York Senator Charles Schumer. The Senator was sharply critical of Bush’s handling of the Iraq war, but now he is resorting to Bush-style misrepresentation to justify a potential attack on Iran. According to Jamal Abdi of the National Iranian American Council, Schumer is telling constituents that Iran “continues to enrich uranium into weapons-grade nuclear materials” and that the resulting fuel is “sufficient to arm a nuclear warhead.” Not true. The International Atomic Energy Agency reports regularly on Iran and has no evidence of uranium enrichment to weapons-grade level. This past week, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper was on Capitol Hill to repeat what U.S. intelligence agencies have reported consistently for years: Iran is not enriching uranium to weapons-grade and has not made a decision to build a bomb. Of course, real concerns exist about Tehran’s nuclear program, but there is no imminent nuclear threat from Iran or justification for threatening military attack. Sanctions-based diplomacy offers a formula for resolving the nuclear standoff with Iran, just as sanctions and U.N. inspections were a viable alternative to war 10 years ago. Back then, my colleague George Lopez and I reported that targeted sanctions and renewed inspections were working effectively to prevent Iraq from acquiring nuclear materials and rebuilding its war machine. Today, U.S. and European sanctions are squeezing Iran’s economy and reducing its oil exports, providing significant leverage that could be used to negotiate a diplomatic settlement. The 10th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq is a good occasion for trying to learn from the mistakes of the past — and to make sure we are not misled into war again. 2013-03-21T19:41:38+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/presidents-afghanistan-troop-drawdown-announcement-too-small-and-too-slow/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/presidents-afghanistan-troop-drawdown-announcement-too-small-and-too-slow/ President Barack Obama is expected to announce his intention to drawdown 34,000 of the 66,000 troops currently serving in Afghanistan by February 2014 in tonight’s State of the Union speech. “While it is welcome news any time our men and women in uniform are coming home, the President’s announcement is unfortunately too small and too slow,” said Stephen Miles, Coalition Coordinator at Win Without War. “The announcement of a drawdown may be a step in the right direction but it is time the President listened to the American people who overwhelmingly want our troops home now.” The U.S. war in Afghanistan is now in its twelfth year and is the longest war in American history. The President’s announced timeline would leave nearly all of the 66,000 troops currently fighting in Afghanistan as the war enters its thirteenth year and 32,000 as it enters its fourteenth. The Win Without War coalition is committed to a full drawdown, as quickly as possible, of all American troops from Afghanistan. “The only thing that will change in Afghanistan during the next 12 months is that more American troops will be wounded and killed,” added Miles. “At a time when our nation is grappling with significant budgetary constraints, it makes no sense to continue spending tens of billions of dollars, and more importantly sending Americans to die, in a war that simply has no military solution.”   2013-02-13T00:50:58+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/its-time-to-cut-pentagon-waste-our-new-ad/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/its-time-to-cut-pentagon-waste-our-new-ad/ It’s time to play offense on reining in the Pentagon's bloated budget. Today, with coalition member USAction, we’re launching a television ad highlighting some of the most outrageously wasteful spending at the Pentagon and holding accountable the politicians who support it. Our television ad - which you can view here – takes on the CEOs of Pentagon contractors who use our tax dollars to pay themselves tens of millions of dollars a year, the type of pay that makes even a Wall Street banker blush. But most importantly, our ad holds accountable politicians who would cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid to keep shoveling money into the Pentagon. Our ad holds Senator Kelly Ayotte accountable. In her first two years in the Senate, Sen. Ayotte has quickly become a leading voice on national security issues in the Republican Party. And while she could have used that role to promote the type of reshaping and savings that security experts agree is needed at the Pentagon, she has instead become a vocal defender of the Pentagon’s contractors and their wasteful ways. Earlier this year, Sen. Ayotte used pending Pentagon cuts as an excuse to go on a national tour with Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham protecting Pentagon pork. As we said at the time, these scare tactics and similar ones from the CEOs of Pentagon contractors had nothing to do with keeping America safe and everything to do with protecting record levels of spending at the Pentagon. Over the past several months, it has only gotten worse. As Congress struggles with ongoing budget battles and the so-called ‘fiscal cliff’, some in Congress, like Kelly Ayotte, have decided that we should be slashing programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid so that we can keep the cash flowing at the Pentagon. Meanwhile, Pentagon contractors have responded by upping their lobbying budgets, campaign contributions, and renewing threats of layoffs in a bid to protect their profits. In fact, it seems the only thing Pentagon contractors won’t do is spend less of our tax dollars padding their CEOs paychecks. It’s time to make a choice. Senator Ayotte has chosen to stand with Pentagon contractors and their fat cat CEOs, not the people of New Hampshire. That’s why we’re up here in New Hampshire today joining our coalition member USAction to hold her accountable. But this ad is just the beginning. It’s time to hold all of our elected officials responsible for the choices they make. When they are responsible stewards of our tax dollars, when they fight to cut wasteful spending at the Pentagon and protect vital programs like Social Security, and Medicaid, and when they work for us and not CEOs and lobbyists, then we should celebrate and thank them. But when they choose a different path - when they choose to be like Senator Ayotte - then we must hold them accountable. We hope you’ll join us as in this fight.   2012-12-13T15:13:46+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/win-without-war-applauds-senate-passage-of-merkley-paul-amendment-on-afghan/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/win-without-war-applauds-senate-passage-of-merkley-paul-amendment-on-afghan/ “Today the United States Senate sent a clear message that Congress agrees with the American public, it’s time to bring our troops home from Afghanistan,” said Stephen Miles, Coalition Coordinator of Win Without War. “This vote is particularly important given widespread reports that the Pentagon is pressing for a halt to any further drawdowns and hoping to keep tens of thousands of troops in Afghanistan indefinitely. Today’s vote serves a reminder to the President to fulfill his promise to continue drawdowns at a ‘steady pace’ and bring our troops home.” In a strong, bipartisan vote, the Senate adopted an amendment to the FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) offered by Senators Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Rand Paul (R-KY). The amendment stated support for an accelerated transition and drawdown in Afghanistan and comes at a critical time as the Administration debates the pace and size of future troop drawdowns in Afghanistan. The overwhelming support of 62 Senators indicates the continued growth of opposition to the war in Afghanistan in Congress mirroring the record number of Americans opposing the war in current public opinion polling. The vote was the first majority vote ever in either the House or the Senate calling for an end to the war in Afghanistan. Earlier this year, Republican House leadership refused to allow debate and votes on a similar amendment offered to the NDAA by Representatives Jim McGovern (D-MA) and Watler Jones (R-NC). Thus while the House-passed version of the NDAA contained a provision stating support for a halt to drawdowns, today’s vote by the Senate demonstrates the true sense of Congress that it is time to bring our troops home. “After more than 11 years in combat, American’s men and women in uniform have done all that they can in Afghanistan and its long past time for them to come home,” added Mr. Miles. “Congress is now in agreement with the overwhelming majority of Americans about Afghanistan. We hope that in the coming days as the White House debates the future of America’s longest war that they listen to this message and bring our troops home.”   2012-11-30T04:56:13+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/the-scandal-we-should-be-talking-about/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/the-scandal-we-should-be-talking-about/ (Crossposted at The Huffington Post) Nothing grips Washington more than a good scandal, particularly when it involves sex, power and money. Last week’s surprise resignation of C.I.A. Director David Petraeus has filled countless column inches and primetime minutes of television. The news of Gen. John Allen’s involvement in the scandal is surely going to keep the story at the top of the news cycle for days to come. While our news media pours over every titillating detail of the Petraeus affair, there’s another scandal that’s gone largely unnoticed by the defense community. Last Friday, Lockheed Martin quietly announced that after having been groomed to take over for departing C.E.O. Robert Stevens this January, that would-be C.E.O. Christopher Kubasik would be resigning over a long term extramarital affair with a “subordinate employee.” And that might have been where this story ended. There is clearly no shortage of stories of rising stars whose careers were ended over personal indiscretion. However, on Monday, the Washington Post reported that according to S.E.C. filings, Lockheed Martin will pay Mr. Kubasik $3.5 million in separation pay. In other words, for being fired for misconduct before he ever spent one day in the job as its C.E.O., the Pentagon’s largest contractor will be giving their former employee one heck of a going away gift. Some may rightly point out that Lockheed Martin is a private company and they can spend or waste their money as they see fit. They problem is that the U.S. government is essentially Lockheed’s only customer. Last year, a full 82% of their sales came from Uncle Sam directly while a good portion of the remaining 17% was funded by the federal government through our support for foreign military sales and local and state government security contracts. Put another way, nearly every penny that Lockheed earns comes directly from you and me. Lockheed Martin is now using taxpayer dollars to pay $3.5 million to someone they’re firing. This is tragically unsurprising for a company with Lockheed’s executive salary track record. Before being summarily fired last week, Mr. Kubasik was likely on pace to match the $9.5 million he made in 2011. Upon his promotion to C.E.O. he would have been eligible to earn something closer to the $25.4 million Robert Stevens earned in 2011. All told, last year Lockheed Martin paid their top 5 executives a combined $51.9 million. Outrageous executive compensation isn’t the only way Lockheed spends the taxpayer’s dime. Lockheed spent more than $11.5 million on a small army of lobbyists in the first three quarters on 2012, putting them on pace to surpass the $15.1 million they spent in 2011. Meanwhile, Lockheed’s top executives have threatened tens of thousands of layoffs as the Pentagon starts to tighten its belt after more than a decade of runaway spending. Furthermore, any review of Lockheed’s many troubled weapons systems paints a bleak picture. After years developing the F-22, Lockheed delivered a plane that has the pesky problem of leaving its pilots without oxygen (a problem the Pentagon is ironically addressing by giving Lockheed Martin an additional multimillion dollar contract). Lockheed’s marquee project for the Navy is the Littoral Combat Ship, a program so flawed that a recent investigation by the Project on Government Oversight called the many failures “almost too outrageous to fathom.” However, the most egregious example of waste is infamous the Joint Strike Fighter, the F-35. The F-35, originally conceived in the 1980s to fight the Soviet Union, is now so far behind schedule and so over budget that at a lifetime cost of $1.5 trillion and growing, it has the unique distinction of being the most expensive (and possibly least useful) weapons program in American history. Which brings us back to Christopher Kubasik, the C.E.O. to be that never was. Pretty soon, Washington will move on from the sordid details of David Petraeus and turn its attention back to the fiscal showdown, the Bush tax cuts, and sequestration. Americans will be told scary stories about the dangers of cutting the Pentagon’s grotesquely large budget and once again threatened with layoffs at Pentagon contractors. But as we debate how much to cut at the Pentagon, let’s remember the story of Chris Kubasik. It’s the story of how our tax dollars are wasted, not on keeping America safe, but on corporate greed and excess. Photo: Coolcaesar at en.wikipedia [CC-BY-SA-3.0 or GFDL], via Wikimedia Commons   2012-11-14T21:14:27+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/pentagon-spending-profits-and-politics-trump-national-security/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/pentagon-spending-profits-and-politics-trump-national-security/ (Crossposted at The Huffington Post) This week in Washington the halls of Congress have been flooded with talk about looming cuts to the Pentagon. With members of Congress floating plans to undo planned cuts (known in Congressional jargon as "sequestration") due to start in January, the lobbyists for America's weapons makers, the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA), have been storming the Hill to scare Congress with talk of layoffs and 'doomsday.' Meanwhile, The Pentagon's bloated budget has even become an issue in the biggest game in town, the Presidential election. Mitt Romney's campaign has begun airing a series of advertisements that assert that the Obama administration’s policies on Pentagon spending will eliminate tens of thousands of jobs in key states such as Ohio and Colorado. The ads follow on a summer marked by a “scare tour” waged by the arms industry and its key allies in Congress including Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC). The senators traveled around the country -- or at least the part of the country known as 'swing states' -- asserting that modest additional cuts in Pentagon spending would devastate local economies. By contrast, President Obama has asserted that “while my opponent would spend more money on military hardware that our Joint Chiefs don’t even want, I will use the money we’re no longer spending on war to pay down our debt and put more people back to work rebuilding roads and bridges and schools and runways.” So, while the president’s plan does not go as far as it could or should in scaling back the Pentagon’s spending plans, he has drawn a clear distinction between his approach and the one proposed by candidate Romney. You might be wondering, why all the fuss? What's going on? The real driving force behind this Fall's Pentagon spending hysteria is not a sober assessment of the nation’s defense needs or an honest assessment of the impacts of Pentagon spending reductions. It is a combination of partisan politics and a push to preserve the profits of Pentagon contractors. It is true that the days of ever increasing Pentagon contracts are coming to an end. But companies like Lockheed Martin continue to reap massive profits even as they sit on backlogs of tens of billions of dollars that will keep their revenues strong for years to come. The civilian aerospace market continues to be strong, to the benefit of Boeing and other firms involved in this sector. On top of that, foreign arms sales tripled to an astounding $66 billion in 2011, the highest figure ever recorded for U.S. weapons exports. Add to this the stockpiles of money that have been authorized for them but not yet spent by the Pentagon, and it becomes clear that major weapons manufacturers will be the least affected institutions should sequestration come into play. The truth is that companies like Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman could afford to keep on most if not all of their existing work force if they chose to do so. Instead, they are propping up CEO salaries that often reach over $20 million per executive while throwing skilled workers overboard. That means that highly paid contractor executives earn more in one day than the average worker earns in an entire year. Or, looked at another way, as calculated by Ben Freeman of the Project on Government Oversight, the pay of an arms industry CEO could pay the salaries and benefits of 335 soldiers. And this doesn’t even take into account the millions that the defense industry spends on lobbyists -- $133 million last year alone. These funds helped finance the activities of over 950 lobbyists – nearly two for every member of Congress. These lobbying efforts were reinforced by over $26 million in campaign contributions to key members of Congress over the past two election cycles. This combination of influence peddling and campaign cash too often trumps good policy. So, there’s the profit part of the problem. What about partisanship? First, it is important to know that some of the politicians who are screaming loudest about the impacts of sequestration – from John McCain to Paul Ryan – voted for the budget deal that set up this process. Try as they may to pin the blame on President Obama, Congress played a central role in creating the process that has led to the possibility of the automatic cuts established under sequester coming into play. There may be a small sliver of hope that the two parties can come together on a balanced budget reduction deal. Senators Kyl, McCain and Graham have acknowledged that new revenues may have to be part of any solution to the budget problem. And Tea Party favorites like Sen. Rand Paul have made it clear that Pentagon spending cuts beyond what’s currently on the table will be an essential part of the mix. And then there is Grover Norquist, the anti-tax activist who has repeatedly voiced his support for reductions in Pentagon spending. Rather than letting partisan politics and the search for profits dominate the defense debate, we need to get back to basics. We need to talk about how to reshape the military to address the threats of the 21st century, an approach that a majority of Americans support. The discussion needs to be about how to protect the country, not how to protect profits and privilege. We have to demand an end to parochial politics and a beginning of a real debate on what it takes to defend us and our allies. William D. Hartung is the director of the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy. Stephen Miles is the Coalition Coordinator of Win Without War. 2012-09-21T14:41:31+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/7-points-on-the-iranian-nuclear-standoff/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/7-points-on-the-iranian-nuclear-standoff/ By: Daivd Cortright, Co-Chair of Win Without War(Crossposted at DavidCortright.net) Once again an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report of Iranian progress in developing its nuclear industry has set off alarm bells in Washington and Tel Aviv, sparking renewed discussion of possible Israeli military strikes. The following points should be kept in mind as the debate about Iran’s nuclear program continues: 1. There is no evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapon or that it is taking steps toward actually building a bomb. Iran continues to permit IAEA inspectors to monitor its known nuclear facilities. 2. Although the UN Security Council has demanded in multiple resolutions that Iran halt uranium enrichment, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty entitles all countries to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. The Treaty refers to this as an “inalienable right,” language that Iranian authorities constantly cite. 3. Iran is steadily developing its capacity to enrich uranium. It has now produced more than enough uranium enriched to 20 per cent purity to maintain the production of medical isotopes at its Tehran Research Reactor. Iran does not have enough more highly enriched uranium to produce a nuclear warhead. Some of its 20 per cent uranium is in a form that is extremely difficult to enrich to the higher levels (90 per cent purity) that would be needed for a bomb. 4. Iran has added another 1,000 centrifuges at its underground enrichment facility near the holy city of Qom. These are older, less reliable centrifuge models, and only about a third of the installed centrifuges are operating. This may be an indication that international sanctions against Iran’s nuclear program are having some impact. 5. Military strikes are not a solution to the Iranian nuclear dilemma. Israel does not have the military capacity to destroy Iran’s widely dispersed, well defended, and increasingly hardened and deeply buried nuclear facilities. Bombing strikes would cause only a limited and temporary setback to Iran’s nuclear program. 6. Israeli military strikes would have extremely negative security implications in the region. Iran would almost certainly retaliate militarily, and its political leaders might respond to external military aggression by accelerating nuclear development and proceeding to actual weapons production. 7. Diplomacy is the only way to resolve the nuclear standoff with Iran. Sanctions are useful to diplomacy but they should be combined with incentives, including an end to military threats against Iran and an offer to remove sanctions if Iran is fully transparent and allows more rigorous international monitoring of its nuclear program. 2012-08-31T18:42:08+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/the-foreign-policy-of-paul-ryan/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/the-foreign-policy-of-paul-ryan/ One week ago, Mitt Romney made headlines by selecting Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin as his running mate. Immediately, the media and activists on both sides of the aisle began discussing and dissecting the Congressman’s record, most notably his eponymous budget plan. Yet even in an election dominated by our fragile economy, America remains a nation at war, still struggling to find its footing against the threats of the 21st century, and were his ticket to win in November, Paul Ryan would find himself one heartbeat away from becoming Commander in Chief. So just what exactly is Paul Ryan’s record on foreign policy? With Congressman Ryan having focused his career on domestic issues, he has left behind very little record on foreign policy and national security. What little record there is though, is enough to make any progressive very, very nervous. On the most significant foreign policy decision of his career, Paul Ryan voted to authorize the Iraq War. Congressman Ryan himself offered up this vote as the defining feature of his foreign policy resume declaring “I voted to send people to war.” Rightly viewed over the past several years as a barometer for foreign policy judgment, a vote for the Iraq War is no less damning today than it was in 2008 just because our troops are finally home from Iraq. In fact, in discussing the war in 2007, Ryan, who was in an early supporter of the Iraq surge, explained that the "number one" mistake was that we did not send MORE troops to Iraq. In fact, when it comes to war, not only did Congressman Ryan vote to send people to war, he's repeatedly voted against bringing them home. Over the past several years, Congress has had numerous votes on bringing our troops home, first from Iraq and later from Afghanistan. Not once did Rep. Ryan vote to bring our troops home from either war. Perhaps even more troubling, Congressman Ryan appears to be on board with Mitt Romney's plan for an endless war in Afghanistan saying in Dec. 2011 "[o]ur nation's troops and resources will continue to support the Afghan people for years to come...." In reality these votes should not be surprising as Congressman Ryan was a strong supporter of George W. Bush’s foreign policy and continues to champion neoconservative ideals. Alarm bells should go off anytime neocon leader and professional warmonger, Bill Kristol, starts hyping up a candidate, as he vocally did with Ryan. The American Conservative's Daniel Larison explains, "On foreign policy, Paul Ryan truly is a product of the era of George W. Bush." Of course one could be a "product" of the Bush era in that they run away from the disastrous policies that bankrupted our nation, cost thousands of American soldiers their lives, and destroyed America's standing in the world. Unfortunately, Congressman Ryan appears to be embracing, not running, from the Bush years. When Ryan gave his first (and arguably only) major foreign policy speech in front of the Hamilton society, Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal declared it a "neocon manifesto." Perhaps, none of this should be surprising considering he is reportedly being advised by Iran-Contra convicted-criminal turned leading Bush White House official, Elliot Abrams, and Iraq War champions, Fred and Kim Kagan. Which brings us back to Paul Ryan’s signature policy, the Ryan budget. While more than enough will be written in the coming days and weeks on Congressman’s controversial plans to privatize Medicare, the Ryan budget has another key plank, dumping endless money into the bloated Pentagon budget. Despite recent modest reductions in its rate of growth, Pentagon spending remains at record levels not seen since World War II. Yet earlier this year Congressman Ryan crafted a budget that piles hundreds of billions in additional cuts to vital domestic investments in order to protect the Pentagon from parting with one penny of its wasteful spending. Let’s be clear, those aren’t cuts to reduce the deficit. Its simply another way to make sure that Pentagon contractors keep making record profits as we buy weapons we don’t need for threats that don’t exist. Over the next several weeks, America is going to get a chance to learn a whole lot more about Paul Ryan as he seeks to become our next Vice President. Unfortunately, when it comes to foreign policy and national security, what we know now is not encouraging.   Photo By: monkeyz_uncle (Flickr: DSC_6842) [CC-BY-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons   2012-08-23T02:41:57+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/iran-neo-con-deja-vu/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/iran-neo-con-deja-vu/ “The time for action grows near. Congressional leaders should seriously consider a resolution authorizing use of force…” - Bill Kristol – August 2002 “It’s time for Congress to seriously explore an Authorization of Military Force to halt Iran’s nuclear program.” - Bill Kristol – June 2012 Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney recently returned from his first foreign policy tour, in which he visited Israel and again argued that he would use all measures to dissuade an Iranian nuclear weapon. But even though there seem to be very few differences between the policy prescriptions of President Obama and candidate Romney, at least one Romney foreign policy advisor, John Bolton, publically wishes that diplomacy with Iran would fail, so that the U.S. could pursue a military option. Meanwhile, Bolton’s neo-con colleague, Bill Kristol, is back in the war-lobbying business, calling on Congress to authorize military force against Iran, 10 years after imploring Congress to do the same for Iraq. As you may remember, Bill Kristol is the same person who assured us that “there are no deep sectarian divisions [in Iraq], there would never be a civil war or anything approximating it once we removed Saddam, and the smallest of forces and lowest of costs would be needed for turning the place into a beacon of democracy.” However, Bolton and Kristol’s positions simply represent the next step on the march to war with Iran that is led by hawks inside and outside of Congress. Buck McKeon, the Chair of the House Armed Services Committee (HASC), recently held a hearing to propagate his belief that the US isn’t moving quickly and clearly enough towards war, while Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell declared that he is ready to seek the very authorization Kristol is calling for. By moving us closer to war, Congress risks repeating the same mistake it made ten years ago, when a lack of oversight allowed Kristol and co. to drag our nation into war through a series of lies, misinformation, and deception. In 2002, many in Congress failed to ask some basic questions, which would have exposed the reality that we were rushing into a war that never needed to be fought. So before we commit our military to yet another war of choice in the Middle East, we should discuss those very questions. 1. Is Iran really our most pressing national security threat? Bill Kristol would like us to believe that our response to Iran’s nuclear program mirrors Britain’s procrastination in dealing with the Nazi threat in the late 1930s, while many in Congress accept the idea that Iran is the United States’ biggest national security threat. While it is clear that Iran poses significant difficulties to US security interests, American intelligence officials do not believe that Iran is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon, despite its ongoing nuclear program. Moreover, as the witnesses in the HASC hearing repeatedly testified, Iran is probably years away from enriching enough Uranium to actually build a bomb, it faces significant challenges of delivering such a weapon, and the U.S. would likely know if and when Iran decided to make that final push. Meanwhile, the U.S. faces some pressing national security concerns – the ongoing war in Afghanistan, addressing a rising China, and responsibly trimming its budget. In fact, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, said two years ago that “Our national debt is our biggest national security threat”. All this begs the question: must we really gear up for a war of choice against a threat that doesn’t yet exist? 2. What will a military strike actually accomplish? Nowhere in his recent op-ed does Bill Kristol offer any clues about the likely outcomes of a military strike against Iran. Perhaps that is because even the most optimistic estimates suggest that an American attack would only delay - and certainly not stop - Iran’s nuclear program by a handful of years. Even worse, an attack would only harden Iranian resolve to continue its nuclear pursuits and convince the regime to bury all of its facilities, making them nearly impossible to monitor and harder to stop. Finally, a military attack would shatter the international consensus currently aligned against Iran, severely hamper reformist movements inside Iran, and strengthen hardliners within the regime. 3. What are the costs of an attack? Wars incur painful costs, both human and fiscal, and one with Iran would be no different. A recent Pentagon war simulation found that an attack on Iran (even by Israel) would quickly escalate into a regional war, possibly leading to hundreds of American fatalities. And considering that the Persian Gulf houses the first, fourth, eighth and ninth largest oil producers, it is easy to imagine the devastating economic consequences of turmoil in the region. Oil could spike above $200/barrel, sending gas prices soaring and harming our fragile economic recovery. As President Obama himself said this past spring, “If … folks think that it’s time to launch a war, they should say so and they should explain to the American people exactly why they would do that and what the consequences would be.” 4. Can diplomacy succeed? No one should expect decades of conflict and minimal communication to be overcome in a few hours of negotiations. Diplomacy with Iran will take time, especially since we have not had formal relations with the country in over 30 years. However, unlike a military attack, which would only delay Iran’s nuclear program, diplomacy is the only tactic that can permanently convince Iran to forfeit its program. It would be extremely shortsighted to give up on diplomacy now, when Iran is clearly reeling from the effects of devastating sanctions and as a united international community leaves Iran more isolated than ever. Moreover, it is worth asking whether the U.S. and its allies are approaching the negotiations in good faith, and whether the P5+1 demands are simply too strict? As international relations scholar Stephen Walt writes: “I can see why the P5+1 would like Iran to agree to [their] demands, just as I'd like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett to each write me billion dollar checks. But I don't expect either of them to do this, yet the U.S and its allies seem to think this deal-breaking demand is a reasonable opening bid. In fact, their position sounds like a complete non-starter to me...” As Walt nicely articulates elsewhere, those who push for war with Iran like to emphasize the stark consequences of inaction, while offering “bulletproof optimism about how the war will play out.” However, our experiences in Iraq teach us that the threat may not be as severe as expected and that war is rarely as rosy as predicted. So until Bill Kristol can actually answer these basic questions, please feel free to do what we should have done in 2002: ignore him.     2012-08-08T16:11:15+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/pentagon-contractors-play-a-disturbing-game/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/pentagon-contractors-play-a-disturbing-game/ If politics is a game of chess, Pentagon contractors have decided their workers are the pawns. After a decade and a half of unprecedented growth, the Pentagon's budget is now set to grow only as fast as inflation and may even shrink ever so slightly. But to hear it from the contractors who profit from the Pentagon, doomsday itself is upon us. However, without a national security reason to increase the budget -- the war in Iraq is over and America is transitioning out of Afghanistan -- these contractors need a new way to justify keeping the Pentagon's budget overflowing, and they've found one: jobs. Not a day goes by in Washington without hearing yet another threat that cuts to the Pentagon will result in massive job losses for America's working men and women. The latest example is Lockheed Martin's outrageous announcement that it may send notices to all of its 123,000 employees before the November election asserting that they are at risk of being laid off if automatic cuts in Pentagon spending called for under current law were to take effect. Don't believe the hype. The simple truth is that there is absolutely no reason that any major Pentagon contractor needs to send out massive numbers of pink slips. In fact, despite recent budget shifts, times have been very, very good for Pentagon contractors. A recent Pricewaterhouse Coopers analysis reveals that the defense and aerospace industry saw yet another year of record revenue and profits in 2011. With continued strong growth in sectors like commercial aerospace, an increase in exports, and hundreds of billions of dollars in backlogged orders, there is plenty of work to keep the employees in the aerospace and defense sectors busy. And with piles of cash from years of record profits, Pentagon contractors are better suited than most companies to help their employees survive today's tight economic times. Simply put, defense contractors are using their own workers as pawns -- threatening them with massive layoffs -- to scare up political opposition to any attempt to rein in runaway spending at the Pentagon. In this callous game of political chess, perhaps one player stands above the rest: the world's largest weapons maker, Lockheed Martin. Recently Lockheed's CEO told reporters that any Pentagon cuts would be "blunt force trauma" to the industry, and that he could be forced to layoff 10 percent of his 123,000 employees. Lockheed appears so worried that it upped its lobbying expenditures in 2011 by 19 percent to $15 million. But before Lockheed Martin sends out 12,000 pink slips let's look a little closer at its balance sheet. Last year, Lockheed had another banner year bringing in $3.98 billion in profit and ending with $3.59 billion in cash. Lest you think that Lockheed had a lucky year, it has turned a substantial profit every year since 2001, bringing in a total of $34.9 billion in profit over the past 11 years. And budget cuts or no, the good times show no signs of slowing down. Lockheed currently has $81 billion in backlogged orders and continues to win new multi-billion contracts from the Pentagon. If Lockheed truly believes it's time to start saving on personnel costs though, there is one obvious place to start. Last year, Lockheed Martin's CEO Robert J. Stevens took home $25.3 million in compensation, more than all but two Wall Street CEOs. How many employees could Lockheed keep on its payrolls if Mr. Stevens took a pay cut? Mr. Stevens' handsome compensation came for running a company that receives nearly all its revenue directly from the U.S. government. As essentially the only customers of Lockheed Martin, don't American taxpayers have a right to demand Mr. Stevens scale back his lucrative compensation before laying off any more employees? The reality is that Pentagon contractors like Lockheed Martin seem determined to sacrifice their own workers to protect record profits and CEO pay. That has nothing to do with keeping America safe and everything to do with corporate welfare. When it comes to America's national security, it's time to start standing up and demanding a little truth. We simply can't afford to let Pentagon contractors keep playing these games anymore. (This item is crossposted at The Huffington Post)     2012-06-25T19:35:03+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/bipartisan-group-of-representatives-call-on-congress-to-end-the-war-in-afgh/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/bipartisan-group-of-representatives-call-on-congress-to-end-the-war-in-afgh/ A bipartisan group of Representatives have called on Congress to end the war in Afghanistan. After releasing a letter to the President signed by 91 Members of Congress calling for an end to the war, Reps. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Jim McGovern (D-MA), Walter Jones (R-NC) and others urged the House to stand with the American public in opposition to America’s longest war. Later this week, the House of Representatives will have an opportunity to do exactly that when they vote on amendments to the FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act. As Rep. Lee said, “it is time for Members of Congress to stand with seven out of ten Americans who oppose the war in Afghanistan.” The letter to the President is copied below. May 16, 2012 The Honorable Barack Obama President of the United States 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear President Obama: Earlier this month you visited Afghanistan to sign a Strategic Partnership Agreement. As you stated at Bagram Air Base, “this time of war began in Afghanistan, and this is where it will end.” The core of al Qaeda has been greatly reduced in size and ability to attack Americans. Our brave men and women in uniform have done everything that we have asked of them. With over 17,000 dead and wounded U.S. servicemen and women, and long term costs estimated at $4 trillion for the past decade of unfunded wars, the overwhelming majority of American people want to bring the war in Afghanistan to an expedited end. While many of us would prefer an immediate full withdrawal from Afghanistan, there is broad, bipartisan consensus in Congress and across America that it is time to accelerate the transition from U.S. to full Afghan control. We also remind you that any agreement committing U.S. troops to Afghanistan must have congressional approval to be binding. Therefore, at the upcoming NATO summit in Chicago, we ask that you announce an accelerated transition of security responsibility to the Afghan government and security forces and the expedited withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan as quickly as these can be safely and responsibly accomplished. Sincerely, Members of Congress: Adam Smith, Becerra, Baldwin, Bass, Blumenauer, Boswell, Braley, Campbell, Capps, Castor, Chu, Cicilline, Yvette Clarke, Clay, Cleaver, Clyburn, Cohen, Conyers, Costello, Courtney, Cummings, John Duncan, DeFazio, DeLauro, Edwards, Ellison, Farr, Filner, Frank, Garamendi, Grijalva, Gutierrez, Hahn, Hanabusa, Alcee Hastings, Heinrich, Hinchey, Holt, Honda, Jackson Jr., Eddie Bernice Johnson, Hank Johnson, Tim Johnson, Kucinich, Rick Larsen, John Larson, Barbara Lee, Lewis, Loebsack, Lofgren, Lujan, Maloney, Markey, McCollum, McDermott, McGovern, Michaud, George Miller, Moran, Moore, Chris Murphy, Nadler, Napolitano, Olver, Pastor, Paul, Pingree, Polis, Quigley, Rangel, Richardson, Rush, Loretta Sanchez, Schakowsky, Schiff, Serrano, Sherman, Sires, Slaughter, Speier, Stark, Mike Thompson, Tierney, Tonko, Towns, Tsongas, Velazquez, Waters, Watt, Waxman, Welch, Woolsey, Yarmuth.   2012-05-16T22:00:27+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/win-without-war-statement-on-the-signing-of-u.s.-afghanistan-strategic-part/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/win-without-war-statement-on-the-signing-of-u.s.-afghanistan-strategic-part/ “We are pleased to continue to hear President Obama express his support for ending the war in Afghanistan,” said Win Without War Coalition Coordinator Stephen Miles. “Unfortunately, what we did not hear tonight was a clear, unequivocal commitment to bringing American troops home from Afghanistan now. The American people, in record numbers, agree that is past time for our men and women in uniform to come home. We simply cannot ask our troops to keep fighting a battle through 2014 that has no military solution. The time to bring our troops home is now." Win Without War Co-Chair David Cortright added, “President Obama has signed a Strategic Partnership Agreement no one has read that apparently pledges another decade of U.S. involvement on terms that are not known. He should announce instead an end to combat operations, the withdrawal of all U.S. troops, a major UN-led peace mission, and continued support for social and economic development.” “While we need a long term commitment to Afghanistan, that commitment should be to making peace and creating a civil society that represents all Afghan people, especially women whose voices are paramount in creating a lasting peace,” said Win Without War Co-Chair Susan Shaer. “We should end this war now. The people of Afghanistan are just as tired of war as Americans and we simply cannot afford the costs in both blood and treasure.” This evening from Afghanistan, President Obama announced the signing of a U.S. – Afghanistan Strategic Partnership Agreement. Reports indicate that this Agreement outlines guidelines governing the U.S.-Afghan relationship post-2014 including the possibility of a continued U.S. military mission in Afghanistan to be governed by a soon-to-be negotiated Bilateral Security Agreement. 2012-05-01T23:01:10+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/the-growing-consensus-against-war-with-iran/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/the-growing-consensus-against-war-with-iran/ There is a growing consensus that war with Iran would be a catastrophically diasterous idea. While Washington continues to allow politics to hijack the debate over the Iranian nuclear program, nearly all experts agree that we must not go to war with Iran.  While no one believes the world would be better off with a nuclear armed Iran, experts – from the Pentagon to academia - agree that an attack on Iran would be disastrous. Such an attack would at best delay, not prevent, Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and would have dramatic repercussions for both regional and global security threatening both American lives and interests throughout the world. In the Washington Post, Fareed Zakaria draws out the point that Iran is not the greatest nuclear threat--it is only the newest. A number of countries, not least of which are Pakistan and Russia, pose far greater threats of nuclear attack. In fact, there is agreement among experts that a nuclear-armed Iran is still quite a ways off. As such, the use of nuclear scare tactics to garner support for military action should not be taken seriously. While the nuclear threat is a serious one, bombing uranium enrichment facilities, which are often underground and therefore difficult targets, would only stall Iran's enrichment attempts by one to three years. In a New York Times op-ed, foreign ministers Bildt and Tuomioja put the problem clearly: "It is difficult to see a single action more likely to drive Iran into taking the final decision to acquire nuclear weapons than an attack on the country." They, among others, predict that a military attack on Iran could drive neighboring states to consider the nuclear option. Setting off another round of nuclear proliferation is entirely counter-productive. President Obama has cautioned against the “loose talk of war" that we are currently seeing. In his speech to AIPAC the President warned, “[o]ver the last few weeks such talk has only benefited the Iranian government by driving up the price of oil, which they depend on to fund their nuclear program." If halting Iran's nuclear program is our top concern, war is not a solution. So where does that leave us? The solution gaining support among a wide community of experts and policy practitioners is a policy of deterrence. Fareed Zakaria explains deterrence as a counterintuitive policy: "The prospect of destruction produces peace." Yet Zakaria goes on to explain that such a prospect of destruction producing peace is exactly what the US carried out throughout the Cold War and quotes Charles Krauthammer as saying, "Deterrence, like old age, is intolerable, until one considers the alternative.” Even America’s military leaders recognize the folly of war against Iran. As the New York Times recently reported, a “war game” designed to assess the repercussions of an Israeli attack on Iran found that such a strike would likely spark a regional war that would inevitably draw the US quickly into another armed conflict. When the simulation was over, General Mattis, the commander of all American forces in the Middle East, Persian Gulf and Southwest Asia, was reported to have told aides that an Israeli strike would have "dire consequences" for US forces in the region. These findings are supported by a growing number of military leaders standing up against war with Iran. Recently a number of retired military and intelligence officials took to the pages of the Washington Post with an open letter to the President urging restraint and opposing the use of military force. Above all, experts agree that only diplomacy will ultimately advance American interests in Iran. The recent opening of diplomatic negotiations is a welcome development that must be allowed time to play out. While diplomacy is not easy or quick, it is the only true solution available. As Michael O'Hanlon and Bruce Riedel note, "[t]he Iranian regime, while dangerous, does not have suicidal tendencies." In all of this war talk, the effects of sanctions, diplomatic talks, and negotiations with the IAEA often fall by the wayside. These shouldn't be overlooked. Ultimately, we cannot allow the mistakes of Iraq to be repeated with an unbridled rush to war in Iran. With such a clear consensus that a war with Iran would be a devastating folly that would not even achieve the goal of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, now is the time to stand up and demand, no war with Iran!   2012-04-17T16:40:04+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/enough-is-enough-its-time-to-end-the-war-in-afghanistan/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/enough-is-enough-its-time-to-end-the-war-in-afghanistan/ By now you’ve heard the horrific story of an American soldier in Afghanistan who killed 16 Afghan civilians, including 9 children, in an unprovoked series of attacks. Over the past few weeks we’ve also seen waves of violent protests and the killing of 6 American soldiers in response to the burning of copies of the Quran. Every day another news story paints a more troubling picture than the last and they all add up to one simple message: Enough is Enough! It’s time to end the war in Afghanistan! The American people overwhelmingly support bringing our troops home now, but policymakers are insisting that we ‘stay the course’ on a path that only guarantees more death and suffering for American soldiers and Afghan civilians. In Washington, war hawks talk of not only fighting through 2014, but 'an enduring presence' that could see US troops in Afghanistan for another decade or more. Over the past few weeks we have been tragically reminded of the horrors of war, and that is why we need your voice to help end this war today. Please take a moment to sign our petition to tell the President to end the war in Afghanistan, now! Experts agree that there is little more that our troops can accomplish between now and 2014, yet current plans call for nearly 70,000 troops to remain in Afghanistan after this year. Our continued military presence only serves to enflame anti-American sentiment, threatens to destabilize the region, and delays the path towards a political settlement. As Eugene Robinson said in the Washington Post this week: "It was clear before Sunday’s horrific massacre of civilians that it’s past time for the U.S. mission in Afghanistan to end. Now the only question should be how quickly we can get our troops onto transport planes to fly them home." [1] Stand up for peace and tell the President to bring all US troops home from Afghanistan this year! 2012-03-19T13:11:37+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/the-war-in-afghanistan-members-of-congress-support-an-end-to-combat-operati/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/the-war-in-afghanistan-members-of-congress-support-an-end-to-combat-operati/ The below is reposted with permission from the Council for a Livable World's Chain Reaction Blog On February 1, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announced that the United States will end its combat missions in Afghanistan by “mid- to the latter part of 2013.” This announcement – whether intended by the Obama Administration at this time is not clear – marks a welcome and accelerated withdrawal timetable. Previously, combat operations were supposed to end in 2014. The New York Times called the pronouncement “a major milestone toward ending a decade of war in Afghanistan.” The sooner American military forces exit from Afghanistan – after spending so many lives and treasure – the better. This step was pressed for in amendments offered last year in the Senate by Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and in the House by Jim McGovern (D-MA) and Walter Jones (R-NC). Many questions still remain. While Sec. Panetta has indicated a shift towards an "training, advice and assist" role, there has been too little clarity on what this means, including whether there will be what Panetta calls “an enduring presence” in Afghanistan that could continue for years and what will be the actual timetable for the withdrawal. In support of the Administration’s decision, a bipartisan group of six House members is circulated for signatures a letter to go to President Obama. The 20 signers thus far as of 2/8 are (and this list will be updated daily): Justin Amash (MI) Bruce Braley (IA) Lois Capps (CA) Judy Chu (CA) John Conyers, Jr. (MI) Jimmy Duncan, Jr. (TN) Sam Farr (CA) John Garamendi (CA) Raul Grijalva (AZ) Janice Hahn (CA) Martin Heinrich (NM) Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL) Walter Jones (NC) Barbara Lee (CA) John Lewis (GA) Ben Ray Luján (NM) Jim McGovern (MA) Gary Peters (MI) Henry Waxman (CA) Lynn Woolsey (CA) (Republicans bolded)   The letter follows: The Honorable Barack Obama President The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, D.C. 20500 Dear Mr. President, We write to express our support for the Administration’s announcement on February 1st that the United States will complete combat operations in Afghanistan by the end of next year. From information reported in the media, the U.S. intends to transition from major combat operations in Afghanistan to a “training, advice and assist role” by the middle-to-latter part of 2013. We applaud this announcement by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta to accelerate the transition away from combat operations, and it provides assurance that the timeframe outlined in your 2009 speech at West Point will be carried out. As you know, many of us support an even more rapid withdrawal of all our troops from Afghanistan. The majority of Americans want a safe and orderly military withdrawal from Afghanistan as quickly as possible, as recent public opinion polls indicate. The desire by the American people for an accelerated transition in Afghanistan was reflected in votes taken in Congress last year, in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate during their respective debates on amendments offered by Representatives McGovern and Jones and by Senator Merkley to the FY 2012 National Defense Authorization Act. These votes show there is strong bipartisan political support to take bold steps regarding U.S. policy in Afghanistan. The past 10 years have cost America dearly in the blood and sacrifice of our military servicemen and women and their families, and in our nation’s fiscal health and security. The United States intervened in Afghanistan to destroy al Qaeda’s safe haven, remove th Taliban government that sheltered al Qaeda, and pursue those who planned the September 11th attacks on the United States; those objectives have largely been met and no longer require a large presence of combat troops in Afghanistan. While questions remain about the details of the announced transition – when and how quickly U.S. troops will be coming home, the number and purpose of troops that might remain in Afghanistan and for how long a period, the costs and the savings of accelerating the completion of combat operations – the February 1st announcement clearly signals that now is the moment to initiate the transition, end the war in Afghanistan and bring our troops home. Sincerely, Members of Congress   2012-02-10T01:05:43+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/pentagons-strategic-review/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/pentagons-strategic-review/ Earlier today, President Obama joined Secretary of Defense Panetta at the Pentagon to announce the administration’s new national security strategy. Speaking at the formal release of “Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense,” the president wanted everyone to know that the new strategy did not mean a cut in defense spending. In fact he assured the gathering of reporters and military brass that under his watch the Pentagon budget will continue to grow: “Over the next ten years, the growth in the defense budget will slow, but the fact of the matter is this—it will still grow.” The President’s declaration of support for yet more Pentagon spending increases - while everything else in the federal budget gets sliced and diced - is an indication that the White House believes that its political interests are best served by bowing to pressure from right-wing hawks. The relentless attacks on the administration from all but one of the Republican presidential candidates on its “weak” or “soft” national security policy is clearly having an impact. When every corner of government is being decimated by extreme cuts, when Social Security and Medicare are under threat, and when the economy remains fragile and struggling, everyone outside of the military-industrial complex has now become even more at risk. What’s next? The intensifying drum beat for war against Iran from the neo-con right and leading presidential candidates like Rick Santorum should make us all nervous. There could not be more compelling proof of the need for strong, sustained pressure from OUR side of this debate. The multi-million dollar lobbying and PR campaign of military contractors and their right-wing allies is clearly paying off. Calls for war with Iran and the dire consequences of “losing” Afghanistan are getting more and more shrill. The stakes for the rest of us could not be higher. That’s why we have already begun to fight back. With our allies we are highlighting ways to save hundreds of billions of dollars of wasteful Pentagon spending that does nothing to keep America safe. Working with our allies in Congress, we are pushing to save $2 billion every week by ending the war in Afghanistan. And above all, we are fighting to make sure that the American people - who do not want more war or wasteful military spending – have their voice heard throughout this national debate. In the coming weeks and months we will be sharing more ways for you to help in this fight. And, we will give you updates as details of the administration’s new national security strategy are revealed. There is a lot of work to do and a lot at stake.  2012-01-05T17:05:03+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/election-2012-is-foreign-policy-helping-or-hurting-ron-paul/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/election-2012-is-foreign-policy-helping-or-hurting-ron-paul/ Heads up from Iowa! While we won’t know the final results for a few more hours, pollsters are now predicting that Congressman Ron Paul will be among the top vote getters in the Iowa Presidential caucuses. So far the race to be the Republican Presidential nominee has been all over the map with one frontrunner after another. Yet all the while, Congressman Paul has maintained strong, consistent support placing him at or near the top of the field. No matter where he finishes tonight in Iowa, it is clear, he is very much in this race. Why Ron Paul? What explains his consistent support? Well, there are many factors, of course, but one of the unmistakable reasons he stands out in this field is because he has been the strongest and most consistent critic of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and wants the strongest cuts to wasteful Pentagon spending. If Ron Paul doesn’t win tonight, you’re likely to hear from the “spin doctors” on the network news outlets that his foreign policy views are “unacceptable” to mainstream Republicans (not to mention those in the military-industrial complex pouring large amounts of campaign dollars into this race who HATE the recent talk of cuts to military spending). The reality is that Paul's foreign policy views are a large part of what has attracted voters to him and continue to drive a significant portion of his support. A recent CNN poll found that 60% of Republican voters support the decision to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq [1], yet the major GOP candidates continue to decry this as a 'mistake' and 'the wrong decision.' While every other GOP candidate races to start a war with Iran, another CNN poll found that only 22% of Republican voters support military action against Iran. [2] The simple reality is that all Americans, even Republican voters, are looking for candidates willing to stand up against war. We thought you should know. Meanwhile, today’s New York Times featured a front-page article [3] on the upcoming Congressional battle over whether and how to cut the bloated Pentagon budget. We will be keeping you in the loop on this important debate from here in Washington and asking for your help to overcome the pressure being wielded by military contractors and their Congressional allies. Thanks for being a part of a national network determined to bring sanity to the defense budget and peace in the world. We are glad you are with us! Happy New Year! **Please Note ** Win Without War does not endorse or support any candidates. We encourage all voters to strongly consider candidates and their record/positions on all issues before making an informed decision. Win Without War seeks to educate voters on progressive national security issues. [1] CNN Poll: Americans agree on bringing troops home from Iraq [2] CNN/ORC Poll – November 18-20 – Foreign Policy [3] New York Times: Panetta to Offer Strategy for Cutting Military Budget 2012-01-03T21:56:11+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/americas-war-in-iraq-finally-ends-a-war-that-never-should-have-started-fina/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/americas-war-in-iraq-finally-ends-a-war-that-never-should-have-started-fina/ As you read these words, the last US troops are finally coming home from Iraq. The US war in Iraq is coming to an end. Nearly a decade ago, we came together to stand up against an unnecessary war, built on lies and fear. Win Without War was formed to help bring together Americans who understood that this war would endanger our national security while threatening countless American and Iraqi lives while wasting our nation’s limited resources. Today we come together again to mark the culmination of our struggle for peace, honor those who served and recommit to fully turning the page on a long decade of war. The end of the Iraq War would not have been possible without the principled advocacy of millions of Americans. What began in 2002 as an effort to avert George W. Bush’s march to war in Iraq grew to a chorus of millions who changed the political landscape and kept fighting until all of our troops came home. It was the tireless work of advocates like you that made this day possible. Even while we welcome our troops home, we must remember the painful costs of war. Unfortunately, the end of the Iraq war comes far too late for the nearly 4,500 American soldiers who lost their lives, the tens of thousands wounded in combat, and the untold number of Iraqi civilians killed or injured in the war. Unconscionably, those who led us into this war, also refused to pay a single dime of its costs, placing the entire war on our nation’s credit card, wasting trillions of taxpayer dollars. Above all, we honor the brave men and women who served in Iraq. For the more than 1 million Americans who served in this war, we owe both a debt of gratitude and a commitment to honor their service by fighting against current efforts to balance the budget on the backs of our veterans. As the final US troops leave Iraq, we recognize there are many challenges that remain for both Americans and Iraqis. We hope that you will continue to lend your voice to the struggle for peace and recommit to the work that remains ahead. Thank you for all your work to end this war. It would not have been possible without you. 2011-12-17T20:17:03+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/win-without-war-applauds-u.s.-senate-call-for-an-accelerated-drawdown-in-af/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/win-without-war-applauds-u.s.-senate-call-for-an-accelerated-drawdown-in-af/ Earlier today, the United States Senate joined the growing consensus of the American people that it is time to bring our troops home from Afghanistan. The Senate adopted by voice vote a bipartisan amendment, offered by Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) on behalf of 21 Senators to the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2012. The Merkley amendment called for the President to submit a plan for “expediting the drawdown of United States combat troops in Afghanistan.” “The Senate just sent a clear message in support of ending the war in Afghanistan, now the longest war in our nation’s history,” said Win Without War Coalition Coordinator Stephen Miles. “By passing Sen. Merkley’s amendment the Senate is joining the American public who support accelerating the drawdown of US troops. With Osama bin Laden dead, al Qaeda significantly diminished, and the future of Afghanistan now in the hands of the Afghan people, our brave men and women in uniform have done everything asked of them. Now it is time to bring them home” The adoption of the Merkley amendment shows a remarkable growth of opposition to the war in the Senate, with only 18 Senators having supported similar legislation offered by former Sen. Feingold (D-WI) in the previous Congress. With a recent CNN poll published earlier this month showing a record high 63% of Americans opposed to the war in Afghanistan, the Senate’s action today shows they have clearly heard the voice of the American people.   2011-11-30T22:47:59+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/Senate-NDAA-Letter/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/Senate-NDAA-Letter/ Twenty three organizations from across the political spectrum and representing a variety of constituencies have sent a letter urging the Senate to adopt bipartisan amendments by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Rand Paul (R-KY) to the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act. Sen. Merkley's amendment would call for an accelerated drawdown of US troops in Afghanistan and help end the longest war in American history. Sen. Paul's amendment would repeal the 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Iraq and finally put the Iraq War behind us. Together these amendments represent a unique opportunity to turn the page on a relentless decade of war that has brought our nation to the brink of bankruptcy and cost the lives of over 6,200 American men and women in uniform.  The full text of the letter and a list of signers follows:  November 28, 2011 Dear Senator, We are writing today to urge you to support Amendment 1174 offered by Senator Jeff Merkley and Amendment 1064 offered by Senator Rand Paul to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (S. 1867). Sen. Merkley’s amendment calls for an accelerated drawdown of U.S. troops from Afghanistan and an expedited transition of security responsibility to Afghans. Sen. Paul’s amendment would recognize U.S. policy to finally end the Iraq War by repealing the 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Iraq. Together, these important, bipartisan pieces of legislation turn the page on a decade of war. After more than 10 years in Afghanistan, it is time to bring our troops home. American men and women in uniform have done everything asked of them. Today, Osama bin Laden is dead, al Qaeda has been significantly diminished, and the future of Afghanistan is firmly in the hands of Afghan people. It is time for our troops to come home. Congress is in the midst of a debate over how to right our economy and address our growing federal debt. With the U.S. currently spending nearly $2 billion every week in Afghanistan, an accelerated drawdown would free up tremendous resources desperately needed here at home. While even our military leaders have admitted that the current challenges in Afghanistan can only be solved with a political solution, we simply cannot justify continuing down our current path in Afghanistan. Sen. Merkley’s amendment recognizes the need to focus on nation building at home, not in Afghanistan, while allowing for a responsible drawdown that honors the sacrifices made by our troops. In Iraq, the President has reaffirmed U.S. policy to remove all troops by the end of this year. Sen. Paul’s amendment is a responsible reflection of U.S. policy that will help ensure a complete drawdown of U.S. troops in Iraq. It is time to repeal the 2002 AUMF and finally turn the page on the Iraq War. We strongly urge you to support these important, bipartisan amendments by Senators Merkley and Paul. Sincerely, 3P Human Security: Partners for Peacebuilding Policy Appeal for Justice Center for International Policy Church of the Brethren Council for a Livable World CREDO Action DownsizeDC.org, Inc. Friends Committee on National Legislation International Justice Network Just Foreign Policy Minnesota Peace Project MoveOn National Council of Churches of Christ, USA Peace Action Peace Action West Peace and Justice Resource Center United Church of Christ: Justice & Witness Ministries United for Peace and Justice United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society USAction U.S. Labor Against the War (USLAW) Win Without War Women’s Action for New Direction 2011-11-28T15:14:36+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/merkley-amendment/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/merkley-amendment/ Today Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) announced he is introducing an amendment to the FY 2012 National Defense Authorization Act calling for an accelerated drawdown in Afghanistan. The text of Sen. Merkley’s amendment is below. The amendment is #1174. Additional Co-Sponsors (as of November 30): Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK) Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) Sen. John Rockefeller IV (D-WV) Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) Read the Huffington Post story on this amendment here. SEC. 1230. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON TRANSITION OF MILITARY AND SECURITY OPERATIONS IN AFGHANISTAN. (a) FINDINGS.—Congress makes the following findings: (1) After al Qaeda attacked the United States on September 11, 2001, the United States Government rightly sought to bring to justice those who attacked us, to eliminate al Qaeda’s safe havens and training camps in Afghanistan, and to remove the terrorist-allied Taliban government. (2) Members of the Armed Forces, intelligence personnel, and diplomatic corps have skillfully achieved these objectives, culminating in the death of Osama bin Laden. (3) Operation Enduring Freedom is now the longest military operation in United States history. (4) United States national security experts, including Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta, have noted that al Qaeda’s presence in Afghanistan has been greatly diminished. (5) Over the past ten years, the mission of the United States has evolved to include a prolonged na1tion-building effort in Afghanistan, including the  creation of a strong central government, a national police force and army, and effective civic institutions. (6) Such nation-building efforts in Afghanistan are undermined by corruption, high illiteracy, and a historic aversion to a strong central government in that country. (7) Members of the Armed Forces have served in Afghanistan valiantly and with honor, and many have sacrificed their lives and health in service totheir country. (8) The United States is now spending nearly $10,000,000,000 per month in Afghanistan at a time when, in the United States, there is high unemployment, a flood of foreclosures, a record deficit, and a debt that is over $15,000,000,000,000 and growing. (9) The continued concentration of United States and NATO military forces in one region, when terrorist forces are located in many parts of the world, is not an efficient use of resources. (10) The battle against terrorism is best served by using United States troops and resources in a counterterrorism strategy against terrorist forces wherever they may locate and train. (11) The United States Government will continue to support the development of Afghanistan with a strong diplomatic and counterterrorism presence in the region. (12) President Barack Obama is to be commended for announcing in July 2011 that the United States would commence the redeployment of members of the United States Armed Forces from Afghanistan in 2011 and transition security control to the Government of Afghanistan. (13) President Obama has established a goal of removing all United States combat troops from Afghanistan by December 2014. (b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that— (1) the President should expedite the transition of the responsibility for military and security operations in Afghanistan to the Government of Afghanistan; (2) the President should devise a plan based on inputs from military commanders, the diplomatic missions in the region, and appropriate members of the Cabinet, along with the consultation of Congress, for expediting the drawdown of United States combat troops in Afghanistan and accelerating the transfer of security authority to Afghan authorities prior to December 2014; and (3) not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President should submit to Congress a plan with a timetable and completion date for the accelerated transition of all military and security operations in Afghanistan to the Government of Afghanistan. 2011-11-17T19:39:55+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/election-2012-GOP-foreign-policy-debate/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/election-2012-GOP-foreign-policy-debate/ Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. This phrase played over and over in my mind as I watched Saturday’s Republican Presidential debate. Dubbed “the Commander in Chief debate” by its hosts, CBS and the National Journal, the 90-minute back and forth provided the first deep examination into the candidates’ views on national security and foreign policy. It was scary. Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich want to bring back torture. Rick Perry wants to eliminate foreign assistance. Michelle Bachmann believes the ACLU is running the CIA. Most frightening of all Mitt Romney and nearly everyone else on stage appears ready to go to war with Iran. It was left to Ron Paul to sum up what we were all hearing: this sounds an awful lot like the run up to the war in Iraq. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. It was startling to listen to the GOP hopefuls each try to outdo one another on who would bomb Iran quicker. The lessons of Iraq were nowhere to be found. There was no discussion of the unintended consequences of war, no consideration of alternatives to military action, no concern over what happens after regime change. It was as if the Iraq War had never happened. In fact, perhaps the most striking thing about Saturday’s debate was how little the Iraq War was mentioned. Many of us have spent the past 9 years fighting against George W. Bush’s disastrous decision to wage this unnecessary and costly war. The mistakes of Iraq will be taught for decades, yet here were the Republican candidates ignoring all of those lessons, once again beating the drums of war, only this time for Iran. A day after Veterans Day, there was scant mention of the over 4,400 Americans who paid the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq, save for Michelle Bachmann’s strange belief that their loss should be compounded by staying in Iraq longer. In the midst of a national debate over how to pay down our debt, there was no discussion of the trillions put on the nation’s credit card to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And while America continues to spend nearly $2 billion a week in Afghanistan, only Jon Huntsman argued that money could be better spent rebuilding our own nation and economy. Over the next few months, the 8 candidates who want to be our next Commander in Chief will have several more opportunities to lay out their vision of American foreign policy. Americans overwhelmingly support the decision to finally end the Iraq war, want our troops home from Afghanistan too and certainly do not want to start a new war with Iran. Only time will tell if the Republican Presidential hopefuls listen to these voters or if they continue to ignore the tragic lessons of our recent history. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.   2011-11-14T20:23:04+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/all-u.s.-troops-finally-coming-home-from-iraq/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/all-u.s.-troops-finally-coming-home-from-iraq/ The President’s announcement today that all U.S. troops in Iraq will return home by the end of the year is a major step in the right direction for our nation. As the President said, “After nearly nine years, America’s war in Iraq will be over.” “Today is a great day for America and a moment of celebration that this long ordeal is finally over,” remarked Win Without War Co-Chair David Cortright. “We thank President Obama for fulfilling his campaign pledge to end this war and bring home American troops. This decision reflects the will of the American people who helped elect the President in 2008 to end the war in Iraq.” Unfortunately, today’s announcement comes far too late for the nearly 4,500 killed and over 32,000 wounded Americans and an untold number of Iraqis who lost their lives during the war.  While the President’s announcement is an important step towards ending American conflict in Iraq, the President failed to address significant concerns over the unprecedented growth of private military contractors in Iraq or the role of America’s intelligence community’s increasingly lethal arsenal. Until the Administration addresses these serious questions, the ultimate role of U.S. force in Iraq will continue to be unclear, despite the departure of U.S. military personnel. As our troops return home from Iraq, we must also remember the nearly 90,000 troops who continue to risk their lives in Afghanistan. While the President reiterated his plans for a gradual drawdown of U.S. troops, how many more lives will be lost before we finally see the President step to the podium and announce that all of our brave men and women in uniform are finally coming home from Afghanistan? Susan Shaer, Co-Chair of Win Without War, commented, “This is a good news-bad news story.  I feel relief that’s it’s over, and pain for the lost years, lives, and money.  The sorrow for the families both here and in Iraq is irrepressible. Now we must push on to end the war in Afghanistan and get a realistic policy for how this country handles conflicts abroad.” 2011-10-21T17:07:39+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/election-2012-mitt-romney-doubling-down-on-endless-war-and-wasteful-pentago/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/election-2012-mitt-romney-doubling-down-on-endless-war-and-wasteful-pentago/ On a day in which America marked a decade of war in Afghanistan, Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney called increased military spending and the continuation and expansion of war. In what his campaign dubbed a major foreign policy speech today in South Carolina, Romney promised to reverse “massive defense cuts” and to re-examine plans to drawdown from Afghanistan. While the 2012 Republican nomination had largely avoided foreign policy issues, today, Romney made clear that he intends to return these issues to the center of debate. In his speech and the accompanying white paper , Romney proposed a series of specific polices that represent some of the worst foreign policy ideas of the past several decades including: Increasing military spending including dramatically increasing Navy shipbuilding and bringing back Cold War-era “Star Wars” ballistic-missile defense; Aggressive action towards Iran including the deployment of 2 carrier groups to the Middle East; Re-examining military plans for Afghanistan and deferring to military commanders who have resisted any drawdown; and Passing a new Authorization for the Use of Military force to wage endless war. While Romney’s proposed policies are not surprising given his recently announced team of Bush-era advisers, America can ill afford another decade of limitless Pentagon spending and endless war. The reality is that the United States now spends more on its military than anytime since World War II. The President has announced plans to slow the rate of growth in spending at the Pentagon, but under these plans, military budgets would unfortunately continue to grow for the foreseeable future, not be cut. The “doomsday” scenario derided by some as a potential outcome if the “Super” Committee fails in its deficit reduction goals, would in fact only return military spending to 2007 levels, a level few would argue was insufficient. After a decade of war that has cost our nation dearly in both blood and treasure, now is the time to turn the page, not double down. Unfortunately, today Mitt Romney chose the latter. UPDATE: Chris Preble of the Cato Institute has put numbers to Romney's national security plans. His estimate is that after already having nearly doubled in the past decade, Romney's plans would increase military spending by a further $2 trillion over the next decade. Read his full analysis here. Read More:  Wall Street Journal: Romney Backs Increased Military Spending  Washington Post: Mitt Romney calls for new ‘American century’ with muscular foreign policy NY Times: In Foreign Policy Speech, Romney Calls for an 'American Century'   2011-10-07T20:02:10+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/a-decade-of-war-turning-the-page-on-10-years-of-war/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/a-decade-of-war-turning-the-page-on-10-years-of-war/ On October 7, 2001, the United States officially began Operation Enduring Freedom and the war in Afghanistan. Now, ten years later, America finds itself struggling to conclude a decade of relentless war that has cost trillions of dollars and an untold number of lives. While we have begun the process of bringing our troops home, the Pentagon currently plans to maintain tens of thousands of troops in Afghanistan, fighting a war that even their commanders admit has only a political solution. Our brave men and women in uniform have done their duty. Now it’s time to bring them home and finally turn the page on a long decade of war. American national security depends on a less militarized foreign policy. It did not take 100,000 troops in Afghanistan to get Osama bin Laden, and it will not take another decade of war to keep America safe. American national security depends on the effective use of all the instruments of our foreign policy, not just the military. By turning the page on war, America can focus on 21st century national security solutions, while rebuilding the foundations of America’s strength and security by growing our economy, putting Americans back to work, and paying down our federal deficit. Afghanistan’s future depends on Afghans, not American soldiers. There is unanimous agreement that the future of Afghanistan depends on Afghans and their regional allies implementing a political solution. There is simply no military solution to the current challenges faced in Afghanistan and maintaining an American military presence only delays the inevitable political process while needlessly putting our troops in harms way. The human and economic costs of a decade of war are simply unsustainable. American soldiers have paid dearly for a decade of war with over 6,200 having made the ultimate sacrifice while nearly 50,000 have been wounded. Unwilling to pay a cent for the war when the troops were deployed, the price tag for a decade of war is at least $3-5 trillion , paid for entirely on the nation’s credit card. Without a change of policy, America is poised to spend hundreds of billions more in the decade to come, adding to our nation’s deficit and wasting precious resources desperately needed at home. Now is the time to turn the page on a decade of war and bring our troops home!  2011-10-07T19:02:44+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/debt-deal/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/debt-deal/ One month after the debt deal, you’re not alone if you’re still wondering what exactly was agreed to and how it all affects the Pentagon. So far, Washington has been focused on the big numbers: $917 billion in spending reductions via discretionary budget caps for the next 10 years; A “super” committee tasked with finding $1.2-1.5 trillion in additional deficit reduction; and A $1.2 trillion “trigger” that kicks in if they fail composed of automatic spending cuts evenly split between defense and non-defense spending over 9 years. Experts of all stripes are now debating what all of this means for the Pentagon and its out-of-control budget. While numerous analysts have long pointed to wasteful spending at the Pentagon, others argue that potential cuts would be “draconian” and “devastating” to our nation’s security. As Washington fights this out over the next several months there are several key points to keep in mind.    1) Don’t believe everything you read. To read some of the propaganda coming out in defense of the Pentagon, you’d think that Congress was considering taking a chainsaw to the military budget. Various “experts” have claimed that the Pentagon is on the chopping block of anywhere from $850 billion to $1.3 trillion in cuts. Back here in reality, the story is very different. One of the most quoted numbers is that the first phase of the debt deal created $350 billion in cuts to “defense.” The origin of this number is a White House estimate that can at best be called wishful thinking and more accurately a complete fabrication. The debt deal created discretionary spending caps for the next 10 years, with specific “security” and non-security caps for only the next two fiscal years (see the next point to see why “security” does not mean “defense”). The White House arrived at their $350 billion number by taking these separate caps and assuming they would stay in place for the remaining 8 years. There is absolutely nothing in the debt deal, or any other law, that requires or even encourages such an assumption. Rather, after fiscal year 2013, Congress can choose to make 100% of any cuts required to keep funding under the discretionary cap from any accounts they choose. If history is any indication, the Pentagon can feel pretty safe knowing that they will be the last place Congress goes looking for cuts. The second large cut to the Pentagon presumed to come from the debt deal is through the automatic “trigger” which kicks in if the “super” committee fails to reach an agreement. The logic goes that in a hopelessly deadlocked Congress, the “super” committee is doomed to failure and the $1.2 trillion trigger is all but inevitable. This trigger would result in $600 billion in deficit reduction coming from the more narrowly defined category of “defense” spending (technically budget code 050), comprised primarily of the Department of Defense. Again, the details are a little less dire. For starters, at least $100 billion of these savings will be attributed to lower interest payments. That leaves roughly $50 billion a year left to be “cut” from defense spending. Of course, since these “cuts” would be measured against future growth, they may not actually reduce in smaller Pentagon budgets at all, but simply a reduction in the rate of growth in Pentagon spending.   2) “Security” does not mean the Pentagon. In the short term, there’s a very important battle looming on Capitol Hill thanks to the debt deal. For the next two years, discretionary spending on “security” is capped at $684 and $686 billion respectively. For the purposes of the debt deal, “security” is defined as Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Veterans Affairs, the National Nuclear Safety Administration, the intelligence community management account, and all discretionary spending in the “international affairs” budget account (namely the State Department). This would mean that in total these accounts are in line for roughly $4 billion in cuts from their 2011 levels. Since the Pentagon makes up approximately ¾ of this spending in this category, one might think that they’d be in line for a real haircut this year.  By looking at what the House has already passed for Fiscal Year 2012, we can see why these cuts to “security” are a far cry from meaning the Pentagon is in trouble. Recently released OMB analysis of the House’s action thus far on spending bills concluded that they are $10 billion over the spending caps. But wait, I thought they only had to cut $4 billion? The difference comes largely from a $17 billion increase in the Pentagon’s budget. While the Senate is farther behind on its appropriations bills and thus an analysis is not yet available, it’s reasonable to assume that they will not be too far off the House’s efforts. Thus, even if Congress were to take the entire $10 billion in needs this year from the Pentagon, we’d see a $7 billion increase in the Pentagon’s budget.  Of course, it is far from certain that we’d see the Pentagon feel the brunt of these cuts. More likely we can expect to see further cuts to Veterans, diplomacy, humanitarian aid, border control, and other important efforts to stave off cuts to military accounts. By creating the “security” category for the next two years, Congress has created an inevitable battle for limited funds between the well-resourced Pentagon and every other aspect of American foreign policy and domestic security.   3) The 10-year Binge. The Pentagon’s budget has been on somewhat of a feeding frenzy for the last 10 years. Today, America spends more on security than at any other time since World War II and roughly as much as the rest of the world combined. Even if defense spending were reduced by a $1 trillion over 10 years, we would find ourselves spending at 2007 levels, in real terms. By any measure, this would not be a “draconian” cut but a responsible step in response to unsustainable growth. If all of this extra spending had gone to make the US safer, one might be able to make an argument to maintain it. Unfortunately, today our national security policy is more defined by a lack of spending restraint than by a reasonable response to 21st century threats. We have wasted trillions on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, while we continue to waste hundreds of billions on Cold War weapon systems designed to defeat enemies that disappeared before today’s West Point cadets were even born. And for some reason still have over 100,000 US troops stationed in Europe and Japan on missions that started with World War II. In a world where budget resources are scarce, we can simply no longer afford to waste massive amounts of money on programs divorced from a rational analysis of current and future threats.   4) What about war? You may have noticed that we haven’t mentioned cuts to war spending yet. That’s because the entirety of US spending on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, estimated to have been excess of $4 trillion in the last 10 years, is exempted from the debt deal. While spending in Iraq and Afghanistan is trending down, the US still spends over $2 billion every week fighting these wars. Recent estimates indicate that even at greatly reduced troop levels, we will continue to spend tens of billions every year on these wars. Equally troubling, because of the safety of these accounts from cuts, we are all but assured of the return of Bush-era efforts to sneak programs like missile defense and weapons acquisition into war funding. This will be one of the most important areas of the budget to watch over the next few years to see if the Pentagon budget actually shrinks.   5) Don’t count your chickens before they hatch. At the end of the day, even after all of the tricks and slight of hands listed above, there’s one important caveat to remember to the debt deal and the Pentagon budget: very, very little of this is likely to ever become law.  The “super” committee is empowered to theoretically tackle any aspect it chooses of the federal budget and it can change any of the details in this deal. And if they fail, Congress will have a full year to make any changes it wants before the trigger will actually take effect in January of 2013. In the interim, there will be an election that will change the makeup of Congress and perhaps even the Presidency. The next Congress and President can choose to abide by this deal, or not. More likely, they will have campaigned on their own “solutions” to the debt crisis that will replace the debt deal, its spending caps, the trigger…perhaps everything. Only time will tell how much of the debt deal of 2011 ultimately comes to be and what impact it will have on the Pentagon’s budget. Despite all of this uncertainty, one thing is clear: we are at the beginning of a very long process, not the end. The next few years will be integral to defining whether America continues down the path of massive Pentagon budgets and an over militarized foreign policy focused on yesterday’s enemies, or if we will shift towards a more balanced approach that confronts the challenges of tomorrow. Now is the time to organize, coordinate, and advocate for the policies we believe in. You can be sure our opponents already are.   2011-09-02T18:28:19+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/while-iraqis-seek-to-continue-iraq-war-new-legislation-introduced-in-congre/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/while-iraqis-seek-to-continue-iraq-war-new-legislation-introduced-in-congre/ After more than four hours of closed-door meetings, Iraq’s leading politicians emerged around midnight Tuesday and announced that they are officially laying the foundation for a continued US military presence in Iraq. While the 2008 Status of Forces Agreement between the United States and Iraq requires all US troops to be removed by December 31, 2011, the Pentagon has been pushing the Iraqis for months to allow thousands of soldiers to remain indefinitely. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi have reportedly put aside their differences and reached an agreement to “authorize the government of Iraq to start negotiations with the American side” on a continued military presence. There is no doubt in the outcome of these “negotiations”: US troops will remain in Iraq for years to come. Our allies in Congress are already fighting back. Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) recently introduced the Iraq Withdrawal Accountability Act of 2011 (H.R. 2757) calling on the US to stick to the December 31 deadline and requiring that any new commitment of US troops be approved by Congress. Currently, the Pentagon insists that the Iraqi Parliament authorize any continued US presence, yet claims it needs no such new authorization from Congress. Under the Pentagon’s plans, the Iraqi Parliament will have a greater say in US troop levels in Iraq than Congress. That is simply unacceptable. It has been more than eight years since George W. Bush’s campaign of fear and lies helped launch the Iraq War. We have lost nearly 4,500 brave men and women and wasted trillions of dollars desperately needed here at home. It is long past time to finally end the Iraq War, not extend it indefinitely. Please take a moment to click here and ask your Representative to cosponsor H.R. 2757, the Iraq Withdrawal Accountability Act of 2011.    Related Articles: Christian Science Monitor: Iraq signals willingness to allow some US forces to stay LA Times: Iraq, U.S. to discuss extended stay for troops   2011-08-03T20:25:11+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/bipartisan-group-of-representatives-calls-on-the-president-to-bring-all-of-/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/bipartisan-group-of-representatives-calls-on-the-president-to-bring-all-of-/ In the wake of news reports that the Pentagon is pushing to leave thousands of US troops in Iraq indefinitely, Representatives Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Walter Jones (R-NC) were joined by 91 of their colleagues in a bipartisan letter strongly urging the President to bring all of our troops home from Iraq by the end of this year. The Status of Forces Agreement between the Bush Administration and the government of Iraq, requires that the United States remove all of its forces from Iraq by December 31, 2011. Now, less than 6 months before that deadline, the Pentagon is actively pushing the Iraqi government to “request” thousands of US troops remain in Iraq indefinitely.  As Representatives Lee and Jones say: “Leaving troops and military contractors in Iraq beyond the deadline is not in our nation’s security interests, it is not in our nation’s strategic interests, and it is not in our nation’s economic interests.” For over 8 years we have been fighting to end the Iraq war. During that time nearly 4,500 Americans have lost their lives and tens of thousands more have been wounded in Iraq because of George W. Bush’s lies. We can be sure that keeping US troops in Iraq will mean one thing: American soldiers will continue to die and be wounded. Win Without War will continue to monitor the drawdown of US forces from Iraq and work with our allies in Congress to make sure that we finally end the Iraq War and bring all of our troops home. ~~~ Huffington Post on Lee-Jones Letter: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/28/obama-iraq-withdrawal-deadline_n_911850.html?1311868464 The Lee-Jones letter to the President and a full list of co-signers is copied below. ~~~ July 27, 2011 The Honorable Barack Obama President of the United States The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20500 Dear Mr. President: We are writing to urge you to hold to our nation’s Status of Forces Agreement with the government of Iraq that commits our nation to bringing all of our troops and military contractors home at the end of this calendar year. The American people have made it clear that the war in Iraq must end. By wide and overwhelming margins, Americans approve of your plan to remove all the troops from Iraq by the end of this year. We are deeply concerned to learn that your Administration is considering plans to keep potentially thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the end of this year. Extending our presence in Iraq is counterproductive - the Iraqi people do not support our continued occupation. Remaining in Iraq would only further strengthen the perception that we are an occupying force with no intention of leaving Iraq. Leaving troops and military contractors in Iraq beyond the deadline is not in our nation’s security interests, it is not in our nation’s strategic interests, and it is not in our nation’s economic interests. Mr. President, we look forward to working with you in maintaining our nation’s Status of Forces Agreement with the government of Iraq and bringing all of our troops and military contractors home at the end of this year. Sincerely, Barbara Lee Member of Congress Walter B. Jones Member of Congress   Full list of co-signers: 1. Baldwin 2. Bass (Calif.) 3. Boswell 4. Braley 5. Capps 6. Capuano 7. Chu 8. Cicilline 9. Clarke (Mich.) 10. Clarke (N.Y.) 11. Clay 12. Cleaver 13. Clyburn 14. Cohen 15. Conyers 16. Costello 17. Danny Davis 18. Defazio 19. DeLauro 20. Deutch 21. Doggett 22. Doyle 23. Duncan (Tenn.) 24. Edwards 25. Ellison 26. Farr 27. Filner 28. Frank 29. Fudge 30. Garamendi 31. Grijalva 32. Gutierrez 33. Hahn 34. Hanabusa 35. Hastings (Fla.) 36. Heinrich 37. Hirono 38. Holt 39. Honda 40. Jackson Jr. 41. Jackson Lee 42. Johnson (Ill.) 43. Johnson (Texas) 44. Jones 45. Kaptur 46. Kucinich 47. Larson 48. Lee 49. Lewis (Ga.) 50. Loebsack 51. Lofgren 52. Lujan 53. Maloney 54. Matsui 55. McCollum 56. McDermott 57. McGovern 58. Michaud 59. Miller (Calif.) 60. Moore 61. Nadler 62. Napolitano 63. Norton 64. Olver 65. Paul 66. Payne 67. Pingree 68. Polis 69. Rangel 70. Richardson 71. Rush 72. Sanchez (Calif.) 73. Sanchez (Calif.) 74. Schakowsky 75. Schrader 76. Scott (Va.) 77. Serrano 78. Sewell 79. Slaughter 80. Speier 81. Stark 82. Thompson (Calif.) 83. Thompson (Miss.) 84. Tonko 85. Towns 86. Tsongas 87. Velazquez 88. Waters 89. Watt 90. Welch 91. Wilson (Fla.) 92. Woolsey 93. Yarmuth 2011-07-28T20:06:13+00:00