Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Published on Friday, December 4, 2009 by CommonDreams.org
We Need a Clean Vote Now on Afghanistan Escalation
Under our constitutional democracy, Congress has the power and the
responsibility to establish a policy on President Obama's plans to
send 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, and, if Congress opposes
sending more troops, to try to block or alter this policy. The
question now is whether Congress will act before the policy is
implemented, and whether it will do so in a "clean" vote - an up or
down vote solely on the question of sending more troops, unentangled
with unrelated issues like flood relief for farmers or extending
unemployment benefits.
If Congress does not act quickly, the President's proposal may become an accomplished fact. Already, President Obama has ordered Marine units to be deployed later this month. If Congress waits for months to debate the issue, most of the new troops may already be in place.
Anti-war Representatives are pressing for an early vote on funding for more troops so President Obama's policy will be judged by Congress before thousands of additional troops are sent into combat, the Politico reports. "Let us have this debate before he moves forward," Rep. Jim McGovern [D-MA] said. "I'd like it to be before we escalate one single American troop over there."
For most of the Iraq war, Congress typically waited until late May or June to approve emergency war funding. The last war supplemental was approved in mid-June. If Congress waits until May or June to render judgment on President Obama's plans, most of the troops may already be in place, making it much harder for Congress to oppose or limit their deployment. If Congress acts now - particularly the House, more influenced by public opinion - it can stop or limit funding for the President's troop increase by a simple majority vote. You can urge your Representative and Senators to support a clean vote now on military escalation in Afghanistan by clicking here.
Of course, there is no guarantee that the House would oppose funding for military escalation in a clean vote. But a clean vote would be likely to be a real contest, which would, at the very least, underscore for world opinion the depth of Democratic opposition to the indefinite continuation of the war, an act which would in itself help to speed the conclusion of the war.
Already in the summer, a majority of House Democrats, including members of the House leadership, voted for Representative McGovern's amendment requiring the Pentagon to present Congress with an exit strategy. That was before the fiasco of the Afghan election, before General McChrystal's grim assessment of the status quo and future prospects, before President Obama proposed to send 30,000 more troops without establishing a date for ending U.S. military involvement.
MoveOn, whose membership is broadly reflective of politically active Democrats, polled 1% of its membership in the wake of the President's speech, which one would have expected would give a temporary bounce among Democrats to support for the President's position. Asked to report their intensity of agreement with the statement, "We should establish a clear military exit strategy from Afghanistan with a firm timeline," the average response was 8.5 out of 10. If one assumes that the 16.1% of MoveOn respondents who said they "supported" the war completely disagreed with the demand for an exit strategy with a firm timeline, then among the remaining 83.9% of MoveOn respondents, the average agreement with the statement, "We should establish a clear military exit strategy from Afghanistan with a firm timeline" was 9.94 out of 10.
MoveOn is asking its members to sign a petition that says:
That suggests that MoveOn will support legislation that imposes a binding timeline for withdrawal. That's an indicator that an overwhelming majority of House Democrats could be influenced to vote for such legislation. That suggests that Members of Congress will be likely to introduce such legislation, if given the opportunity. That suggests that a Congressional debate and vote on escalation now could change the course of U.S. policy.
If Congress does not act quickly, the President's proposal may become an accomplished fact. Already, President Obama has ordered Marine units to be deployed later this month. If Congress waits for months to debate the issue, most of the new troops may already be in place.
Anti-war Representatives are pressing for an early vote on funding for more troops so President Obama's policy will be judged by Congress before thousands of additional troops are sent into combat, the Politico reports. "Let us have this debate before he moves forward," Rep. Jim McGovern [D-MA] said. "I'd like it to be before we escalate one single American troop over there."
For most of the Iraq war, Congress typically waited until late May or June to approve emergency war funding. The last war supplemental was approved in mid-June. If Congress waits until May or June to render judgment on President Obama's plans, most of the troops may already be in place, making it much harder for Congress to oppose or limit their deployment. If Congress acts now - particularly the House, more influenced by public opinion - it can stop or limit funding for the President's troop increase by a simple majority vote. You can urge your Representative and Senators to support a clean vote now on military escalation in Afghanistan by clicking here.
Of course, there is no guarantee that the House would oppose funding for military escalation in a clean vote. But a clean vote would be likely to be a real contest, which would, at the very least, underscore for world opinion the depth of Democratic opposition to the indefinite continuation of the war, an act which would in itself help to speed the conclusion of the war.
Already in the summer, a majority of House Democrats, including members of the House leadership, voted for Representative McGovern's amendment requiring the Pentagon to present Congress with an exit strategy. That was before the fiasco of the Afghan election, before General McChrystal's grim assessment of the status quo and future prospects, before President Obama proposed to send 30,000 more troops without establishing a date for ending U.S. military involvement.
MoveOn, whose membership is broadly reflective of politically active Democrats, polled 1% of its membership in the wake of the President's speech, which one would have expected would give a temporary bounce among Democrats to support for the President's position. Asked to report their intensity of agreement with the statement, "We should establish a clear military exit strategy from Afghanistan with a firm timeline," the average response was 8.5 out of 10. If one assumes that the 16.1% of MoveOn respondents who said they "supported" the war completely disagreed with the demand for an exit strategy with a firm timeline, then among the remaining 83.9% of MoveOn respondents, the average agreement with the statement, "We should establish a clear military exit strategy from Afghanistan with a firm timeline" was 9.94 out of 10.
MoveOn is asking its members to sign a petition that says:
"Congress must push the Obama administration to outline firm benchmarks and a binding timeline to bring all of our troops home from Afghanistan as soon as possible."
That suggests that MoveOn will support legislation that imposes a binding timeline for withdrawal. That's an indicator that an overwhelming majority of House Democrats could be influenced to vote for such legislation. That suggests that Members of Congress will be likely to introduce such legislation, if given the opportunity. That suggests that a Congressional debate and vote on escalation now could change the course of U.S. policy.
- Posted in
Comments are closed
78 Comments so far
Show AllRequiring a timeline for bringing troops back from Aghanistan is not good enough. The demand has to be for no escalation. Period.
By sending more troops to Aghanistan, we will permit the murder of more innocent Aghan civilians. More of our young men and women will be killed. This is not acceptable.
We need more discussion of why we are there, including the extraction of oil and gas resources from the Af/Pak region. Military occupation as economic policy is the problem that must be resolved permanently.
>>The demand has to be for no escalation. Period.
I disagree. He is doing the prudent thing. The generals have given him their plan, he is supporting them. Anything short of that and the right wing goons would be claiming that he threw the war. This in turn would be used against us in the 2012 elections which in turn would lead to a resurgent right wing who would promptly get us involved in more wars. As it stands, we do our best to make Afghanistan stable and begin our withdrawal in 2011. After 7 years of Bush's endless war, I can actually see the light at the end of the tunnel. He is doing the right thing in my opinion.
I'm puzzled that you can see at all, much less the light at the end of the tunnel. You are talking about a war here, one that kills thousands of Americans, not to mention the tens of thousands of Afghan 'colaterals'. It matters little who's war it is. I see a light too, but it is blood red!
That's my opinion.
These appeals to emotion don't cut the mustard. A lot of Americans see blood red just like yourself but they are still fixated on 911. That coward George AWOL Bush got us into a truck load of trouble and we would be wise to carefully extricate ourselves from this mess. After seven years of endless war, you might think that 18 months is too long but I don't. Calmer and saner heads need to prevail. Emotional, hubris filled cowboy-esque displays had their moment in the sun and we all saw what happened. Let's not let that happen again.
You are a mixture of light and darkness, one who claims to see light in ending the war, but proclaims the darkness of continuing war. Such confusion surely you are,
"Babylon, land of deepest shadow and deep darkness,
where even light is like darkness."
Lefty, you're wrong. Obama has the capacity to explain things to people like he did on race at a critical moment during the campaign. There is enough public support for drawing down or pulling out. This is a sad choice Obama and his people are making.
Remember, the dems supported the invasion of Iraq, later blaming Bush for misleading them (which was complete B.S.) This is not a case of the dems taking a safe position now to make a change later on. This is a case of the dems continuing the U.S. government-business regime's established policy.
You might be right but I don't take such a cynical view. I honestly believe this president wants to end these imperialistic rampages and I see real progress in that direction. I suspect you all are suffering from Bush shell shock.
What? Now the Commander in Chief is helpless? I am a afraid you need to take your two-party blinders off and analyze the situation. What you claim has no logic or evidence to support it. Did you read the Chomsky article? You call yourself a "lefty". With all due respect, you appear to be a centrist.
"the right wing goons"
This is your only reason for not ending the war, that "right wing goons"
will destroy our democratic government. That we must go to the right
to please those on the right.
But surely yours is a peer-pressure mentality, the dominant paradigm
that corporate owned media has brainwashed into the majority.
I am being realistic. There is that vast expanse of middle America that is easily driven to fear by the right wing forces in this country. Why would you not want to give the generals enough rope to hang themselves?
Our self-absorbed majority will never change, will never stop being easly manipulated by fear, and our going into their darkness, and walking with them as they wonder in a war of absolute darkness, this will accomplish nothing but enslave us in darkness.
To base war policy on USA political elections is extremely amoral.
Who would want Obomber except a corporate hawk, or a duped liberal?
I did not propose that we base war policy on elections. If Obama unilaterally ended Afghanistan today, we would be handing the right wing in America a truncheon which they would then use to beat us into complete defeat. Bush had these wars running under a cloak of secrecy. No timelines, no benchmarks, no nothing. The president is wise to get these generals to put their cards on the table and let this thing run its course. Anything short of that and more war sabers would be rattling. There is a war going on in this country today. It involves winning hearts and minds. A pacifist dictator would not end that war but would inflame it and cause our anti-imperialist cause great damage. I will file this under the subtle workings of warmongering.
-"If Obama unilaterally ended Afghanistan today, we would be handing the right wing in America a truncheon which they would then use to beat us into complete defeat"
if "we" ie you, handed "the right wing" a truncheon, to beat you into "complete defeat",...what would that look like, would congress start talking about abortion again?, would they be expanding war into Pakistan and Iran? Would they send trillions of dollars to bankers while they gave only a small percentage of Americans anything resembling health reform? My gosh, that would be a nightmare scenario!
And benchmarks? yes, remember the Guantanamo benchmark? Wasn't that alone worth voting for Obama!
Two points of fact:
1. The Iraq withdrawal has began.
2. The president has proposed a timeline for the withdrawal of Afghanistan.
Maybe I should have voted for John "thousand years war" McCain? Things would be better today? Pass me the woolly shirt and whip so I can commence to self-flagellation.
Two points of fact:
1. The Iraq withdrawal has began.
2. The president has proposed a timeline for the withdrawal of Afghanistan.
------
The Iraq withdrawal has begun? Then those permanent US mega-bases on the Iranian border are just figments of my, and everyone else's imagination, I guess?
The president has proposed a timeline....? Now I know you are joking! Too bad he didn't wait for a timeline to build new bases in Pakistan, then the new troops wouldn't have to arrive before 2175 :)
Troop levels are at the lowest they have ever been since the invasion of Iraq. Now you want to talk about bases and Pakistan. Is that a bait and switch?
-Troop levels are at the lowest they have ever been since the invasion of Iraq. Now you want to talk about bases and Pakistan. Is that a bait and switch?
Oh, you are concerned with "troop levels"? and I thought you wanted peace, silly me!
Yes, the world would be so much better if Obama could continue the occupations with only, say five soldiers, that would free up the rest of the US army to attack other nations faster! Brilliant :) Do you honestly believe that people around the world object not to US wars of aggresion, but to how many soldiers they need to maintain control of the territories?
This military industrial complex is out of control. Short term, I see no progress with us engaged in military wars of aggression. I view it as the precursor to any significant change. Second, I don't think society transforms itself overnight. We need to change and this is a generational thing. The best step towards dismantling this monstrosity is to have the next Ronald Reagan not get elected.
Thanks, now I get it: We are supposed to support Obama as he gives us Bush's third term, because otherwise the next election might give us Bush's fourth term.
But the problem is that lots of us former Democratic Party stalwarts have finally seen that Ralph Nader was right when he said that the Democrats and Republicans are two heads of the same corrupt corporate party.
Will many of us be scared back into voting for the "lesser of two evils" in 2012? We'll see.
But I can promise that many of us will be glad to "waste" our votes on third party candidates from now on. We're like the domestic violence victims who finally see what's been happening to them. It's been a rude awakening, and we're not going back to sleep.
You guys are dyslexic. The president put a timeline on exiting Afghanistan. Tune in the MSM to see all the right wing outrage if you doubt this fact. I know the generals are full of shit. They have laid their cards on the table and when a bag of nothing floats past us in July 2011, we can begin a withdrawal. You have a better plan? Poke a stick in the eye of the American public and then ask them to vote for your third party candidate? Good one!
You are naive: the "timeline" is non-binding. General McWarpig said so yesterday.
Please ask questions and hold leaders accountable, it is your duty as a citizen.
Here's a sign of the times in my town: out in the parking strip in front of a middle-class home is an old campaign sign that has been covered with new pieces of poster board, and then covered with clear Contact paper. One side says, "We need JOBS, not WAR--Obama LIES!" The other side says, "We're SORRY we voted for Obama! It won't happen again!"
You say, "Requiring a timeline for bringing troops back from Aghanistan is not good enough. The demand has to be for no escalation. Period."
You're almost right, except not only must there be no escalation, we need to get our troops out of Afganistan and Iraq NOW. Lefty, below, thinks that appeals to conscience--that we should withdraw because our occupations and wars are illegal, immoral, and create needless suffering--will go nowhere, and he's probably right.
But what DOES resonate is the fact that we just can't afford to wage these wars. Lefty and the others who imagine that Obama must keep the wars going to avoid losing in the midterms and beyond are ignoring the fact that the majority of Americans are worried about keeping their jobs and homes, and oppose the war in Afganistan. Wall Street is partying with our money that Obama gave them against our will, our lives are falling apart, and we want our money spent here at home.
When we voted for "change," we didn't mean "spare change," begging on the streets, but that's what many of us are looking at now.
US AFGHANISTAN WAR BUDGET = $100 BILLION (at least). ... $1 million per 100,000 soldiers.
AFGHANISTAN GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT = 12.5 BILLION. ... per person = $440
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/08/afghanistan-war-spending-in-perspective.php
The US war budget, therefore, is 8 TIMES the entire gdp of the country we are "protecting."
With the budget of just the ESCALATION of troops, $30 billion, we could more than TRIPLE the income of everyone in Afghanistan.
No, we wouldn't just spray the money around from helicopters. Starting in the cities which are now half way secure, we could make Afghans richer than they have ever been. We could feed everyone and pay workers to build housing and schools and clinics. AND we could easily pay for Afghan security forces who would be protecting that prosperity, so that the prosperity/security zones would spread.
To defeat Obama's plan we need an alternative plan which makes more sense than his military escalation. Once the economic figures become widely known, it will be obvious that the only sane "exit strategy" is the path of simple generosity.
Americans like to believe that we are a generous nation. (The average American believes that the US spends 24% of our Federal budget on foreign aid. ... http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2003_05/001282.php )
To win a battle of public opinion, you have to play to what people like to believe about themselves. Can we persuade the American people that we can win more security with generosity than with military escalation? The figures of the budget are on our side.
MoveOn is asking its members to sign a petition that says:
"Congress must push the Obama administration to outline firm benchmarks and a binding timeline to bring all of our troops home from Afghanistan as soon as possible."
That suggests that MoveOn will support legislation that imposes a binding timeline for withdrawal.
-------------
Really?
That suggests to me that MoveOn is supporting the war.
Once the troops are there they won't be coming home for at least a DECADE. MoveOn knows this as well as every informed citizen. A binding timeline can be easily extended with bogus propaganda such as "there's still more hard work to do" or "conditions on the ground merit another 12 months".
Obama's job was to get the additional troops to Afghanistan with a pretty speech.
MoveOn's job is to pacify their duped supporters just enough to prevent a revolt.
There's no such thing as a binding timeline.
Trust NOTHING coming from our government.
Amen.
U.S. of B ---- UNITED STATES OF BUSINESS
Government is suppose to control business, but in 1776 our
government was created by business. And with many safeguards
to guarantee that never would government be controlled by
anyone but business, for it is slave-labor business.
For chain-slavery was made the law of the land, only
those of great wealth could hold office, and only those
with good wealth could vote.
For last November the 50% of voters who went to the polls
were of the well dressed upper half of society, and both
candidates were hand picked and campaign funded by business,
and we will now get four more years of worse then Bush
business.
How can anyone talk about clean and congress in the same breath!
Hey, the PrezNut has spoken. I heard him on Tuesday night. He said:
"War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength."
Now Congress has to make it so. It is not like they do not take orders from the same bosses.
What world have you been living in, Mr. Naiman?
I think Mr. Naiman lives in the MIC world!
This is an Afghan Civil War with a corrupt government trying to destroy
freedom fighters struggling for independence. Surely Empire USA
absolutely cannot allow armed groups fighting for freedom to succeed.
Not at home, not abroad, can Empire USA allow freedom fighters to be
called anything but terrorists.
NOW IS THE TIME TO END IT OR ELSE...Who knows--it could boomerang back to the dirty bastard that started this shit--can we give it a name--I know that name--I mean a human name?
- Already in the summer...House Democrats...voted for McGovern's amendment requiring the Pentagon to present Congress with an exit strategy. That was...before President Obama proposed to send 30,000 more troops. -
Calling for an exit strategy THEN didn't stop the latest escalation.
Calling for an exit strategy NOW is going to be different?
I suggest yet again that the way out, the only way out, is to bring the law (that allowed Bush to start this madness and Obama to continue it) into the light of day so that all can see how insane and DAFT this war against future terrorists is.
I understand why Congress continues to ignore Public Law 107-40. I don't understand why Progressives continue to ignore it, since it is that law that has America stuck in an unwinnable war that it can't extricate itself from.
The Democrats, America voted in, have far more important things to do, like re-fight the abortion battle. After that they can reafirm their support for the imperial presidency and oh yeah, we'll pencil in ending the wars around 2055, does that work for you?
The brilliant strategists, the left follows, perhaps should reconsider electing pro-war people and then trying to "pressure" them to be something they are not.
ARTICLE ---- NOT AN HONEST ARGUMENT
This article starts by putting blinders on our mind, starts by blinding us to the reality that stopping the war is the main issue, the only real issue that need be discussed.
For an immediate end to the war should be our position and a one year timetable our line in the sand.
But this article has us excepting the fiction that the war must continue and more troops are good so long as our capitalist Congress gives it their vote of approval. For with the average Senator having a net worth of 7.1 Million, surely their approval is a for drawn conclusion.
Move-On's idea of a "binding timeline" is just window dressing that will let the war drag on. What's the point?
For an outstanding article on why the Obama administration is doomed, having doomed the rest of us, see "Afghanistan and Elkhart, Indiana: The Twin Frauds of Obama," by Paul Craig Roberts on counterpunch.org today.
Agree, MoveOn is pacifying its base. Didn't Move-on do something similar with the Iraq war during the Bush years. We are still occupying the country with over 100,000 troops and who knows how many civilian contractors and are paying and arm and a leg for that occupation. MoveOn has lost interest in that war. Out of news, out of mind.
the debate here between "lefty" and the others is happening because "Lefty", like so many other Americans cannot bring himself to go back to first principles. "Lefty" appears to believe first principles can be subordinated to political expediency in order to assuage political ignorance and blind fear. As long as Democrats tie themselves in logical knots like this, they will never, ever win anything.
First of all, compromise on first principles is always wrong, politically, intellectually and morally. Compromise on the fine details not on the underlying principle. Second, feinting Rightward to appease irrational medievalists will not work. You can never go far enough to the Right for them because their mission is not to solve the problem; it is to destroy you. Third, all presidents are up to their necks in alligators; stop making that flimsy excuse for inaction or wrong action. You want alligators, look at FDR. The US had a 25% unemployment rate. Fourth, you cannot possibly be morally corrupt enough to suggest that 1000s of Afghans, Iraqis, Pakistanis and Americans must die or be horribly injured to make the Democrats look "tough". Fifth, even if the first 4 points were wrong, there is still the inescapable fact that this "surge" will not work. It will not "get the job done", because there is no "job" to "get done". This situation has no military solution. You don't use a crowbar to surgically extract a brain tumor unless your actual aim is to kill the patient, not cure the cancer.
There is no logical, moral or politically wise military solution to this problem. A "surge" fails the test on all counts, as does the occupation. It was begun on the basis of a false premise and no amount of additional killing can correct that.
You had a little straw man massacre there. I am not deluded to the point that I think all of America is anti-war to the point that I am. Nothing would please me more than to see all our troops home tomorrow. Unfortunately, we live in a democracy and I am not dictator. See how I morally respect this first principle? See how I do not denigrate my fellow Americans. Whether you like it our not, thousands of Americans were slaughtered in their offices on 911. Bush and his henchmen flamed that very real fear and created disproportionate response and went on an imperialistic rampage. Now you expect the new president to fix all these problems in one day. You expect him to behave like a dictator.
The only safe way to end this war is to let these generals have one public shot at it. Bush never allowed that to happen because he believed in endless war. Like I asked below, why would you not want to give these generals enough rope to hang themselves? Why do you think building a consensus in this country on exiting Afghanistan is a bad thing?
-"The only safe way to end this war is to let these generals have one public shot at it. Bush never allowed that to happen because he believed in endless war. Like I asked below, why would you not want to give these generals enough rope to hang themselves?"
I understand you. Yes this is the thinking of many elected officials in the US. "Why should I stick out MY neck just to save the lives of thousands of soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Pakistanis and Afghans, not to mention the future of the US economy."
All the more vital then that those with integrity, foresight and morals, push such cowards into the open.
If you are waiting for a consensus on Afghanistan beyond the majority against the war that exists now, the US government will have already moved on to the next target, Iran? Venezuela?, who knows where else?
You could win the battle (i.e. exit Afghanistan) and lose the war (e.g. another round of long term neocon leadership). I am all for sticking necks out but we should do it judiciously. Who takes on Iran and Venezuela? Obama or "Bomb Bomb Iran" McCain?
Neocon leadership? Obama just repeated the same exact Neocon lies, if I did not know any better I would have thought the Westpoint speech was from Bush Jr. P
lease explain the difference. You run the risk of appearing to be partisan-blind and politically naive.
What don't you get about these two facts:
1. The Iraq withdrawal has begun.
2. The president proposed a timeline for an Afghanistan withdrawal.
I suppose John McCain would have accomplished these two items months ago. The only spectacle is your pretzel logic.
-I suppose John McCain would have accomplished these two items months ago
No, that is the point, neither would Clinton have, that is what we are saying. If you vote for pro-war people, you get pro-war policy.
I am just trying to point out that the Iraq withdrawal and Afghanistan timeline are not pro-war.
Yeah, Peace is War.
You are being sarcastic right?
The Iraq timeline/withdrawal was neither pro-war nor anti-war. If President Bush had not signed the Iraq SOFA agreement before December 2008, midnight, our troops in Iraq would have been there illegally, any "agreements" with the Iraq government regarding the safety of our troops would have become void, and any killing of our soldiers by 'non-combatant' civilian Iraqis would no longer have been a crime.
The Afghan timeline/withdrawal too is neither pro-war nor anti-war. It is so loaded with reservations a.k.a. holes that it is not even worth discussing it in the context of pro- or anti-war.
What don't you get about these two facts:
1. There is no real Iraq "withdrawal," since we are leaving huge permanent military bases there, and have rigged the laws in Iraq to benefit U.S. corporations.
2. The proposed timeline for an Afghanistan withdrawal is just a fig leaf and means nothing, as has been pointed out even by members of the Obama administration.
You might be right but I don't work in futures anymore. Remember the old chestnut about Iraqi oil. Seems they signed their first oil contract with China. I'm not sure anyone knows what the future of bases in Iraq will be. I doubt that the timeline is a fig leaf given he said it on national TV. The important thing is that we get our troops home.