EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
We, the 99%, Demand the End of the Wars Now
After ten years of war, now is a perfect time to act to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Friends Committee on National Legislation has set up a toll-free number for us to call Congress: 1-877-429-0678. A Congressional "Supercommittee" is charged with coming up with $1.5 trillion in reduced debt over ten years, and the wars and the bloated Pentagon budget dangle before the Supercommittee like overripe fruit.
A recent CBS poll shows how far out of step with the 99% the Pentagon's plans are. 62% want U.S. troops out within two years.
But the Pentagon wants to stay for at least thirteen more years.
So what else is new, you may say. The Pentagon wants to stay everywhere forever.
But here is a key political fact about the world in which we live: the Pentagon does not always get what it wants. The Pentagon did not want to eat a timetable for the withdrawal of all Pentagon forces from Iraq by December, but the Pentagon was forced to eat such a timetable anyway. Now, the Pentagon is trying to undo the timetable. But it is far from clear that the Pentagon will succeed. Already it has been forced to lower its sights to seeking to keep a force of no more than 5000 "trainers." But even that lowered aspiration may well fail. The Iraqi government has said that it's fine if thousands of "trainers" stay - as long as they don't have immunity from Iraqi law. But the U.S. government says that's a red line: in order to stay, the "trainers" must have immunity from Iraqi law. So less than three months before all Pentagon forces are supposed to leave Iraq, there is no deal. There well might never be a deal, and all Pentagon forces may well come out on schedule.
And the Pentagon forces are much more likely to come out on schedule if more Members of Congress get more vocal in their opposition. Representative Barney Frank said this week that keeping U.S. troops in Iraq past December would be "totally unacceptable." More protests and more phone calls will get more Members of Congress talking like that.
A key lesson from Iraq for Afghanistan is this: we can force the Pentagon to eat a timetable for military withdrawal, and once we've forced them to eat it, we have the ability to force them to keep it down.
Already in May, 204 Members of the House - including all but 8 Democrats and 26 Republicans - voted to require the President to establish a timetable for withdrawal. We just need to switch six Members from that vote from no to yes to get a majority in the House for a timetable for withdrawal.
And now the Congress has an added incentive and opportunity to act to end the wars, because the Supercommittee is considering the ten year path of government spending. And Congress could eliminate many hundreds of billions of dollars in future government debt by ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Friday morning, hundreds of peace advocates marched from Freedom Plaza in Washington DC, past the White House, to the office of drone manufacturer General Atomics, demanding an end to the wars and drone strikes. Who says the 99% don't have concrete demands? What could be more concrete than ending the wars?
Here is a short video from the protest: "When drones fly, children die! Stop the wars now!"
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
22 Comments so far
Show AllThe pentagon and the rest of the military industrial complex have no intention of limiting the occupation to 13 years, or 30 years. The miltary industrial complex is all about eternal occupations and wars to provide them an eternal revenue stream.
Withdrawl timetables plus two bucks buys a good cup of coffee.
People need to keep speaking out, protesting and organizing to create the future we want...note to the U.S. Military, Pentagon and war merchants, millions and millions are working end your deadly action to undeclared war, our military-dominated, undemocratic foreign policy, your empire and ending the military's theft of half of the federal budget when poverty and homelessness is rising.
they murdered thousands of people in New York to enter these wars...
what could possibly make you believe any demand you make for anything means two cents to them?
are you going to blow up buildings and kill thousands to get your way?
are you going to hide in a bunker and use drones to kill innocent families?
are you going to imprison hundreds of thousands for crimes against no one?
that's how they do it...
the table stakes are much higher than your wallet appears prepared to meet...
'demand' is only the ante...
Mr Naiman,
"pulling the troops out" within two years is not inconsistent with an agreement to train Afghan forces and maintain bases.
-----" The agreement would allow not only military trainers to stay to build up the Afghan army and police, but also American special forces soldiers and air power to remain."---
love that "When drones fly, children die!" really great rhetoric and fine poetry more than makes up for being specious nonsense.
It is often said that there are two things certain in life: death and taxes. Actually there is a third: there will never be a national Afghan army because the moment "we" leave these soldiers will be apportioned among the various war lords. As of January 1, 2011 there were an estimated 164,000 active soldiers in that army. Let me assume that one trainer for 100 soldiers is plenty (can someone correct me if I am grossly wrong?). Hence no more than about 1500 to 2000 "trainers" are needed. Even if that army grows to 250,000 we are talking of no more than about 2500 trainers. Similarly the Iraq army is estimated at 770,000. Leaving 10,000 "trainers" behind means one trainer for every 77 soldiers! Leaving 15,000 "trainers" behind means one for every 50 soldiers. Folks, don't ever swallow this huge Obama scam!
Oh B S on the end of the Iraq war. We still have the giant Embassy there staffed with a gazzilion State Department personnel and mercs. We still have 50,000 troops there still murdering civilians.
I can't take this slop of Obama ended the Iraq war.
And don't forget to add that he has extended his drone wars to at least 5 more countries and that the CIA, JSOC are in at least 80 more countries setting up bases, kidnapping and murdering whomever they want.
What is being missed here is the brainwashed mindset of the crowd who believes that America is safer because the fighting is occurring overseas.
It is the old joke of the guy in the pith helmet carrying the elephant gun on Fifth Avenue NYC. When asked what he's doing he says that he is keeping the elephants away. When asked how effective what he is doing, he replies, "See any elephants?
But in this case it is the people around him who think "He's doing a good job. We need him. Thank God we have him."
We have a very brainwashed populace in America who believe the lies, and support them.
Robert, how do you know that you're not one of the brainwashed ?
There is no mention of war in the declaration from Occupy Wall Street. This must be changed. Wall Street and the Pentagon are two heads of the same monster.
If I had one demand: It's not alright to kill to get what you want. This applies not only to individuals, but to corporations and to governments as well. IT IS NOT ALRIGHT TO KILL!!!
Just wait until they bring the drone wars to the good old US of A. Just perfecting their art until they employ the drones into their arsenal of possiblilities to further squelch dissent by the other 99%. The shadow govt will use technology against us when the time is right. Do NOT doublt that for a NY second.
Once upon a time the serious avowal of wanting to overthrow the U.S. government got you on a combined CIA-FBI list with the instruction "watch this nut". Today you are more likely to be added to the "hit list". Only in America! Wait. Maybe also in Saudi Arabia, People's Republic of China, Russia?
Iran, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Ivory Coast, Nigeria. Guinea. Iraq, Pakistan, Congo, Thailand, Venezuela, Bangladesh, Somalia, Sudan kill people just for protesting.
Awlaki was killed for acting as part of a terrorist organization and not just for running his mouth. although from what he said, Awlaki would have approved of killing his own stupid ass, as he said that any Americans anywhere should be killed without hesitation.
Once upon a time the serious avowal of wanting to overthrow the U.S. government got you on a combined CIA-FBI list with the instruction "watch this nut". Today you are more likely to be added to the "hit list". Only in America! Wait. Maybe also in Saudi Arabia, People's Republic of China, Russia?
Who are we kidding? Do you think that AIPAC, which is dictating our foreign policy, will let us just up and leave? No, they'll keep us there until the US is bled dry in every way.
The only exit will be when Israel is actively dissolved, and Zionists are forced to pay reparations to those damaged world-wide by them. Then the healing will begin.
President Obama and his predecessor Bush claim that their authority to wage wars all around the globe is based on the 2001 resolution of Congress whose official title was: ""To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States". Notice the clause: "for the recent attacks" which means 9/11. The Taliban, the government of Pakistan and its security service, Saddam Hussein, and Khadaffi were NOT responsible for "the recent attacks launched against the United States" and neither were the overwhelming majority of the people of these countries which are now illegally murdered by droning for the acts of a few. Hence every single one of the currently waged "wars" are illegal and unconstitutional because they have not been specifically authorized by Congress. Now, let us not blame the Presidents, the MIC, and the Pentagon alone because Congress can stop every one of these illegal wars by refusing to fund them.
Well, Crow, if you read the full text of the authorization you'll find that it's not up to you to decide who was responsible for the attacks and who aided or harbored those who were.
The authorization mentions who gets to determine those things.
Do you deny that "recent attacks" meant 9/11? If you do then you are one of the legion of "taffy makers" who stretch that resolution beyond its original intent. President Bush was pretty clear on what he stated namely that the perpetrators of 9/11 had to be brought to account for their deeds. He never proved that Saddam was responsible and Barry O. has never proven that Khadaffy was responsible. Furthermore why do you deny me to have an opinion and publish it here? First amendment fuster-buster, first amendment which you seem to have forgotten just in case you are a CIA monitor of what appears on Common Dreams. And who the hell are you to be so "high and mighty"? The Government? God himself? And you are so hilariously wrong. "Who gets to determine these things" is ultimately the Supreme Court of the United States who has the last word on the legality of this resolution. If I had what is called "standing" I would have brought suit in the SC a long time ago. If I had won I would have become authorized to determine who was meant by that resolution. Got it? Meanwhile I have every right and reason (yes, there we go again) to call the resolution a monstrosity which must be erased from the books and publish my view. Get lost. Remember "by the people"? Well fuster-buster, I am one of the people whether you like it or not and I wholeheartedly support every effort "to take our country back" from the secret-mongers in Washington especially when it comes to war and peace.
------Do you deny that "recent attacks" meant 9/11?-----
No. It surely did mean that,
------- Furthermore why do you deny me to have an opinion and publish it here?-----
I didn't deny that you should have an opinion and your opinion is still published here.
and by saying that I've infringed on your First Amendment rights by disagreeing with you, you showed that you don't have any flaming clue about what the First Amendment says or what it means.
------
and again, my clueless Crow.....
--- "Who gets to determine these things" is ultimately the Supreme Court of the United States who has the last word on the legality of this resolution----what I said
was that the RESOLUTION says that the president determines. SCOTUS indeed may theoretically overturn it, but 10 years on, IT STANDS.
and it's damned unlikely that the Court would ever overturn it.
------
AND FINALLY,
-----Meanwhile I have every right and reason (yes, there we go again) to call the resolution a monstrosity which must be erased from the books and publish my view. ----
I also don't like that the resolution still stands, and I agree that it should be withdrawn and that we should have a national discussion of whether or not to replace it....and not with something anywhere near as vague and as broad as that thing.
---------------------------
(and just for the hell of it, you raving and ignorant nutjob,
Bush didn't base the horrible Iraq invasion on the AUMF. see Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 )
Doesn't your back ever get tired of bowing to authority?
My back's been tired since the first time the FBI come to question me, jc.
But I don't think that explaining shit is the same as endorsing it. Folks that don't understand the law don't have much hope of directing their effort at changing it.
You can rant that blowing up Awlaki's stinking ass was unconstitutional, but the way to stop that kind of thing is to get the law that authorized blowing him up changed.
Get the AUMF changed. It won't be all that difficult to do if it's focused upon and it might even be better than ranting into your laptops and cellphones about banksters leaving you 99% impoverished.