Oct 22, 2009
If there were ever a time when the peace movement should be able to
have an impact on U.S. foreign policy, that time should be now. If
there were ever a time for extraordinary effort to achieve such an
impact, that time is now.
The war in Afghanistan is in its ninth year. McChrystal's proposal
could continue it for another ten years, at a likely cost of a
trillion dollars, and many more lives of U.S. soldiers and Afghan
civilians. The contradiction between domestic needs and endless war
was never more apparent. Congress fights over whether we can "afford"
to provide every American with quality health care, but every health
care reform proposal on the table will likely cost less than
McChrystal's endless war. A recent
CNN poll says 6 in 10 Americans oppose sending more
troops.
Democratic leaders in Congress are deeply skeptical: as far back as
June, Rep. Murtha and Rep. Obey voted for Rep. McGovern's amendment
demanding an exit strategy, and that was before the Afghan election
fiasco, when international forces failed at their key objective of
providing security, and before McChrystal demanded a 60% increase in
U.S. forces, on top of the 50% increase approved earlier this year. Our
troops are "exhausted," Murtha says.
Top Administration officials share the skepticism. Vice-President
Biden, Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel, and Afghan scholar Barnett Rubin,
an advisor to Ambassador Holbrooke, have all been arguing against a
troop increase: the political people on the grounds that the American
people and Congress won't support it; Biden on the grounds that it
would be a diversion from Pakistan; Rubin on the grounds that it would
be counterproductive to reconciliation in Afghanistan.
Elite opinion is closely divided. This is a jump ball. It could go
either way. And a decision by Nobel Laureate Obama to send 40,000 more
U.S. troops is likely to severely constrain U.S. policy, abroad and at
home, for many years.
Such a time calls for extraordinary efforts to mobilize public opinion
to move policy.
National peace advocacy organizations, including Peace Action, Just
Foreign Policy, Code Pink, United for Peace and Justice, and Voters
for Peace, are launching such an extraordinary effort. At the joint
website noescalation.org, we're
posting the phone numbers of every Congressional office, and what is
known so far about where they stand on the proposal to send 40,000
more U.S. troops. We're asking Americans to call Congressional offices
and search the media for information on where each Member of Congress
stands. And we're asking for that information to be reported back to
the website noescalation.org.
The more Members of Congress take a clear stand against military
escalation, the more likely President Obama is to reject McChrystal's
request. Some Members of Congress are saying, "we're waiting to see
what the President decides." But that nonsense is an obvious dodge.
The time to affect the President's decision is obviously before he
makes it, not afterwards. Of course some Members of Congress are going
to avoid taking a position if they can. Our job is to smoke them out.
Call now. The Norwegians are
counting on you.
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. Join with us today! |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Robert Naiman
Robert Naiman is Policy Director at Just Foreign Policy. Naiman has worked as a policy analyst and researcher at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch. He has masters degrees in economics and mathematics from the University of Illinois and has studied and worked in the Middle East.
If there were ever a time when the peace movement should be able to
have an impact on U.S. foreign policy, that time should be now. If
there were ever a time for extraordinary effort to achieve such an
impact, that time is now.
The war in Afghanistan is in its ninth year. McChrystal's proposal
could continue it for another ten years, at a likely cost of a
trillion dollars, and many more lives of U.S. soldiers and Afghan
civilians. The contradiction between domestic needs and endless war
was never more apparent. Congress fights over whether we can "afford"
to provide every American with quality health care, but every health
care reform proposal on the table will likely cost less than
McChrystal's endless war. A recent
CNN poll says 6 in 10 Americans oppose sending more
troops.
Democratic leaders in Congress are deeply skeptical: as far back as
June, Rep. Murtha and Rep. Obey voted for Rep. McGovern's amendment
demanding an exit strategy, and that was before the Afghan election
fiasco, when international forces failed at their key objective of
providing security, and before McChrystal demanded a 60% increase in
U.S. forces, on top of the 50% increase approved earlier this year. Our
troops are "exhausted," Murtha says.
Top Administration officials share the skepticism. Vice-President
Biden, Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel, and Afghan scholar Barnett Rubin,
an advisor to Ambassador Holbrooke, have all been arguing against a
troop increase: the political people on the grounds that the American
people and Congress won't support it; Biden on the grounds that it
would be a diversion from Pakistan; Rubin on the grounds that it would
be counterproductive to reconciliation in Afghanistan.
Elite opinion is closely divided. This is a jump ball. It could go
either way. And a decision by Nobel Laureate Obama to send 40,000 more
U.S. troops is likely to severely constrain U.S. policy, abroad and at
home, for many years.
Such a time calls for extraordinary efforts to mobilize public opinion
to move policy.
National peace advocacy organizations, including Peace Action, Just
Foreign Policy, Code Pink, United for Peace and Justice, and Voters
for Peace, are launching such an extraordinary effort. At the joint
website noescalation.org, we're
posting the phone numbers of every Congressional office, and what is
known so far about where they stand on the proposal to send 40,000
more U.S. troops. We're asking Americans to call Congressional offices
and search the media for information on where each Member of Congress
stands. And we're asking for that information to be reported back to
the website noescalation.org.
The more Members of Congress take a clear stand against military
escalation, the more likely President Obama is to reject McChrystal's
request. Some Members of Congress are saying, "we're waiting to see
what the President decides." But that nonsense is an obvious dodge.
The time to affect the President's decision is obviously before he
makes it, not afterwards. Of course some Members of Congress are going
to avoid taking a position if they can. Our job is to smoke them out.
Call now. The Norwegians are
counting on you.
Robert Naiman
Robert Naiman is Policy Director at Just Foreign Policy. Naiman has worked as a policy analyst and researcher at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch. He has masters degrees in economics and mathematics from the University of Illinois and has studied and worked in the Middle East.
If there were ever a time when the peace movement should be able to
have an impact on U.S. foreign policy, that time should be now. If
there were ever a time for extraordinary effort to achieve such an
impact, that time is now.
The war in Afghanistan is in its ninth year. McChrystal's proposal
could continue it for another ten years, at a likely cost of a
trillion dollars, and many more lives of U.S. soldiers and Afghan
civilians. The contradiction between domestic needs and endless war
was never more apparent. Congress fights over whether we can "afford"
to provide every American with quality health care, but every health
care reform proposal on the table will likely cost less than
McChrystal's endless war. A recent
CNN poll says 6 in 10 Americans oppose sending more
troops.
Democratic leaders in Congress are deeply skeptical: as far back as
June, Rep. Murtha and Rep. Obey voted for Rep. McGovern's amendment
demanding an exit strategy, and that was before the Afghan election
fiasco, when international forces failed at their key objective of
providing security, and before McChrystal demanded a 60% increase in
U.S. forces, on top of the 50% increase approved earlier this year. Our
troops are "exhausted," Murtha says.
Top Administration officials share the skepticism. Vice-President
Biden, Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel, and Afghan scholar Barnett Rubin,
an advisor to Ambassador Holbrooke, have all been arguing against a
troop increase: the political people on the grounds that the American
people and Congress won't support it; Biden on the grounds that it
would be a diversion from Pakistan; Rubin on the grounds that it would
be counterproductive to reconciliation in Afghanistan.
Elite opinion is closely divided. This is a jump ball. It could go
either way. And a decision by Nobel Laureate Obama to send 40,000 more
U.S. troops is likely to severely constrain U.S. policy, abroad and at
home, for many years.
Such a time calls for extraordinary efforts to mobilize public opinion
to move policy.
National peace advocacy organizations, including Peace Action, Just
Foreign Policy, Code Pink, United for Peace and Justice, and Voters
for Peace, are launching such an extraordinary effort. At the joint
website noescalation.org, we're
posting the phone numbers of every Congressional office, and what is
known so far about where they stand on the proposal to send 40,000
more U.S. troops. We're asking Americans to call Congressional offices
and search the media for information on where each Member of Congress
stands. And we're asking for that information to be reported back to
the website noescalation.org.
The more Members of Congress take a clear stand against military
escalation, the more likely President Obama is to reject McChrystal's
request. Some Members of Congress are saying, "we're waiting to see
what the President decides." But that nonsense is an obvious dodge.
The time to affect the President's decision is obviously before he
makes it, not afterwards. Of course some Members of Congress are going
to avoid taking a position if they can. Our job is to smoke them out.
Call now. The Norwegians are
counting on you.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.