To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
US Marines fire mortar rounds from their forward operating base in Mian Poshteh in Helmand Province. President Barack Obama, vowing to "finish the job" in Afghanistan, promised he would soon announce his decision on sending tens of thousands more US troops to battle Al-Qaeda and the Taliban (AFP/Manpreet Romana)
President Obama plans to formally announce on December 1 his decision
with regard to the request from some of his more ambitious generals for
a massive troop surge in Afghanistan.
But indications are that the president who was elected to set a new
course for the nation when it comes to foreign policy will instead
"stay the course" set by his quagmire-prone predecessor.
Obama announced Tuesday that he plans to "finish the job" in Afghanistan, and there is a growing consensus that he will agree to dispatch roughly 34,000 U.S. troops to the country.
The president says he plans to use his December 1 "finish-the-job"
speech to signal "resolve to the allies while not signaling open-ended
commitment to the American people."
Translation: There will be talk of an exit strategy -- with reassuring references to "benchmarks" and "off-ramps" -- but no exit strategy.
Obama indicated on Tuesday that he plans to expend a good deal of political capital to promote what is effectively becoming his
war. "I feel very confident that when the American people hear a clear
rationale for what we're doing there and how we intend to achieve our
goals, that they will be supportive," he said.
But there is likely to be significant resistance to what many
Americans -- some of whom serve in Congress -- see as a plan to steer
the country deeper into a quagmire.
As Obama's intentions began to clarify Tuesday, anti-war activists
stepped up their activism on behalf of congressional measures that
would limit the scope of the war and begin a process of bringing the
troops home.
In particular, they focused on a bill introduced by California Congresswoman Barbara Lee, HR 3699,
which would prohibit the use of taxpayer funds for more combat troops
to Afghanistan, and another introduced by Massachusetts Congressman Jim
McGovern, HR 2404, which calls for the development of a clear exit strategy.
Tom Hayden, the former California
legislator and anti-Vietnam War activist who has positioned himself as
prime mover in the movement to prevent an escalation of the U.S.
presence in Afghanistan, says the Lee and McGovern bills "provide space
for the peace movement to organize in local communities across the
country during the next six months."
That's right.
Lee's amendment has 23 cosponsors, McGovern's has 100 --including several Republicans.
And there are rumblings from top Democrats in Congress.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, described Afghan President
Hamid Karzai as an "unworthy partner" for the U.S., in a statement that
indicated deep discomfort with an expansion of the U.S. commitment
toprop up Karzai's regime.
Perhaps even more significantly, Congressman David Obey,
the Wisconsin Democrat who chairs the powerful House Appropriations
Committee, bluntly declared that: "On the merits, I think it is a
mistake to deepen our involvement."
Obey and Senator Carl Levin, D-Michigan, are proposing a war surtax
on the wealthy to pay for additional troops. "If we have to pay for the
health care bill, we should pay for the war as well," says the man who
will have a significant say with regarding any move by Obama to expand
the occupation. "The problem in this country with this issue is that
the only people who have to sacrifice are military families and they've
had to go to the well again and again and again and again, and
everybody else is blithely unaffected by the war."
Obey is offering what could well be the most effective congressional
challenge to Obama's plan. The appropriations committee chair argues
that the expanded mission is simply unaffordable.
Surging more troops into Afghanistan will "wipe out every initiative
we have to rebuild our own economy," says Obey, who explains that if
Obama goes for an expanded war: "There ain't going to be no money for
nothing if we pour it all into Afghanistan. If they ask for an
increased troop commitment in Afghanistan, I am going to ask them to
pay for it."
The Obama administration won't be happy with Obey.
But Obey knows the numbers when it comes to budgeting.
And his warning is stark and necessary one.
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. |
President Obama plans to formally announce on December 1 his decision
with regard to the request from some of his more ambitious generals for
a massive troop surge in Afghanistan.
But indications are that the president who was elected to set a new
course for the nation when it comes to foreign policy will instead
"stay the course" set by his quagmire-prone predecessor.
Obama announced Tuesday that he plans to "finish the job" in Afghanistan, and there is a growing consensus that he will agree to dispatch roughly 34,000 U.S. troops to the country.
The president says he plans to use his December 1 "finish-the-job"
speech to signal "resolve to the allies while not signaling open-ended
commitment to the American people."
Translation: There will be talk of an exit strategy -- with reassuring references to "benchmarks" and "off-ramps" -- but no exit strategy.
Obama indicated on Tuesday that he plans to expend a good deal of political capital to promote what is effectively becoming his
war. "I feel very confident that when the American people hear a clear
rationale for what we're doing there and how we intend to achieve our
goals, that they will be supportive," he said.
But there is likely to be significant resistance to what many
Americans -- some of whom serve in Congress -- see as a plan to steer
the country deeper into a quagmire.
As Obama's intentions began to clarify Tuesday, anti-war activists
stepped up their activism on behalf of congressional measures that
would limit the scope of the war and begin a process of bringing the
troops home.
In particular, they focused on a bill introduced by California Congresswoman Barbara Lee, HR 3699,
which would prohibit the use of taxpayer funds for more combat troops
to Afghanistan, and another introduced by Massachusetts Congressman Jim
McGovern, HR 2404, which calls for the development of a clear exit strategy.
Tom Hayden, the former California
legislator and anti-Vietnam War activist who has positioned himself as
prime mover in the movement to prevent an escalation of the U.S.
presence in Afghanistan, says the Lee and McGovern bills "provide space
for the peace movement to organize in local communities across the
country during the next six months."
That's right.
Lee's amendment has 23 cosponsors, McGovern's has 100 --including several Republicans.
And there are rumblings from top Democrats in Congress.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, described Afghan President
Hamid Karzai as an "unworthy partner" for the U.S., in a statement that
indicated deep discomfort with an expansion of the U.S. commitment
toprop up Karzai's regime.
Perhaps even more significantly, Congressman David Obey,
the Wisconsin Democrat who chairs the powerful House Appropriations
Committee, bluntly declared that: "On the merits, I think it is a
mistake to deepen our involvement."
Obey and Senator Carl Levin, D-Michigan, are proposing a war surtax
on the wealthy to pay for additional troops. "If we have to pay for the
health care bill, we should pay for the war as well," says the man who
will have a significant say with regarding any move by Obama to expand
the occupation. "The problem in this country with this issue is that
the only people who have to sacrifice are military families and they've
had to go to the well again and again and again and again, and
everybody else is blithely unaffected by the war."
Obey is offering what could well be the most effective congressional
challenge to Obama's plan. The appropriations committee chair argues
that the expanded mission is simply unaffordable.
Surging more troops into Afghanistan will "wipe out every initiative
we have to rebuild our own economy," says Obey, who explains that if
Obama goes for an expanded war: "There ain't going to be no money for
nothing if we pour it all into Afghanistan. If they ask for an
increased troop commitment in Afghanistan, I am going to ask them to
pay for it."
The Obama administration won't be happy with Obey.
But Obey knows the numbers when it comes to budgeting.
And his warning is stark and necessary one.
President Obama plans to formally announce on December 1 his decision
with regard to the request from some of his more ambitious generals for
a massive troop surge in Afghanistan.
But indications are that the president who was elected to set a new
course for the nation when it comes to foreign policy will instead
"stay the course" set by his quagmire-prone predecessor.
Obama announced Tuesday that he plans to "finish the job" in Afghanistan, and there is a growing consensus that he will agree to dispatch roughly 34,000 U.S. troops to the country.
The president says he plans to use his December 1 "finish-the-job"
speech to signal "resolve to the allies while not signaling open-ended
commitment to the American people."
Translation: There will be talk of an exit strategy -- with reassuring references to "benchmarks" and "off-ramps" -- but no exit strategy.
Obama indicated on Tuesday that he plans to expend a good deal of political capital to promote what is effectively becoming his
war. "I feel very confident that when the American people hear a clear
rationale for what we're doing there and how we intend to achieve our
goals, that they will be supportive," he said.
But there is likely to be significant resistance to what many
Americans -- some of whom serve in Congress -- see as a plan to steer
the country deeper into a quagmire.
As Obama's intentions began to clarify Tuesday, anti-war activists
stepped up their activism on behalf of congressional measures that
would limit the scope of the war and begin a process of bringing the
troops home.
In particular, they focused on a bill introduced by California Congresswoman Barbara Lee, HR 3699,
which would prohibit the use of taxpayer funds for more combat troops
to Afghanistan, and another introduced by Massachusetts Congressman Jim
McGovern, HR 2404, which calls for the development of a clear exit strategy.
Tom Hayden, the former California
legislator and anti-Vietnam War activist who has positioned himself as
prime mover in the movement to prevent an escalation of the U.S.
presence in Afghanistan, says the Lee and McGovern bills "provide space
for the peace movement to organize in local communities across the
country during the next six months."
That's right.
Lee's amendment has 23 cosponsors, McGovern's has 100 --including several Republicans.
And there are rumblings from top Democrats in Congress.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, described Afghan President
Hamid Karzai as an "unworthy partner" for the U.S., in a statement that
indicated deep discomfort with an expansion of the U.S. commitment
toprop up Karzai's regime.
Perhaps even more significantly, Congressman David Obey,
the Wisconsin Democrat who chairs the powerful House Appropriations
Committee, bluntly declared that: "On the merits, I think it is a
mistake to deepen our involvement."
Obey and Senator Carl Levin, D-Michigan, are proposing a war surtax
on the wealthy to pay for additional troops. "If we have to pay for the
health care bill, we should pay for the war as well," says the man who
will have a significant say with regarding any move by Obama to expand
the occupation. "The problem in this country with this issue is that
the only people who have to sacrifice are military families and they've
had to go to the well again and again and again and again, and
everybody else is blithely unaffected by the war."
Obey is offering what could well be the most effective congressional
challenge to Obama's plan. The appropriations committee chair argues
that the expanded mission is simply unaffordable.
Surging more troops into Afghanistan will "wipe out every initiative
we have to rebuild our own economy," says Obey, who explains that if
Obama goes for an expanded war: "There ain't going to be no money for
nothing if we pour it all into Afghanistan. If they ask for an
increased troop commitment in Afghanistan, I am going to ask them to
pay for it."
The Obama administration won't be happy with Obey.
But Obey knows the numbers when it comes to budgeting.
And his warning is stark and necessary one.