Jun 16, 2009
Today, the House of
Representatives is scheduled to vote on yet another supplemental
funding bill , this time providing nearly $80 billion to continue
waging the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (the total bill is now at $106
billion). And, just like they have done repeatedly in years past,
progressive Members of Congress should vote against this funding and
end our nation's descent into a disastrous quagmire in Afghanistan.
As I've noted before, the presence of foreign troops in Afghanistan unites our opponents within the country and region and makes cooperation by key regional players like Iran, Russia and China
far less likely with the prospect of tens of thousands of US troops on
their border. As for those with the most at stake - Afghan people - over 80% oppose an escalation of American troops in their country.
This is why 51 Members of Congress voted against the supplemental
war funding when it first appeared before the House in May. They
recognized that ending the war in Afghanistan is an essential part of
improving our national security and stabilizing central Asia, and acted
out of that conviction.
This past week, a number of progressive bloggers have been hard at
work to encourage those same Members of Congress to again vote no when
that funding reappears this afternoon. And, according to the citizen whip count kept by Jane Hamshire at FireDogLake,
they're very close to keeping the 39 no votes needed to defeat that
funding. After years of working and voting to end the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, these Congressional progressives have a chance to do just
that. The many reasons to end these wars have not changed, and so, too,
neither should their vote to oppose the supplemental funding.
Members of Congress will soon have another opportunity to build
pressure against the military escalation in Afghanistan by supporting a
bill by Congressman Jim McGovern (D-MA) that demands that the
administration establish what the president has publicly stated is needed in Afghanistan
- a military exit strategy. McGovern plans to introduce his bill as a
floor amendment to the House Armed Services Committee's Defense
Authorization bill when it hits the floor next week.
But, first thing first - today Members of the House should be voting no on the supplemental.
The Win Without War coalition planned to announce a coordinated day
of action today in support of Rep. McGovern's bill. With the last
minute scheduling of today's vote on the Supplemental, however, that
work is being delayed to avoid creating any confusion on Capitol Hill.
I hope my former colleagues will join the growing list of co-sponsors
of Rep. McGovern's bill. Today, however, their focus should be on
opposing the supplemental funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
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.
Tom Andrews
Tom Andrews, is the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar and a Robina Senior Human Rights Fellow at Yale Law School. A former Member of Congress from the First Congressional District of Maine, he was a co-founder of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Tom served as National Director of Win Without War, and President of United to End Genocide. He has worked with political organizers and human rights advocates in Cambodia, Indonesia, Algeria, Croatia, Yemen and Ukraine, among others. He has a Washington DC-based consulting practice.
Today, the House of
Representatives is scheduled to vote on yet another supplemental
funding bill , this time providing nearly $80 billion to continue
waging the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (the total bill is now at $106
billion). And, just like they have done repeatedly in years past,
progressive Members of Congress should vote against this funding and
end our nation's descent into a disastrous quagmire in Afghanistan.
As I've noted before, the presence of foreign troops in Afghanistan unites our opponents within the country and region and makes cooperation by key regional players like Iran, Russia and China
far less likely with the prospect of tens of thousands of US troops on
their border. As for those with the most at stake - Afghan people - over 80% oppose an escalation of American troops in their country.
This is why 51 Members of Congress voted against the supplemental
war funding when it first appeared before the House in May. They
recognized that ending the war in Afghanistan is an essential part of
improving our national security and stabilizing central Asia, and acted
out of that conviction.
This past week, a number of progressive bloggers have been hard at
work to encourage those same Members of Congress to again vote no when
that funding reappears this afternoon. And, according to the citizen whip count kept by Jane Hamshire at FireDogLake,
they're very close to keeping the 39 no votes needed to defeat that
funding. After years of working and voting to end the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, these Congressional progressives have a chance to do just
that. The many reasons to end these wars have not changed, and so, too,
neither should their vote to oppose the supplemental funding.
Members of Congress will soon have another opportunity to build
pressure against the military escalation in Afghanistan by supporting a
bill by Congressman Jim McGovern (D-MA) that demands that the
administration establish what the president has publicly stated is needed in Afghanistan
- a military exit strategy. McGovern plans to introduce his bill as a
floor amendment to the House Armed Services Committee's Defense
Authorization bill when it hits the floor next week.
But, first thing first - today Members of the House should be voting no on the supplemental.
The Win Without War coalition planned to announce a coordinated day
of action today in support of Rep. McGovern's bill. With the last
minute scheduling of today's vote on the Supplemental, however, that
work is being delayed to avoid creating any confusion on Capitol Hill.
I hope my former colleagues will join the growing list of co-sponsors
of Rep. McGovern's bill. Today, however, their focus should be on
opposing the supplemental funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Tom Andrews
Tom Andrews, is the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar and a Robina Senior Human Rights Fellow at Yale Law School. A former Member of Congress from the First Congressional District of Maine, he was a co-founder of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Tom served as National Director of Win Without War, and President of United to End Genocide. He has worked with political organizers and human rights advocates in Cambodia, Indonesia, Algeria, Croatia, Yemen and Ukraine, among others. He has a Washington DC-based consulting practice.
Today, the House of
Representatives is scheduled to vote on yet another supplemental
funding bill , this time providing nearly $80 billion to continue
waging the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (the total bill is now at $106
billion). And, just like they have done repeatedly in years past,
progressive Members of Congress should vote against this funding and
end our nation's descent into a disastrous quagmire in Afghanistan.
As I've noted before, the presence of foreign troops in Afghanistan unites our opponents within the country and region and makes cooperation by key regional players like Iran, Russia and China
far less likely with the prospect of tens of thousands of US troops on
their border. As for those with the most at stake - Afghan people - over 80% oppose an escalation of American troops in their country.
This is why 51 Members of Congress voted against the supplemental
war funding when it first appeared before the House in May. They
recognized that ending the war in Afghanistan is an essential part of
improving our national security and stabilizing central Asia, and acted
out of that conviction.
This past week, a number of progressive bloggers have been hard at
work to encourage those same Members of Congress to again vote no when
that funding reappears this afternoon. And, according to the citizen whip count kept by Jane Hamshire at FireDogLake,
they're very close to keeping the 39 no votes needed to defeat that
funding. After years of working and voting to end the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, these Congressional progressives have a chance to do just
that. The many reasons to end these wars have not changed, and so, too,
neither should their vote to oppose the supplemental funding.
Members of Congress will soon have another opportunity to build
pressure against the military escalation in Afghanistan by supporting a
bill by Congressman Jim McGovern (D-MA) that demands that the
administration establish what the president has publicly stated is needed in Afghanistan
- a military exit strategy. McGovern plans to introduce his bill as a
floor amendment to the House Armed Services Committee's Defense
Authorization bill when it hits the floor next week.
But, first thing first - today Members of the House should be voting no on the supplemental.
The Win Without War coalition planned to announce a coordinated day
of action today in support of Rep. McGovern's bill. With the last
minute scheduling of today's vote on the Supplemental, however, that
work is being delayed to avoid creating any confusion on Capitol Hill.
I hope my former colleagues will join the growing list of co-sponsors
of Rep. McGovern's bill. Today, however, their focus should be on
opposing the supplemental funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
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.