NoEscalation.org: Can the Peace Movement Reach President Obama?
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.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
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.
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.