Feingold, McGovern, Jones Introduce Bill to End the War in Afghanistan
Yesterday, Senator Russ Feingold, Representative Jim McGovern, and
Representative Walter Jones announced
the introduction of legislation that - if it attracts enough support -
could end the U.S. military occupation of Afghanistan, and bring the
troops home.
The key idea of the bill is straightforward. By January 1 - or within
3 months of the enactment of the bill, if that is earlier - the
President is required to submit to Congress a plan for the
redeployment of the U.S. military from Afghanistan, with a timetable
for doing so. After submitting the plan, the President has to update
Congress every 90 days on how the implementation of the plan is going.
The bill allows Members of Congress to sign their names in favor of
the all-important policy of having a timetable for military
withdrawal, without everyone having to agree on a specific proposal
for what the end date should be. Instead, it instructs President Obama
to tell us what he thinks the plan should be.
The importance of establishing a timetable for military withdrawal
cannot be overstated.
If you want to figure out how we are going to get the hell out of
Afghanistan, the most obvious precedent to look at is: how are we
getting the hell out of Iraq? And the answer is: with a timetable for
military withdrawal, which is now the basis of a signed agreement
between the U.S. and Iraqi governments.
U.S. officials have repeatedly conceded that the endgame in
Afghanistan includes a negotiated political settlement between the
Afghan government and the main insurgent groups in Afghanistan. Such a
settlement will only be possible if it is supported by the United
States, and the key chip that only the United States can bring to the
negotiating table is willingness to agree to a timetable for military
withdrawal. So long as the United States refuses to agree to a
timetable for withdrawal of U.S. forces, a political solution is
almost surely impossible. As soon as the United States is willing to
agree to a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces, a political
solution is increasingly likely.
The adoption by the United States of a timetable for withdrawal - even
a signal that the United States is willing to adopt a timetable for
withdrawal, even a signal that a decisive body of opinion in official
Washington is supporting a timetable for withdrawal - is likely to
have dramatic political effects in Afghanistan, just as these things
had dramatic political effects in Iraq. In 2007, Congress never
succeeded legislatively in writing a military withdrawal timetable
into U.S. law. But the fact that the majority of the House and Senate
went on the record in favor of a timetable had dramatic effects in
Iraq. It put pressure the Bush Administration to compromise its
objectives, to start serious negotiations with people it had
previously been trying to kill. It sent a strong signal to Iraqi
political actors that the U.S. was leaving, and it was time to focus
on where you wanted to be when the music stopped.
At the beginning of May, the Afghan government is convening a "peace
jirga" to try to build a national political consensus for a peace
agreement to end the Afghan civil war. That process is a thousand
times more likely to succeed if it is supported by the United States,
and the most important thing that Washington can do to help that
process succeed is signal its willingness to adopt a timetable for
military withdrawal. The Feingold-McGovern-Jones bill - if it attracts
wide support in Congress and the country - could therefore be a key
step to peace in Afghanistan.
The bill's text can be read here and you can
ask your representatives in Congress to co-sponsor it here.
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 |
Yesterday, Senator Russ Feingold, Representative Jim McGovern, and
Representative Walter Jones announced
the introduction of legislation that - if it attracts enough support -
could end the U.S. military occupation of Afghanistan, and bring the
troops home.
The key idea of the bill is straightforward. By January 1 - or within
3 months of the enactment of the bill, if that is earlier - the
President is required to submit to Congress a plan for the
redeployment of the U.S. military from Afghanistan, with a timetable
for doing so. After submitting the plan, the President has to update
Congress every 90 days on how the implementation of the plan is going.
The bill allows Members of Congress to sign their names in favor of
the all-important policy of having a timetable for military
withdrawal, without everyone having to agree on a specific proposal
for what the end date should be. Instead, it instructs President Obama
to tell us what he thinks the plan should be.
The importance of establishing a timetable for military withdrawal
cannot be overstated.
If you want to figure out how we are going to get the hell out of
Afghanistan, the most obvious precedent to look at is: how are we
getting the hell out of Iraq? And the answer is: with a timetable for
military withdrawal, which is now the basis of a signed agreement
between the U.S. and Iraqi governments.
U.S. officials have repeatedly conceded that the endgame in
Afghanistan includes a negotiated political settlement between the
Afghan government and the main insurgent groups in Afghanistan. Such a
settlement will only be possible if it is supported by the United
States, and the key chip that only the United States can bring to the
negotiating table is willingness to agree to a timetable for military
withdrawal. So long as the United States refuses to agree to a
timetable for withdrawal of U.S. forces, a political solution is
almost surely impossible. As soon as the United States is willing to
agree to a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces, a political
solution is increasingly likely.
The adoption by the United States of a timetable for withdrawal - even
a signal that the United States is willing to adopt a timetable for
withdrawal, even a signal that a decisive body of opinion in official
Washington is supporting a timetable for withdrawal - is likely to
have dramatic political effects in Afghanistan, just as these things
had dramatic political effects in Iraq. In 2007, Congress never
succeeded legislatively in writing a military withdrawal timetable
into U.S. law. But the fact that the majority of the House and Senate
went on the record in favor of a timetable had dramatic effects in
Iraq. It put pressure the Bush Administration to compromise its
objectives, to start serious negotiations with people it had
previously been trying to kill. It sent a strong signal to Iraqi
political actors that the U.S. was leaving, and it was time to focus
on where you wanted to be when the music stopped.
At the beginning of May, the Afghan government is convening a "peace
jirga" to try to build a national political consensus for a peace
agreement to end the Afghan civil war. That process is a thousand
times more likely to succeed if it is supported by the United States,
and the most important thing that Washington can do to help that
process succeed is signal its willingness to adopt a timetable for
military withdrawal. The Feingold-McGovern-Jones bill - if it attracts
wide support in Congress and the country - could therefore be a key
step to peace in Afghanistan.
The bill's text can be read here and you can
ask your representatives in Congress to co-sponsor it here.
Yesterday, Senator Russ Feingold, Representative Jim McGovern, and
Representative Walter Jones announced
the introduction of legislation that - if it attracts enough support -
could end the U.S. military occupation of Afghanistan, and bring the
troops home.
The key idea of the bill is straightforward. By January 1 - or within
3 months of the enactment of the bill, if that is earlier - the
President is required to submit to Congress a plan for the
redeployment of the U.S. military from Afghanistan, with a timetable
for doing so. After submitting the plan, the President has to update
Congress every 90 days on how the implementation of the plan is going.
The bill allows Members of Congress to sign their names in favor of
the all-important policy of having a timetable for military
withdrawal, without everyone having to agree on a specific proposal
for what the end date should be. Instead, it instructs President Obama
to tell us what he thinks the plan should be.
The importance of establishing a timetable for military withdrawal
cannot be overstated.
If you want to figure out how we are going to get the hell out of
Afghanistan, the most obvious precedent to look at is: how are we
getting the hell out of Iraq? And the answer is: with a timetable for
military withdrawal, which is now the basis of a signed agreement
between the U.S. and Iraqi governments.
U.S. officials have repeatedly conceded that the endgame in
Afghanistan includes a negotiated political settlement between the
Afghan government and the main insurgent groups in Afghanistan. Such a
settlement will only be possible if it is supported by the United
States, and the key chip that only the United States can bring to the
negotiating table is willingness to agree to a timetable for military
withdrawal. So long as the United States refuses to agree to a
timetable for withdrawal of U.S. forces, a political solution is
almost surely impossible. As soon as the United States is willing to
agree to a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces, a political
solution is increasingly likely.
The adoption by the United States of a timetable for withdrawal - even
a signal that the United States is willing to adopt a timetable for
withdrawal, even a signal that a decisive body of opinion in official
Washington is supporting a timetable for withdrawal - is likely to
have dramatic political effects in Afghanistan, just as these things
had dramatic political effects in Iraq. In 2007, Congress never
succeeded legislatively in writing a military withdrawal timetable
into U.S. law. But the fact that the majority of the House and Senate
went on the record in favor of a timetable had dramatic effects in
Iraq. It put pressure the Bush Administration to compromise its
objectives, to start serious negotiations with people it had
previously been trying to kill. It sent a strong signal to Iraqi
political actors that the U.S. was leaving, and it was time to focus
on where you wanted to be when the music stopped.
At the beginning of May, the Afghan government is convening a "peace
jirga" to try to build a national political consensus for a peace
agreement to end the Afghan civil war. That process is a thousand
times more likely to succeed if it is supported by the United States,
and the most important thing that Washington can do to help that
process succeed is signal its willingness to adopt a timetable for
military withdrawal. The Feingold-McGovern-Jones bill - if it attracts
wide support in Congress and the country - could therefore be a key
step to peace in Afghanistan.
The bill's text can be read here and you can
ask your representatives in Congress to co-sponsor it here.