On Helping - If Not On Killing - Is America a Quitter?

When President Obama visited Afghanistan in March, he assured
U.S. troops that "the United States of America does not quit once
it starts on something."

But according to Sunday's New York Times, it
ain't necessarily so. When it comes to combating AIDS in the
world's poorest countries, the greatest nation on earth has apparently
decided to cry "Uncle."

Clinics in Uganda are turning people away, on orders from the U.S.
government. A U.S.-run program in Mozambique has been told to stop
opening clinics.

Why? According to lying U.S. officials, we don't have the money to
maintain our commitment. Budgets are tight. We had to bail out Wall
Street.

But the numbers on offer don't make any sense. Michel Sidibe,
executive director of Unaids, says there is a global shortfall of
about $17 billion for controlling the epidemic. The expected U.S.
share of such a shortfall would be about a third, or $5.6 billion.

Meanwhile, Congress is about to be asked to fork over $33 billion in
our tax dollars for more war in Afghanistan. This $33 billion would
only pay for four months of the war, until the end of the fiscal year,
when next year's appropriation will become available.

So on an annual basis, we're being asked to spend almost 20 times more
on killing in Afghanistan than it is claimed that we don't have to
help stop Africa and Haiti from being decimated by AIDS.

Or, to put it another way: if we could end the war in Afghanistan,
then every year we'd save $99 billion compared to the world in which
the war continues. We could use $5.6 billion to pay what we owe on
controlling the AIDS epidemic, and have $93.4 billion left for
domestic job creation, tax cuts, going to the beach, whatever ya want.

But it's not just about the money. It's also about focus. The stupid,
cruel, brutal, and pointless war in Afghanistan is sucking up
political oxygen that could be used for good - like combating poverty
and disease.

And we know how to the end the war. The war will start to wind down as
soon as the U.S. agrees to the policy of establishing a timetable for
military withdrawal and begins serious negotiations with the senior
leadership of Afghanistan's insurgencies.

Members of Congress could easily do something about this. They could
pledge to vote no on $33 billion for more war, and they could sign
on as co-sponsors to the Feingold-McGovern bill, which would
require the President to establish a timetable for military
withdrawal. Already, nearly half of the House Democratic Caucus is on
the bill.

And President Obama could easily do something about this too. When he
meets with President Karzai today, he could agree to President
Karzai's request that the U.S. should fully back Afghan government
peace talks with the Afghan Taliban, as leaders of the U.S. peace
movement are calling on Obama to
do.

Meanwhile, AIDS treatment advocates are fighting back against the
apparent decision of U.S. officials to "cut and run" from the fight
against AIDS in Africa. Tomorrow night, activists will
confront President Obama and Speaker Pelosi at a $15,000 per
person dinner in New York. Many of these activists are the same folks
that forced President Clinton and Vice-President Gore to get off their
hands on treatment for global AIDS in the late 1990s. With public
support, they will prevail.