

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Tonight, the House of Representatives is expected to vote on the
Pentagon's request for $33 billion for open-ended war and occupation
in Afghanistan. While press reports suggest that when the dust
settles, the Pentagon will have the war money, it's likely that a
record number of Representatives will go on the record in opposition
to open-ended war and occupation.
Representative Jim McGovern [D-MA] and Representative David Obey
[D-WI] are expected to introduce an amendment on the war supplemental
that would require President Obama to present Congress with a
timetable for military redeployment from Afghanistan.
Ninety-eight Representatives have already signed
their names to this policy, by co-sponsoring McGovern's bill, H.R.
5015.
In addition, the McGovern-Obey amendment would try to lock in the
President's promise to begin a "significant
withdrawal" of troops in July 2011 by requiring another vote on
funding if the promise is not kept. The amendment also requires a new
National Intelligence Estimate by January, which would hopefully have
the effect of forcing the Administration's promised December review of
the war policy to be real and its main conclusions public.
So far, the high-water mark for House opposition to the
Administration's war policy in Afghanistan came in June 2009, when 138 Members
voted for an amendment introduced by McGovern requiring the Pentagon
to present Congress with an exit strategy. Among House Democrats,
McGovern's June amendment had majority support by a margin of 131-114,
a 53-47 split.
Representative McGovern will be working to bring more than 138 Members
with him this time, on a provision that is significantly sharper than
last June's amendment, because it requires a "timetable for
withdrawal" rather than merely an "exit strategy," as well as trying
to lock in the promised drawdown of summer 2011.
Getting the McGovern-Obey amendment past the entire House will be a
very tall order if the overwhelming majority of House Republicans
continue to vote for open-ended war. Only 7 Republicans voted with
McGovern last June. If only 7 Republicans vote with McGovern now, and
turnout is similar to June, some 200 Democrats - four-fifths of the
Democratic caucus - would have to vote yes to carry the amendment.
But there is some grounds for optimism that McGovern could bring with
him a significantly bigger proportion of the Democratic caucus than he
did last June.
On May 27 of this year, eighteen
Senators voted in favor of Senator Feingold's amendment requiring
a timetable for withdrawal. Before May, no-one in the Senate had
joined Feingold in publicly advocating for a withdrawal plan; last
year, the Senate didn't even consider anything like Representative
McGovern's exit strategy amendment. But in May, Feingold's amendment
was backed by three of the four members of the Senate Democratic
leadership: Senator Durbin, Senator Schumer, and Senator Murray. That
was the Senate, traditionally more supportive of foreign military
entanglements than the more populist House.
And that was before Michael Hastings' Rolling Stone article
and General McChrystal's dismissal called the question of the radical
disconnect between the Washington fairy tale of how military
escalation is going to lead to "success" and the "ground truth"
reality of quagmire in Afghanistan.
The story that was told last fall when General McChrystal demanded
30,000 more troops has not come to pass. The offensive in Marja was a
failure. The offensive in Kandahar, the centerpiece of the escalation
- which people in Kandahar have overwhelmingly rejected - has been
postponed. The Afghan Taliban have not been "defeated" or "degraded."
The political settlement that the Afghan government is now seeking -
with the ostensible support of the U.S. - will involve the same
Taliban leaders that we are fighting today, and the eventual result of
these negotiations is not likely to be significantly changed by more
killing.
By sending a decisive signal that patience in Congress is wearing out,
the House can dramatically shorten the war. Congress can save many
American and Afghan lives and tens of billions of dollars if it moves
decisively to turn this ship around. You can weigh in by calling your
Representative today. The Capitol Switchboard is 202-225-3121.
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 |
Tonight, the House of Representatives is expected to vote on the
Pentagon's request for $33 billion for open-ended war and occupation
in Afghanistan. While press reports suggest that when the dust
settles, the Pentagon will have the war money, it's likely that a
record number of Representatives will go on the record in opposition
to open-ended war and occupation.
Representative Jim McGovern [D-MA] and Representative David Obey
[D-WI] are expected to introduce an amendment on the war supplemental
that would require President Obama to present Congress with a
timetable for military redeployment from Afghanistan.
Ninety-eight Representatives have already signed
their names to this policy, by co-sponsoring McGovern's bill, H.R.
5015.
In addition, the McGovern-Obey amendment would try to lock in the
President's promise to begin a "significant
withdrawal" of troops in July 2011 by requiring another vote on
funding if the promise is not kept. The amendment also requires a new
National Intelligence Estimate by January, which would hopefully have
the effect of forcing the Administration's promised December review of
the war policy to be real and its main conclusions public.
So far, the high-water mark for House opposition to the
Administration's war policy in Afghanistan came in June 2009, when 138 Members
voted for an amendment introduced by McGovern requiring the Pentagon
to present Congress with an exit strategy. Among House Democrats,
McGovern's June amendment had majority support by a margin of 131-114,
a 53-47 split.
Representative McGovern will be working to bring more than 138 Members
with him this time, on a provision that is significantly sharper than
last June's amendment, because it requires a "timetable for
withdrawal" rather than merely an "exit strategy," as well as trying
to lock in the promised drawdown of summer 2011.
Getting the McGovern-Obey amendment past the entire House will be a
very tall order if the overwhelming majority of House Republicans
continue to vote for open-ended war. Only 7 Republicans voted with
McGovern last June. If only 7 Republicans vote with McGovern now, and
turnout is similar to June, some 200 Democrats - four-fifths of the
Democratic caucus - would have to vote yes to carry the amendment.
But there is some grounds for optimism that McGovern could bring with
him a significantly bigger proportion of the Democratic caucus than he
did last June.
On May 27 of this year, eighteen
Senators voted in favor of Senator Feingold's amendment requiring
a timetable for withdrawal. Before May, no-one in the Senate had
joined Feingold in publicly advocating for a withdrawal plan; last
year, the Senate didn't even consider anything like Representative
McGovern's exit strategy amendment. But in May, Feingold's amendment
was backed by three of the four members of the Senate Democratic
leadership: Senator Durbin, Senator Schumer, and Senator Murray. That
was the Senate, traditionally more supportive of foreign military
entanglements than the more populist House.
And that was before Michael Hastings' Rolling Stone article
and General McChrystal's dismissal called the question of the radical
disconnect between the Washington fairy tale of how military
escalation is going to lead to "success" and the "ground truth"
reality of quagmire in Afghanistan.
The story that was told last fall when General McChrystal demanded
30,000 more troops has not come to pass. The offensive in Marja was a
failure. The offensive in Kandahar, the centerpiece of the escalation
- which people in Kandahar have overwhelmingly rejected - has been
postponed. The Afghan Taliban have not been "defeated" or "degraded."
The political settlement that the Afghan government is now seeking -
with the ostensible support of the U.S. - will involve the same
Taliban leaders that we are fighting today, and the eventual result of
these negotiations is not likely to be significantly changed by more
killing.
By sending a decisive signal that patience in Congress is wearing out,
the House can dramatically shorten the war. Congress can save many
American and Afghan lives and tens of billions of dollars if it moves
decisively to turn this ship around. You can weigh in by calling your
Representative today. The Capitol Switchboard is 202-225-3121.
Tonight, the House of Representatives is expected to vote on the
Pentagon's request for $33 billion for open-ended war and occupation
in Afghanistan. While press reports suggest that when the dust
settles, the Pentagon will have the war money, it's likely that a
record number of Representatives will go on the record in opposition
to open-ended war and occupation.
Representative Jim McGovern [D-MA] and Representative David Obey
[D-WI] are expected to introduce an amendment on the war supplemental
that would require President Obama to present Congress with a
timetable for military redeployment from Afghanistan.
Ninety-eight Representatives have already signed
their names to this policy, by co-sponsoring McGovern's bill, H.R.
5015.
In addition, the McGovern-Obey amendment would try to lock in the
President's promise to begin a "significant
withdrawal" of troops in July 2011 by requiring another vote on
funding if the promise is not kept. The amendment also requires a new
National Intelligence Estimate by January, which would hopefully have
the effect of forcing the Administration's promised December review of
the war policy to be real and its main conclusions public.
So far, the high-water mark for House opposition to the
Administration's war policy in Afghanistan came in June 2009, when 138 Members
voted for an amendment introduced by McGovern requiring the Pentagon
to present Congress with an exit strategy. Among House Democrats,
McGovern's June amendment had majority support by a margin of 131-114,
a 53-47 split.
Representative McGovern will be working to bring more than 138 Members
with him this time, on a provision that is significantly sharper than
last June's amendment, because it requires a "timetable for
withdrawal" rather than merely an "exit strategy," as well as trying
to lock in the promised drawdown of summer 2011.
Getting the McGovern-Obey amendment past the entire House will be a
very tall order if the overwhelming majority of House Republicans
continue to vote for open-ended war. Only 7 Republicans voted with
McGovern last June. If only 7 Republicans vote with McGovern now, and
turnout is similar to June, some 200 Democrats - four-fifths of the
Democratic caucus - would have to vote yes to carry the amendment.
But there is some grounds for optimism that McGovern could bring with
him a significantly bigger proportion of the Democratic caucus than he
did last June.
On May 27 of this year, eighteen
Senators voted in favor of Senator Feingold's amendment requiring
a timetable for withdrawal. Before May, no-one in the Senate had
joined Feingold in publicly advocating for a withdrawal plan; last
year, the Senate didn't even consider anything like Representative
McGovern's exit strategy amendment. But in May, Feingold's amendment
was backed by three of the four members of the Senate Democratic
leadership: Senator Durbin, Senator Schumer, and Senator Murray. That
was the Senate, traditionally more supportive of foreign military
entanglements than the more populist House.
And that was before Michael Hastings' Rolling Stone article
and General McChrystal's dismissal called the question of the radical
disconnect between the Washington fairy tale of how military
escalation is going to lead to "success" and the "ground truth"
reality of quagmire in Afghanistan.
The story that was told last fall when General McChrystal demanded
30,000 more troops has not come to pass. The offensive in Marja was a
failure. The offensive in Kandahar, the centerpiece of the escalation
- which people in Kandahar have overwhelmingly rejected - has been
postponed. The Afghan Taliban have not been "defeated" or "degraded."
The political settlement that the Afghan government is now seeking -
with the ostensible support of the U.S. - will involve the same
Taliban leaders that we are fighting today, and the eventual result of
these negotiations is not likely to be significantly changed by more
killing.
By sending a decisive signal that patience in Congress is wearing out,
the House can dramatically shorten the war. Congress can save many
American and Afghan lives and tens of billions of dollars if it moves
decisively to turn this ship around. You can weigh in by calling your
Representative today. The Capitol Switchboard is 202-225-3121.