Would You Pledge $20.14 to End the War in Afghanistan?

Last weekend marked another grim new milestone for the war in Afghanistan: more than twice as many U.S. troops have been killed in Afghanistan since President Obama took office than in the eight years Bush was President.

There is, quite literally, no end in sight. In 2014 -- three years from now -- there is supposed to be a "transition" to "Afghan lead" on the war. But if the Pentagon has its way, 2014 will not be a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. If the Pentagon has its way, there will still be tens of thousands of U.S. troops in Afghanistan in 2014, as there were when Obama took office. Indeed, if the Pentagon has its way, there will still be tens of thousands of U.S. troops in Afghanistan in 2024.

Because a lot of people in Afghanistan don't want U.S. troops in their country, and quite a few of those people have guns and are willing to fight as long as U.S. troops are there, and there is no feasible way for the U.S. to eradicate all these people, that means that if the Pentagon has its way, the war will go on without end.

If we assume that Ron Paul is unlikely to win the Republican primary -- a long shot, by most accounts -- the presidential election next November is not likely to help us much to end the war. Most analysts are predicting that the presidential choice facing voters next November is likely to be between some war (Obama) and even more war (Romney.)

But there is at least one plausible way to stop the Pentagon's plan which is within reach of the multitude: elect 218 people to the House who will vote against it.

In May of this year, 204 Members of the House voted to require the president to establish a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan. The vote was 204-215. If six people voting had switched from no to yes, the McGovern Amendment would have passed. But to be safe, let's suppose everyone is voting. In a full House, we need to add about eight votes to get to 218.

This will not be an easy goal, but it is a feasible goal. In practice, if we can make the war a Congressional campaign issue, some people will move through conversion rather than election.

If this project were successful, it would be kind of unprecedented in recent history. In 2006 the Iraq war became a major campaign issue, but Bush was president, providing a lightning rod for organizing, and major institutional players had a strong incentive to help make Iraq a campaign issue.

But perhaps if we demonstrate support, some major institutional player with a bigger bullhorn will get interested, take this project over, and move it to the next level.

So here is the pledge:

I will support and donate $20.14 to a Congressional candidate who meets the following two criteria:

1. The candidate faces a contested primary which he or she has a plausible chance of winning, according to a poll or press report; and the candidate, if victorious in the primary, has a plausible chance of getting elected;

2. The candidate is distinguished from his or her principal primary opponent by supporting legislation that would require the President to establish a timetable for the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Afghanistan.

You can support this pre-campaign now in the following ways:

1. Help us document who are the candidates nationwide who meet the two criteria. The documentation should be something that constitutes public evidence. In the case of documenting that someone is a serious candidate in a contested primary, a press report or published poll. In the case of documenting that a candidate supports requiring a timetable for U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, a press report or candidate website. If the candidate hasn't made a public statement, press them to make one -- that's part of the campaign.

2. Promote the pledge. Forward this post; join this group on Facebook.

 

Follow Robert Naiman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/naiman

Comments

[rebelriser]

06:00 PM on 10/19/2011

I'm sure that many, many of us want the war in Afghanistan & all wars to end, but I will criticize your statement that more of our members of military have been killed in Afghanistan since President Obama came into office. If Bush & Cheney & Republicans had stayed there and made certain that everything was under control instead of pulling troops out and going into Iraq, there wouldn't have been the need for buildup in Afghanistan by this administration. There weren't as many killed in Afghanistan during the Bush administration because there weren't many military left there, but numbers of deaths & injuries were lots higher in Iraq.
Why don't you, Naiman, take your pledges to put pressure on Republicans to stop blocking recovery and jobs bills? Frankly, I wouldn't give the time of day to any TeaPartier which is how you come across, Naiman.

[caprawalie]

03:50 PM on 10/19/2011

Give my hard earned money to a scoundrel......it is sooooooo pleasurable to deny than to give any money to any multimillionaire candidate

[progressafarians]

02:43 PM on 10/19/2011

Uh, No...

[Indep Votr]

01:17 PM on 10/19/2011

Obama made similar promises in 2008.

Obama lied.

Again.

ABO in 2012.

[librldem]

12:23 PM on 10/19/2011

Sorry Robert but merika has not actually won a war since 1945 and is not about to start winning this one now having lost this war nearly 10 years ago. Although Obama mistakenly did double the number of targets for the occupied population to shoot at our troops did after all volunteer for the meaningless job you know! Besides that we have to protect the poppy fields for the drug lords from the bad guys! I think it's part of the MIC code of 'heroin rules'.

[iridium53]

12:15 PM on 10/19/2011

Not a chance.

I'd pay twice that for results.

I won't pay for "support."

"Support" is far too squishy and undefined.

[Michael Ruiz]

10:17 AM on 10/19/2011

Ron Paul 2012

[Michael Ruiz]

09:37 AM on 10/19/2011

Vote and Donate to Ron Paul in 2012!

It's our only chance at Peace!

[Countess]

09:25 AM on 10/19/2011

Not only is there no threat of this stupid war ending anytime soon but we should be preparing for the next war on Obama's neocon agenda. This administration is Bush on steroids and because the democratic party refuses to go after Obama on his warmongering there is an excellent chance he will continue to expand the overseas empire into many other places. The democrats are total hypocrites on this issue.

[rebelriser]

06:05 PM on 10/19/2011

Did you sleep the whole eight years, 2001 to 2009? Unbelievable.

[Carl Caroli]

06:49 AM on 10/19/2011

"If the Pentagon has its way"
The pentagon does not dictate policy. Someone needs to remind them of that.

[Freedom and Peace]

06:00 AM on 10/19/2011

VOTE and DONATE to PEACE...

https://secure.ronpaul2012.com/

The ONLY presidential candidate that will end ALL the wars, bring ALL the troops home and bring PEACE to our nation once again.

[morgan1]

04:58 AM on 10/19/2011

The problem with this is the running candidate will say anything to win and once he/she is in office, they become part of the problem. Obama is a great example of that. He gave us a false front image and the real traitor showed his colors once he won, and long before he took over office. Corporate money will not allow a rogue candidate to win office. All candidates in the past have been stopped; all whistleblowers attempting change have been fired or jailed (Manning) or silenced. The newest NAFTA 3x (as it is referred to) had a lot of opposition, letter writing, e-mails and protests and Obama and his GOP vampires passed it with no hesitation. The same is going to happen with that pipeline out of Canada heading for Texas. THEY ARE NOT LISTENING. Wisconsin is what is waiting for all of us as they tear this country apart ignoring the will of the people.

[RobertNaiman]

10:12 AM on 10/19/2011

This is, of course, a legitimate concern. However, there is a very important caveat to this concern: it's **much** easier to hold House members accountable to their promises than Presidential candidates. You can't occupy the White House. You can occupy a Congressional office. The President doesn't have town meetings. House Members do. And so on. It's not all about the President. A political movement that can't fight about the House because it can't see past the President is a movement that is going to lose. The House is the part of government where the masses have the most influence. We need to press this advantage as far as it will go.

[Clif25]

02:37 AM on 10/19/2011

Ron Paul is a serious candidate. He has a strong chance of winning. Let's not give up on him. He is our only chance. You can donate to his campaign in his money bomb. Join the active military troops and the peace movement behind Ron Paul. We can win.

http://www.blackthisout.com/?dp

[rebelriser]

06:11 PM on 10/19/2011

Apparently, Paul, Bachmann & Perry aren't the only mentally challenged persons around. Paul win? Are you that mentally challenged? He has been a candidate since I forgot how many years and is so inconsequential, that most of us forget he is campaigning, thank goodness.

[Clif25]

02:47 PM on 10/24/2011

I forgot we are supposed to keep the myth alive that DC is where Santa Claus lives and he will give us lots of goodies if we vote in any candidate who does not believe in such nonsense.

In a nation of free people, Ron Paul wins. In a nation of sheep Ron Paul does not have a chance.

[cody weber]

01:40 AM on 10/19/2011

If you are serious about ending the wars then donate to Ron Paul... he is the only one is serious about ending the wars and Obama has made it clear that he has no qualms about going around congress when necessary.

They are actually having a moneybomb today you can go to his campaign website and donate. At the very least fueling him may push Obama in that direction because the anti-war left has become depressingly silent as of late.

[LoyalDem4646]

12:03 AM on 10/19/2011

When I vote, it won't be about the war in Afghanistan, it will be about jobs. I'm voting Dem and I don't give a darn about their Afghan policy at this point.