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.

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

Comments

[Kathy Bishop]

Why is only health care required to be deficit neutral. Demand a surtax to pay for the war and it will be ended quickly. No politician will vote for a tax so they will seek alternatives, like perhaps withdrawal?

[randyjet]

As a candidate Obama made it VERY clear that he would make war in Afganistan, and increase the numbers of US troops in the Army by about 100,000 troops. I thought the 100,000 was a bit much more than was needed, but it gave a good indication of which way he was moving.

The US needs to do as all the ambassadors of India, Pakistan, and Afganistan suggested on CNN today. They ALL support the US being there, and support Gen.McCrystals recommendations. Given that range of opinions of people far more knowledgeable than me,. I hope Obama does the troop increase. WE cannot afford the luxury again of abandoning Afganistan to chaos.

[no dodo]

Randyjet, if you are going to defer to those "far more knowlegeable than (yourself)," at least question the motives and special interests of those to whom you defer. Or defer to the 60% of the American public who oppose a troop increase. Or defer to the soldiers on the front lines. Or defer to the reality that US troops trying to win the hearts and minds of Afghanis are sitting ducks among people who hate them. Or defer to the reality that "collateral damage" done to innocent civilians by remote control drones cannot succeed. Or defer to the fact that if the US wanted to stop Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in their tracks, they could cut their funding tomorrow with a few defoliant bombs. Or defer to the economic costs of maintaining an occupation force in Afghanistan. Or defer to the history of foreign occupiers in Afghanistan.

[NCAV2]

I thought our goal was to destroy Al Qaeda. Well there are only 100 of them left in Afghanistan. How many troops does it take to catch a gang?! What have we been doing in these past 8 years in that country??

[greenferret]

President Obama will soon decide whether to send as many as 60,000 additional U.S. soldiers to the war in Afghanistan.

Let's urge Obama to earn his 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. Tell him to withdraw troops from Afghanistan -- not send more.

http://bit.ly/noafghansurge