The Right to Protest | Graphic Images From the NYT’s

As we get ready for the NATO summit next month in Chicago and the conventions this summer these images are reminders of the challenges we face. Click on the image to expand.


Riot Gear’s Evolution | 3 December 2011

"Just as the styles of protest have changed from one generation to the next, so have the styles of protest policing. Technological advances, training innovations and changing attitudes toward the right to assemble have all shaped the way the police handle the challenges of large demonstrations. During the 1960s and ’70s, police officers treated many protests as a threat to the social order and responded with brute force. In the 1980s and ’90s, demonstrations tended to be less confrontational and the police responded with more accommodating tactics."

- Chi Birmingham and Alex S. Vitale

Protecting face-to-face protest | 9 April 2012

"EVERY four years, we witness the spectacle of the presidential nominating conventions. And every four years, host cities, party leaders and police officials devise ever more creative ways of distancing protesters from the politicians, delegates and journalists attending these stage-managed affairs."

- Ronald J. Krotoszynski Jr.

Additional Resource: When Police go military

If I Had A Trillion Dollars | Youth Film Festival

More than 50 young activist/artists are going to Washington DC next week.



Click on the poster for a link to the films

Among the activities planned, they will have.

A public screening April 14 at Busboys and Poets, 6pm (14th Street & V Street NW) (Note: A panel of judges including hip hop artists Rebel Diaz, actress Susan Sarandon, and Brave New Films' Derrick Crowe have selected the films.)

A Congressional film screening April 16 with Congressman Jim McGovern, featuring the testimonies of eight youth filmmakers (1:30pm, Cannon House Office Building, Room 122)

Here is the facebook page.

Budget For All to End the War in Afghanistan | CPC

The first step in transforming our engagement into one based on human needs in Afghanistan. It's time to invest in peace. Click above for the link.

“End emergency war funding beginning in FY 2014. The Congressional Progressive Caucus believes that the military’s time in Afghanistan must come to a responsible and expeditious end. The Budget for All maintains Overseas Contingency Operation funding for redeployment in FY 2013, but the funding is zeroed out thereafter, and includes a prohibition on funds being used for any permanent bases in Iraq or Afghanistan. This achieves $1.1 trillion in savings over 10 years.”

The Details

"Our Budget Brings Our Troops Home & Realigns Our National Security Strategy

Our military engagements overseas are currently being financed on borrowed money, fought on borrowed time, and following a strategy unsuited for modern threats. Defense spending has nearly doubled over the last decade, and this approach has strained our military and economy to the brink. The Budget for All responsibly ends operations in Afghanistan, and puts an end to nation building outside the United States.

With two wars drawing to a close, we need a leaner, more agile force to combat 21st century risks. By employing strategies designed for today’s enemies, the CPC budget maintains a smaller, but still unparalleled, armed forces. The CPC budget reduces baseline military spending to ensure defense spending does not continue to contribute significantly to our current fiscal burden and redirects these funds to priorities such as caring for our veterans and smart diplomacy.

In total, the Budget for All achieves nearly $1.9 trillion in savings by bringing our troops home and realigning the Department of Defense. Our budget invests in foreign diplomacy and international aid to stabilize key regions of the world by smarter, more efficient means.

End emergency war funding beginning in FY 2014. The Congressional Progressive Caucus believes that the military’s time in Afghanistan must come to a responsible and expeditious end. The Budget for All maintains Overseas Contingency Operation funding for redeployment in FY 2013, but the funding is zeroed out thereafter, and includes a prohibition on funds being used for any permanent bases in Iraq or Afghanistan. This achieves $1.1trillion in savings over 10 years.

Reduce base discretionary defense spending. With more than a decade of war coming to a close, every dollar spent at the Department of Defense must be reviewed with renewed vigor. A modern defense strategy must focus our armed forces on their strengths of crisis response, defense, and deterrence. Our military needs to adapt to current threats and challenges, particularly on nuclear proliferation and terrorism. The threat of terrorist attacks could be effectively dealt with through cost-effective deployment of Intelligence and Special Operations, while eliminating failed strategies.

To suit the newly formed strategy, the Budget for All gradually achieves a smaller force structure with fewer personnel through attrition. Further, no savings are obtained by reducing military personnel wages or benefits, including TRICARE and pensions. The proportion of private contractor personnel would be significantly reduced, curbing needless “outsourcing” that creates excessive cost overruns. The contraction in force structure would also reduce expensive modernization requirements, especially for older or unnecessary platforms such as the Trident II nuclear missile, F-35, V-22 Osprey and field alternatives, and the Virginia-class submarine, which are ill-suited to handle current threats. Further, the CPC budget limits the modernization of Cold War-era nuclear weapons and infrastructure, as outlined by the Smarter Approach to Nuclear Expenditures (SANE) Act. In contrast, this budget supports the retention of current Special Operations Forces and their capacities for operations."

You can see the whole budget here.
Click here for the web page of the Congressional Progressive Caucus

Summit for Peace and Economic Justice | 18-19 Chicago

Join us in Chicago for the Counter Summit for Peace and Economic Justice. While NATO meets, we will map campaigns for a future free of wars, occupation and the costs of a militarized foreign policy.

Details on workshops and other activities here.
Workshop proposal form here. Deadline 2 April.

Ending the Afghanistan-Pakistan War, Preventing One with Iran

"President Obama, in a prudent move, has relocated this May’s G8 [One Percent] summit from Chicago’s unpredictable streets to the protected woods of Camp David, leaving NATO to face the demands of the peace movement in a more focused confrontation this May 18-19...."

NATO CALL TO ACTION: March with veterans for justice and reconciliation

“We, Afghanistan and Iraq veterans, from around the country will converge in Chicago on May 20th to march to the NATO summit and ceremoniously return our medals to NATO generals. We were awarded these medals for serving in the Global War on Terror, a war based on lies and failed polices.”

Nightmare in Afghanistan | UFPJ Action Alert

Reuters is reporting that this morning the White House is not reviewing a faster or larger withdrawal of U.S. troops after the shooting deaths of 16 Afghan civilians by a U.S. soldier.

"The White House is not currently reviewing options for further troop withdrawals and no decisions have been made. As the president has said, we will bring home a total of 33,000 troops by next summer," White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said in a statement.

"After that initial reduction, our troops will continue coming home at a steady pace as Afghan security forces move into the lead. The president will make decisions on further drawdowns at the appropriate time based on our interests and in consultation with our allies and Afghan partners."

AFSC is an active member of the United for Peace and Justice network. Take a moment to call and send a message to your member of Congress.


The situation in Afghanistan is a nightmare.

The surge has not worked. As we escalated the war, the insurgency fought harder and grew in numbers. Western troops are seen as foreign occupiers in the Afghan homeland, and now have murdered 16 civilians, including little children, in the middle of the night in Kandahar province. The surge has produced a record number of coalition and Afghan deaths, injuries and lost limbs. The surge has not stopped the momentum of the insurgency; just last year there were over 16,000 IED attacks against U.S. troops – a record number. And the cost of an average IED is just $30.

Bring our troops home. Call your member of Congress toll-free at 877-429-0678 or click here to send an e-mail.

Afghan outrage over Koran burnings and murders is yet another vivid reminder of what has gone very wrong in Afghanistan. American troops do not speak Afghan languages and are not familiar with Afghan culture. They are not able to build Afghanistan – that must be done by Afghans, and they can begin as soon as U.S. troops withdraw.

Lt. Col. Daniel Davis, a highly respected military officer, who recently returned from Afghanistan, has written a declassified report detailing the actual state of affairs in Afghanistan. He states: “Senior ranking U.S. military leaders have so distorted the truth when communicating with the U.S. Congress and the American people in regards to conditions on the ground in Afghanistan that the truth has become unrecognizable. This deception has damaged America’s credibility among both our allies and enemies, severely limiting our ability to reach a political solution to the war in Afghanistan.”

This insanity must end, and quickly. Going into our 11th year of war, we know that more time, money, and resources will not change the realities in Afghanistan.

Bring our troops home now. Call your member of Congress toll-free at 877-429-0678 or click here to send an e-mail.

Along with Lt. Col. Davis, we call on the House and Senate Armed Services Committees to conduct an investigation and public hearings into the facts about Afghanistan calling the senior and former generals referred to in Davis’ report to provide their version of events under oath.

U.S. Troops and all Americans Deserve the Truth

Contact your Member of Congress to co-sponsor H.780, Barbara Lee's bill, which limits funding for the Afghanistan war to providing for the safe and orderly withdrawal from Afghanistan of all members of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense contractor personnel who are in Afghanistan. Read the text of the bill and see the list of cosponsors.

Click here to send an e-mail to your Member of Congress asking him or her to support H.780 or call their office toll-free at 877-429-0678.

(Thanks to Friends Committee on National Legislation for providing the toll-free number!) Please report back results to rustiandgael@unitedforpeace.org

- UFPJ Afghanistan Working Group

SIGAR Report on Relief and Reconstruction

On Monday the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction released the final report for 2011. These reports are mandated by law and must be delivered to Congress each quarter. The report covers the time period that marked 10 years since the US assault in October of 2001 and carries the tag line '10 years of reconstruction 2001-2011'.

Of particular interest is the fact that 61% of the money articulated for relief and reconstruction is actually spent on funding, arming and training government forces, private militias, and undercover units that operate along the border with Pakistan.

The report confirms that 98,933 U.S. forces remained in the country at year’s end.

It does not dwell on the Afghan government demands to disband the failed military-led Provisional Reconstruction Teams linking US military strategy with development and reconstruction, or the Afghan government demand that armed private security firms be disbanded.

Nevertheless, these are authoritative figures on what the US is actually spending resources on in Afghanistan. You can see from the chart above that all assistance for humanitarian relief will be eliminated in 2012.

The chart graphically shows the growing dependance on exclusive military priorities over the years.

For this year 88% will be military.

Simply appalling and immoral.

***

I added the percentages in brackets for the text below lifted from the report.

SIGAR – 2011 Final Report - Some Figures

As of December 31, 2011, the United States had appropriated nearly $85.54 billion for relief and reconstruction in Afghanistan since FY 2002. This total has been approximately allocated as follows:

• $52.14 billion for security (61%)
• $20.28 billion for governance and development (24%)
• $5.67 billion for counter-narcotics efforts (7%)
• $2.24 billion for humanitarian aid (3%)
• $5.20 billion for oversight and operations (6%)

US Troop Levels – 31 December 2012

According to U.S. Forces - Afghanistan (USFOR-A), 98,933 U.S. forces were serving in the country as of December 31, 2011.

• 71,742 to ISAF
• 2,780 to NTM-A/CSTC-A
• 14,565 to USFOR-A
• 9,846 to other assignments (CENTCOM)

Additional Resources:

Eisenhower Research Project | War Costs $4 Trillion

3 Cents on the Dollar

The True Cost of War | Tony Benn & Brian Eno

An inspiring graphic-driven call to action from our friends in the UK.

Substitute dollars for pounds and this is our story too. However, to realize the cost in the US, the figure should be increased ten-fold.

For every British soldier in Afghanistan there are ten US soldiers.

The Global War on Terror – The Costs

Ever wonder what type of information is available to elected officials as they continue to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

The Congressional Research Service actually provides a huge number of authoritative reports for members of Congress. Amy Belasco is the author of a number that look at the financial cost of the global war on terror. Her most recent update was released at the end of March 2011. She has a interesting section at the end on previous congressional efforts to cut funding to wars.

The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11
Amy Belasco, Specialist in U.S. Defense Policy and Budget
Congressional Research Service, March 29, 2011

Here is what else you will find.

“Congress has approved a total of $1.283 trillion for military operations, base security, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs, and veterans’ health care for the three operations initiated since the 9/11 attacks…”

***

“Between FY2009 and FY2010, average monthly DOD spending for Afghanistan grew from $4.4 billion to $6.7 billion a month, a 50% increase while average troop strength almost doubled from 44,000 to 84,000 as part of the troop surge announced by the President last year. Troop strength in Afghanistan is expected to average 102,000 in FY2011. DOD’s plans call for troop levels to fall by less than 4,000 in FY2012 unless the President decides otherwise as part of his decision to “begin transition to Afghan security lead in early 2011. . . [to ] a responsible, conditions-based U.S. troop reduction in July 2011.” At the same time, the President announced a long-term U.S. commitment to a NATO summit goal of “a path to complete transition by the end of 2014.” It is currently unclear how quickly or slowly troop levels will fall this summer or in later years to meet these goals.”

***

“Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the United States has initiated three military operations:

Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) covering primarily Afghanistan and other small Global War on Terror (GWOT) operations ranging from the Philippines to Djibouti that began immediately after the 9/11 attacks and continues;

Operation Noble Eagle (ONE) providing enhanced security for U.S. military bases and other homeland security that was launched in response to the attacks and continues at a modest level; and

Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) that began in the fall of 2002 with the buildup of troops for the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, continued with counter-insurgency and stability operations, and is slated to be renamed Operation New Dawn as U.S. troops focus on an advisory and assistance role.”

***

Some 94% of this funding goes to the Department of Defense (DOD) to cover primarily incremental war-related costs, that is, costs that are in addition to DOD’s normal peacetime activities. ..

***

[T]he Administration initiated several programs specifically targeted at problems that developed in the Afghan and Iraq wars:

Coalition support to cover the logistical costs of allies, primarily Pakistan, conducting counter-terror operations in support of U.S. efforts;

Commanders Emergency Response Program (CERP) providing funds to individual commanders for small reconstruction projects and to pay local militias in Iraq and Afghanistan to counter insurgent or Taliban groups;

Afghan Security Forces Fund and the Iraq Security Forces Fund to pay the cost of training, equipping and expanding the size of the Afghan and Iraqi armies and police forces; and

Joint Improvised Explosive Device (IEDs) Defeat Fund to develop, buy, and deploy new devices to improve force protection for soldiers against roadside bombs or IEDs.

***

Congressional Options to Affect Military Operations

As interest in alternate policies for first Iraq and now Afghanistan has grown, Congress may turn to the Vietnam, and other experience to look for ways to affect military operations and troop levels in Iraq. In the past, Congress has considered both funding and non-funding options. Most observers would maintain that restrictions tied to appropriations have been more effective.

Restrictive funding options generally prohibit the obligation or expenditure of current or previously appropriated funds. Obligations occur when the government pays military or civilian personnel, or the services sign contracts or place orders to buy goods or services. Expenditures, or outlays, take place when payment is provided.

The Vietnam Experience

Past attempts or provisions to restrict funding have followed several patterns, including those that cut off funding

***

One or both houses may also state a “sense of the Congress,” or non-binding resolution that does not need to be signed by the President, that U.S. military operations should be wound down or ended or forces withdrawn.

While only a handful of provisions have been enacted, congressional consideration of these various limiting provisions did place pressure on the Administration and thus influenced the course of events. For example, the well-known Cooper-Church provision that prohibited the introduction of U.S. ground troops into Cambodia was enacted in early 1971 after U.S. forces had invaded and then been withdrawn from Cambodia. That provision was intended to prevent the reintroduction of troops.69 Although President Nixon did not reintroduce U.S. troops, the United States continued to bomb Cambodia for the next three years.

Later in 1973, Congress passed two provisions that prohibited the obligation or expenditures of “any funds in this or any previous law on or after August 15, 1973” for combat “in or over or from off the shores of North Vietnam, South Vietnam, Laos or Cambodia.”70 The final version of that provision reflected negotiations between the Administration and Congress about when the prohibition would go into effect, with August 15, 1973 set in the enacted version. Bombing did, in fact, stop on that day.

Several well-known proposals that were not enacted—two McGovern-Hatfield amendments and an earlier Cooper-Church amendment—were also part of this Vietnam-era jockeying between the Administration and Congress. One McGovern-Hatfield amendment prohibited expenditure of previously appropriated funds after a specified date “in or over Indochina,” except for the purpose of withdrawing troops or protecting our Indochinese allies, while another also prohibited spending funds to support more than a specified number of troops unless the president notified the Congress of the need for a 60 day extension. The earlier Cooper-Church amendment prohibited the expenditure of any funds after July 1, 1970 to retain troops in Cambodia “unless specifically authorized by law hereafter.”

Generally, Congress continued to provide funds for U.S. troops in Vietnam at the requested levels as the Nixon Administration reduced troop levels. Overall, funding restrictions have generally proven more effective than the War Powers Act, which has been challenged by the executive branch on constitutional grounds.

Recent Restrictions Proposed

Most recently, as part of the July 1, 2010 debate over the House amended version of H.R. 4899, the FY2010 Supplemental, the House considered three amendments designed to restrict funding or troop levels for the Afghan war. The amendments are similar to some of those proposed during the Vietnam war.

Amendment No. 3 would delete all military funding for the Afghan war , and was defeated 25 to 376.

Amendment No. 4 would limit the obligation and expenditure of funds to the protection and “safe and orderly withdrawal from Afghanistan of all members of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense contractor personnel who are in Afghanistan,” and was defeated 100 to 321.

Amendment No. 5 would require the President to submit a plan for a “safe, orderly, and expeditious redeployment of the Armed Forces from Afghanistan,” along with a “timetable for the completion of that redeployment and information regarding variables that could alter that timetable,” as well as require that none of the funds in the act be obligated or expended “in a manner that is inconsistent with the President’s policy announced on December 1, 2009, to begin the orderly withdrawal of United States troops from Afghanistan after July 1, 2011,” unless the Congress approves a joint resolution that would receive expedited consideration in both houses. This amendment was defeated 162 to 260.

Where Do Your Tax Dollars Go?

AFSC Open Conference Call Briefing on Tax Day, April 15th:

Jo Comerford, Executive Director of the National Priorities Project (NPP) will talk about where your tax dollars are going. NPP just released its yearly report on tax spending, noting that for each 2009 income tax dollar 26.5 cents went to military-related spending, 13.6 cents for military and non-military interest on the debt but only 2 cents for education (http://www.nationalpriorities.org/taxday2010).

This is a good time for us to reflect upon military spending and what it is really costing us as a society. Not only is it tax day, but yet another supplemental funding request for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is about to work its way through Congress. We will also talk about the proposed FY2011 budget because even as everyone is finalizing their 2009 taxes, Congress is at work building the 2011 budget, which will take effect on October 1, 2010.

So, it's a perfect time to get involved in the federal spending conversation and Ms. Comerford will answer your questions about military spending and our budget priorities.

NPP and AFSC recently collaborated on “The Cost of War in Afghanistan,” a resource that documents the human and economic cost of the war. Jo Comerford and AFSC staff will share upcoming campaign and action ideas, including details on another collaboration between AFSC and NPP, the “If I Had a Trillion Youth Video Competition,” which will involve youth in marking the moment that the operational costs of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq reach 1 Trillion dollars.

Send your questions for Jo now to questions@afsc.org

Call in details:
April 15th at
8 - 9 p.m. Eastern
To join to the call: Dial 1-866-740-1260 (toll-free)
Conference Access Code 2414586#

Once you are connected you will be asked to state your name; please speak your name slowly and clearly.

No Shortcuts When America Moves a War

The headline in today's New York Times say’s it all. No Shortcuts When America Moves a War. In the context of the article, this phrase refers to the fact that the U.S. must move tones of material from Iraq around Iran to get to Afghanistan. It will be one of the largest movements of military equipment since World War II. In reality, the article is about the fact that no expense is spared to fight this war.

Here are some of the facts.

“The military says there are 3.1 million pieces of equipment in Iraq, from tanks to coffee makers, two-thirds of which are to leave the country. Of that, about half will go on to Afghanistan, where there are already severe strains on the system.”

“All lethal supplies — weapons, armored trucks, eight-wheeled Stryker troop carriers — come in by air to avoid attacks, but everything else goes by sea and land. The standard route from Iraq to Afghanistan is south from Baghdad and down through Kuwait, by ship through the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz to Karachi, Pakistan, then overland once again.”

“Nonlethal supplies flowing into Afghanistan include cement, lumber, blast barriers, septic tanks and rubberized matting, all to expand space at airfields and double, to 40, the number of forward operating bases in a country…”

“The Defense Logistics Agency, which provides meals for 415,000 troops, contractors and American civilians each day in both wars, shipped 1.1 million frozen hamburger patties to Afghanistan in March alone, compared with 663,000 burgers in March 2009. The agency also supplied 27 million gallons of fuel to forces in Afghanistan this month, compared with 15 million gallons a year ago.”

The most telling quote about U.S. priorities comes from General David Petraeus

Gen. David H. Petraeus of the United States Central Command, in another grand historical parallel, recently called the construction under way “the largest building boom in Afghanistan since Alexander built Kandahar,” a reference to the conqueror of Afghanistan in the fourth century B.C.

Additional Resources:

Human Rights Dimension of Poverty in Afghanistan

To see why Iran feels surrounded, here is the map from the paper.

Troops in Afghanistan - The House Votes

"Now is the time for those of us who believe in peace and not war to find a way to get in the way."

These are the words of civil rights leader John Lewis from Wednesday’s debate to remove US troops from Afghanistan by the end of the year. The bill, introduced by Dennis Kucinich, ended up losing 356 to 65. [roll call here]

Representative Lewis (D-GA) spoke against a war-fighting policy that can only mean more death and destruction with the arrival of an additional 30,000 U.S. troops. Unless the escalation is stopped, by the end of this year, 100,000 U.S. troops will be in Afghanistan.

I rise today to join my colleagues and speak out against the war in Afghanistan. How much death must we bear, how much pain must we suffer, how much blood must we spill to say enough is enough? Can we lay down the burden of war and lift up the power of peace? Now is time for the elected representatives of the people to give peace a chance. Now is the time for those of us who believe in peace and not war to find a way to get in the way.

… war is bloody, war is messy. It tends not just to hide the truth, but to sacrifice the truth, to bury the truth. It destroys the hopes, the dreams, and the aspirations of a people.

As one great general and President of the United States Dwight D. Eisenhower once said, "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

I urge you to heed the words of the spiritual: "I'm going to lay my burden down. Down by the riverside. I ain't gonna study war no more." We should follow the wisdom of that song.

This war has gone on long enough. Enough is enough. It is time to bring this war to an end. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this resolution. Link