Comedy Central Pokes Fun at the Anti-Immigrant Minutemen

Oh my love for Comedy Central grew substantially last night after I saw this clip where The Daily Show with Jon Stewart poked fun at the Minutemen, a "vigilante" group dedicated to stopping immigrants who are "invading" US borders. Daily Show correspondent Aasif Mandi manages to show the absurd lengths people will go to protect their--as Immigration Impact put it--"misinformed notion that immigration is bad for America."

Check it out:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Borderline Cops
comedycentral.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis Political Humor

The New Budget: Transformative Podcast

Maggie and I are at it again! We sat down with Emily this week to check in on how Pres. Obama's budget proposal is progressing through Congress.

We left very excited about the prospect of a budget that might answer some the needs of poor and disadvantaged Americans. We also confronted the controversy surrounding FCNL's support for a budget that increases military spending. Listen in, and please let us know what you think of the budget in the comments.

Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook

Tens of Thousands of U.S. Troops in Iraq AFTER 2011?

"Anti-American war" protests in Iraq against U.S. occupation held last November.

Contrary to popular belief, the war and occupation of Iraq is far from over.

BUT here's the thrilling news: for the very first time Obama announced that the U.S. would *COMPLETELY* withdraw from Iraq by December 31, 2011.

Obama never said that before--though most Americans were led to believe he was calling for complete withdrawal on the campaign.

As Obama said, "under the Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government, I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011."

But there is a lot of pressure on Obama to cave and maintain U.S. military dominance in Iraq for time immemorial. When Secretary Gates was asked about his estimate of what the U.S. military presence would look like after 2011 (correct answer would be: non-existent) he said: “my guess is that you’re looking at perhaps several tens of thousands of American troops.”

One of the great untold stories of the Iraq war is that Iraqis transformed this so-called Status of Forces Agreement from being one of indefinite occupation from which the U.S. would dominate the Middle East, to becoming an Agreement for complete withdrawal.

Now in order to make sure this happens, we need to get Congress to vote on the agreement and to affirm that all U.S. troops would be gone by December 31, 2011.

This is also important for another reason. As Christine points out below, its not enough to be against the Iraq war.

If Congress isn't on the record weighing in on this so-called Status of Forces Agreement/Withdrawal Agreement with Iraq, President [whomever] in the future can, by an executive decision alone, commit U.S. troops to wage war for 8 years (which will be the length of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq), or 80 years.

Erica Alini from the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation wrote this brilliant blog post explaining the profound urgency for Congress to approve the Agreement with Iraq--even if its only a resolution just endorsing the 2011 complete withdrawal date. As she points out:

The persistent failure to consult Congress on an agreement that affects U.S. involvement in Iraq threatens the constitutional balance between the executive and legislative branches and sets a dangerous precedent for future American military engagement abroad.

Former Senators Obama, Clinton, and Biden, all supported legislation that would require that any security agreement with Iraq is approved by Congress.

Take action here to ask your members of Congress to call on the administration to submit the SOFA/Withdrawal Agreement with Iraq to Congress.

Reasserting the role of Congress in war is a great way to work against endless occupation and war in Iraq and prevent endless U.S. occupation and war in other countries around the globe. It's another form of peaceful prevention of deadly conflict--when our own government causes that deadly conflict.

Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook

It's not enough to just be against the Iraq war.

If you've been keeping up with the intern blog for the last few months, you know that FCNL has been putting a lot of time and energy into protesting the increase of troops in Afghanistan.

I have noticed that conversations with my friends and neighbors around my work and peace activism has shifted since President Obama has come into office. "But President Obama wants to get the US out of Iraq!" people tell me, "The administration that got us in these wars is long gone." However, even when I point out that redistributing troops from Iraq to Afghanistan is not the same as bringing them home, I am confronted with the fact that even among some people in the peace movement, the war in Afghanistan is seen as the 'good' war, and dissent has fallen out of fashion again.

So, imagine how excited I was to read this in The Nation today:

There is significant discomfort with the expansion of the U.S. presence in Afghanistan, and opposition has been expressed by political leaders abroad and at home (including Democrats and Republicans in Congress). This is a time when genuine anti-war groups could be expected to harness that discomfort and build a stronger movement to shift U.S. policy.

So, folks, lets build that movement! After the election, we frequently heard that President Obama was the first president that won on a peace platform. If that's true, then the peace movement has an obligation to tell him that Afghanistan needs diplomacy and development, not more troops.

Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook

Obama's Afghanistan Strategy Review...Even More Troops? Really?

Today Obama announced the results of the Afghanistan Strategy Review that he asked for when he first took office. And the plan he laid out said some very good things. He is committed to regional diplomacy and development. He understands that a healthy and safe Afghanistan will require robust diplomacy with Pakistan, India, China, Russia, and Iran. About increasing development, he recognized: "To advance security, opportunity, and justice – not just in Kabul, but from the bottom up in the provinces – we need agricultural specialists and educators; engineers and lawyers."

And yet, Obama is asking for another 4,000 troops on top of the 17,ooo that he just asked to be deployed.

This statement summarizes Obama's Afghanistan plan: "A campaign against extremism will not succeed with bullets or bombs alone." This sounds great, expcept for the last word, which may undermine the entire rest of the sentence, Obama's whole plan, and Afghanistan. Apparently Obama didn't read FCNL's message that More Troops Won't Bring More Peace. That wasn't just a catchy slogan. It is true.

Jim Fine, the resident expert on everything Middle East at FCNL, said this of today's announcement: "President Obama’s new strategy includes constructive commitments to regional and international diplomacy and civilian development. But the president has also committed the U.S. to aggressive new military tactics and a wider war that could easily spiral out of control and overwhelm the constructive elements of his plan."

If everyone realizes that real peace in Afghanistan is going to come from development and diplomacy, why is the U.S. wasting so much money and risking so many lives sending even more troops? Why not use these resources on diplomacy and development? Someone asked me yesterday, but how do we keep aid workers safe? Here's a novel idea...what if we used local people? Another novel idea...what if the increased troop presence is actually stregthening the Taliban?

Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook

PPDC Team Goes to Congress

Big news this week! My boss and colleague Bridget Moix testified before the House State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee - which funds key U.S. diplomatic and aid programs as well as U.S. contributions to the United Nations.

After Bridget testified - Rep Jesse Jackson Jr. (IL) said "Thank you Ms. Moix. For years, the Friends Committee on National Legislation has been our national conscience on human rights and humanitarian issues."

What an affirming statement from a champion on these issues.

Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook

Yearning for an update on cluster bombs? Yearn no longer!

It's been an exciting few weeks in the cluster bomb corner of FCNL... here's the update:

In February, 67 national organizations sent this letter to President Obama, calling for a review of the landmine and cluster bomb ban treaties

Two weeks ago Congress and the president permanently outlawed exports of nearly all U.S. cluster munitions in the omnibus bill. The export ban has been in place for two years, but this bill has extended it indefinitely.

Specifically, it states that cluster munitions can only be exported if they leave behind less than one percent of their submunitions as duds, and if the receiving country agrees that cluster munitions "will not be used where civilians are known to be present." Only a very tiny fraction of the cluster munitions in the U.S. arsenal meet the one percent standard.

This one percent business actually comes from a Pentagon policy, put in place by Sec. Def. William Cohen in 2001, which stated that the Defense Department would stop procuring cluster munitions with a failure rate of more than one percent by 2005. The standard was reinforced by Secretary Gates' 2008 policy, which stated that by 2018, the U.S. would stop using cluster munitions that didn't meet it.

This one percent standard may seem arbitrary, but only a tiny, tiny fraction of cluster bombs in the U.S. arsenal of 700 million+ meet this standard. So, what it means is a de facto ban on nearly all U.S. cluster bomb systems.

So wait a minute...the DOD doesn't purchase cluster munitions that leave behind more than 1% of their submunitions as duds. The DOD doesn't export cluster munitions that leave behind more than 1% of their submunitions as duds. And after (but only after) 2018, the DOD will no longer use cluster munitions that don't meet this standard.

Anyone see an inconsistency? Me too.

FCNL believes that the U.S. should adhere to its own standards of acceptability now, not in ten years. That is why we are working on building cosponsorship of S. 416 , a bill that would apply the one percent condition to U.S. use immediately. To learn how you can help build cosponsorship and get your Senator on the bill, click on our nifty graphic. I'll be back on Monday to tell you more.

Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook

Why You Should Care: Immigration Podcast

This week we pulled Alex aside to chat with her about what's cooking in FCNL's immigration program. Haven't heard a lot about immigration? Neither had we, and now we're hooked.

Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook

Africa on Edge

Roughly half of all countries emerging from deadly conflict will return to violence within five years of a peace agreement. This is a fact. It is grounded in the empirical research of Paul Collier, arguably the best economist focusing on the economic roots of African wars.

The donor community should pay attention to Collier's research in considering any cuts to development and humanitarian assistance. As the world economy recedes, countries in Africa are already facing greater unrest - due to flagging economies and weak social safety nets.

Yesterday, the head of the African Development Bank called an emerging meeting in London to discuss the economic crisis facing the African continent.

The message was simple - invest in Africa now, or pay for peacekeeping missions later when nations on the verge collapse into violence.

For instance, Liberia, a modern day success story, is at risk of falling back into violence, according to Liberian President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf.

This news comes as the Congressional Budget Committees are preparing to mark up their budget resolution for fiscal year 2010. According to the Politico Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad is "pressing to cut $28 billion, or almost half, of the increased appropriations sought by President Barack Obama for domestic and foreign aid programs in the coming year."

Conrad's reason - Obama's budget will run up the U.S. deficit. While I am all for more fiscal responsibility, cutting the foreign aid budget has minimal value. President Obama's request for diplomacy and all international affairs programs is just $51 billion. Less than 1% of the federal budget is spent on foreign aid, and the stimulus of investing in lesser developed countries is exponentially greater than in rich countries. In short, we get a big bank for the buck in development aid.

The message to Conrad should be very simple - invest in Africa now or pay for increased peacekeeping operations to contain instability later.

Send a message to Conrad.

Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook

"Rethink Afghanistan"

I just discovered this online guerilla documentary about the dangers posed by Afghanistan, and sending more troops into Afghanistan. It follows on the themes that we chatted about in our podcast.

Check out the trailer below, and see the whole documentary (they are releasing it slowly, in parts) on the website. See also: New York Times review.

Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook

Whither the Iraqis?

On Sunday, as I made my way through the Outlook section of the Washington Post, I came across a commentary about the coverage of the Iraq war that caught my attention.

It was called "What We Don't Know About Iraq." I was already thinking about the Iraq war anniversary - 6 years today - as I looked ahead to the podcast with our lobbyists Bridget and Dan. While working on that project I quickly realized how hard it would be to get a fresh angle on any anniversary, and especially the grim 6th year of a conflict soon to come to an inglorious end after being eclipsed by an economy in collapse.

But this article struck my fancy. It even tore me away from the strangely engrossing reality TV show The Amazing Race (11 teams, 20 countries, 1 million dollars - it's brilliant).

Why did this particular piece break through my Iraq fatigue? Because it discussed not the Iraq war itself, but our perception of it here in the United States. The author Phillip Bennett read through the highlights of coverage of the Iraq war by American journalists. His finding - that for the most part Iraqis as portrayed to a U.S. audience are caricatures - reveals a similar flaw to the U.S. military strategy in Iraq.

Bennett writes that the books he read:

…reflect how frustration and isolation, including the isolation of journalists, have reduced Iraqis to a narrow cast of supporting roles: ungrateful partners, untrustworthy supplicants, invisible enemies and unreadable victims.

"ungrateful partners, untrustworthy supplicants, invisible enemies and unreadable victims"

Surely not. Surely this view of Iraqis, as our military strategy, is short sighted and unhelpful. But it is also surely not entirely the fault of American journalists. The structure of the military in Iraq and in the Green Zone make it hard break out of the barriers between Americans and Iraqis. The extreme violence after 2004 also made personal safety much more important than getting the most comprehensive story (as Bennett, the Post's foreign editor, points out).

But safety and distance at what cost? And how do we avoid such a barrier in the future? In Afghanistan?

The piece doesn't offer a solution, and I don't have one either. But it does make me shudder to think that I don't have an understanding - or the tools to acquire an understanding- of a country to which my own will be tethered for years to come.

Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook

Six Years Later: Looking Back at the Iraq War Podcast

On the occasion of the 6th anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq Maggie and I present a very special podcast.

This week we talk with Dan Smith and Bridget Moix, both of whom worked at FCNL in 2003. They reflect on what the war means after 6 years, and how we can prevent another almost decade long war in Afghanistan. This is a good one. Listen in.

Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook

Catastrophe Looming in Darfur

Last week, the International Criminal Court (ICC) delivered a much anticipated arrest warrant for Sudanese President Bashir. The court accused Bashir of crimes against humanity and war crimes in the western Darfur region of Sudan. The U.N. says that as many as 300,000 people have died and nearly 3 million are displaced as a result of the war that started in 2003.

Hours after the ICC handed down the warrant, President Bashir called in the country managers of more than a dozen of the largest aid organizations to tell them that their license's had been revoked. They would not longer be able to provide aid in Sudan, they were told. Oxfam, Care, Mercy Corps, International Rescue Committee, Doctors without Borders, and Save the Children are just a handful of the groups affected. That was last wednesday.

Hundred's of thousands, if not more than a million, could be without potable water, healthcare and food within a few weeks. Disease and hunger is likely to spread through the refugee camps like wildfire. Many more refugees will likely pour into neighboring Chad and the Central African Republic, which could spark greater instability in these countries.

What does all this mean?

Absent a significant change of events, much suffering is about to occur in Darfur. Yes, the last five years have been terrible for those Darfuri's living in refugee camps. However, the aid groups provided a lifeline. While there was significant carnage and famine between 2003 - 2004 in Darfur, the mortality rate has significantly declined since 2005. Now that the lifeline is getting cut, many more are likely to die from lack of basic human needs.

As I alluded to in a past post, the ICC is a political instrument. One can't divorce the consequences of pursuing justice to the costs of peace. Human rights focused groups have urged the Obama Administration to stand firm against any attempt to delay the indictment. Yet, at what cost? Are we prepared to accept hundred's of thousands of deaths in Darfur in order to arrest one man?

In the end, the indictment may force the Administration to do something more forceful. The 'darfur lobby' is quite powerful and no new president wants to see mass suffering in the news. Unfortunately, at the end of the day, more coercive measures are limited. The U.N. force in Darfur hasn't reached full strength, and still lacks transport and attack helicopters. The Security Council has failed to approve even multilateral targeted sanctions.

Last week, a top air force general advocated a no-fly zone. Unfortunately, a no fly zone would be of limited value. While it could ensure no more air attacks by the Sudanese air force, it could heighten tensions between the west and Khartoum, undercut a peace process, and do little to curb the misery from the absence of the aid groups.

So What's Left

The Security Council could defer the indictment for a year in exchange for concessions, namely allowing aid groups back in the country, demobilizing the proxy militias and keeping troops out of Darfur and the South.

Over the next year, the Obama Administration would need to invest in a credible peace process in Darfur, keep the North-South agreement from collapsing, ensure the peacekeeping force receives the equipment it needs, and provide support for a democratic transformation of the country through national elections.

It's not perfect. Negotiating with war criminals never is, but it will save lives.

Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook

no podcast this week

Sad news... no podcast this week. We beat the LAM to the punch about cluster bomb legislation, and are skipping this week rather than going over the same info again.

We can't wait for next week though... see you all then!

If you missed any of the podcasts, you can find all of them here.

Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook

Taxes: I'm a believer

Well, it's tax season. I filed my federal and D.C. tax returns a bit earlier than usual this year because for me it's also graduate school financial aid season. This round of taxes was also special for another reason. This year I grumbled less about paying federal taxes than usual. I assume everyone else does this too.. isn't the general assumption that no ones likes to pay taxes? But why was I fine, even enthusiastic about it this year? I can think of several root causes.

1. Ok, first the greed. I'm getting a large tax refund because the federal government didn't send me my rebate last spring.
2. There is a D.C. voting rights bill moving through Congress right now, which means that I might actually get some representation in return for my tax dollars. The founding principle of our country might just be alive and well again.
   
3. FCNL has got to me. I now deeply believe that taxes are the price of democracy.
   

Sick of my wide-eyed lefty mooning over the importance of taxes? This article on one of my fav blogs, The Morning News, describes the feeling of being sucked into the federal bureaucracy. Also, in this week's New Yorker, there is an excerpt of David Foster Wallace's unfinished final novel, which also delves into the tedium of taxes and working for the IRS (it's about more than that, but focus -- this post is about taxes).

Those pieces are entertaining, touching and worthwhile, but I still believe that they are the price of good government, and we should embrace them. Taxes are great! If we were willing to pay more of them maybe we would have functioning schools and health care for everyone! I've never understood what's so wrong about that.

Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook

Obama makes a speech, Congress hires diplomats: Podcast

This week we present a very special hybrid podcast. We wanted to talk with deadly conflict prevention specialist Trevor Keck so much that we chucked half of our agenda and brought on his.

Enjoy as we share reactions on Pres. Obama's speech and get excited about more diplomats and other civilians sent abroad. Listen in!

Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook