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

It's Official--Obama's War Funding Plan

The numbers we have been waiting for and have been speculating about for months are finally out...and I am disappointed. Obama's first budget includes a 4% increase in the Defense budget. It also includes $130 billion to expand the war in Afghanistan and continue the war in Iraq and is topped off with a $75.5 billion war supplemental to continue the fighting.

Now it is up to Congress to help the President reprioritize.

You can see the full budget at the White House website.

You can also go to FCNL's website to find a preliminary analysis of Obama's budget.


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

Afghanistan: More Troops Won't Bring More Peace

An increasing number of people are rightly questioning the War in Afghanistan. However, it is amazing to me that so many people are still silently following along with the Obama Administration's plan for a troop surge of an additional 30,000 troops. War wasn't the answer in Iraq, and it is not the answer in Afghanistan. We cannot let Afghanistan become the exit strategy for Iraq. We need to push the peace community to rally behind efforts to prevent the troop surge in Afghanistan, advocating instead for the diplomacy and sustainable development that will actually create peace in Afghanistan. Take action here!

Check out this video by the Brave New Foundation and the entire serious on the War in Afghanistan.

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

Anything is Possible!!

We can no longer be detered! After last night, after electing the first black president of the United States of America just more than 40 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, absolutely anything is possible!

As we walked through a celebration rally last night in downtown DC, the group chanted lots of slogans, ranging from "Yes we can" to "Si se puede" to "Bring them home!" As I held up our War Is Not the Answer sign, I was really appreciative that the Obama supporters remembered that ending the war in Iraq is still a major concern.

And there are lots of other major concerns that we must not forget. I was going to use this post as an opportunity to speak out about Barack's plan to increase the size of the military and send more troops to Afganistan, but instead I am going to look toward the future with unbridaled hope and optimism. And again I say, if we can elect a black president, we can do anything!

Last night in his speech, the President Elect said, "If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible, who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time, who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer."

It is a historic time, and we have to take advantage of this historic opportunity. The energy, the optimism, the power of this moment could help bring our troops home, to repair our relations with the world, to work toward ending global poverty, to bring about a better world!

-Stephen

Email the Author Del.icio.us Digg Facebook

Who, the U.S.? Nah, they're not interested in Iraqi Oil.

A 2007 Global Policy Forum poll shows that a majority of Iraqi citizens believe that the U.S. is keeping them in the dark about its plans to control their oil resources.

That doesn't sound like the U.S. - American troops are in the country just to promote democracy and leave Iraqis with a stable and free government, right?

If this is true, and the U.S. has no interest in profiting from Iraqi oil, then why did President George W. Bush issue a signing statement last week rejecting a provision in the military funding authorization bill that prohibited any finds to be used "to exercise United Sates control of the oil resources of Iraq?" Such a move sounds like paving the way to control Iraqi oil to me.

What's more puzzling is why the President has decided to take this action now. He has signed the restriction against controlling Iraqi oil into law five times since 2006, but has issued 2 signing statements this year asserting that Congress cannot rein in his power to use the U.S. military to control these resources.

What's going on here? It seems obvious that the Bush administration has designs on Iraqi oil resources, but how is that to be reconciled with U.S. goals of stability, sovereignty, and freedom in Iraq? If the U.S. involves itself with Iraqi natural resources now, when will the country move closer to ending its military presence in Iraq?

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

Three doves with one stone

"...how did you manage to kill three doves with one stone?"
~The State of Siege by Mahmoud Darwish

This weekend I reread one of my favorite poems, The State of Siege, by Mahmoud Darwish after going to a poetic tribute to him to honor the 4oth day of mourning his death. As I always am while reading his work, I was struck by his ability to capture the experience of war, exile, indignation and hope of a people under siege.

2008 marks the 60th year of conflict in Palestine. That means that Darwish lived less than 7 years in his country without facing air raids, detention, and check points, without being a refugee in his own country. Two generations, if not three, have grown up in a state of deadly conflict.

Yet how many times has the opportunity for peace been passed up for an obsession with war? For an obsession with erasing a people and their history? As Darwish says so eloquently, one stone can kill three doves, three opportunities of peace.

It can also displace millions.

When we speak about war, I feel our attention is often drawn to the number of deaths, the type of weapons used, or the amount of money spent on destruction. Yet what about the hundreds of thousands and in some cases (like Palestine) millions of people who are displaced as an effect of war?

One of the most run from topics in the Israel-Palestine peace negotiations is the question of the right of return. One of the most un-talked about topics of the Iraq war are the millions of refugees caused by the US invasion. The US has "improved relationships with Syria" precisely to let them "deal with" the "refugee problem" that we created.

Syria has resettled nearly two million refugees since the beginning of the Iraq war. Last Monday a senior coordinator of the State Department said that he expects that the number of refugees allowed to resettle in the United States will "significantly increase" in the coming year. "Significantly increase" means 17,000 (or a whole 1/118 of the number of refugees that Syria has resettled in a war that the US created). Sadly, that is 42% more than this year.

When we throw the stone, we don't calculate the far-reaching effects of our actions. We calculate the cost of our weapons, the loss of our troops (however, often excluding their welfare upon their return), and the increase of our debt. But we ignore the human cost of war, or a comprehensive understanding of how deep one bullet actually penetrates.

At this point in time, comprehensive immigration reform in the US is a far off hope for those of us who work on the issue. It's a contentious issue even among Quakers and peace activists. But I would ask, how do we prevent war or the next deadly conflict if we do not care for the effects of this one?

This is one of our doves.


Leave our land and take your dead bones with you.

Where will I go?

To France.

And what will I do there?

What you did in Lebanon.

~A paraphrased section of Memory for Forgetfulness: August, Beruit, 1982 by Mahmoud Darwish