Afghanistan: Everything's Coming Up Poppies

Friends,

If you heard President Obama's speech yesterday, you may have had to ingest a massive quantity of antidepressants (as I might have had they been available).  I cannot even begin, nor would I bother, to address the endless rhetoric of that speech.  At any rate, I woke up this morning and realized that nothing had changed overnight, or over the past 8, or should I say nearly 48 years (since Eisenhower's farewell speech warning us of the dangers of the military-industrial complex.  In the struggle between militarism and peace, militarism has bulldozed any hopes for a peacful solution to the intractable situation the U.S. has created in Afghanistan.

It would seem that the massive war machine has, like the creatures in some zombie movie, taken over the President's mind, and destroyed any ability to understand the folly of his actions.  Aljazeera sums it up for us: 

Ahmad Shah Ahmadzai, a former prime minister of Afghanistan, expressed disappointment with Obama's speech and his strategy.  "Sending more troops is not the solution to the Afghan crisis," he said.  "I was expecting Obama to announce the withdrawal of 30,000 troops within two months but unfortunately, he did the opposite which will increase killings of both Americans and Afghans."  And reacting to Obama's announcement by email, a Taliban spokesman told Al Jazeera that they were pleased with the decision to send more US soldiers.  "More troops just means a larger target for us to hit ... by increasing its forces in Afghanistan, Obama is just giving more power to the Mujahideen to recruit and receive the support of the civilian population." (Afghans react to Obama troop plan, Aljazeera, December 2, 2009)

But hey, the President has it all figured out, so don't worry.  In honor of his speech, let's take a brief intermission and listen to his new theme song, Everything's Coming Up Roses (perhaps it can be re-written: Everything's Coming Up Poppies) by the legendary Rosemary Clooney.

Listen to Everything's Coming Up Roses

O.K. - Now we can get back to business, and the business of the day is putting a stop to this madness called escalation.  It isn't over yet; Congress still has to approve the President's request.  Of course many in Congress are ready to shout "AYE!!!" when it comes to a vote, but we the people still have a say in the matter (even if we don't have huge funding behind us like the defense industry lobby), and I hope we will all shout "NAY!!!" at the top of our collective lungs.  Let's push this to the top of Congress' agenda and pressure them to debate the issue and put it to a vote.

CLICK HERE to learn more and email your representative at Just Foreign Policy.  And then ask your family, friends and people on the street to do the same. 

Just one tiny comment on the President's speech.  Here is what he said towards the end: "But as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home. Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our military. It underwrites our diplomacy. It taps the potential of our people, and allows investment in new industry. And it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last."  As the underpinnings of the U.S. economy continue to unravel, prosperity becomes a pipe dream.  Even as over 50% of our tax dollars are spent on the military, that does not come close to the actual costs, and we drive ourselves (and future generations) deeper into debt.  One of the experts on Public Radio this morning was asked about funding the escalation, and as he spoke of how we will just have to find the money, he also said that we will "have to cut some luxuries."  I didn't know there were any luxuries left.  Perhaps he was referring to "luxuries" like education, health care, diplomacy and the environment.

We will NEVER "rebuild our [economic or moral] strength here at home" until the day that we spend more on true diplomacy and foreign assistance (as well as programs of social uplift here in the U.S.) than we spend on the military.

Peace, 

Leonard

Readings for Perspective:

Afghans react to Obama troop plan, Aljazeera, December 2, 2009

Face down the militarists and get out of Afghanistan. No strings attached, Guardian.co.uk, November 17, 2009 (opinion piece from a British point of view)

Talisman Saber - Anything but Charming

Friends,

While most of the world has been focused on Iraq, Afghanistan, Honduras... (and the list goes on), the U.S. and Australians have been getting some exercise of the military kind. Actually, they engaged in a huge joint training exercise in Central Queensland, Australia, called Combined Exercise Talisman Saber '09. Beginning on July 6 and ending July 25, the exercise involved over 24,000 military personnel, and cost an estimated $250 million in taxpayer dollars.

Why do adults need to play such expensive war games? According to Brigadier Bob Brown, "This exercise aims to improve Australian and U.S. combat readiness and interoperability across the full spectrum of operations - from humanitarian operations and peacekeeping to counterinsurgency and conventional war." So there you have it; I suspect that when translated from militaryspeak, it means, "this exercise allows us to play with every possible toy at our disposal in every possible scenario." I guess when the military is working so hard in places like Iraq and Afghanistan they need to let off a little steam and have some fun down under.

You might think that $250 million could (and should) be better spent in improving foreign relations (through foreign assistance) and conflict resolution and other vital services that are provided not by the military, but by foreign service personnel. In the U.S. we have so consistently and drastically underfunded civilian foreign policy for so many years that the foreign service is now grossly understaffed and without a mission (although some would have their mission dovetail with the mission of the U.S. military).

A few brave Australians of conscience (many of them Catholic Workers) decided to resist the militaristic machinations in Central Queensland, and (after announcing their intentions) covertly entered the restricted area where the exercise was being held. Three of them were subsequently captured, but the other four were able to avoid capture, even after searches using all the technology (and search dogs) available to the military. They evidently evaded capture for at least a week. Well done!!! You can read more and see photos of the crafty anti-war activists by clicking here.

By now you are wondering just what is the point of my rambling. The point is that if your only tool is a hammer, or in this case, bullets, bombs and missiles, that is what you are going to use. Besides the deadly violence inherent in military action, it just doesn't work (in the long run). And lest we forget, 90 percent of those who die in today's wars are civilians! The solution is civilian-based foreign policy based upon respect and applying proven methodologies of foreign assistance and nonviolent conflict resolution.

Sadly, the creative resistance of the Australian anti-war activists will go unnoticed by most of the world thanks to the news media's lack of interest. If you are interested in changing the balance of U.S. foreign engagement from military to alternative (peaceful) methods that include civilian foreign engagement (diplomacy) and assistance, check out Just Foreign Policy. These folks believe in "a more multilateral approach to foreign relations—one that relies less on raw U.S. military and economic power and more on international law and treaties, co-operation, and diplomacy." Now there is a novel concept!!!

And don't forget the Friends Committee on National Legislation's (FCNL) Peaceful Prevention of Violent Conflict program. Their Responsibility to Prevent report lays out a solid plan to build strong U.S. civilian agencies to better prevent wars.

And while you are on the diplomatic trail, send an email telling your Senators to increase the staffing and programs at the Department of State "and give our diplomats a clear new mission: to prevent, mitigate, and resolve armed conflict."

Peace,

Leonard

Note: The catchy artwork comes courtesy of the International Network for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases, otherwise known as No-Bases.org. Check em out!

Iran - Promoting Nonviolence and Peace

Friends,

With all the rhetoric and concerns being voiced by world leaders about the situation in Iran, it is refreshing and reassuring to read the letter to the Iranian leadership signed by 35 U.S. national organizations. It is a direct, yet humble plea to use nonviolent methods in dealing with the conflict that has arisen surrounding the recent elections.

You can read the full text of the letter at Pax Christi USA.

I would have added one more thing to the letter - a poem by Abū Muṣliḥ bin Abdallāh Shīrāzī, also known as Saadi, a prominent Persian poet of the medieval period. This particular poem (which can be found at the entrance to the General Assembly Hall at the United Nations) is said to be an exact translation of one of the prophet Mohammed's Hadiths - a Hadith is a saying of Mohammed or a report of something he did - from Arabic to Farsi.

"Human beings are members of a whole,
In creation of one essence and soul.
If one member is afflicted with pain,
Other members uneasy will remain.
If you have no sympathy for human pain,
The name of human you cannot retain."

Compassion and nonviolence are found at the heart of the worlds religious traditions if we are able to cut through the false layers of hatred that we have created over the centuries. May we bear witness to that which connects us in our humanity in a time of such violence and hatred.

You can still sign the petition at Just Foreign Policy urging President Obama to continue a cautious approach with Iran and to continue efforts to engage Iran diplomatically. We must pursue peaceful resolutions to conflict at every step.

Peace,

Leonard

Photo by Leslie Angeline and Martha Hubert. Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/codepinkalert/2924454809/

There Are NO Military Options!!!

Friends,

One of the scariest phrases that I have heard spoken by various voices in just about every recent administration has been, "All options are on the table." It may, in fact, be one of the most overused (or should I say misused) phrases in public statements regarding U.S. relations (or lack thereof in many cases) with other nations.

Despite President George W. Bush's ridiculous claim that his first choice in dealing with Iran's nuclear program was diplomacy, he made it clear (in 2008) that "all options are on the table." We saw the futility of the Bush approach to "diplomacy" with Iran.

During her run for president, Hillary Clinton (in 2007) said that she would not rule out a military strike against Iran to take out its nuclear weapons production capabilities. While she spoke of "reaching out" to U.S. allies to work together, she said (regarding Iran) that "all options must remain on the table."

Recently the Pentagon updated its plans for using military force against Iran at President Obama's request. When asked about the possibility of use of military force against Iran in relation to its alleged nuclear weapons activities, Defense Secretary Robert recently Gates said, "...as a result of our dialogue with the president, we've refreshed our plans and all options are on the table." Ooh, isn't that refreshing???

The United States should, after decades of interventions (both covert and overt) around the world (and, of course, Iran), understand the futility of intervening in the affairs of other sovereign nations. In Iran's case, we have been eating the bitter fruit of our meddling that goes back to 1953 with the U.S. organized coup that deposed the democratically elected Prime Minister Muhammad Mossadeq. But we (in the U.S.) are poor students of history, and our collective amnesia now has people in this country screaming for freedom for the Iranians.

Ironically, as Chris Hedges reminds us in a very recent article, "Iranians do not need or want us to teach them about liberty and representative government." The title of Hedge's article, Iran Had a Democracy Before We Took It Away, sums things up, and the article provides us with a context with which to evaluate our [U.S.] hypocrisy in foreign policy. Essentially, our foreign policy has far too often been conveyed through the barrel of a gun, and if you didn't like it - TOO BAD!

The U.S. government will not change its methods of dealing with other nations on its own; the needs of the all-consuming National Security State far outweigh any desire of a president or other politicians to change direction. It will require pressure from every possible progressive organization and support from large masses of the populace. The question is, do we have the nerve to take it on. I sincerely hope so.

So let us remember that as much as the people of Iran want some form of democracy, they also do not want any foreign intervention; they remember Mossadeq. Right now we can send a clear message to Washington that the U.S. must stay out of Iran's internal affairs. CLICK HERE to sign the petition at Just Foreign Policy urging President Obama to continue a cautious approach with Iran and to continue efforts to engage Iran diplomatically.

We must remember that there are NO viable military options if we are to build a peaceful world. No matter whether we are dealing with elections or nukes, the only options are those of diplomacy and goodwill. Anything else is a disaster in waiting.

Peace,

Leonard

U.S. Foreign Aid Needs a Heart

Friends,

Today is Memorial Day in the United States, a federal holiday commemorating U.S. men and women who died while in military service. There is no holiday commemorating the countless others, particularly children, who die every year worldwide. Here are just a couple of statistics:

• 1.4 million children who die each year from lack of access to safe drinking water and adequate sanitation
• 2.2 million children who die each year because they are not immunized

The world is so infatuated with war that it is unwilling to change its priorities to care for all its people, and if the care the nations provide for the world's children is an indicator of our moral standing, we are approaching bankruptcy. Less than one per cent of what the world spends every year on weapons would put every child (worldwide) into school. Less than one percent!!! Not much more could guarantee health care and adequate sanitation for all.

The United States gives out a considerable amount of money in foreign aid, but it is minuscule in relation to its military budget. And a fair percentage of what the U.S. calls foreign aid should be renamed foreign military assistance. Israel, Egypt and Pakistan all receive "foreign aid" money, much of which goes directly to their militaries. One report stated that, "Of the nearly three billion dollars earmarked for Israel, most is for military credits" (so they can buy U.S. military hardware). The same report warned that since the beginning of the war on terrorism, U.S. aid has taken on "militaristic angles" and this aid will come “largely at the expense of humanitarian and development assistance.”

Whether or not U.S. foreign aid will be overhauled under the Obama administration remains to be seen. If military spending and the continuation of the Global War on Terror are indicators, things aren't looking too good. It will require not only shifting financial resources and reforming the government's foreign assistance policies and programs, but also a fundamental shift in national security policy; it wouldn't be a bad idea to ditch the counterproductive War on Terror.

A bipartisan bill, H.R. 2139, Initiating Foreign Assistance Reform Act of 2009, would require the Obama administration to develop and implement a comprehensive national strategy for global development and includes other initial reforms to make U.S. foreign assistance more accountable. It's a starting point. The House Foreign Affairs Committee will consider H.R. 2139 after the Memorial Day recess.

You can send a letter asking your Representative to co-sponsor H.R. 2139 by clicking here.

Click here to read an article by David Beckman (Bread for the World) titled, "Debunking Myths About Foreign Aid." Bread for the World supports H.R. 2139.

Peace through Compassion,

Leonard

References:
Global Issues, Poverty Facts and Stats
Global Issues, U.S. and Foreign Aid Assistance

Droning On - or, "The Look of Wars to Come"

Friends,

It is a new age indeed! However, I am not speaking of channeling, crystal healing or crop circles. I'm referring to the new age of the American battlefield. Ex-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld may have gotten it wrong when he tried to create Army Lite, but he did have a vision of the future battlefield that is in line with the Pentagon's current direction.

A National Public Radio news story (on April 7) on the Pentagon's new budget said that it "suggests the look of wars to come." It spoke of predator and reaper drones, and cutting some programs (like the F-22 Raptor) while "accelerating" others (like the F-35 Lightening II Joint Strike Fighter). Secretary of Defense Bill Gates was quoted as saying the "spectrum of conflicts include an insurgent with an AK-47 and his counterpart with a ballistic missile." His message is clear - The U.S. military had better be prepared to respond to a huge range of possible scenarios. Can you say, "blank check?"

There was great fanfare (in the mainstream press) as everyone anticipated Gates "major cuts" in the military's budget. When the dust settled and the press conference was over, it turns out that "the base budget request is $533.7 billion, up from the $513.3 billion appropriated by Congress in 2009." The key word here is "base". You can read about all the added costs at a previous post, Our Runaway "Defense" Budget. So much for Representative Barney Frank's 25% cut in military spending!!!

Just the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a Cold War relic like the F-22,, is a one trillion dollar program, with a different version for the Marines, Navy and Air Force. With the cost of each aircraft as much as $140 million, that is going to get pretty pricey for the Pentagon. Of course, it will be a veritable gold mine for Lockheed Martin, which could sell over 2000 of these babies to "export customers". That means just about any foreign country that isn't on the latest terrorist watch list. The sky's the limit!

Since it is Tax Time in the U.S., I thought it might be interesting to see just how much of our income taxes pay for war. The Friends Committee on National Legislation report that "43.4 percent of our 2008 tax dollars were spend on the military, both for current military programs and past military spending." That's a pretty big chunk of change. And what are we getting for all that spending? You be the judge.

Is it remotely possible that if we shifted even a small percentage of what we spend on the military to non-military foreign assistance and diplomacy efforts, that we might see a better return on that investment? What have we got to loose? The military option hasn't had a very good track record. Hunting down "terrorists" with unmanned drones and the associated collateral damage (also known as killing innocent civilians) just doesn't seem nearly as effective as working cooperatively with other nations, and creating good will through foreign aid.

And perhaps by cutting back on military spending, we would free up enough money so that we wouldn't have to hold bake sales to be able to afford enough teachers for our schools. Just imagine what good we could do if we were able to reduce U.S. military spending by 25 percent (as Rep. Frank has proposed).

If you think the Congress and the President should reduce military spending, stop killing civilians with drones and other weapons, and end the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, then send them a message to CUT THE WASTEFUL AND BLOATED MILITARY BUDGET! As it asks at the Voters For Peace Website, "Does the U.S. really need to spend as much as the whole world combined on weapons and war?" Perhaps its time to create a budget that suggests the look of PEACE to come!

Peace,

Leonard

Take Action at Voters For Peace: Tell Congress and the President to Cut The Military Budget -- Don't Expand it.

Is AFRICOM Just Another CON?

Friends,

In my last post I introduced you to the newest United States Department of Defense (DOD) Unified Command - U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM). If you remember the phrase "The sun never sets on the British Empire", the following map showing the (not so) new and improved American Empire should make you sit up and take notice. It seems that the U.S. learned the lessons of classical colonialism early on, and decided that a different approach was in order. Rather than occupying countries in the traditional way (except in cases like Iraq and Afghanistan), the U.S. has established a massive web of military bases on nearly every part of the globe (with the agreement of the governments of the nations in which they reside), each one under the umbrella of one of these Unified Commands.

Click here for a full screen version of the map.

The DOD Unified Command Website states that, "the main goal of the new U.S. command in Africa will be to develop a stable environment on the continent to promote civil society and improved quality of life for the people there..." I don't doubt the military's (or the U.S. government's) desire for a "stable environment", but is the military the appropriate tool for helping develop (long term) stability, or "civil society and improved quality of life"???? Is there just possibly another way?

Having navigated around the DOD Unified Command Website, I finally understand what it must have been like for Alice when she fell down the rabbit hole. It is a dizzying journey through acronyms like PACOM, EUCOM, CENTCOM, SOUTHCOM, NORTHCOM, and AFRICOM. Of course we can't forget STRATCOM, JFCOM and SOCOM. And now with addition of AFRICOM, we have a nice round number of (10) Unified Commands that cover just about everything (and everyplace) you can imagine (and quite a few things you don't want to).

I have no doubt the the U.S. military is doing some fine humanitarian work around the world - looking over the SOCOM home page might convince you that it is just a humanitarian organization - but you have to wonder if the U.S. military, which spends billions to operate SOCOM, is the best vehicle for supporting "security and stability" (as it's Website states) "in the Americas", particularly when one considers that the U.S. military (through its School of the Americas) has been responsible for much of the insecurity and instability throughout Latin America.

And just what will AFRICOM bring to the African continent? Security? Stability? Is there a better way to help nations become secure and stable? Are decision makers in Washington, D.C. asking such questions. At least a few are. Read what Representative John Murtha has to say about AFRICOM at Stars and Stripes. And are they listening to those with experience in foreign policy? Read a detailed analysis of AFRICOM, that focuses on the history of SOUTHCOM in Latin America, by retired Ambassador David Passage. And then, as I mentioned last time, keep informed (and get involved) at Resist AFRICOM.

Let's work to help bring real security an stability to the African people through compassionate and just (non-military) foreign policy, and work with other nations (through the United Nations) to help bring this about.

Peace,

Leonard

Africa Is NOT A Commodity

Friends,

The United States' keeps tightening its military noose around the globe. With roughly 1000 military bases around the world, the U.S. has pretty tight control over anything it wants to get its hands on just about anywhere. And while all eyes have been on places like Iraq and Afghanistan, a quiet but serious military expansion has been taking place on the African continent, where the U.S. (under President Bush's order) established the United States African Command (AFRICOM) in 2007. In that same year 20% of all U.S. oil imports came from Africa. Hmmmm...

AFRICOM's mission is to "conduct sustained security engagement through military-to-military programs, military-sponsored activities, and other military operations as directed to promote a stable and secure African environment in support of U.S. foreign policy" (Source: AFRICOM Website). Translation: We are going to establish a major military presence in Africa to expand the (endless) War on Terror, ensure uninterrupted access to oil (and other strategic materials), and counter Chinese influence on the continent.

At the recent Seattle Green Festival I attended a presentation by Dedan Gills and Belvie Rooks, co-founders of Growing a Global Heart, whose presentation was called "Our African Journey: An Odyssey of Remembering, Honoring and Healing Along the Slave Coast of Africa." It was a powerful sixty minutes that, through words and pictures, took the audience deep into the spiritual heart of the African (and African American) people, and the pain and suffering that they have endured in recent centuries. Most importantly, it helped me understand the importance of looking back into history to create a better future, and how to (creatively) work towards a sustainable Africa (and world).

I hope to share more about this couple's work in a future posting; for now I want to focus on a particular quote from Belvie. She said (and I apologize if I didn't get it verbatim) that, "First they sold the Africans as slaves; then they sold the continent." That statement struck me like a ton of bricks. Indeed, besides the selling of slaves and shipping them off to foreign ports, numerous European powers colonized the continent and enslaved the African people right at home. They took all they wanted, and when they were done (or finally forced out) they left countries devastated and impoverished.

The post-colonial history of parts of the continent has been difficult and sometimes bloody, and now the United States seems poised to be a new "occupying" power. AFRICOM is not the way for the United States to "promote a stable and secure African environment" in any way (for the African people). The way to do that is through compassionate, collaborative (non-military) assistance that listens to and honors the needs of communities, regions and nations. Africa (along with its people and resources) is not a commodity! If nations want the continent's resources, shouldn't they pay a fair price and not promote promote poverty, conflict and environmental degradation, or greedy dictators?

If you want to help promote peace and sustainability for the African people, one really important way you can get involved is at Resist AFRICOM, a campaign of concerned U.S. and Africa-based organizations and individuals opposed to the new U.S. military command for Africa (AFRICOM).

Another important point made by Belvie and Dedan was that of the "dismissal of human suffering." To paraphrase Dedan, "the consciousness that created the slave trade is the same consciousness that kills whales and hunts wolves." It is the same consciousness that uses (and abuses) people and their lands to acquire all that we want, while "dismissing" their suffering. No longer can we reduce others in order to justify our actions. Isn't it time to develop a new consciousness out of which can grow a compassionate and just U.S. foreign policy? And isn't Africa (and AFRICOM) a good place to start???

Towards Peace and Sustainability,

Leonard

Note: The article about AFRICOM (referenced in this post) in Foreign Policy in Focus (June, 2008) by Antonia Juhasz, titled AFRI(OIL)COM is very interesting. It has an interactive map that graphically illustrates oil and U.S. military interests on the continent.

Good Communists/Bad Communists, or Let's End the Cuba Travel Embargo!

Friends,

Have you ever wondered how the United States government is capable of demonizing one "communist" government such as Cuba while embracing another with open arms, as has been the case with China (for many years). Of course, China is an open and shut case; there is big trade and REALLY BIG money involved. In the case of Cuba, there is a long and dirty history. Oh yes, there WAS money involved way back when companies like U.S. Sugar and United Fruit had a firm footing in Cuba. And, it is a long and ugly story of failed (and deeply flawed) United States foreign policy.

All we tend to hear these days from the corporate media is about Fidel Castro's illness of the month, or whether his brother Raoul will be more friendly to the United States. And for many years, going back to the 60's we have heard about the Cuban exiles who yearn to return to their country (sans Castro). But why are those "exiles" here in the first place, and why did Castro come to power, and why the heck DON'T we allow travel to and trade with Cuba. Well, here's the wacky, abbreviated (one minute) history.

Spain rules Cuba (too close, geographically, for America's comfort). Cubans rebel against Spanish rule in 1895. U.S. holds back at getting involved (at first). Sinking of the U.S. warship Maine creates national clamor. U.S. declares war against Spain; Spanish-American War is over in three months. America companies begin moving in to Cuba - United Fruit, American Tobacco, Bethlehem Steel. U.S. ensures that the Platt Amendment (passed by the U.S. Congress), which allows the U.S. "the right to intervene for the preservation of Cuban independence", is included in the new Cuban Constitution. Essentially, the U.S. controls Cuba without the historic colonial model!

Skip to 1959 - Fidel Castro, leading a rebel force, overthrows the U.S.-backed dictator, Fulgencio Batista on New Years Day (Many well heeled revelers immediately flee the country). Castro confiscates land from American companies in Cuba (which, by the way, control 80-100 percent of utilities, mines, cattle ranches and oil refineries, 40 percent of sugar industry, and 50 percent of public railways). U.S. is NOT HAPPY; pulls the economic plug. Where's a country to go??? The Soviet Union. That's all folks. (Thanks to Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States: 1492 -Present, C2003 for the real story on Cuba.)

Skip to the present. The U.S. has imposed travel restrictions (on U.S. citizens) to Cuba for decades. Currently, tourist travel is banned, and non-tourist travel is extremely restricted. Attempting to read the U.S. State Department explanation of the restrictions is enough to give one a severe headache. And, did you know that Cuba is a totalitarian police state which relies on repressive methods to maintain control??? Lions and tigers and bears, oh my! That quote from the State Department Website could describe any number of countries (that the U.S. DOES allow travel to and trade with, including China.

O.K., Fidel is no saint; but as "totalitarian" states go, he has done some good things for his people (and others too) including instituting a health care system that has resulted in better statistics for a number of important indicators of health than the United States (particularly when one looks at it in terms of per capita expenditures). So just what damage would be done by opening up the gates and allowing free travel to and from Cuba, and then perhaps opening up trade? Might that actually allow the people of our nations to learn more about each other? Might it bring positive change to Cuba over time? And just perhaps it would show the rest of Latin America that the United States is serious about reconciliation with all of our neighbors to the South?

You can learn more about ending the Cuba travel ban at the Latin American Working Group and the Center for Constitutional Rights. And if you think it's time to end this backwards (and unconstitutional) foreign policy, contact your Representative and Senators and ask them to co-sponsor H.R.874 and S.428.

to (and work for) a foreign policy based on a deep understanding of history and what is necessary to build relationships that foster peace.

Peace,

Leonard

P.S. - Fun Fact: Did you know that the U.S. is the only country that restricts travel to Cuba?

We Don't Celebrate THIS Anniversary!

Friends,

Today is March 19, the day that marks the beginning of the invasion of Iraq by the United States and Britain in 2003. This isn't exactly an anniversary to celebrate; it IS, however, one to contemplate, and consider just how things really are six years later. Thousands of U.S. troops dead, tens of thousands wounded (both physically and mentally), and God knows how many Iraqis dead, wounded and displaced. Iraq still has inadequate water, sanitation and electricity; it's infrastructure is a mess.

The Bush administration has gone and left the new administration to clean up the mess. Most of the profiteers have finished their work (much of which was never done in the first place) and left with their bags of money, leaving projects that no building inspector in the U.S. would ever have passed (unless seriously on the take). There are alleged plans for withdrawal from Iraq, while the emphasis shifts to Afghanistan. And finally, the American Empire teeters on the verge of collapse due to shear weight of economic gravity.

What is not seen, what is not generally spoken, is that beyond the greed on (and beyond) Wall Street that has taken down huge institutions in a virtual financial bloodletting, there is another behemoth that is taking down the country slowly, but surely. That behemoth is the Military Industrial Complex. The American Empire (as with every empire throughout history) is essentially a military empire that has its tentacles extended around the world, with roughly 1000 overseas military bases scattered all over, protecting U.S. interests (among them, oil and other strategic resources).

But empires come, and empires go. The question is whether this empire will go gently, or will it crash and burn. The previous president fiddled while the empire burned, or perhaps I should say that he built up the fires and kept stoking them for eight years. The new president has his hands full putting out all the fires and trying to prevent the hot spots from flaring up. The fate of the American Empire will quite likely hinge (in large part) on the way President Obama handles the exit from Iraq, and whether he chooses a military surge in Afghanistan or uses the military selectively to protect the assets important to the Afghan people while "surging" assistance with agriculture, education, health care, and other good will measures to really help the Afghan people build their nation.

Here, from Voters for Peace along with September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, are their Top Ten Reasons to End the Occupation of Afghanistan along with their Recommendations for a Changed US Policy. You can read the full report covering all of these issues by clicking here.

Ten Reasons to End the Occupation of Afghanistan
1. US and NATO occupation creates civilian casualties, angering Afghans.
2. Military occupation has hampered humanitarian aid and reconstruction efforts.
3. Afghan women continue to face violence and oppression under the occupation.
4. US policy has empowered warlords, drug lords and the Taliban.
5. The occupation contributes to violence and destabilization for ordinary Afghans, including refugees.
6. NATO allies and military leaders are questioning the occupation.
7. US troop casualties in Afghanistan are on the rise.
8. Afghans are calling for a negotiated end to the war.
9. Military escalation will only increase the violence, and potentially lead to a wider war involving nuclear-armed Pakistan.
10. Military occupation of Afghanistan does not curb terrorism.

Recommendations for a Changed US Policy
1. Set a swift timetable for the withdrawal of US and NATO military forces, to be substituted by UN forces for short-term security.
2. Immediately cease air strikes on targets in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
3. Support negotiations between all parties involved in the conflict, including Afghan women leaders.
4. Reform humanitarian aid and reconstruction funding efforts to prioritize Afghan organizations over foreign contractors. Ensure that funded projects address the needs and requests of Afghans and are not simply pet projects of foreign donors.
5. Invest in long-term aid that increases self-reliance such as sustainable agriculture efforts.
6. Immediately discontinue the use of Provincial Reconstruction Teams, which are costly, inefficient, and have militarized the aid process.
7. Standardize, increase, and publicly document compensation to Afghan families and communities affected by US military actions.
8. Sign the treaty to ban cluster bombs, pay for cluster bomb and landmine clean up in Afghanistan, and pledge never to use these weapons again.

If you agree that the U.S. needs to change its policy in Afghanistan, click here to send President Obama your message; let him know what you think. Help him make the best choice!

You can also send your message to your members of Congress to "support economic development, not escalation , in Afghanistan" courtesy of Sojourners.

Wars never bring peace, just suffering and more war. It is time to end the occupations in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and really help both countries rebuild and heal. If we can do that, then perhaps one day we WILL have something to celebrate.

Peace,

Leonard

Afghanistan; Can You Say O C C U P A T I O N?

Friends,

The American people seem to be obsessed with the word WAR. It (and the language associated with it) infuses our national dialogue. We have the official wars on drugs, poverty and terror; and of course we have had the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Besides the obsessive-compulsive nature of such behavior (a psychologist's dream), I hate to burst the people's bubble, but the so-called wars in Iraq and Afghanistan really aren't wars at all. Of course the U.S. engaged in acts of war when invading these nations. But after the dust settled and Saddam and the Taliban were unseated, the U.S. quickly became an occupying power.

Yes! These are O C C U P A T I O N S in the classic sense of the word. And if one believes the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, the definition of occupation, "Invasion, conquest, and control of a nation or territory by foreign armed forces" sums it up. An occupation is an occupation, no matter how a nation attempts to package it, even if these nations seem to have their own governments. And now the U.S. is preparing to ramp up the occupation of Afghanistan, all in the name of an endless War on Terror (the Energizer Bunny doesn't have anything on this baby).

If you didn't contact the President and Congress in response to my previous post, a large number of organizations have since called on people to resist escalation in Afghanistan, and call for a commitment to diplomacy and addressing the needs of afghans, including health care, education, security and rights of women. Pick one of the following organizations to contact our leaders in Washington, D.C. Raise your voice for policy that will bring real peace to the region and help eliminate the need for war, especially a useless and counterproductive War on Terror.

Friends Committee on National Legislation (to write your members of Congress)

CREDO Mobile (to write to Defense Secretary Gates)

Also check out Afghanistan 101 at CodePink.

Lastly - Here is the text of a letter to President Obama, courtesy of Voters For Peace.

Letter to President Obama
I read with disappointment your announcement of a 50% increase in U.S. troops in Afghanistan. It comes just after an announcement that there was a 40% increase in civilian deaths in Afghanistan last year. More troops will lead to more civilian deaths and lead to more hatred of America. This is a counterproductive strategy that will escalate into a quagmire.And, with Pakistan on the border and the acknowledgment that the U.S. government is attacking al Qaeda and the Taliban, and killing civilians, from Pakistan the U.S. is risking becoming engaged in a civil war in that country. Military escalation is once again leading to a dangerous and counterproductive quagmire that could undermine your presidency.I am pleased that your administration is reviewing the strategy and goals of Afghanistan. This is an opportunity for a major shift in policy to more effective alternatives. It is past time to emphasize diplomacy, education and economic development to bring Afghanis and Pakistanis to America's side. The focus on al Qaeda should be built on regional security agreements as well as targeted forces that can bring their leaders to justice - a public trial so the world can see the full story. The Taliban is a political force in the region that must be acknowledged and brought into negotiations. Military attacks are making them stronger, not weaker.Since the U.S. spends half its discretionary spending on the military and more on military marching bands than on diplomacy it is not surprising that the tool the United States uses is military force. But, it is a counterproductive tool. It is time to withdraw troops from Afghanistan and build up more effective approaches. The reliance on military force shows that a paradigm shift is needed in U.S. foreign policy, away from militarism and domination to cooperation, multilateralism and diplomacy.Diplomacy and foreign aid will also be less expensive than the military option - which is the most expensive and least effective alternative. We cannot afford the Iraq and Afghan wars. It is time to end both, bring all troops and private security contractors' home and focus those resources on rebuilding the U.S. economy.

There IS a non-military option, and it IS the better (and more sane) one. We just need to convince those who control the purse strings to channel the money to non-military (real) solutions.

Peace,

Leonard

Drones or Development, or Show Me The Love

Friends,

Valentines Day has passed, so we can drop the pretense about love. Let's face it; for all the talk of love, for all the roses, for all the chocolates, for all the Hallmark cards, we just aren't getting it. Romantic love aside; the original love children (also known as Christians) still haven't gotten that love thing down, even a couple thousand years after the death of the very person who showed us the way and gave his life for it.

From my experience in the church, we are good at loving each other (those within the church community) but not so good at showing the kind of Agape love that is meant for all humankind. So in a very real sense we are practicing conditional love, and I've always understood that to be the unhealthy kind, and definitely NOT the kind of love that Jesus lived and taught. Why am I hammering on my fellow Christians? Because we represent over 75 percent of the population of the United States (based on 2001 figures), and that means we are pretty well in control of the decision making process that includes making WAR.

While President Obama is laying the groundwork to gear down in Iraq (a good thing), he is concurrently preparing to gear UP in Afghanistan (a very bad thing - just think "Soviet Union"). It's not just that we will get mired in a larger, intractable occupation (which is already going less than well); but the worst thing is that we will end up applying even more violence than was used by the Bush administration, creating more and greater suffering and death on all sides. And to what end? Is this "change we can believe in"???

(Soviet) history has already cleared the smoke from the crystal ball, if we dare to gaze within. Military action (and its associated violence) will never transform Afghanistan into anything more than a heap of larger rubble and suffering, and create an even richer breeding ground for hatred towards America (and the West), and you know where it goes from there. It is time to stop this madness and dare to imagine different approaches to creating stability in countries like Afghanistan, as I described in a previous blog post; see Three Cups of Tea (and a Skateboard). We need far fewer Predator drones and far more development aid.

Father John Dear laid out a different road map for U.S. engagement in Afghanistan in his February 10th blog post, War is not 'change we can believe in'. It is well worth reading, and when you finish, I hope you will be convinced to take action to prevent an increasing cycle of violence (and suffering) in Afghanistan. The kind of change we CAN believe in does not contain the word WAR. Indeed, War is NOT the answer. Love is.

As Father Dear says, What we need is "nonviolent change we can believe in." I propose the immediate removal of our troops and a massive inflow of aid to abolish poverty, illiteracy and disease. In Afghanistan and Iraq. War will fail to cut the roots of terrorism. Active peacemaking is the only solution.

Let the President and your members of Congress know that you support development, not drones; nonviolent solutions over violent ones. You can send an email to President Obama, or click here to find contact information for you Senators and Representative. We need to counter the drums of war; speak out for peaceful alternatives! Isn't THAT the kind of change we can believe in?

Peace,

Leonard

Read more on U.S. plans for Afghanistan in Aides Say Obama’s Afghan Aims Elevate War , in the New York Times.

Three Cups of Tea (And a Skateboard)

Friends,

Many of you have heard of Greg Mortenson, the climber who took a wrong (or perhaps right) turn while descending from a failed attempt at the infamous K2 in Northern Pakistan in 1993. The people of the small, remote village into which he wandered nursed him back to health. After observing the village children sitting outdoors writing their lessons in the dirt with sticks, Greg vowed to come back and build a school for them.

Greg did return (and not without great difficulties) to build that school, and since completing it he has established a total of 78 schools in the farthest reaches of Afghanistan and Pakistan. The book, Three Cups of Tea, tells that remarkable story of determination and how one person with a dream can do more to promote peace in these countries than the United States has done through years of military action and so called diplomacy.

And now there is this crazy Australian in Kabul, Afghanistan trying to open the country's first skateboarding school. Oliver Percovich, who came to Kabul "impulsively" in 2007 because his girlfriend got a job in Kabul, brought his skateboards along. It didn't take long for the children - "Afghanistan has the highest proportion of school-age children in the world" (Seattle Times article) - to discover Oliver and his skateboards. The Times article states that for the roughly "seven million youngsters, sports are virtually nonexistent."

Early on, Percovich turned a "decrepit Soviet-style fountain" into a makeshift skate park, and since then has made plans for a much larger skateboard park and has acquired a ton (literally) of secondhand skate equipment.

Of course, there is always the issue of girls participating past puberty, as well as other religious issues. But maybe, just maybe, skateboarding could provide many Afghan children with a positive outlet for their energy and frustrations. It might even (as Percovich said) "help mend the nations' deep social and ethnic divisions.

Both Mortenson and Percovich are examples of people who think (and draw) outside the lines, and when it comes to doing something good for others, they definitely ignore those who say it can't be done. Mortenson's idea is bearing fruit, and hopefully that will bear out for Percovich. At a time when the only ideas the United States can come up with in this part of the world are of the military variety, we need people who think out-of-the-box and are willing to go out-on-a-limb.

Let us hope to hear of more big-hearted, big-thinking, determined individuals like Mortenson and Percovich for the sake of the children of countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan. Because after all, it IS about the children.

Assalaam Alaikum (Peace Be With You),

Leonard

Notes: The photo of Afghan youth skateboarding is by Tyler Hicks, New York Times. You can read the article about Oliver Percovich and "Skateistan" at http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008670707_skateboard26.html.

Dr. King - Beyond Vietnam

Dear Friends,

Continuing my writings on Martin Luther King, Jr., it is a particular pleasure on Dr. King's birthday to share a revision of an article I wrote in 2003 to show how he evolved far beyond the "civil rights" leadership for which he is best known. This post is a bit longer than usual, but I hope you will find it worth reading. In a time of unparalleled military spending by the United States along with an overwhelming focus on military solutions, Dr. King's message is needed more than ever.

At a time when our nation once again is embroiled in occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, it is timely to consider the speech delivered by Dr. King nearly 42 years ago when our nation was immersed in another foreign misadventure. Dr. King delivered his "Beyond Vietnam" speech at New York's Riverside Church on April 4, 1967. It was an extraordinary speech in which he questioned not only the role of the United States in the world, but also the very nature of our economic system.

When we hear about Dr. King – generally once a year around the time of his birthday, January 15th – the news media refers to him as "the slain civil rights leader." But Dr. King was much more than that, and it is sad that our national news media have never come to terms with all that Dr. King stood for. The TV images the media convey are generally the same ones – battling segregation in Birmingham in 1963; reciting his dream of racial harmony in Washington in 1963; marching for voting rights in Selma, Alabama in 1965; and lying dead on the motel balcony in Memphis in 1968.

What about the period from 1965 to 1968? In the early 1960s when Dr. King was challenging legalized racial discrimination in the South, most major media were his allies, showing graphic footage of police dogs, bullwhips and cattle prods used against southern African Americans who sought the right to vote or eat at a public lunch counter. After the passage of the Civil Rights Acts in 1964 and 1965 Dr. King began challenging our nation’s fundamental priorities. He maintained that the civil rights laws meant nothing without human rights, including economic rights. He spoke out against the huge gaps between rich and poor, and called for "radical changes in the structure of our society" to redistribute wealth and power.

By 1967 Dr. King had become one of the country’s most prominent opponents of the Vietnam War as well as a staunch critic of overall United States foreign policy. In his "Beyond Vietnam" speech, Dr. King made a significant leap from fighting for civil rights for African-Americans to morally challenging U.S. dominion over the rest of the world. The "Beyond Vietnam" speech resonates as strongly today as it did then.

Dr. King spoke of the difficulty of working for peace in an atmosphere of mass conformity. "Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men (sic) do not easily assume the task of opposing their government’s policy, especially in time of war. Nor does the human spirit move without great difficulty against all the apathy of conformist thought within one’s own bosom and in the surrounding world. Moreover, when the issues at hand seem as perplexing as they often do in the case of this dreadful conflict, we are always on the verge of being mesmerized by uncertainty. But we must move on." He went on to say that, "the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony, but we must speak.

We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak." There is no other choice for us, because, "silence is betrayal."

Dr. King saw the connection between war and the evisceration of social programs in this country. He "knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men (sic) and skills and money like some demonic, destructive suction tube." Dr. King saw "war as an enemy of the poor".

Further along, Dr. King spoke of his "commitment to the ministry of Jesus Christ." He was amazed that people would ask him why he was speaking against the war. "Could it be that they do not know that the Good News was meant for all men (sic)—for communist and capitalist, for their children and ours, for black and for white, for revolutionary and conservative? Have they forgotten that my ministry is in obedience to the one who loved his enemies so fully he died for them?" He went on to say that as children of the living God, "We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for the victims of our nation, for those it calls enemy, for no document from human hands can make these humans any less our brothers (sic)."

Dr. King spoke of "a far deeper malady within the American spirit" which, I believe, is greed. He said that it is our "refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investments" that governs our foreign policy, and makes the United States the "greatest purveyor of violence in the world today." He called for a "radical revolution of values" wherein we "shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society." He said that playing "the Good Samaritan on life’s roadside…will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho Road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life’s highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring."

Dr. King was not afraid to give a dire warning to the American people that, "A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death." He hammered away at the need for everyone to speak out and use the most creative methods of protest possible, not just against the war, but also for "significant and profound change in American life and policy." He believed that, "Our only hope today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go out into a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism, and militarism." The sword that we carry is love. "Love is the ultimate force that makes for the saving choice of life and good against the damning choice of death and evil. Therefore the first hope in our inventory must be the hope that love is going to have the last word."

As he neared the end of his speech Dr. King stated that, "We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now." Time does not stop for us to sit and ponder our actions. The time is now. "Now let us begin. Let us rededicate ourselves to the long and bitter, but beautiful, struggle for a new world." I call upon each of you to consider Dr. Kings words of 35 years ago and consider how they speak to you today. The sense of urgency today is great. The odds are great and the struggle is hard. But we have no other choice if we are to build a better world for all. We must act, whatever the cost. To be successful, we need to be in solidarity with each other, in our congregations and communities as well as with people throughout the world.

Martin Luther King Jr. left us with a beautiful legacy. He lives on through his words and beckons us to continue the work of peace and justice. The best way that we can remember and honor him is to work to build bridges of peace and understanding. Dr. King said that, "there is such a thing as being too late." Let us not be too late. Let us, every one of us, act now, and not rest until the job is done. Let each of us make that choice so that, "we will be able to speed up the day, all over America and all over the world, when justice will roll down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream."

Peace,

Leonard

Notes: This blog post is a revision of an article I wrote in 2003. Excerpts from Dr. King’s Beyond Vietnam speech were taken from A Call To Conscience: The Landmark Speeches of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., edited by Clayborne Carson and Kris Shepard, Copyright 2001. You can read the unabridged text of Dr. King’s speech (along with his other speeches) at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Papers Project.

Photo Credit: The iconic photo of Dr. King juxtaposed with the photo of Gandhi was taken by photojounalist, Bob Fitch.  Bob documented some of the most important social movements of the 60s and 70s, and has spent most of his life engaged in peace and justice work.

Live from Fort Benning - It's School Of The Americas !!!!!

Yes friends, the people that brought you - well, not really "you" unless you happen to live in a number of Latin American countries - torture, "disappearance" and murder are still going strong. And no, I'm not talking about Vice President Dick Cheney and his masters (and mistresses) of torture. I'm speaking of the infamous School of the Americas (SOA). Now, if that doesn't sound familiar, try Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC) - same old tricks, just new packaging; isn't "WHINSEC" a great euphemism?

For decades, students (principally soldiers from "friendly" Latin American governments) who graduated from SOA have terrorized, kidnapped, tortured and murdered countless innocent civilians in a variety of countries in Latin America; students from 22 Latin American nations have attended SOA since its inception. There is significant documentation on human rights abuses by SOA graduates.

As I write this post, as many as 20,000 people have gathered in Columbus, Georgia (home of SOA) for rallies, teach-ins and a funeral procession. This annual event (started in 1990 on the first anniversary of the brutal killings of six Jesuit priests, their co-worker and her teenage daughter in El Salvador) brings together individuals and groups dedicated to human rights, nonviolence and peace, and an end to militarism and unjust U.S. foreign policy. You can read about what is happening at this year's event at National Catholic Reporter's SOA Blog.

If you couldn't make it to Columbus, you CAN get involved without leaving town. School of the Americas (SOA) Watch is a nonviolent, grass roots movement standing in solidarity with the people of Latin American to not only close SOA/WHINSEC, but create a humane U.S. foreign policy. SOA Watch engages in "creative protest and resistance, legislative and media work" to reach these goals. Check out their website and while you are there, consider signing the petition to President-elect Obama to Close SOA/WHINSEC. You can also download a petition form for people to sign at your church or other group.

With a new administration moving in to The White House we have a huge opportunity to move towards a just foreign policy, and closing the School of the Americas is a key component. Change IS coming; be part of it!

Peace,

Leonard

A "Just Foreign Policy"

Even as we bask in the afterglow of a truly monumental election, the current resident of the Oval Office has signed (with a big grin) the largest military budget in history (for fiscal year 2009). It weighs in at a paltry $512 billion (and that's just for starters); you can see what the extras will probably cost us in my October 22nd blog posting, Our Runaway "Defense" Budget. In the past eight years the Bush administration has taken decades of foreign policy already designed with the National Security State in mind and has raised it to unimaginable heights (or perhaps taken it to new lows).

Our current foreign policy is centered on a perpetual War On Terror that has sucked the life out of the remains of our nation's diplomatic service as it pumped vast amounts of money and human resources into military “solutions” and interventions around the world. It was once said that “the sun never sets on the British Empire.” And so, with over 700 U.S. military bases encircling the globe, the sun now never sets on the American Empire.

However, the signs are clear (just as they were with the British Empire) that the days of the American Empire are on the wane. It is all about power, and the balance (or imbalance) thereof. For decades the two Superpowers wielded immense power that affected every corner of the globe, and today America still attempts to wield (hard) power in an unbridled fashion without a thought of engaging in meaningful dialogue with other nations (except in token ways or after the fact).

We can either adjust to our waning of Empire in a sensible way or continue on the current track, exerting military might until we eventually collapse under the shear weight of it. We need to come to the realization that meaningful foreign policy is not wrought with guns and bombs. We can learn that we are just one nation among many, and that we do not have all the answers and that we must learn to live together under the rule of law (not the rule of might).

In a previous blog posting I wrote about Dr. Martin Luther King's concept of The World House, "in which we have to live together—black and white, Easterner and Westerner, Gentile and Jew, Catholic and Protestant, Muslim and Hindu—a family unduly separated in ideas, culture and interest, who, because we can never again live apart, must learn somehow to live with each other in peace.” Dr. King was right on the mark. We are, as he said, like a dysfunctional family that has been thrust into a situation where we all live under the same roof and must learn to live together. Diplomacy (first) and just foreign policy are at the top of my list for learning together in this World House of ours, and speaking of just foreign policy:

The people at Just Foreign Policy are dedicated to “achieving a just foreign policy based on cooperation, law, and diplomacy.” Aside from joining their Action Network, they are currently asking people to send a message to President-elect Obama asking him to reform U.S. foreign policy. You can send an email from their Website, and they have a number of common sense talking points that you can use in addition to any of your own.

If we took even a fraction of what we currently spend on the military - deep sixing one Cold War relic like the F22 Raptor jet would save a few billion - and increased spending on just foreign policy efforts, we could change our standing on the world stage, significantly reduce the threat of terrorism and soften the inevitable decline of the American Empire. And just think; without a bunch of wars to fight, maybe we could even give our troops a well deserved vacation.

Peace,

Leonard