Remembering John Murtha
Mar 11, 2010

In my tradition it is customary to memorialize a dead person 30 days after one's death. I want to follow that tradition for John Murtha.

I am struck by the irony that on the 30th day after John Murtha's death, the House Democratic leadership banned budget earmarks to private for profit corporations. That ended the practise of billions of dollars of no bid contracts being awarded to earmark beneficiaries. That practise, now ended, led to all sorts of excesses--and that's an understatement.

Added to the irony is that at John Murtha's funeral, a eulogizer who is a priest, used Ecclesiastes to say; There is a time for legislation and a time for not legislating; there is a time for earmarks--and the attendees roared with laughter.

John Murtha deserves to be remembered very differently. Murtha regularly visited veterans at Walter Reed and Bethesda Naval Center --those with physical, emotional and  mental wounds-- without fanfare or publicity. Murtha cared about those who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and earlier in Vietnam. House members have told me that when Murtha spoke  in the caucus he voiced the same caring he reflected in his visits. He was a powerful influence on his colleagues. It helped them remember and respond to the needs of those who served.

I worked with Murtha on end the war Iraq legislation in opposition to the Bush polcies. I was no intimate. But Murtha was a serious legislator who listened to my reports, and those of others, on House members. He shared his observations with me as well. I was a supplier of intelligence on Members' thinking and he gave me added clues in our pursuit of creating majority votes of no confidence of the Bush Iraq policies.

When Murtha, the fomer Marine combat officer, opposed the Iraq policy he was refecting the views of the captains, major and colonels who fought the battles. Even more important he was influenced by what the enlisted men and women were reporting. Murtha listened. He acted on what he heard.

He used his power and influence as the Subcommittee Chair on Defense Appropriations to lift the authentic voices in the armed services so that they will be heard--voices that are too often neglected.

Murtha also reminds us that in politics there are no permanent adversaries or allies. Along with many others I worked against Murtha's efforts to support our disastorous El Salvador and Nicaragua policies in the 1980s. His views on House ethics policies, and his opposition to lobbying disclosure--one of a handul of legislators when it came time to vote-- shows that he was willing to stand for what he believed even as distasteful as his views were.

The Murtha story follows a different path. Murtha's lasting memory will always be the difference he made in opposing the Iraq war. His moral actions will always be those continuing and non-public unannounced visits to the wounded who fought our unnecessary wars of choice.

America's Soft Power
Mar 01, 2010

The United States cannot solve the problems of the world on its own, and the world cannot solve them without the United States.

As the world’s only remaining superpower, America has the ability to affect the behavior of other nations through coercion, economic strength and the power of attraction. Hard power relies on coercion and raw economic power. Soft power influences others through public diplomacy, broadcasting, exchange programs, development assistance, disaster relief, exchange of ideas and culture - everything from Hollywood to Shakespeare to orchestras.

In his inaugural address, President Barack Obama informed all countries, friendly and unfriendly, that there was a new attitude in the White House. He advised those countries “on the wrong side of history” that the United States “will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.”

Conference call with Iraq experts from CLW
Mar 20, 2009

Last week our members joined a conference call with distinguished national security experts Army Lt. Gen. Robert Gard and Air Force Col. Richard Klass to discuss the upcoming withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. (Colonel Klass is a board member of the Council, and Lt. General Gard is chairman of our sister organization.)

Thanks to the participation of these two experts and 20 CLW members, had a great, candid discussion on national security issues, particularly those related to the war in Iraq.

Just a few of the issues Lt. Gen. Gard and Col. Klass covered...

• *  How can President Obama responsibly withdraw our troops from Iraq?
• *  Where can the U.S. and Iran work together to find a regional solution to stabilize Iraq and address the crisis in Afghanistan?
  
• *  What does the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq and sending of additional troops to Afghanistan mean for the U.S. military?

We're considering topics now for future discussions, and some ideas include progress on the movement for a world free of nuclear weapons, and the political landscape for the 2010 elections.

What issues do you want to hear more about? Let us know in the comments section below!

(If you're interested in taking part in similar events in the future, click here to find out more about becoming a member.)

U.S. out of Iraq - NOW
Feb 26, 2009

Barack Obama captured the soul of the Democratic Party when he denounced the American invasion of Iraq as a violation of international law and the United Nations Charter, based on faulty and manipulated intelligence about weapons of mass destruction. His election to the presidency proved that the voters trusted him to end the war as he promised.

While Americans are grateful that this six year old war will soon be over, they wonder at the delay in pulling our troops from Iraq. More than 4000 Americans have been killed; more than 30,000 have been wounded in this war generally regarded as a mistake. Our military leaders say that we should leave "responsibly." What does that mean? Responsible to whom? To the Iraqis, whose public wants us to leave at once? To the corrupt Iraqi government whose leaders want us to stay as long as we supply the dollars?

Our first responsibility is to the men and women of the U. S. military. No more deaths. No more wounds. How would you like to be the last soldier to die for a mistake?

Obama promised a pullout within 16 months. Now, his senior officials tell the New York Times that will be extended to 19 months. How many Americans will be killed or wounded in those three months? Why? To protect the military equipment? Leave it there for the Iraqis. When we invaded, our operation against a shooting enemy took one month. Getting out should take the same one month.

A Plan We Can Stick To
Feb 19, 2009

Council board member Col. Richard Klass, along with the chairman of our research wing, Lt. Gen. Robert Gard, released a report today that outlines how President Obama can responsibly execute his campaign commitment to remove U.S. combat forces from Iraq within 16 months.

Based on recent press reports, there is reason to suspect that there may be an effort underway, led by some military officials and non-governmental analysts, to delay President Obama’s 16-month timetable.

The report is available online here.

“This plan meets President Obama’s criteria of being as careful getting out as we were careless going in,” said Council board member retired Col. Richard Klass. “Redeployment of U.S. combat forces should be coupled with a diplomatic surge to help stabilize Iraq.”

The report proposes a U.S. redeployment schedule that would result in 100,000 total U.S. troops remaining in Iraq by the end of 2009; 35,000 to 65,000 support troops remaining in Iraq by July 2010, when the President’s 16-month timetable would end if it is initiated in April 2009; and fewer than 1,000 troops remaining by December 2011, when the U.S.-Iraqi security agreement (commonly referred to as the status of forces agreement or “SOFA”) mandates that all U.S. forces be out of Iraq.

"Our national security would be enhanced by implementing President Obama's 16-month timetable," said Gard. “President Obama’s plan to remove combat forces from Iraq is militarily workable and can be executed responsibly.”

From Outrage to the Oval Office: A Long March
Feb 17, 2009

On January 22, President Obama’s second day in office, Council for a Livable World board member Brig. Gen. John Johns, along with Lt. Gen. Robert Gard, the chairman of our sister organization the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation,  stood behind the President in the Oval Office when he signed executive orders related to the incarceration, interrogation, and treatment of detainees. Both Gen. Johns and Gen. Gard wrote about what it was like to be in the Oval Office, and how they came to be activists against the Bush administration's torture policies.

From Brig. Gen. Johns John (USA, ret.):

On January 22, 2009, I – along with Lt. Gen. Robert Gard, the Center’s chairman – was among 16 generals and admirals of the U.S. Armed Forces who were invited to attend a signing ceremony in the Oval Office, where President Obama signed three directives and a memo addressing policies on torture and the detention center at Guantanamo. Gen. Gard and I have been members of a group of retired flag officers who met at various times with presidential candidates to lobby for changing Bush policies, especially those related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, including torture. We had hoped that President Obama would take action early in his administration on this specific issue, but were elated and surprised that he did so on his second day in office. To take this action immediately reflects the importance the President places on this subject.

The group met in the Roosevelt Room for about 20-25 minutes with the President before the ceremony in the Oval Office. Vice President Biden and members of the legal staff joined the discussion. Both Obama and Biden expressed appreciation for the fruitful meetings they had had with the group during the campaign. President Obama had met for one hour in Des Moines, Iowa and Vice President Biden in New Hampshire. I was struck by the warm and gracious attitude of both the President and Vice President. Both showed a detailed knowledge of the policies on torture and interrogation techniques and fully understood the symbolic value of the changes that were being made.

What’s on Obama’s plate?
Dec 17, 2008

What’s on Obama’s plate?

We’re not talking chicken or fish, we’re talking more like nuclear terrorism and the war in Iraq.

When Obama gets sworn in on Jan. 20, 2009, he’ll have more than a full plate of items to deal with, addressing issues like the war in Iraq,  the U.S. and now global economic crisis, global climate change, energy, terrorism, health care, the list – unfortunately – goes on and on, and on.

The Council for a Livable World’s research center has prepared – along with 60 leading national security experts – a transition report on how the Obama administration can effectively address the gravest threat to U.S. security: the spread of nuclear weapons and materials.

The executive summary and full report is available here.

The Council believes that given the rise of terrorist networks and the amount of unsecure nuclear weapons material worldwide, the proliferation of nuclear weapons and nuclear terrorism is one of the gravest threats to U.S. and international security.

“Every presidential candidate since 2000 has said that loose nuclear weapons are the most serious threat to international security. Yet for the past eight years we’ve done very little to address loose nukes seriously,” said John Isaacs, executive director of the Council and our research Center in a press release today. “What we need now is strong leadership as promised by President-elect Obama during the campaign.”

Besides unsecure nuclear weapons materials, we also have actual weapons to deal with. Almost twenty years after the end of the Cold War, Russia and the United States continue to maintain about 16,000 nuclear weapons. The arms control process has been stalled since the late 1990s when the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was rejected by the Senate.

The experts in the report recommend that Obama Announce intent to seek ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and begin working to build the bipartisan support in the Senate needed for approval.

Basically, the Bush administration was not only was sleeping (though we wish it was only that) on arms control issues, it actually reversed arms control gains made in the past 40 years. When Obama and the 111th Congress gets in office, they’ll have an historic opportunity to provide some real leadership on the most serious component of our national security.

Now you know our priorities, what are yours?

The end is in sight
Dec 02, 2008

John Isaacs, executive director at Council for a Livable World (and green tie guy at left), has a new op-ed out in the Guardian UK this afternoon. Text is below.

The End is in Sight
By John Isaacs
Published in the Guardian UK on December 2, 2008

The security agreement signed by the United States and Iraq and approved by the Iraqi parliament last week marks the beginning of the end of the American occupation.

It is about time. For more than six years, this war has undermined the American position in the world, trampled Iraqi sovereignty and caused over 4,000 American and 176 British combat deaths – not to mention tens or even hundreds of thousands of Iraqi casualties.

Robert McNamara's Vietnam war-era claim that we can see "the light at the end of the tunnel" now appears to actually be true in Iraq.

President-elect Barack Obama, in a December 1 press conference, agreed that the war is in its end-game. The US-Iraq agreement, Obama said, "points us in the right direction. It indicates we are now on a glide path to reduce our forces in Iraq."

The agreement mandates that "all US combat forces" withdraw from urban areas in Iraq by June 30, 2009, and that "all US forces" withdraw from the country by December 31, 2011. The agreed-to language upholds Iraq's "sovereign right" to demand the departure of US forces anytime and recognizes the United States' "sovereign right" to remove its forces earlier than the end of 2011.

This timetable is consistent with Obama's pledge, stated over and over during the election campaign, to remove all US combat troops within 16 months of taking office in January 2009.

Indeed, the agreement to remove all American forces by the end of 2011 goes beyond Obama's promises, as he has talked of leaving a residual force in Iraq indefinitely to train and equip Iraqi security forces, fight terrorists and protect remaining American personnel. Obama may well run up against an Iraqi desire to be rid of American troops once and for all.

When negotiations began more than a year ago, those opposed to the continuation of the war feared the worst. It would be, they thought, an attempt by President George Bush to tie the hands of his successor. Anti-Iraq war activists also believed the agreement was an effort to leave a permanent American presence in Iraq with the control of oil substantially in American hands.

However, Iraqi government officials, concerned with the appearance of ceding too much power to the Americans, forced many concessions from the Bush administration. Indeed, the agreement represents a stunning reversal for the Bush administration, which until now rejected any timeline for troop withdrawals and clearly saw Iraq as an outpost and demonstration of America's military power in the Middle East.

Instead, no matter how Iraq turns out in the end, this war will be marked by historians as a disaster in both conception and implementation.

The beginning of the end of the war does not mean that there will not be many hiccups along the way. While there are fewer casualties than before, there is little doubt that fighting may flare up again. There is still very little agreement on power sharing between the Shias, the Sunnis and the Kurds, and those groups may resume violent clashes in the future.

Moreover, the accord included a number of ambiguities that could grow into sore points. The two countries left vague the freedom of action for US soldiers, future security commitments and the protection of Iraqi assets.

And while the Iraqi parliament, and perhaps the Iraqi people through a future referendum, have been required to approve the agreement before it can go into affect, President Bush refused to submit the agreement for approval to the US Congress.

Still the agreement, combined with the coming to power of a new American president who opposed the war in the first place, means that American military involvement in Iraq is finally coming to an end.

There’s not a dime’s worth of difference
Dec 01, 2008

The media has been all abuzz with the formal announcement that Obama's former favorite foe has been appointed Secretary of State. But, most of that coverage has been focused on  exaggerated disagreements during the presidential campaign and behind-the-scenes political maneuvering, all of which miss the point.

On policy, Obama and Hillary are not night and day, but more like 4:30 and 4:45.  

“When it comes to foreign policy, Obama and Clinton agree far more than they disagree,” said John Isaacs, executive director of the Council for a Livable World. To paraphrase the late Alabama Governor George Wallace, Isaacs added: “There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between Obama and Clinton on foreign policy.”

Isaacs based his assessment on a thorough examination of Obama and Clinton’s Senate voting records; national security platforms as laid out in articles and op-eds; and responses to queries in debates, public appearances, and questionnaires.

Isaac's analysis compares and contrasts their policy positions on Iraq, Iran, nuclear weapons, missile defense, and other relevant foreign policy issues. Read his full analysis here.

It's Not Hillary, It's the Policy Stupid!
Dec 01, 2008

Lt. Gen. Robert Gard, the chairman of our sister organization just published an op-ed co-authored with former congressional Rep. Tom Andrews. With all the media attention that the Hillary as Secretary of State has been receiving, Tom and Gen. Gard take us back to what really matters, the policy.

It's Not Hillary, It's the Policy Stupid!

by Lt. Gen. Robert G. Gard Jr. (USA, Ret.) and Tom Andrews

The media obsession over who's in and who's out of consideration for the Obama Cabinet brings the admonition on the famous "War Room" wall of Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign to mind: "It's the Economy Stupid!" Those of us eagerly awaiting relief from the debacle called the Bush administration should avoid getting swept up the in DC parlor game of who is getting what position in the new administration and focus instead on the fundamental changes we need the Obama administration to start making. In short, "It's the Policy Stupid!"

President Obama will begin his presidency with enormous good will from the American people and great hope from the world at large. It is imperative that he seize this opportunity by quickly moving his campaign pledges into bold and decisive action despite the opposition that surely awaits him.