Dec 17, 2008
What’s on Obama’s plate?
Posted By livableworld
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?
Dec 02, 2008
The end is in sight
Posted By Travis
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.
Dec 01, 2008
There’s not a dime’s worth of difference
Posted By Ashley
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.
Dec 01, 2008
It's Not Hillary, It's the Policy Stupid!
Posted By Ashley
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.
Nov 26, 2008
CLW supports U.S.-Iraq security agreement
Posted By Travis
This morning Council for a Livable World sent out a press release on the U.S.-Iraq status of forces agreement (known as a 'SOFA'). Text is below.
Washington, D.C. -- Council for a Livable World, a leading anti-Iraq war organization, announced its support today for the status of forces agreement recently signed by the United States and Iraq.
Iraqi and American negotiators have been working on the pact for over a year. The Iraqi parliament is expected to vote on the agreement on Wednesday. To pass, the agreement needs to get 138 votes out of 275 Iraqi lawmakers and also must be ratified by the Iraqi presidential council.
“Given where we find ourselves today, we see the agreement as the best way for the United States to leave Iraq promptly and responsibly,” said John Isaacs, executive director of Council for a Livable World. "The agreement reflects the views held by the majority of Iraqis and Americans that it is time for U.S. combat forces to start getting out of Iraq.”
Isaacs is available for comment today (Wednesday, November 26) from Washington, DC until 3PM.
The agreement mandates that “all U.S. combat forces” withdraw from urban areas in Iraq by June 30, 2009, and that “all U.S. forces” withdraw from the country by December 31, 2011. The agreement upholds Iraq’s “sovereign right” to demand the departure of U.S. forces anytime and recognizes the United States’ “sovereign right” to remove its forces earlier than the end of 2011.
For more information about the agreement, see the in depth analysis online.
The agreement also bars permanent American bases in Iraq, prohibits the United States from using Iraqi territory to launch attacks against other nations, and bars any residual U.S. forces in Iraq beyond the end of 2011.
“The signing of this agreement, along with the election of a new president who ran on a platform to end the war in Iraq, suggests that anti-Iraq war efforts have not been in vain,” added Isaacs. “Primary credit of course goes to the Iraqis. They drove a hard bargain.”
As with any complicated accord, not every part of the status of forces agreement is perfect. Downsides include both the Bush administration's refusal to send the agreement to Congress for approval and various ambiguities in the text that could lead to future disputes.
“Question marks remain in the agreement concerning freedom of action for U.S. soldiers, vague security commitments, and protection of Iraqi assets,” said Travis Sharp, a defense analyst at Council for a Livable World who studied the agreement. “Thankfully the text provides President-elect Barack Obama with flexibility to amend or cancel the agreement if he needs to.”
Nov 26, 2008
Galbraith: SOFA is 'stunning and humiliating' for Bush
Posted By Travis
Cross posted from Iraq Insider
Peter Galbraith, a top Iraq expert and former ambassador to Croatia, issued a statement today on the status of forces agreement (SOFA) recently signed by the United States and Iraq.
Galbraith serves as senior diplomatic fellow at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, the Council's sister organization.
He said:
“The agreement represents a stunning and humiliating reversal of course by the Bush administration, which had vehemently opposed any timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. For the last two years, President Bush has pretended that Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki is a democrat and an American ally. In fact, Maliki is a sectarian Shiite politician who heads a government dominated by pro-Iranian religious parties. The U.S. presence now no longer serves the interests of Iraq’s ruling Shiite religious parties or their Iranian allies, so we are now being asked to leave. While U.S. withdrawal is made easier by the fact that both the Iraqi government and the new U.S. administration want American troops out, the confluence of events leading to the agreement underscores the folly of President Bush’s lost Iraq war."
Of course, we timed this statement to come out this morning because the Iraqi parliament was supposed to vote on the SOFA today. Now, however, it appears that not only has the vote been postponed until tomorrow, but the Shiites and Kurds also have acquiesced to a Sunni demand to hold a national referendum on the SOFA next year. Even if the SOFA is approved by parliament tomorrow, it could still be rescinded if it is rejected in the referendum next year.
I don't know if this is democracy, but the lack of any clear schedule and the multiple layers of caveats does remind me of the United States Senate. Now, if only we could get these guys to brawl the way the Iraqis have recently.
Nov 25, 2008
How comfortable is the U.S.-Iraq SOFA?
Posted By Travis
Yesterday we posted a new analysis of the U.S.-Iraq status of forces agreement on the website of the Council's sister organization.
The takeaway, if you don't feel like reading the whole thing (it's kinda long), is that a research and advocacy organization (aka us) that has opposed everything President Bush has done in Iraq has decided to support this agreement. We see it as the best way for the United States to promptly and responsibly leave Iraq.
The agreement represents a stunning reversal in policy for the Bush administration, which until now rejected any timeline for troop withdrawals. The Bush administration has fallen in line behind the policy of President-elect Barack Obama, who has proposed removing U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months.
It remains to be seen whether or not the Iraqi parliament actually will hold a vote on the accord before the end of the week, when many Iraqi lawmakers are scheduled to take a religious holiday. To pass, the SOFA needs to get 138 votes out of 275 Iraqi lawmakers and also must be ratified by the Iraqi presidential council.
Below are our topline conclusions. For a fuller examination of the agreement text, including some of its shortcomings, see the full analysis.
CONCLUSIONS IN BRIEF
* The agreement represents a stunning reversal in policy for the Bush administration, which until now rejected any timeline for troop withdrawals.
* The Bush administration has fallen in line behind the policy of President-elect Barack Obama, who has proposed removing U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months.
* While opponents of any long-term accord feared that President Bush was trying to tie the hands of the next president, the agreement eliminates that concern by giving President-elect Obama flexibility to change or cancel the agreement.
* The accord reinforces the views held by the majority of Iraqis and Americans that it is time for U.S. military forces to leave Iraq.
* The agreement bars permanent American bases in Iraq, prohibits the United States from using Iraqi territory to launch attacks against other nations, and bars any residual U.S. forces in Iraq beyond the end of 2011.
* Downsides include both the Bush administration's refusal to send the agreement to Congress for approval and various ambiguities in the text that could lead to future disputes.
* Overall, the agreement marks the beginning of the end for major U.S. military operations in Iraq, with the pace and specifics to be worked out once the Obama administration takes office.
Nov 06, 2008
Obama's victory and Iraq
Posted By Travis
Cross posted from Iraq Insider
Marc Lynch pointed out yesterday that of the 10% of voters who thought Iraq was the most important issue in Tuesday's presidential election, 59% supported Obama and 39% supported McCain.
Now, this statistic may be somewhat distorted because McCain, Bush, and Republicans do their darnedest to conflate terrorism and Iraq. It does suggest, however, that people who care the most about Iraq have more confidence in Obama than in McCain to handle the war properly.
This is something we can build on, even if people don't care about Iraq too much right now given the disastrous state of the economy. Iraq will be back in the headlines sooner or later.
Oct 24, 2008
More News on Veterans with PTSD out of, and Alarmingly in, War
Posted By Ashley
Cross-posted on Daily Kos diary
ABC World News reported last night that more and more soldiers are being returned to Iraq for subsequent tours with clear symptoms and often diagnosis of PTSD and on anti-depressant or anti-anxiety medication – another depressing example of the toll that this war has taken on our Armed Forces. We’ve known this for a while, but this report caught my attention.
Unfortunately, if the branches who have taken the biggest brunt of the war, the Army and Marines, don’t recruit more soldiers (unlikely to happen, both branches admit severe recruiting challenges), I predict more and more stories like this to continually surface.
