Center Chairman General Gard Publishes Op-ed on Military Support for Nuclear Agenda
May 20, 2010
Center Chairman General Gard has written an op-ed on the support of military leadership for the President’s nuclear weapons agenda published today by the McClatchy-Tribune news service. The article, GOP critics vs. the Pentagon, appeared in Lexington, Kentucky in the Lexington Herald-Leader
Oh. No. She. Didn’t.
Feb 04, 2010
Contest over, Carly Fiorina wins. Not in the election, of course, but in the contest that matters most – for the best campaign video of all time. Check out Fiorina’s latest ad against Republican primary opponent and ex-Rep. Tom Campbell. It’s even compelled fellow primary competitor Chuck DeVore to create his own website, “Society for the Eradication of Demon Sheep from our Political Discourse.”
Get ready for fields of grazing sheep, falling sheep, demon-eyed sheep, and – oh yes – even a man-sheep.
Simply amazing.
A "Slam Dunk" for war with Iran?
Nov 24, 2009
In an editorial last week, the Washington Times sent a clear message to world leaders on Iran, “If you want peace, prepare for war.”
We need you help to send a message that the Washington Times could not be further from the mark.
Saber-rattling and fear tactics are counter-productive. Threats of military action bolster the positions of hardliners in Iran’s government and weaken the position of anti-nuclear moderates in the region.
They also undermine diplomatic hopes for a negotiated settlement.
The Times goes so far as to state that, “Compared to the 2002 case for war against Saddam Hussein, [the case for using force in Iran] is a slam-dunk.”
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.”
No Nukes in Stimulus Bill!
Feb 12, 2009
Extra Extra! An update on something we wrote about earlier in the week (see below). We're thrilled to announce that in the final economic stimulus bill that was just released by a Congressional committee, funding for the nuclear weapons infrastructure was removed!
The Council's supporters and other activists across the country flooded congressional offices with requests to cut this money. The Council also sent letters and pressured Congress to cut these funds. Many Senators and Representatives did not even know this funding existed before we (and our supporters) alerted them to it.
As Joe Cirincione rightfully said, " chalk one up for the good guys."
Pentagon Budget Faces Uncertain Future
Feb 03, 2009
If you follow national security you know that the first Monday in February is the big, big day when the President typically submits his defense budget requests to Congress. And Monday night is the long, long night when people like Travis Sharp, our resident defense analyst, fight the paper monster to deliver us a cute, little brief we can all actually read and understand. (Ed: Travis does not endorse use of the word “cute” or “little” to describe his brief).
But this year Sharp has so far been spared the heroic duty, as the Obama administration delayed submission of its defense spending request to take an “exhaustive line-by-line” look at the federal budget. So, to kill some time he prepared a new report that documents the skyrocketing recent growth in defense spending, catalogs calls for budget cuts by key policymakers, looks at the complicated procedure the fiscal year 2010 budget is set to follow, and provides background information on four weapons systems to watch in 2009.
Speculators expect the new President to file for a $527 billion request for fiscal year 2010, 10 percent less than a $584 billion fantasy budget suggested by the Joint Chiefs of Staff under the Bush administration. Critics of defense thrift are already up in arms. “It doesn't make fiscal sense to cut the defense budget when everyone is scrambling for measures to stimulate the economy,” Robert Kagan argued in today’s Washington Post. On Iran, he added that “the already-slim chances of success will grow slimmer if Iranian leaders believe that the United States may soon begin pulling back from their part of the world.”
In reality, these arguments make little sense. First, military spending may provide some economic stimulus, but there are other types of spending – such as on infrastructure – that would better jumpstart the U.S. economy. Second, Obama has shown no sign of withdrawing from Iran’s neighborhood. Quite the opposite, in fact – Obama has pledged unprecedented engagement in the Middle East. Of course, it helps to remember that the United States is on track to spend 99 times more than Iran on defense in 2009.
Statements by administration officials reveal that the President is actually intent on making defense budget choices that will boost the U.S. ability to wage stabilization and reconstruction missions such as those we face in Iraq and Afghanistan. These are the missions that the United States is likely to face in the Middle East and around the world in the years ahead. And, just in case, the U.S. military’s unmatched supremacy in naval and air forces will provide insurance against any potential big-state challengers.
So the ax instead may fall this year on expensive toys such as the Air Force’s F-22 Raptor, which hasn’t performed a single mission in either Iraq or Afghanistan, and the Navy’s DDG-1000 destroyer, a vessel originally designed to support land-based troops but that now is more appropriate for blue-water open naval warfare.
Other candidates for resizing are the Army’s Future Combat Systems and the missile defense system, which has yielded mixed results in various operational tests. During the campaign, then-candidate Obama promised to “responsibly deploy missile defenses that would protect us and our allies,” but “only when the system works.”
CLW supports U.S.-Iraq security agreement
Nov 26, 2008
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.”
Galbraith: SOFA is 'stunning and humiliating' for Bush
Nov 26, 2008
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.
Update on Franken Race
Nov 20, 2008
-----------------------
UPDATE: Huffington Post reports that a recent political study shows that if unrecorded ballots are counted, Al Franken is highly likely to win. -------------------------------
We've been following two still-undecided Senate races closely (we've endorsed the challengers in both races, and our supporters have raised thousands for them): Jim Martin in Georgia (challenging Republican incumbent Sen. Saxby Chambliss) and Al Franken in Minnesota (challenging Rebublican incumbent Sen. Norm Coleman). Martin's race is headed for a run-off ending December 2, while Franken's race is likely headed to the courts as the state does a full re-count of all ballots. Currently, Norm Coleman is up by a mere 206 votes, and many predict that the recount will prove more ballots cast for Franken. With a race so close and a chance that Franken could indeed prove the winner, the former comedian is headed to Washington, D.C. to prepare for a possible win.
According to Minnesota's Start Tribune, Al Franken will meet this week with Senate Democrat leaders to fully brief them on the recount and the process and to discuss the upcoming legislative agenda. "If he should win this election, it would be irresponsible for him not to get ready to take office," said Franken spokeswoman Colleen Murray. "Minnesota deserves a senator who is ready to take office on Day One."
European Missile Defense is a Loser
Nov 10, 2008
Katie Mounts and I published this article through MinutemanMedia.org a few weeks ago. Enjoy!
European Missile Defense is a Loser
By Katie Mounts and Travis Sharp
October 15, 2008
The Bush administration has tried for years to build support for a long-range missile defense system in Europe. White House officials claim that the system will protect America’s allies from an Iranian missile attack. Unfortunately, the proposed system is plagued with budgetary, technical, and political problems, and actually poses serious risks to American security.
The Pentagon organization responsible for missile defense, the Missile Defense Agency, estimates the European system will cost $4 billion over the next five years. There is reason to suspect that this estimate is grossly underestimated, however, due to the Agency’s method of building weapons.
This method is known as “spiral development,” a process where development and production unfold simultaneously. It is equivalent to Ford or Chevrolet assembling a new car and letting people drive it around town without first completing engineering blueprints or testing the design. This haphazard approach inevitably results in multiple changes during production. Each time the Pentagon goes back to the drawing board, it costs American taxpayers millions of dollars.
