The PJRC

The Democracy Journal
Search Site
Get Involved
This form does not yet contain any fields.
    Support the PJRC

    Support the PJRC for continued original analysis on ending the wars, funding domestic priorities and preserving civil liberties.

    Make a contribution to benefit the PJRC now! 

    Conferences & Events

    Tom Hayden speaks in Port Huron, MI, in celebration of the 50th anniversary of the Port Huron Statement.

    Invite Tom Hayden to speak in your town! 

     

     

    Follow Tom

                    

    Contact Us
    This form does not yet contain any fields.
      Friday
      Mar122010

      Congress Votes for Afghan War

      This article originally appeared in The Nation.

      A plain reading of yesterday's vote on the Kucinich war powers resolution is that an overwhelming majority of the House has authorized the Afghanistan war, including a majority of Democrats. The war now has greater legitimacy. The vote was 356-65-9.

      (If Rep. John Conyers had been present, the dissenting bloc would have been 66, including just five Republicans. Few members took the option of abstaining.)

      Strong Kucinich supporters will feel vindicated that their hero took a lonely stand and forced the House to a moment of choice. Critics will note that a dubious war has been legitimized, and that it will be more complicated for those who voted "aye" to reverse course in the months ahead.

      The outcome will make the anti-war forces appear weaker for now than they are, and appearances do matter.

      By contrast in Germany, 100-plus members of the Left Party demonstrated inside the Bundestag last week against expanding the German troop commitment, and were thrown out of the parliament for hours. They too lost the vote, but they made their point to the German people and parliament, drawing a sharp line in German politics.

      As things stand now, most of the same bloc of 65 Congressional dissenters are likely to vote against $33 billion in funding for the recent troop escalation, a measure introduced by Rep. Barbara Lee. That means a two-thirds House majority soon will be voting to fund the escalation. Soon after will come the vote on funding the war for the next year.

      The fact is that peace forces inside and outside of Congress lack sufficient support to terminate war funding.

      Perhaps, therefore, a two-year strategy will receive consideration.

      A majority of Democrats already support HR 2404, the exit strategy resolution being prepared by Rep. Jim McGovern. The measure, which was opposed by the White House, needs updating and amending. If subject to hearings, McGovern's initiative might flesh out what the Obama administration has in mind when planning to "begin" withdrawing by summer 2011. Depending on the formulation, the McGovern measure might win a Democratic majority and even pass the House, a signal to Obama that the Democrats are beginning to pull away.

      A strategy to amend the funding bills might also win much greater Democratic support than a straight yes/no vote. None of the possible amendments has been discussed significantly, but they might include a requirement of all-party peace talks in Kabul, a deadline for US troop withdrawal, and lifting the secrecy around Pakistan, among others. McGovern is collaborating with Sen. Russ Feingold, who tentatively plans to introduce a "flexible timeline for troop reductions" on the Senate side.

      None of this will please the peace movement.

      But neither are Obama and the Democrats likely to avoid a growing quagmire in the next two election cycles, at budget costs reaching trillions of dollars for Iraq and Afghanistan, and thousands of American lives. Twice the American people have been manipulated into sending 250,000 troops (cumulatively) into Iraq and Afghanistan on the pretext of hunting an Al Qaeda which wasn't there. The real hunt is a secret CIA operation for Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders hidden in the wilds of Pakistan. If they simply avoid capture, Obama loses, and the spreading occupation goes on. If bin Ladin is killed (a big if), Obama wins, and the spreading occupation goes on anyway.

      

      PrintView Printer Friendly Version

      EmailEmail Article to Friend

      Reader Comments (1)

      Dear Mr.Hayden, I have followed you since I was young, and have read some of your books, I also have been a liberal all my live. I have decided that the democrats have let us down, and now I'm leaning toward The Green Party and I don't care how long it takes for them to build it. It seems that The Green Party is winning some races, My question is why don't you get on board? I'm not criticizing you but without any leadership in Washington D.C. people are looking in other places . Thats why you are getting this little note from me, you have been involved in politics a long time would you join The Green Party? I have lost interest in the President. Their are democrats inside the party that are leaving because thay are sick of that White House. Let's face facts there is going to be more of the same. Do you still have hope that the President is going to change? Thank You

      March 18, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterMary R Greenberg

      PostPost a New Comment

      Enter your information below to add a new comment.
      Author Email (optional):
      Author URL (optional):
      Post:
       
      All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.