Monday, August 28, 2017

Statement From Veterans For Peace-Afghanistan: More of the Same But Wrapped in Secrecy

Statement From Veterans For Peace-Afghanistan: More of the Same But Wrapped in Secrecy

Afghanistan: More of the Same But Wrapped in Secrecy

This past Monday, Trump addressed the nation about Afghanistan. The president’s speech at its core is more of the same disastrous policies that we have seen for sixteen years, except this administration wants to completely abandon pursuit of a political solution and shroud the war in a cloak of secrecy.  Veterans For Peace, once again, calls for a different direction other than war.  We call for U.S. troops to leave Afghanistan and a robust pursuit of a political solution to end the war.
It is not surprising that Trump began this speech by attempting to rectify his inability to speak out directly against White supremacy.  Instead of speaking unequivocally as president against ideologies of hate and White supremacy, he attempted to wrap himself in patriotism and the blood and sacrifice of fallen soldiers. In doing so, Trump attempted to sidestep his own culpability in the rise of hate and intolerance in the United States. In fact, we see that Trump only knows how to divide and fear-monger. His urging everyone in this country to come together against a common foe is no different than his campaign rhetoric using fear to call for unity against Muslims, immigrants and people of color.  Now he is using fear of people in another country to wage endless war.  We, at Veterans For Peace, have seen this tactic repeatedly.  There is nothing positive to gain by building unity through hatred and fear of another.  Displacing this nation’s collective anger at White supremacy in our midst towards people of other nations fuels dangerous nationalism that has enabled endless war. Further, we see by Trump’s speech the next day in Phoenix that his words of unity here at home are hollow.
Endless war is the plan that Trump laid out Monday.  In this regard, there are few differences in the approach of the prior two administrations. The policy differences that do exist will not change the reality of what is happening in Afghanistan and will continue to ensure more death for U.S. troops and the people of Afghanistan.
Veterans For Peace is alarmed by the policy changes outlined.  Trump indicated that a political settlement with the Taliban will not be sought and that the focus will be on military options.  He also blatantly stated that the U.S. public will not be given a basic outline of plans in Afghanistan.  Both policies are dangerous.  Cloaking the war in Afghanistan in more secrecy, in a time when increased privatization of our armed forces is being considered, diminishes accountability and gives the U.S. public no idea of what we are being asked to commit to war.  Moving away from a pursuit of a political solution and giving commanders on the ground more leeway to use force will more than likely lead to more civilian deaths with little chance of significantly increasing the possibility of the U.S. militarily defeating the Taliban. The two previous administrations put little real effort in a political solution, but complete abandonment can only mean prolonging war and more bloodshed.
Veterans For Peace also condemns the aggressive and needlessly antagonizing language towards Pakistan, especially given our long history of drone warfare in the country that has killed innocent civilians and violated their borders.  Previous administrations have sought a balanced approach to Pakistan and India, two nuclear powers with a fragile relationship. Trump’s highlighting of India’s benefit to the U.S. economically and invitation to be more involved in Afghanistan appears to be favoring India and to punish Pakistan. It is hard to see a positive outcome of framing the U.S. relationship with Pakistan or India in the context of moving closer to one and distancing the U.S. from the other.  
Trump’s speech admitted no culpability in the role of the U.S. in destabilizing the entire region, alternating between blaming Afghanistan and Pakistan. The U.S. military has destroyed countless villages and continues to create an atmosphere of fear and hatred with covert drone operations that kill thousands of innocent people.  It should be clear after sixteen years and the death of tens of thousands of people that no one is a winner in Afghanistan. There is no clear concept of what it means to win there. In fact, it is no longer clear why the U.S. continues to keep troops in Afghanistan after sixteen years of failure.
Veterans For Peace calls for a different direction than more war. We call on Congress to stop funding war and demand a plan for a peaceful solution. We call on the president to immediately begin withdrawal of U.S. troops and take a new direction towards diplomacy and peace. And we call on the people of the U.S. to resist war and demand policies that foster peace and prosperity at home and in Afghanistan.

The Last Refuge of Robert E. Lee?

 




GRAPHIC: Sign here button
 Share this action on Facebook
 Share this action on Twitter
In the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., 100 statues represent 50 states. Two statues have been provided by each state. One of Virginia's is Robert E. Lee.

Please sign this petition to the Virginia legislature and governor:
We implore you to immediately remove the statue of Robert E. Lee from the U.S. Capitol, and to permit local governments in Virginia to take down statues as they see fit.

The Lee statue still stands in Charlottesville because of a court case over a state law that bans taking down war monuments. The same Virginia legislature that needs to change that law is also responsible for keeping a Robert E. Lee statue in the U.S. Capitol or taking it down and replacing it with a statue of another Virginian.

The installation of the Lee statue in the U.S. Capitol in 1909 started a trend of Southern states sending Confederate statues to Washington, D.C. Removing it should launch a new trend of removing the 12 Confederate statues in the Statuary Hall collection -- a collection that includes not a single African American.

Click here to sign a petition that we can deliver to Richmond, Va.

After signing the petition, please use the tools on the next webpage to share it with your friends.

This work is only possible with your financial support. Please chip in $3 now.

-- The RootsAction.org Team

P.S. RootsAction is an independent online force endorsed by Jim Hightower, Barbara Ehrenreich, Cornel West, Daniel Ellsberg, Glenn Greenwald, Naomi Klein, Bill Fletcher Jr., Laura Flanders, former U.S. Senator James Abourezk, Frances Fox Piven, Lila Garrett, Phil Donahue, Sonali Kolhatkar, and many others.

Background:
Washington Post: How statues of Robert E. Lee and other Confederates got into the U.S. Capitol
Washington Post: The U.S. Capitol has at least three times as many statues of Confederate figures as it does of black people

 
Donate buttonFacebook buttonTwitter button

empowered by Salsa

From Socialist Alternative- NO Confederate Plaque - NO Death Threats & Intimidation! Solidarity Call-In Campaign

Friends,
In Ohio, Movement for the 99%, Socialist Alternative, and other community members are in a struggle against the Right and the local ruling elite over removing a plaque commemorating Robert E. Lee.

In this struggle, one of our community organizers has been targeted by the Right with death threats - the Sons and Daughters of the Confederacy, potentially members of a local militia, and the Three Percenters. We have Facebook video footage of them reading our organizer’s home address out loud, making threats of having his grandparents’ address, and bragging about attending KKK rallies and meetings.

Our community organizer has also been intimidated by the Vice Mayor of the City of Franklin. The Vice Mayor posted our organizer’s name and phone number on Facebook and appealed for people to call him in retaliation for leading the effort to remove the plaque. (See below for full background).

The Right is mobilized to protect the plaque and is emboldened by Trump’s incendiary bigotry and his pardoning of arch-racist Sheriff Joe Arpaio to threaten the Left.  
The far right has shown up to City Council and other government meetings in force, with confederate flags, wearing “Make America Great Again” hats, and some of them carrying guns. They have also physically and verbally confronted our organizers and community members opposed to the plaque.  We are asking for working people and youth across the country to help us with this struggle against the Right and their supporters in government.

We are launching a National Solidarity Call-In Campaign, starting on Monday, August 28 and ending on Friday, September 1 during business hours (9am - 5pm, Eastern Standard Time), that primarily targets the Mayor of the City of Franklin. (See script and contact information below). To track our progress, we are asking that everyone
 indicate on the Facebook Event Page that they called into or emailed the Mayor.

This solidarity campaign is vital for protecting this community organizer - but also for pushing back the intimidation tactics of the far right - as well as settling the removal of the Confederate plaque.  Across the country, the Right is recoiling from the overwhelming opposition to their bigotry and violence from virtually every corner of society. Democracy Now! recently reported that 64 so-called “free speech” rallies hosted by the Right-wing forces have been canceled over the past days.

We scored an initial victory with the plaque being temporarily removed from public view, but the fight is not over.  When the city originally removed the plaque, the local ruling class was reacting in fear due to the outpouring of anger at Trump and the events in Charlottesville. The simple call-in campaign initiated by our organizer made city officials quickly crumble and resort to deplorable intimidation tactics. Since then, the mobilization by the Right has stiffened their spines.
 This past Thursday, government officials committed to finding a new place for the plaque.

We are asking everyone to call the Mayor of the City of Franklin (see script and contact information below) beginning on Monday, August 28 and ending on Friday, September 1, during business hours (9am - 5pm, Eastern Standard Time). We are also asking for you to contribute $25, $50, or $100 for legal expenses, an emergency fund to protect our organizers against physical threat, and to help support a rally in the City of Franklin.


Who to call:

Primary Focus of Call-In Campaign:
Denny Centers - Mayor
937-746-9921 (office)
513-460-4100 (cell)

dcenters@franklinohio.org

If you have time we strongly encourage you to call or text the other members of the City Council:

Carl Bray - Vice Mayor
513-465-7772 (cell)

cbray@franklinohio.org

TEXT: NO Confederate Plaque! NO Death Threats & Intimidation! Posting organizer name & phone is unacceptable!  Bray Resign as Vice Mayor! & say NO threats & Plaque!

Brent Centers - City Council
937-620-1872 (cell)

bcenters@franklinohio.org

Michael Aldridge
937-704-0452 (home)

maldridge@franklinohio.org

Deborah Flouts
937-241-6562 (cell)

dfouts@franklinohio.org

Paul Ruppert
937-746-2237 (home)

rruppert@franklinohio.org

Todd Hall
937-746-7949 (home)

thall@franklinohio.org


Send text message to Mayor (or City Council member):

NO Confederate Plaque! NO Death Threats & Intimidation! VM Bray posting organizer name & phone is unacceptable! Remove Bray as VM & say NO threats & NO plaque!


Script:

“Hi, my name is [First name] and I oppose the City of Franklin returning the Robert E. Lee plaque for public display.

I’m also calling to express my outrage at the conduct of Vice Mayor Carl Bray. His intimidation tactics of publicly sharing the name and phone number of the community organizer leading the effort to remove the plaque and asking people to call him in retaliation is absolutely unacceptable behavior for an elected official, especially after the violence and murder committed by white nationalists in Charlottesville.

I call on you, the Mayor of the City of Franklin (or I call on you, a City Council member), to:
  • Make a public commitment to never put the Robert E. Lee  plaque back on public or private land and to
  • I call on you and the City Council to remove Carl Bray as Vice Mayor and to select a new Vice Mayor. (the council can do this). I call on you and the City Council to condemn Bray for using his office and authority to intimidate.
Finally, I call on you:
  • to issue a statement in solidarity with those who stood against the racist and violent white nationalist demonstrations in Charlottesville and condemn local threats of right wing extremism and violence directed at any resident of Franklin or the surrounding areas.
Will you do this?”


Background

On 8/16, an organizer with Movement for the 99% and Socialist Alternative initiated a call-in campaign to have a plaque dedicated to Robert E. Lee removed from the neighboring city of Franklin.

Responding to the call, people from across Ohio, primarily people associated with the group Indivisible, bombarded the Vice Mayor of Franklin’s office line with the demand to remove the plaque. Under pressure, the City of Franklin removed it in the middle of the night!

However, in retaliation, the Vice Mayor of Franklin put our organizer’s phone number on Facebook and encouraged people to call him. In short order, he started getting death threats.

On Monday 8/21 the City of Franklin City Council met to discuss the fate of the plaque. The Sons and Daughters of the Confederacy mobilized their base, with 50+ right wingers showing up with confederate flags and some with guns. We have a video of some of them bragging about attending KKK rallies and meetings. They also talk about having our organizer’s home address and his grandparents address.

The organizer and a few other supporters went to the city council meeting to make the case for keeping the plaque removed. The chamber was packed to capacity with the Right. During public comment, our organizer lambasted the plaque and called out the Vice Mayor for his intimidation tactics and the resulting threats made on his life. The Vice Mayor responded by having the organizer removed by the police.

Outside of the meeting, the Right threatened our organizer. We have Facebook video footage of them sharing his home address out loud. Despite being overwhelmed and threatened by the Right, the police threatened to arrest our organizer no less than 4 times, for simply standing across the street!

On Thursday, August 24, the Township of Franklin met and again the Right was fully mobilized. The Township Trustees took a step toward returning the plaque to public display, but have not definitively said when and where the plaque will go.

In Solidarity,

Bryan
Organizer
Contribute
Share
Tweet
Forward

Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list

NYT: Trump Forges Ahead on Costly Nuclear Overhaul

2 attachments

Trump Forges Ahead on Costly Nuclear Overhaul

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/08/28/us/28dc-nukes1/27dc-nukes1-master768.jpg
An unarmed Minuteman missile at a former launch facility near Wall, S.D. The Air Force has announced new contracts to begin replacing the aging Minuteman fleet. Credit Jim Lo Scalzo/European Pressphoto Agency
During his speech last week about Afghanistan, President Trump slipped in a line that had little to do with fighting the Taliban: “Vast amounts” are being spent on “our nuclear arsenal and missile defense,” he said, as the administration builds up the military.
The president is doing exactly that. Last week, the Air Force announced major new contracts for an overhaul of the American nuclear force: $1.8 billion for initial development of a highly stealthy nuclear cruise missile, and nearly $700 million to begin replacing the 40-year-old Minuteman missiles in silos across the United States.
While both programs were developed during the Obama years, the Trump administration has seized on them, with only passing nods to the debate about whether either is necessary or wise. They are the first steps in a broader remaking of the nuclear arsenal — and the bombers, submarines and missiles that deliver the weapons — that the government estimated during Mr. Obama’s tenure would ultimately cost $1 trillion or more.
Even as his administration nurtured the programs, Mr. Obama argued that by making nuclear weapons safer and more reliable, their numbers could be reduced, setting the world on a path to one day eliminating them. Some of Mr. Obama’s national security aides, believing that Hillary Clinton would win the presidential election, expected deep cutbacks in the $1 trillion plan.
Mr. Trump has not spoken of any such reduction, in the number of weapons or the scope of the overhaul, and his warning to North Korea a few weeks ago that he would meet any challenge with “fire and fury”suggested that he may not subscribe to the view of most past presidents that the United States would never use such weapons in a first strike.
“We’re at a dead end for arms control,” said Gary Samore, who was a top nuclear adviser to Mr. Obama.
While Mr. Trump is moving full speed ahead on the nuclear overhaul — even before a review of American nuclear strategy, due at the end of the year, is completed — critics are warning of the risk of a new arms race and billions of dollars squandered.
The critics of the cruise missile, led by a former defense secretary, William J. Perry, have argued that the new weapon will be so accurate and so stealthy that it will be destabilizing, forcing the Russians and the Chinese to accelerate their own programs. And the rebuilding of the ground-based missile fleet essentially commits the United States to keeping the most vulnerable leg of its “nuclear triad” — a mix of submarine-launched, bomber-launched and ground-launched weapons. Some arms control experts have argued that the ground force should be eliminated.
Photo
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/08/27/us/27dc-nukes2/27dc-nukes2-master675.jpg
A new nuclear cruise missile would extend the life of America’s aging fleet of B-2 bombers. Credit Frederic J. Brown/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Defense Secretary Jim Mattis told Congress in June that he was open to reconsidering the need for both systems. But in remarks to sailors in Washington State almost three weeks ago, he hinted at where a nuclear review was going to come out.
“I think we’re going to keep all three legs of the deterrent,” he told the sailors.
The contracts, and Mr. Mattis’s hints about the ultimate nuclear strategy, suggest that Mr. Obama’s agreement in 2010 to spend $80 billion to “modernize” the nuclear arsenal — the price he paid for getting the Senate to ratify the New Start arms control agreement with Russia — will have paved the way for expansions of the nuclear arsenal under Mr. Trump.
“It’s been clear for years now that the Russians are only willing to reduce numbers if we put limits on missile defense, and with the North Korean threat, we can’t do that,” said Mr. Samore, who is now at Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. “I think we are pretty much doomed to modernize the triad.”
At issue in the debate over the cruise missile and the rebuilding of the land-based fleet is an argument over nuclear deterrence — the kind of debate that gripped American national security experts in the 1950s and ’60s, and again during the Reagan era.
Cruise missiles are low-flying weapons with stubby wings. Dropped from a bomber, they hug the ground to avoid enemy radars and air defenses. Their computerized brains compare internal maps of the terrain with what their sensors report.
The Air Force’s issuing last week of the contract for the advanced nuclear-tipped missile — to Lockheed Martin and Raytheon Missile Systems — starts a 12-year effort to replace an older model. The updated weapon is to eventually fly on a yet-undeveloped nuclear bomber.
The plan is to produce 1,000 of the new missiles, which are stealthier and more precise than the ones they will replace, and to place revitalized nuclear warheads on half of them. The other half would be kept for flight tests and for spares. The total cost of the program is estimated to be $25 billion.
“This weapon will modernize the air-based leg of the nuclear triad,” the Air Force secretary, Heather Wilson, said in a statement. “Deterrence works if our adversaries know that we can hold at risk things they value. This weapon will enhance our ability to do so.”
The most vivid argument in favor of the new weapon came in testimony to the Senate from Franklin C. Miller, a longtime Pentagon official who helped design President George W. Bush’s nuclear strategy and is a consultant at the Pentagon under Mr. Mattis. The new weapon, he said last summer, would extend the life of America’s aging fleet of B-52 and B-2 bombers, as Russian and Chinese “air defenses evolve to a point where” the planes are “are unable to penetrate to their targets.”
Critics argue that the cruise missile’s high precision and reduced impact on nearby civilians could tempt a future president to contemplate “limited nuclear war.” Worse, they say, is that adversaries might overreact to the launching of the cruise missiles because they come in nuclear as well as nonnuclear varieties.
Mr. Miller dismisses that fear, saying the new weapon is no more destabilizing than the one it replaces.
Some former members of the Obama administration are among the most prominent critics of the weapon, even though Mr. Obama’s Pentagon pressed for it. Andrew C. Weber, who was an assistant defense secretary and the director of the Nuclear Weapons Council, an interagency body that oversees the nation’s arsenal, argued that the weapon was unneeded, unaffordable and provocative.
He said it was “shocking” that the Trump administration was signing contracts to build these weapons before it completed its own strategic review on nuclear arms. And he called the new cruise missile “a destabilizing system designed for nuclear war fighting,” rather than for deterrence.
The other contracts the Pentagon announced last week are for replacements for the 400 aging Minuteman intercontinental ballistic missiles housed in underground silos. The winners of $677 million in contracts — Boeing and Northrop Grumman — will develop plans for a replacement force.
During Mr. Obama’s second term, the ground-based force came under withering criticism over the training of its crews — who work long, boring hours underground — and the decrepit state of the silos and weapons. Some of the systems still used eight-inch floppy disks. Internal Pentagon reports expressed worries about the vulnerability of the ground-based systems to cyberattack.
Mr. Perry, who was defense secretary under President Bill Clinton, has argued that the United States can safely phase out its land-based force, calling the missiles a costly relic of the Cold War.
But the Trump administration appears determined to hold on to the ground-based system, and to invest heavily in it. The cost of replacing the Minuteman missiles and remaking the command-and-control system is estimated at roughly $100 billion.
A version of this article appears in print on August 28, 2017, on Page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: U.S. to Overhaul Nuclear Arsenal Despite the Risk. ||

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MAPA Nuclear Disarmament" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to mapa-nuclear-disarmament+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to mapa-nuclear-disarmament@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/mapa-nuclear-disarmament/10bb01d31ffd%24ece872c0%24c6b95840%24%40texnology.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.