When we watched the US bombs explode over northern Afghanistan ten years ago on the little television in our conference room at Global Exchange in San Francisco we never dreamed that we’d still be at war in that country today.  Since October 6, 2001 there have been over 1800 US deaths (mostly soldiers) and many thousands of Afghan deaths, the war costs $6.7 billion a month and has left a wake of destruction in the country, instead of the schools, democracy, security and women’s freedoms we promised upon invasion. We’ve reached the point where it doesn’t make sense for our own economy or for the Afghan peace and security to stay the course. Ten years, with little gain for anyone is too long.

Early in 2002, Global Exchange, in response to the popular justification that we were at war “for the women of Afghanistan”, decided to see reality on the ground for ourselves. We convened a women’s delegation that included women who had left Afghanistan in the 1980s when the Soviet Union invaded, US women interested in women’s development and micro-finance, a concert producer and celebrity, all committed to spread the word after we got back. I represented Global Exchange.

Then there were no commercial flights into the country, so we got on a small UN plane loaded with equipment and UN officers sitting on small fold down seats and we held our breath as we descended between the steep mountains to the infamous runway in Kabul where Marla Ruzicka, our trip leader and friend on the ground, met us.  After landing, our bags were searched by candle light in a dark hangar before we emerged into the cold, high mountain air under the bluest sky and the brightest sun I’ve ever seen.

TT Nhu, a journalist from the Bay Area remembers:

“Our trip, organized on the fly, coalesced very quickly. As the plane descended into Kabul Airport, Katrin Fakiri and I held hands.  She was crying.  She had not expected to see Kabul in her lifetime.  ‘All I want to do is to do something for my country,’ she said.  This is how her amazing journey in micro-finance began.

The city was just waking up from a long nightmare and the streets were empty. Only ancient yellow taxis and big white SUVS belonging to NGOs roamed the streets. Occasional women hurried along the streets filled with idling men.  Some soldiers in the U.S. Embassy across the way from the guest house unfurled a banner  “We Love You Bianca!” to welcome our most famous traveler, Bianca Jagger.”

Our visit was intense. We went to schools and orphanages, learned about mine sweeping operations in the Somali Plain, and Marla had us demonstrating outside the US embassy to insist that innocent victims of US bombing be compensated. We talked to refugees, teachers, nurses and journalists. We attended the International Women’s Day Celebrations under guard by US and European troops (all women that day) and the microfinance team even went to visit the completely empty Central Bank.

The trip, like so many of our Reality Tours,  established deep relationships across cultural and geographic distances for lasting change.  Three of the participants went on to establish Parwaz, the first Afghan-run microfinance organization, lending sums to women starting up small business enterprises. Katrin saw the needs of these women and ran it so successfully that she was asked to head all microfinance in Afghanistan, a role she still plays to the best of her ability in spite of the overwhelming obstacles of corruption and growing lack of security.

All of us were profoundly moved by the trip to Afghanistan, and the people we met, that we dedicated our lives to working for peace in different ways. Marla continued to advocate for justice for innocent victims of war and lost her life in Iraq doing that, Bianca founded the Bianca Jagger Human Rights Foundation and others have used their privilege and influence to tell the amazing story of a people’s resilience, of girl’s underground education during the Taliban days, of the meaning of juicy pomegranates and dusty orchards and to paint a human picture of the country’s trials and tribulations. It is those personal connections made in the heart and the mind that make life-long activists for peace.

We continue to coordinate annual trips to Afghanistan for International Women’s Day and our wonderful trip leader now is Najibullah Sediqi. He sends this message:

“I would like to say thank you very much to you and to your colleagues (all Global Exchange) for sending Reality Tours to war affected countries, to see the realities with your own eyes and …. to share the information with your people.  Connecting people to people is very necessary …. to know each other better, each other’s culture and lives.. to avoid misunderstanding.. this will help the peace too. I appreciate the first visit of Global Exchange delegation to Afghanistan and for their hard work bringing us closer to each other, as we all are human and need this kind of relationship.”

This October 2011 and on this challenging anniversary, you can do something for the people of Afghanistan:

Tell the Senate: It’s long past time to stop the wars and bring our troops home.

The Senate plans to mark the tenth anniversary of the war by appropriating another $118 Billion more for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in 2012. Outraged people are marking it by occupying Freedom Plaza in Washington DC.  Join them if you can!

Call your Senators today: 1-877-429-0678.  (toll-free number kindly provided by FCNL)

Tell them to vote NO on the FY 2012 “Defense” Appropriations Bill.
The “Defense” budget (total $630 billion) is too expensive – bring our war dollars home.

Update to blog post (10/4): We want to let you know about some events happening in Washington, D.C. leading up to the action mentioned in this post. Some of the sessions require an RSVP because a minimum number of people is required, so RSVP as soon as possible.

1) Nonviolence Trainings on nonviolence, legal observation and peacekeeping by experienced trainers.
2) A music event at Bus Boys and Poets on Wednesday Night hosted by Code Pink, featuring Andy Shallal, Medea Benjamin, Kevin Zeese, Margaret Flowers, music by Dave Rovics and others.

You can find information about these and other events on the calendar here.

—

“Call to Action for 10 Year Anniversary of Invasion of Afghanistan”

It’s been 10 years since the invasion of Afghanistan, an important time for us to take stock and get active. The war and neoliberal economic pressures have destroyed our foreign policy credibility and weakened our domestic budget. Now we are feeling the effects of this, so now is the time to join together and take action. Below are details about an urgent call to action happening next week.

People have been taking stands across the US this year –resistance to anti-union legislation in Wisconsin this spring, tar sands Keystone XL pipeline protests in August which resulted in over 1200 arrests for acts of civil disobedience, and thousands of people on the anniversary of 9/11 joined together for peace and an end to war.

So what’s next? A call to action on October 6th to Stop the Machine: Create a New World.

The October2011.org Team describes:

We are calling on people of conscience and courage—all who seek peace, economic justice, human rights and a healthy environment—to join together in Washington, D.C., beginning on Oct. 6, 2011, in nonviolent resistance similar to the Arab Spring and the Midwest awakening.

A concert, rally and protest will kick off a powerful and sustained nonviolent resistance to the corporate criminals that dominate our government.

We are the ones who can create a new and just world. Our issues are connected. We are connected. Join us in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 6, 2011, to Stop the Machine.

Here are 3 key things to know about this event:
1.      It is going to be huge and historic.  Thousands have already signed up to join us in Freedom Plaza in Washington, DC. You are going to want to tell everyone you know you were part of this.  You are going to want your children and grandchildren to know you helped ignite the change to a new world.
2.      This event is critically important.  Our nation is at a crossroads.  We need to get off the wrong path and on to the right one.  We need to end the dominance of government by the political and economic elite when it is obvious that the people can do a better job.  We need to create an economic system where we participate, a government that responds to the people and a nation that puts the people’s needs before human greed.
3.      It begins soon.  In less than two weeks thousands will gather to begin a multi-day encampment that builds on the revolts being seen in Egypt, Tunisia, Span and Greece, as well as Madison, WI and Wall Street, NY.  The time is right for this moment in history.  The beginning of a massive movement to create a country that reaches its’ ideals, that becomes the more perfect union that then nation has always sought to be.

People will look back at this event and see it as the beginning – the turning point when the people demanded that the country move from militarism and war to diplomacy and cooperation; from funneling money to the wealthiest 1% to sharing the nation’s prosperity among each of us; and from environmental degradation to the planet’s renewal. It is our responsibility to get this Nation on the right track. You need to be part of this. Join in at the Freedom Plaza starting on October 6.

TAKE ACTION
Learn more about the 15 core issues.
Take the pledge and sign up to attend here.

THE PLEDGE
“I pledge that if any U.S. troops, contractors, or mercenaries remain in Afghanistan on Thursday, October 6, 2011, as that occupation goes into its 11th year, I will commit to being in Freedom Plaza http://october2011.org/freedomplaza in Washington, D.C., with others on that day or the days immediately following, for as long as I can, with the intention of making it our Tahrir Square, Cairo, our Madison, Wisconsin, where we will NONVIOLENTLY resist the corporate machine by occupying Freedom Plaza to demand that America’s resources be invested in human needs and environmental protection instead of war and exploitation. We can do this together. We will be the beginning.” Once again, here’s a link to take the pledge.

The following article also appears on Common Dreams. 

Former Vice President Dick Cheney was given a multi-million contract to write a book about his political career. According to Cheney’s media hype, the book, called In My Time, will have “heads exploding all over Washington.” The Darth Vader of the Bush administration offers no apologies and feels no remorse. But peace activists around the country are stealthily gearing up to visit bookstores, grab a stack of books, and deposit them where they belong—the Crime Section.

Here are ten of Cheney’s many offenses to inspire you to move Cheney’s book, and to insert these bookmarks explaining why the author of In My Time should be “doin’ time.”

1.   Cheney lied; Iraqis and U.S. soldiers died. As Vice President, Cheney lied about (nonexistent) weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein’s (nonexistent) ties to the 9/11 attack as a way to justify a war with a country that never attacked us. Thanks to Cheney and company, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and over 4,000 American soldiers perished in a war that should never have been fought.

2.   Committing War Crimes in Iraq. During the course of the Iraq war, the Bush/Cheney administration violated the Geneva Conventions by targeting civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances, and using illegal weapons, including white phosphorous, depleted uranium, and a new type of napalm.

3.   War profiteering. U.S. taxpayers shelled out about three trillion dollars for the Bush/Cheney wars in Iraq and Afghanistan—a major factor in our nation’s present economic meltdown. But Cheney and his cronies at Halliburton made out like bandits, getting billions in contracts for everything from feeding troops in Iraq to constructing the U.S. Embassy in Afghanistan to building the infamous Guantanamo prison. Cheney was CEO of Halliburton from 1995-2000, leaving for the VP position with a $20 million retirement package, plus millions in stock options and deferred salary. Before the Iraq War began, Halliburton was 19th on the U.S. Army’s list of top contractors; with Cheney’s help, by 2003 it was number one—increasing the value of Cheney’s stocks by over 3,000%.

4. Violating basic rights. Cheney shares responsibility for holding thousands of prisoners without charges and without the fundamental right to the writ of habeas corpus, and for keeping prisoners hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross.  He sanctioned kidnapping people and simply rendering them to secret overseas prisons. His authorization of the arbitrary detention of Americans, legal residents, and non-Americans–without due process, without charges, and without access to counsel–was in gross violation of U.S. and international law. A fan of indefinite detention in Guantanamo, Cheney writes in his book that he has been “happy to note” that President Obama failed to honor his pledge to close the Guantánamo prison.

5. Advocating torture. Cheney was a prime mover behind the Bush administration’s decision to violate the Geneva Conventions and the U.N. Convention Against Torture and to break with decades of past practice by the U.S. military by supporting “enhanced interrogation techniques.” This led to hundreds of documented cases in Iraq and Afghanistan of abuse, torture and homicide. The torture included the practice known as “water-boarding,” a form of simulated drowning. After World War II, Japanese soldiers were tried and convicted of war crimes in US courts for water-boarding. The sanctioning of abuses from the top trickled down, as the whole world saw in the photos from Abu Ghraib, becoming a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda and sullying the reputation of our nation.

6. Trying to prolong the Afghan war. Not content with the damage he caused as VP, Cheney continues to encourage more grist for the war machine. In his book he criticizes President Obama’s decision to withdraw, by September 2012, the 33,000 additional troops Obama sent to Afghanistan in 2009. He has also cautioned Obama not to pull out all the troops from Afghanistan at the planned date of 2014. “I don’t think we need to run for the exits,” he told Fox News Sunday” host Chris Wallace.

7. Abusing executive privilege: Cheney used executive privilege to refuse to comply with over a dozen Congressional subpoenas related to improper firing of Federal attorneys, torture, election violations and exposing—for political retribution–the identity of Valerie Plame, a covert CIA operative working on sensitive WMD proliferation.

8. Spying on us. Cheney was the mastermind behind the National Security Agency’s warrantless wiretapping program that spied on thousands, perhaps millions of American citizens on American soil. This massive government interference with personal phone calls and emails was in violation of FISA (theForeign Intelligence Surveillance Act), the Federal Telecommunications Act, and 4th Amendment of the Constitution.

9. Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran. When Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, the company skirted the law against investing in Iran by using a phony offshore subsidiary. Once VP, however, Cheney advocated bombing Iran. “I was probably a bigger advocate of military action than any of my colleagues,” Cheney said in response to questions about whether the Bush administration should have launched a pre-emptive attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities prior to handing over the White House to Barack Obama. Cheney thinks Obama is too soft on Iran, and has said that the only way for diplomacy with Iran to work is if Obama alsothreatens to bomb the country. Negotiations are “bound to fail unless we are perceived as very credible” in threatening military action against Iran, he said. It seems that wars with Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, plus drone attacks in Pakistan and Yemen, are not enough to satisfy Cheney’s war addiction. But wait, there’s more….

10. Favored bombing Syria—and North Korea—instead of negotiating. One of the key anecdotes in Cheney’s memoir is his recollection of a session with the National Security Council in 2007, when he advised Bush to bomb a suspected Syrian nuclear reactor site. “After I finished,” he writes, “the president asked, ‘Does anyone here agree with the vice president?’ Not a single hand went up around the room.” Luckily, Cheney’s advice was dismissed in favor of a diplomatic approach (although the Israelis bombed the site in September 2007). As for North Korea, in his book, Cheney calls former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice naive for trying to forge a nuclear weapons agreement with North Korea.

Enough? Since President Obama is not interested in holding Cheney accountable, the least we can do is show our disgust by dumping his books in the Crime section and inserting this bookmark. And if you happen to be lucky and catch one of Cheney’s book signings, bring along a pair of handcuffs.

Medea Benjamin is cofounder of the human rights group Global Exchange and the peace group CODEPINK.

The following post was written by Global Exchange Co-founder Medea Benjamin and originally appeared on The Huffington Post:

—

The 38 deaths in Saturday’s helicopter crash in Afghanistan include 31 Americans, making this the deadliest day for U.S. forces since the war began. The tragic loss of American lives might be worth the sacrifice if it was making America safer, or if our presence was significantly improving the well-being of the Afghan people. But neither of these is true.

Our presence in Afghanistan is not making us safer because Afghanistan is not a threat to us. This was clearly acknowledged by a senior Obama administration official in a background briefing to reporters on June 21.“United States hasn’t seen a terrorist threat from Afghanistan, for the past seven or eight years,” he said. He noted that Al Qaeda had moved on to Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.

Meanwhile, thanks to President Obama’s surge, over 100,000 U.S. troops are bogged down chasing an indigenous Afghan ragtag army, the Taliban, which has no interest in attacking anyone inside the United States. The only reason they are attacking U.S. soldiers is that U.S. soldiers are occupying their country.

Even if there were a reason for U.S. forces to fight the Taliban, our presence only strengthens them. The Obama Administration has been trying to convince the American people that the surge in U.S. troops has been successful in weakening the Taliban. But a recent string of high-profile attacks that the Taliban have taken credit for belie that rosy assessment. The killing of Kandahar’s police chief, Kandahar’s mayor, President Karzai’s brother Ahmed Wali Karzai, a top presidential aide, and the deadly attack on the seemingly secure Intercontinental Hotel in Kabul—and now this helicopter downing–show that the Taliban are far from defeated.

The truth is that the presence of foreign forces gives the Taliban its raison d’etre. Every time NATO forces kill Afghan citizens, the Taliban benefits. And that happens all the time. In fact, the very day the helicopter was shot down, August 2, NATO troops attacked a house in southern Helmand province and “inadvertently killed eight members of a family, including women and children.” You can bet that the some of their relatives will soon be placing IEDs along the road to blow up U.S. tanks.

The Taliban have learned to downplay their unpopular fundamentalist ideology and take advantage of this popular discontent. Look at the case of In Wardak province, where the helicopter crashed. The Taliban had disappeared for several years, fleeing to Pakistan from 2002-2005. But capitalizing on the local anger about civilian casualties caused by NATO forces and anger at corrupt politicians, the Taliban returned and rebuilt, maintaining a stronghold in a province that borders Kabul.

The U.S. presence supports the Taliban in even more direct ways. Millions of dollars from U.S. contracts to Afghan trucking companies that supply U.S. troops have gone to bribe Taliban fighters not to attack the convoys. So U.S. taxdollars pay our enemies, who use these resources to buy weapons to kill our soldiers.

As for the well-being of the Afghans, our billions in development aid has done little to lift poor Afghans out of poverty. An in-depth report on Afghanistan just released by the International Crisis Group found that after 10 years of massive security, development and humanitarian assistance, “the international community has failed to achieve a politically stable and economically viable Afghanistan. Despite billions of dollars in aid, state institutions remain fragile and unable to provide good governance, deliver basic services to the majority of the population or guarantee human security.” The report found that development funds distort the local economy and often contribute to instability.

So our presence has created financial and political conditions that strengthen the Taliban and leave Afghans in poverty. Our troops are being sacrificed to prop up a corrupt Afghan government that is not supported by its people. Precious resources are wasted on failed development projects while our own schools, roads and bridges are crumbling from lack of funds. This senseless waste of U.S. lives and resources, which is directly contributing to the catastrophic U.S. financial decline, is just what Osama bin Laden wanted to see happen.

The Obama administration is planning to withdraw 10,000 troops from Afghanistan by the end of this year, leaving a huge force of 90,000 troops still fighting this unwinnable war. The deaths of these 31 Americans, and the more than 2,600 U.S. soldiers who have died in this quagmire, should raise a renewed debate about our presence in Afghanistan.

Let’s tell President Obama that the best way to pay tribute to the soldiers who have died—and to address our financial crisis–is to bring the rest of the troops home.

—

Medea Benjamin is cofounder of Global Exchange and CODEPINK. For info about upcoming protest of 10 years of Afghan war, see October2011.org.

This article also appears on Common Dreams & AlterNet.

By Medea Benjamin and Charles Davis.

After campaigning as the candidate of change, the man awarded a Nobel Prize for peace has given the world nothing but more war. Yet despite Barack Obama’s continuation – nay, escalation – of the worst aspects of George W. Bush’s foreign policy, including his very own illegal war in Libya, you’d be hard-pressed to find the large-scale protests and outrage from the liberal establishment that characterized his predecessor’s reign (and only seems to pop up when a Republican’s the one dropping the bombs).

That’s not for a lack of things to protest. Since taking office, Obama has doubled the number of troops in Afghanistan and now looks set to break his pledge to begin a significant withdrawal in July. He has unilaterally committed the nation to an unapologetically illegal war in Libya and in two years has authorized more drone strikes in Pakistan than his predecessor authorized in two terms, with one in three of their victims reportedly civilians. In Yemen, he has targeted a U.S. citizen for assassination and approved a cluster bomb strike that, according to Amnesty International, killed 35 innocent women and children.

But these war crimes, which ought to shock the consciences of the president’s liberal supporters, haven’t spurred the sort of popular protest we witnessed under Bush the Lesser. At a recent congressional hearing on the bloated war budget, a handful of CODEPINK activists were the sole dissenters. Thousands poured into the streets to cheer Osama bin Laden’s death, but no Americans were in the streets decrying the drone attack that killed dozens of Pakistani civilians weeks earlier.

While die-hard grassroots peace activists continue to bravely protest U.S. militarism, with 52 people arrested last month protesting outside a nuclear weapons factory in Kansas City – if they’d been Tea Partiers protesting Obamacare, you may have heard of them – there’s no denying that the peace movement has taken a beating.

The question is, why? Part of the reason is the financial crisis. It’s hard to protest war when the bank’s foreclosing on your house. And it’s hard to find money for a trip to Washington, DC, when, like 14 million Americans, you’re unemployed.

War has also become normal – routine, boring – to many Americans, with U.S. troops stationed for nearly ten years in Afghanistan and eight in Iraq. And after the first volley of smart bombs, wars are barely covered by the media, eclipsed by the latest scandal involving a politician’s privates. Beyond apathy, many who once took to the street may now no longer see the value of protest in the face of the enormous power of the military-industrial complex.

But a recent study suggests that a major reason why the antiwar movement has withered even as the warfare state has grown is simply that the party in charge has changed.

After surveying 5,398 demonstrators between 2007 to 2009, the University of Michigan’s Michael T. Heaney and Indiana University’s Fabio Rojas found that prior to Obama’s election, up to 54 percent of antiwar protesters were self-described Democrats. After his inauguration, that number fell to less than a quarter.

“Democratic activists left the antiwar movement as the Democratic Party achieved electoral success, if not policy success,” the researchers write. That is, Democrats successfully “exploit[ed] the antiwar movement for their own electoral success,” and many of their supporters took that as a victory in and of itself.

Instead of continuing the hard work of organizing and protesting unjust wars, too many people took the election of politicians with “D”s after their name as their own Mission Accomplished. Instead of continuing direct action, too many were content voting for “their” team and calling it a day, never mind the policies those they voted into office continued once in power.

It’s worth recounting just how Democrats have rewarded their antiwar supporters. In 2006, riding public anger over the war in Iraq to take back control of the House for the first time in a dozen years, Democrats had a mandate for change – and then turned around and consistently funded the war they claimed to oppose. The most congressional Democrats have done is offer a resolution requesting a “plan” for ending the war in Afghanistan, all the while dutifully approving the funds to fight it.

We know how Obama has governed after likewise cynically riding antiwar sentiment into the White House.

Once casting themselves as brave opponents of the warfare state, many Democrats have rejected their rhetorical support for peace just as thoroughly as their once-upon-a-time opposition to the Patriot Act. When Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich offered a measure condemning Obama’s illegal, undeclared war in Libya and demanding a withdrawal of all U.S. forces within two weeks, he was joined by more Republicans than he was his fellow Democrats. Nancy Pelosi, channeling every right-winger during the Bush years, even claimed lawmakers who opposed the president’s unilateral war policy would send the “wrong message” to the U.S.’s NATO allies. The former speaker of the House is seemingly more concerned about hurt feelings than dead civilians, taxpayer money or the Constitution.

Even the recent House vote to block the president from spending funds “in contravention of the War Powers Act” – meaning Libya – received more votes from Republicans than Democrats. Who says elections don’t change anything?

Democratic voters who genuinely believe in peace should know that ending the U.S.’s addiction to war requires more than spending a few minutes in the ballot box. The only change voting has brought in recent years is the party approving the money for war and the name of the president requesting it.

If voting isn’t changing things – and it’s not – it’s time we considered changing our tactics.

Obama, after all, whose campaign cast him as the most peaceful of the major party candidates, has committed acts of war in no less than half-a-dozen countries (that we know about): Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Yemen and Somalia. Under Obama, the U.S. aids and abets Israeli war crimes to the tune of more than $3 billion a year in military aid, all while vigorously fighting international attempts to hold accountable those responsible for the slaughter of civilians in Gaza. And Guantanamo Bay? Still open.

But Obama has done more than disappoint the antiwar movement: he’s actively attacked it, using the power of the state to harass and intimidate peace activists, 23 of whom have had their homes and offices raided by the FBI. The pretense? That a group of pacifists may have provided “material support” to terrorists, a charge so slippery and ill-defined that the ACLU warns it can include a conversation on the need to embrace non-violence.

More war and the threat of prosecution to intimidate those who oppose these wars – or expose them, in the case of alleged WikiLeaks whistle-blower Bradley Manning: that’s what Obama’s election has wrought. Was his rise to power really such a progressive victory?

Occasional rhetorical flourishes aside, Democrats and Republicans reliably back the killing of poor people on the other side of the globe in the name of “regional stability” and perceived U.S. national (read: corporate) interests. As they’ve made painstakingly clear over the years, neither is a friend of peace, especially when one of their own is making war.

If change is to come to U.S. foreign policy, it won’t be thanks to any politician, but to direct action and organizing of the sort that won African Americans and other minorities their civil rights. We already have public opinion on our side — 2/3 of Americans consistently say they want to get out of the wars. We now have to make the voice of the silent majority heard.

Rather than devoting time, money and energy into electing politicians who will betray the values of peace, we should organize and energize a new peace movement that values direct action over access to power; real and lasting peace over disingenuous politicians. Instead of waiting – and waiting – for politicians to buck party and power, we should make alliances with labor activists, environmentalists and advocates for the poor who have some pretty good ideas on protest and civil disobedience – and on what to do with the $2 billion the U.S. government wastes every week on the Afghan war alone. If we build a strong enough movement, politicians will figure out which way the wind is blowing.

The following post is cross-posted on Common Dreams.

By Medea Benjamin and Charles Davis

Given that President Obama daily authorizes the firing of hellfire missiles and the dropping of cluster bombs in places such as Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen, it was awful odd seeing him wax eloquent this week about the “moral force of non-violence” in places like Egypt and Tunisia. But there he was, the commander-in-chief of the largest empire in history, praising the power of peaceful protest in countries with repressive leaders backed by his own administration.

Were we unfamiliar with his actual policies – more than doubling the troops in Afghanistan, dramatically escalating a deadly drone war in Pakistan and unilaterally bombing for peace in Libya – it might have been inspiring to hear a major head of state reject violence as a means to political ends. Instead, we almost choked on the hypocrisy.

Cast beforehand as a major address on the Middle East, what President Obama offered with his speech on Thursday was nothing more than a reprisal of his 2009 address in Cairo: a lot of rhetoric about U.S. support for peace and freedom in the region contradicted by the actual – and bipartisan – U.S. policy over the past half-century of supporting ruthless authoritarian regimes. Yet even for all his talk of human rights and how he “will not tolerate aggression across borders” – yes, a U.S. president said this – Obama didn’t even feign concern about Saudi Arabia’s repressive regime invading neighboring Bahrain to put down a pro-democracy movement there. In fact, the words “Saudi Arabia” were never uttered.

It was that kind of speech: scathing condemnations of human rights abuses by the U.S.’s Official Enemies in places like Iran and Syria and muted criticism – if any – of the gross violations of human decency carried out by its dictatorial friends in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Yemen.

Obama predictably glossed over the reality of U.S. policy and, in an audacious attempt to rewrite history, portrayed his administration as being supportive of the fall of tyrannical governments across the Middle East and North Africa, ludicrously suggesting he had supported regime change in Hosni Mubarak’s Egypt – a claim betrayed by the $1.3 billion a year in military aid his administration provided to Mubarak’s regime right up until the moment he resigned. The president’s revisionism might fool a few cable news personalities – what wouldn’t – but it won’t fool Egyptians, less than one in five of whom even want the closer relationship with the U.S. that Obama offered in his speech, at least one that involves more military aid and neoliberal reforms imposed by the International Monetary Fund.

And Obama’s remarks shouldn’t fool their primary audience: American voters.

Contrary to the rhetoric of Obama’s speech, if the U.S. has sided with Middle Eastern publics against their brutal dictators it has not been because of their dictators’ brutality, which in the case of Mubarak was seen as a plus in the age of the war on terror. Nor has that support for the oppressed come in the form of – hold your laughter – non-violence. Rhetoric of change aside, how best to use the liberating power of bullets and bombs continues to be the guiding principle of U.S. policy in the Middle East.

And Obama certainly isn’t apologizing for that. In his speech called the war in Iraq, which conservatively speaking has killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, “costly and difficult” – and, grotesquely, “well intended” – but that was as much an acknowledgement as he was willing to make of the deadly failure of U.S. policy toward the region in recent decades. Indeed, Obama argued it was not a failure of policy but merely a failure of rhetoric, a “failure to speak to the broader aspirations of ordinary people” that had prompted the “suspicion” the U.S. pursues its own interests at the expense of those living in the countries it invades or whose dictators it supports.

But the truth of these suspicions was evident when Obama explained why the U.S.’s supposed national interests were at stake in the Middle East, claiming that “our own future is bound to this region by the forces of economics and security.” Notice which came first (and just so you know: both have to do with oil).

The president also didn’t deviate from his policy of “unshakable” support for Israeli militarism, typified by his administration’s efforts to safeguard the Jewish state from accountability for its war crimes in Gaza – crimes that left some 1,400 Palestinians dead – and his determination to hand an already wealthy nation more than $3 billion a year in military aid, even as it flaunts the “peace process” and colonizes ever more Palestinian land.

Though typical of his first two years in office, Obama’s duplicity was more evident – and his rhetoric more sloppy – than usual. Mere seconds after proclaiming that “every state has the right to self-defense,” Obama called for the creation of a “sovereign, non-militarized state” for Palestinians, meaning one incapable of defending itself. And while he spoke of Israeli parents fearing their children “could get blown up on a bus or by rockets fired at their homes,” he did not deign to mention the much for frequent and deadly Israeli violence perpetrated against Palestinians, saying only that the latter suffered “the humiliation of occupation,” as if Palestinian parents feel embarrassment, not pain, at the loss of child killed by an Israeli strike.

Obama’s remarks on the killing of Osama bin Laden were likewise delivered with a complete lack of self-awareness. Describing the latter as a “mass murderer,” Obama – who since taking office has the blood of hundreds of Afghan and Pakistani civilians on his hands – said bin Laden’s philosophy of using bloodshed to achieve desired political changes had been discredited “through the moral force of non-violence” that has swept the region. Peaceful protests, Obama proclaimed, had “achieved more change in six months than terrorists have accomplished in decades” – and more than decades of U.S. wars and occupations, he might have added.

Talking up the virtues of peaceful protest is great and all, but the pretty words lack their power coming from the commander-in-chief of the most lethal and widely deployed military force in world history. Mr. Obama, if you want talk about the evils of violence, great – but follow your own advice.

—–
Medea Benjamin (medea@globalexchange.org) is cofounder of Global Exchange (www.globalexchange.org) and CODEPINK: Women for Peace (www.codepinkalert.org).

Charles Davis (http://charliedavis.blogspot.com) is an independent journalist who has covered Congress for public radio and the international news wire Inter Press Service.

The following originally appeared on our sister organization CODEPINK’s website and was written by CODEPINK/Global Exchange Co-founder Medea Benjamin:

—

The death of Osama Bin Laden should be a time of profound reflection. With his death, we remember and mourn all the lives lost on September 11. We remember and mourn all the lives lost in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan. We remember and mourn the death of our soldiers. And we say, “Enough.”

There was never any justification for invading Iraq. Our troops must come home now—all of them.

With Al-Qaeda driven out of Afghanistan and Osama Bin Laden dead, there is no justification for continuing the war in Afghanistan. Our soldiers—and contractors—must leave, now, opening the path for Afghan government and the Taliban to negotiate a ceasefire.

Our drone attacks in Pakistan are only fueling the violence and creating more Osama Bin Ladens. We must stop these barbaric attacks, now!

You can read more about my take on the death of Osama Bin Laden in the Huffington Post article Osama Bin Laden Is Dead; Let the Peace Begin.

Our military, and our federal budget, must focus on rebuilding at home, not making new enemies abroad. Let us give meaning to the death of Osama Bin Laden by calling on President Obama to put an end to the violence.

TAKE ACTION!

Make your voice heard. Visit the CODEPINK website to send a letter or make a phone call to President Obama asking him to “Let the Peace Begin.”

By Medea Benjamin and Charles Davis

Death and taxes are the only certainties in life. And these days, they go hand in hand.

While our fiscal woes have led Congress to slash food aid this year to the world’s poor — rest assured, fellow Americans — the U.S. government will keep using your tax dollars to kill them. For while John Boehner and Barack Obama might disagree on some things, there’s one area they can agree on: War. And the need for more of it.

“Money for bombs, not bread,” might be a good bipartisan slogan.

And when it comes to dropping its citizens’ tax dollars on flying killer robots and foreign military occupations, no country comes close to the United States. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), the cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq — more than $150 billion in direct spending this year alone — exceeds what China, the U.S.’s closest military rival, spends altogether on its armed forces. Overall, the Obama administration will spend more than $700 billion next year on the military.

That’s more than George W. Bush ever spent. And figures released this week by SIPRI show that since Obama took office, the U.S. has been almost entirely responsible for the global rise in military spending: $19.6 billion of $20.6 billion since 2008. What a difference a Nobel laureate makes.

And the actual figure spent on war – the fighting of it, the preparation for it and the consequences of it – is substantially higher than acknowledged, with spending on military programs often buried in places like the Department of Energy, which oversees the U.S.’s massive stash of nuclear weapons. Counting those hidden costs, including veterans benefits, aid to foreign militaries and interest payments on defense-related debt, economist Robert Higgs estimates the U.S. government spends more than $1 trillion a year on empire.

But you wouldn’t grasp the enormity of the U.S.’s commitment to militarism if you listened to its politicians. Remarking last week on the deal he struck that slashes $38.5 billion in federal spending, President Obama said the agreement “between Democrats and Republicans, on behalf of all Americans, is on a budget that invests in our future while making the largest annual spending cut in our history.”

Sounds lovely. But the reality, not the rhetoric, is that Obama and his allies in Congress aren’t cutting Pentagon waste and investing in rainbows and unicorns – unless, perhaps, there’s some way to harness their power for weapons. Rather, they’re investing in war at the cost of community health centers, local development projects and Medicare. In Washington, you see, money for killing people is safe from the cutting board; it’s the money that actually helps them that’s not.

“We will all need to make sacrifices,” Obama reiterated in his speech on the national debt this week — just not the Pentagon, which is guaranteed more money every year under this president’s watch. “I will never accept cuts that compromise our ability to defend our homeland or America’s interests around the world,” Obama said. As for cuts to domestic spending, including to “programs that I care deeply about”? Well, that’s a different story.

credit: war resisters league

And if you’re a U.S. taxpayer, forget welfare programs: bombing and occupying countries that pose no credible threat to America — Obama has so far authorized attacks in at least six countries since taking office, including Yemen, Somalia and the latest and greatest $8.3-million-a-day war for peace, Libya — is your single greatest expense as a citizen. Indeed, over half of federal discretionary spending — what Americans will pay for with their incomes taxes on April 18 — goes to the armed forces and their legion of private contractors.

Now imagine what that money could do if it went to something more productive. Imagine if, instead of paying for bombs to be dropped around the world, those tax dollars went toward fulfilling actual human needs — toward creating friends, not enemies.

For the cost of just one minute of war we could build 16 new schools in Afghanistan. For 60 seconds of peace, we could fund 36 elementary school teachers here at home. This year’s funding for the endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — $172.4 billion — could provide health care for 88.4 million poor American children.

The obvious wastefulness of war has even some politicians beginning to talk of investing in America instead of arms manufacturers. Congressmen Barney Frank and Ron Paul recently convened a task force that produced a detailed report with specific recommendations for cutting Pentagon spending by approximately $1 trillion over the next decade.

But lawmakers — all of whom have military contractors in their districts — rarely do anything good of their own volition. Rather, they have to be forced into action by those they purport to represent. At the local level, communities are doing just that by pressuring mayors to sign a resolution calling on Congress to redirect military spending to domestic priorities. A similar resolution, spearheaded by Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, will be considered at the June meeting of the U.S. Conference of Mayors.

Pressuring politicians is not the only route to affect change, of course. The War Resisters League, for instance, suggests principled civil disobedience: refusing to pay taxes to fund unjust wars. That route is fraught with risk, including the prospect of jail time, but it’s one that would have made great Americans like Martin Luther King and Henry David Thoreau proud.

Not everyone can accept those risks, especially for those with families to worry about. But another option, living simply and reducing one’s taxable income, has the added benefit of not just starving the warfare state, but curbing one’s contribution to mindless consumerism and global climate change. And forgoing a new iPhone is a small price to pay to save a life.

Be it refusing to pay for war or speaking out against the injustice of bombing and killing poor people on the other side of the globe, the important thing is to recognize one’s role in the war machine and commit to doing something about it — to quit complacently accepting the world as it is and to work toward making it what it should be. The greatest enabler of the military-industrial complex isn’t really taxes: it’s apathy.
—-
Medea Benjamin (medea@globalexchange.org) is cofounder of Global Exchange (www.globalexchange.org) and CODEPINK: Women for Peace (www.codepinkalert.org).

Charles Davis (http://charliedavis.blogspot.com) is an independent journalist who has covered Congress for public radio and Inter Press Service.

UPDATE, March 24, 2011: After mounting pressure and support from activists and members of Congress, the US government has granted Malalai Joya a visa to enter the United States, according to Afghan Women’s Mission. The center’s co-director, Sonali Kolhatkar was pleased to hear the news,

“We are ecstatic and gratified that the government finally did the right thing and allowed Malalai Joya into the country so that Americans could hear what she has to say about the reality of the war, and particularly how Afghan women are faring under the occupation.”

Malalai Joya is set to continue on with the speaking tour she was scheduled to do, including a visit to San Francisco in the Global Exchange sponsored event, “Ending the War in Afghanistan: An Evening with Malalai Joya.”

Read the Afghan Women’s Mission press release and find out Malalai Joya’s complete Spring Tour schedule.

——

Ever since her speech in 2003, where she stood in front of an assembly of fundamentalist leaders calling them anti-women “warlords” that should be prosecuted for their crimes against humanity, Malalai Joya has been a target of five assassination attempts.

The youngest person to be elected to the Afghan Parliament–a post she won by a landslide–Malalai Joya has been a vocal defender of human rights, has called for the end of  the oppression of women and above all has been an outspoken critic of the US-NATO war in Afghanistan.

It is Malalai’s bravery to speak the truth about the crimes of the warlords, of the religious fundamentalists and of her country’s struggles against foreign occupation that has led to her getting kicked out of Parliament and has forced her into hiding to be shielded from the constant death threats. Despite these numerous attempts to silence her, Joya refuses to remain silent.

A few days ago, Malalai Joya was set to arrive in the United States for a three-week speaking engagement to promote her book, A Woman Among Warlords, when she was faced with another attempt at being silenced. However, this time it was not the Afghan Parliament trying to keep her quiet, it was the US government when they denied her a travel visa due to the fact that she is “unemployed” and “living underground.” Reasons that make no sense, especially since her applications have never before been rejected.

One can only suspect that she was denied a visa due to her clear criticism of the US-NATO war in Afghanistan.  In an e-mail interview with TIME Magazine, Malalai stated,

“[The Afghan government] has probably requested the U.S. to not let me enter… because I am exposing the wrong policies of the U.S. and its puppet regime at the international level.”

This move by the US government has been deemed unacceptable and a violation of rights. According to ACLU’s Carol Rose,

If her criticism of US foreign policy is the reason for her visa denial, then Joya is the latest target of ideological exclusion [which] denies the right of American citizens to hear and engage with prominent thinkers from other countries. In so doing, it violates the rights of free association and speech of Americans who wish to engage in an exchange of ideas with visiting authors, journalists, and scholars.

When our government excludes leaders, journalists, scholars, authors and poets from our shores, it violates the the First Amendment rights of the American people.”

You can take action. A national network of activists have declared today, March 23rd a National Call-in Day to demand Malalai Joya’s Visa.

Call Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the State Department at 202-647-5291 between 9 am to 5 pm Eastern Standard Time. Press “1” and leave a comment stating that you are outraged at Malalai Joya’s exclusion from the U.S. and that you would like the State Department to immediately grant Ms. Joya an emergency appointment and visa at any U.S. Embassy she has applied.

We should not allow the administration to go against its promise to promote a ‘global marketplace of ideas’ nor should Secretary of State Hillary Clinton–a noted advocate for women’s rights–allow for the exclusion of a prominent female voice in the public discourse.

Malalai Joya’s speaking tour was set to begin on the 20th, where she was set to travel to several cities, including a Global Exchange sponsored event on April 9th, to call attention to the on-going war in Afghanistan and demand that foreign troops leave.

Take action today and don’t let the US Silence Malalai Joya.

—–

 

This was post was written by former participant Jennifer Huber shortly after her trip to Kabul, Afghanistan with Reality Tours and originally appeared on http://www.SoloTravelGirl.com

Laughing in Afghanistan
Jennifer Huber
 Sky-blue burqas continue to flow down the dusty streets of Kabul. They’re remnants of the Taliban’s harsh reign and belief women should not be seen.  While Afghan women are no longer required to wear burqas, many prefer wearing the full-body, shapeless cape while in public. Or sadly, their husbands or other male in their life demand they be worn.

Behind the walls of Kabul’s Baghe Zanana (commonly known as the Women’s Garden), I spent an afternoon shopping and meeting with Afghan women. This is one of the few places in Kabul where women of all ages feel comfortable shedding their burqas and being themselves. Mothers watch their children romp in the playground while enjoying a picnic and laughing with friends in a serene, safe setting. Afghan men are not permitted into this sanctuary.

I exchanged smiles with each woman I passed while browsing the little shops run by Afghan women. A woman half wearing a burqa caught my eye. She had lifted it over her head and wore it almost like a cape. Her beautiful, green-brown eyes sparkled and her distinct, hooked nose stopped me. For some reason, I had the feeling she wanted to talk.

“Salaam,” I said, Farsi for “hello.”

Smiling, her curly, dark-haired head nodded and began chattering way. Unfortunately, I was limited in the native tongue, but somehow, we were able to communicate. Finally, I couldn’t resist. I needed to know. Using hand motions, tugging at the burqa and pretending to walk, I did the best I could to mime, “How can you walk and function in that burqa?”

She understood what I had communicated because the next thing I knew, she was proudly strolling down the sidewalk and suddenly stumbled and tumbled to the sidewalk.  At first, I thought she was hurt. She was belly up on the ground, her arms wrapped around her stomach and laughter suddenly rolled out and her giggles were contagious.  Within seconds, she was surrounded by a group of burqa-caped women howling with laughter, too.

Laughing myself, I extended my hand to help her up. As a small token of appreciation and hoping she would remember our brief interaction, I gave her a postcard and pin from my home town. It wasn’t much, but she grasped the items with her henna-stained hands, as if I had given her gold. Head tilted and with a smile, her right hand patted her heart. Under her breath, and in perfect English she whispered, “Thank you.”

Although she wasn’t one of the high profile officials I met and I am just an ordinary citizen of the U.S., our interaction had some impact in building a small pocket peace in the world. We didn’t exchange names, but I will always remember her.  And most importantly, I learned laughter is an international language.