Letter from Congressman Loebsack on Afghanistan February 2010 Dear Constituent, Thank you for contacting me about US operations in Afghanistan. I'm honored to represent you in Congress. Your opinion is very important to me and my priority is to provide Iowa's Second District with the best representation possible. In December 2009, President Obama announced a new strategy for US operations in Afghanistan, including the deployment of 30,000 additional US troops to the country. I have visited Afghanistan four times and have participated in a number of hearings and briefings on our progress in the country over the last several years, including hearings regarding the President's recently announced strategy with Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen, General McChrystal, and Ambassador Eikenberry. Our service members and their families who will be, and who are being, deployed to Afghanistan deserve a thorough, accurate, and ongoing assessment of the President's strategy. They need a well-defined mission, with clearly laid out goals, and an actively followed rubric for measuring progress. I have worked to ensure that our service members, military families, and the American people receive this information by asking the tough questions necessary to ensure they get the answers they need and deserve. As a member of the Military Personnel and Readiness Subcommittees, I remain deeply concerned about the toll multiple deployments are taking on our service members and our ability to respond to emergencies at home as well as other possible contingencies abroad. I do not believe that an open-ended commitment to Afghanistan will enhance our national security, nor do I believe that it is the best use of American resources, especially as Iowa families are tightening their belts here at home. That is why I cosponsored HR 2404 on May 18, 2009, which would require the President to submit a report to Congress detailing a strategy to succeed in Afghanistan and bring our troops home. As the President's strategy is carried out, it must enhance our national security and it must meet achievable and well-defined goals that will effectively deny al Qaeda a safe haven and allow our troops to come home. It must responsibly use America's resources, and include:
Clearly laid out goals, a well-defined mission, and a rubric for measuring progress.
An organized political-military structure that fully utilizes and coordinates our civilian economic, agriculture, political, and development resources with the military mission.
A realistic and up-to-date accounting of the costs.
A well-defined, and closely followed plan to transfer responsibility for Afghan security and stability to the Afghan people, including helping the Afghan government combat corruption and assume responsibility for their country's future.
Ongoing commitments from our NATO allies to support the UN and NATO-backed mission in Afghanistan with additional troops, civilian experts, and resources.
Active coordination with the Pakistani government to further secure and stabilize the region and deny a safe haven to extremists who wish to do us harm.
President Obama's decision to send additional troops into Afghanistan was meant to address the worsening security situation and reverse the momentum of al Qaeda and the Taliban in the region. However, we will not achieve success in Afghanistan and the region through military means alone. I believe that redefining and growing the Afghan economy will be key to stabilizing the country and allowing our troops to come home. Similarly, the Afghanistan government must be supported in its efforts to develop the Afghan National Security Forces so that the Afghan people can provide for their own security. As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I added provisions to the FY 2010 National Defense Authorization Act (HR 2647) to increase inter-agency coordination and assure that the necessary agriculture, anti-corruption, and security training assets and resources are in place to support and enhance the military mission. On behalf of our service members, their families, and the American taxpayers, I will continue to hold this Administration as accountable as I held the Bush Administration. I will carefully monitor the strategy's progress, and I will ensure that, as 3,500 members of the Iowa National Guard prepare to deploy to Afghanistan, they have every resource they need. Please be assured that I will continue to carefully monitor our progress and operation in Afghanistan and will keep your thoughts in mind when considering any legislation concerning operations there. Thank you again for contacting me about this important issue. I encourage you to visit my website at www.loebsack.house.gov and sign up for my e-newsletters to stay informed of the work I'm doing in Congress. I am proud to serve Iowa's Second District, and I am committed to working hard for you.
Iowans Mark the 7th Anniversary of the Iraq Warby Paul Deaton
"We sang 'If I Had a Hammer,' written in
1949 in
support of the progressive movement. We were heartened against society’s
harshness by being together as friends."
A woman started crying as she read the names of people
killed during the first seven years of the Iraq war. Today marks the beginning
of the eighth year of US participation in this military action and it is hard
not to be affected by reading the names of those who died. A bell rang after
each name was read. It is especially disheartening when we realize that in addition
to 43 Iowans, uncounted Iraqi men, women and children lost their lives during the Iraq war.
Today was a day of vigils and demonstrations in many major population centers
in Iowa and the nation. It is up to the living to honor the dead. Before this
war ends, more will die.
As the sun rose in front of us, food service tractor
trailers, beer trucks and refuse haulers plied the streets servicing nearby
bars and restaurants. Buses drove past and some of the drivers honked their
horns in recognition of the vigil. The bank showed the temperature to be 43
degrees, but none of us minded the chilly weather. We sang Pete Seeger and Lee
Hays’ song “If I Had a Hammer,” written in 1949 in
support of the progressive movement. We were heartened against society’s
harshness by being together as friends.
There were about two dozen of us this morning: a better
crowd than normal. We didn’t need the bullhorn. There were signs to hold and
candles to burn. As we were gathering we exchanged greetings and talked about
the future. This one was attending law school, another talked about nuclear
power and another about the cost of the wars. Someone wanted a new yard sign
because the first one had worn out during the course of this interminable war. After
an hour the group broke up and we parted to get on with our lives.
Ed Flaherty, a member of PEACE Iowa and Veterans for Peace,
organized two vigils in Iowa City at the University of Iowa’s Pentacrest. (If
you live in the area, the second one is at 7:00 PM today, March 19). We were pleased
that the Cedar Rapids Gazette sent a reporter to cover the event for both print
and television. A couple of participants gave interviews while the rest of us
stood as backdrop for the camera. If we weren’t standing our vigil, there may
not have been press coverage of the anniversary of the Iraq war at all. Many of
us thanked the reporter for coming and supporting us. When the government won’t
listen, we need every friend we can get.
~Paul
Deaton is a native Iowan living in rural Johnson County and weekend
editor of Blog for Iowa. He is also a member of Iowa Physicians for
Social Responsibility and Veterans for Peace.E-mail Paul
Deaton
"This all sounds great! However; some conservatives
already
have their scheming wheels in motion."
Iowans who follow nuclear disarmament issues are hoping that
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton resolves what remaining issues exist between
Russia and the United States while she is in Russia today. The Strategic
Arms Reduction Treaty (START) could then be finalized and signed by the
parties this spring, and perhaps as early as this fall, ratified by the United
States Senate. Hope springs eternal in foreign affairs and among those who
follow them. The previous START treaty expired on December 5, 2009.
The benefit of a new START treaty is that the anticipated
reductions in the number of nuclear warheads and delivery systems specified by
the treaty would help prevent nuclear terrorism and make the United States (and
the rest of the world) more secure. With fewer strategic weapons being deployed,
there is less chance of nuclear materials being stolen. In addition, the new
START agreement will help maintain a healthy nuclear relationship with Russia.
Increased verification procedures and improved data sharing would enable a
relationship of trust to exist between the two countries.
This all sounds great! However; some conservatives already
have their scheming wheels in motion. A moderate Republican senator was
recently told by Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) “don’t say anything about the Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) until the two of us talk.” It is well known that Senator
Kyl seeks to attach conditions regarding CTBT ratification to the expected senate
ratification of START. It is also well-known that the Republican senators follow
Senator Kyl’s lead on nuclear issues.
Former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton said of
the START negotiations, “Mr. Obama was going too far. ‘The number they are
proposing, for delivery vehicles, is shockingly low.’” Bolton has been a
drumbeat of negativity towards President Obama’s nuclear disarmament
initiative. The only thing “shocking” is that anyone continues to listen to
Bolton.
During the debate on health care, we discovered the reality
of 21st Century Senate politics: partisan gridlock permeates
everything in Washington. This includes START, a treaty that has broad,
bipartisan support, would enhance national security and would reduce nuclear
weapons between the two parties that own the largest number of them. Why should
the senior senator from Iowa be beholden to someone like Senator Kyl, who can
only be called an extremist?
If what is suggested about Senator Chuck Grassley is true,
that he is beholden to Senator Kyl on START, the seniority he built during his
senate career is of little value to Iowans. To the extent Senator Grassley has
joined the Republican phalanx,
the less effective he will be for Iowans on important issues.
Let’s hope President Obama and Secretary Clinton conclude
the negotiations on START this week and that both Iowa senators vote for
ratification when the treaty is debated by the Senate.
~Paul
Deaton is a native Iowan living in rural Johnson County and weekend
editor of Blog for Iowa. He is also a member of Iowa Physicians for
Social Responsibility and Veterans for Peace.E-mail Paul
Deaton
To read more on this topic, try one of these articles:
Milestones on the Road to Nuclear Disarmament by President Barack Obama "In recognition of the fact that President Obama is consistently, diligently working to improve the national security posture of the United States, Blog for Iowa will publish major addresses by the administration concerning its policy towards nuclear disarmament. Our intent is to be a voice to get the message out to Iowans, something the corporate media seems uninterested in."
Statement by President Obama on the 40th Anniversary of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty
Forty years ago today, in the midst of a Cold War, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) entered into force, becoming the cornerstone of the world’s efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. Today, the threat of global nuclear war has passed, but the danger of nuclear proliferation endures, making the basic bargain of the NPT more important than ever: nations with nuclear weapons will move toward disarmament, nations without nuclear weapons will forsake them, and all nations have an “inalienable right” to peaceful nuclear energy.
Each of these three pillars - disarmament, nonproliferation and peaceful uses - are central to the vision that I outlined in Prague of stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and seeking a world without them.
To continue reading President Obama's press release, click here.
To read President Obama's speech on April 5, 2009 in Prague, Czech Republic, click here.
~Paul
Deaton is a native Iowan living in rural Johnson County and weekend
editor of Blog for Iowa. He is also a member of Iowa Physicians for
Social Responsibility and Veterans for Peace.E-mail Paul Deaton
Dennis Kucinich on Afghanistan Thursday, Dennis Kucinich introduced a concurrent resolution in the U.S. House of Representatives calling for a vote on the war in Afghanistan. Watch the Video Here:
~Paul
Deaton is a native Iowan living in rural Johnson County and weekend
editor of Blog for Iowa. He is also a member of Iowa Physicians for
Social Responsibility and Veterans for Peace.E-mail Paul Deaton
"If we become
distracted by the noise in the corporate media relating to the regional
conflicts between Iran and Israel, we could fall short in our progress."
A student group in Eastern Iowa asked me to talk about
nuclear disarmament in the context of Iran and Israel this week. When the
United States and Russia own most of the nuclear weapons in the world, the
topic seemed to be a curious choice. Israel has been somewhat opaque about its
nuclear program and while it has signed, but not ratified, the Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), it is not a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Iran has signed and ratified the NPT and like Israel has signed, but not
ratified, the CTBT. The invitation came shortly after the corporate media
coverage of Iran’s recent development of uranium enrichment near the holy city
of Qom, so I understood that the corporate media once again influences what
Iowans are talking about in our community.
The reason Iran is in the news is reasonably straightforward.
As signatory of the NPT, Iran has the right to the peaceful use of nuclear
technology. The trouble is that in 2003, the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) determined
that Iran had not been forthcoming about its uranium enrichment program, as
required by the NPT. The IAEA conducted an investigation and their Board of
Governors reported Iran's noncompliance with the NPT to the United Nations
Security Council. The Security Council demanded that Iran suspend its
enrichment programs. The Council imposed sanctions after Iran refused to do so.
When the uranium enrichment facility in Qom was made public in 2009, this
heightened awareness of Iran’s apparent belligerence precipitated the
current discussions between the parties about further sanctions and/or
diplomacy. The corporate media latched on to an easy news story.
Why is Israel part of what Iowans want to hear? This too is
pretty straightforward. Iran seeks hegemony in the region where Israel pursues
its right to exist. Google Trends
showed an uptick in news stories about Iran after the awareness of the
enrichment facility in Qom, and this resonated against the common thread of
potential threats to Israel.
While the Iran-Israel nuclear discussion is important, if
the United States fails to do its part to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons
by negotiating a New START agreement with Russia and by ratifying the CTBT,
regional conflicts like the one between Iran and Israel can be expected to
worsen.
Whether the president’s nuclear disarmament policy of working
towards “a world without nuclear weapons” will succeed remains to be seen. The
pro-nuclear weapons camp is lined up against the president. For every positive thing
the administration accomplishes, hawkish talking points immediately and
vigorously emerge in the corporate media. Popular Public Television talk show host John McLaughlin
has declared the president’s policy of “a world without nuclear weapons” to be “the
most stagnant thinking of 2009,” declaring that “it will never happen.”
Nothing could be further from the truth than the idea that
the president is weak on national security. The administration recently
announced that an additional $700 million will be added to the nuclear weapons
stockpile stewardship program, bringing the annual budget to $7 billion. This
is clear evidence that the administration is willing to make a political
calculation that the loss of support among peace groups may lead the country to
support a new START treaty with Russia and ratification of the Comprehensive
Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. START and CTBT are key steps down the path towards a
world without nuclear weapons. The administration is busy taking the necessary
steps to prove the naysayers wrong, expending resources and alienating parts of
its constituency to do so.
What I said to the students during my talk is that we need
to keep our eyes on the prize of a world without nuclear weapons. If we become
distracted by the noise in the corporate media relating to the regional
conflicts between Iran and Israel, we could fall short in our progress. My
advice is and will be to support a president who is willing to take on political struggles necessary to ensure that the United States does its part to advance progress in
nuclear disarmament. That’s my advice to the reader as well.
~Paul Deaton is a native Iowan living in rural Johnson County and weekend editor of Blog for Iowa. He is also a member of Iowa Physicians for Social Responsibility and Veterans for Peace.E-mail Paul Deaton
"It is not that corporate media
outlets intentionally keep us in the dark about things. They have an editorial
policy distinct from informing the public..."
In Iowa, the foreign affairs stories in which we engage are
those related to our family and friends deployed to fight one of our two wars
and several military engagements around the world. The idea that our loved ones
will be going to secure supply routes managed by our mercenaries or to suffer
injury or death in places with cultures so different from ours is unsettling in
a way that is personal and visceral. This we understand.
What is less understandable is the broader scope of foreign
affairs from a United States perspective. Why don’t we hear more about things that
matter as much as military deployments? There are stories about human
trafficking, Vice President Biden’s speech
on nuclear disarmament, our covert operations in Yemen and others that go
unheard. Part of the answer is that nothing matters more to us than what
happens to family and friends deployed to serve in the active duty military.
Another part of the answer is that corporate media outlets focus on what will
attract viewers, subscribers and advertisers more than on what informs us. Most
often, foreign affairs coverage is the bottom of the list even if there are
plenty of stories to tell.
We hear speaker and talk show diva Sarah Palin suggest
that President Obama should declare war on Iran to demonstrate his “toughness,”
and this gets coverage. Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey gave a major speech
on nuclear security and lists reasons why the President’s national security
agenda should be supported, and who knew? It is not that corporate media
outlets intentionally keep us in the dark about things. They have an editorial
policy distinct from informing the public and what is a trending topic may be
more newsworthy to them than presenting information about the threat that
terrorists could get their hands on a nuclear weapon. This is true for much of
the foreign affairs universe of activity.
The financial cost of the wars to Iowans is as real as a
load of bricks. According
to National Priorities, in fiscal year 2010 Iowa taxpayers will contribute
$5.3 billion to defense spending, or roughly $1,765 per resident. If we
consider there are about 2.38 people per Iowa household, and the median
household income is about $49,007, defense spending represents 8.6% of a
typical family’s income. This seems worth covering. Most Iowans would use part
of this expense for other priorities, yet the issue of diversion of funds
towards militarism is largely absent from corporate media. Instead, we hear
stories about supporting the troops.
That media would put emphasis on informing the public is a
basic expectation. When what we see and hear are snippets of trending topics
selected for their sensationalism or local interest, we are disappointed and
uninformed. There is a role for stories like the one in a local paper about an
event where the “Persian Student Organization cooked
traditional Iranian kebabs called "koobideh" while answering
questions about Iran.” It’s just that
we shouldn’t have a steady diet of this if we would stay informed in the
broader world of foreign affairs. Effective participation in our
democracy demands better information about foreign affairs.
An Open Letter to Iowa Senator Tom Harkin by Paul Deaton
Dear Senator Harkin:
As Vice President Biden said yesterday during his speech at the National Defense University, “the very existence of nuclear weapons leaves the human race ever at the brink of self-destruction, particularly if the weapons fall into the wrong hands.”
I am a supporter of the administration’s arms control policy as Vice President Biden laid it out yesterday as I know you are. Like many of my friends, I choke at the thought of spending $7 billion on the stockpile stewardship program, when I know those funds could meet pressing needs elsewhere. I am willing to stay the course and I ask one thing of you.
Why haven’t you been speaking more publicly in support of the administration’s initiative?
During the past year, I have been traveling around the state speaking on the need for nuclear disarmament. One of the questions I am frequently asked is about Dr. Helen Caldicott who traveled with you and your family during your 1984 campaign. She remembered you in her memoir as “one of the staunchest supporters of the nuclear freeze.” I just found a copy of your book, Five Minutes to Midnight: Why the Nuclear Threat is Growing Faster than Ever and I look forward to reading it. Your staff has indicated to me that you support ratification of START and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. For many of us, you are one of the people wearing a white hat in Washington.
Our family and friends hate the gridlock in Washington. We look at nuclear disarmament as an issue where legislators of all party preferences should be able to come together in bipartisan support. For that to happen, there need to be leaders in breaking the partisan gridlock and my expectation is that you will be one of those leaders.
I urge you to speak publicly about you support for the administration’s arms control policy.
Equally important, reach across the aisle to people like Senator Lugar, Senator Grassley, Senator McCain and others you have known for decades and bring an end to the partisan gridlock by rallying around an issue that once the facts are known, most people would have little trouble supporting.
If you do this our children and grandchildren will thank you for it. Best Regards, Paul Deaton
*IBLTV is a group of citizens from the Iowa City/Cedar Rapids area who are concerned about the decline in the quality of local television. Fight local media consolidation, as it leads to an unaccountable medium that enriches itself while disregarding the need to serve the public good.
*The rational counter to 'The Point,' 'The Counterpoint' critiques and corrects the daily editorial by Sinclair Broadcasting's corporate vice president, Mark Hyman, that is broadcast on all Sinclair-owned television stations across the country
February 2010
