Afghanistan Archive

A bill that would prevent current planned drawdown of U.S. troops from Afghanistan is set to hit the House floor next week, continuing a policy that has not succeeded in delivering peace and stability to that country.

The fiscal year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which passed out of the House Armed Service Committee (HASC) late last night includes “Sense of Congress” provisions (link) that will maintain a minimum of 68,000 U.S. troops from this summer through the end of 2014. It also calls on the U.S. to maintain a “credible troop presence” after 2014, the current scheduled withdrawal date for the majority of U.S. forces.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is a bill that has been passed by Congress every year for over 50 years. Most authorization bills are taken up once every two-five years, but Congress has a special affinity for the military authorization bill—often calling it a “must-pass” bill. This year will be no different.

Last year, the fiscal year (FY) 2012 NDAA became synonymous with indefinite detention due to provisions included that allow for detention of U.S. citizens by the U.S. military. President Obama signed the NDAA on December 31, 2012, after it was passed by both chambers. Often forgotten, however, are some of the other momentum-building votes that happened on amendments to the FY2012 NDAA.

President Obama’s primetime announcement from Kabul, Afghanistan last night has left us all with many more questions than answers.

The President, while acknowledging the one year anniversary of the assassination of Osama bin Laden, flew to Afghanistan to sign a ten year pact with Afghan President Hamid Karzai. The Strategic Partnership Agreement, which has only recently been made public, paves the way for the United States to stay involved in Afghanistan through 2024.

As we come up on the one-year anniversary of the killing of Osama bin Laden, the Obama administration is poised to sign a US-Afghan Strategic Partnership Agreement that could be a prelude to Afghan civil war. Unless drastic policy changes are started immediately, reorienting US policy toward legitimate political negotiations between Afghan and regional entities, dark days lie ahead. It's time to end the US war, but the United States cannot afford to abandon Afghans.

The Obama administration has been attempting to negotiate a Strategic Partnership Agreement with Afghanistan since last year through the State Department and the Department of Defense (DoD). According to reports about the negotiations, two major sticking points were control over Afghan detainees and US-led night raid operations. The United States and Afghanistan are now poised to sign an agreement before the NATO Summit in May, where the administration plans to roll out the agreement.

Events in Afghanistan over the last several months have driven U.S. support for the decade long war to an all time low. U.S. General John Allen, who testified to the House and Senate Armed Service Committees last week, pushed back on criticism, telling both committees the war is on track.

Yet to many Americans, the war seems completely off-track. A recent New York Times/CBS poll found that 69% of respondents don’t believe the U.S. should be involved in Afghanistan anymore (that’s up from 53% a year ago).

As is increasingly evidenced by developments in Afghanistan from gloomy intelligence reports to the Quran burning to the recent massacre of 16 Afghan civilians, including nine children, it is long past time for the U.S. military to leave that country.

After weeks of tumultuous upheaval, the slaying allegedly by a U.S. Army Staff Sergeant is just the most recent incident undermining U.S. objectives to win hearts and minds. Frankly, that mission has long been lost.

Scrolling through articles on my iPhone-a ritual on my morning commute-I was astonished by this headline in the New York Times: "Pentagon Says U.S. Citizens With Terrorism Ties Can Be Targeted in Strikes." That is to say: no charges, no trial, no jury and no due process. The Pentagon, with executive branch signoff, can strike down any U.S. citizen where they stand anywhere around the world.

The article opens: "The Obama administration's top Pentagon lawyer on Wednesday said that American citizens who join Al Qaeda can be targeted for killing and that courts should have no role in reviewing executive branch decisions about whether someone has met such criteria."

It’s no secret that war is expensive. The U.S. has spent over $1,400,000,000,000 ($1.4 trillion) in Afghanistan and Iraq since 2001. This figure represents operational costs, not long term costs such as veteran care, which will rise for decades to come. However, looking at the fiscal year 2013 war funding request, you might think war is getting less expensive. Not quite. Funding overall is on the decline, yes, but the war in Afghanistan still costs $1 million per soldier, per year.

Overall, war funding is on the decline because of troop withdrawals from Iraq. Afghanistan war funding is also down due to troop withdrawals. The Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 funding request for Afghanistan is $88.5 billion, approximately $26 billion less than what was appropriated in FY 2012. But there is a hitch: the FY13 request assumes that 68,000 U.S. troops will remain in Afghanistan through September 2013, when the fiscal year ends.

This weekend Matt Southworth and I packed our bags and took our excitement about the upcoming young adult Spring Lobby Weekend on the road, touring the Tri-College Consortium of Bryn Mawr, Haverford, and Swarthmore.

At Swarthmore, we worshipped with young Friends in a beautiful meetinghouse, and Matt shared the story of his first experience lobbying--at Spring Lobby Weekend 2006, lobbying to end the Iraq war, in which he fought. Speaking about Spring Lobby Weekend after meeting for worship brought a gravity and a power to the conversation that sometimes can get muffled in an office environment.

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announcement about Afghanistan last week was both unexpected and welcomed. During a visit to Brussels, Belgium, Panetta told journalists “hopefully by mid- to the latter part of 2013 [the U.S. will] be able to make a transition from a combat role to a training, advise-and-assist role.” Previously, 2014 was the year which the U.S. had committed to transition all authority to the Afghan government. The Obama administration has since backpedaled on the announcement, unfortunately muddling whether this move is a rhetorical or strategic shift.

The Obama administration should stick by the 2013 proclamation and take the long view on U.S.-Afghanistan policy. The announcement, if a shift in strategy, is a step in the right direction—and an opportunity to end not only the U.S. war, but also the broader conflict.

President Obama finished his third State of the Union Address the same way he began it—by touting what the administration considers foreign policy successes. “For the first time in nine years, there are no Americans fighting in Iraq” President Obama said, concluding his address by stating, “Ending the Iraq war has allowed us to strike decisive blows against our enemies.”

This kind of rhetoric is incredibly unfortunate. The logic contained within these thoughts says that force has worked to end wars when it has, in fact, failed to deliver long term peace and stability. We can clearly see this playing out in Iraq today—not to mention, as I wrote in December, the U.S. war in Iraq may have concluded, but the long term damage is far from done running itscourse.

On January 5th, President Obama and Secretary of Defense Panetta released the Pentagon's new military strategy document, designed to guide military budgets and operations for years to come. Despite the heavy rhetoric from President Obama and Secretary Panetta claiming the new strategy represents big changes, I find little more than cosmetic touch ups to the same old war policies that have gotten the US into its current economic and security problems and reaped horrendous global damage along the way.

Yes, the size of the forces will be reduced somewhat. Yes, there's a shift away from the idea of the US being able to fight two major wars simultaneously (that one has been buried in Iraq and Afghanistan already). Yes, military planners will be focusing more on Asia and the Middle East, less on Europe and Latin America. And yes, there will be changes in the budget line items (think more drones and cyberwarfare) presented to Congress.

As the last U.S. soldiers leave Iraq, our nation is reflecting on the legacy of this war for returning veterans, for taxpayers, and for U.S. relations with the rest of the world. But nine years later, I’m concerned that as a nation we are simply trying to put Iraq behind us rather than learn some lessons from this conflict. Let us all not forget the biggest lesson of all: the Iraq war was a mistake.

When I deployed to Iraq in 2004, our government argued we were in Iraq to break Saddam Hussein’s ties to al Qaeda, to continue the search for weapons of mass destruction and to bring freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people. Today, very few people argue there were strong links between Iraq and al Qaeda before the U.S. invasion (al Qaeda moved in after the invasion). The CIA has acknowledged that it was the United Nations and the international community that blocked Iraq from developing weapons of mass destruction. And looking at the headlines from Iraq, freedom and democracy still seems a long way away for the Iraqi people.

2011 has been a remarkable year in our lobbying for a world without war. I'm also acutely aware of how many challenges remain and how much work we have ahead in 2012.

In an historic moment and by voice vote, the U.S. Senate has adopted a Sense of Congress amendment, offered by Senators Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Mike Lee of Utah, to expedite the already planned U.S. drawdown from Afghanistan. The adoption by voice vote on this amendment marks a new high water mark in mounting Congressional opposition to the U.S. war in Afghanistan.

Amendment No. 1257, offered on the National Defense Authorization Act, was offered at a time when many in Congress are questioning the merit of continuing the war in Afghanistan. The vote took place on the eve of the two year anniversary of President Obama’s West Point escalation speech and only one week before the conference on Afghanistan in Bonn, Germany.

After Thanksgiving, your Senator will cast some of his or her most important votes on war and peace of the year, so this is a crucial time to weigh in, and ask your Senator to vote to end current wars and prevent new ones.

More than 2,000 people took action on FCNL’s alert “War or Diplomacy? Senate Prepares to Vote” last week to ask Senators to support diplomacy, and reject anti-peace amendments to the international affairs funding bill.

That message is still crucial for the Senate to hear because even though the international affairs funding bill is now stalled indefinitely, and the Supercommittee folded completely, after Thanksgiving the Senate will resume debate on the military authorization act.

Just before leaving for Thanksgiving recess, Senator Jeff Merkely (OR) and seven other Senators introduced an amendment that would expedite a U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan. The amendment was offered on the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, a bill which authorizes military operations and spending that includes the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This measure is both timely and important.

For me, Veterans Day is a solemn day meant for reflection, discernment and understanding. As I reflect on my time in the military and think of all those touched by violent conflict around the world—some I know, many that I do not—I cannot help but question the presence of military violence in our world and wonder, ‘at what cost?’ Those who experience war firsthand pay the costs long after the last bullet is fired. Taken in concert with the operational costs of the wars, long-term cost estimates for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan range from $4 to $6 trillion dollars—all of which will be tacked on to our national debt. And no dollar figure can ever convey the human cost of war.

According to Veterans for Common Sense, the Veterans Administration (VA) says over 440,000 Iraq (Operation Iraqi Freedom, OIF) and Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom, OEF) veterans filed claims since 2001. With over 2 million OIF and OEF veterans and nearly 1.2 million now eligible for VA benefits, we can expect these numbers to grow. One underlying and very costly issue with these claims is that many of the injuries are difficult, if not impossible, to treat. The signature injuries of these wars—amputations, post traumatic stress (PTS) and traumatic brain injury (TBI) account for a large number (between 25-50%) of VA claims.

The tenth anniversary of the U.S. presence in Afghanistan came this past week, on Friday October 7th. I had the privilege of attending a panel briefing hosted by the Congressional Progressive Caucus Peace and Security Task Force. The panel was called “Ten Years On: Why the War in Afghanistan Must End Now.” It was a showcase of opposition to another decade of war by leading experts and members of Congress. The panel was conceived of and organized together by Rep. Barbara Lee’s office and FCNL.

I was impressed by the testimony, at times incredibly heart-wrenching and at times simply brilliant. All of the panelists were speaking truths that I wished all of our lawmakers could have heard. I was particularly impressed by Brock McIntosh, a specialist who has left the Army National Guard with a pending conscientious objector application. He spoke from a strategic perspective, explaining in clear logic why continuing to fight in Afghanistan is completely antithetical to stated arguments for remaining at war, and directly opposed to U.S. and global security. To read more about this panel and to check out the impressive testimonies, click here.

As of October 7th, the U.S. will have been in Afghanistan for exactly ten years, a decade fraught endless issues and ill-conceived policies. Since President Obama took over the helm in 2009, the number of foreign troops has more than tripled. As a result, security conditions have worsened, the mood of Afghans over all has soured, regional stability has been compromised significantly and Afghanistan is governed, at best, by a fragilely functioning non-representative oligarchy.

Security remains a grave concern to many Afghans. Recent attacks on the U.S. embassy compound and the assassination of Berhanuddin Rabbani, head of the presidentially appointed High Peace Council, underscore the decline in security. On my recent trip to Afghanistan, countless people talked about the steady decline in security since 2004, most notably in the last two years. The policy prescribed by the U.S. military for the last several years, even before the Obama administration, has not delivered the political settlement or solution—a political solution even generals acknowledge is the only solution for the conflict.

The assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki is a big deal for two reasons:

First, it is a big deal because it is yet another example of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan having nothing to do with “getting the bad guys” or whatever the Pentagon/CIA thinks that it is doing. The killing the disputed operational leader of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), an organizational arm of al Qaeda which is widely accepted as a “branch” as opposed to a “franchise” of the organization with a drone, not 100,000 troops, shows the futility of annually spending hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Regardless of the merits of that argument, this means the United States—using the Pentagon’s logic—has decimated the last truly veritable arm of al-Qaeda – aka the “Global War on (of) Terror” is over.

Second, and more importantly, al-Awlaki was an U.S. citizen, born in American. A second U.S. citizen, Samir Khan, was also killed. Al-Awlarki was assassinated by an unmmaned drone without due process—without trial, without actually being charged with anything, without a jury of his peers, without any justice. As Gleen Greenwald, “He was simply ordered killed by the President: his judge, jury and executioner.” Maybe the al-Awlaki and Khan were bad guys, but even bad guys have the right to due process if they’re citizens of this country. I know targeted assassination and even assassinations of U.S. citizens is not a new thing—it is still wrong.

As I write, I’m watching coverage of September 11, 2001 as it happened 10 years ago. I didn’t expect to see actual footage of the 2001 attacks today. Flipping the television between the memorial services of 2011 and the day of the attacks on 2001 evokes both the emotional state of that day and somber reflection looking backward.

I was a senior in high school on 9/11/2001. My first two period classes were study halls, which I used as a workout period. This particular Tuesday, I slept in later than usual. When I got to the high school gym, I was greeted by my football coach Mr. Mader. “There are jets circling the Pentagon” he shouted to me. I had no idea what he was talking about, so I just followed him to a TV set up in one of the gymnasium classrooms. As I listened to newscasters try to piece together the events of that morning, I witnessed the second plane fly into the World Trade Center building in New York City.

A few months ago, shortly after I arrived in Washington to begin working at FCNL, I was waiting in Union Station for a train back to Connecticut when I noticed a local news channel reporter and camera. Sure enough, the reporter approached and asked if I would be willing to respond to a few questions.

"What do you think of the new legislation proposed by Sen. Schumer to heighten security screening on trains?" the reporter asked. Not knowing anything about the new measures, I couldn't say much. "Are you worried about terrorism when you travel by train?" the reporter pressed. "Do you think that measures that screen all train travelers will make us more secure?" No, I'm not worried about terrorism when I travel by train and no I don't think screening everyone getting on a train will make me more secure.

Has the $1.3 trillion dollars spent on the "war on terrorism" made our country safer? Does the "see something, say something" campaign and the "homeland security" measures in our local communities find real threats to our lives and safety or do they perpetrate a society of fear and mistrust?

I was in my 10th grade chemistry class when we heard that a plane had crashed into the world trade center, and we all saw the towers fall on television. Now I’m 25 and I work at FCNL.

I’ve been asked what it means to have grown up during the war on terror. The question for me is rather “What was it like when there wasn’t a war on terror? Is this really that different?”

I did lose one friend to the war in Afghanistan. I fear editorializing his death or ascribing any meaning to it that he wouldn’t have claimed as his own. What I remember is that in the weeks after he died, the context of the US’s involvement in Afghanistan was too abstract, complicated, and distant for me to think about with any coherence. Years later it feels unnatural to connect the two. I've often wondered if the fact that there were so many more American casualties during Vietnam multiplied this confusion, or if it brought greater clarity as the war wore on.

Kabul — I arrived with a small delegation a couple of days ago to do some research here on the ground. This unfiltered view of what's happening is the best way to try to make sense of it all. It has been quite the experience so far, filled with very constrictive, informative meetings.

Kabul — I arrived with a small delegation a couple of days ago to do some research here on the ground. This unfiltered view of what's happening is the best way to try to make sense of it all. It has been quite the experience so far, filled with very constrictive, informative meetings.

Eighteen months after he declared the U.S. would begin a “rapid transition” this July, President Obama announced his Afghanistan withdrawal plan last night. In a speech noticeably light on detail, the President said of that transition promise, “Tonight, I can tell you that we are fulfilling that commitment… Starting next month, we will be able to remove 10,000 of our troops from Afghanistan by the end of this year.” This initial reduction will be followed by another 23,000 by summer of 2012 and a “steady pace” of reduction until 2014, when Afghans will take full control of their own security.

This announcement, including claims of progress that facts do not support, was not news to any of us around here; the writing on the wall forecasted a reduction of 9-12,000 troops back in January. As for a strategic military shift, this is not one. Joint Chief of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen tweeted late last night, “strategy same.” The strategy simply amounts to aimlessly throwing money and military power at what in the end is a political problem with only political solutions. In sum, the Pentagon will do what it has been doing, just with fewer troops over the next year. This is a troop shift, not a strategy shift.

On a recent trip to the Pacific Northwest several people asked me what FCNL is doing to end the war in Afghanistan? This week, as the president prepares for another speech on Afghanistan policy and Congress prepares for more votes on the U.S. war, I think it’s worth remembering that Congressional votes alone don’t usually end wars.

The first successful Congressional vote to cut off funding for the Vietnam war didn’t come until 1975. Your lobbying with FCNL, combined with the broader pressure from public opinion, other protests, and movements and the current concern about government spending is what will ultimately end the war.

The chairman and ranking member of the very powerful House Appropriations Committee, Rep. Harold Rogers (KY) and Rep. Norm Dicks (WA), have both recently made statements which question the futility of the U.S. war in Afghanistan. They join a growing bipartisan group of powerful Representatives and Senators calling this war into question. At a time when opposition to long, costly wars is at an all time high, the importance of this awakening—which is even beginning to shape the Obama administration’s July drawdown in Afghanistan—cannot be overstated. In fact, such strong and growing opposition seems to have even the Pentagon on its heals.

Rep. Dicks comes from the heavily Military Industrial Complex state of Washington. It is the place Boeing sets up shop and nuclear submarines are docked off the Pacific coast. Joint Base Lewis-McCord is home to the 2nd Infantry Division and many others large units. When asked about President Obama’s withdraw, Dick said, “We need to start seeing if we can do this a little faster” than 2014. Rep. Rogers, who is questioning the possibilities for success in Afghanistan, is no stranger to large military bases either; in Kentucky, Fort Campbell houses 82nd Airborne—a heavily deployed Army division in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Both appropriators know first hand the fiscal—Rep. Dicks chairs the powerful Defense Appropriations Subcommittee—and human costs, seeing the personal sacrifices made by their constituents year after year over the last decade

Yesterday, the House passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which authorizes nearly $700 billion dollars in military spending for FY 2012. Between Wednesday and Thursday, over 150 amendments were considered; several we were watching proved to deliver huge momentum for a peace community, which has been accused of struggling recently.

By far the largest victory for the peace community in recent memory was the passage of an amendment offered by Rep. John Conyers (MI) which bars any funding from being used to deploy ground troops to Libya. We predicted the amendment was going to do well, but it truly exceeded all expectations with an astonishing vote of 416-5.

Amid Congress' attempt to "reaffirm" the Authorization of the Use of Military Force, the legal underpinning for the "global war on terror" it is important to weigh the costs of continuing failed war policies. There are many costs of war: the financial cost, opportunity cost, moral cost and personal costs, to name a few. The latter two costs—moral and personal—generally get the least attention but deserve the most.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been severely morally corrosive. The U.S. is now a nation which holds political prisoners; that has tortured; has waged war under false pretense with no accountability for those responsible for building the false pretense; and has caused—directly and indirectly—the deaths of many thousands of innocent people in the name of combating violent extremism.

Last week, I received a message from a very excited Spring Lobby Weekend participant, Kimberleigh Costanzo, from Iona College in New York:

Hey! I just received an e-mail from the staffer I lobbied in [my Representative's] office saying, "Hi Kimberleigh, Hope you're doing well. I wanted to email you and let you know that I spoke with the Congressman about your visit, and he decided to sign on as a cosponsor of the bill to establish an Afghanistan-Pakistan Study Group (HR 1530). It's great to see someone your age so passionate about policy - I hope you keep it up!"... I thought you would be as pleased to see that my visit really was a success- I am thrilled!

When I first heard President Obama’s announcement that Osama bin Laden had been killed in a U.S. military operation inside Pakistan, I immediately began to wonder about the relationship between international law and the U.S. operation. Questions began to arise in my mind. Questions such as: Did the U.S. have approval from the Pakistani government for the operation? Did the Pakistani military or intelligence agencies participate in the operation? How will this affect U.S. relations with the governments and the people of Pakistan and Afghanistan? And, ultimately, has the U.S. violated international law? I know that I was not alone in my questioning.

In my blog post earlier this week, I focused primarily on other compelling aspects and implications of the breaking news, particularly why I couldn't celebrate the killing. I didn’t dwell much in that post about the legal aspects of the operation, in part because I wanted to wait and not rush to judgment.

Today, just five days after the announcement of Osama bin Laden’s death, a bipartisan cadre of unlikely partners, led by Rep. Jim McGovern (MA) and Rep. Walter Jones (NC) introduced a bill to end the war in Afghanistan.

The Afghanistan Exit and Accountability Act, H.R. 1735, calls for a clear plan from President Obama to Congress that provides: a report on the accelerated transition from U.S. to Afghan authority and a completion date for the redeployment of U.S. forces; quarterly reports on the human and financial costs of continuing the war; and the estimated savings of redeploying U.S. troops within 180 days of the report being issued.

Like all news junkies, I’ve been captivated by news of Osama bin Laden’s death, how it’s been reported and how Americans and the international community have responded. Along with the 63% of the U.S. public that doesn’t think the war in Afghanistan is worth fighting, I hope we’ll see the withdrawal of troops this summer as President Obama promised. De-escalating our military involvement as a response to bin Laden’s death signals not only a new approach for how the U.S. responds to terrorism but it could also have a remarkable impact in helping reduce our federal debt.

As Congress grapples with the debt ceiling and fixing the deficit through spending reductions and tax increases, they would do well to read Amy Belasco’s March 29 Congressional Research Service report. It couldn’t be more stark: "Congress has approved $1.283 trillion for military operations, base security, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs, and veterans’ health care for the three operations initiated since the 9/11 attacks." The allocation of that $1.23 trillion: "About 94% of the funds are for DOD [the Department of Defense], 5% for foreign aid programs and diplomatic operations, and 1% for medical care for veterans."

Regardless of how one feels about the death of Osama bin Laden, his departure from this earth should be a foreign policy game changer—in Afghanistan and in how the U.S. handles violent extremism around the world.

The “global war on terror” is over. Osama bin Laden is dead and the al Qaeda network he commanded is not an existential threat to the United States.

I recall precisely where I was, as well as what I was doing, when I heard the horrible and heart-wrenching news of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and the aborted attack represented by the plane that went down in rural Pennsylvania. I know I am not alone in being able to remember my personal coordinates and tap into the emotions of that defining day.

My physical location on September 11, 2001 differed, however, from that of most other American citizens. I was living in Jakarta, Indonesia and not physically present in the United States. At the moment I heard the news, I was in the house that my family and I had called home for about one month. My family and I had moved halfway around the world from our previous home in Baltimore to explore a new part of the world and a new culture, and to help to build a more just and peaceful world through my involvement in development and relief work.

Even before the President’s speech announcing the death of Osama bin Laden, we heard the shouts of people walking below our windows towards the White House. It was another of those moments, when we heard the newscaster reporting what we already knew – that a jubilant crowd was gathering – when my roommate and I looked at each other and our eyes grew wide: ‘This is where we live, and what a world it is.’

Realizing that the events of the hour were quickly becoming another defining moment of our generation’s political reality, we threw on shoes and sweatshirts to walk the six blocks to the White House. Having come of age, politically, in a time when U.S. foreign policy meant little but violence in deserts and conversations of “evil terrorists” and “collateral damage,” it began to dawn on me that the wars might now end and my tax dollars might not, as much, support bloodshed.

Today, I've been part of several conversations that circle around the issue of evil. Thinking about how to respond to someone like Osama bin Laden, who has committed horrible crimes, makes you look into yourself for answers to questions about what evil is and whether it can be redeemed. It's one thing to say that you can speak to the Light of God in someone who has relatively ordinary faults, it's another to speak to it in someone whose willful actions have caused death, destruction, fear, and mayhem.

Bin Laden's killing was in many respects a large-scale application of the death penalty, another place where we have to ask ourselves uncomfortable questions about whether vengeance and distance from a person's human-ness, despite its many failings, is conscionable.

Next week on May 3rd, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will hold a hearing called “Afghanistan: What is an Acceptable End-State, and How Do We Get There?” about the July 2011 drawdown in Afghanistan. On the docket will be Dr. Anne-Marie Slaughter of the State Department and Princeton University, Richard Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Relations and former Ambassador Thomas Pickering, co-chair of a recent Century Foundation Task Force report on negotiating peace in Afghanistan.

For Slaugher’s part, she’ll likely represent the policy position of Obama administration. Slaugher has stated the U.S. presence in Afghanistan is “going to require our commitment over years and the commitment of other forces, NATO forces.” Not surprising given the U.S.-NATO commitment to be in Afghanistan until 2014 and beyond. Also worth noting, the State Department’s requested share of war funding for FY2012 is roughly $10.6 billion, which is additional funding to the $47 billion base budget (of course, that’s miniscule compared to DoD’s $118.1 billion war and $596 billion base budget requests).

More than 130 people from around the country -- including students, veterans and their families, and many Quakers -- fanned out across Capitol Hill in late March to lobby to end the war in Afghanistan and ask Congress to support deep cuts in the Pentagon budget.

The three lobby weekend included briefings, trainings, and hand-on workshops that prepared them for the final day of lobbying. Highlights included a panel discussion on the Afghanistan war with current and former Congressional staff and a former U.S. Army and State Department veteran who had been involved in the war strategy.

Remote control killings by unmanned drones in Pakistan will not end the war in Afghanistan or make our country more secure.

The failure of the U.S. war strategy in Afghanistan to contain the anti-government insurgency has led the Obama administration to expand the undeclared war in Pakistan. According to the Long War Journal, the number of U.S. attacks in Pakistan, using unmanned Predator drones, has gone from five in 2007 to 117 in 2010.

Government officials here in Washington say privately that they expect the covert war to expand even further this year. Yet Congress and the public have undertaken no significant examination of this new war's consequences.