The recent agreement reached on Afghanistan by NATO allies in Chicago is likely to undermine peace and stability in that country and the region.

The U.S.-Afghan Strategic Partnership Agreement signed earlier this month and now endorsed by NATO will not lead to positive outcomes in Afghanistan. The agreement is a hollow shell that come 2014 will pit an internationally-backed Afghan National Security Force (ANSF) against an Afghan-born insurgency that has historically risen to resist foreign intervention. This agreement will undermine efforts toward a long-term partnership that would solve the underlying conflicts in the country and region. I also fear it will lead to a full-scale abandonment of Afghanistan as U.S. political will to support billions in spending fades in coming years.

Before dignitaries from around the world met in Chicago on May 20, Congress had a chance to weigh in on U.S.-Afghanistan policy as the House considered the fiscal year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). In recent years, support for anti-war, Afghanistan-related amendments to the NDAA has grown as the popularity of the war has faded to record lows.

This year, Reps. Jim McGovern (MA) and Walter Jones (NC) planned to offer an amendment that called on President Obama to expedite the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, as they have done for the past three years. The duo was joined by House Armed Service Committee Ranking Member Adam Smith (WA) as well as House Minority Leadership.

Plans to offer that amendment, however, were thwarted by House Majority Leadership according to CNN. House Majority Leadership feared that the amendment might pass, as it was similar to a measure that won 204 votes last year. The House Rules Committee, chaired by Rep. David Dreier (CA), refused to allow the amendment “in order”, meaning it could not be considered on the House Floor. As a form of protest, Rep. McGovern, also a member of the Rules Committee who headlined the amendment, requested a roll call vote on every single amendment, amid personal attacks by other members of the committee.

There was a last ditch effort by way of a procedural vote to ensure the House considered the amendment — a “no” vote on the “previous question” before beginning debate on the NDAA would have made the amendment “in order”— but the effort failed largely along party lines. One can only infer that congressional leadership is completely out of touch with the 78% of Americans who favor a withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Here is the bottom line: the U.S. plans to continue fighting in Afghanistan for at least the next two years, if not three, before “transitioning” full control—of the fighting, mainly—to Afghan forces. At that time, the U.S. will merely shift the entity that is implementing failed military tactics.. Then fighting will continue to whatever degree “necessary” to prevent al Qaeda “safe havens” from returning to Afghanistan. Of course, this defies good sense since al Qaeda can operate from virtually anywhere.

I do not believe this strategy will lead to the dismantlement of al Qaeda, nor the prevention of so-called “safe havens” in Afghanistan—or Pakistan. The more likely outcome is the fighting will radicalize more people and create greater instability within Afghan society. Moreover, the amount of suffering of the innocent people affected by this utterly senseless war, those who flee the conflict and those who choose to join it will be immeasurable.

The U.S. could do several things now to avoid this fate.

First, the U.S. should end offensive military operations and begin an expedited withdrawal of U.S. forces. U.S. soldiers can play no role in solving Afghan political problems.

Second, the U.S. should dial back the strategy of building up the ANSF, since Afghans can’t sustain it and its legitimacy in Afghan society is questionable. An international peacekeeping presence, perhaps led by Turkey, could fill the power vacuum and would be more legitimate in the eyes of many Afghans than either the U.S. military or ANSF.

Lastly, the international community should work to ensure that the 2014 presidential elections in Afghanistan are as free and fair as possible. Elections aren’t necessarily the only or best path to representative government, but it is without question that corrupt elections do not serve to better society. Afghan-led processes and culturally Afghan-based governing structures will eventually win the day in Afghanistan. This process can begin with a legitimate government in the post U.S.-Karzai era.

Short of serious policy reforms—perhaps even after the 2012 elections—it is very difficult to imagine a positive outcome for either the U.S. or Afghanistan over the next several years. More likely, the U.S. would undermine its own efforts to bring peace and stability to Afghanistan and the region by moving forward with the current military strategy that has proven unsuccessful. But with a withdrawal of troops and a focus on a political solution, there may be hope.

Many religious and indigenous traditions express the need for humanity’s care for creation and concern about the dangers of climate change. They call upon “respect for the ecological integrity and the sacredness of the natural world” and for humanity “to relate to Earth as God’s creation in ways that sustain life on the planet and provide for the needs of all humankind”, for “irresponsible stewardship of the Earth and global warming threaten the pacific coexistence of mankind.”

Climate change is harming peoples and communities now, and will have severe impacts upon our children and future generations and national security. As such, it is far more than just an environmental issue, but one in which we all share. Such impacts will become more severe and in some cases irreversible, if our nation’s leaders chose not to discuss the issue, much less propose and enact the necessary solutions needed to unleash the human potential capable of solving this preventable crisis.

Today, in stark contrast to three years ago, the most conspicuous expressions about the climate crisis are by those who would deny it. Many who agree with the virtual scientific consensus that climate change is real and will have harmful impacts to our Earth and present and future generations, are nevertheless downplaying or not evening speaking of that knowledge, sometimes to the point of avoiding mention of the phrase “climate change.” Extant national policy and legislative battles involving reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are not of the kind of magnitude capable of directly addressing the immense challenge before us all. The national political approach to the climate crisis has flipped on its head, yet causes and impacts of climate change remain the same, or if anything have worsened. We are capable of solving the problem and the majority of the American people want action. Yet mere discussion of needed national and international solutions, much less action, is absent in the halls of Congress.

If you are supportive of this action, we are pleased to provide you with the opportunity to endorse the resolution and call upon your representative in the House to sign on as an original co-sponsor. The resolution can also be presented to candidates for elected office as a marker for their commitment to addressing the climate crisis in ways commensurate with the impacts and threats it poses. A fact sheet  elaborates on other dimensions of this effort.

We welcome any person’s endorsement of this resolution regardless of affiliation – including political, religious, or lack thereof. The resolution enables people to express their deeply held conviction that unabated climate change will provide our children and descendants with a future that will be profoundly and unnecessarily difficult – a future we have the ability to prevent. American citizens can take this resolution to their representatives and others seeking elected office, as a tangible marker of a candidate’s commitment to act in this and the next Congress.

This resolution is a plea to members of the House of Representatives, in affirmation of our common humanity and shared future and regardless of any affiliation, that the institution is essential to the enactment of meaningful national and international solutions. We have been reaching out to representatives of both parties to support this resolution with this non-partisan message. It is hoped that member support will result in briefings, hearings, and consideration of requisite legislative action that is currently absent within the halls of Congress.

We ask you to join this first step to rekindling action on the climate crisis, by joining this moral call to the House of Representatives to act upon it. We hope you will consider endorsing this resolution and asking your Representative to become an original co-sponsor. We cast this call as a moral one which seeks to move us all beyond political partisanship, so that all of us together, may use our talents to solve what is perhaps the greatest challenge humanity has ever faced.

The Gravity of the Climate Crisis Transcends Politics

The Friends Committee on National Legislation and other organizations of faith do not seek or welcome the politicization of what we view as a fundamental moral and humanitarian issue. The Earth is warming in an unnatural way - affirmed by a virtual scientific consensus of 97% - causing disruptions that are harming peoples and ecosystems now. If we do not exercise our ability to dramatically curb the amount of greenhouse gases emissions we are causing, the future impacts will cause even greater impacts, some of which may be irreversible. Seeking to prevent a future for our children and their descendants which involves food and water insecurity, drought, sea level rise, increasing threats to national security and world peace due to population dislocation, scarcer resources, and armed conflict across the globe is not, in our view, a partisan issue.

We have the capacity to prevent this kind of future for our children and the generations to come. We must act swiftly and boldly. Today, the cooperation and will of our nation’s leaders is one of the most significant barriers to this necessary action. It is through this lens that we continue to reach out to members in both parties for sponsorship to work in true collaboration and partnership for the betterment of humanity’s collective future.

The Moral Call Rekindles the Motivation for Significant Action

The resolution seeks to complement, not replace or diminish, existing efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on the international, national, regional, state, tribal and local levels. The resolution explicitly states the message which is currently being avoided or downplayed in many of these efforts, but which is our fundamental reason to act: Climate change is real; human induced greenhouse gas emissions are the primary cause; these emissions are continuing unabated; the impacts of global climate disruption are and will be harmful to the Earth upon which we depend, and therefore to us in ways profound and unprecedented; and because our actions are causing it, our ingenuity, motivation and actions can and must solve it.

Understandably, this resolution is a modest step compared to just a few years ago when the nation was nearly posed to pass comprehensive climate legislation which would significantly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, and propel the United States as a leader in international negotiations on global greenhouse gas reductions. Yet in today’s vastly different circumstances, the resolution is a modest yet important step that enables citizens to express their deep conviction directly to their representatives in the House of the urgency of the climate crisis, and hold their representatives and other candidates accountable for their response to the intent of the resolution.

The resolution seeks to foster today, open discussions within Congress, on how to significantly reduce national and global greenhouse gas emissions, as such discussions which have largely ceased. By increasing moral and popular support to act, our nation’s leaders might once again consider, introduce, negotiate, and pass the solutions which we have the capacity to implement. It seeks to affirm growing awareness from sectors like the Pentagon of the threat climate change poses to national security, and complement the tremendous accomplishments and activities being undertaken in the regional, state, tribal, and local levels.

Why a Non-Binding Resolution Matters Now

Only a few years ago, the 111th Congress, responding to the will of the American people and concerns echoed in the national media, was actively considering legislative solutions through bills aiming to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the major cause of climate change. If passed, international efforts to meaningfully to reduce global emissions – the most critical act if we are to realize sustainability of our planet and a thriving future for future generations – might have been agreed upon.

Today is a film negative of the recent past. Our national political institutions and the media are practically silent about the gravity of the climate crisis, much less willing to respond meaningfully to it. If it is openly discussed in the national political sphere, it can come in the form of a political attack to repeal and legally void the scientific finding that greenhouse gases pose a danger to public health and future generations. Today, the very fundamentals of the science of climate change, agreed upon by 97% of climate scientists, and upon which 70% of the American people want our national political leaders to act, are often attacked by a Congress with historically low approval ratings hovering around 13% since September 2011.

President Obama just recently broke the Administration’s self-imposed silence on the very mention of the phrase “climate change” in an interview with Rolling Stone magazine. His statements, welcomed by many, were published on April 25th just three days after his 2012 Earth Day proclamation conspicuously omitted its mention.

The profound causes and impacts of climate change upon on Earth, the resources upon which we depend, and by inextricable extension, on present and future generations, are often not expressed as the fundamental reason to support clean energy development or other advocacy efforts. When the primary reason and motivating force for dramatic reductions of greenhouse gas emissions is not voiced outright, skeptics, particularly those who would profit enormously by inaction, fill the void. National awareness and understanding of the significance of global warming is unduly perplexed, pre-empting attempts to even discuss solutions and act in meaningfully ways.

In this atmosphere, troubling manifestations arise. During Earth Week, many representatives of the faith communities came to Washington D.C., and representatives in the Administration and Congress, regardless of party affiliation, greatly welcomed our visits, noting that for months, few constituents of any kind have been meeting with them to discuss climate change. Outside of the Beltway and in the national media, a nationally televised seven-part series was recently announced which documents the impacts of warming occurring around the Earth’s polar regions, yet intentionally avoids exploring the cause.

The general approach to climate change (or lack thereof) has nearly flipped on its head. Yet the fundamental scientific causality of climate change has not, and our greenhouse gas emissions, the present day impacts and future projections, if they have changed, have largely increased and/or worsened. This resolution is a modest first step in establishing a healthier equilibrium between awareness, knowledge and action.

We Must Create a Space that Allows Human Ingenuity and Hard Work to Solve the Climate Crisis

Fortunately, the bounty of national and international level solutions for this climate crisis, proposed by some of the world’s greatest minds across many fields and disciplines, remains intact. Through this resolution, we can create the space necessary for these solutions to be reconsidered, introduced, negotiated and implemented.

It is a modest but critical step which we must take, to begin again with very basic but critical steps, by expressly acknowledging the gravity of the climate crisis and by activating humanity’s great potential and will to solve it. This resolution is but one opportunity to renew this moral call to our shared higher purpose, re-orient the national tone, and re-connect our Congressional representatives our common purpose, so that they may participate in the solutions that will allow our planet, our children, and future generations, to flourish.

This coming fiscal year, the United States is set to spend more than $640 billion dollars on the Pentagon and war, accounting for more than 60 percent of federal domestic spending. In excess of $85 billion of that will be spent on the war in Afghanistan alone.

This unfathomable amount of money was approved by the House of Representatives in the National Defense Authorization Act. These funds will serve to bring suffering and pain to innocent people, further militarize the world and undermine peace and stability for generations to come—all on the backs of those who struggle at home.

In the backdrop of such spending, we’re told that we’re in a financial crisis. Elected officials tell us it is time to make tough choices. There isn’t enough money for programs like “Meals on Wheels” and for ensuring everyone has access to adequate healthcare. Our schools and bridges must wait to be repaired. New roads and schools must remain unconstructed.

Yet some of us know better.

Last weekend in Chicago, dignitaries from around the world met for the NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) Summit on Afghanistan. U.S. veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan also gathered to march in protest and return our military medals to NATO. The demands were simple: No NATO, No War. Thousands joined the veterans to march to the NATO meeting location. One by one, nearly 50 of us returned our medals. Removing one medal from his chest at a time, Aaron Hughes of Iraq Veterans Against the War summed it up well when he pulled the final medal from his old military uniform: “And this one is because I’m sorry.”

As veterans, we know the cost of war firsthand. Many of us—myself included—have lost friends to death in combat, by suicide and to addiction. Rates of divorce, addiction, suicide and homelessness are at record highs among U.S. veterans. We know firsthand the stories of the widowed and divorced, the broken and the damned. We have watched friends fall apart and sometimes we’ve fallen apart ourselves. We have seen the pain on the faces of the victims of bombs made under the auspices of American jobs. We have watched as the light of humanity seemed to flicker out in the face of dehumanizing war. And many of us have left pieces of ourselves—physical, mental and emotional—in the places we’ve served.

What exactly is the benefit of spending so much on preparing for and making war? Does it really enhance our liberty and freedom? Do we really feel safer? I can’t take more than ten steps without being on some kind of camera these days. I’m constantly reminded to be vigilant as I take public transportation here in Washington, DC. Is it silly that our government is spending nearly two-thirds of the discretionary budget on “defense” and they’re relying on me to phone a hotline if I see something suspicious?

Mine aren’t the only eyebrows rising. In the years that I’ve been a pro-peace advocate since my honorable discharge from the U.S. Army in 2004, people seem to be getting the message like never before. As we marched in formation, the Chicago police lined the perimeter of the parade route. I wondered as I marched how many of them have felt recent budget cuts or watched colleagues get laid off. At one point, while chanting “Troops need healthcare, not more warfare” an officer alongside us chanted “Police need healthcare, not more warfare.” Others joined in and we picked it up. It was one of those rare moments in which we actually knew the message was reaching someone.

My hope is that more people start to receive this message. There are choices to be made. Right now, the people making these choices are not doing so in a representative way. Congress cannot continue to fund wars and weapons on the backs of the poor, elderly and shrinking middle class. Building a just and equitable society means human needs must take first priority. There is enough money; how we choose to spend it is the question.

This article was originally published on Sojourners "God's Politics" blog here.

All of Congress is now on the record declaring that they have not authorized the use of military force against Iran in the latest round of legislation passed in the House and the Senate. This unanimous 'un-declaration' of war by Congress is a crucial victory, with particular significance given its passage on the eve of the U.S.-Iran talks in Baghdad.

The House was the first chamber to 'un-declare war', with its inclusion of a proviso in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that this legislation does not authorize war with Iran. This stipulation that "nothing in this Act shall be construed as authorizing the use of force against Iran" is a remarkably sober note of caution and common sense in an otherwise dangerous and reckless piece of legislation. The NDAA allocates billions of dollars of weapons that could be used for an attack on Iran and requires the administration to prepare for war and dramatically escalate the U.S. militarization of the Middle East. Notably, the NDAA exceeds the limitations on Pentagon spending that Congress agreed to in the Budget Control Act by about $8 billion--much of which is allotted for the anti-Iran weaponry.

Rep. John Conyers (MI) championed this amendment to 'un-declare' war with Iran with a bipartisan group of representatives: Rep. Ron Paul (TX), Rep. Keith Ellison (MN), and Rep. Walter Jones (NC). In less than a week, Congress received more than 1,000 calls through FCNL's toll-free number from grassroots activists across the country who support this and other anti-war, pro-peace amendments that FCNL was working on. Partly as a result of your advocacy against war with Iran, the Conyers/Paul/Ellison/Jones amendment was considered so uncontroversial that it made its way into the NDAA as part of a package (called 'en bloc amendments') of non-controversial amendments, rather than going to the House floor for a separate vote.

'Un-declaration' is 'Uncontroversial' in House, Hotly Contested in the Senate

Anti-Iran provisions are routinely given this special shortcut into "must-pass legislation" like the NDAA, but legislation containing the word "Iran" that is not agitating for either military or economic warfare rarely qualifies as "uncontroversial."

In fact, on the same day that the House unanimously approved Rep. Conyers' amendment, senators fiercely debated the same sort of provision offered by Sen. Rand Paul (KY) clarifying that the Senate sanctions bill is not an authorization of the use of force against Iran. Sens. Lindsey Graham (SC) and Joe Lieberman (CT) blasted this 'un-declaration' of war. These objections blocked the bill from passage until a compromise was reached that retained Sen. Paul's language but also included a provision which, per the request of Senator Graham and others, echoed President Obama’s remarks that the military option is still on the table.

Why an 'Un-Declaration' of War Matters

While the legislation passed in both chambers of Congress has troubling implications for U.S.-Iran relations, the fact that Congress is now on record affirming that the legislation does not authorize war is a major achievement for the campaign against another war of choice. This 'un-declaration' of war sets a historic precedent that could be used to tone down the implications of future saber-rattling legislation.

And saber-rattling legislation is very much what this is all about.

The House's orders for drones, fighter jets, rockets, machine guns for mounting on warships, and heavy artillery systems designed to 'counter the Iranian threat' would escalate brinksmanship in the Persian Gulf, pushing the United States perilously close to the edge of war.

The Senate sanctions bill doesn't help matters either. The bill will further erode the President's flexibility, both technically and politically.  Negotiations require compromise from both sides, and the key concession that Iran has sought is a significant easing of the U.S. sanctions regime against the Iranian economy. The "Negotiator in Chief's" ability to lift sanctions in exchange for Iranian cooperation on its nuclear program is already severely compromised.

Congress' assertion that neither the NDAA, nor a far-reaching sanctions bill, authorize the use of military force against Iran demonstrates progress.

Any progress in cooling down Congress' all-too common affliction with Iran war fever improves the broader political climate. Given the fragility of U.S.-Iran relations, even slight progress can make the difference between a stand-off and a war.

Urge Congress to take the next step to prevent war, by supporting diplomacy with Iran.

On Thursday, the House of Representatives passed its plan to spare the Pentagon from mandatory cuts by instead slashing food stamps, Medicaid, and other programs for people in the U.S. who are struggling.

In order to stave off the first $50 billion in reductions to Pentagon growth required under the Budget Control Act, the House proposed to slice $261 billion from investments in our communities over the next decade. Our budget lobbyist, Ruth Flower, has more detailed analysis the House proposal here.

The New York Times reports

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the bill would push 1.8 million people off food stamps and could cost 280,000 children their school lunch subsidies and 300,000 children their health insurance coverage through the federal and state Children’s Health Insurance Program.

The House budget would shrink investments in education by 48 percent and transportation infrastructure by 28 percent compared to 2010 levels. Moreover, the elimination of the Social Services Block Grant program would drain funding Meals on Wheels, day care for children, and transportation for the elderly and disabled, harming 23 million people.

Though the House plan stands little chance of passing as written in the Senate, senators are under increasing pressure to roll back Pentagon cuts. This proposal indicates what could be possible if we don’t start to bring ballooning Pentagon spending under control.

Right Now, Your Action Matters More Than Ever

From Maine to Ohio to Washington State, FCNL supporters are meeting with their senators’ local offices to call for keeping the $1 trillion in cuts to projected Pentagon spending, as required under current law.

While we may not have the dollars of Pentagon contractors, we still have something they don’t: our collective power as voters. Studies show that direct meetings with constituents are much more influential in shaping the opinions of members of Congress than visits from professional lobbyists.

From May 28th to June 1st, your Senators will be home on recess. It’s not too late to request a visit - check out our tips here. You can also sign up here to receive reminders during our Week of Action for a Peaceful Budget this coming Memorial Day.

It’s time to stand together for programs that support the most vulnerable among us. Let’s send a clear message to the Senate: cut the Pentagon instead.

Update on 5/17: Congress voted 401-11 for H.Res. 568, against the advice of many national security officials. However, that vote only happened after one of the leading proponents of the legislation re-defined that threshold in a sober, pragmatic way, to clarify there is no authorization for war and made clear that the Congress was not opposing a diplomatic solution that would potentially allow for Iran to have a peaceful nuclear program.

When Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, the former chief of staff for Secretary Colin Powell, and I were visiting with members of Congress and their staff to jointly oppose a resolution that would lower the threshold for war with Iran (H.Res. 568), he warned that “this resolution reads like the same sheet of music that got us into the Iraq war”.

In less than 48 hours, Congress is expected to vote in favor of that same 'sheet of music', yet in response to an alliance of national security experts and a grassroots campaign that many of you have been a part of—many in Congress are speaking out for diplomacy, not war.

Not too Late to Call!

While Congress debated the resolution last night, Congress won’t vote on the resolution until later today or tomorrow. (As soon as there is a vote, I will update this blog post with the vote count.)

However, as of this writing, it’s not too late to take action by calling 1-855-68 NO WAR (1-855-686-6927) to contact your member of Congress and tell them to vote NO on H.Res. 568, to oppose the push for war with Iran.

Your Action has Already Shifted the Debate

Passage of this dangerous legislation would certainly erode the fragile political space the administration needs to successfully negotiate with Iran, as a host of national security experts have pointed out. Senator Dianne Feinstein (CA), Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee highlighted how this resolution could undermine negotiations, saying:

“I really believe that these negotiations should proceed without any resolutions from us right now....This is a very sensitive time. Candidly, I think diplomacy should have an opportunity to work without getting involved in political discussions about a resolution.”

However, the debate over this legislation directly acknowledged the opposition that it has encountered from national security officials, a coalition of national peace and security organizations, faith leaders, and a grassroots campaign across the country, which FCNL has played a leading role in organizing. Congress has received more than 3,000 calls and tens of thousands of emails and letters against this resolution, and even the legislation’s strongest proponents directly responded to the concerns that so many of you raised.

Berman's Clarion Call to RAISE Threshold for War with Iran

While leading the effort to support a resolution which endorses a lower threshold for war with Iran, Rep. Berman took to the House floor to deliver a clarion call to effectively RAISE the threshold for war with Iran that has become so widely accepted in Congress.

Col. Wilkerson said that the resolution is “a thinly-disguised effort to bless war” because it calls for lowering the current threshold for war from the long standing U.S. ‘redline’ of a nuclear-armed Iran to ruling out a “nuclear weapons capable Iran”, and because it effectively takes all options off the table except for the so-called ‘military option’.

‘Nuclear weapons capable’ is such a dangerous threshold because, as I’ve written about before, it is a vague term, undefined in the legislation, that could be interpreted as a call for military action now--simply because Iran has a nuclear program at all—even though the U.S. and Israeli intelligence establishment agree that Iran is not building nuclear weapons and has not made a decision to do so.

While the resolution itself doesn’t define at what point Iran would reach this point of no return for war, Rep. Howard Berman (CA), ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, went to the floor to clearly define ‘nuclear weapons capable’, and to speak out for diplomacy, not war, with Iran.

Rep. Berman’s cautionary remarks carry tremendous weight because in addition to being one of the leading voices on foreign policy in Congress, he introduced this resolution with Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL), Chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

In a pointed rejection of attempts by others who have hinted that the U.S. attack Iran merely for having a nuclear program, most notably Senator Lieberman, co-author of this companion legislation in the Senate and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Rep. Berman defined this ‘point of no return’ for Iran according to the same lines that many U.S. and Israeli intelligence officials have endorsed.

Rep. Berman defined this point of no return, or ‘nuclear weapons capability’, by referencing a definition of the term that was given by former Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair in a 2009 testimony to Congress, with a few additional caveats:

• 1) Fissile material production
• 2) Design weaponization and testing of a warhead
• 3) a delivery vehicle

Berman pointed out that Iran has a delivery vehicle (#3) but does not have #1 and #2, but are making progress on those steps.

Berman continued to explain that he would consider Iran to be nuclear weapons capable if Iran:

Will the Senate Sing a Different Tune?

In addition to Rep. Berman, several other proponents of the legislation emphasized that this resolution is not an authorization for war. They are correct—the legislation is non-binding, and doesn’t authorize war or anything else. Rather, the resolution does put Congress on the record as endorsing policies that would lower the threshold for war and push diplomacy further off the table. However, as dangerous a ‘sheet of music’ that it is, it is important to note that the debate on this script showcased how many in Congress are singing to a very different, pro-diplomacy tune cautioning against war.

The Senate is expected to take up the resolution as early as this week or next on S. Res. 380, the companion legislation, introduced by Senators Joe Lieberman (CT), Lindsey Graham (SC), and Bob Casey (PA). Write and call your senators, to ask that join national security experts in rejecting a lowered threshold for war, and speak out for diplomacy, as some have in unexpected quarters of Congress.

The House's draft military authorization bill is full of concerning language. What most alarms me, though, isn't a section on military operations in any one country – instead, it's a report that seems to endorse increased activity on the entire African continent.

When “marking up” the text of a bill – such as the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) – a committee will include a report, which offers further detail on their thoughts around the legislation. Though this may not always translate into concrete language in the text of the bill itself, it can inform how appropriated funding is later used (including to support covert or classified activity). This year’s report language from the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) contained the following excerpt:

Specifically, the committee believes that activities that utilize U.S. Special Operations Forces and an ‘indirect approach’ that leverages local and indigenous forces should be used more aggressively and surgically in Africa and the Arabian Peninsula...The committee believes that current indirect activities are not fully resourced and underutilized to counter gains and preclude the expansion of Al Qaeda affiliates in these regions.”

While FCNL feels that counterterrorism and military initiatives have already begun to overshadow other aspects of U.S. policy, this excerpt instead claims that the U.S. hasn't done enough – and that more "aggressive" use of special operations is needed. Though I haven't been able to find any traces of this in HASC’s final version of the NDAA, I’m deeply concerned as to what impact this kind of language and sentiment could have in the long-term. In addition to being hugely vague in its scope – referring to activities in Africa as a whole as well as in the Arabian Peninsula – the statement troubles us for a number of reasons:

Take action! Stay tuned for more as the NDAA process continues, and follow this link in the meantime to advocate for increased investment in the tools of peaceful prevention (rather than those of military might) when it comes to U.S. policy toward Kenya and East Africa.

Last week, the House subcommittee that handles international affairs funding passed the State Department and US Agency for International Development’s budget for fiscal year 2013. The House budget would cut billions from the Administration’s proposal for a variety of international programs.

Even though international affairs funding comprises less than 2% of the federal budget, despite public opinion, it is vulnerable to deep and disproportionate spending cuts. Funds that support the peaceful prevention of deadly conflict were not spared in the House’s bill. Here’s the (semi) good, the bad, and the ugly:

The (semi) good: Conflict Stabilization Operations, which funds the Civilian Response Corps and the State Department’s new conflict prevention bureau, received $43.5 million in the House bill. While this is a decrease from their requested budget ($56.5 million), it maintains last year’s enacted funding level. Unfortunately, this is still a very limited budget for a new bureau to establish itself and begin its work.

The bad: The House budget cuts U.S. dues to the United Nations by $160 million and peacekeeping contributions by $244 million. These funding levels would put the U.S. into debt with the United Nations.

The ugly: The House budget eliminates the Complex Crises Fund (CCF). This is a very short-sighted decision, given this small fund’s ability to flexibly prevent and respond to emerging violence. Research demonstrates that preventing war is 60 times cheaper than late military interventions.

Now that the House has completed its version of the international affairs budget, the Senate will take up the budget later this month. Stay tuned for ways to take action and urge Congress to fully fund tools to prevent war.

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 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 provision (sec. 1216) was put into the bill by HASC Chairman Buck McKeon (CA). It also requires the administration to submit a reduction notification to Congress prior to making any public announcements, as well as “an assessment of relevant security risk metric associated with the marginal reduction in force levels.” An effort to strike the problematic section led by Ranking Member Adam Smith (WA) failed 27-34. The bill passed the committee 56-5.

Congress seems to have given up its authority to declare war, but is now intent on making sure the war in Afghanistan never ends.

A continued military effort sanctioned by Congress is completely at odds with the American public. In a recent Fox News poll, 78% of those polled said they “approve of the U.S. withdrawing from Afghanistan.” What’s more, this is no longer a politically divisive position—63% of Republicans in the poll approved of plans to withdraw troops. This political maneuver to extend the U.S. war should be met with opposition by all sides.

The U.S. military mission has not succeeded in building a stable Afghanistan. It is a $2 billion/week adventure that is unlikely to yield positive outcomes for either the U.S. or Afghanistan. There are no military solutions to Afghanistan’s political problems, which have only been exacerbated by decades of foreign wars in the country. Pursuit of a military solution is simply counterproductive. Under this strategy it will not matter if the U.S. leaves this week or in ten years: the investment in lives and treasure will have been for naught.

When the NDAA goes to the House floor next week, expect to see some substantial discussion about what the U.S. is doing in Afghanistan. There will be an effort to strip this out-of-touch and counterproductive section from the final bill. Congress should hear loud and clear from the American public that dragging out the war in Afghanistan at the cost of life, limb and treasure is irresponsible and misguided.

This article was also published by Truthout here.

The House military authorization bill includes billions for weapon systems designed for saber-rattling toward Iran, and possibly for use in an attack on Iran. The bill would also require the administration to prepare for war by dramatically escalating the U.S. military presence in the Mideast.

While the bill does not explicitly state that the new weapons systems it includes would be used for war with Iran, a staffer from the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) has reportedly explained that the additional funding for weapon systems 'could be used in a war with Iran'. This detailed weapons and policy outline pushing for a war with Iran is adapted from legislation (H.R. 4485) introduced last month by Rep. Mike Conaway (TX), and has been supported by only 13 Republican co-sponsors.

The Hill reports that the military bill would fund billions in weapons systems, ranging from drones to rockets to heavy artillery systems, designed to be used to 'counter the Iranian threat':

That bill will have roughly $350 million in research and procurement funding for a entire slate of weapons designed to counter the Iranian threat.

If approved, the House version of the fiscal '13 defense bill will finance everything from unmanned intelligence drones and self-guided, shoulder-fired rockets to heavy machine guns mounted on U.S. warships to repel small-boat attacks. The Iranian navy has been known to use fleets of small patrol boats to swarm larger warships steaming near the Iranian coastline.

Floor Vote Week of May 14

While it is unclear to what extent advocacy groups have been involved in advancing these pro-war provisions, the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) has endorsed provisions from the NDAA on Iran.  Shortly after the 'chairman's mark' of the NDAA was released, the Bipartisan Policy Center sent out an invitation for an event on the upcoming U.S.-Iran talks, noting that the NDAA contains some of the BPC's recommendations on Iran:

"Currently, The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is being considered before the House Committee on Armed Services that contains provisions recommended by BPC for halting Iran's nuclear progress."

The military authorization bill, formally known as the "National Defense Authorization Act" or the NDAA, was approved in the Armed Services Committee on Wednesday. The NDAA is expected to be debated on the House floor early next week, during which dozens of amendments are expected to be added to the bill before its final passage.

The Pro-War Package has 3 Components:

1) Billions in anti-Iran weapons systems

2) States that it is U.S. policy to support military action to prevent Iran from threatening other countries with a nuclear weapon:

This provision would declare that it is U.S. policy "to take all necessary measures, including military action if required, to prevent Iran from threatening the United States, its allies, or Iran's neighbors with a nuclear weapon" (section 1221, b).

The legislation fails to mention that Iran has never threatened to use nuclear weapons, that Iran has repeatedly denounced nuclear weapons in the strongest possible terms or that U.S. and Israeli intelligence agree that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon. And certainly no mention that military and intelligence officials from across the political spectrum in the U.S. and Israel agree that attacking Iran would increase the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran, and that diplomacy is the single most effective way to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran and a devastating war.

3) A requirement that the administration prepare for war with Iran:

This legislation would also require the administration to formulate a plan to dramatically expand the U.S. military presence in the Mideast in order to prepare for war with Iran. The committee itemizes the sorts of high-tech weaponry, fighter jets, and military drills that it would want to see spelled out in such a plan, in order to 'underscore the policy of the United States' in the section above--namely that the United States is ready to launch a full-fledged war against Iran.

This reporting provision (section 1222 b) requires the Pentagon to escalate U.S. militarization of the Persian Gulf in order to 'underscore' the U.S. military threat to Iran:

The Secretary of Defense shall prepare a plan to augment the presence of the United States Fifth Fleet in the Middle East and to conduct military deployments, exercises, or other visible, concrete military readiness activities to underscore the policy of the United States described in section 1221(b).

Take Action

You can take action by calling 1-855-68 NO WAR and ask that your representative vote against the NDAA, and to support the Conyers/Paul/Jones/Ellison amendment which declares this bill is not an authorization for the use of force in Iran. Stay tuned to this page for updates on the amendments that FCNL is watching on Iran, Afghanistan, nuclear weapons, indefinite detention and other issues here, and see the text of all of the Iran-related sections of the NDAA here.

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 to 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, 2011, after it was passed by both chambers. Often forgotten, however, are some of the other momentum-building votes on amendments to the FY2012 NDAA.

In May 2011 when the bill was debated in the House, Reps Jim McGovern (MA) and Walter Jones (NC) offered an amendment calling on the Obama administration to give Congress a plan for leaving Afghanistan. The amendment narrowly failed by a vote of 204-215 and has become an anchor of anti-war Afghanistan work. Rep. Barbara Lee (CA) offered an amendment to prohibit the establishment of permanent bases in Iraq and Afghanistan which passed by voice vote.  Rep. John Conyers (MI) offered an amendment that prohibited the deployment of U.S. ground troops in Libya that passed 416-5. In the Senate in November, Sen. Jeff Merkley (OR) offered an amendment to hasten the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan that passed by voice vote as well.

This year on the FY2013 NDAA, we expect to see important votes on Afghanistan, Iran, detention and military trials, military funding (keeping military sequestration on the table) and nuclear weapons issues. It is likely that some hundred or more amendments will be offered and considered. You can keep track of amendments we’re watching here. Expect to hear from us about Afghanistan-related amendments over the next 10 days.

In a Congress where bills we support are introduced and then referred to committees that will never push them to the House or Senate floors, the NDAA has become an important bill for anti-war efforts. This requires a balance of principle and practicality, though. FCNL does not support the authorization of military funds—especially while we are seeing other legislative efforts to undermine human needs spending. This does not mean we cannot support these important initiatives by bipartisan Congressional allies to cut the military budget, end the war in Afghanistan, prevent war with Iran and reduce the U.S. nuclear stockpile.

Our power as individuals and as a faith community comes when we act on our convictions--this idea was affirmed through the theme of "being salt and light" at the World Gathering of Friends just as it is when we live out each day working for peace and justice. I knew that Quaker collaboration to help prevent deadly conflict in Kenya was important before I left; being in Kenya and seeing the transformative relationships between perpetrators and victims of atrocities served to reaffirm the transformative power of non-violence as a response to conflict and the value of public policies that promote peace.

What can we say to our U.S. policymakers about our public policies and this kind of transformative conflict resolution? Many may feel that the work of those building peace in Kenyan communities remains disconnected from U.S. policy in Washington. While it is true that the capacity to prevent renewed electoral violence lies with those in Kenya, there are actions our own government can take to help promote peacemaking and mitigate conditions for deadly conflict.

When we meet with policymakers in Washington, D.C., they are inspired by the testimonies that come from Friends building peace in Kenya. They ask questions about how a small group has been able to train over 1,000 young people in Alternatives to Violence, including some former perpetrators of atrocities who now express a deep commitment to peaceful means. They begin to believe that the peaceful prevention of deadly conflict – in place of an unbounded dependence on military intervention – is truly possible.

Though the U.S. government has made some progress toward improving violence prevention capacities – including the announcement of the Atrocities Prevention Board last week – FCNL remains concerned that the U.S. is not doing all it can to ensure that our government's policies help complement (and do not undermine) Kenyan communities’ efforts toward peace. Rather than emphasizing prevention of violence and peacebuilding, the U.S. is increasingly focused on counterterrorism and military assistance that could undermine stability in the long-term. While the 2013 State Foreign-Operations budget request did not identify direct funding for peace and reconciliation in Kenya, the National Defense University estimates military aid at as high as $300 million per year – aid that goes with little oversight or accountability.

This week, I wrote a letter to President Obama sharing our concerns and recommendations for the year ahead (and following up on some of the key recommendations found in our Kenya policy brief). Some concrete steps that the U.S. can still take include:

My time in Kenya showed me just how powerful community peacebuilding can be. If the U.S. were to truly invest in these capacities – rather than those that can help fuel further instability – it could begin to shift its presence in the world toward one that helps prevent, not fight, war. Starting with support for the incredible work of Friends in Kenya, those of us in Washington D.C. and throughout the U.S. can begin making real change toward this end.

Take action now! Write to your members of Congress about the importance of support for tools of violence prevention and initiatives toward long-term peace in Kenya – rather than the military focus that could do more harm than good.

After seeing the work of peacemaking at the grassroots level in the Turbo Division and hearing stories of how healing and reconciliation had changed peoples’ lives, I had the opportunity to learn of the institutional side of peacemaking in Nairobi before I left Kenya with the help of Anna Crumley-Effinger of AFSC’s Africa program.

The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) sits on a sprawling campus opposite the US Embassy in Nairobi.  Anna and I met with three key staff who are providing coordination with the Kenyan government and among development partners to assure free, fair and peaceful presidential elections in Kenya.   For all the criticism of the United Nations that we hear from some in Congress who want to defund the UN, they would reconsider if they had the opportunity to talk with these professional staff on the ground who, with their colleagues, have the soft power skills to bolster and backstop efforts underway by the Kenyan government.

Noting that violence around the next presidential election in Kenya could have a major impact on the entire region of East Africa, UNDP explained that following the 2008 violence, they began systematically working to develop infrastructure for peace. This includes education, advocacy and technical assistance with government and non-governmental organizations (NGOs).  From efforts to reduce crowd incitement through crowd sourcing to working on the early notification system with police for possible violence related to elections, UNDP works through the Kenya Partnership for Peace.

UNDP spoke of the flow of small arms into the rural areas of Kenya is a heightened cause of concern.  They work with the Regional Centre on Small Arms and Light Weapons to monitor and educate about this growing source of potential deadly violence that is being acquired by organized criminal gangs.

The next brief stop on Monday was the AFSC Regional Office for Africa. Based in Nairobi, AFSC operates programs in the Dadaab refugee camp (which now counts as the third largest city in Kenya), Somalia, Burundi and Zimbabwe.  It was encouraging to visit with Dereje Wordofa, the director of that office, to hear his hopeful assessment that violence in Africa has lessened over the past 25 years.  The concerns of economic and educational opportunity in regions that have experienced war and depravation are a key priority for AFSC.

Oliver Kisaka Simiyu, Deputy General Secretary of the National Council of Churches of Kenya (NCCK), explained their organization’s humanitarian assistance following post-election violence in 2008 and their ongoing work in the Somali refugee camps of Dadaab and Kakuma.  A large institution that includes 26 Kenyan churches and 12 “para-churches” among its membership, NCCK can count 15 million Kenyans through its member institutions. In addition to serving their member churches through technical assistance and direct aid for community development, NCCK is pursuing efforts to address the economic hardships of people who are poor.

Oliver explained to me the criticism NCCK has experienced as a result of their opposition to the new constitution that was approved by referendum in August, 2010 by 67%.  NCCK is concerned about the inclusion of Islamic codes in the new constitution that would allow Islamic family courts to be used to settle grievances among Muslims.  While I didn’t have the opportunity to fully explore this objection due to the time constraints of having to catch my flight home, it is clear that the institutional body of NCCK doesn’t  necessarily reflect what is happening in communities.  In Turbo, an Interfaith Coalition for Peace that includes the imam from the local mosque meets regularly and plans local events, including the celebration of International Peace Day.

Nonetheless, the ethnic tensions between tribes and between religions simmers through the goading of provocateurs and is often fueled by the politicians themselves.  News reports included coverage of arrests for hate speech and the anticipated next steps in the International Criminal Court’s indictment of four leaders, including presidential candidates Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto.  Civil society in Kenya is robust and is closely monitoring their political leaders in efforts to reform the concentrations of power that have contributed to corruption.

I made a point to talk with taxi drivers and shop keepers about their sense of what is happening in the country.  (It was pretty easy to get into a conversation about politics when I told them I was from Washington DC—where President Obama lives—that brought a big smile to everyone’s faces.  They are very proud of Obama’s Kenyan lineage.)   From these brief conversations, I would say the average Kenyan wants what the average American wants—a good education for their children, a job where they earn a living and securing that comes with peace.

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

The President flew to Afghanistan to sign a ten-year pact with Afghan President Hamid Karzai on the one-year anniversary of the assassination of Osama bin Laden. The Strategic Partnership Agreement paves the way for the United States to stay involved in Afghanistan through 2024.

This is a truly staggering amount of time, but is it fair to call this a 23-year long war? What is the “residual force” size going to be? Who is going to foot the annual $4-5 billion bill? What will the U.S. actually do to advance peace and stability for the next decade?

This all largely depends on what comes next. President Obama said “We will shift into a support role as Afghans step forward.” Some believe the 352,000 Afghan Security Forces are woefully unprepared to “step forward,” let alone lead the security operation. It is doubtful they’ll be prepared by 2014, when the force strength is set to drop to 230,000 Afghans. That very likely means the U.S. will have a significant “advise and assist” role in Afghanistan for years beyond 2014.

That raises the question: if U.S. forces remain past 2014, what will they actually do?

This will be determined in the coming months as the U.S. negotiates a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with Afghanistan. Troop levels and operations for the next twelve years will be finalized over the next twelve months. That means we have time to influence what the next decade in Afghanistan looks like—for which I am hopeful. With much concentrated effort, we can help articulate an alternative to a U.S. military presence in Afghanistan.

The apparent lack of political and economic transition strategies is the most concerning part of the agreement. The U.S. seems endlessly focused on the military or security role in Afghanistan and has not paid enough attention to underlying political problems behind the conflict. Moreover, the Afghan economy is simply not viable without considerable foreign assistance. This is not the best way to move forward in Afghanistan. The U.S. must begin to put these strategies in place, and soon.

Put simply, war in Afghanistan will not bring peace to Afghanistan. President Obama believes staying in Afghanistan for another decade will “give Afghanistan the opportunity to stabilize.” Yet, absent an economic and political transition strategy and with a focus dominated on the military side, there can be no stabilization or a lasting peace in Afghanistan or the region. The withdrawal of U.S. troops is necessary to facilitate such a future.

The U.S. should not abandon Afghanistan, but find non-military ways to be involved and aid the coming transition. Without a meaningful political and economic transition strategy, indispensable in preventing further violence and civil war, it is hard to see a positive outcome. The war is not over and may never be if an adequate strategy isn’t put in place.

Several of us who were at the World Gathering have taken the opportunity to travel to Turbo, Kenya with David Zarembka of the African Great Lakes Peace Initiative (AGLI) to learn about and participate in civilian peacemaking trainings.   Located about 8 hours from Nairobi, Turbo, along with El Doret and Mt. Elgon saw some of the greatest conflict following the last presidential election in 2007 when over 1100 people were killed and thousands of people were displaced from their homes that were burned.

As the next presidential election approaches here in Kenya—either at the end of this year or in March, 2013, a number of organizations are ramping up their training programs to try to prevent a recurrence of deadly conflict.

For over a decade, the Alternatives to Violence program has offered a variety of workshops in Kenya, Burundi and Rwanda to help participants directly learn how they can remain non-violent in the face of conflict.   Today I spoke with Douglas, Killen and Caleb, three Kenyan men participating in the transformative conflict program, who told me that people in this region are anxious to participate in these programs that will help mitigate or resolve grievances that often have deep roots.  They recognize that the presidential election cycles here seem to be the time that people turn to violence to settle these long-standing conflicts.  Often the violence, which usually follows tribal lines, is encouraged by political parties, seeking to gain support in the presidential campaign.

These programs of reconciliation and conflict resolution can have a transformational impact on the lives of the individuals who have been victims and perpetrators of violence. I have been asking participants and trainers if they expect to see changes on a community level or even what implications the programs of reconciliation, mediation and peacemaking might have on public policy.  What is the tipping point that creates a culture of peaceful transition at the time of elections here in Kenya?  Or how does every community create the culture that assures grievances are resolved peacefully—without weapons or wanton destruction?

The effect of peacemaking is cumulative, often starting with the individual and family relations and moving out to neighbors andbeyond.   Although several people I have spoken to over the past weeksay it is difficult to imagine this Kenyan election will occur without any violence, many expect it will be mitigated in this region—because these programs have changed hearts and minds.

Moreover, the systems change that will occur with the implementation of the new Kenyan constitution is huge progress for reform.  Many people I speak with talk about the need for civic education to help people understand what is in the constitution, including the devolution of power from the presidency and gender equality as critical steps in advancing political and economic conditions in Kenya.

Kenyans in this area recognize that violence isn’t resolving problems; these programs which have been initiated by Quakers but now involve interfaith participation are vital teaching tools for transformation.

As we come upon 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.

Unfortunately, the current negotiations and the agreement between the United States and Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai have been predicated on the US military staying involved in Afghanistan for the next decade, and not on actually providing resolution to the broad conflicts in Afghanistan and the region. Under this agreement, the US military will largely leave Afghanistan after 2014, but some residual forces will remain to "advise and assist" the Afghan military through at least 2024.

The DoD and the Obama administration have maintained that the US war is going well, and that the United States is in the right position to begin to transition out of the lead role by the end of 2014. This directly contradicts information from the ground and from whistleblowers like Lt. Col. Daniel Davis, whose 84-page report has changed the conversation around Capitol Hill. It is clear that assessments regarding progress on the ground given by the military to Congress and the administration have been largely misleading.

The distance between rhetoric and reality is setting up the worst-case scenario.

Here is some forecasting: Congress will continue to take Pentagon rhetoric at face value and fund a plan unable to deliver peace or stability to Afghanistan, dismissing contradictory evidence, despite the knowledge that upwards of 70 percent of the American public is presently polling of in favor of withdrawal. The United States signs a strategic partnership agreement focused on fighting (first by the United States and then by Afghans) an insurgency that has consistently and historically risen to resist foreign involvement in Afghanistan. That agreement leads to a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) that backs the Afghan National Security Forces (presently at 352,000 and projected to be around 230,000 in 2014). This firmly pits the US-backed Afghan military against the Afghan-born, Pakistani-backed, Taliban-led insurgency and effectively deepens the Afghan civil war and regional proxy wars already driving much of the conflict.

Under this unfolding scenario, the United States fails to provide a process for viable political or economic transition. No legitimate regional political plan or Afghan-led reconciliation efforts are put in place. Post 2014, the United States is still making multibillion dollar investments in the Afghan government and security forces with little to show for it. Afghanistan is an increasingly violent and divided place as the civil war deepens and political will in the United States continues to fade. By 2015 or 2016, the United States bails on Afghanistan - full-scale abandonment - fulfilling the most common deeply held fear among average Afghans.

How can this scenario be avoided? Warring on for another so-called "fighting season" at the cost of thousands of lives and billions of dollars will deliver absolutely no additional political leverage, so don't do it. Instead, end combat operations now and begin a military withdrawal. There are only political solutions to the political problems of Afghanistan and the region. The United States must immediately begin robust political negotiations predicated on ending the conflict on the Afghan and regional levels (Pakistan, India, China, Iran, etcetera) - an investment in peace that will have guaranteed dividends.

The latter scenario is the only hope for staving off civil war in Afghanistan. The current war strategy will not deliver peace and stability, but rather undermine both. It is not too late to change course, but time is rapidly fading.

This article was first published by Truthout here.

The world gathering challenged Friends to pay attention to what God is calling us to. One of the questions that resonated through the worship was: “What are you doing here?” I didn’t take this to mean “What are we doing in Kenya?”

Rather, it was an existential question – “What are you doing with your life?”

What are you doing to respond to God’s call? What are you doing to be faithful in seeking the Kingdom of God?

We seek a world free of war & the threat of war.
We seek a society with equity and justice for all.
We seek a community in which every person's potential may be fulfilled.
We seek an earth restored.

Are we pursuing the Kingdom with our vision for FCNL? Is it possible to do that in Washington, DC, and as lobbyists? Being at this gathering with the clarion call to be salt and light in the world renews my conviction about our work at FCNL.

Quaker or not, Christian, Jew, Muslim, or no religion – I know that millions of people share this vision that Friends and we at FCNL have for the world-- a world that values peace, equity, justice, community, integrity, on an earth that is sustainable.

Our call is to live out this vision in our lobbying visits on Capitol Hill, in the relationship we establish with our representatives and senators in Congress, and in our work with both those who agree with us and those who disagree with us on the specific legislation that advances our vision.

April 24, 2012

Nakuru, Kenya

In meeting Quakers from around the world, I see that FCNL is unique as an organization among Friends in our lobbying government for policies that rise from our Quaker spiritual grounding. I have had conversations here at the World Gathering with Friends from several countries who are intrigued with the idea of "a Quaker lobby in the public interest." A few organizations, like Britain Yearly Meeting's Quaker Peace and Social Witness, devote attention to their country's policies that affect peacemaking in places where Quakers have long done service work. And other Friends are engaged with the Quaker United Nations Offices in New York or Geneva. Still, the on-the-ground conflict mitigation and resolution that is being led by Quakers in areas of central Africa that have experienced deadly conflict are still rising to the attention of elected officials in their respective countries. And many Kenyans are interested in how they can better influence public policy.

Group photograph of conference attendees. Can you spot the War is Not the Answer sign? (See full size version)

The work happening here in Kenya following the presidential elections in 2007 and in Burundi and Rwanda following the 1994 genocide in those countries that is devoted to healing, reconciliation and alternatives to violence has had a profound impact on the individuals who have participated in the workshops and trainings. Today, in the plenary led by Central and Southern Africans, we heard from Rwandans who had family members killed in the genocide and who are now working to keep peace and provide services to others who have been traumatized--by conflict or by HIV-AIDS. David Niyonzime, a pastor from Burundi, talked about the many forms of service being carried out by Friends, arising from their knowing that God's work of being salt and light doesn't mean simply participating in Sunday church. These services include alternatives to violence programs, trauma healing and reconciliation, and directed outreach to women.

As we lobby for the world we seek, it is enlightening to see how change is happening far from Washington to create peace in communities that have experienced violence. The violence communities in central Africa have experienced and the underlying cause of violence experienced by communities in the United States may share some similar causes and solutions even thought the context and scope may differ.Implementing remedies for the people directly affected and solutions that can be systemically applied based on better policymaking is a challenge for all Friends and others who care about peace.

April 22, 2012

Nakuru, Kenya

The Amazing Diversity of Quaker Worship

Diane with Lal Muana, who established an evangelical Quaker church in Myannmar.

Worship is central to all Quaker gatherings.  But those of us who have grown up in only one tradition of Quaker practice might be amazed to see how Friends from other countries worship.  At this World Gathering, the Friends World Committee on Consultation (FWCC), has organized worship sessions along the FWCC Sections that are regions of the globe.

All speakers are reflecting on the theme “salt and light” of brokenness and healing, using the verses from Matthew 5:13-15 “You are the salt of the earth, but if the salt has become tasteless, how can it be made salty again?  . . .   You are the light of the world. . . “

A plenary session at Kabarak University.

Today’s worship, led by the Latin Americans included Quakers from Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru, Cuba, Guatemala, and Honduras.  The worship included plenty of singing, Bible reading, prayer, a sermon and a brief time of silence, before which we were admonished not to sleep!  Conducted fully in Spanish, with translation into English, the reverse has been true for the other plenary sessions and times of worship.  They have all been in English with two teams of translators providing simultaneous translations to Spanish and Kiswahili.  (In fact, most Kenyans are fluent in both Kiswahili and English, although as one who hasn’t been around the lilting inflections of Kenyan speakers, I find I have to listen closely to the speakers.)  Documents are also being translated to French and Spanish which seems to accommodate most participants.

The worship led by the Africans is full of loud, joyful singing and dancing and always includes plenty of Bible reading, prayers and sermons.

Being Salt and Light—Living our Faith Into Action

Diane with Marge Abbott of North Pacific Yearly Meeting and Marion Ballard of Baltimore Yearly Meeting.

Every speaker has called us to recognize that we can be “salt” and “light” in a broken world, that we are called on to carry the practice of our faith outside our meetings and churches, that we are called to be a prophetic people, to radical love.

Esther Mambo of St Paul’s University in Nairobi told us that being salt and light requires us to be citizens of the world, to be involved, not sitting on the fence.  Her words spoke to our work at FCNL when she said “the challenge is to have influence in our own countries,” and challenged the Kenyans to use their influence in their own country.  And true to how we work at FCNL—by lobbying that doesn’t usually make the headlines—Esther Mambo said that the influence of salt isn’t always seen but it is tasted.

Anna Crumley Effinger (left) and others at the thread group on peace held by Dave Zarembka.

Friends here have described how they live out their call to be salt and light in the world from the alternatives to violence programs and healing and reconciliation in Kenya, Rwanda and Burundi to the alternatives to violence programs in prisons in the USA and England to the support local meetings provide for those in distress.  It has been a joy for me to share the FCNL story of how our faithfulness to God’s call to mend a broken world is carried out in our lobbying work and in our connection to Friends’ meetings and churches throughout the USA.

April 20, 2012

A Week with 1,000 Quakers

Nakuru, Kenya

The Kenyans, who are hosting this Sixth World Gathering of Friends, are marvelous hosts. Set at Kubark University on a sprawling campus with plenty of green lawns, we are enjoying an ideal climate and gracious hospitality. In the air is the smell of wood burning from the fires that fuel the large pots used for cooking ugali, rice, beans, lentils, millet porridge and hard-boiled eggs. The vast dining room which accommodates the 1,000 Quakers here usually requires waiting in line for up to 15 minutes, but everyone seems quite cheerful about it as it presents an opportunity to meet someone new and learn the stories of people gathered.

Flamingos at Lake Nakuru, where over 200 delegates traveled on Saturday.

Most of us participating are staying in dorms—four to a room in my case—two of us from the USA and two from Kenya—yet another opportunity to share our lives with one another. The showers are cold water, save in the early morning hours where two faucets provide warm water, and we each have a plastic bucket to use for washing up. Those cold showers, the vast dining room and the feeling of community-in-formation that I’m experiencing remind me of my childhood church camp days.

We enjoy the twice daily tea times where the dining room staff haul massive urns and cups to the lawns for tea or milk/water which is mixed with cocoa or tea. Sometimes there is coffee, weak by US standards. The tea times present wonderful opportunities for conversations with new Friends. Today I was in a conversation with men from three countries: Myanmar, the Phillipines and Kenya. Everywhere I go—the library, walking about campus, the plenary sessions—I see people who are happily making new friendships.

Stephen Dotson of Baltimore Yearly Meeting.

With 42 languages spoken, the feeling is a bit like a United Nations village, without the formality of diplomacy or the feeling of power politics we experience in Washington. In fact, many of these Friends have experienced great hardship, and in the case of our Friends from Central Africa, they have been traumatized by violence they have witnessed or experienced. This violence has been countered by reconciliation and peacemaking programs that bring out a spirit of love and hope despite the pain people have endured. It is this spirit of love and a desire to span our differences of language, culture and theology to see what we can do to heal a broken world that is at the center of this gathering.

Diane with FCNL General Committee clerk A.T. Miller.

A War is Not the Answer bumper sticker on a Kenyan vehicle.

In a speech yesterday at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, President Obama announced a comprehensive U.S. strategy to prevent genocide and other mass atrocities.

The establishment of the Atrocities Prevention Board is a significant milestone for FCNL’s peaceful prevention of deadly conflict work. FCNL has advocated for several years to establish a high level panel within the U.S. government to identify countries at risk of mass violence, before a crisis occurs. Certainly, the APB’s establishment is only the first step. FCNL, along with other national organizations, made several concrete recommendations to the Administration last fall after the APB was initially announced. In the coming months, we will continue to lobby for these recommendations to be implemented as this new body begins its work.

While yesterday’s speech marked an important success for me, it was also personal. My grandparents survived Nazi-occupied Netherlands, and I grew up listening to stories of the war. My grandfather was imprisoned during the occupation due to his participation in the underground movement against the Nazis. He survived, although his health was permanently damaged and led to his premature death. My grandma’s stories of the war are filled with anecdotes of biking long distances to fetch food, hearing war planes overhead, and worries about my grandfather.

Growing up in a safe town in upstate New York, these stories of violence felt distant and difficult to imagine. It wasn’t until I was in high school during the U.S. invasion of Iraq, that my own beliefs about war and violence began to develop. In the midst of ongoing news reports about the U.S’ “shock and awe” campaign, I talked to my grandma. Seeing images of Baghdad burning on television brought back awful memories of the war she experienced as a young woman. In her eyes, the violence felt the same as World War II.

Watching President Obama deliver his speech yesterday made me think about my grandparents and their experience with war. I hope that the new tools and strategies developed by the Atrocities Prevention Board will not only help prevent violence in places like Kenya, but also be applied to the U.S’ own foreign policy. As the war in Afghanistan drags on, rhetoric about Iran escalates, and the U.S. military footprint in Asia expands, it is clear that military tools continue to dominate the U.S’ foreign policy.

My grandmother reminded me in 2003 that deadly conflict creates pain and suffering, no matter who causes it. While President Obama’s speech is a step in the right direction, we still have a lot of work to do to achieve a world free of war.

A.T. Miller is the Clerk of FCNL's Executive Committee and a Professor at Cornell

April 21, 2012

Diane Randall and I are experiencing the unity and spiritual depth of the World Gathering of Friends and are truly inspired. We have had a whole series of plenary speakers who are profound Quaker leaders from around the world and most have been under the age of thirty. It is a sense of tremendous renewal, and these speakers have been eloquent in bridging programmed and unprogrammed, evangelical and liberal, and across many languages and cultures. Major points of unity are a commitment to faith in action in the world, a profound commitment to testimonies on peace and equality, and strong messages of concern for the earth and global change. FCNL is of great interest to Friends worldwide, and we find ourselves sharing frequently. We also daily hear messages that underscore the importance of our work, including a message from South Korean Friends about the extreme militarization of their country and from Aotearoa/New Zealand about our fragile earth. We are in a stunningly beautiful location among Friends of like mind experience warm and deep Kenyan hospitality. Tonight, Diane and I are presenting a table at the "Fair", and the official photo of the gathering of over 1000 friends has a "War is not the Answer" sign up front!

April 23, 2012

On Saturday evening, there was a project and organization fair, and FCNL had a table with many interested Quakers from all over the world talking with us and gathering information. Then on Sunday evening we were part of a very well-attended interest group on Peaceful Prevention of Deadly Conflict with a focus on work in Kenya towards preventing violence during the upcoming elections. The work of Cassidy Regan was much appreciated, and we built stronger ties with local and international partners in Kenya. Now today again at lunch on Monday we held a discussion group at which friends in Kenya expressed interest in starting their own institution to examine and inform Kenyan Friends about national and governmental issues. "War is Not the Answer" pins and bumper stickers are traveling the globe this week, home from the conference.