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.

Last night, the House Rules Committee met to determine which of the 241 offered amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) would be considered. The committee ruled the McGovern/Jones amendment out of order, preventing it from coming to the House floor for a vote. The amendment would have required the U.S. to expedite the transition out of Afghanistan, end combat operations no later than December 2013 and ensure a limited or nonexistent U.S. military presence in Afghanistan after December, 2014. Last year, Representatives Jim McGovern (MA) and Walter Jones (NC) offered a similar amendment, which failed by a hair: 204-215. It was the most impressive display of congressional opposition to the war to date. This year, the amendment’s rejection by the Rules Committee was an indication that it would have likely passed had it seen the House floor. Rep. McGovern, a member of the Rules Committee, protested the decision for over an hour at the Rules Committee meeting late last night.

Despite poll after poll showing overwhelming public support for ending the war in Afghanistan across all party affiliations, the Rules Committee made the political choice to avoid this telling vote during an election cycle. Representatives whose constituents have been calling for the war to end now won’t have to make the choice between representing their war-weary constituents and acquiescing to a powerful, over-funded Pentagon.

Show your representative that there is public support for peace. The Rules Committee has allowed floor time for one of three possible Afghanistan-related amendments that FCNL was following. Representative Barbara Lee (CA) will be allowed to offer an amendment calling for funds for a safe and orderly withdrawal of U.S. forces and contractors from Afghanistan, similar to H.R. 780. The House will be debating and voting on the NDAA today: call your representative today and ask for their support for Rep. Lee’s amendment.

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.

One of the chief difficulties in addressing climate change is that we are all complicit in the propagation of the warming of our world. Even those of us who are seriously concerned about this issue play a substantial role in the problem.

I ride my bike to work as often as I can, but my bike tires and even much of my clothing comes from foreign factories powered by coal fired furnaces. According to Scientific American, Producing the annual beef diet of the average American emits as much greenhouse gas as a car driven more than 1,800 miles. Just being alive in the first world and reaping the benefits of the free market and all of the infrastructure that supports it makes it dang near impossible to live a life that is entirely removed from industrial carbon cycles.

We must act humbly, but with purpose. None of us are innocent, but the whole of humanity is charged with the responsibility of doing better. The hard fact is that the world will become warmer. Retroactively reducing atmospheric CO2 content to preindustrial levels is no longer an option. People will die of hunger, thirst, heat exhaustion, extreme weather events and in myriad resource shortage conflicts. People already do worldwide, everyday. But the frequency and severity of these events will increase in direct proportion with warming trends.

Another maddening facet to the overall problem is that despite our knowledge of these trends (and lets be clear, climate change is no longer conjecture) the American taxpayer still funds infrastructure projects and resource extraction methods that take us backward in time.

During the first quarter of 2012, the Big Five oil companies earned a combined $33.5 billion, or $368 million per day. Fossil fuels are subsidized at nearly 6 times the rate of renewable energy in the United States. Americans pay Oil Companies to do their jobs, in what is already the most profitable industry in the world. Think about that for a moment.

The U.S. is the only country in the developed world without a comprehensive climate change plan. American taxpayers fund dirty energy technology that not only endangers human health and the environment, but puts us behind even developing nations with the governmental wisdom to fund renewable, clean technologies that, in the long run, will be incalculably more cost effective.

Civilization is where it is today, in large part, because of fossil fuels and internal combustion. Ironically, these resources and technology now threaten the quality of life they have provided us in the past. We are all responsible for the problem we face, and we must all do what we can to address it. Repealing fossil fuel tax breaks, loopholes and special financing is the most logical place to start. Please read about the "End Polluter Welfare Act," bill number S.3080, and urge your members of congress to be an original co-sponsor.

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.

I was sitting on the metro listening to a little boy of 10 or 11 years old talk about how he wanted to be a pilot when he grew up. It struck me that the U.S. has been at war the entire time this little boy has been alive and if he has lived in the DC area all of his life I am sure he has seen plenty of military propaganda.

I do not presume to know anything of this child's life but the unfortunate fact is that funding for his education, any welfare his family receives through cash assistance, food assistance, or Medicaid are all in jeopardy of being cut to fund a grotesquely over-funded military. Just yesterday the House approved a bill that cuts $310 billion-mostly from poverty assistance programs-to pay for automatic spending cuts to the Pentagon that are scheduled to occur next year.

Aside from that, if this little boy grows up and joins the Air Force as he says he wants to he could potentially pay the most tragic price with his life or health by simply flying a faulty air craft. The F-22 is the most expensive fighter jet ever produced, yet the jet still suffers basic design problems that endanger pilots. Lockheed Martin, the principle producer of the F-22 Raptor has done rather well for itself with profits of $3.8 billion in 2010. Not too shabby for a company making a faulty device. Aside from general waste, this is another example of how our money is not being spent wisely for the Americans at home or those in the military.

But what about the jobs that Lockheed Martin and the military provide? This is the argument repeated time and time again in relation to military cuts. However, I would like to point out that spending on other government programs such as education, food stamps, infrastructure, and more both create jobs and give direct benefits to a struggling economy at the same time.

I do not need to tell you that the military-industrial complex is running rampant in the U.S. and seems to be growing in power and influence by the day. The sheer size of our military compared to the next biggest military alone shows the beast for what it is.

However, if deficit reduction and getting the economy moving is really the goal of this Congress, shouldn't they be looking in the most obvious spot for savings? What about the future of the little boy I saw on the metro? Will he have an education that allows him to get the job he needs to support himself? Will he get the adequate nutrition and healthcare needed for proper development? This, my friends is the trillion dollar question. What are our values as a nation? What we choose-to pay for fancy fighter jets or meals for hungry children-says something important about our values as a country.

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.

Bitumen rich tar sand mining is one of the most environmentally dangerous energy resource extraction processes in existence. In recent months, I have written many blog posts about the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline which would transport sands for refinement from the Athabasca region of Alberta down through the heartland of the United States to refineries in the Gulf of Mexico.

In a time when corporate structures have the same rights as individuals, it is even more important for individuals to make their voices heard. Our tax code already supplements big oil’s annual profits with disturbing amounts of tax payer money in the form of subsidies. On top of that, The Hill reports that “the Pentagon pays an average of $400 to put a gallon of fuel into a combat vehicle or aircraft in Afghanistan.” Guess who pays for that? That’s right, you and I do.

We must re-evaluate our country’s dependence on fossil fuels. All of the money that big oil receives annually could be re-allocated to incentivizing alternative energy resources. Imagine what that would do not only for environmental purity, but also for our government’s fiscal concerns. Although a monumental task, redefining energy sourcing and infrastructure financing is a process that America won't be able to avoid in the future. That task is one that many countries worldwide have been working hard on for years now, and it is paying off. Make no mistake, the money is there. The real problem is changing the priorities that determine where money streams flow, particularly where Washington is the point of origin.

There are many viable alternative energy technologies available for implementation. China’s solar industry is so heavily subsidized by its government that the Chinese solar industry controls the international solar market. If China can do it, can the wealthiest country in the world do it? You bet.

Bitumen sands aren’t likely to go away without a serious fight from well educated citizens. A company in Utah will likely be employing the same technology that Transcanada does for oil sands extraction in the U.S. It is likely that the pro fossil fuel jobs and domestic energy security rhetoric will be at work in Utah as well. Many already understand that true security comes from supporting clean industries that will provide good, long term jobs that do not endanger the water, air and soil that support American lives. And there is even more good news on this front.

There is a wealth of pro-fossil fuel mis-information linking jobs and energy security to public opinion. However, this recently released poll from the Yale and George Mason climate change communication programs is revealing.

Brigadier General Jonathan Gensler, a fellow at the Truman National Security Project claims, “the longer the United States remains dependent on fossil fuels – no matter where it comes from– the longer our nation’s security will be vulnerable.”

There is growing understanding of just how deeply the misinformation behind big oil has penetrated our Nation’s psyche. Speak to your friends and family, write a blog, call your representative and ask them to oppose the Keystone XL permit amendment to the surface transportation bill, or write a letter to the editor of a local paper. Do what you can because big oil will do everything they can to make sure that their profits go unchecked, and that the U.S. remains the only country in the developed world that does not have a comprehensive climate change strategy.

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.