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

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

This seems at odds with what President Obama said back in June 2011 about troop withdrawals. While announcing the removal of 33,000 U.S. troops by September of this year, the president said:

“After this initial reduction, our troops will continue coming home at a steady pace as Afghan security forces move into the lead. Our mission will change from combat to support. By 2014, the Afghan people will be responsible for their own security.”

The projections do seem to square with the Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s February first announcement that U.S. troops will end combat operations by mid 2013, and then switch to an advisory role. If there are to be no reductions in troop levels for the entire 2013 fiscal year—keeping levels around 68,000—then the Panetta’s announcement would directly contradict the “steady” pace of reduction President Obama called for in June 2011.

The tide of war is supposed to be receding but appears to remain steady for the next 18 months. Moreover, it is this lack of clarity that is leading to instability and driving Afghanistan towards civil war.

If the Pentagon is not planning on a larger troop presence than called for by President Obama, then they have exaggerated their funding needs—possibly to starve off other spending reductions in the base budget. This appears to be classic political jockying between the White House and Pentagon, all while the lives of U.S. troops and Afghan civilians are on the line. It is reprehensible political posturing.

These funding and troop requests come at a troubling time policy wise. Present political talks are teetering on failure. A recently published report written by LT. Colonel Daniel Davis offers a scathing analysis of the war, concluding that the military mission has had an “absence of success on virtually every level” and is ultimately futile. Davis also notes that military commanders have not given honest assessments about what is happening on the ground in the country. As a consequence, the strategy to arm and train a large Afghan army is also faltering.

Congressional and public support are both waning as well. Last week, 88 member of the House—including Adam Smith (WA), ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee—sent a letter led by Reps. Jim McGovern (MA) and Walter Jones (NC) supporting an accelerated withdrawal to President Obama. Additionally, 30 organizations, led by FCNL, sent a letter to members of the House supporting the congressional effort—an imperfect policy to be sure, but a step in the right direction.

Public support has been fading for some time. According to a new Ramussen pole, 67% of American public supports President Obama’s current timeline for ending the war. Additionally, a recent ABC News/Washington Post survey found that the public supports the drawdown of U.S. troops from Afghanistan by a 78%-19% margin. With numbers like these, Congress is feeling the pressure to end the decade long war.

So then, this begs the question: why stay one more year? Why even stay one more day? Why spend another $88 billion on the U.S. war in Afghanistan? The war strategy has failed to deliver stability and peace and will not do so while troops remain in the county. Therefore, the U.S. should begin an immediate military withdrawal and focus on the political settlement aspect of this conflict—what I call the long-view. To be sure, it will not be easy or quick, but it is necessary.

As we move closer to May and the NATO Summit on Afghanistan in Chicago, President Obama will have an opportunity take bold policy steps, potentially bringing a close to a very war and even longer conflict. But this will only happen if we all keep the pressure on.

As a fresh face at FCNL, I have already had amazing opportunities. On my very first lobby visit I was joined by Kate Gould, and Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff to former Secretary of State, Colin Powell.

Although I would like to believe that the staffers' excitement was due to my stunning charm and quick wit, it was more likely that a name such as Col. Wilkerson's warrants a bit of a buzz. As a high-ranking member of the former Bush Administration, Col. Wilkerson had an inside view to one of the most controversial presidencies in recent history. He has been very outspoken against the policies and secrecies of that administration, saying Bush and Cheney should be held accountable for the crimes they committed in office.

Left to right: Chic Dambach, Rep. Garamendi, Col. Wilkerson, Kate Gould, and Hilary Johnson

Regarding Iran, Col. Wilkerson has spoken in adamant opposition to war and has pushed back against those who favor military action. In our meetings with members of Congress and their staffers, he gave insight into consequences of war with Iran, and noted similarities between the "drumbeats" of war that led to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 with similar, and more rapid, drumbeats today pushing for war with Iran.

During our meeting with Congressman Garamendi's office, Col. Wilkerson spoke of the disastrous consequences that would come of a military attack on Iran, and the need to avoid those circumstances. Also, we were lucky enough to score some photos with the Congressman and his Chief of Staff, Chic Dambach.

Col. Wilkerson was kind enough to join Kate and I on a second day of lobby visits, where we continued our meetings to speak out against war with Iran. Additionally, we addressed the Casey-Graham-Lieberman bill that pushes President Obama to abandon diplomacy with Iran, and encouraged members of Congress to sign on to the Ellison-Jones letter which encourages increased diplomatic efforts by the United States. On the second day, we had a meeting with Congressman Guthrie, and asked that Congress support an Incidents at Sea Agreement with Iran. Congressman Guthrie co-sponsored the Conyers-Davis Incidents at Sea Agreement during the last Congress.

The entire experience was positive and left me full of hope. Hope in this incredible organization, hope in my colleagues' dedication to the vision of a world without war or the threat of war, and hope in the strong leaders in our government who want to do what is right in a world filled with uncertainties.

5 Things the Media Won't Tell You about the Budget
Want to Know More? Join Our Call on Thursday
This Valentine's Day, Show FCNL Some Love
Congress Is Closer than You Think: Be Part of Our Week of Action
This Just In: Rep. Barbara Lee to Speak at FCNL's Lobby Weekend
Iran: The Dangers of Current Policy
Progress Report: New Support for Cutting the Nukes Budget
War is Not the Answer Photo of the Week: Lexington, KY

Like what you're reading? Sign up for our e-newsletter to get weekly updates about what's happening in Washington.

5 Things the Media Won't Tell You about the Budget

News coverage of President Obama's budget, which was released yesterday, is focusing on tax increases and its proposed cuts to military spending.  But the numbers tell a different story. The president is making a good effort to invest in both short term and long term supports for the weak economy. But on the Pentagon spending front, the president's budget doesn't comply with current law, the Budget Control Act, and some of the "cuts" aren't actually cuts at all. See what else you won't be reading about in your local newspaper's coverage of the budget.

Want to Know More? Join Our Call on Thursday

The president's budget proposal makes significant cuts in the growth of the Pentagon budget over the next 10 years, but it doesn't go nearly far enough. Please join our legislative and campaign directors, Ruth Flower and Jim Cason, for a telephone briefing on the budget this Thursday at 8 p.m. EST to find out more about the budget and what you can do to try and rein in Pentagon spending this year.

To join, call 213-342-3000 and enter access code 283096 to be connected. Please respond to this email to let us know you'll be joining us.

This Valentine's Day, Show FCNL Some Love

FCNL staff love our constituents around the country who take action for peace and justice and donate to support this work.  We don't want flowers or candy on Valentine's Day, but we welcome your gifts via credit card, check or automatic monthly donation. Thank you!

Congress Is Closer than You Think: Be Part of Our Week of Action

Do you think Congress should cut the Pentagon budget by nearly $1 trillion over the next 10 years, as current law requires? Next week, you have a chance to let your members of Congress know your opinion in person.   FCNL is urging action this President's Day during the congressional recess from February 18-24. We plan to inundate congressional offices with letters, phone calls and motivated constituents like you with a simple message--cut the Pentagon. How will you take part?

Tell your meeting, your peace group and people in your community about this opportunity to cut the Pentagon using this flyer, and look for the first action of the week on Monday morning!

This Just In: Rep. Barbara Lee to Speak at FCNL's Lobby Weekend

Spring Lobby Weekend participants will hear from Rep. Lee, who is a courageous and prophetic voice for peace in the House of Representatives.  There's still time to register for the weekend, which will be held March 17-20 in Washington, DC. Reserve your place today, and see what else is on the agenda for the more than 100 young adults and other activists we expect for the weekend.

Iran: The Dangers of Current Policy

I do not believe that the Obama administration wants war with Iran. It is pressing Israel hard not to attack, knowing well that the political cost for Israel--given the overwhelming, uncritical support for Israeli war fever on Capitol Hill--is minimal in a U.S. election year. But a policy of brinkmanship may beget a war, especially when not coupled with a much firmer, more sustainable--and unapologetic--diplomatic track.

~ Trita Parsi,  president of the National Iranian American Council, writing in The Nation this month

Find out more about the latest example of brinkmanship in the Senate in this blog post from Kate Gould.

Progress Report: New Support for Cutting the Nukes Budget

There's new support for Rep. Markey's legislation to reduce the billions of dollars our country wastes each year on its enormous nuclear weapons program. Three new representatives, Alcee Hastings (FL), Maurice Hinchey (NY) and Charles Rangel (NY) have signed on to H.R. 3974 since our action alert last week. Does your representative support these efforts?

Send your member of Congress a message today!

War is Not the Answer Photo of the Week: Lexington, KY

Friends from Lexington and Berea Friends Meeting--Daniel Morgan, Steve Olshewsky and Charlie Wilton--gather at Rep. Ben Chandler's district office to lobby. Find out why in-district lobbying can have a big impact on your members of Congress' decisions.

Order your own War Is Not the Answer sign and see where this movement is showing up across the country. Find out how to submit your photo.

As early as Wednesday, Senators Bob Casey (PA), Lindsey Graham (SC), and Joe Lieberman (CT) are expected to introduce a resolution that would effectively endorse a new redline for war with Iran, and a new ultimatum that, if pursued by the administration, would virtually guarantee failure for any diplomatic efforts to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran and prevent war.

Sens. Graham and Lieberman publicly announced this resolution a month ago, but the draft text--last updated on February 8th--was only leaked last week. A flurry of press reports indicate that Senator Casey would be co-leading the effort, which has already faced resistance from some Senators, who are concerned that this resolution would undermine diplomatic efforts that could be pursued by the administration to resolve the stand-off over Iran's nuclear program.

Ruling out Diplomacy to Prevent War & a Nuclear-Armed Iran

Though a non-binding resolution, this legislation would ratchet up pressure on the administration to move the 'red-line' threshold--or when the U.S. would take military action--from a nuclear-armed Iran to a "nuclear weapons capable" Iran. As articulated by the Secretary of Defense in January, attempting to build a nuclear weapon is the United States’ “red line” that Iran must not cross but Iran has not yet made a decision to actually build weapon. This resolution significantly lowers the threshold to preventing a "nuclear weapons capable" Iran--a threshold without a precise definition, which some would even argue Iran has already crossed.

As currently drafted, this resolution would call on the administration to rule out a 'nuclear weapons capable Iran'. One of the resolve clauses states that the U.S. Senate "strongly rejects any policy that fails to prevent the Iranian government from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability and that instead would settle for future efforts to 'contain' a nuclear weapons capable Iran".

What about supporting a deal with Iran that, like the one laid out by Ambassadors William Luers and Thomas Pickering, would persuade Iran to agree to grant full access to U.N. inspectors, to ensure Iran's program is solely used for peaceful purposes? What if Iran puts forth a proposal, like they did in 2003, which calls for not only intrusive international inspections of its nuclear program, but also a 'grand bargain' that would entail ending support for Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and agreeing to the Arab League's plan for normalizing relations with Israel, based on Israel's acceptance of an independent Palestinian state?

All of these various outcomes, which would prevent a nuclear-armed Iran as well as preventing war, would be 'strongly rejected', under the ultimatum set by this new resolution.

By rejecting any policy that 'fails to prevent the Iranian government from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability" then that would mean rejecting the best-and many U.S. and other Western officials would say the only-prospect the U.S. has for reaching a diplomatic solution with Iran.

There are a slew of press reports, outlined by Robert Naiman of Just Foreign Policy, that illustrate how conditioning any agreement on a 'nuclear weapons capable' Iran would foreclose any prospect for a diplomatic resolution with Iran.

For example, on January 24, Helene Cooper reported in the New York Times: "Several American and European officials say privately that the most attainable outcome for the West could be for Iran to maintain the knowledge and technology necessary to build a nuclear weapon while stopping short of doing so."

By setting such an impossible ultimatum for diplomacy, without any reference to support for a diplomatic resolution of the stand-off over Iran's nuclear program, the draft February 8th text reads like a thinly veiled endorsement of launching a war against Iran, as many national security and arms control experts have warned.

Col. Larry Wilkerson will be joining myself and FCNL's intern for Middle East policy Hilary Johnson for more lobby visits with Senate offices this week, asking that they oppose this dangerous legislation, but we need your help. Please urge your Senators to oppose this bill, and speak out for diplomacy, not war, with Iran.

This week, both were talking about the importance of preventing violent conflict in Kenya.

On Monday afternoon, staff from both Senate and House offices joined FCNL for a briefing on what steps the U.S. can take to help support Kenyan efforts toward peace. During the briefing, staff learned about the peacebuilding work Friends in Kenya have undertaken since 2007-2008, as well as the concerns many have in anticipation of the next election. All who attended expressed interest in the positive role Congress can play in encouraging a U.S. policy supportive of peace, and we’re looking forward to continuing the conversation over the upcoming year.

The next day, FCNL constituents from across the country also joined a conference call on how Friends in the U.S. are working to help prevent violent conflict. After an update focused on our collaboration with other Quaker organizations and our hopes for U.S. policy in the upcoming year, the group had a discussion that ranged from mention of a trip that Earlham College alumni took to Kenya fifteen years ago to concerns around U.S. military assistance to Nairobi (which we’ve recently heard is as high as $300 million per year).

With the recent International Criminal Court decisions and military intervention in Somalia considered, dynamics around Kenya’s next national elections grow increasingly complex. Human Rights Watch recently investigated how little accountability has been pursued for past perpetrators of violence, while the International Crisis Group has raised concerns about the negative impact the Somalia intervention may have on Kenya’s communities – not to mention the resources it may drain from other important programs and political concerns, or the ways in which it has exacerbated East Africa’s humanitarian crisis.

Over the coming year, the U.S. has the potential to demonstrate true commitment to all the progress Kenyans – including Kenyan Friends – have made toward peace and empowerment in their communities. Many agencies within the U.S. government are working hard to do so. But with military assistance that reaches as much as $300 million per year – a number far larger than that contributed to violence prevention and reconciliation – the commitment could instead seem one in favor of violent solutions. Even if the U.S. government does not rhetorically support interventions such as that undertaken in Somalia (or wage war itself), its arms sale agreements inevitably do – and Kenya has topped the charts for east and central Africa over the past few years.

Following the conference call on Tuesday evening, an FCNL constituent, Deborah Fink, wrote to her senator to express her concern:

This year Kenyans are facing another election, complicated by the Kenyan attack on rebels in Somalia and the infusion of considerable military assistance from the U.S. At the same time, the State Department is working hard to defuse possible electoral violence in Kenya.

Iowa Quakers support the considerable efforts toward nonviolence of Kenyan Quakers…they are holding Alternatives to Violence workshops and reconciling victims and perpetrators of violence…As an Iowa Quaker following and supporting this work, I am chagrined that some U.S. military assistance to Kenya is undermining the goals of the State Department and American and Kenyan Quakers."

In the true spirit of connecting the conversations that both congressional staff and FCNL constituents had this week, Deb concluded her letter in asking her senator to take action:

I ask for your help in monitoring U.S. assistance to Kenya. The path to security in Kenya is through the people’s commitment to democracy and peace. They are working hard in this direction. May we support, rather than undermine, their efforts?

As Kenya’s next national elections approach, FCNL constituents can continue to call on our government to do just that.

Semper Fidelis-often shortened to Semper Fi-is a Latin phrase meaning "always faithful." It's most commonly known as the motto for the United States Marine Corps. The phrase has taken on a new meaning for me as details about the poisoning of Marines and Marine Corps families who lived at Camp Lejeune, the United States' largest Marine base, have come to light. For decades, the Marine Corps dumped toxic waste in Lejeune which leached into the groundwater, affecting as many as one million Marines and their families.

Baby Heaven at Camp Lejeune

While many Marines directly suffered from the effects of carcinogens like Benzene that leached into the groundwater, the hardest hit may be the children who were born around Camp Lejeune. In a study done by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, kids born around Lejeune experienced a rate of birth defects and childhood cancers at five times the national rate. But no study can speak adequately to the existence of a section of the base's graveyard known as "baby heaven" where hundreds of sick and malformed babies have been buried.

For me, this story is more than an abstraction. I was born at Lejeune in the 1980s. My father joined the Marines to help pay for college, and he served for four years as an officer before returning to Harvard to get a second (and eventually a third) degree. My dad was stationed in Lejeune in 1989, and I was born on July 4th of that year--a fitting start for a Quaker peace activist. When I first read about this story in The Washington Post, it hit me right in the gut. Is this me? Could I be sick? How could this happen?

My dad during his Marine years.

One of the most disturbing parts of this story has been the failure of the military and the federal government to address this issue. The Marines have refused to even contact the people who might have been affected by the toxic dumping saying that it would be too large an undertaking. The Federal Government and the military have betrayed the men and women who proudly pledged "Semper Fi." Being faithful must be a two way street. The government has an overwhelming responsibility to care for the people who have sacrificed for their country.

And really, this responsibility for the government to be faithful to those whom allow it to govern doesn't end with the Marine Corps. It extends to every person under its care. Communities all around the United States face similar dangers. Communities in Pennsylvania and all along the East Coast face exposure to dangerous chemicals that are the byproduct of hydraulic fracturing, a practice for the harvesting of fossil fuels that causes some of the same chemicals that were dumped in Lejeune to leech into the groundwater. Dozens of communities on the Gulf Coast were devastated by the effects of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. These are only a few examples, but represent a larger problem-the government's refusal to adequately address environmental issues fundamentally puts people at risk.

Some Marines and their families are beginning to get some justice for what has been done to them as a recent documentary and congressional investigations shed light on what happened to them. Two bills are making their way through Congress which seek to do something for Lejeune families who were affected by the poisonings. But I wonder, would anyone have found it if those affected weren't military families? What if this same rash of death had happened in a place like Compton or Anacostia--poor, mostly black neighborhoods where public sympathies don't reach? Would members of Congress clamor for action? Would award-winning documentaries be made about it?

I am blessed. I was born in 1989, two years after the poisonings stopped. But this doesn't change the message I have taken from this story. The government must be always faithful for the basic health of its citizens, or we must faithfully change it.

Citations and Resources

The House Energy and Commerce Committee has approved legislation that would reverse President Obama’s rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline. Politicians and pundits alike have been promoting the pipeline because there is a lot of profit to be made. However, in order for the project to be approved they have to convince the American people of all of the hollow benefits that the pipeline would provide. Every single one of those benefits is a deception. Let’s take a closer look at each.

Write to your member of congress, write a letter to an editor, talk to your friends, heck go ride a bike. Do what you can, while you can. It isn’t enough, particularly during the 112th congress, to assume that your elected representatives have your best interests in mind. In fact, that has never been enough, which is the nucleus of Democracy. At the heart if this issue lies nothing but the opportunity to turn a profit at the expense of American health, ecological integrity and agricultural productivity. This issue will set the precedent that will define America’s energy future.

This weekend Matt Southworth and I packed our bags and took our excitement about the upcoming young adult Spring Lobby Weekend on the road, touring the Tri-College Consortium of Bryn Mawr, Haverford, and Swarthmore. It's been great talking on the phone and emailing with people interested in the weekend, but we've also been wanting to speak with people in person.

At Swarthmore, we worshipped with young Friends in a beautiful meetinghouse, and Matt shared the story of his first experience lobbying--at Spring Lobby Weekend 2006, lobbying to end the Iraq war, in which he fought. Speaking about Spring Lobby Weekend after meeting for worship brought a gravity and a power to the conversation that sometimes can get muffled in an office environment. I found that leaving the office and talking with such energized and passionate students gave me a taste for what Spring Lobby Weekend must be like, on a much grander scale.

At Haverford, we met up with my fellow FCNL Program Assistant Emily Temple, and the three of us spoke with students interested in FCNL's internship, the young adult lobby weekend, and the FCNL priorities process by which meetings and groups of Friends weigh in on what policy issues matter to them. Students at Haverford's Quaker House hosted us for a wonderful dinner. I was inspired by the passion and detailed policy knowledge of students there.

At my alma mater Bryn Mawr, I was greeted warmly by faculty who know FCNL well, and students eager to learn more. In particular, political science majors were interested in FCNL's internship and the lobbying weekend. In conversation with some students about the war in Afghanistan (one of the issues of focus at this year's Spring Lobby Weekend) I discovered they had nearly up-to-the-minute knowledge of policy changes regarding the war. Spring Lobby Weekend is designed for people with all levels of knowledge about policy, but Spring Lobby Weekend will be a great opportunity for those students who are already passionate about ending the war in Afghanistan.

As well as getting students excited about Spring Lobby Weekend, one of the effects of the trip was that I am now very excited to spend a weekend with so many passionate, energized students!

Learn about Spring Lobby Weekend 2012, March 17-20.

A Week of Action: How Are You Helping to Cut the Pentagon Budget?
In the News: Your Letters to the Editor
Become an FCNL Intern: Enjoy Cupcake Benefits?
Afghanistan: Out by 2013?
Diplomacy, Not War, with Iran: Congress Is Hearing from You
Welcome to Our New Environmental Lobbyist, José Aguto
Honor the Promises to Native Americans: Leading the Faith Community
War Is Not the Answer Photo of the Week: Haverford, PA

A Week of Action: How Are You Helping to Cut the Pentagon Budget?

FCNL needs you to lobby for Pentagon spending cuts. The president and Congress could abandon the nearly $1 trillion in cuts required by the the Budget Control Act, which Congress passed last year. If these Pentagon cuts don't hold, there will be pressure to cut other federal spending to reduce the deficit. Military contractors are digging in for a fight and have spent millions to oppose these cuts. Will you let your members of Congress know where you stand?

FCNL is urging action this President's Day during the congressional recess from February 18-24. We plan to inundate congressional offices with letters, phone calls and motivated constituents like you with a simple message--cut the Pentagon. How will you take part?

Help spread the word with this flyer!

In the News: Your Letters to the Editor

"US spends absurd amount on the military." "Hold the line on Pentagon spending." These headlines appeared in local newspapers last week, thanks to letters to the editor written by people in the FCNL community. Read Michael True's letter in the Worcester (MA) Telegram and Gazette and Judy Deutsch's letter in the Metrowest Daily News.

Will you send a letter to the editor? We can help -- see FCNL talking points and send your letter directly. If your letter is published, please send a copy to Patrick Lozada at patrick@fcnl.org.

Become an FCNL Intern: Enjoy Cupcake Benefits?

Happy birthday to program assistant Bergin Parks! He was surprised with cupcakes at the office last week; another benefit to add to the dental, health, and life insurance that program assistants (otherwise known as interns) receive.  Now's your chance to join in the fun! We're accepting applications for 2012-13 program assistants, who will start in late August. But hurry, applications are due March 12.

Afghanistan: Out by 2013?

Secretary of State Leon Panetta surprised our lobbyists and many others when he announced that the U.S. military would be disengaging from Afghanistan next year. Read Matt Southworth's analysis of what this could mean for U.S.-Afghanistan policy and why this announcement shows that your advocacy is working.

Diplomacy, Not War with Iran: Congress Is Hearing from You

• In Des Moines, a delegation representing 16 groups took FCNL's "Diplomacy-Not War-with Iran" postcards to their meeting with Sen. Tom Harkin's office (pictured right).
• The Minnesota Peace Project delivered 200 of these postcards on a lobby visit to Sen. Amy Klobuchar's office.
• In the past 30 days, congressional offices have received more than 13,500 letters from FCNL supporters in support of diplomatic engagement with Iran.

But the saber-rattling continues: a new round of sanctions recently emerged from the Senate Banking committee and look likely to pass the Senate.  What can you do to help educate Congress about the dangers of and alternatives to war with Iran?

Welcome to Our New Environmental Lobbyist, José Aguto

FCNL is pleased to welcome José Aguto as our Legislative Secretary for Sustainable Energy and Environment.  Jose brings experience in policy development and lobbying on climate change, energy, and natural resources from the perspective of how these issues affect Native American tribes and people.  Prior to joining FCNL, Jose worked for the National Congress of American Indians and the Environmental Protection Agency. Find out more about José, and use our Facebook wall to welcome him.

Honor the Promises to Native Americans: Leading the Faith Community

FCNL's fourth annual briefing on Native American affairs on January 31 brought colleagues in the religious advocacy community to our green building to hear from congressional staff and issue experts. Among the presentations: energy development in Indian Country and Native American religious freedom.  You can hear these presentations for yourself on our website.

Find out what else FCNL's Native American advocates are working on.

Caption: Senate Committee on Indian Affairs staffer Josh Petrie briefs faith-based nonprofits in our Washington office.

War is Not the Answer Photo of the Week: Haverford, PA

Matt Southworth, Emily Temple and Kathy Zager pose with students from Haverford College. Matt, Emily and Kathy visited Haverford to recruit participants for this year's Spring Lobby Weekend, an event FCNL hosts for young people to lobby Congress on peace issues. Find out how you can be part of this event!

Order your own War Is Not the Answer sign and see where this movement is showing up across the country. Find out how to submit your photo.

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta's surprise announcement that "hopefully by mid- to the latter part of 2013 [the U.S. will] be able to make a transition from a combat role to a training, advise-and-assist role" in Afghanistan was both welcome and unexpected. Previously, 2014 was the year which the U.S. had committed to transition all authority to the Afghan government. The Obama administration has since backpedaled on the announcement, unfortunately muddling whether this move is a rhetorical or strategic shift.

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

Ending combat operations by mid-2013 and redeploying U.S. military personal by the end of 2014 is a clear, unambiguous message to Afghans and regional stakeholders: the U.S. is not staying forever. Some say this kind of plan will embolden the insurgency, but given their heavy reliance on a U.S. military presence for recruiting, the move more likely weakens the core resistance. More importantly, a clear declaration such as this one forces stakeholders such as Pakistan to the negotiating table in a way that combat cannot and has not in the past decade.

This plan for ending the U.S. war isn’t perfect or as fast as many—including me—might like it to be. But it is realistic. Negotiating a political settlement based on ending the broader conflict—both within Afghanistan and in the region—will take considerable time, likely stretching far beyond 2014. But the U.S. military is not needed for the negotiating phase of ending the conflict and, in fact, often hinders the process.

The U.S. plans to spend over $80 billion dollars on the war in Afghanistan in fiscal year 2013—down about $24 billion from fiscal year 2012, but still a significant amount of money. Given recent reports of gloomy days ahead for Afghanistan, with a nearly $600 billion U.S. price tag, over 1,800 U.S. dead and tens of thousands wounded and without clear progress, it is long past time to end the U.S. war in Afghanistan.

Perhaps the most important lesson to draw is that this shift—whether rhetorical or actual—is proof that your advocacy is working. After years of work, it is clear the Obama administration has the backing of most of Congress and the public to change U.S. policy in Afghanistan. However, if we want to hold the Pentagon to the 2013 date, it will take continuous engagement by all. That means participating in events like FCNL’s Spring Lobby Weekend is of paramount importance in the coming years. The only way to keep the government accountable is to engage elected and appointed officials. Let’s not let this opportunity slip away.

In 2007, the crisis in the Democratic Republic of Congo received a lot of media attention. Prominent actors and U.S. officials traveled to the DRC and were shocked by the appalling situations in the hospitals and the testimonies of the rape victims. Their shock and concern was justified; rape and sexual violence were and are a horrific tactic of terror in the Congolese conflict.

This wave of shock was followed by a wave of financial support. Hospitals received equipment and medicine to aid rape victims. The international response to support victims of sexual and gender-based violence was astonishing. Health programs have increased the survival rates for victims, and charities provide many victims with means to supplement their income and gain access to basic services if they have experienced exclusion from their families and communities.

At the same time, however, other programs remain desperately underfunded. Other health issues remain unaddressed. Medical, STI and therapy treatments are often only available to female victims of rape. These initiatives should not be diminished, however they do not take the other victims of the conflict or the rape crisis into account. There is little to no aid for the victim's family members. A female rape victim can receive vaccinations or treatment for Sexually Transmitted Infections, however her partner or her male children cannot. As a result, some women who receive treatment are re-infected by their partners who do not have access to treatment. To receive vaccination for their children, some parents are even pushed to disguise their male children in dresses and hope that doctors will mistake them for girls.

Suddenly being a rape victim has benefits and enables access to aid unavailable to anyone else. This creates tension and jealousy within the communities. Some women give false reports of being raped to receive treatment they could not otherwise receive. As these tensions grow, they will increasingly become a source of potential conflict.

The Congolese government has little to no means or capacities to step in and fill these gaps. Assistance from abroad is direly needed. Much of the violent conflict in the DRC has moved beyond the point at which preventive policies can be effective. However, the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) calls governments and international communities to three commitments: Prevent, Respond, Rebuild. And none of these responsibilities stand alone. The responses and efforts to rebuild must be structured in a way that they also prevent renewed atrocities.

Civil society and non governmental organizations provide a kind of focused, effective support that is irreplaceable. They are able to raise an enormous amount of valuable funding for specific causes, however government programs have a greater capacity to reach beyond the limits of specific donations. To fulfill the international responsibility to protect, we need to pair robust civil society programs with flexible government assistance.

More resources:

Reading the recent article in the New York Times Magazine, "Will Israel Attack Iran?", you might begin to think a war with Iran is inevitable and coming very soon. I know I've started losing sleep over the possibility. But no war is inevitable until it is underway, and there are real diplomatic solutions to the escalating crisis with Iran - if diplomats can muster the political courage to pursue them and space for real diplomacy isn't closed off entirely by the escalating press toward war by Congress and the media.

In a direct response to the NYTimes article, Gary Sick of the Tehran Bureau takes a much less "sensationalist" perspective, pointing out that "Bergman also overlooks the fact that Iran has almost certainly NOT made a decision to actually build a bomb and that we are very likely to know if they should make such a decision....Would Israel actually attack while these international inspectors are at work? No, they would need to give them warning, thereby giving Iran warning that something was coming. The IAEA presence is a trip wire that works both ways. It is an invaluable resource. Risking its loss would be not only foolhardy but self-destructive to Israel and everyone else."

Wait, you mean there are nuclear weapons inspectors in Iran?! Yes, though you'd hardly know that from the mainstream US media. And interestingly, Iran has just invited the IAEA inspectors to extend their mission, a move which many analysts suggests an opening for ratcheting down the rhetoric for war and reigniting diplomacy.

Secretary of Defense Panetta also explained on 60 minutes this past weekend, “the consensus is that, if they decided to do it, it would probably take them about a year to be able to produce a bomb and then possibly another one to two years in order to put it on a deliverable vehicle of some sort in order to deliver that weapon.” Wait, you mean they haven't even decided to pursue nuclear weapons yet?! Why, no. But military strikes would surely convince them to do so.

At a Hill briefing this week, 28-year veteran of the CIA Paul Pillar noted that a lot of the predictions circulating tend to worst-case Iranian behavior when talking about getting the bomb, but best-case Iranian behavior in the face of a military attack against them. In fact, his well-founded prediction, similar to other military experts, is that a military assault on Iran would quickly escalate into a devastating regional war, a new wave of anti-US sentiment across the Muslim world, offer a political gift to hardliners in Iran, lead to "incalculable economic consequences" for the world, fuel a nuclear arms race in the region, and guarantee generations of bad relations between the US and Iran.

So before accepting the inevitability of a war and giving up on diplomacy, as some in the media and Congress seem ready to do, why not consider - and pursue vigorously - the alternatives to such dangerous military action. While the next round of international negotiations (P5+1 talks in diplomatic lingo) is not expected to produce significant results, some elements of a negotiated solution to the crisis can be imagined. These could include an agreement to accept Iran's nuclear energy program while outlining clear technical no-gos to avoid weaponization. A more ambitious agenda would lay out a path that includes US-Iran cooperation on shared areas of concern, including Afghanistan, provides a security guarantee that the US and Israel will not attack in exchange for an end to Iran's support of violent disruption in the region, charts a course for a nuclear free weapons zone in the Middle East, and brings Iran back into the international community with a long-term goal of restored US-Iranian relations.

I sat in a briefing with Iran experts this week where these possibilities were being put on the table, examined, and debated. Unfortunately, the conclusion from all the speakers was that no one who needs to be weighing such options is right now. Instead, the increasing media hype and Congressional fervor for war is closing down the space for diplomatic options to be seriously considered and pursued.

That's unfortunate indeed because the risks of a war happening are increasing as the space for diplomacy is crowded out by fear and doomsday predictions. The best hope for preventing a war now amid such escalating conflict is an engaged citizenry insisting that war is not inevitable and calling on their policymakers to keep diplomacy on the table and pursue it vigorously, including direct, sustained, bilateral talks with Iran. FCNL's campaign to prevent war with Iran is underway - please join us!

A Week of Action on Pentagon Spending Cuts: Get Ready Now

The Senate is making important decisions about the budget in the next month. Your senators are hearing from the Pentagon, military contractors and the administration. Make sure they hear from you. One good time to contact your senators will be from February 20-24, when members of Congress will be home for a recess. During that period, some people in the FCNL network will be meeting with their senators to urge support for nearly $1 trillion in cuts to the Pentagon budget over the next 10 years. Others will be writing letters, going to public forums or joining the thousands more people who will participate in our online week of action.

Do you want to take part in this week of action? Take this quick survey to let us know what you are interested in doing and how we can help you.

A Toolbox for Your Week of Action

Whether you're an experienced grassroots activist or have never lobbied before, these resources walk you through what you need to know to take effective action over the President's Day recess. Find out:

• why meeting with staff or a member in a district office is so important
• how to schedule a meeting
• how to write an effective letter to your member of Congress
• how to engage the media in creating change

Do you need more information? Get in touch with Emily Temple at emily@fcnl.org with your questions.

What Works in Lobbying:  A Grassroots Story from Spokane, WA

When Nick Block, pastor at Spokane Friends Meeting, heard that Senator Patty Murray would be in Washington State over the February congressional recess, he put in a request to meet with her or her staff. Nick is now gathering friends, other pastors and peace groups to let Senator Murray know they want deficit reduction to start with the Pentagon.  Read his letter to community organizations asking them to get involved. Could you do something similar with your member of Congress?

Quote of the Week: Pentagon Budget Can Be Cut by More

"The defense industry and its lobbyists are spreading so much cash around on Capitol Hill. But the country cannot afford to continue on this way. And there is no strategic argument for doing so. The era of hard choices at the Pentagon has barely begun. There is still plenty of room to cut deeper without jeopardizing national security."

-"New Strategy, Old Pentagon Budget," The New York Times editorial published January 29, 2012

Take action.  Write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper telling why you want your members of Congress to support $1 trillion in cuts to Pentagon spending over the next ten years.

Can War on Iran Be Prevented?

Bridget Moix writes, "Reading the recent article in the New York Times Magazine, 'Will Israel Attack Iran?', you might begin to think a war with Iran is inevitable and coming very soon. I know I've started losing sleep over the possibility. But no war is inevitable until it is underway, and there are real diplomatic solutions to the escalating crisis with Iran. Read more about what those solutions might be.

Sanctioning Iran Isn't Good for Business

As the Senate Banking Committee prepares to consider more Iran sanctions, a coalition of business groups opposes the action. They write that "the opportunities for frank negotiation among sovereign states are inversely proportional to the escalation of sanctions placed on the targeted state." Read more from U.S.A. Engage, and find out more about how you can support diplomacy with Iran.

Spring Lobby Weekend: Register Now!

In just a few weeks, college students and other FCNL supporters from across the country will be converging on Washington, DC to learn to lobby and urge their members of Congress to end the U.S. war in Afghanistan. Will you join them from March 17-20?  The weekend will include briefings from congressional staff and experts on the budget and military affairs. Find out more and register today. Use this flyer to help let others know about the event.

War is Not the Answer Photo of the Week: Hart Senate Building, Washington, DC

FCNL's Kate Gould and Katherine Philipson deliver "No War with Iran" postcards to Sen. Jeff Merkley (OR) in his Washington office. Join the movement! Order your own "No War with Iran" postcards to use with your local peace group or Quaker Meeting.

Order your own War Is Not the Answer sign and see where this movement is showing up across the country. Find out how to submit your photo.

The President's State of the Union speech last night focused on getting the economy back on track. That's good. That's where most of us live. We know that nothing in our future is secure if we don't have jobs, homes, education for our children, and an ability to adapt to changing demands. We want solutions.

The President offered a number of fairly specific steps forward -- most of them more "supply side" than I would have expected -- but they might work. His attention to small businesses that create jobs here, and recommendations to end the incentives for multinational corporations to export jobs overseas were positive. Small business owners we've talked to, however, have emphasized that a high percentage of them are in service industries that serve local customers. If they don't have customers, all the tax breaks in the world can't help them to hire more people. So we need to be sure more people have jobs and incomes. Small businesses need more customers.

Supporting a move toward manufacturing to encourage renewable energy development would create some of those jobs and help to support the "demand side" of the equation that small businesses (and others) need. But it takes a while to get a new industry ramped up. What happens in the meantime? I missed hearing a commitment to those still struggling with the financial tsunami that washed over this country (and the world) over the past few years...those who still can't find jobs... those who haven't yet completed the skills training and education that the president rightly promoted. Those who were already poor before the recession. I didn't hear a commitment to unemployment insurance and to basic income assistance for those on the edge and those who are below our country's official definitions of poverty. One in five children in poverty -- in this country. Can we live with that?

As heartened as I was by some of the themes, I found myself just shaking my head at the perceived need for a presidential candidate -- even a sitting president -- to deliver a "tough" face to the rest of the world. In his summation, he returned to the idea that America is strong because our military is strong. What about our people? Our innovation? Our curiosity about the world? Our democracy? Our desire for solutions?

We have become too dependent on the military -- not on our troops, but on our military technology and industry -- to explain who we are as a people. But that's not where we live. The American people do not want war, but the president all but threatened war in his comments about Iran. A peaceful resolution is still possible, he said. But what we invest in, as a nation, is preparation for war.

I think of the Cherokee legend of an elder speaking of two wolves that battle for his spirit. One embodies the values he holds dear -- peace, generosity, protection of the earth, and so on. The other embodies whatever it is that he considers the opposite of his values. A child asks, "Which one wins the battle, grandfather?" And the grandfather replies, "The one I feed." In this country, we do not feed our capacity for peaceful resolution of conflicts in the world. We do not put our dollars, our creativity, our innovation, our commitment to this task. Instead, we support a huge weapons industry, coming up with ever more complicated technologies to strengthen our ability to attack. For now, that is the wolf who wins.

We will hear more details in coming days about the president's proposals for the military budget and for the rest of the budget. Although Congress adopted a bi-partisan deal last August to address the federal debt and to bring down spending in all sectors of the budget, we are hearing that the president's proposal for the military budget will break that deal, proposing less than half the spending reductions mandated by the "debt deal." He speaks of an agreement that he and Pentagon arrived at last summer, before the debt deal, and his intention to go forward with that agreement. My mind escaped for a moment to picture of a president saying "I came to an agreement with the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Labor, and the Department of Housing that we would not cut as much from them as the "debt deal" demands, because right now, the programs they offer are critical to the future of this country." But no president in my lifetime has ever said that. Only the Pentagon budget is allowed to break the deal, even though there are plenty of places in the Pentagon to find the savings that need to be realized each year over the next decade.

Most of America understands that the Pentagon has had a free ride for quite some time, and that fat contracts and lost money account for quite a bit of the savings that must be realized now. FCNL will be helping to give voice and background facts to enable all of us to speak from where we live about rational spending reductions and rational investments -- about which wolf we feed.

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

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

President Obama believes this “position of strength” allows the U.S. to “begin to wind down the war in Afghanistan.” Yet anyone paying close attention can see that things are rapidly falling apart. After a failed effort at the most recent Bonn Conference to secure long term funding from NATO allies for operations in Afghanistan, the White House's Afghanistan policy is on its last leg. Not to mention the steadily deteriorating relationship with a fragile political and military class in Pakistan. It is often said (but has been rarely true) that "this year is the pivotal year for Afghanistan policy." However, I can say confidently that in 2012, this turn of phrase could not be truer.

As the Obama administration navigates negotiations between Afghan President Karzai and the Taliban-led insurgency, it should tread carefully. If the U.S. attempts to negotiate a political settlement predicated on a long-term U.S. military presence, the agreement—and quite possibly the Afghan state—will fail. If the U.S. negotiates a political settlement predicated on ending the conflict—which means giving priority to Afghan politics, securing a regional settlement with actors like Pakistan and Iran and ending military operations—then Washington should prepare itself for a decades-long process.

The latter scenario is the only hope for long term peace and stability; there simply is no military solution to the conflict in Afghanistan.

Unfortunately, as the U.S. attempts to negotiate the end of one war, it seems hopelessly and blindly dedicated to starting another. After stating the U.S. would not tolerate “violence and intimidation” against citizens of the world, President Obama made an exception for Iran. The president announced: “Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal.” Yet there is a lot of doubt—particularly surrounding whether or not Iran is even interested in obtaining a nuclear weapon. Moreover, this kind of inflammatory rhetoric is not likely to encourage cooperation or open bilateral diplomatic channels between the U.S. and Iran. It seems more likely that this kind of threat will drive Iran away from these better policy options.

Ultimately, President Obama believes that “America remains the one indispensable nation in world affairs.” If this is true, President Obama should do a better job to treat such power responsibly. The U.S. does have great responsibility to contribute to the stability of the world—not undermine it by continuing a war for another decade in Afghanistan and starting a new war against Iran. It is long past time to evolve beyond this short-sighted mentality.

"Take the money we’re no longer spending at war, use half of it to pay down our debt, and use the rest to do some nation-building right here at home."
-- President Barack Obama, State of the Union Speech

Watching the State of the Union speech, I was delighted to hear the president calling for Congress to use some war money on other priorities. I was also glad to see the president's call to use tax policy to promote investments in renewable energy.

Yet right as he approached the end of his speech, the president disappointed me when he again reiterated that his Pentagon budget will include "saving nearly half a trillion dollars" in the projected Pentagon budget over the next ten years. As my colleague Ruth Flower has pointed out, a reduction in projected Pentagon spending of $500 billion dollars over the next ten years will reduce the rate of growth in Pentagon spending but will not result in a real cut in spending.

Our Country Needs $1 Trillion Cut in Pentagon Spending

The president's comments Tuesday were one more part of the coordinated strategy by the White House and the Pentagon to resist the $1 trillion cut in Pentagon spending that is required by the Budget Control Act of 2011. We know from press reports that on Thursday, January 26 the Pentagon is set to roll out its new budget numbers which will be another part of that strategy.

In preparation for that roll-out, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has invited key Congressional leaders over for dinner tonight at the Pentagon to discuss the $487 billion in cuts to Pentagon spending that the Pentagon has agreed they will make.

Secretary Panetta has some strong allies in Congress. The leadership of the House Armed Services Committee has already introduced legislation that would eliminate the requirement that the Pentagon budget be cut by some $50 billion in fiscal year 2013. And in the Senate, the Democratic and Republican leaders of the Armed Services Committee have also said they will be looking for ways to avoid any cuts in Pentagon spending beyond the $459 billion in reductions that the Pentagon has already agreed to.

Now please don't misunderstand me. If two years ago any of you had asked me if the Pentagon would agree to a $500 billion in their spending, I would have scored that as unlikely. These cuts are a sign of the progress we have made and of the depth of concern over the current deficit crisis. But, given the other priorities facing our nation, these cuts are not enough. And contrary to what the Pentagon is saying, there are a lot more cuts in our nation's wasteful and unneeded weapons programs that could be made.

We at FCNL approach the world with the premise that "War Is Not the Answer." But you don't have to be a Quaker or a part of the FCNL network to agree that the Pentagon could cut $1 trillion from their budget in the next ten years. In fact, such a reduction would still only reduce Pentagon spending to the levels of 2007.

We're encouraging everyone to continue organizing to persuade Congress that the current cuts in Pentagon spending required by law are a minimum. The next step will be to take this message out to others in our communities and begin a conversation on these issues. I look forward to reading what you think.

By addressing issues of housing, education and job creation, the president's proposals could move the U.S. closer to a society with equity and justice for all and one in which every person's potential may be fulfilled. Eliminating fossil fuel subsidies and creating incentives for clean energy could move us towards an earth restored, although other recommendations for energy production won't improve our environment.

We perhaps have the furthest to go in seeking a world without war and the threat of war.  The commitment to a military framework for U.S. foreign policy and the idealization of the military as the best model for our unity as a country makes me realize we have a long way toward the world we seek.

Did you watch the speech? What was your reaction? Please consider writing a letter to the editor of your local newspaper with your opinion. You can find tips on writing a good letter to the editor on our website.

Sincerely,

Diane Randall
Executive Secretary

January 25, 2012

State of the Union: More Staff Responses
Test Your Knowledge: Auditing the Pentagon
Peacefully Preventing Wars: Part of the Global War on Terror?
Occupy Congress
Kenya: Continuing Advocacy for Peace
Iran: Your Questions Answered
Help Sustain FCNL
War Is Not the Answer Photo of the Week: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

See the online version of this newsletter.

State of the Union: More Staff Responses

• Ruth Flower was heartened by some of the themes in the speech, including its focus on getting the economy back on track, but wonders why the strength of the U.S. must come from a strong military, not from its people, innovation, and curiosity about the world. Read more.
• Matt Southworth was disappointed by the president's emphasis on a foreign policy that relies on force. In Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran, Matt sees this perspective as short-sighted, not able to lead to long-term peace and stability. Read more.
• Jim Cason was delighted to hear the president calling for Congress to use some war money on other priorities but was disappointed that the president is resisting significant cuts in other Pentagon spending.  Read more.

Test Your Knowledge: Auditing the Pentagon

Question: In the last 20 years, how many times has the Pentagon successfully been audited?

a) 10
b) 5 
c) 2
d) 0

Check your answer, and look for a new quiz question in next week's e-newsletter.

Peacefully Preventing Wars: Part of the Global War on Terror?

First, the good news: funding for diplomacy, development and international cooperation avoided the huge cuts our lobbyists feared in this year's budget. But these programs avoided cuts by being folded into funding for the "global war on terror," a move that could have dangerous consequences in the years ahead. Read more on why this is a worrying trend.

Occupy Congress

"Protesters weave the powerful narrative that yes, what Congress does affects our communities -- and yes, it's worth saying something about it," writes FCNL's Sandy Robson in a recent blog post.  Sandy and former program assistant Jessica Halperin took part in last weekend's "Occupy Congress" demonstration in front of the Capitol building, which continued with visits to congressional offices. Read more about Sandy's experience.

Kenya: Continuing Advocacy for Peace

Hear what FCNL's Cassidy Regan has to say about her time in Kenya last month and her continued work in Washington. We're excited that Cassidy will be staying on at FCNL this year to work on peacefully prevention of violent conflict in Kenya.

Iran: Your Questions Answered

We've been hearing from many of you who have questions about FCNL's advocacy of diplomacy, not war, to address conflicts over Iran's nuclear program. Why should the U.S., which holds two-fifths of the world's nuclear weapons, be able to tell another country not to acquire them? What happens if diplomacy doesn't keep Iran from getting a warhead? FCNL's Kate Gould has been answering these and other questions.

If you have a question we haven't addressed, please ask!

Help Sustain FCNL

"I became an FCNL sustainer and so far it has been a great way to support the organization's mission on Capitol Hill. I started work at a small non-profit last year, and by donating a smaller amount each month I can easily work the gift into my budget-without even thinking about it. As a monthly donor, I help sustain work on issues I care about (like Peaceful Prevention of Deadly Conflict) as I embark on my career!"

~Caroline Anderson, Washington, DC

Find out how you can support FCNL's work for peace in Washington with a regular monthly donation. It's easy for you and saves trees, postage, and time. Contact Tommy Bobo at 800-630-1330 x2503 to sign up!

War Is Not the Answer Photo of the Week: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Nathanial Batchelder of the Peace House, James M. Branum of Oklahoma Center for Conscience and Pat McCauley of MoveOn.org show their support for Army Private Bradley Manning. Bradley Manning has been accused of leaking sensitive and classified information to the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks. Photo by Rena Guay of OCC.

Order your own War Is Not the Answer sign and see where this movement is showing up across the country. Find out how to submit your photo.

Yesterday, the International Criminal Court (a multilateral body dedicated to holding perpetrators of mass atrocities accountable) announced that four of the six Kenyans suspected of inciting post-election violence in 2007-2008 will head to trial. Though the road ahead is long, the decision is a step toward justice – and another demonstration of Kenya’s progress toward peace.

In the aftermath of Kenya’s electoral crisis, many both within the country and outside it called for perpetrators of violence to be held accountable. The Kenyan government initially pursued a domestic tribunal, but efforts failed to pass in Parliament. When little action had been taken almost two years later, the International Criminal Court (ICC) began an investigation of the post-election atrocities; since then, the process has been one fraught with controversy.

Some maintain that the Kenyan government should retain responsibility for any trials, and others point out that the ICC has focused on African leaders more than others (leaving those committing crimes on other continents in the clear). More than a few feel that their representatives are the victims of both domestic and international conspiracies. Despite these concerns, overall public support for the ICC investigation in Kenya has remained strong, and, in March of 2011, the Court indicted six high-profile figures for potential contributions to the post-election violence.

Yesterday's announcement determined which of the cases, if any, had enough evidence to continue to trial. In anticipation of the rising tension around the decisions, international and local organizations – from the Friends Church Peace Team to USAID – worked to prevent violence in volatile areas. While FCPT used the opportunity to test a text message-based community monitoring system, USAID’s Office of Transition Initiatives supported Kenyan groups conducting educational programs on the ICC’s process. Though much concern remained heading into yesterday’s announcements, reports from Kenya have so far celebrated a peaceful response. Moreover, the four charged include figures that had been affiliated with both political parties involved in the electoral crisis.

In working to hold political elites accountable, the ICC cases are making important headway against continued impunity for perpetrators of post-election violence. But while Kenyans now know that four will be tried by the ICC, much uncertainty remains. Their government has yet to decide whether the two still holding governmental positions will be forced to resign, as well as whether the two running for president will be disqualified. Some are disappointed to learn that two of the six have had their charges cleared (particularly considering one's chairmanship of a major political party and the other's former position as head of police, as security forces were responsible for as much as 40% of the 2007-2008 post-election violence). Given the process of appeals and trials now expected, it could also be quite some time before the guilt or innocence of the four is determined.

In the meantime, it’s important to note that the ICC trials shouldn’t be the only means of pursuing justice. Over the next year, accountability must also be established through criminal justice reform at more local levels in Kenya, helping to ensure that those who might commit violence against their neighbors feel equal responsibility as those who orchestrate violence from Nairobi. Simultaneously, more investment needs to be made in the reconciliation processes that provide space for communities to heal and rebuild – thus helping to prevent more deadly conflict from occurring in the first place.

Despite not being party to the ICC (a position that has elicited much criticism), the U.S. has been an important supporter of the Kenyan cases as one of the only modes of justice to move forward thus far. As the process continues, the U.S. should remain an advocate for full cooperation with the ICC – and, on another note, should join the Court itself – while also expressing support for further progress toward holistic justice reforms. Though the end result of the ICC cases is yet to be known, the process is one that, for many Kenyans, represents a recognition that violence in their communities should not go without consequences – no matter how powerful those responsible might be.

On Saturday civil rights veteran Helena Hicks marched with dozens of Baltimore activists from Union Baptist Church in west Baltimore to a rally at Read’s drug store, where the first recorded lunch counter sit-in took place in 1955. The marchers called attention to the state’s broken promise to provide 700 jobs in west Baltimore during the construction of a State Center, demanded a halt to the $100 million construction of a new youth jail in Maryland, and insisted on investments in jobs and education instead. My friend and I caught the tail end of the rally, which had drawn a swarm of police.

Many of the marchers continued southward to carry their message 41 miles to the Capitol, arriving at a nation-wide gathering of the Occupy movement as the House of Representatives returned from recess yesterday morning. They are weaving together the powerful narrative that yes, what Congress does affects our communities in Baltimore, and yes, it's worth saying something about it. Maybe this is the way that Martin Luther King, Jr. would have wanted his legacy to be celebrated.

The beginning of Tuesday's demonstration at the Capitol was cold and rainy. Hundreds of people still showed up. Former program assistant Jessica Halperin and I joined the General Assembly at noon on the Capitol's west lawn, mic-checks and all.

Unlike many demonstrations here in Washington, the gathering didn’t stop at the Mall. Organizers passed out directories, marked congressional office-buildings with color-coded flags, and encouraged everyone to visit to their representatives’ offices. As far as I could see there were no talking points. Everyone was free to interact with their representatives however they saw fit and express whatever message they felt appropriate, provided the exchange was nonviolent. It was apparent that some planned to stage sit-ins and confront staff, but others sought to meet with staff regarding tax breaks, war with Iran, jobs, and a whole host of issues.

I find it heartening that this movement, which has so many values and processes in common with Friends, has likewise been drawn to speak its truth to power in Congress. Indeed the Occupy Wall Street protests have brought new meaning and consequence to my own interpretation of Quaker values. Consensus-based decision-making, cumbersome and frustrating as it may be at times, ensures that decisions are a form of empowerment instead of oppression. Is it efficient? Often not. But we aren’t called to be efficient—we are called to stay true to our values.

Those who were arrested and disrupted congressional offices made the headlines in major news sources like the Washington Post. Their voices are important. And those whose messages were delivered more quietly, perhaps, were recognized by members of Congress and their staff. Their voices are equally important. This movement is “a wide open space for all the people who want a better world to find each other,” in the words of Naomi Klein. “This is not the time to be looking for ways to dismiss a nascent movement against the power of capital, but to do the opposite: to find ways to embrace it, support it and help it grow into its enormous potential. With so much at stake, cynicism is a luxury we simply cannot afford."

I feel grateful to be a tiny part of the big work of both FCNL and the Occupy movement in bringing about the world we seek.

Test Your Knowledge: Where Does the Pentagon Budget Go?
What Our Communities Could Buy Instead of War
Cut the Pentagon's Budget, Make the U.S. Safer
The U.S. and Iran in One Minute
FCNL's Spring Lobby Weekend: Make Your Plans Now!
Welcome Katherine Phillipson to FCNL
Kenya: Sharing Resources for Conflict Prevention
Grassroots Lobbying Tip of the Week: Know Who You're Talking To
War Is Not the Answer Photo of the Week: Minnesota Peace Project

Test Your Knowledge: Where Does the Pentagon Budget Go?

Since 2003, what percentage of U.S. spending on national security has gone to Pentagon contractors such as Lockheed Martin?

a) 30%

b) 40%

c) 50%

d) 60%

Check your answer, and look for a new quiz question in next week's e-newsletter!

What Our Communities Could Buy Instead of War

As the Pentagon and its contractors are demanding more and more of the spending pie, your communities are paying for it. State and local governments face more and more cutbacks and hard choices. Isn't it time to look at what our tax dollars could be funding instead of wars?

For the tax dollars they are spending on the Department of Defense, residents of Greensboro, NC could get 8,065 firefighters, 5,840 elementary school teachers, or provide a year of Head Start to 40,810 children. See what your community could be funding instead of the Pentagon using this calculator from the National Priorities Project, then share the information with your friends.

Cut the Pentagon's Budget, Make the U.S. Safer

"Cutting the Pentagon's budget could be a first step towards preparing the nation for the world in which we already live. Cuts of a trillion or more might begin to force a shift in the U.S. strategy for engaging with the rest of the world," writes FCNL's Jim Cason in a recent op-ed publishes in newspapers across the country, from Holland, MI to Harlingen, TX.

Read more of Jim's perspective on what's at stake in the debate over Pentagon spending cuts.

The U.S. and Iran in One Minute

What's going on between the U.S. and Iran?  FCNL's Middle East lobbyist Kate Gould explains how Congress can increase or decrease the chances of violent conflict between the U.S. and Iran.  Watch the video, then take action by using our postcards to urge your senators to support diplomatic engagement with Iran. We'll send you free postcards to use and to share with others in your meeting, church, or community group.

FCNL's Spring Lobby Weekend: Make Your Plans Now!

Join the movement to end the U.S. war in Afghanistan.  From March 17-20, FCNL's annual Spring Lobby Weekend will bring people from around the country to Washington to learn to lobby and make their voices heard in Congress. Find out more and register today.

Welcome Katherine Phillipson to FCNL

Katherine Phillipson, FCNL's newest staff member, is working with our grassroots network (that's you!) to organize for change.  Katherine comes to FCNL after working with community empowerment organizations in Senegal and organizing the faith community as a Policy Fellow with the Jubilee USA Network.  Find out more about Katherine, and stay tuned for when she might be traveling to your area!

Kenya: Sharing Resources for Conflict Prevention

Last week, FCNL's Cassidy Regan spoke about her month-long trip to Kenya where she met people working to prevent deadly conflict. She shared the podium with officials from the State Department, the Department of Defense, USAID, the Kenyan government and several non-profit organizations in Washington.  Find out more about Cassidy's trip and about how FCNL is working to help prevent violence in Kenya as the presidential elections approach.

Caption: From left to right--Cassidy Regan; fellow panelist Samantha DiFilippo, a Conflict Prevention Officer at the State Department; and attendee Dorina Bekoe, with the Institute for Defense Analyses.

Grassroots Lobbying Tip of the Week: Know Who You're Talking To

Reaching out to your member of Congress isn't just about contacting an individual-it's also about contacting an organization built around them.  Knowing who's who in a congressional office can help your message make a difference.  Your members of Congress will be home during the Presidents' Day recess, February 20-24. Read some of our tips on how to navigate a congressional office, and then set up a meeting with your members' office.

War is Not the Answer Photo of the Week: Minnesota Peace Project

The Minnesota Peace Project delivered 200 of FCNL's "Diplomacy-Not War-with Iran!" postcards on a lobby visit to Senator Amy Klobuchar's office.  One of Minnesota Peace Project's members, Coleen Rowley (left of the sign), is a former FBI agent and whistleblower who was named the TIME's Person of the Year award in 2002, along with two other prominent whistleblowers.

Order your own War Is Not the Answer sign and see where this movement is showing up across the country. Find out how to submit your photo.