[Peace-discuss] Fwd: Sign-On Letter to Progressive Caucus Re: Afghanistan TIME SENSITIVE

[Morton K. Brussel]

FYI.  --mkb

Begin forwarded message:

> From: UFPJ <webmaster at unitedforpeace.org>
> Date: May 10, 2009 5:25:16 PM CDT
> To: brussel at uiuc.edu
> Subject: Sign-On Letter to Progressive Caucus Re: Afghanistan TIME  
> SENSITIVE
> Reply-To: webmaster at unitedforpeace.org
>
> Dear Member Groups,
>
> The Congress will be voting on another $93.4 billion for war, which  
> will help fund an escalation of troops in Afghanistan. We are asking  
> organizations to sign the letter to members of the Congressional  
> Progressive Caucus found below.
>
> If you and your group can sign-on, please email: organizing at unitedforpeace.org 
>  by 6:00 PM ET tomorrow (Monday). We apologize for the short notice,  
> but a lot of these details have just emerged over the past couple  
> days and we want to present them this letter on Tuesday.
>
> COALITION LETTER TO PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS: REGARDING THE 2009  
> SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS
>
> Dear Progressive Caucus Member:
>
> The undersigned organizations and concerned individuals have worked  
> closely with the Progressive Caucus to prevent and to end the Iraq  
> War. We appreciate your leadership on this issue and your continued  
> efforts to ensure the removal of all U.S. troops from the country.  
> We are also grateful for all that the Caucus, collectively and  
> individually, has already done to speak out against the widening war  
> in Afghanistan, which contradicts both our national security and our  
> national values.
>
> At this critical moment, your continued leadership to help reverse  
> the downward spiral of the security situation in Afghanistan is  
> urgently required. We urge you to oppose the expansion of the war in  
> Afghanistan; require the Obama administration to present and  
> implement an exit strategy; and to press for a greater investment in  
> Afghan-led development efforts and regional diplomacy to stabilize  
> the country.
>
> We also urge you to press for an immediate end to U.S. air raids  
> that continue to kill and maim Afghan civilians and destroy Afghan  
> property. What is euphemistically termed 'collateral damage' not  
> only takes civilian lives but also inflames Afghans' hostility to  
> the U.S. and wins new supporters for the Taliban. According to the  
> UN Assistance Mission, U.S. strikes produced 64% of all civilian  
> deaths caused by the U.S., NATO, and Afghan forces in 2008. Just  
> this week, 'collateral damage' from U.S. air strikes took another  
> 100 innocent lives, according to Afghan officials.
>
> Secretary of Defense Gates, Secretary of State Clinton, National  
> Security Advisor Jones, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mullen, and  
> even President Obama himself, have each acknowledged that the  
> internal conflict in Afghanistan cannot finally be won by military  
> means. They have publicly agreed that it will have to be won -- if  
> it can -- by dramatic improvements in the economy, the political  
> system, government services, and the courts.
>
> The President's FY 2009 supplemental funding request would clearly  
> widen the war in Afghanistan. We urge Congress to restructure the  
> package to focus funding on the expanded diplomacy, development  
> assistance, and international cooperation that are key to ending  
> these conflicts and promoting a stable peace in the wider region. To  
> defeat the Taliban and stabilize the country, the U.S. must enable  
> the Afghan people to develop public services and an effective  
> justice system essential to create political stability and support  
> for the government; to develop agricultural alternatives to drug  
> crops; and to root out corruption.
>
> Given these objectives, the ratio of military to non-military  
> funding in the Administration's $83.4 billion supplemental budget  
> makes little sense. More than 90% of the funds allocated for  
> Afghanistan in the supplemental is for an escalation of war-fighting  
> by U.S. military units. It would widen -- not wind down -- the war  
> there. That contradicts the Administration's own admission about how  
> the 'war' will be won or lost.
>
> President Obama has agreed that the U.S. must convince Afghans we  
> have "no interest or aspiration to be there over the long term." Yet  
> our troop escalation, increased operational tempo, and expansion of  
> large bases suggests just the opposite.
>
> In light of these concerns, we believe that the Congress should  
> restructure the supplemental spending in several critical ways:
>
> Require the administration to set a date certain for withdrawal.
> Prohibit any further Predator and other missile strikes and aerial  
> bombing likely to result in civilian casualties in Afghanistan and  
> Pakistan.
> Approve the $7.1 billion in funding for the international affairs  
> budget, including: $3.7 billion for humanitarian aid, development  
> initiatives, and diplomatic support in Afghanistan.
> Oppose all new funding for combat in Afghanistan and, at a minimum,  
> dramatically change the proportion of funds for war-fighting  
> compared to those for development, stabilization, and diplomatic  
> cooperation.
> Now is the time to reverse direction in Afghanistan so that the  
> U.S., as President Obama envisioned, "forge a hard-earned peace"  
> there.
>
> Signed:
> United For Peace and Justice
> Peace Action
> Code Pink
> Progressive Democrats of America
> US Labor Against War
> Institute for Policy Studies
> Fellowship of Reconciliation
> After Downing Street
> Long Island Alliance for Peaceful Alternatives
> Voters for Peace
> Peace Majority
> Baltimore UFPJ
> Ohio PDA
>
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090510/94880efc/attachment.htm