[Peace-discuss] Common Dreams: House Moots Afghan Exit, Iran War, Military Budget, and "Signature" Drone Strikes

Wed May 16 19:18:45 UTC 2012

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/05/16-8

*Published on Wednesday, May 16, 2012 by *Common
Dreams<http://www.commondreams.org/>
 House Moots Afghan Exit, Iran War, Military Budget, and "Signature" Drone
Strikes
by Robert Naiman <http://www.commondreams.org/robert-naiman>

On Wednesday and Thursday, the House is expected to take up consideration
of the National Defense Authorization Act. Amendments will be offered to
expedite military withdrawal from Afghanistan, to oppose war with Iran, to
cut the military budget, and to stop "signature" drone strikes that target
people without knowing who will be killed.

According to the way the House operates, the authorization bill is the most
open opportunity to challenge current policy. When the House considers the
appropriations bill, amendments can be offered to cut money for specific
programs. But it is difficult to otherwise alter policy when the
appropriation is considered, according to the rules of the House. On the
authorization bill, there is much more scope to try to direct policy.

Every American who cares about war and peace ought to be calling Congress.
The Friends Committee on National Legislation has established a toll-free
number that connects you to the Capitol Switchboard: *1-877-429-0678*. Then
you can ask to be transferred to your Representative's office. [If you
can't call, you can write here<http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/ndaa2013>
.]

What should you tell your Representative's office? Whatever else you do,
you should tell them that you are a constituent and give them your address
to document that fact.

Then you have some choices to make about what to emphasize. Many amendments
have been offered<http://www.rules.house.gov/Legislation/legislationDetails.aspx?NewsID=828>.
At this writing, we don't know which amendments will be allowed on the
floor by the Rules Committee. Once the Rules Committee has decided which
amendments it will allow, there might not be much time before voting
begins. So it's better to call when you can and emphasize broad themes.

For example, you could say: "I urge you to support amendments that would
expedite U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan, oppose war with Iran,
cut the military budget, and bar the military from conducting drone strikes
against people whose identities are not known."

It is virtually certain that the Rules Committee will allow at least one
amendment which would expedite U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Such amendments have been offered byReps. Jim McGovern and Walter
Jones<http://www.rules.house.gov/amendments/MCGOVE_056_xml51512085807587.pdf>
, Rep. Adam Smith<http://www.rules.house.gov/amendments/Afghanistan515121110441044.pdf>,
and Rep. Barbara
Lee<http://www.rules.house.gov/amendments/LEE_123_xml514122036463646.pdf>
.

Representative John Conyers is offering an
amendment<http://www.rules.house.gov/amendments/CONYER_101_xml51512090353353.pdf>
that
would push back against the drive for war with Iran. The amendment, offered
jointly with Reps. Keith Ellison, Ron Paul and Walter Jones, would make
explicit that nothing in the bill authorizes the use of force against Iran.
That might sound modest, and indeed it is. But in fact the gang baying for
war with Iran is so fanatic that you can't say anything against war that if
you say, "let's pass a resolution that we won't have a war with Iran on
Saturday at 3:37 pm.," they break out in hives. So it's a brilliant move by
Conyers to try to force the House to vote on this.

Rep. Conyers is also offering amendments that would cut the military budget
by terminating the
F-35B<http://www.rules.house.gov/amendments/CONYER_104_xml51512090958958.pdf>
,
by moving ahead with retirement of 18 Global Hawk
drones<http://www.rules.house.gov/amendments/CONYER_102_xml51512090748748.pdf>
as
proposed by the Administration, and by delaying the new long-range
nuclear-capable
bomber<http://www.rules.house.gov/amendments/MARKEY_117515120814161416.pdf>
.

Representative Dennis Kucinich, supported by Rep. Conyers, is offering an
amendment<http://www.rules.house.gov/amendments/KUCINI_055_xml514121743264326.pdf>
that
would prohibit the military from carrying out drone strikes against
unidentified targets. Senior U.S. officials have expressed concern that
such "signature strikes" greatly increase the risk of civilian casualties.
Indeed, just in the last week, between eight and twelve civilians were
killed in U.S. drone strikes in Yemen, according to
*CNN<http://edition.cnn.com/2012/05/15/world/meast/yemen-violence/>
* and The Bureau of Investigative
Journalism<http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/05/15/suspected-drone-strikes-kill-12-civilians-in-yemen/>.
The Kucinich-Conyers amendment shows that Members of Congress are concerned
about civilian casualties from drone strikes and the expansion of drone
strikes that is currently underway in Yemen.

Judging from past years, most of the amendments that have been offered are
not going to pass, and that's not surprising. If everyone already agreed on
the underlying policy, in most cases, it would already be in the bill. But
Afghanistan might be an exception to this trend, because the Republican
leadership is out of touch with the majority of Republican opinion on
military withdrawal from Afghanistan; in a free vote on the floor, the
Republican leadership may lose. Already, a year ago, an amendment offered
by Reps. McGovern and Jones urging expedited withdrawal from Afghanistan
got more than 200 votes on the floor.

But amendments that don't pass are also useful. They force Members of the
House to stand up and be counted on particular issues, and raise the
profile of concern about those issues. If they draw sufficient support,
they send a signal to the Administration of significant Congressional
concern. If eighty Members of Congress voted for the Kucinich-Conyers
amendment to limit drone strikes, it would be historic, because Congress
has never tried to limit drone strikes before. The Administration would
notice, and that might lead them to be more cautious in expanding a policy
that is already controversial inside the Administration. And if that saved
the lives of eight or twelve civilians in Yemen who wouldn't be killed in a
U.S. drone strike, wouldn't that be worth doing?

-- 
Robert Naiman
Policy Director
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20120516/76102857/attachment-0001.html>