|
|
 |
|
|
 |
The
WAND News Bulletin is posted on the
web site monthly.
When it appears, WAND sends out a condensed
version via email. If you would like
to receive these email Bulletins, please
let us know.
Happy
Thanksgiving, pumpkins!
More about the conference here. |
| Table
of Contents | Click
to move to content within the Bulletin. |
| Capitol
Hill Update, November 2007
|
|
|
 |
Notes
from the WAND News Bulletin
editor
Our
fabulous Public Policy
Director, Marie Rietmann,
wants me to make sure
everyone knows about the
Jobs Study that we helped
fund and distribute. It
really is cool. |
|
One
of the arguments about
the military machine is
that building all those
newfangled weapons creates
a lot of jobs. So our
job is to debunk that
myth. And it turns out
it IS a myth. If
you put money into other
things that are NOT the
military -- weatherizing
houses, public transportation,
healthcare, education
-- you actually create
MORE jobs.
Also,
LOTS of news this month
about how much it really
costs to go to war.
Not just the bullets and
bombs; and not just the
longlasting costs of caring
for veterans and the families
of the dead and wounded;
but ALSO the lost opportunities,
especially in foreign policy.
Not
only is it costing WAAAY
more than originally estimated
or publicized, but we
are losing so much more
than money. |
|
|
More
on the military/jobs connection
Interview
in Truthdig
[Interview with
Philip Coyle, former assistant
secretary of defense, and currently
is a senior adviser at the Center
for Defense Information.]
Harris:
What are you doing to either
defeat this spending mentality
or work within the system to
change some of these things?
Coyle: Well,
it’s very difficult, of
course. Some defense
programs, some defense procurements,
spend money in every single
state of the union. One
of the displays that the U.S.
Congress can get from the Pentagon
is where exactly all the money
is being spent on each particular
program. And so sometimes this
means jobs all across the country
that makes it very difficult
to attack.
Scheer:
And the companies do that on
purpose. I’ve talked to
a lot of people on this whole
subject and companies will make,
as they say, the F-22 or the
B-2 or one of those planes,
wingtips, will be made in a
state to guarantee jobs and
to guarantee votes, right?
Coyle:
Yes, they will, and of course
once a factory or a plant is
established in some city or
town or state, the people there
don’t want to lose it.
|
|
'Hidden
Costs' Double Price Of Two Wars,
Democrats Say
By Josh White | Washington
Post | November 13, 2007
 |
The
economic costs to the United
States of the wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan so far total
approximately $1.5 trillion,
according to a new study
by congressional Democrats
that estimates the conflicts'
"hidden costs"--
including higher oil prices,
the expense of treating
wounded veterans and interest
payments on the money borrowed
to pay for the wars.
That
amount is nearly double
the $804 billion the White
House has spent or requested
to wage these wars through
2008, according to the
Democratic staff of Congress's
Joint Economic Committee.
Its report, titled "The
Hidden Costs of the Iraq
War," estimates that
the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
have thus far cost the
average U.S. family of
four more than $20,000.
The
nation's economy is so
large that it "disguises
the costs and doesn't
impose any hardship on
the American people,"
allowing the government
to sidestep normal budgeting
processes, Hormats
said. He said the country
has borrowed all the money
it has needed for the
wars because taxes have
been lowered and the wars
have been funded largely
by supplemental appropriations,
with few budgetary sacrifices.
|
What
Does Iraq Cost? Even More Than
You Think.
Sunday, November 18, 2007 | Washington
Post |
Tyler Cowen, professor of economics
at George Mason University
One commonly
cited estimate of Iraq's cost,
based on an August analysis
by the nonpartisan Congressional
Budget Office, is $1 trillion,
and that's probably on the low
side. A report released last
week by the Democratic staff
of Congress's Joint Economic
Committee put the war's 2002-08
tab at $1.3 trillion.
But
all these figures don't quite
get at Iraq's real cost. Indeed,
we usually don't even frame
the question the right way.
We'd do better to recognize
what we've lost, rather than
focusing only on what we've
paid.
We
often think of cost simply in
terms of dollars spent, but
the real cost of a choice --
what economists call its "opportunity
cost" -- consists of the
forgone alternatives, of the
things we could have had instead.
...Set
aside the question of what we
could have accomplished at home
with the energy and resources
we've devoted to Iraq and concentrate
just on national security. Here,
the hidden cost of the war, above
all, is that the United States
has lost much of its ability to
halt nuclear proliferation. |
| Billions
for Guns, Vetoes for Butter
By
E. J. Dionne Jr. | Washington
Post | November 16, 2007
It's time that
we subject the Iraq war to the
same cost-benefit analysis that
we are called upon to impose
on other government endeavors.
We are supposed to repeal or
revise domestic programs that
don't work. Shouldn't a troubled
war policy be treated the same
way?
The ruling assumption
of the moment is that we can't
afford to withdraw our troops
from Iraq because of the chaos
that would ensue. The idea seems
to be that somehow -- against
the evidence of the past 4 1/2
years -- good things will happen
if we just keep the war going.
This upside-down debate puts the
burden of proof in the wrong place.
We should be asking whether
keeping our forces in Iraq over
an extended period is worth the
cost in lives, injuries, money,
lost opportunities and strain
on our military. How
will a prolonged stay in Iraq
enhance our security? Is Iraq
distracting us from foreign policy
questions that will matter far
more to our national interest
in the long run? |
|
Here’s
What America Really Spends on
Security
by Christopher Hellman | Common
Dreams
...In
all, the United States spent
an estimated $990 billion last
year on defense and other security-related
activities. And even THIS figure
is incomplete. It doesn’t
include, for instance, pay and
benefits for non-DoD federal
employees working on security
issues for the Department of
Homeland Security, State Department,
or Department of Justice or
Treasury. Nor does it include
interest payments on past debt
from paying veterans’
benefits or retirees’
pensions. It doesn’t include
the majority of the State Department’s
operating budget, although we
must assume that at least some
of our government’s diplomatic
initiatives are directed at
promoting U.S. security.
Last
year the total federal budget
was roughly $2.8 trillion dollars.
Former Senator Everett Dirksen
is often credited with saying,
regarding government spending,
that “a billion here and
a billion there, and soon you’re
talking real money.” Well,
in a $2.8 trillion annual budget,
$1 trillion in security spending
IS real money.
|
 |
Bobbie
Paul of Atlanta WAND
was named one of Atlanta's
"least
influential" people
for her undying (and unending)
efforts to end the Iraq
war.
"She's been protesting
the war on the same spot
every Friday since August
2002, seven months before
the U.S. invasion."
Congratulations? Or at least,
THANKS to her and
Atlanta WAND for the years
spent standing up and speaking
out for peace. |
|
Arkansas
WAND is rockin it for peace!
They've
been busy over the last couple
months, participating in some
great events and speaking out
for sane budget priorities.
The lovely Jean Gordon reports!
Arkansas
WAND team walking in the WALK
for CommUNITY sponsored by JCCA
(Just Communities in Central
Arkansas)
On
Nov. 3, almost 1,000 people
representing religious organizations,
school groups, corporations,
non-profits joined as teams
or individuals walked the one
mile over the Main Street Bridge
across the Arkansas River and
back to the River Market Pavilion.
Pizzas and cold drinks were
served after the walk.
This once a year event brings
together people of all ages,
colors, beliefs and interests
to symbolize our oneness as
a community.
Arkansas
WAND sponsors a booth for teachers
ArkWAND
booth with volunteers Susan
May, Barbara Stanford, Anncha
Briggs, Dana Durst Lawrence,
and Elaine Scott. Volunteers
not pictured are Elizabeth Plowman
and Caroline Stephenson. Hannah
Vogler and Les Galusha for graphics
services.
On
November 1-2, 2007, Arkansas
WAND sponsored a booth at the
Arkansas Curriculum Conference,
a yearly conference for secondary
school teachers held in conjunction
with the Arkansas Education
Association meeting for teachers
all over the state.
WAND
member Barbara Stanford was
a presenter at the conference
and led a workshop for teachers
about the U. S. Institute of
Peace essay contest and another
one on reading about other countries.
Materials were available at
the booth about the US Institute
of Peace as well as Heifer International's
Read to Feed program, the University
of Arkansas at Little Rock's
graduate certificate in conflict
resolution, our own Arkansas
WAND chapter, and the Beacon
of Peace and Hope -- the Arkansas
WAND project that is building
a 36 foot sculpture on the banks
of the Arkansas River at the
Arkansas Inland Maritime Museum
featuring two beams of light
– Peace and Hope –
that shine into the night skies.
In addition, the booth featured
information and a video of our
immediate past Mother's Day
Luncheon honoree, Woodruff Elementary
School in Little Rock –
a outstanding example of a non-violence
program for children.
At
our booth we also gave out several
thousand bookmarks to direct
people to our Wand website for
additional info at www.arkwand.org
. We created an "Information
for Teachers" section on
our website featuring the conflict
management curriculum for middle
school which Barbara developed
and her teaching conflict resolution
skills unit for English teachers,
as well as other information.
Both curricula are free to download.
Arkansas
WAND in the streets on October
27 to call for an end to the Iraq
war!
|
Editorial:
U.S. must decide future of nuclear
policy
Albuquerque
Tribune | November 5, 2007
The
process should begin with an honest,
open and nonideological discussion
about what U.S. nuclear weapons
policy should be and how best
to reflect it in our nuclear arsenal,
from the ground up.
In
the context of this administration's
obsession with other nation's
weapons of mass destruction, particularly
in Iraq and Iran, it is obligatory
that we have our own nuclear house
in order.
|
|
U.S.
Might Retain Multiple Warheads
on 25 Intercontinental Ballistic
Missiles
By
Elaine M. Grossman Global
Security Newswire
WASHINGTON
— New details have emerged
about the future composition of
the U.S. land-based, nuclear missile
force following a number of Bush
administration policy changes.
A
combination of factors —
including negotiated force ceilings,
unilateral reductions and a growing
role for missile defense —
is likely to leave the United
States with a 2,200-warhead arsenal
that includes a small force of
multiple-warhead ICBMs.
Along
with nuclear weapons on submarines
and bomber aircraft, the deployed
U.S. arsenal by 2011 is likely
to include 25 land-based missiles
armed with three warheads apiece.
|
|
Governor
Schwarzenegger's Nuclear Disarmament
Remarks
Scheduled
for the "Rekjavik
II" conference hosted
by the Hoover Institution last
week in Palo Alto.
...The most dangerous
consequences of nuclear weapons,
however, are here and now. They
are of this hour and time. A nuclear
disaster will not hit at the speed
of a glacier melting. It will
hit with a blast. It will not
hit with the speed of the atmosphere
warming but of a city burning.
Clearly, the attention focused
on nuclear weapons should be as
prominent as that of global climate
change. After he left office,
former Vice President Gore made
a movie about the dangers of global
warming. I have a movie idea for
Vice President Cheney after he
leavesa movie about the dangers
of nuclear proliferation. If you
Google “global warming,”
you will find 6,690,000 entries.
If you Google “Britney Spears,”
you will find 2,490,000. If you
Google “nuclear disarmament,”
you will get 116,000 entries.
And if you Google “nuclear
annihilation,” you will
get 17,400. Something is wrong
with that picture.
|
|
The
challenge of nuclear deals
By Mark Brzezinski | October 28,
2007 | Boston
Globe
AMERICA'S NUCLEAR
deal with India is stalled as
key Indian political parties reject
what has been billed as one of
the Bush administration's biggest
foreign policy achievements. As
this happens, America inches toward
war with Iran with no progress
being made toward a negotiated
solution.
Both cases involve the challenge
of nuclear proliferation. And
in both cases the administration
has missed an opportunity to make
sensible progress, opting instead
for an exaggerated approach resulting
in a bad deal for the American
people. In neither case should
the United States be undercutting
long-held nonproliferation doctrine.
In both cases it should be promoting
constructive engagement.
|
|
Lawmakers
refuse funds for Europe missile
shield
Oct 31, 2007 | By Richard Cowan
| Reuters
WASHINGTON
(Reuters) - A military funding
bill moving through Congress will
not contain money to begin building
a controversial U.S. missile defense
system in Europe, a senior Democratic
lawmaker said on Wednesday.
|
|
Russia
vs. America: Is Another Arms Race
Afoot?
By
Jane M. O. Sharp, MIT Center for
International Studies. Alternet
| November 16, 2007
A
lame duck Bush and a belligerent
Putin could roll back the diplomatic
victories won after the Cold War.
In
Russia, an increasingly belligerent
Putin, flush with oil money, is
now determined to be accorded
great power status in his dealings
with the West. He is asserting
himself in many areas: trying
to block independence for Kosovo;
countering U.S. sanctions against
Iran; and renegotiating arms control
agreements concluded when Russia
was weak. While Putin is viewed
with increasing wariness in the
West, on arms control he has some
points that need to be taken seriously.
|
|
Letter
from WANDa in the New York Times
To
the Editor:
Rather
than glossing over the tragic
deaths of 140,000 civilians of
Hiroshima, Paul Tibbets’s
death marks an opportunity to
grieve our nation’s use
of nuclear weapons.
As
Robert S. McNamara points out,
the United States had already
firebombed 67 Japanese cities,
killing hundreds of thousands.
The subsequent atomic bombings
of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were
not proportional to our objectives.
Dwight
D. Eisenhower, the World War II
Allied commander, opposed Paul
Tibbets’s mission because
“the Japanese were ready
to surrender and it wasn’t
necessary to hit them with that
awful thing.”
The
notion that nuclear weapons save
lives is a dangerous myth.
As
my son learns about his great-grandfather,
who served in World War II, I
also want him to know the truth
about nuclear weapons: they destroy
civilian lives, maim children
and poison our planet. Let’s
get rid of them.
(Rev.)
Amanda Hendler-Voss
Asheville, N.C., Nov. 13, 2007
|
|
U.S.
Secretly Aids Pakistan in Guarding
Nuclear Arms
By DAVID E. SANGER and WILLIAM
J. BROAD
November 18, 2007 | New
York Times
...A raft of equipment
— from helicopters to night-vision
goggles to nuclear detection equipment
— was given to Pakistan
to help secure its nuclear material,
its warheads, and the laboratories
that were the site of the worst
known case of nuclear proliferation
in the atomic age.
While American
officials say that they believe
the arsenal is safe at the moment,
and that they take at face value
Pakistani assurances that security
is vastly improved, in many cases
the Pakistani government has been
reluctant to show American officials
how or where the gear is actually
used.
|
|
Strategic
Drift
Where's the Pushback Against
the Surge?
Washington
Post | By John Podesta, Lawrence
J. Korb and Brian Katulis | November
15, 2007
With
apparent disregard for the opinion
of the American people, the debate
over whether the large U.S. military
presence in Iraq threatens our
national security has been put
on hold. Both political
parties seem resigned to allowing
the Bush administration to run
out the clock on its Iraq strategy
and bequeath this quagmire to
the next president. The
result is best described as strategic
drift, and stopping it won't be
easy...
Progressives
must be careful not to repeat
the mistakes made in 2002 and
2004, when they failed to offer
a clear challenge or choice on
Iraq. Splitting the difference
and hedging on positions helped
get America into this quagmire.
But during the Democratic presidential
debate in Philadelphia last month,
Iran, not Iraq, was at the forefront.
Iraq is the issue of greatest
concern to voters. Progressive
candidates should be offering
clarity on Iraq and pushing for
a real change in course.
|
| Iraqis
Wasting An Opportunity, U.S. Officers
Say
With Attacks Ebbing, Government
Is Urged to Reach Out to Opponents
By
Thomas E. Ricks | Washington
Post | November 15, 2007
CAMP LIBERTY,
Iraq -- Senior military commanders
here now portray the intransigence
of Iraq's Shiite-dominated government
as the key threat facing the U.S.
effort in Iraq, rather than al-Qaeda
terrorists, Sunni insurgents or
Iranian-backed militias.
In
more than a dozen interviews,
U.S. military officials expressed
growing concern over the Iraqi
government's failure to capitalize
on sharp declines in attacks against
U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians.
A window of opportunity has opened
for the government to reach out
to its former foes, said Army
Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the
commander of day-to-day U.S. military
operations in Iraq, but "it's
unclear how long that window is
going to be open." |
|
Some
talking heads making sense:
The Anti-War
Room
 |
Check
out these regular video releases
from our good friends at Win
Without War. |
|
|
2007
deadliest year yet for U.S. in
Iraq
New
York Times: BAGHDAD, Nov.
6 — Six American soldiers
were killed in three separate
attacks in Iraq on Monday, the
military said Tuesday, taking
the number of deaths this year
to 852. The toll makes 2007 the
deadliest year of the war for
United States troops.
Which
means: each year that passes kills
MORE U.S. troops than the year
before.
Each
year also COSTS more than the
year before. (up to $466
billion today)
Where
is the progress in this? Where
is the end?
EACH
one of those deaths contains a
world of pain. And that's JUST
THE AMERICANS. Think of the world
of pain that is Iraq now.
|
|
Long
Term Costs of Iraq War Overwhelming
Estimates
Show Veteran Care Costs to Outpace
Actual Costs of Combat
(Washington, DC) A report
released by Physicians for
Social Responsibility (PSR) with
Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) concludes
that the mental and social trauma
from the Iraq war will be with
the U.S. for the lifetime of wounded
soldiers. The fiscal costs for
health care and disability benefits
likely will exceed those for combat
activities. Dr. Evan Kanter, a
member of the Board of Directors
for PSR, prepared the report that
details more than $650 billion
in long term costs as well as
mental disabilities and disruptions
to families of returning veterans.
|
| Well,
they're TRYING to stop funding
the war...
First,
the House..
House
Approves Bill Linking War Funds,
Troop Withdrawals
By
Elizabeth Williamson | Washington
Post | November 15, 2007
The
House yesterday approved a war
funding bill that directs President
Bush to withdraw most troops from
Iraq by the end of next year,
escalating a feud between the
White House and congressional
Democrats over spending priorities
in wartime.
But
then, the Senate...
Funding
Bill for Iraq War Falls Short
in Senate Vote
By Shailagh Murray | Washington
Post | November 17, 2007
Senate
Republicans yesterday blocked
Democrats' latest effort to end
the Iraq war, rejecting a $50
billion military funding package
that would have required President
Bush to begin withdrawing U.S.
troops.
|
|
Delayed
Intelligence Report On Iran to
Be Finished Soon
By
Walter Pincus | Washington
Post | November 14, 2007
Director
of National Intelligence Mike
McConnell said yesterday that
a long-awaited intelligence estimate
covering Iran's nuclear program
will be finished by the end of
this month, attributing the delay
to new information collected in
late spring that caused a reconsideration
of some elements of the assessment.
"We
had more information that inserted
some new questions, so the effort
has been to sort that out,"
McConnell said at a luncheon at
the Woodrow Wilson International
| | | | | | |
