If you agree that Reps. Jim McGovern, Barbara Lee and Walter Jones that any agreement to keep thousands of US troops in Afghanistan indefinitely should be debated and voted on in Congress before it is signed, tell Congress, urges Naiman.
In mid-November, the Christian Science Monitor reports a loya jirga in Afghanistan – a national meeting of tribal leaders and other notable Afghans – will vote on whether to meet the Obama administration’s terms for keeping US troops in the country beyond the end of 2014. If you care about democracy in Afghanistan, you should be happy for the Afghans. Whether or not – and if so, under what conditions – they want to have thousands of US troops in their country after 2014 is obviously a very big deal for them. Why shouldn’t they have full deliberation and debate?
But if you also care about democracy in the United States, you should be a bit troubled. Because Congress has never approved keeping thousands of US troops in Afghanistan after the end of 2014.
The closest Congress has come to considering this question is in language passed by the House in June, 2013. Offered by Democratic Rep. Jim McGovern, this language – which passed the House 305-121, with a majority of both Democrats and Republicans voting yes – said [my emphasis]:
(a) In General- It is the policy of the United States that, in coordination with the Government of Afghanistan, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) member countries, and other allies in Afghanistan, the President shall:
(1) complete the accelerated transition of United States combat operations to the Government of Afghanistan by not later than December 31, 2013;
(2) complete the accelerated transition of United States military and security operations to the Government of Afghanistan and redeploy United States Armed Forces from Afghanistan (including operations involving military and security-related contractors) by not later than December 31, 2014;
[. . . ]
(b) Sense of Congress – It is the sense of Congress that should the President determine the necessity to maintain United States troops in Afghanistan to carry out missions after December 31, 2014 . . . such presence and missions should be authorized by a separate vote of Congress not later than June 1, 2014.
So the House is on record saying that 1) US troops should be out of Afghanistan by December 31, 2014, and 2) if the President determines that it is necessary to keep US troops in Afghanistan after December 31, 2014, that should be authorized by a separate vote of Congress.
The problem is that right now – not in June 2014 – the Obama Administration is working to finalize an agreement with the Afghan government on keeping thousands of US troops in Afghanistan after the end of 2014. So if Congress were to wait until May 2014 to vote on this, how do you think that’s going to go? We’re likely to be told, oh, sorry, that’s a done deal. The United States has already signed an agreement with the government of Afghanistan to keep thousands of troops there after the end of 2014. So, if Congress were to vote no on that now, we would then likely be told, members would be undermining US policy and making the president look bad.
Congress should be debating this and voting on it right now, before any agreement is signed. The Senate will soon be considering the National Defense Authorization Act. That’s a perfect opportunity to consider whether to keep thousands of US troops in Afghanistan indefinitely. Currently, the Afghan government is trying to get cozy with the Pakistani Taliban. It’s their lookout, you could say. But should we continue to support them with our blood and treasure?
Meanwhile, Congress is debating a 10-year plan for the federal budget. You think keeping thousands of US troops in Afghanistan indefinitely is going to be free? The current average cost of keeping 10,000 US soldiers in Afghanistan for a year is $20 billion. If that happens for six years, it’s going to cost US taxpayers more than some people claim they are going to save the government over 10 years by cutting Social Security benefits with the “chained CPI.” Food stamps are being cut. Shall we tolerate being poor-mouthed on domestic spending, while the cost of keeping thousands of US troops in Afghanistan indefinitely goes unmentioned?
Reps. Jim McGovern, Barbara Lee, and Walter Jones are currently working to rally their fellow members of Congress to speak up about this. If you agree with them that any agreement to keep thousands of US troops in Afghanistan indefinitely should be debated and voted on in Congress before it is signed, you can tell Congress so here.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.