Ending the Quagmire in Iraq

It’s Time to End the War in Iraq

It’s Time to End the War in Iraq

Finding a solution to the crisis in Iraq requires us to move beyond the soundbites of “stay the course” and “cut and run.” The United States and the international community have a responsibility to work with a sovereign Iraqi government to help that country become secure, stable, and independent. But the continued American occupation is only fueling the insurgency and destabilizing Iraqi society. Ongoing offensive military action in Iraq is causing mounting Iraqi casualties each day, alienating potential allies and spurring stronger resentment of the U.S. To rebuild the Iraqi people’s confidence in their nation’s security forces and its
fledgling democracy – and to save the lives of U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians – we must end the military occupation now.

A War Based On Lies
In the lead up to the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq, the Bush Administration repeatedly misled the world that this war was about Weapons of Mass Destruction. Over and over again, President Bush deceived the public into thinking there was a link between 9-11 and Iraq and that an attack on Iraq would make us safer from terrorism. While these inaccuracies have been repeatedly exposed, foreign policy experts such as the U.S. National Intelligence Council have argued that the war in Iraq has created a new “training ground (for terrorists) and an opportunity for terrorists to enhance their technical skills.” Bush’s lies have cost us
our safety and thousands of lives. The now-infamous “Downing Street Memo” and recent indictments of White House staff further reveal what we in the peace movement have known all along – that Bush “fixed the facts” to pursue an unnecessary war. He manipulated intelligence and lied to both Congress and the American people about his intent to avoid war. The Administration’s entire case for the war has now been debunked and American troops and
taxpayers are footing the bill for a war that was never needed and that is counterproductive to the security interests of our nation.

The Mounting Costs
The war in Iraq has claimed the lives of more than 2,100 American soldiers, with over
25,000 wounded and a casualty rate that climbs each day. The death toll for Iraqi
civilians has been estimated from 30,000 to 100,000 and growing. Iraqis are afraid to
leave their homes, for fear of attack by U.S. soldiers or suicide bombers. Their lives
are further threatened by the destruction that’s been wreaked on their country,
rendering their drinking water unsafe, their electricity faulty and leaving their
schools and hospitals in shambles and their economy utterly destroyed.
On top of the devastating cost in human lives and the humanitarian crisis now
facing Iraq, the ongoing occupation continues to drain our communities as well.
While companies like Halliburton and Bechtel have raked in billions of dollars in nobid
Iraq contracts, the price tag of the war is soaring well over $250 billion,
burdening U.S. taxpayers and robbing us of resources and social services we
need desperately here at home. With more than 200,000 national guard troops
having been deployed to fight the “War on Terror,” our communities have also lost
many of our first responders, weakening our ability to respond to crises, natural
disasters and real threats to the security of our local communities.

A Dangerous Foreign Policy
The United States’ pre-emptive war of aggression on Iraq has damaged our relationships around the world, destroyed American credibility and deeply undermined the United Nations. Throughout the Middle East, the occupation of Iraq has only further fueled resentment of and violence against the U.S. We must seek a new path in our dealings with Iraq, one that relies on international cooperation to meet the needs of the Iraqi people, and that encourages a stable, sovereign democratic government. To do so we must organize American citizens and inspire Congress to provide better principles for America’s foreign policy. We can help to better the living conditions of the Iraqi people, but we must do so through an end to the occupation,
and a real commitment to international cooperation, global legal systems, and Iraqi sovereignty.

Talking Points on the U.S.-India Nuclear Deal

Talking Points on the U.S.-India Nuclear Deal
Background: On July 18, 2005, U.S. President George W. Bush and Indian Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh announced a new deal to allow the resumption of full civilian nuclear cooperation between the two countries for the first time since India improperly used U.S. nuclear material for its
1974 bomb test.
Basic Message: Weakening existing U.S. nonproliferation laws in order to facilitate the US-Indian nuclear deal will have negative security impacts for the United States and will undermine global nonproliferation efforts.
Specific Points of Concern:
􀃆 The U.S. should strengthen ties with India through expanded cooperation in trade and human
development, scientific and medical research, energy technology, and humanitarian relief, but the U.S. should NOT expand nuclear cooperation with any state if it comes at the expense of efforts to curb the spread of nuclear weapons.
􀃆 If the deal is approved in its current form by Congress and the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group, it could severely damage the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the nonproliferation regime. India has refused to sign the NPT, has detonated nuclear bombs, and refuses to accept full-scope International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards over all of its nuclear facilities.
􀃆 India refuses to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and stop the production of fissile material for its expanding nuclear arsenal.
􀃆 Due to its history of non-cooperation with international protocols on nonproliferation, India does not qualify for full civil nuclear cooperation under existing U.S. laws and global nuclear export regulations.
􀃆 Even if India agrees to meaningful safeguards on its “civilian” facilities, U.S. nuclear aid would free up India’s existing capacity to produce highly enriched uranium and plutonium for weapons. According to Indian nuclear hawk K. Subrahmanhyan, in order to expand India’s nuclear arsenal, it should “categorize as many reactors as possible as civilian” to facilitate foreign refueling and conserve India’s scarce “native uranium fuel for weapons-grade plutonium production.”
Oppose the U.S.-India Nuclear Deal: Organize Support for H.Con.Res. 318
On December 15, 2005, Congressman Edward J. Markey (D-MA) and Congressman Fred Upton (R-MI) introduced H. Con. Res. 318 in the House of Representatives. H. Con. Res. 318 “expresses concern regarding nuclear proliferation with respect to proposed full civilian nuclear cooperation with India, and for other purposes.”
This legislation will compel the United States to consistently fulfill its obligations under the Non-
Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The legislation will also allow the United States to demonstrate its ongoing commitment to global non-proliferation and to conserve positive international relations with states currently party to and complying with the rules of the NPT.
Among other measures, H.Con.Res. 318 calls for:
• Congress to express concern over the possibility that the supply of nuclear fuel to India could
result in the capacity for India to produce fissile material for weapons purposes, and thus
compromise the ability for the US to comply with Article 1 of the NPT;
• the US to support efforts by the Nuclear Suppliers Group to make full-scope safeguards a
necessary condition for the export of nuclear materials to non-nuclear-weapon states;
• recognition that the proposal for full nuclear cooperation between the United States and India
poses far-reaching and adverse implications for US nuclear nonproliferation objectives, and will
do little for long-term Indian alignment with US strategic objectives;
• the strengthening of ties between the United States and India through means such as trade,
scientific research and humanitarian relief rather than through the trade in nuclear materials;
• the US to recognize the importance to world security of ceasing the production of fissile
materials for weapons purposes;
• the Congress to recognize the common interest held by both the United States and India in
reducing the global threat of nuclear weapons through nonproliferation; and
• the US to disapprove of proposals for the export of nuclear materials to any country that is not
a party to the NPT and has detonated a nuclear weapon, or is a non-nuclear-weapon state
under the NPT but has not accepted full-scope IAEA safeguards over its nuclear facilities.

Communicating with Congress

Communicating with Congress
Tips from the Congressional Management Foundation
The Congressional Management Foundation (CMF) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to helping Congress become a more productive and effective institution through better management. They recently conducted a major study of best practices for communicating with Congress. Below are some key findings from their extensive research. See www.cmfweb.org for more info. Congress received four times more communications in 2004 than in 1995 — all of this huge increase is due to the surge in Internet-based communications with Congress. Of the managers of Congressional offices surveyed, 73% say their offices spend significantly more time on constituent communications than two years ago. During this decade, the staffing levels of Members’ personal offices have not changed, meaning more and more hill staffers are over-whelmed and under-staffed in receiving and responding to
communications from constituents and grassroots advocacy groups.
The Internet is generally having a positive effect on the discourse between citizens and Congress.

79% of Congressional staff surveyed believe the Internet has made it easier for citizens to become involved in public policy; 55% believe it has increased public understanding of what goes on in Washington; and 48% believe it has made Members more responsive to their constituents.
Quality is more persuasive than quantity. Only 3% of staff surveyed say campaigns generating identical form letters arriving via postal mail would have “a lot” of influence on their Member of Congress. In contrast, 44% report personally-generated, individualized postal letters from constituents would have “a lot” of influence. Consider placing greater emphasis on generating messages of higher quality from your constituents and reducing high-volume “form letter” communications.

Many Congressional staff doubt the legitimacy of identical form communications, and want to know whether communications are sent with constituents’ knowledge and consent. Half of Congressional staff surveyed believe identical form communications are not sent with constituents’ knowledge or consent.
Another 25% are unsure about the legitimacy of these communications.
The organization behind a grassroots campaign matters. Don’t hide the fact that your organization’s campaign is the force which has urged citizens to contact Congress. (They can tell when letters are from a campaign versus spontaneously generated and tend to get suspicious if the organization involved doesn’t acknowledge their role.) Instead, utilize the political power of your members in your campaign. When asking people to write or call Congress, mentioning the organization and the campaign helps get results, and helps direct Members and their staffers back to your group or website for more info on the issue, when needed.
Keep it brief, but informative and compelling. Because of the increasingly high volume of communications being sent to Congress, the reference materials you leave behind at Lobby Visits should be no more than one page, or else it may not ever get read. Staffers accumulate huge piles of reports and fact sheets that get lost in the clutter. These are the basics of what to include on an effective one-pager: your full contact info, including name, address, zip, phone number, email and website; the name of your organization and a brief description of who you represent (geographic scope, # of members); the specific legislation you are asking about, including bill number and sponsor, if possible; the direct impact of this issue on constituents and your community; a personal story or testimony that connects the issue to the
experience of constituents; a brief summary of the issue in common (non-technical) terms, with links to where to find more details; a reasonable number (not too many) of understandable statistics, with citations.

Other Findings - Worst Grassroots Practices with Congress:
1. Don’t direct a grassroots pressure campaign to one specific staffer. (Unleashing tons of mail, faxes or calls on a single staffer will just create stress for them and resentment toward your group.)
2. Don’t inadvertently generate a negative campaign to a Member who supports you/don’t direct activists to ask a Member to sponsor or vote for something they already have (this can especially be difficult when sending a blanket Action Alert across districts whose Members have varying positions on the issue.)
3. For Call-In campaigns, don’t patch your grassroots members directly through to Congress without first coaching callers on specific rap and tips.
4. Don’t send multiple and simultaneous communications – fax, email, call, and letter all saying exactly the same thing from the same person or organization.
5. Don’t generate “automated” campaigns from lists rather than genuine constituent actions: more and more Members/staffers (nearly 75%!) believe that a lot of the communications they get is generated by an organization just tacking people from their list onto a letter without the constituents’ knowledge or involvement.

DuMp the Database!

DuMp the Database!
did you know…
The Department of Defense (DOD) is contracting with
private corporations to create a massive military
recruiting database full of extensive personal
information on more than 30 million young Americans
between the ages of 16 and 25!
Known to many as the “JAMRS1 Database”, this invasive
initiative is not only an alarming violation of all citizens’
privacy, but because it conflicts with the federal Privacy
Act, it’s also an ILLEGAL use of tax-payers’ money -
to the tune of $350 million!
Unlike the military recruiting provision of the No Child Left
Behind Act, there is NO WAY for youth and their families to
truly “Opt-Out” of having their personal information
collected in this database, which will only help intensify
military recruiters’ already aggressive targeting of youth in
the U.S.
As the quagmire in Iraq continues to worsen and the
military’s need for new recruits keeps growing, the
Pentagon is employing increasingly sly and desperate
recruiting tactics. Act now to oppose the DOD’s
schemes to recruit more young Americans, while
undermining our rights!
Call on Congress to “Dump the Database!”
More than 120 national and grassroots organizations recently joined together to send a letter to
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and to our elected officials in Congress demanding an end to this illegal and
insidious database. Several Members of Congress have responded with alarm and concern, but what we really need is
legislation that will stop this project and protect our rights!
NOW is the time to add YOUR VOICE to these important efforts by joining the Congressional Call-In Campaign to
express your opposition today. Let your leaders know that youth and students want them to immediately end this troubling
infringement upon our privacy and civil liberties.
􀃎 Sample message to your Members of Congress: “I’m calling in opposition to the Pentagon’s illegal military
recruiting database. I’m urging _____ to offer legislation to stop this assault on the privacy rights of American youth.”
what YOU can DO:
Just call the Capitol Switchboard to get connected
to your Senators’ & Representative’s offices:
􀀋202-224-3121
To find out who represents you in Congress, go to
www.Congress.org. (FYI - College students have the
right to be represented by the leaders of the
Congressional district where your campus is located!
Call them!)
www.studentpeaceaction.org
www.peace-action.org
Peace Action & SPAN
1100 Wayne Ave, Suite 1020
Silver Spring, MD 20910
SPAN: 301-565-4050 ext. 322
SPAN@peace-action.org
1JAMRS is the Joint Advertising Marketing Research Services, one of the primary (and very shady) corporations involved in this project.
For background information on the database and its legal implications, visit http://www.epic.org/privacy/student/doddatabase.html

U.S.-India Nuclear Deal: Sample Constituent Letter

U.S.-India Nuclear Deal: Sample Constituent Letter
Instructions: Write a letter to your Representative using the sample letter below as a guide. Be
sure to add your personal message — the campaign is more powerful when constituents include
their own words.
Honorable ______________
Local District Office Address
Dear Rep. ______________,

I’m writing to ask that you cosponsor H.Con.Res. 318, legislation opposing the proposed civilian
nuclear cooperation deal with India. This deal goes against efforts to stop the spread of nuclear
weapons, and rewards India despite its nuclear weapons development. This sends the wrong
message to the rest of the world, and makes America less safe.
Please write and let me know if you will cosponsor this critical legislation.

Sincerely, [Your Name] [Your Address]

U.S.-India Nuclear Deal: Sample Letter to the Editor

The Letters to the Editor section is one of the most widely read sections of any newspaper.
Elected officials and the public often use these letters as a barometer of public sentiment on a
given issue. For the proposed U.S-India nuclear deal, letters to the editor can help shape the
opinions of both the public and policy makers. One particularly good time to write letters will be
when the President goes to India, March 1-3. You have a greater chance of getting your letter
published if it’s written in response to an article printed in the paper already.

Dear Editor,
President Bush’s proposed nuclear cooperation deal with India spells danger. At a time when we’re trying to prevent nuclear weapons development in places like Iran and North Korea, the deal with India sends the wrong message. Instead of making exceptions to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, we should be working to strengthen it. Fortunately, Congress has the power to stop this deal, and I urge our local Representatives to oppose this dangerous plan.

Sincerely,
Your Name, address and phone number

Helpful Hints
· Get to know the tone and style of letters selected by your paper.
· Check the length of the letters your paper publishes. As a rule, shorter is better.
· Write your letter in response to an already published article or editorial. The sooner you send it
out, the better your chances; it’s best to write your letter within one day of when the article you’re referencing appeared.
· Pick one point you wish to make and stick to it.
· Make your first sentence short, compelling and catchy.
· Use local statistics and personal stories when you have them.
· Use legislators’ names. If your printed letter mentions a Representative or Senator by name, be sure to clip it out and send it to them.
· Your letter should be signed and must include your address and telephone number or it won’t be published. The paper may call to verify that you wrote the letter.
· Be patient. It may take you several tries to get a letter published, but even unpublished letters
have an impact.
· Work with friends or groups. Letter writing is a great group or volunteer activity, and the more letters on a given subject, the greater the chance that one or more will be published.
And stay tuned for more on stopping new nukes in 2006!
So far, the good news from Bush’s recent budget request for FY07: RNEP is dead! But his desire to fund the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) is bad news! Watch the listserve for more
information and resources on how we can stop this dangerous new nuclear program.