Congressman Delahunt, you have opposed permanent U.S. bases in Iraq, and I assume you might be willing to oppose them in Afghanistan as well. Two years ago you introduced the "Protect Our Troops and Our Constitution Act" which would have banned permanent bases in Iraq, among other things. We have nearly 400 bases in Afghanistan now, and counting. Escalating the war will mean more bases, not fewer.
Zbigniew Brzezinski (whose history with Afghanistan goes back to the 1970s when he knowingly provoked a Russian invasion of what was then a much healthier nation) last October spoke in a Senate caucus room and said that one of the main reasons to occupy Afghanistan was to build a north-south pipeline to the Indian ocean. Nobody questioned this assertion. And yet, the RAND Corporation, at whose forum he was speaking, has put out a report finding that there is no military solution in Afghanistan. So we're going to send troops to build a pipeline in a place where troops cannot possibly halt the violence? Mikhail Gorbachev has some experience with occupations of Afghanistan. He advises withdrawal. Even the late former Congressman Charlie Wilson said Get out of Afghanistan. Whom will we listen to?
Increasingly, U.S. military veterans are advocating for withdrawal, and -- in small but rapidly growing numbers -- active duty soldiers (in the UK as well as the US) are refusing to comply with the illegal order to participate, and in some cases going to prison. Will we honor their sacrifice?
WHAT DO WE WANT?
Congressman Delahunt, we ask you to vote No on the $33 billion escalation. But we would like you to do something much more serious: Commit now, ahead of time, to voting No and urge your colleagues to do the same. If a bill is destined to pass, and some dozens of members vote No against no resistance from their parties, that doesn't build the movement for peace. Committing ahead of time to vote No, and publicly making the case for it, is much more meaningful, because there is always the chance that your vote will actually matter and you will face the wrath of your party's leaders and other war supporters.
But you have announced your retirement. So you have no need to listen to your constituents, but you also have no need to listen to a party or to any campaign donors. And if the media doesn't like your decision to stand with us against the military industrial complex, we will have your back. Senator Kennedy said his most important vote was his vote against the Iraq War. Who knows, looking back, what you will tell your grandchildren your most important vote was.
We're asking for an unusual commitment, but less than those soldiers are making who refuse to go, and less than so many activists are making who routinely protest this war and, in many cases, face imprisonment. Whistleblowers have sacrificed their careers. We're asking you only to put a positive exclamation point on yours.
A year ago the President said that last year's war supplemental would be the very last one, and many congress members actually used that as a reason to vote for it. I think it's safe to assume that even Charlie Brown wouldn't kick that football this time around.
Lipstick is being applied to this pigskin however. $2.8 billion for aid to Haiti will be put into this bill. And yet everyone knows that the Haiti aid can be passed separately. Nobody in Congress doubts that we know that they know that we know that they know it can be passed separately. So "I voted for a war in Afghanistan to help the Haitians" is unlikely to justify the wrong vote here.
Congressman McGovern is introducing bills requesting "flexible timetables" and unspecified exit plans. But passing such things in the House would mean having to pass them through the Senate and getting the president to sign them. And then nothing would necessarily change. Such things are not meaningless, but they are talk, rather than action. Obviously we can all talk. We want our congress members to govern. Congressman Obey's war tax bill is just as rhetorical, but signing onto it might stiffen his important spine.
Bruce Taub of Progressive Democrats of America gave me a report on a meeting with you, Congressman Delahunt, at which you said you had two concerns. One was the safety of our country. I hope to have addressed that one. The other was this, quoting Bruce quoting you: "President Obama is my leader. I respect him and trust him. I think he is earnest, someone who wants to genuinely do the best he can for the country, someone who considers all the options and is a thoughtful intelligent man. And if he thinks a supplemental is needed, I give that great deference."
But you seem like a thoughtful intelligent man yourself. And we elected you to the first branch of our government, the one that takes up the first 60 percent of our Constitution, the one to which our founders gave every power they'd seen King George abuse, the one whose laws and wars are to be faithfully executed by the executive. It was by giving war powers to a president that congress got us into this disaster in the first place. The House of Representatives has the power of the purse for precisely the purpose now at hand. To choose not to use it because you approve of the war would be one thing. To defer to a party not sanctioned by the Constitution to make these decisions would be to undo our own revolution. For the people of this district to be represented by someone who simply obeys the president would be to grievously wound representative government in this land. I implore you, whatever you decide, to decide it yourself.
You will have to live with it. Your colleagues will have to face reelection on it this year. The president will not. And your colleagues may misinterpret the political winds. In your recent senate race as in our gubernatorial race down in Virginia, Democratic voters stayed home because nobody inspired them to turn out. Independent candidate and peace activist Peter White may inspire people in this district, but will the Democrats?
Republicans are turning against this war. The death count is about to jump. We have a financial crisis and an environmental crisis. Is this the time to be the party of reckless spending on foreign quagmire building? Did it work well for Lyndon Johnson?
We don't expect you to stand alone against this escalation. Others are already speaking out and whipping against it, and 65 congress members just voted to end the war entirely.
We don't expect you to stand against troops. The Chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee has already committed to voting No on behalf of the troops.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
