Global Peace Movement: Big, Networked, Diverse

The global peace movement: We're big. We're getting networked. We're diverse (and therein lies our strength).

"Peace is Universal" - shared on Twitter V @marianoGROVETON

Last year I paused to reflect after Peace Day (September 21) and identified 10 aspects of the peace movement that I thought were (and are) important.

This year I'm getting even leaner.

I think there are three (3) things we in the movement need to pay attention to. Everything else follows from that.


(1) We're BIG!

We tend to bemoan the fact that "there aren't enough of us."

In fact, there are COUNTLESS people out there devoting themselves to peace work of various kinds.

They're in every country.

They're of every gender. They're of every age.

They do it in their jobs and they do it as volunteers.

Do you doubt it? Scroll through some of the peace workers I follow on Twitter.

A big moment for me came when I realized that not everyone doing great peace work lives where I live, or looks like me, or is even doing the kind of work I'm doing. Once I started to explore the real extent of the movement, what I found surprised me!


(2) We need to be networked

"Sure," I hear you saying, "there are huge numbers of people working for peace. But how do we connect with each other?"

I'll be writing more about this. For now, I'll just put forward a couple of observations:

(a) I think we need to view "connecting" as a central and ongoing task. Each of us needs to make it a daily discipline, and I think we need to devote a significant percentage of our time to making connections.

(b) The low cost of connecting via the Internet works to our advantage.

Setting some goals is the first step.

(Here's an idea: Using social media, try to notice one new person doing peace work each day. Take a few minutes to look at the work they are doing, think about it, and bring them and their work to the attention of others. This morning, I shared information about Japanese peace activist Kozue Akibayashi.)


(3) Our diversity is our strength

We are diverse: that's a fact.

Working on A Global Security System: An Alternative to War helped me recognize the many threads in any attempt to describe the peace movement. In a given day, I might be tuning in to communities focusing on nuclear disarmament, counter-recruitment in schools, the connection of development to peace, the occupation of Palestine, faith-based activism, the use of technology for peace work, general antiwar activism, and more . . . .

Now, the peace movement is subject to self-criticism that says, "We're not united enough" and or "We're not focused enough on the main thing."

The strategic challenge we face is to wake up to the fact that -- globally -- we are pursuing peace work in diverse ways . . . and then figure out a way to take advantage of the inherent strength in the existence of these diverse approaches.


I'll be talking more about this, you can be sure!


Related posts

September is a big month for peace work organizing - the UN International Day for Peace is September 21. As you plan your peace work for September, consider how you will directly and/or indirectly participate in and support of these activities taking place around the world.

(See Make Your Plans for #PeaceWork in September)










Twitter is certainly a powerful way to quickly form connections with others in the movement.

(See Suggestions for Successful Twitter Activism)














Yesterday was the UN International Day of Peace (2015). The day nudged me to think about what -- if anything -- I feel I really know about peace and the movement for peace. Here are 10 things that are true for me . . . .

(See #PeaceDay 2015 - Ten Thoughts on Peace)

Make Your Plans for #PeaceWork in September

There are abundant events and campaigns in September 2016 that enable people to get to work for peace. Find one (or more!) and sign up, attend, volunteer, share, lead, . . . .

#peacework: September 2016 ... happening everywhere!
(Please share.)

There are many ways to work for peace. One part of achieving peace is recognizing the strength we have through the diversity of our peace efforts, and the degree to which these peace efforts are happening worldwide.

And let's be clear: this is work. All the characteristics that you find in other types of work are present in peace work, too: long-term commitment, attention to outcomes, teamwork, organization-building, resource management, problem-solving . . . .

September is a big month for peace work organizing - the UN International Day for Peace is September 21.  As you plan your peace work for September, consider how you will directly and/or indirectly participate in and support of these activities taking place around the world.

And please help involve more people by using the #peacework hashtag!

(event hashtag to be advised)
September 9-11
Build Peace 2016
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Convener: @howtobuildpeace
Description: "How can we use technology, arts and research for peace, towards transformation?"
More information: http://howtobuildpeace.org/programs/
See also: #peacetech

(event hashtag to be advised)
September 18-25
Campaign Nonviolence Week of Actions 2016
Location: may locations - see website
Convener: @campaignnv
Description: "During Campaign Nonviolence Week, September 18-25, our goal is 500 marches for a culture of peace and nonviolence in cities and towns in all 50 states and in nations around the world, Campaign Nonviolence will march against violence and for a world of peace, justice and sustainability."
More information: http://www.paceebene.org/programs/campaign-nonviolence/campaign-nonviolence-week-of-actions/
See also: #nonviolence

#PJSA2016
September 22-24
Peace and Justice Study Association Conference
Location: Nelson, British Columbia
Convener: @PJSAtweets
Description: "At this year’s conference, we will explore methods and strategies that not only address the challenging attributes of our relationships and our world, but also showcase the success of visionary projects and movements that have built new ways of being and doing (that is, building the world we want) from the interpersonal to the global."
More information: http://www.peacejusticestudies.org/conference
See also: (additional hashtag(s) to be advised)

(event hashtag to be advised)
September 23-25
No War 2016: Real Security Without Terrorism
Location: Washington, DC
Convener: @worldbeyondwar
Description: "As the war system keeps societies in a state of permawar, we have reached a stage in human history at which we can say with confidence that there are better and more effective alternatives. Of course we know the question: “You say you are against war, but what’s the alternative?” This event will develop answers to that question, building on World Beyond War’s publication A Global Security System: An Alternative to War."
More information: http://worldbeyondwar.org/NoWar2016/
See also: (additional hashtag(s) to be advised)

#TalkingPeace
September 21 - October 2
Talking Peace Festival
Location: London, UK
Convener: @talkpeacefest
Description: "Art, Food, Film, Technology ... The Talking Peace Festival is a global unique arts and cultural platform organised by peacebuilding charity International Alert designed to engage people in the most urgent issues of peace and conflict around the world."
More information: http://talkingpeacefestival.org/
See also: #peacehack, #ART4PEACE

(event hashtag to be advised)
September 30 - October 2
Disarm! For a Climate of Peace – Creating an Action Agenda: IPB World Congress 2016 on Military and Social Spending
Location: Berlin, Germany
Convener: @intlpeacebureau
Description: "Talks, presentations, roundtables, panel discussions, workshops, information booths, exhibitions, cultural activities; high point in the recently-launched Global Campaign on Military Spending; apart from the Global Day of Action on Military Spending (mid-April), preparatory events will be held in major cities around the world over the coming year."
More information: https://www.ipb2016.berlin/
See also: (additional hashtag(s) to be advised)

 . . . PLUS more peace events worldwide - hashtag #PeaceDay!


Related posts

I've realized that when we ask ourselves, "What is it that we hope people will do?" we must include an element of recursivity: One of the things we want people to do is to involve more people in doing it. In a way, that element of recursivity -- dare I say "evangelism"? -- defines what it means for people to really become part of a movement.

(See Invite More People into Activism! (Pass It Along!) )











It will benefit us antiwar activists in the US to attend to and reflect upon the importance of these Sustainable Development Goals to achieving the goal of ending war.

(See PEACE DAY 2016: What comes first? Demilitarization? or Development?)













Yesterday was the UN International Day of Peace. The day nudged me to think about what -- if anything -- I feel I really know about peace and the movement for peace. Here are 10 things that are true for me . . . .

(See #PeaceDay 2015 - Ten Thoughts on Peace)

Is There Space for Anything Besides War in the US Constitution?

Devote some of your "100 hours for peace" to a better understanding of the fundamental US document on war and peace: the US Constitution.

The Quartet: Orchestrating the Second
American Revolution, 1783-1789,
by Joseph J. Ellis

I suggested people take back control of (at least some of) the time that the election 2016 circus is stealing from all of us, and put it to work thinking deeply about how to work better for peace.

An example of something US people who want peace need to think deeply about: does the US Constitution help us or hurt us?

My sister's book, Thermonuclear Monarchy: Choosing Between Democracy and Doom, makes strong arguments about what the Constitution really intends, and what it should cause us to do differently if we really intend to follow it.

The case of US Army Captain Michael Nathan Smith should force all of us to go back to the Constitution and try to understand what kinds of military structure and actions are permissible under the law of the land.

And, like or not, this is also going to force us all to really confront what our national agreement has been in the past -- and needs to be in the future -- about guns.

I have spent the last several days readying a wonderful book, The Quartet: Orchestrating the Second American Revolution, 1783-1789, by Joseph J. Ellis, about how the U.S. Constitution came into being. It's at your local library. If your eyes glaze over when you hear "Constitution" and "Federalist Papers," this book will rescue you. (Extra incentive, if musical theater inspires you: one member of "the quartet" is Alexander Hamilton; the others are George Washington, James Madison, and John Jay.)

For instance, The Quartet makes clear that, first and foremost, the impetus for the U.S. Constitution was (a) to assure that funds would be available for carrying out war, and (b) to enable the unimpeded occupation of much greater amounts of territory [see (a)].

The story only begins there, and, as one would expect, the eventual course of events has been conditioned on the diverse attentions and interests and moods of the leaders involved and the public that has acquiesced in their leadership.

It seems to me that it is necessary for all of us to step up and understand what the US Constitution is about. Like it or not, it creates the ground for dialog with a greatly expanded circle of people about the direction of warmaking and peacemaking by the US and its citizens.


Related posts

"I am investing these 100 hours in thinking deeply about what it will take to change the war-like ways of this country I live in. I am going to ask hard questions, confront what's really standing in the way, think creatively, and come up with new ways to be an effective peace worker. This is my time and I am going to make the best use of it."

(See The Election 2016 Diet: Invest 100 Hours for Peace)








US Army Capt. Nathan Michael Smith has sued the commander-in-chief, President Obama, for ordering war in violation of the US Constitution. Therein lie 5 lessons . . . .

(See Confronting Permawar: 5 Lessons from Captain Smith)








Elaine Scarry demonstrates that the power of one leader to obliterate millions of people with a nuclear weapon - a possibility that remains very real even in the wake of the Cold War - deeply violates our constitutional rights, undermines the social contract, and is fundamentally at odds with the deliberative principles of democracy.

(See Reviews of "Thermonuclear Monarchy: Choosing Between Democracy and Doom" by Elaine Scarry )










If you're really interested in effective harm reduction, the solution is a drastic reduction/elimination of the instruments of harm

(See ORLANDO SHOOTINGS: Start with the obvious (guns)

The Election 2016 Diet: Invest 100 Hours for Peace

GOP in Cleveland . . . Dems in Philadelphia . . . Donald Trump . . . Hillary Clinton . . . Bernie Sanders . . . DNC . . . emails . . . Russians . . . NATO . . . FOX . . . CNN . . .  aaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!

2016
I support ANTI-WAR candidates!
(Know Any?)

The 2016 US presidential election is one of the most perplexing ever for people who oppose war and militarism.

The Democratic candidate is running on her credentials as a tough hawk; the Republican candidate makes random remarks that oddly align with some antiwar positions. The circus atmosphere is bigger than ever and the third-party antiwar candidates that we might usually place some hope in are lost in the swirl of events.

This year seems to underline a difficult truth: in the run-up to the US presidential election, it always seems axiomatic that this will be the opportune time to make headway on the antiwar agenda; but in the craziness of election season itself it becomes obvious just how far out of the action we antiwar people are.

As I reeled from last week's GOP convention shenanigans and find myself drenched in another week of party-business-as-usual during the Democratic convention, I'm having a moment of clarity: these people are stealing my time.

There are, what, 100 days remaining until the election in November? Am I really going to let the next 100 days be commandeered by the minutiae and couch-quarterbacking of this election?


Consider: what if each of us claimed back the time that election 2016 is trying to demand of us? What if we said, "I am not giving you my attention?" What if, instead, we acknowledged that we know right now what we're going to do on election day, and we don't need any more TV coverage or newspaper stories or Facebook posts or tweets, and that instead we were going to use that time in a way of our own choosing?

What would you do with that extra 30 minutes or hour or . . . ?

Here's a radical proposal: what if each of us spent that extra hour a day over the next 100 days to simply think? Imagine saying, "I am investing these 100 hours in thinking deeply about what it will take to change the war-like ways of this country I live in. I am going to ask hard questions, confront what's really standing in the way, think creatively, and come up with new ways to be an effective peace worker. This is my time and I am going to make the best use of it."

Taking a break to think.  The results could be . . . revolutionary . . . !


Think about . . . how to get to a world beyond war FASTER . . .

Think about . . . getting networked with others in the peace movement . . .

Think about . . . how to use social media more effectively . . .

Think about . . . roles women play in the peace process . . . 

Think about . . . having difficult conversations . . .

Think about . . . the structural problem of "thermonuclear monarchy" . . .

Think about . . . US Constitution and what we might do differently . . .

Think about . . . all the people doing peace work, and what part YOU want to play . . .

Think about . . . creative resistance to war and militarism . . .

Think about . . . how people encourage more people to be their best and make a difference . . .

Think about . . . ? . . .


Related posts

In four hundred and thirty-five Congressional districts, there is an inseparable relationship between campaign funding for Congressional races and the military contractors. How do we push back?


(See IT'S A LOCK: Why the US Can't Break Its Addiction to War)




It will benefit us antiwar activists in the US to attend to and reflect upon the importance of these Sustainable Development Goals to achieving the goal of ending war.

(See PEACE DAY 2016: What comes first? Demilitarization? or Development?)











Election 2016 will come down to how the candidates propose to deal with ISIS, and whether they respond to the urgency of the Black Lives Matter movement.

(See To Grab the Win, Might Trump or Hillary Surprise Us?)

Independence Day - from GUNS!

How we might declare #IndependenceDay from #guns?
(Please retweet and like on Twitter to spread the word!)

For several years running, I've used the occasion of Independence Day to invite people to think about what we really want to get free of -- today, in the 21st century -- as we celebrate July 4th.

This year, it seems obvious that what's on everyone's minds is guns. (See ORLANDO SHOOTINGS: Start with the obvious (guns))

The Fourth of July is a good opportunity to consider: when so much of our national mythology is about armed conflict, how is it possible to talk seriously about nonviolence and peace?

So here's something to think about this year as we ooh and ahh over the fireworks: how would we celebrate if we really valued something other than the sound of gunfire?

(Here's a little background music as you think about that -- "Lay Down Your Guns" performed by Queen Makedah:

Related posts

All the good intentions in the world won't get the job done unless we are organized. To reach our gun safety and gun control goals, we need skilled coordination to help us.

(See Stopping Gun Violence: Time to get effective .... )












Joe Scarry: @SenRandPaul How about a bill to protect lives of non-Americans from the government's unwarranted murder by drones?

(See Tuesday July 3: Independence from Drones )










The patriotic thing to do on Independence Day is to start a conversation about something really important to our country (and the world), like stopping war and militarism.

(See Independence Day - from WAR and VIOLENCE! )

Product of Ghana: #NOwar / Pro Peace Music

It's good to get to know socially conscious musicians and other artists from around the world. One of Ghana's leading celebrities, AK Songstress, has a new song, "No War," to encourage peaceful elections.

AK Songstress: "No War"

Ghana holds national elections in November. The big issues are economic.

Ghana is hugely important to all of us. In 1957, it became the first sub-saharan African nation to declare independence from European colonisation, and its leader at the time, Kwame Nkrumah, was one of the leaders of the world decolonization and liberation movement. Today, as the world becomes more and more attuned to events in West Africa, and particularly to conflicts in Nigeria and other countries, the experience of Ghana with democracy and development is suggestive for the whole region.

I discovered the AK Songstress song via Twitter. AK Songress connects to the antiwar legacy of world music -- "in the era of legends like Bob Marley, he was always advocating for peace, unity, love and tolerance" -- and the song's press release emphasizes,

"The issue about election is of national concern to each and every discerning Ghanaian which must be healthily addressed. Without love, unity, peace, tolerance, harmony and fairness, all of our human efforts in the sight of God and man will be useless. Whether one belongs to party A, party B, party C or party D, we need to tolerate and respect each others view whenever one has a good agenda, after all we are all Ghanaians. Let’s forget about the party colours and put Ghana first."

(See AK Songstress drops peace song #NoWar)

Hmmm . . . not a bad message for everybody . . . #NOwar . . . .  

"No War": give it a listen!

PS - Check out this story about the help AK Songstress to safe sex campaigning in Ghana, too.


Related posts

If you want to hear a really angry antiwar ballad, listen to "Wooden Ships" by Crosby, Stills, and Nash:

If you smile at me, I will understand
'Cause that is something everybody everywhere does
in the same language . . . .

(See What Would It Take for Friendship to Trump War? )




An amazing thing that will be happening -- in fact, has already begun happening -- here in Berkeley is a performance of Britten's War Requiem.
(See WAR: Will you hear? Will you perceive? Will you think?)














Ravi Shankar is a great example of someone bringing a special point of view to pierce the bubble of "normalcy" in which a vast number of people live, and to agitate for tectonic change.

(See Thanks, Ravi)

Worldwide War and Conflict (Brought to you by Silicon Valley)

Are high tech workers and communities adequately owning up to their responsibility in providing ever more lethal generations of weaponry and other war materiel?

Image from PC World: "DARPA, SRC pony up
$194 million to fund chip research"

I've been attentive to the predicament of technologists involved in providing the machines of modern war since I wrote about the Chicago scientists who played such a large role in creating nuclear weapons. (See Unfinished Business in Chicago (Nuclear disarmament, that is))

When I worked in the field of patent licensing about a decade ago, I had a crash course in the structure of the semiconductor industry, and a peek into how many semiconductors find application in the military field.  If I needed any reminder of this fact, I got it when the Secretary of Defense payed a high-profile visit to California a few weeks ago: "Pentagon Turns to Silicon Valley for Edge in Artificial Intelligence."

When we think about high-tech weapons, we often think of big stuff like fighter jets and drones. But none of today's weapons are possible without the semiconductors and software that make them smart.

In the California defense industry, Southern California has been where the military aerospace comes together. But all those Silicon Valley chip and software engineers in Northern California are the key link.

(I don't know how many people living in California's 17th congressional district, the Silicon Valley area represented by Mike Honda, think of themselves as dependent on the defense industry . . . . )

It's really a fascinating dilemma. "Hey, I just make this little part of the thing .... " The protestations of scientists involved in napalm production come to mind: "Hey, I just work in the quality control department .... " (See American Fire: Still Spreading, Still Inextinguishable)

High tech weaponry (last year's model).

There are some people inside the technology field who are starting to ask questions about engineers' involvement in supporting innovations in killing. Notably, the International Committee for Robot Arms Control consists of computer scientists, engineers, artificial intelligence experts, roboticists and professionals from related disciplines who have called for "a ban on the development and deployment of weapon systems in which the decision to apply violent force is made autonomously." (See also "UC Berkeley Professor Leads Call for Ban on Autonomous Weapons," interview of Stuart Russell by Michael Krasny, Forum on KQED, August 5, 2015. )

Autonomous weapons are the cutting edge. What would happen if people working in the tech industry said that they wanted to give all military applications a wide berth? What if they quit the weapons business cold turkey?

"Social responsibility" and "ethics" is a topic that appears to be just beginning to gain traction within the EE community. I note that an annual "humanitarian" conference associated with IEEE will take place again in October, 2016, in Seattle. (You can get a sense of the proceedings from the Global Humanitarian Technology Conference (GHTC) 2015 program book.)

Right now, "humanitarian" in the EE field seems to be associated principally with affirmative efforts -- providing energy, health, communications, education, aid and similar benefits. But what about ceasing to contribute to violence?

Can we see a clear path to enabling EEs to choose to work in weapons-free zones?


Related posts

In four hundred and thirty-five Congressional districts, there is an inseparable relationship between campaign funding for Congressional races and the military contractors. How do we push back?


(See IT'S A LOCK: Why the US Can't Break Its Addiction to War)





Met Lab scientists had a rude awakening: "We're interested in your technology, not your political advice." As one of the Met Lab scientists said, "I might as well have thrown those recommendations [about abstaining from using the bomb] into Lake Michigan."

(See Unfinished Business in Chicago (Nuclear disarmament, that is))










"Because of the intensified division of labor," the narrator explains, "many technicians and scientists can no longer recognize the contribution the have made to weapons of destruction." "Our department extracts lareic, oleic, and naptha acids . . . . "  "I'm a chemist. What should I do? If I develop a substance, it can be good for humanity . . . ."  "Besides napalm, Dow Chemical produces 800 other products . . . ." Does this familiar to you?

(See American Fire: Still Spreading, Still Inextinguishable) 

21st c. Berkeley: More Relevant Than Ever to Antiwar Movement

As a "peace" enclave within California's concentrated military/defense economy, Berkeley and the East Bay have a role to play in the discussion about China.

BERKELEY: Looking west -- the bay, San Francisco . . . and beyond.

As I set out to understand California's entanglement in the military-industrial complex, I started where I live: Berkeley.

Reading a letter to the editor from our representative in Congress, Barbara Lee, a few days ago reminded me that the 13th district is kind of unusual: "As the National Defense Authorization Act comes up for a vote, I will once again co-lead a bipartisan amendment to audit the Pentagon." (Read more on Barbara Lee's position on the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF).)

Yup, this is different than the town I just came from. Chicago's star corporate citizen is mega military contractor Boeing.

Of course, Berkeley was ground zero for the antiwar movement during the '60s. But what's its relevance today?


A bridge to China

As a long-time student of China and the Chinese language, I am enchanted to find myself in a city whose university attracts lots of the very smartest students from China and other parts of Asia. (See "Berkeley - International Student Enrollment - Fall 2015") Many other Berkeley students who are US citizens claim Asian ethnicity. (See "Berkeley - Enrollment Data")

If California, and especially the Bay Area, is the historic link between the US and China, Berkeley is a particularly vital US-China hub right now.

We all say things like "youth are our future" . . . . What would happen if we encouraged a serious discussion between the diverse people in the Berkeley community (and from other communities) about the future of peace and security in the Pacific region?

SOUTH CHINA SEA FACE OFF:
Does this make ANY sense?

The discussion we need to have

I wrote recently about the growing tensions in the South China Sea.

As I read the Chinese language paper every day, it is clear to me that -- in the absence of sustained civic discourse on the security issues in the Pacific region -- our future is being shaped by military posturing.

I think a good way to re-direct the conversation would be to get a large number of young people who know and care about the situation in the region to get together and talk. It should include people from the various countries and territories concerned. It should be directed at the future we're all trying to build together. It should place a strong premium on listening. It should be open-ended.


Some possible starting points

The good thing about a university town is that it has many of the ingredients necessary to conduct forums.

Now this I understand . . . !
(Image: Android Authority)

Here are a few available in Berkeley that might assist the type of discussion I am suggesting:

* Student associations, including Chinese Students Association, Taiwanese American Student Association,
Hong Kong Student Association, . . . .

* University departments, including International Relations and  Institute of East Asian Studies

* Citizen groups, including United Nations Association - East Bay

* Relevant University affiliates, such as Office of International Relations and International House - UC Berkeley

My hope and belief is that a Berkeley forum on peace and prosperity in the Pacific would reveal a shared interest in de-escalating the South China Sea confrontation, and dramatically increase awareness of shared Pacific prospects for well-being.


Related Posts

In four hundred and thirty-five Congressional districts, there is an inseparable relationship between campaign funding for Congressional races and the military contractors. How do we push back?


(See IT'S A LOCK: Why the US Can't Break Its Addiction to War)





What people in Asia (and others) have seen for the past century is that something is happening in the Pacific, and it's being driven in part by advances in naval (and, subsequently, aviation and electronics) technology, and in part by powerful nations (principally, but not limited to, the U.S.) proximate to the area.

(See The Imperialized Pacific: What We Need to Understand)

"Although we know the end from the very beginning," says Walker, "the story is no less compelling to watch." A man, gloriously alone (except for his own reflection) on an ice-covered lake; the soothing pastel colors of the distant sky; and what seems surely to be a circle he is digging around himself with a pick-axe. A perfect parable for our headlong rush toward climate crisis?

(See How Do You Say "Suicide Narcissus" in Chinese?)

Confronting Permawar: 5 Lessons from Captain Smith

Captain Nathan Michael Smith -- US Army photo

 
US Army Capt. Nathan Michael Smith has sued the commander-in-chief, President Obama, for ordering war in violation of the US Constitution. Therein lie 5 lessons.


(1) What we've got: permawar

"Permawar" (who benefits?)

The US is making war in so many places, and so continuously, that it not longer makes sense to speak of this war or that war; it is a state of permanent war -- "permawar."

George W. Bush's "Mission Accomplished" stunt only serves to underline the fact that it's never mission accomplished -- the US rolls from conflict to conflict to conflict -- Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Syria, Iraq . . . .

The next war is always just around the corner (e.g. Iran) or being carried out by a proxy (e.g. in Palestine).

Many people seem to have forgotten this is not the way it's supposed to be. But Capt. Smith hasn't. (He remembers the Constitution he's sworn to to uphold.)


(2) Why we've got it: Congress is asleep

One explanation for the
Congressional coma . . .

People can disagree over Congress' performance in general, but there can be no disagreement that Congress has failed to do it's job with respect to war. Under Article I, Section 8, of the US Constitution, the Congress shall have Power...:

* [Clause 10] To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

* [Clause 11] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

* [Clause 12] To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

* [Clause 13] To provide and maintain a Navy;

* [Clause 14] To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

* [Clause 15] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

* [Clause 16] To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

(3) PS: WE're asleep!

Tell Congress: say NO to war!

And before we ordinary citizens get all huffy, we need to remember: Congress works for us!

Ask yourself:

* do you know the details of Congress' war powers under the US Constitution?

* when was the last time you told your congressman in detail how you wanted her/him to represent you in war deliberations?

* which advocacy group(s) do you work with on issues of war and peace?

(4) It's not hopeless

FLASHBACK:
On Syria, It's Time for Congress
to Remember Who They Represent

It's important to remember that there is a very recent example of the People telling Congress, and then Congress telling the President, that the US should not go to war.

In summer/fall 2013, President Obama was on the verge of going to war in Syria. Congress debated the issue and the US public resoundingly told their members of Congress they opposed war.

The US finds all kinds of ways to contribute to war and violence in places like Syria. But there's no question that US citizens and the US Congress can slow it and stop it when they try.


(5) It will take courage

I am (I will become) Bradley Manning

I can't imagine the courage that Capt. Nathan Michael Smith has mustered to challenge his commander-in-chief.

However, I've noticed we're seeing more and more people come forward to put the truth and justice above their own personal convenience and comfort.

For those of us who lack the opportunity and/or courage to make such big contributions, we can still ask: what can I do to lift up and support the work of such citizen leaders?



Related posts

In four hundred and thirty-five Congressional districts, there is an inseparable relationship between campaign funding for Congressional races and the military contractors. How do we push back?


(See IT'S A LOCK: Why the US Can't Break Its Addiction to War)





Anyone who has had to write a speech knows that the hardest part is to land on the main idea. Once you've got that right, the rest practically writes itself.

(See "The way to respond to ISIS is not through violence." )





First Reps. Raúl M. Grijalva (D-AZ) and Keith Ellison (D-MN) called the U.S. on the carpet for dodging the call from the international community to come clean about its drone killings. Then Reps. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Walter Jones (R-NC) submitted a bill calling for drone transparency. So ... are we finally going to get the truth?

(See REAL Progressives Demand that the U.S. Come Clean on Drone Killings) 

RIP Paul Kantner

Many of my contemporaries noticed the obituary of one of the Jefferson Airplane founders, Paul Kantner, a few weeks ago.

I love the Airplane's music. (Memories of the founding moments of the Evil Sun!) But what I was especially interested to learn was that Kantner wrote "Wooden Ships," together with David Crosby.

Here's a reflection on "Wooden Ships" I wrote about a year ago: What Would It Take for Friendship to Trump War? ("Say, can I have some of those purple berries . . .?")

An Antiwar Thought Experiment: Swing the Swing States?

There's no time like the present -- i.e. as the US stares down the throat of a possible Trump presidency -- to tee up an electoral thought experiment.

Now I understand antiwar people have totally lost faith in the electoral process. It's okay! So has everyone else!!

But this post is directed at a time in the not-to-distant future when there is a national awakening. (Think: David Byrne singing "My God! What have I done?") I'm thinking about a time when a lot of people actually start to think about how they can have an impact about what this country is and does.

So here's the thing: we all know that elections ultimately come down to the small number of uncommitted voters, especially in swing states. Anyone who wants to succeed devotes a lot of attention to what it will take to win over those voters, in those places.

Swing States 2016
(Source: UVA Center for Politics)

Now, consider a possible situation: any candidate who wants to win over those voters, in those places, will have to contend with a bunch of people who have been thinking a lot about how not to have war. What would happen if the antiwar movement zeroed in on that as a goal?

In other words, put aside for the time being the goal of turning every person in the country into an antiwar activist. In fact, put aside for the moment all of our accepted ideas about what it means to be "antiwar." (And for sure forget about the idea that "antiwar" people look the same everywhere!)

Instead, just focus on this question: if we made a concerted effort, over a reasonable period of time, in a few select places, and paid attention to local circumstances, could we influence a bunch of people in those places to think a lot about how not to have war?

What might be different if that happened?


Related posts

It will be the 2016 presidential election that will provide the main form of entertainment and distraction to the U.S. populace between now an the end of next year. An enormous amount of political fluff will fill our lives -- pushing aside, I suppose, vast amounts of sports fluff and shopping fluff and celebrity fluff and -- well, you get the point.

(See What Will Dominate Election 2016? (ANSWER: ISIS and #BlackLivesMatter) )






 

The decision about whether to live with the threat of nuclear annihilation is our decision. And that is why the entire country is mobilizing for mass action for nuclear disarmament in 2015. Are we capable of making sure the messengers -- Obama, Putin, the other agents of government -- hear their instructions from us clearly?

(See NEEDED: Heroes to Bring About Nuclear Disarmament )

Yesterday, as all the other senators sat patiently through the obfuscation of Barack Obama's Three Horsemen of the Apocalypse -- Secretary of State John Kerry, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Martin Dempsey -- Rand Paul gave 'em hell.
"Stand up for us and say you’re going to obey the Constitution and if we vote you down — which is unlikely, by the way — you would go with what the people say through their Congress and you wouldn’t go forward with a war that your Congress votes against."

(See Obama's Syria "Vote" in Congress: Democracy? or Theater? )