A Modest Proposal: Turn October 4 Into a "Come Clean On Drones Killing" Deadline!

October 4, 2014 has been set as the date for nationwide action on the problem of drone killing and surveillance.

It seems to me that this is well timed for action vis-a-vis representatives in Congress, most of whom will face a vote on Election Day (Tuesday, November 4, 2014).

A bill currently pending in Congress -- HR 4372: the Targeted Lethal Force Transparency Act -- would require the Administration to "come clean" on the record of its drone killings.

(Lest anyone think simply getting the facts is too modest an ambition, I suggest they consider the level of determined activism that has been required to extract the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) report on torture from the clutches of the government.)

In particular, there is a core of members of Congress that call themselves "progressive" -- and a handful of them have, in fact, stepped up to the plate to get this bill passed. But the majority of them are MIA on this important effort to get the facts of U.S. drone murders out in the open.

So my proposal is simple: Want to exercise practical power in the struggle to rein in the drones? Turn October 4 into a "come clean on drones killing" deadline!


Some key dates

September 21- 27 - Campaign Nonviolence Week of Action

October 4 - Global Action Day Against the Use of Drones for Surveillance and Killing

October 13 - 1 Year Anniversary of UN Report calling for transparency on US drone use

November 4 - Election Day


Related posts

Fall 2014 events in the movement to rein in drones have begun to be announced -- including the Global Action Day Against the Use of Drones for Surveillance and Killing -- October 4

(See Fall 2014 Events in the Movement Against Drone Killing and Surveillance )

A 2013 U.N. report makes it clear that the U.S. has to report fully on all its drone attacks.

(See 2014: The Year of Transparency (for U.S. Drone Use)?)

Numerous additional co-sponsors have joined to support the Schiff/Jones HR 4372: the Targeted Lethal Force Transparency Act. Now we need the rest of our Represenatives to step up!

(See SUPPORT the "Come Clean on Drone Killings" Act (Schiff/Jones HR 4372: the Targeted Lethal Force Transparency Act) )

Will the 2014 Midterms be a Referendum on Obama's Surveillance, Secrecy, and Assassinations?

There will be elections for 435 House seats in 2014.

With respect to any given race, the probability is low that U.S. surveillance, secrecy, and assassinations will be an issue.

However, it is a near certainty that in at least one or more race, U.S. surveillance, secrecy, and assassinations will be an issue.

The fun part will be watching to see which one(s).

Herewith an Insider's Guide to the 7 S's (surveillance, secrecy, and assassinations) in the 2014 Midterms. (More to come in the weeks ahead! :-)

2014 U.S. House battleground states

(1) Linchpin Districts (or, In a horse race, anything can happen)

Of the 435 races, a fraction are frequently spoken of as "highly contested" races.

See Ballotopedia: 2014 U.S. House battleground states.

It is far more likely that vital but sensitive concerns will find their way to the center of highly contested races, than in an election for a safe seat.

(See: In the California 17th: "But has he got drones …. " )
(See: To Drone or Not to Drone? The Strange Choice in Virginia's 2nd District  )
(See: Texas' Militarized Border: How Will Drone Politics Impact the 2014 Midterm in the 23rd? )

And yet . . .

Chicago: Fed up with being spied on . . . .

(2) Scandal (or, People in "safe" districts get pissed off, too)

Don't underestimate the power of events to mobilize the public.

For instance, most of the seats in the community in which I live -- Chicago -- would conventionally be thought of as "safe." But the surveillance and trumped-up charges in what has come to be known as the NATO3 case is shining a bright light on government abuse -- political repression, secrecy, fear-mongering, and state violence -- and the need for vigilance in protecting civil liberties.

If I were an incumbent running for re-election for a seat in one of the Chicago congressional districts, I would be bracing for questions about the Obama administration's surveillance, secrecy, and assassinations. (See Hey Illinois pols! Where do you stand? (On U.S. surveillance, secrecy, and assassinations) )

And Chicago isn't the only place these issues are coming to the fore.  It's a long ten months until November, and anything can happen . . . .


(3) The Principle of the Thing (or, Libertarian candidates may choose to make it an issue)

Will Libertarians stir things up?

There is a fair sprinkling of candidates out there who associate with neither the current Democratic administration nor with conventional GOP politics.

If there was ever a moment for Libertarian candidates to define themselves in terms of values, using current events as a foil, and to set themselves off sharply from "politics-as-usual," this is it.


(4) Drone Testing (or, Why "frontline state" now has a whole new meaning)

There's been intermittent interest in course of the past 24 months in the possible use of drones within U.S. borders, but in the last 60 days, the stakes just got a whole lot higher.

Domestic drone test sites

In December, 2013, the FAA designated six states to be first in line for domestic drone testing: Alaska, Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Texas, and Virginia.

"Safe seat" or not, I think candidates in those six states need to be prepared to answer a whole series of questions, such as:

* What affirmative protection assures me that I will not be subject to surveillance by drones being tested in (our state)?

* What will you do to assure an open book about any and all drone testing in (our state)? How can I know that pervasive government secrecy isn't going to be extended to drone testing, and used to hide what the government is doing?

* What are you going to do to assure an absolute prohibition on arming any drones that will be used in (our state)? -- before the first tests are conducted here?

What do you think?  Do these seem like reasonable questions to you?

(See New York State's 21st Congressional District: Excelsior? )


(5) The "Special" Club (or, No holds are barred when someone calls themselves a 'states(wo)man')

Finally, there is a small subset of races in which one or more candidates holds themselves out as a leader in international affairs. A handful actually chair relevant committees: Foreign Affairs, Armed Services, etc., or one of the subcommittees thereof.

U.N. action on drones

Thus, while not every candidate can be expected to concern himself or herself with what's coming down the pike in international affairs -- at least not in the heat of a district race -- some must.

A case in point: an international call has been made for the U.S. to come clean with the full details of its drone killings. (See 2014: The Year of Transparency (for U.S. Drone Use)? andUN calls for drone strikes to comply with international law) The message is clear:  the world intends to evaluate the evidence and determine if crimes have been committed, and each day that the U.S. government delays opening its records adds to a presumption of wrongdoing.

It is extremely likely that further action on this demand will come on the anniversary of the initial demand, which came during the fall 2013 session of the United Nations General Assembly. In other words, the next installment in this drama is set to collide with the U.S. election falling in November, 2014.

The question for these leaders in international relations is a simple one:

Do you support the call for the U.S. to come clean with the records of its drone killings?

Or, I should say, it allows of a simple answer: "yes" or "no."

The thinking behind the answer will of necessity be complex.

But not to worry: only true leaders need apply.

Related posts

One thing's for sure: there's a whole passel of advisers talking to Barack Obama every day about how things are progressing in key districts like the Illinois 12th. (And the Michigan 1st. And the Minnesota 8th. And ... ) I'd like to be a fly on the wall when they tell him the candidate is complaining about the latest anti-drones campaign there. ("Why the hell are there protesters at my appearance in Carbondale with signs that say, 'When will the DEMs stop being the party of Drone Execution and Murder' ???")

(See DRONES: Let's Give Obama a Political Choice He Can Understand in 2014 ) 

Edward J. Snowden has forced us to confront what we all knew already: our government is running wild and we can't get our privacy back, short of some kind of very extreme change . . . . We have a problem with our government. It sees opportunities for power in every bit and byte of our personal data, and it's time to call it what it is: wrong.

See Fed Up With Being Spied On

The Amash Conyers Amendment to curtail NSA spying was advanced in the U.S. House of Representatives shortly after the Snowden revelations. It narrowly failed -- in part due to the votes of some so-called "progressive" Illinois representatives.

(See In Chicago, Illinois: YOU ARE UNDER SURVEILLANCE! )

Obama's Surveillance Problem Is the Dems' Surveillance Problem

I think there may only be one person left in America who hasn't realized that the NSA surveillance scandal is killing the Democratic Party . . .  and he'll be giving the State of the Union address on Tuesday night.

I'm sure Barack Obama is huddled with his speechwriters at this very moment, and is crafting a wide-ranging, precise, balanced, statesmanlike address. Unfortunately, no one is interested in a wide-ranging, precise, balanced, statesmanlike address -- they want to know what he's going to do to get the NSA the hell away from them.

Poor Obama -- it's just not in his nature to recognize a BIG problem when he sees it, and to solve it.  Every problem goes into the "analysis pending" folder, and gets mixed in with a thousand other policy initiatives and projects and working groups and review panels and expert commissions.

There is no question that he will be content to let this problem fester for the rest of 2014.  (Kiss the midterms goodbye.) And beyond. I wonder when people are going to wake up to the fact that the Democratic Party may be dragged down by the NSA surveillance scandal in 2016.

What's that? The Democratic Party didn't create the problem in the first place?  I'm sorry: completely irrelevant. Politics is all about "now."

My prediction?  Republican candidates in the 2014 midterms are going to say, "Hey - I'm a 4th amendment supporter! Vote me in and I'll get the government out of your hair! Obama may be afraid of the guys at the NSA, but I'm not!" Which puts Democratic candidates in a rather awkward position. What can they say, without appearing insipid on the one hand -- or incurring the wrath of the Chief on the other?

Related posts

One issue that has a key place in the midterm elections in 2014, I believe, is surveillance.  With each passing day, I am hearing more and more people say that the surveillance issue is something that a wide spectrum of people are deeply upset about. That includes people on the right as well as people on the left -- people who don't usually talk with each other, much less work together for positive change!

(See The Surveillance Issue: The Fulcrum of the 2014 Election?)   

There has been a good sign in 2013, in that many people have become outraged about government surveillance. A recent Pew poll found that Americans are now more worried about civil liberties abuses than terrorism. I believe a big question in 2014 will be whether challengers successfully address the issue of NSA surveillance in their campaigns.

(See What Will Election 2014 Boil Down To? )

Edward J. Snowden has forced us to confront what we all knew already: our government is running wild and we can't get our privacy back, short of some kind of very extreme change . . . . We have a problem with our government. It sees opportunities for power in every bit and byte of our personal data, and it's time to call it what it is: wrong.

(See Fed Up With Being Spied On)

Drone Killings: Come Clean

Lots of people are trying to deduce the extent of U.S. drone
killings. Why doesn't the U.S. just come clean?

How are we going to make progress in ending the menace of drones in the next few months -- i.e. in the first half of 2014?

We are going to have to carefully assess our audience, our messages, and where we put our time, energy, and resources. We need to be alert to what's happening in the broader culture.

It is also important that we are honest with ourselves about the moment we are in.  Is there adequate awareness of the issue? Have people started to become dissatisfied with what the government is doing? Are people ready to embrace the alternative(s) we are proposing?


Awareness: "What's a drone?"

In 2013, a much larger portion of the American public woke up to drones and what's being done with them.

Nonetheless, there are still people who ask, "What's a drone?"

NYC campaign by Essan Attia

My belief is that we will have a continuing need for building awareness.  I believe that it is important to the movement to find ways to increase awareness as efficiently as possible - i.e. using high-leverage communications mechanisms.  We need to accomplish as much as we possibly can without using up all our time, energy, and resources on this part of the campaign.

For instance, I wonder about: in a city like Chicago, would we be better off organizing a big teach-in? Or putting 100,000 stickers on lampposts that say "Drone Strikes: Out of Control"? Which would build more awareness?


Dissatisfaction: It's not just the secrecy ... it's the secrecy, the evasion, the lying, the spying ....

The heart of the campaign, in my opinion, should be find the Obama administration's greatest area of vulnerability with the public and focus on that.

Alternate caption: Same Spying, Different Day

Clearly, the public is outraged by NSA surveillance. Obama's weak response to this is leaving people more and more dissatisfied.  From every indication, this situation is going to worsen with each passing day.

The deeper impact is that people are realizing, "I've got zero protection from government surveillance -- they know everything about me -- and everything they do is a secret."  This pair of complementary realizations -- surveillance and invasion of privacy on the one hand, and secrecy and deceit on the other -- is likely to create a spiraling sense of cynicism and dissatisfaction.

The movement to stop drone surveillance and warfare can take advantage of this sentiment with a simple demand such as "Drone Killings: Come Clean!" This would play into the opinion that Americans already hold about the government: they're hiding the truth from us, and the truth is probably pretty bad.

Jan 16, 2014 - Congress keeps secret drone program in hands
of CIA. We think. We don't know for sure. Because
the measure is included in the classified annex to the
budget bill. (Or so it is rumored.)

And they are hiding the truth.  The United Nations has called for a full accounting of U.S. drone killings. The U.S. government is stonewalling.

The more the government refuses to "come clean" -- and they will refuse; it's in their nature -- the more dissatisfied members of the general public will become.

Imagine if every candidate who was campaigning for a House or Senate seat in 2014 was forced to take a position on the question, "Do you endorse the call for the Administration to come clean about its record of drone killings?"  It's a simple yes or no question.  If the answer is yes, then we have an ally.  If the answer is "no" -- or even "it depends" or "I don't understand the question" -- then the candidate is saddled with the label "sides with the Administration on hiding truth about drones."

NOTE: the fact that a large number of people have labored to do the best possible job of assembling the facts of the US drone killings despite U.S. government concealment -- see, for instance, this startling infographic illustrating drone strikes in Pakistan -- does not diminish the need for the U.S. government, itself, to come clean and publish the full and authoritative facts.  Rather, it serves to emphasize how shocking it is that the government continues to duck this obligation!

And, of course, we will make it clear that the reason the Administration is hiding truth about drones is that they don't have a satisfactory answer for how decisions about drone strikes are made.  As we have known all along, we need the public to think about how crummy the whole drone program is, and then they will be ready to be on our side. The best way to get them really thinking is to shine a spotlight on the secrecy, evasiveness, and deceit involved in the U.S. drone program.


Embracing the Alternative: Ground the drones

We are not yet at the point that enough Americans are dissatisfied with the solutions being offered by the government.  But we could get there soon.

Sunset

When people realize that the U.S. government doesn't have an acceptable answer to the question "Who decides?" . . . and when they realize that the U.S. government will never "come clean" about its drone killings  . . . they'll be ready to listen to the proposal offered by the movement against drones.

My expectation is that, when that time comes, our proposal will be: GROUND THE DRONES!

By that time, it will be the only proposal people will view as trustworthy.


Related posts

A new U.N. report makes it clear that the U.S. has to report fully on all its drone attacks.

(See 2014: The Year of Transparency (for U.S. Drone Use)?)









One thing's for sure: there's a whole passel of advisers talking to Barack Obama every day about how things are progressing in key districts like the Illinois 12th. (And the Michigan 1st. And the Minnesota 8th. And ... ) I'd like to be a fly on the wall when they tell him the candidate is complaining about the latest anti-drones campaign there. ("Why the hell are there protesters at my appearance in Carbondale with signs that say, 'When will the DEMs stop being the party of Drone Execution and Murder' ???")

(See DRONES: Let's Give Obama a Political Choice He Can Understand in 2014 ) 

If the public will join us in asking the question "Who decides?" about drone executions, I believe they will rapidly come to realize that they are utterly dissatisfied with what the government is saying.

(See Who Decides? (When Drones are Judge, Jury, and Executioner) )

One issue that has a key place in the midterm elections in 2014, I believe, is surveillance.  With each passing day, I am hearing more and more people say that the surveillance issue is something that a wide spectrum of people are deeply upset about. That includes people on the right as well as people on the left -- people who don't usually talk with each other, much less work together for positive change!

(See The Surveillance Issue: The Fulcrum of the 2014 Election?)  

Antiwar Agitation in 2014: Less Mercutio, More Larry Levy

DRONES: Let's Give Obama a Political
Choice He Can Understand in 2014

I think some people may have misunderstood me when I said that in 2014 the midterm election campaigns offer an opportunity for us to have an impact in our efforts to stop drone surveillance and warfare, and in other antiwar endeavors.

Some people have said to me, "I gave up on elected officials a long time ago.  We have to take our message to the people!"

To which I say, "Yes! The people! That's exactly who is going to be turning lots of their attention to the midterm elections in 2014! Let's get in front of them; let's be part of the conversation."

In other words, let's draw a distinction between election-2014-as-communication-context and election-2014-as-end-unto-itself.


Election 2014: Because people will be giving it their attention

Remembering the example of Willie Sutton -- who said that he robbed banks "because that's where the money is" -- I would say we need to engage with the 2014 midterms "because that's where the people's attention is . . . ."

Given the inclination of the U.S. federal government to seize any opportunity to persecute dissenters, perhaps I should hasten to say explicitly that I am NOT recommending that anyone rob a bank!

What I am recommending is that we find out what people are giving their attention to, and then get ourselves into their field of view.

I'm reminded of an exchange in the Robert Altman film, The Player, in which two mutually-antagonistic movie executives are wrapping up a phone conversation:

LARRY LEVY (played by Peter Gallagher) [from behind the wheel of his black Mercedes convertible]: “I’ll be there right after my A.A. meeting.

GRIFFIN MILL: (played by Tim Robbins) [dripping with schadenfreude-masquerading-as-concern]: “Oh. Larry, I didn’t realize you had  . . . a drinking problem.”

LARRY LEVY  [ingenuously]: “Well, I don’t really, but that’s where all the deals are being made these days.”

This exchange has always stuck with me, because once you peel away the hopeless competitiveness and lack of compassion of these two characters, you are left with a grain of truth: if you want to succeed, you need to go where the conversation is taking place.

The question for us: are we willing to check our egos at the door and get busy talking to people?

Election 2014: The lure of party politics

My mother-in-law used to refer to things being "a snare and a delusion," and I certainly appreciate the risk posed by elections. It's easy to get sucked in, and pretty soon all of your time and energy is being sacrificed in the service of some candidate, or some party, or or some other aspect of the existing system.

Like Mercutio, most of us feel we have been wounded enough to be entitled to feel most "grave" and to say, "I am peppered, I warrant, for this world. A plague o' both your houses!"

And we do need a posture that immunizes us from being dragged into party politics. At the same time, however, we need to be where the people are.

So . . . how are we going to do it?

Related posts

There's no question that for the next 18 months, we members of the general public will be deluged with media about the 2016 presidential election. Maddeningly, 99 and 44/100% of that media will make no mention of the need to end U.S. wars, occupations, imperialism, and militarism.

(See I Support Antiwar Candidates! (Know Any?) )










One thing's for sure: there's a whole passel of advisers talking to Barack Obama every day about how things are progressing in key districts like the Illinois 12th. (And the Michigan 1st. And the Minnesota 8th. And ... ) I'd like to be a fly on the wall when they tell him the candidate is complaining about the latest anti-drones campaign there. ("Why the hell are there protesters at my appearance in Carbondale with signs that say, 'When will the DEMs stop being the party of Drone Execution and Murder' ???")

(See DRONES: Let's Give Obama a Political Choice He Can Understand in 2014 )

There has been a good sign in 2013, in that many people have become outraged about government surveillance. A recent Pew poll found that Americans are now more worried about civil liberties abuses than terrorism. I believe a big question in 2014 will be whether challengers successfully address the issue of NSA surveillance in their campaigns.

(See What Will Election 2014 Boil Down To? )

One issue that has a key place in the midterm elections in 2014, I believe, is surveillance.  With each passing day, I am hearing more and more people say that the surveillance issue is something that a wide spectrum of people are deeply upset about. That includes people on the right as well as people on the left -- people who don't usually talk with each other, much less work together for positive change!

(See The Surveillance Issue: The Fulcrum of the 2014 Election?)

DRONES: Let's Give Obama a Political Choice He Can Understand in 2014

Now's the time of year for New Year's resolutions.

Let no one doubt that Barack Obama has one resolution for 2014 and that is to win back control of the House of Representatives.

As the nationwide -- and, increasingly, global -- movement to ground the drones looks ahead to 2014, what will its New Year's resolution be?

I suggest that if we want to be heard on this issue, we need to be where Obama and his crew are paying daily attention: the highly-contested races in the 2014 midterms.

U.S. House battleground districts, 2014 Source: Ballotpedia

Let's face it: when it comes to the vast majority of House seats, the people in the Executive Branch are just as jaded as people in the antiwar movement.  They know those are no-contest seats.  But where they do spend time and energy is in the small number of districts where they can hope to influence the outcome. They are extremely anxious that nothing happen in those districts to spoil whatever chances they have with the tiny sliver of swing voters who will determine the outcome.

For someone like me who lives in Chicago, it's always tempting to try to communicate with members of Congress like Mike Quigley, Luis Gutierrez, and Jan Schakowsky. ( "Mike! You're a good liberal - can't you see the need to stop these criminal drone attacks?" ) But since Mike and Luis and Jan have very little doubt that they'll be elected in November, it's hard to phase them. I'm beginning to think my time would be better spent where it's possible to have an impact.  So now I'm asking myself, "What do I need to do to make drones an issue in the Illinois 12th District?"

Because one thing's for sure: there's a whole passel of advisers talking to Barack Obama every day about how things are progressing in key districts like the Illinois 12th. (And the Michigan 1st. And the Minnesota 8th. And ... ) I'd like to be a fly on the wall when they tell him the candidate is complaining about the latest anti-drones campaign there. ("Why the hell are there protesters at my appearance in Carbondale with signs that say, 'When will the DEMs stop being the party of Drone Execution and Murder' ???")

I don't know, today, if people in the Illinois 12th District even know what a drone is. The 12th is all the way down in the southern tip of the state, and I doubt people there have heard about our campaigns against drones up here in Chicago.  But one thing's for sure.  I'm going to make it my business to make sure people there find out -- and soon!


Related posts

Five big realizations I'm taking away from the 2013 CODEPINK Drone Summit "Drones Around the Globe: Proliferation and Resistance" in Washington, DC.

(See The 2013 DC Drones Conference: 5 Big Takeaways )

There has been a good sign in 2013, in that many people have become outraged about government surveillance. A recent Pew poll found that Americans are now more worried about civil liberties abuses than terrorism. I believe a big question in 2014 will be whether challengers successfully address the issue of NSA surveillance in their campaigns.

(See What Will Election 2014 Boil Down To? )

One issue that has a key place in the midterm elections in 2014, I believe, is surveillance.  With each passing day, I am hearing more and more people say that the surveillance issue is something that a wide spectrum of people are deeply upset about. That includes people on the right as well as people on the left -- people who don't usually talk with each other, much less work together for positive change!

(See The Surveillance Issue: The Fulcrum of the 2014 Election?)

The DC Drones Conference: What I'll Be Thinking About

As I join people from around the world gathering in Washington, DC, for the  2013 CODEPINK Drone Summit "Drones Around the Globe: Proliferation and Resistance" (Nov 16/17) this weekend, here are some of the questions I'll be thinking about.

(UPDATE: To learn what I'm thinking about now that the summit has concluded, see The 2013 DC Drones Conference: 5 Big Takeaways )


Who decides?

If the public will join us in asking the question "Who decides?" about drone executions, I believe they will rapidly come to realize that they are utterly dissatisfied with what the government is saying.

(See Who Decides? (When Drones are Judge, Jury, and Executioner) )
 

When will we learn the truth? 

Until we have the facts, the U.S. government will continue to dance around the issue.

A new U.N. report makes it clear that the U.S. has to report fully on all its drone attacks.

(See 2014: The Year of Transparency (for U.S. Drone Use)?)








Where is the faith community?

 In particular, when will American Christians begin to see the problem of drones as the threat that it is to everything that they believe in?

After all, wasn't Jesus, himself, a victim of a wrong way of "seeing" by the agents of Empire?

(See Was the Crucifixion a "signature strike"?)

Will U.S. politics in 2014 address the drone problem?

Isn't now a moment when, instead of falling back into our existing habits of trying to change America's war-making ways, we should put our recent experience under a microscope? And ask what we can learn from this experience? Can we make 2014 the year that we sort the wheat from the chaff in Congress? And get the control over war and peace back into our own hands?

(See Election 2014: The Moment of Truth for the US Antiwar Movement?)

Will the opponents of drone surveillance make a difference?

One issue that has a key place in the midterm elections in 2014, I believe, is surveillance.  With each passing day, I am hearing more and more people say that the surveillance issue is something that a wide spectrum of people are deeply upset about. That includes people on the right as well as people on the left -- people who don't usually talk with each other, much less work together for positive change!

(See The Surveillance Issue: The Fulcrum of the 2014 Election?)


POSTSCRIPT: I guess I was still thinking about this question as the conference concluded. Drone Free Zone: At the second annual Drone Summit, Code Pink and Cornel West argue that all lives are equal. in In These Times quoted me the day after: "There is a wing of this movement that is concerned about surveillance; there is a wing of this movement that’s concerned about physical injury to people. If there is one area where there is not always full communication, coordination or agreement, that’s it. . . . If the people who feel most concerned about surveillance are actually successful at sitting together with the people concerned about physical injury, this is going to be an incredibly powerful movement."


Related posts

What I Learned: Five big realizations I'm taking away from the 2013 CODEPINK Drone Summit "Drones Around the Globe: Proliferation and Resistance" in Washington, DC.

(See The 2013 DC Drones Conference: 5 Big Takeaways )

The biggest idea coming out of the 2013 Drone Summit? We will only deal successfully with the crimes being committed using drones when we understand them as part of the much larger war against communities of color . . . .

(See Drone Gaze, Drone Injury: The War on Communities of Color )

Many of us who weren't in Pakistan to participate in the massive rally against U.S. drone strikes participated in this protest by holding rallies where we were (for instance, in London), or by participating virtually via the #PakistanAgainstDrones campaign on Twitter.

(See What Would a Global Movement to Ground the Drones Look Like?)

Talk of the Town: Shrink the Military

People are talking about cuts to the military.

It couldn't happen to a more deserving half of our national budget.

The New York Times yesterday, in an editorial entitled "Reality Sets In" had a few choice words:

"Skepticism is essential when it comes to the military’s promises and projections."

"[To modernize the submarines, bombers and missiles that carry nuclear weapons] would seem especially ill advised given that nuclear weapons are being reduced and should be reduced even more."

"It has been clear for some time that America can no longer afford unrestrained military spending. There is no alternative to making tough decisions about what is essential for the country’s defense and doing a more ruthless and creative job of controlling costs."

What about the substance of the cuts being advocated?

* management reforms: $22.4 billion (SOUNDS GOOD)
* reduction in active-duty forces and nuclear forces: $21.4 billion (OKAY)
* reduce purchases of jets, submarines, missiles: $5.7 billion (CHECK)

HOWEVER . . . we need a lot more people jumping into this debate, because the cuts being talked about are too timid . . . AND because the most dangerous and illegitimate (and frequently illegal) forms of military force are being advocated for the "efficiency" and "cost-effectivneness":

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said Tuesday that future investment should focus on Special Operations forces, unmanned surveillance aircraft and cyberweaponry.

Moreover . . . there is no mention of the big structural problem: the web of bases that spans the globe and assures that the U.S. will always need more military stuff to put on those bases, and more people to take care of the stuff, and more people to take care of the people, and yet more stuff for all those people. (And then we need to give them missions . . . because we just have to use it, right?)

Shrinking Defense: Welcome to the real Tea Party.

Related posts

In the past several weeks, the President of the United States tried to undertake an attack against a foreign country, but the American people said "Hell no!" and the Congress let the President know they couldn't support it. How often does that happen?

(See When THE PEOPLE Take Control: "Anything Can Happen")

Isn't now a moment when, instead of falling back into our existing habits of trying to change America's war-making ways, we should put our recent experience under a microscope? And ask what we can learn from this experience? Can we make 2014 the year that we sort the wheat from the chaff in Congress? And get the control over war and peace back into our own hands?

(See Election 2014: The Moment of Truth for the US Antiwar Movement?)

What would happen if every member of Congress "adopted" a foreign military base and demonstrated what would happen if all the money spent there were brought home to local districts? Do you think the constituents would welcome THAT initiative?

(See How About a REAL (Tea) Party? SHUT DOWN THE MILITARY BASES! )