Abolitionists beware!  It would be easy to go through an entire bottle of ibuprofen (not in one sitting of course) while attempting to make any sense of all the analysis of the U.S. Fiscal Year 2012 Budget!  As for the “defense” budget the great shell game continues.  It gives peacemakers a tremendous headache.

As for issues of a nuclear nature, actions speak even louder than numbers.  While it is easy to get sidetracked by the figures (and I don’t mean to discount the costs; they ARE important), it is crystal clear from the projects currently in the works and those on the planning table that the U.S. Government’s focus is  much like a horse with blinders – Can you say “DETERRENCE?”

Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists has summarized The Nuclear Weapons Modernization Budget in the FAS Strategic Security Blog (Feb 17, 2011).  Between “maintenance and modernization” the government is ensuring that the nuclear weapons development, construction, maintenance deployment and delivery infrastructure is thoroughly protected from the budgetary axe.  If spending is the true indicator of intention, then President Obama’s disarmament rhetoric rings hollow.

Nuclear weapons, based on FY2012 budget request, continue to stand at the forefront of U.S. foreign policy, and if the government’s current plans are realized the prospects for global nuclear disarmament before the year 2100 – should we not commit nuclear omnicide before then – look grim.

From missiles to bombs, “the budget includes significant investments in maintaining and modernizing the nuclear weapons in the stockpile through the life-extension programs (LEPs).”   But that’s not all folks!  The Obama administration will make sure that the “missiles, submarines and bombers designed to deliver the warheads” are also “modernized.”

But wait!  We are talking about way more than mere modernization here.  As Kristensen states, the Minuteman III ICBM is analogous to the Six Million Dollar Man (but way more expensive) and “is essentially a new missile.”  The Air Force’s heavy bombers and fighter-bombers will be upgraded, and in the case of the B-52 “will provide for further nuclear weapons in both bay and under wings.”  Great – More nuclear weapons!!!

 The biggest and scariest news of all is the intention (and research has been underway for some time now) to build a new generation of ballistic missile submarines (SSBN(X).  Although Kristensen covers this only briefly, it is a huge issue as Trident is the nations premier first strike weapon, and according to estimates would be in service through 2082!

And finally, the infrastructure that has developed, built and maintained the nations nuclear weapons continues to receive more than adequate funding to continue rebuilding itself.  Construction at Los Alamos and Y-12 in Tennessee are well under way and well over budget, and the Kansas City Plant (not mentioned by Kristensen) is on a roll.

As for the “Implications and Outlook” of the current nuclear weapons budget, here’s what Kristensen has to say:

With massive investments in widespread modernization of nuclear forces and industry, the FY2012 budget shows that the Obama administration is following through on its promise to make significant investments in modernizing the U.S. nuclear deterrent.

The “generational” modernizations proposed in the budget represent a commitment to extending the nuclear era as long into the future as it has lasted so far. A challenge will be whether nuclear modernization will overshadow nuclear disarmament in the administration’s public nuclear image.

Following on the heels of the Prague speech and the New START treaty, it remains to be seen whether other nuclear weapon states and the international non-proliferation community will see the nuclear modernization programs as progress toward reducing the role and numbers of nuclear weapons and putting an end to Cold War thinking, or business as usual only at lower numbers.

To what extent the Congress will fund these programs is another unknown. With unprecedented deficit and a new Congress that appears determined to cut government spending, several of the nuclear modernization programs will like come under considerable scrutiny.

It is obvious that the Obama administration is locked into a decades old pattern of thinking linked to a deeply entrenched military-nuclear-industrial complex that perpetuates a potentially deadly reliance on weapons that by their very design indiscriminately kill civilians, and if ever used in even a limited conflict would result in devastating immediate and long-term global effects.  The world cannot afford a continuation of “business as usual” at any numbers!!!

I urge everyone to read Kristensen’s summary and analysis, and consider how we can respond. We need to send a clear message to President Obama and Congress that planned modernization efforts are antithetical to the President’s stated “goal of a world without nuclear weapons.” We need to ask the President just what kind of legacy he wants to leave the world when he leaves office.

Peace,

Leonard

Our political team spent a couple of days last week making the rounds of key congressional offices to strategize, feel out the new political landscape, and push for action on ending the war in Afghanistan, taking further steps to eliminate the threat of nuclear weapons, and building out the development and diplomatic tools we need to deal with conflict peacefully.

Being so early in the year, and with committee assignments not even settled yet, there was still a lot up in the air. Here are a few of the interesting questions that surfaced and that will inform our organizing and lobbying in 2011.

Where will new Republicans stand on the war in Afghanistan?

Because the war in Afghanistan received little attention in the 2010 election, there is some mystery around where the new crop of Republicans stands on the war. Thus far, there have been a handful of Republicans who have spoken out or voted in favor of antiwar measures, but the opposition has been dominated by Democrats—a dynamic that has complicated our work to pressure a Democratic president to change course. Many Democratic staffers I talked to were interested in identifying and picking off some Republicans to support measures to end the war in 2011.

There are some signs that a split on the right could be on the horizon. Prominent conservative Grover Norquist recently called for debate on the right about the war in Afghanistan, implying that the conversation would likely lead to the conclusion that we should end the war. Conservative Republican Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) had this to say late last year:

“There’s a great opportunity for a Republican to distinguish themselves by taking a strong position on bringing the troops home from Afghanistan,” said Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), a strong critic of the war who has advocated — and voted for — redeployment. “It’s a very conservative position. It will unite the right and the left, and it would certainly play well to independents.”

The Afghanistan Study Group, a bipartisan group of experts calling for a scaled down approach, just released polling showing that conservatives support troop reductions.

There’s no question of where much of the Republican leadership stands on the conflict. House Armed Services Committee Chair Buck McKeon just released a plan to scrutinize the Afghanistan strategy, including “ensur[ing] that these requirements are not negatively affected by the president’s planned troop draw-downs starting in July 2011.” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell just wooed new Republican senators on a trip to Afghanistan, and they all came back calling for an indefinite commitment.

The question now is how many new Republicans will be brought into the fold by leadership, and how many will break off and join the growing number of people speaking out against the war.

Organizers and our allies on the Hill will be looking to identify potential allies on both sides of the aisle. I also heard increased skepticism from some Democratic offices who have not been willing yet to take a strong stand on the war, so we will likely see new Democratic recruits as the unpopularity of the war continues to grow.

Will Tea Party members and deficit hawks walk the walk on cutting military spending?

A lot of staffers are looking for opportunities to take advantage of the fixation on spending and the deficit. The need to scale back dominated the election debate, and reasonable people acknowledge that you can’t address the problem seriously without taking a hard look at the bloated military budget. Many people see an opportunity to unite progressives and conservatives to push for real cuts, as opposed to the $78 billion of “cuts” (largely reprogramming) proposed by Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

There have been some encouraging comments, including House Majority Leader Eric Cantor saying military spending is on the table. Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul is supposedly working up a proposal to cut $500 billion that would include as yet undefined military cuts.

I remain somewhat skeptical given the willingness Republicans have shown to create giant loopholes for spending on pet projects like tax cuts for the wealthy and health care reform repeal. It is certainly worth pursuing a possible alliance, and at the very least it gives proponents of cutting the military budget a wedge to hold Republicans accountable and make an argument in what is probably the most favorable rhetorical environment for these cuts in years.

Is the “deal” for $85 billion in nuclear weapons complex funding set in stone?

While our supporters and staff worked tirelessly to ratify New START, an amazing victory for arms control in a challenging political environment, we have been clear to our supporters and to members of Congress that we strongly oppose the $85 billion in additional funding for the nuclear weapons complex that the administration offered to appease Republicans and garner their votes for ratification. Given that the administration and its Senate allies want to be seen as people who keep their promises, we wondered how much room there is to chip away at this funding, much of which is unnecessary and counterproductive.

Going after this funding will definitely be an uphill battle, but there is room to maneuver. While more than one staffer described the funding as a “bitter pill to swallow” in exchange for New START, some on the House side think appropriators will feel less obligation to uphold a deal that was made on the Senate side. With spending cuts on the horizon across the board, some thought it possible that Republican appropriators on the Energy & Water Subcommittee might be open to cuts to the nuclear budget to make room for district water projects that get them more love from their districts than funding for nuclear facilities.

There will certainly be pressure to keep the National Nuclear Security Administration funding steadily increasing, but there are members of Congress who are appalled by the exorbitant amount of money promised in the budget, which will give us opportunities to push back and make the case for specific cuts. Our first steps will be congressional education about what this funding really means, followed by grassroots pressure to spend money on priorities most beneficial to the American people.

What does the July 2011 Afghanistan transition date mean and how do we hold the Obama administration accountable?

We have been concerned about the mixed messages coming from the Obama administration about the length of the US commitment in Afghanistan—from President Obama reiterating his plan to start a transition in July of this year to Vice President Biden saying the US would be willing to stay in Afghanistan past 2014. Talking to congressional staff just emphasizes how vague the messaging has been, since I heard a variety of opinions about what July 2011 will actually mean and how significant a turning point it will be. This offers us an opportunity to have members of Congress and the public push the administration to concretely define what its plans are for Afghanistan.

Some members of Congress have already taken advantage of the July 2011 milestone as a way to hold the administration accountable and push them to actually scale down the military presence in a meaningful way, as he led many people to believe he would. Whatever the administration’s intentions in floating that date, it provides us a target for encouraging the administration to stick to that date and to build a drumbeat of support for changing course in Congress between now and then. Some of our allies will be out with legislation and other initiatives to get people on the record, and we will work to strengthen our allies’ voices and provide opportunities for people who have been quiet on the war to find their voice and create the political space for the administration to change course. With the 2012 election already looming and the war incredibly unpopular with the Democratic base (and also independents), we will have increased leverage to push on the president and members of Congress to catch up with the American people.

After surviving more than five years of working for Peace Action West under the Bush administration, I know from experience that we can have an impact even in challenging political environments. We’ll be working to use every opportunity to our advantage, and these lingering questions could resolve in interesting ways that make room for progress on peace.

You can help determine the outcome. Click here to tell your senators you want them to vote yes on New START and to do it now.

Sen. Kyl says Republicans need more time to think about this treaty. But in the year since the last START treaty expired, the Senate has held 21 hearings on New START and the administration has answered more than 900 questions from Republicans. Every reasonable national security expert has come out in favor of this treaty. There is no excuse for delaying an agreement that helps decrease the threat from nuclear weapons.

But still some Republicans are digging in their heels, using ridiculous stall tactics and demanding exorbitant amounts of money to fund the nuclear weapons complex.  Republicans are using these games to avoid taking a position on what should be an uncontroversial treaty. It’s time to end the games and force them to take a stand. Click here to write your senators to push for a New START vote before the end of the year.

It’s going to be even harder to ratify this treaty in 2011, so we need to pull out all the stops now. The administration, the media, Republican treaty supporter Dick Lugar (R-IN), and the arms control community are putting the heat on Kyl for his shameful tactics. You helped us flip two Republicans to vote in favor of this treaty in committee.  Now we can finish what we started and ratify the first major arms control treaty in decades. Click here to take action.

While people have all kinds of views about what this election means for foreign policy, there is a reasonable idea that the administration could turn greater attention to foreign policy because they will face such gridlock in the Republican-controlled House and a Senate with a smaller (and non-filibuster-proof) majority. The Democratic caucus is smaller, but now skews much more progressive, with the Congressional Progressive Caucus likely to make up more than 40% of sitting Democrats in the House. In the face of recalcitrant leadership, these Democrats may be more emboldened to speak out in favor of peace. This will depend, however, on how we take advantage of the leverage points we have on some of our top priority issues.

Afghanistan

The Republicans’ use of the bully pulpit on the Afghanistan issue is not likely to be pretty. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is already calling for a “fresh look” at our nearly ten-year-old war in Afghanistan, which likely means calling for greater investment in a stale, failing strategy.  Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA), incoming chair of the Armed Services Committee, has already stated that making sure troops have the time they need in Afghanistan will be a top priority for his committee. These Republicans could team up with military leadership who oppose starting a real withdrawal to hammer the administration on the plan to start withdrawing in July. They could also stage votes designed to make Democrats looks bad (the foreign policy version of Viagra for sex offenders), like forcing them to vote against the “I love the troops and mom and apple pie and hate Al Qaeda” legislation.

The major leverage point we can exploit next year is the extreme dissatisfaction with the war amongst Democrats. Recent polls have shown that only 20% of Democrats support the war in Afghanistan, and there is unlikely to be positive news that will convince them that the continuing cost in lives and dollars is worthwhile. According to Bob Woodward, President Obama has already said that he can’t afford to lose his base over the war, so we must work with our allies in Congress to link his electoral prospects and those of the Democratic Party with galvanizing the base through actions to end the war in Afghanistan.

Nuclear weapons

Our immediate priority is to get a New START vote in the lame duck session of the Senate, which is scheduled to reconvene on November 15^th. While time will be short, the administration and Senate leadership have already reiterated that ratification is a top priority for the lame duck session. A passing vote on what should be an uncontroversial treaty is certainly possible in the new Senate as the treaty has widespread bipartisan support, but waiting to get new senators up to speed means even more time without critical verification measure in place—measures that have been absent for 334 days since the first START Treaty expired.

Getting other things through the House and Senate could obviously be more challenging, which is why this would be a good opportunity for President Obama to demonstrate his commitment to a nuclear weapons free world by taking steps that don’t need congressional approval. There are a number of things that would put the US further on the road toward disarmament, from taking weapons off of hair-trigger alert to negotiating deeper reductions with Russia, that President Obama can undertake on his own.

Another of our major challenges in 2011 will be to push back against the administration’s misguided attempt to appease Republicans with exorbitant amounts of nuclear pork. The administration is projecting spending $80 billion over the next ten years on the nuclear weapons complex and $100 billion on updating delivery vehicles—money that will ramp up the US’s capacity for building new nuclear weapons despite this administration’s commitment to refrain from doing so.  The conversation about the deficit and the need to cut wasteful spending could help us in this challenging fight to deprive nuclear hawks like Jon Kyl (R-AZ) of this unnecessary funding.

Iran

Overall, Congress has been no real friend to proponents of peaceful relations with Iran. While many members have clearly drawn the line at military confrontation, only eight representatives and ZERO senators voted against broad unilateral sanctions that are creating hardship for regular Iranians and resentment against the US’s approach. We may see a ramping up, especially since likely House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) will have “get tough on Iran” at the top of her to-do list.

Despite that, many people think that the Obama administration will be largely free to pursue its current course of negotiations if it can begin to show results. Their best bet for results will be to adjust their approach and engage in good faith negotiations and not repeat their routine of rebuffing Iran and then chastising them for failure to cooperate (with reciprocal cooperation from Iran). Of course, if the David Broders and John Boltons of the world, and their slightly saner counterparts, keep beating the drums for war, we will be ready to push back against what the administration hopefully understands would be a disastrous mistake.

The budget

To see some balance in our foreign and domestic priorities, we will need to engage in discussions about the military and foreign affairs budgets. Buck McKeon seems to think he and others were swept into power with a mandate to increase the military budget, despite a complete lack of evidence. However, the deficit commission will be coming out with recommendations later this year, and any serious conversation about cuts must include the Pentagon’s budget, which accounts for more than half of the discretionary budget. The Sustainable Defense Task Force has already identified $960 billion in cuts over the next ten years that would have no negative effects on American security. It will be time for us to see if the deficit hawks are all talk.

On the other side, the Obama administration has stated a commitment to elevating diplomacy and defense as key pillars of US foreign policy. This investment in nonmilitary tools for global engagement is critical if we want other avenues for addressing problems other than military force (not to mention that the military is now engaged in development work it shouldn’t be doing because of a lack of civilian capacity). However, this funding offers an attractive target for members of Congress who want to make cuts, despite the fact that diplomacy and development funding make up a measly 1% of the budget. Because Congress will go after money they don’t think has a domestic constituency, our challenge is to help create one. Most Americans support spending money on foreign aid, they just have misinformed ideas about how much we are all spending (they generally think 10% of the budget is a good number). Kay Granger (R-TX), who wants to take over the State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Committee, is skeptical about the funding, so we must organize and point people elsewhere if they want to make cuts.

While this election is no cause for celebration, we also need not despair. As someone who started working at Peace Action West soon after the beginning of the war in Iraq, I have seen the amazing things we can accomplish up against difficult odds. It requires being smart, politically savvy, committed, understanding the political landscape, and having the backing of active supporters like you who make our work possible.

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) gazes adoringly at a nuclear weapon

While the media was obsessed with its favorite kidnapping story, they have failed to notice that Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) has been holding our security hostage by using partisan tactics to delay ratification of New START in exchange for $10 billion in ransom money for the nuclear weapons complex.

From the beginning, we knew that false claims about the need to “modernize” our nuclear arsenal (read: build new nuclear weapons) would enter into the debate around New START and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Despite scientific evidence that current programs in place can safely maintain our arsenal as we reduce its size, Jon Kyl and other members of Congress are trying to argue that the exorbitant amount of money the Obama administration is allocating to the nuclear weapons complex is insufficient.

In an example of what I would consider an unwise negotiating strategy, the Obama administration anticipated these arguments and increased the budget for the nuclear weapons complex by 10% (while declaring a spending freeze on critical domestic funding no less) prior to any debate on New START.  While the Obama administration’s Nuclear Posture Review states that they have no intention of building new nuclear weapons, they are setting the stage for future weapons development by increasing the US’s capacity to build weapons.  New weapons production could quickly and easily be ramped up by a president who does not share President Obama’s commitment to nuclear nonproliferation (or as one of my colleagues puts it when arguing against this increase, President Palin. Shudder).  While many viewed this investment in the nuclear weapons complex, along with a ten year modernization plan promising $180 billion for the complex and delivery vehicles, as a way to isolate Kyl in the debate around nuclear weapons treaties, quite the opposite has happened.  While only two senators have stated their intention to vote against New START, many are waiting to hear that Kyl is satisfied before they are willing to throw in their support.  Kyl is slowing down the entire process, and has far more power than he should in this debate, not less.

New START is a modest but important treaty.  Similar arms agreements have passed by large bipartisan margins.  As of today, it has been 252 days since the previous START agreement expired, meaning 252 days without on-site monitoring and verification of Russia’s arsenal.  Reinstating that verification and demonstrating a US commitment to reducing nuclear weapons are critical to US national security, but Sen. Kyl is hijacking the process for $10 billion in unneeded nuclear weapons pork.

Given Kyl’s obstinacy on this key national security issue, I was struck by the irony of his position regarding President Obama’s immigration policy:

Last month, Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona accused the administration of holding the Southwest border “hostage” by using border security as an immigration-reform bargaining chip.

Apparently using security as a bargaining chip is only OK when Jon Kyl does it. Kyl and other Republican senators who are delaying consideration of New START need to stop playing politics with nuclear security and accept the scientific evidence that the nuclear weapons stockpile is safe and reliable.  If they don’t, the Obama administration and their fellow senators need to call them on their obstruction, and force them to choose in a floor vote on New START if they are really going to oppose a treaty that every reasonable foreign policy expert supports.