Get Rethink Afghanistan Updates
Join us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Twitter Get E-Mail Updates
Join Us on Facebook

President Karzai, Stand Tall Against U.S. Pressure to Sign the Troop Deal

Posted by Just Foreign Policy on December 18th, 2013

From our partners at Just Foreign Policy

A key reason that many Americans are turned off by politics is that they don’t experience news sportscasters who are on their side. The average American, if she read the New York Times, would feel like a Chicagoan watching the Cubs game on St. Louis TV. Her team hits a home run and the sportscaster is melancholy. Her team strikes out and the sportscaster does a dance. Who wouldn’t be turned off?

The day after the budget deal, we should have had a National Day of Gloating Over Wall Street because Social Security once again evaded the knives of the Wall Street greedheads. The day after the U.S. didn’t bomb Syria, we should have had a National Day of Gloating Over AIPAC and the Neocons. But the U.S. news media was so sad! No Social Security cuts. No new war. What is America coming to?

read more

Share this:
Bookmark and Share


Posted by DownWithTyranny on November 29th, 2013

From our partners at DownWithTyranny!

Primitive man developed some relatively sophisticated social mechanisms to enforce male dominance over primitive women. Patriarchal religion was the biggie, of course, but even before than, ritualized violence worked wonders in establishing who the boss was and who was subservient. Stoning, later embraced by patriarchal religions– at least ’til Jesus came along with a forward-thinking perspective.

In 1969 I went to Afghanistan for the first time. I recall writing back to my friends and family in America that it felt more like a journey in time than a journey in space. Especially outside of Kabul, there wasn’t much that reminded me of the 20th Century. I spent a winter in a tiny hamlet in the Hindu Kush where no one recognized a country called Afghanistan, where no one had ever heard of the U.S., where no one knew how to read of write or speak the language (Farsi) people spoke in Kabul, and where no one had ever experienced electricity or had an idea of manned flight– let alone that the U.S. was landing a man on the moon that year.

While I was there, my friend, whose family compound I was living in, got married. I went to the wedding, of course– it was in the compound– but I never met or even saw his wife. No women were allowed at the wedding and no males were allowed to see the wife until after she had a baby– which was long after I was back in Kabul. In another Afghan town I stayed in, Ghazni, between Kandahar and Kabul down south, college pals of mine were Peace Corp volunteers. The wife told me that the Afghan women’s vocabulary was so limited that they couldn’t even conceive of the kinds or social progress mankind had made in the last 10 or so centuries. Their vocabulary was sufficient for serving the needs of men; that’s it.

I was in Afghanistan twice and spent nearly a year there all told. I travelled around the country in my VW van at first and then, when I realized there were no roads in our sense of what a road it in most of the country, on horseback. Thank God I never saw a stoning. And thank God almost everyone I met was kind, generous, friendly and courteous. The Afs had awesome senses of humor and, at least in the dealings I had with them, a very live-and-let-live approach.

Several decades later the U.S. had occupied their devastated country. Progressives wanted that to end– or at least most progressives did. I recall getting into a lively debate with some progressive congresswomen and progressive women candidates who felt strongly that the U.S. should “save” Afghanistan’s women from repression. I was dumbfounded. These were really smart women I was talking with. The U.S. military– and mercenaries– occupying Afghanistan were also going to change the country’s codes of behavior which had been set in stone long before the first Europeans set foot in North America and… started changing the mores here?

Last week the American puppet government announced that they were reintroducing stoning as a mechanism to keep women in their place. The beautifully named Ministry of Justice, was, in fact, drawing up a draft law that specified that stoning for adultery would be done in public, the way it was in the Taliban days. There was an uproar in Washington and the puppet government rolled its collective eyes and said, basically, “just kidding.” Karzai said it was all a big misunderstanding and that stoning would not be brought back as part of the legal system. Can we bring our troops home now?

The president, Hamid Karzai, said in an interview that the grim penalty, which became a symbol of Taliban brutality when the group were in power, would not be coming back.

“It is not correct. The minister of justice has rejected it,” he told Radio Free Europe, days after the UK minister Justine Greening urged him to prevent the penalty becoming law.

Afghanistan’s penal code dates back over three decades. The government is drawing up a new one to unify fragmented rules and cover crimes missed out when the last version was written, such as money laundering, and offences that did not even exist at the time, such as internet crimes.

The justice minister presiding over the reform is an outspoken conservative who last year denounced the country’s handful of shelters for battered women as brothels.

As part of the process, a committee tasked with looking at sharia law came up with draft legislation that would have condemned married adulterers to the slow and gruesome death; unmarried people who had sex would be flogged.

But after several days of silence in the face of growing international outcry, the justice ministry said in a statement that although stoning had been proposed it would not appear in the new legislation because there was “no need to regulate the issue.”

The country’s penal code already encompasses sharia law, but some controversial aspects of traditional punishments such as stoning have never been put on the books in Afghanistan.

“The legality of the crime and punishment is fully addressed and there is no need to regulate the issue in the new code. So, the ministry of justice does not intend to regulate it in the new draft code,” the statement said.

Rights groups who first highlighted the draft law warned that although the government’s quashing of the proposal was good news, its emergence in the first place was a sign of how fragile gains in human rights over the last decade had been, particularly for women.

Although stoning is listed as a punishment for adulterers of both sexes, in countries where it has been used in recent years women have often appeared on the execution ground alone.

As foreign troops head home before a 2014 deadline for the end of combat action in Afghanistan, and political attention fades with it, many activists fear that years of painstaking progress are at risk of being swept away.

Don’t watch this:

Share this:
Bookmark and Share

Decades More War In Afghanistan? Billions More Stolen From U.S. Taxpayers?

Posted by DownWithTyranny on November 25th, 2013

From our partners at DownWithTyranny!

Apparently, President Obama didn’t really mean “complete,” at least not in the sense anyone ever uses that word, when he said the transition out of Afghanistan would be complete by the end of 2014. As Maddow reported– in the video below– the plan is to have “an enduring presence in Afghanistan even after the war is technically over.” And that means U.S. troops, not to mention billions of taxpayer dollars sinking into that blackbox hellhole. With the help of Richard Engel, Maddow started getting the word out that there are plans to formalize an agreement to prolong some sort of U.S. occupation for years and years and years into the future. Engel: “What is clear when you see a draft of this document is that U.S. officials and Afghan officials, behind closed doors, have been very hard at work hammering out a detailed agreement that would allow U.S. troops to stay here– that in fact would require an enduring U.S. presence for decades– or at least a decade or more.”

Can can watch Engel discussing his scoop with Maddow below or read about it here. One takeaway is that “Afghan negotiators want a long-term U.S. presence, with U.S. forces and contractors providing intelligence, training and funding, but also to keep American forces as confined as possible. It shows Afghans want to keep their U.S. partners, but on their terms. It also suggests the United States is not confident that without a long-term commitment, the Afghan government can bring stability or effectively fight terrorism.”

The 25-page “Security and Defense Cooperation Agreement Between the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan” is a sweeping document, vague in places, highly specific in others, defining everything from the types of future missions U.S. troops would be allowed to conduct in Afghanistan, to the use of radios and the taxation of American soldiers and contractors.

The bilateral security agreement will be debated this week in Kabul by around 2,500 village elders, academics and officials in a traditional Loya Jirga. While the Loya Jirga is strictly consultative, Afghan President Hamid Karzai has said he won’t sign it without the Jirga’s approval.

…Taken as a whole, the document describes a basic U.S.-Afghan exchange. Afghanistan would allow Washington to operate military bases to train Afghan forces and conduct counter-terrorism operations against al-Qaeda after the current mission ends in 2014. For that foothold in this volatile mountain region wedged between Pakistan and Iran, the United States would agree to sustain and equip Afghanistan’s large security force, which the government in Kabul currently cannot afford. The deal, according to the text, would take effect on Jan. 1, 2015 and “shall remain in force until the end of 2024 and beyond.” It could be terminated by either Washington or Kabul with two years advance written notice.

There is however what U.S. officials believe is a contradiction in the July draft, which would effectively ask American troops to provide training and confront al-Qaeda from the confines of bases. While it says operations against al-Qaeda may be necessary, it also says US troops will not be allowed to make arrests or enter Afghan homes.

“No detention or arrest shall be carried out by the United States forces. The United States forces shall not search any homes or other real estate properties,” it says.

“[The contradiction] was a matter of serious consternation at the highest levels” of the Obama administration over the weekend, according to one senior defense official. “It is the one remaining issue that could ultimately kill the deal.” However, US officials believe that in a more recent draft, which was circulated among key Pentagon officials and US lawmakers on Monday, the US has won its position on this point.

Yesterday, The Economist says the deal in harder than it should be because of haggling, apparently unaware that haggling, even more than fighting, is the Afghan national pass-time. The Afs want to extract as much money as they can from the U.S. taxpayer– as does the American Military-Industrial Complex.

Some in Congress aren’t just sitting around scratching their asses. On the Senate side, “a bipartisan group of senators– led by Jeff Merkley of Oregon– is trying to pump the brakes. They have a simple principle: before President Obama agrees to another decade of war, he should consult Congress and the American people.” Fighting alongside Merkely on this: Rand Paul, Joe Manchin, Mike Lee and Ron Wyden and the 5 of them have co-sponsored an amendment to the upcoming National Defense Authorization Act that expresses a sense of the Senate that Obama should seek congressional approval no later than June 1, 2014, for any extended presence in Afghanistan.

Meanwhile the Congressional Progressive Caucus Peace and Security Task Force Chair Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) and CPC Co-Chairs Reps. Keith Ellison (D-MN) and Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) released the following statement in response to Engel’s revelations:

“The possibility of a military presence into 2024 is unacceptable. There is no military solution in Afghanistan. After 13 years and more than $778 billion invested in an unstable country and the corrupt Karzai government, it’s time to bring our troops and tax dollars home. The American people have had enough of the endless, open-ended war. It is time to focus on bringing our brave men and women in uniform home and transition to full Afghan control,” said Congresswoman Lee.

“Many of us, myself included, applauded President Obama for making the right decision to bring our troops home from Iraq after a very expensive decade of war,” Rep. Grijalva said. “Our troops have been in Afghanistan even longer, and the right decision there is even clearer. We can’t keep spending money and risking American lives into the indefinite future, especially not with such a clear need to invest here at home. History will not look kindly on us if we choose to keep funding a war without end through a major domestic economic crisis. We should bring everyone home and start the rebuilding process here in the United States,” said Congressman Grijalva.

“Congress should decide any future role for the United States in Afghanistan,” Rep. Ellison said. “The American people expect U.S. forces to be out of the country by the end of 2014 because that’s been our policy. We should not participate in a costly war in Afghanistan indefinitely, especially when budget cuts are kicking kids out of Head Start and slashing food assistance for working families and veterans. The House has already passed an amendment requiring Congressional approval for a policy change on Afghanistan and I urge the Senate to pass a similar amendment introduced by Senator Merkley.”

The CPC has long opposed unlimited involvement in Afghanistan. Our men and women in uniform deserve to come home, and the Afghan people deserve a new approach to our relationship that emphasizes humanitarian aid and capacity-building rather than focusing, as we have done in the past, almost exclusively on military objectives.

Share this:
Bookmark and Share

Keep U.S. Troops in Afghanistan? Let Congress Vote!

Posted by Just Foreign Policy on November 3rd, 2013

From our partners at Just Foreign Policy

In mid-November, the Christian Science Monitor reports, a loya jirga in Afghanistan – a national meeting of tribal leaders and other notable Afghans – will vote on whether to meet the Obama administration’s terms for keeping U.S. troops in the country beyond the end of 2014.

If you care about democracy in Afghanistan, you should be happy for the Afghans. Whether or not – and if so, under what conditions – they want to have thousands of U.S. troops in their country after 2014 is obviously a very big deal for them. Why shouldn’t they have full deliberation and debate?

But if you also care about democracy in the United States, you should be a bit troubled. Because Congress has never approved keeping thousands of U.S. troops in Afghanistan after the end of 2014.

The closest Congress has come to considering this question is in language passed by the House in June, 2013. Offered by Democratic Representative Jim McGovern, this language – which passed the House 305-121, with a majority of both Democrats and Republicans voting yes- said [my emphasis]:

read more

Share this:
Bookmark and Share

Iran Cooties: Will Obama Meet with Rouhani Tuesday?

Posted by Just Foreign Policy on September 19th, 2013

From our partners at Just Foreign Policy

In international diplomacy, gestures matter. This is particularly true for efforts to promote real diplomacy between the United States and Iran.

For three decades, the United States has mostly pursued an "Iran cooties" policy. We can’t meet with Iranian leaders, because someone might interpret that to mean that we think that the Iranian government is "legitimate." OMG! We might get Iran cooties!

It sounds ridiculous, and it is. And it has a real cost in human lives. Because of the "Iran cooties" policy, it’s harder to use diplomacy to help end wars in the Middle East, like the Syrian civil war, or the war in Afghanistan.

On Tuesday, President Obama has a historic opportunity to end the "Iran cooties" policy. Iran’s newly-elected, pragmatic, pro-diplomacy President Hassan Rouhani is going to be addressing the United Nations General Assembly. So is U.S. President Barack Obama.

read more

Share this:
Bookmark and Share

President Obama, Commute Manning’s Sentence to Time Served

Posted by Just Foreign Policy on August 22nd, 2013

From our partners at Just Foreign Policy

On August 21, U.S. citizen Bradley Manning – now known as Chelsea Manning -was sentenced to 35 years in prison for leaking classified information to the public about the killing of civilians in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; drone strikes in Yemen; torture in Guantanamo, Iraq, and Egypt; the coup in Honduras; corruption in Tunisia, the U.S. use of cluster bombs, and the blockade of Gaza, among many other issues of public concern about U.S. foreign policy.

As Amnesty International noted, Manning has already served more than three years in pre-trial detention, including 11 months in conditions described by the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture as cruel and inhumane. Amnesty is calling on President Obama to commute Manning’s sentence to time served.

read more

Share this:
Bookmark and Share

Time for the “zero option” in Afghanistan?

Posted by Peace Action West on July 10th, 2013

From our partners at Peace Action West


Reality seems to be setting in at the White House, with President Obama reportedly considering removing all troops from Afghanistan in 2014 rather than leaving a residual force.

Increasingly frustrated by his dealings with President Hamid Karzai, President Obama is giving serious consideration to speeding up the withdrawal of United States forces from Afghanistan and to a “zero option” that would leave no American troops there after next year, according to American and European officials.

Mr. Obama is committed to ending America’s military involvement in Afghanistan by the end of 2014, and Obama administration officials have been negotiating with Afghan officials about leaving a small “residual force” behind. But his relationship with Mr. Karzai has been slowly unraveling, and reached a new low after an effort last month by the United States to begin peace talks with the Taliban in Qatar.
As we did with the Iraq war, we have been pushing against the idea of keeping any troops on the ground after the so-called “combat troops” withdraw. It’s encouraging to hear these reports, the first indication that the president is seriously considering a full withdrawal. He will certainly find support in Congress–62 senators and 305 representatives have voted to support accelerated withdrawal, and that number is only likely to grow.

Share this:
Bookmark and Share

The House Finally Voted To End The War In Afghanistan

Posted by DownWithTyranny on June 15th, 2013

From our partners at DownWithTyranny!

It’s been a dozen years but on Thursday the House finally voted to end the war in Afghanistan. By backing an amendment to a military spending bill, all but 9 Democrats and just over half the Republicans removed House Republicans’ language supporting a post-2014 military presence in Afghanistan and replaced it with a statement that the President should come back to Congress and specifically seek new authorization if he wants to keep troops there after the 2014 deadline.

The bipartisan amendment was sponsored by Jim McGovern (D-MA), Walter Jones (R-NC), Barbara Lee (D-CA), John Garamendi (D-CA) and Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee Adam Smith (D-WA) and passed 305-121, with 112 Republicans and 9 Democrats voting NO. So which 9 Democrats? Half a dozen reactionary Blue Dogs and New Dems, two conservaDems who vote with the New Dems (Bill Enyart and Dutch Ruppersberger) and one confused elderly lady (Corrine Brown). The reactionary Blue Dogs and New Dems:

John Barrow (Blue Dog/New Dem-GA)
Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)
Pete Gallego (Blue Dog-TX)
Jim Matheson (Blue Dog-UT)
Bill Owens (New Dem-NY)
Terri Sewell (New Dem-AL)

It’s worth remembering these names when the DCCC asks you for money because several are on the DCCC Frontline list. That means part of any contribution you make towards the DCCC will go to fund the reelection efforts of pro-war reactionaries John Barrow, Pete Gallego, Jim Matheson, Bill Owens, and Bill Enyart. A better way to contribute to Democrats is give support directly to candidates whose legislative agenda you agree with. Blue America offers a well-vetted bunch of candidates for House seats who would make Congress– and the congressional Democratic Party– better, not worse. Like state Rep. Carl Sciortino, who’s running for the Massachusetts seat Ed Markey is goving up to move over to the Senate.

“My father served in Vietnam,” he told us this morning. “My brother and close friends served in Afghanistan and Iraq. An entire generation has been asked to serve in two wars, and then told “good luck paying for them.” This is an issue that is close to my heart. I am glad to see a majority of Congress voting to support this combat mission coming to a close.

“Just because there is progress on ending the Afghanistan conflict, it does not excuse the members who voted for misguided hawkish policies over the past decade. The time when we really needed a principled vote was in fall of 2002– when we could have stopped a war we already knew was unnecessary. It’s easy to vote to end a war long after its popularity has faded. Remember, 82 Democrats in the House of Representatives voted to authorize the war in Iraq, instead of standing with our principles and leading. We needed members of Congress to stand up and demonstrate to the American people that the War in Iraq was completely unnecessary– instead of folding and becoming pawns of the Bush foreign policy doctrine.”

Blue America is well aware that Carl and other other House candidates will be congressmembers who do stand up– and not just against bad ideas from Republican presidents, but against bad ideas from Democratic presidents as well. That’s why we’re asking our supporters to consider contributing to Carl and the other Blue America candidates.

Share this:
Bookmark and Share

NDAA roundup: Afghanistan victory and budget ignominy

Posted by Peace Action West on June 15th, 2013

From our partners at Peace Action West

Last night, we saw years of committed organizing pay off, with the House of Representatives voting 305-121 supporting accelerated withdrawal from Afghanistan. Thank you so much to all of you who responded to our calls to action and put the pressure on Congress that made this victory possible!

We now have both houses of Congress on record in support of withdrawal, thanks to Sen. Merkley’s amendment last year. The New York Times called the vote a “stark example of changing sentiments on Afghanistan” and pointed out that it received more Republican votes than anything Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) has ever offered on the floor.

The strong statement made by this vote comes at a critical time, as the administration will soon make decisions about the post-2014 troop presence in Afghanistan. We thank all our allies in Congress who helped make this victory possible, including Reps. McGovern, Lee (D-CA), Jones (R-NC), Garamendi (D-CA) and Smith (D-WA).

The rest of the NDAA votes were not nearly so glorious, though the House laid down some important markers in ongoing debates about Pentagon spending and policy. As I wrote yesterday, many of the amendments we supported were blocked from coming to the floor. Some highlights of the votes that came up:


  • In what should seem like a no-brainer, Reps. Blumenauer (D-OR), Mulvaney (R-SC) and Bentivolio (R-MI) offered an amendment to reduce the required number of aircraft carriers from 11 to 10—the number the navy currently has. Despite the common sense nature of this push for flexibility, the House voted it down, 106-318.
  • The House passed the buck on sequestration, passing a bill more than $50 billion higher than the caps. Only 71 representatives voted for Rep. Nolan’s (D-MN) amendment to reduce the budget by 9.4%.
  • The House Armed Services Committee added an extra $5 billion to the Overseas Contingency Operations account, which funds the war in Afghanistan. An amendment to remove that additional funding failed, 191-232.
  • We are still spending huge amounts of money keeping troops stationed in Europe. The bipartisan Colorado team of Reps. Polis (D) and Coffman (R) joined Blumenauer (D-OR) and Griffith (R-VA) to offer an amendment to remove about 5,000 troops. It received 110 votes.


  • In a voice vote, the House approved an amendment stating that nothing in the bill could be construed as authorizing military force in Iran. Reiterating this is key as we watch results from the Iranian election and face more pressure for military action against Iran from some corners.
  • The House echoed the Senate in passing counterproductive language that encourages support for an Israeli attack on Iran. It was passed en bloc (when many amendments are combined together and voted on as a package).


  • The House approved an amendment, offered by Republican Rep. Broun (GA), prohibiting targeting US citizens with drones unless they are actively engaged in combat against the US. This appears more stringent than the standards revealed in the little public information about the targeted killing program. It will be interesting to see if and how the Senate takes up this topic in their version of the NDAA.
  • Unfortunately, there was no vote allowed on either amendment to sunset the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Afghanistan, which has been used to justify strikes around the world. However, there are two freestanding bills on the topic, and this gives us time to build support for them and educate members of Congress leading up to future votes.
  • Not surprisingly given Republican rhetoric on the issue, the House rejected an amendment to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility 174-249. They also approved an amendment prohibiting funding for transferring detainees to Yemen, a crucial step in closing the facility, 236-188.
  • They also rejected an amendment to change a troubling policy in the FY12 NDAA allowing indefinite detention of people detained under authority of the Authorization for Use of Military Force in the US or its territories, 200-226.

While some of these numbers might not seem particularly encouraging, they provide us important information about which members we need to bring around on these issues, so we can educate them and put pressure from their districts. There was a time when you could hardly scrounge up people to vote against the war in Afghanistan, and we blew expectations out of the water on that vote yesterday. There is much work left to be done, but we have a strong foundation for success.

Share this:
Bookmark and Share

What we’re watching in this year’s NDAA

Posted by Peace Action West on June 13th, 2013

From our partners at Peace Action West

UPDATE: The amendments crossed out below were not allowed to come to the floor for a vote.

The House will start voting tomorrow on the National Defense Authorization Act, which sets policy and spending levels for the Pentagon and nuclear weapons programs. Since this is one of the only bills that comes to the floor on these issues, it’s a big opportunity to address peace priorities. Nearly three hundred amendments were filed, addressing everything from sexual assault in the military to immigration to same-sex marriage.

Thousands of you have already contacted your representatives urging them to vote to cut wasteful spending. We are working closely with allies in the peace and security community and Congress to advance our agenda. We’re watching the proposed amendments closely, and sending representatives recommendations. We’re still waiting to hear what amendments will be allowed on the floor, but here are a few highlights of the amendments we’ll be watching:


  • Audit the Pentagon The government’s largest agency can’t even pass an audit. Reps. Lee, Burgess and Schakowsky have an amendment that decreases DOD funding by 0.5% (excluding personnel and health program accounts) unless financial statements from the previous year are certified as auditable and meeting generally accepted accounting principles
  • Removing troops from Europe It’s a waste of money to keep tens of thousands of troops in Europe. This bipartisan amendment would bring some of them home.
  • Cutting the missile defense boondoggle Reduces funding by $107 million for advanced procurement for major equipment for the Missile Defense Agency; reduces funding by $140.4 million for ballistic missile defense mid-course segment
  • Scaling back the Pentagon budget The budget being considered is $52 billion above the sequester caps that Congress passed into law and proceeded to ignore. Rep. Nolan’s amendment would cut the budget by 9.4%.


  • Bomb worth its weight in gold The Life Extension Program for the B61 nuclear bomb keeps growing in cost; it’s now estimated at $10 billion. That huge amount of money is to refurbish weapons stationed in Europe, when many in NATO countries don’t even want them there. This amendment holds funding the program pending a report on NATO’s role in basing and funding the program.


  • Undoing indefinite detention Reps. Smith and Gibson are offering this amendment to change troubling provisions that allow indefinite military detention of any person detained in the US, its territories or possessions.
  • Closing Guantanamo Rep. Adam Smith’s amendment provides a framework to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by December 31, 2014.
  • Repealing the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) The AUMF has been used by the administration to justify targeted killings of suspected terrorists around the globe. There are two amendments offered that would sunset the AUMF at the end of next year, following the scheduled end of the war in Afghanistan.


  • Support for withdrawal from Afghanistan Last year, Republicans blocked a vote on an amendment supporting an end to the war in Afghanistan, convinced that it would pass. Reps. McGovern, Jones, Smith and Garamendi have teamed up again to bring this up for a vote.



  • Caution in arming the Syrian opposition There’s been a lot of talk lately about the dangerous proposition of arming opposition fighters in Afghanistan, despite security and human rights concerns. This amendment prohibits the use of funds from assisting the armed combatants in Syria without prior authorization by Congress.
  • No ground troops in Syria This amendment prevents funds from being used to deploy, establish, or maintain the presence of troops or contractors on the ground in Syria unless the purpose is to rescue of a member of the Armed Forces from imminent danger.

Keep an eye on the blog for updates on the votes, and check your inbox Thursday morning for action alerts. You can start now by calling your representative at 877-429-0678 (toll free number provided by our colleagues at the Friends Committee on National Legislation)  with how you’d like her/him to vote on this year’s NDAA.

Share this:
Bookmark and Share
Rethink Afghanistan Facebook is leading the charge to end the war. Get breaking news and actions.


Subscribe via RSS
Become a Peacemaker

Bronze Telly Award
For general questions, email us here.
For technical issues regarding this site, contact us here.


For Press inquiries, please contact Kim at:

Director: Robert Greenwald - Executive Director: Jim Miller - Producer: Jason Zaro - Associate Producer: Dallas Dunn, Jonathan Kim, and Kim Huynh - Researcher: Greg Wishnev - Editor: Phillip Cruess - Political Director: Leighton Woodhouse - VP Marketing & Distribution: Laura Beatty - Production Assistant: Monique Hairston

Anyone is allowed to post content on this site, but Brave New Foundation 501(c)(3) is not responsible for that content. We will, however, remove anything unlawful, threatening, libelous, defamatory, obscene, racist, or that contains other material that would violate the law. By posting you agree to this.

Brave New Foundation | 10510 Culver Blvd., Culver City, CA 90232