The last time the Council hosted a community call for several of its members, a number of people asked for a transcript or summary of the call. We didn’t have summaries then, but now we do. On June 4, approximately 20 Council for a Livable World member…

On June 2, 2009, Representative Ike Skelton introduced H.R.2647, or the FY 2010 National Defense Authorization Act.  This bill was approved by the House Armed Services Committee on June 17, 2009.  Thankfully the Democratic members on the Comm…

On June 10, John Isaacs gave a talk to a group of advocacy and think tank representatives under the banner of Connect U.S., a network in support of responsible U.S. global engagement through grantmaking, policy advocacy and community-building.

In assessing progress and obstacles in less than four months of the Obama administration, Isaacs said: “To use a playground vernacular, those working on nuclear weapons issues are lucky duckies.”

Isaacs pointed out that in January, the Connect US community presented a three point agenda on nuclear weapons issues.  The President said thanks, sure I will back these, and raise you several items that you did not call for.

Isaacs added: “Not only that, but we wanted to see high level engagement on our issues.  We got that coming out of our ears.”

However, Isaacs warned:  “But the most important question mark on nuclear issues:  our agenda has been endorsed at the highest levels but it is a long way from being negotiated, approved and enacted.”

Complete text below.

Connect US Talk by John Isaacs
June 10, 2009
Early Progress and Challenges in the Road Ahead on Nuclear Weapons

To use a playground vernacular, those working on nuclear weapons issues are lucky duckies.

That is, in January this year, the Connect US community presented a three point agenda on nuclear weapons issues.  The President said thanks, sure I will back these, and raise you several items that you did not call for.

In comparison, you guys in other communities who want consistent human rights policies from the Obama Administration, you have got inconsistencies.

You who want the Guantanamo prison closed, you got uncertainties, and by the way, keep those prisoners out of my backyard.

You who want Law of the Seas to win Senate approval, you have silence from the White House.

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell – as the Brooklyn Dodgers used to say, wait until next year.

Show dirty pictures of torture?  Obama adopts Bush policies.

Appoint a highly respected person to lead U.S. development programs? A player to be named later.

Now on nuclear weapons, our Connect U.S. letter spoke of:

1. Resumed talks with Russia on a new nuclear reductions agreement

2. Move to a new Senate vote on the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
3. Commit to securing and retrieving vulnerable nuclear weapons materials worldwide within 4 years.

President Obama responded by saying I see your three issues and raise you four more:

4. A Fissile Material Control Treaty
5. Strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty;
6. Expanding international inspections to detect treaty violations;
7. Hosting a Global Summit on Nuclear Security within the next year.

And if that was not enough, he went far beyond what our community expected and said:
“I state clearly and with conviction America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.”

Not only that, but we wanted to see high level engagement on our issues.  We got that coming out of our ears.

Two weeks into the Obama Administration, Vice President Biden went to Munich and promises a ‘reset’ with Russia.

Two days later, the President spoke of the need for a new nuclear reductions treaty with Russia at a press conference.

Secretary of State Clinton met with her Russian counterpart to pledge the same.

Perhaps most important,  the President met with the Russian President on April 1 to promise progress and then delivered one of the most significant nuclear weapons speeches of the nuclear age, and probably the most far reaching.

That the speech was delivered in Prague at 4:00 AM east coast time did cut down on the domestic audience and attention to his message but that is a minor blemish

Not that all is sweetness and light and we can’t count our chickens before they are completed.

In a small complaint, the new budget presentation by the Obama Administration was a little light on non-proliferation funding.

But the most important question mark on nuclear issues:  Our agenda has been endorsed at the highest levels but it is a long way from being negotiated, approved and enacted.

The nuclear reductions treaty might be finished by the end of the year.

A vote on the test ban treaty, maybe next year, maybe 2011.

A Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty, three years at best

Safeguarding nuclear weapons and materials, a four year goal

A world free of nuclear weapons, the President said not in his lifetime.

And if you think that 60 votes to overcome a Senate filibuster on issues such as global warming is difficult, we will need a two-thirds majority to win approval of new treaties.

To the mathematicians among you, that is 67 votes and that means 7 – 10 Republican votes, obviously no easy task.

Still, to conclude with my opening message and to return to the playground vernacular, we are very lucky duckies.

Interesting article today in Roll Call about the race for Minnesota’s second seat, and Coleman’s desire – or lack of – to continue appealing the decisions that have all come in favor of Al Franken.

From Roll Call,

“Sources close to Coleman say the former Senator would likely give up his legal battle and accept defeat if the Minnesota Supreme Court decides in Franken’s favor. That’s because Coleman anticipates that Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) would ultimately sign Franken’s certification papers…

Still, sources say Coleman, who is vying for a second term, does not have the same appetite to pursue his case in federal court as he did for his state court battle.

‘He will be done’ if he loses at the state Supreme Court, one Republican predicted.”

On May 22, President Barack Obama addressed the graduating class of United States Naval Academy at Annapolis, Maryland. He drew cheers when he proclaimed, ” As long as I am your commander-in-chief, I will only send you into harm’s way when it is absolutely necessary, and with the strategy and the well defined goals, the equipment and the support that you need to get the job done.”

Bravo. But I wish he had applied those sentiments to the United States invasion of Afghanistan. The President has dramatically increased the number of U. S. military forces there, has promised even more next year, and has warned of a multi-year commitment to a war already almost 8 years in duration.

• Is this war “absolutely necessary?”

• Do we have a “strategy” for fighting it?

• Do we have “well defined” goals?

• Do we have an exit strategy?

As recently as May 10, Hamad Karzai, the elected head the Afghan government, said, “Al Qaeda is no longer in Afghanistan.” When this was relayed to General David Petraeus, the American and NATO military Commander, he replied,” I would agree with that.” Obama’s National Security Advisor Jim Jones said,” I am not sure if Osama bin Laden is alive or dead.” Prime Minister of Pakistan Zardari:, stated flatly,” Osama is dead.” On May 17, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told Katie Couric of CBS that it will take at least two to four years before Afghan forces begin to take the lead in fighting, leaving unsaid when U.S. troops will leave.

Moreover, Karzai and Zardari have complained bitterly about U.S. military tactics, especially the use of air power resulting in the unnecessary killing of civilians and the consequent increase in anti-American sentiment in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

What is victory in Afghanistan? Will it prevent another brutal tragedy like September 11? We should remember that this attack was made by 19 people, not one of them Afghans, armed with credit cards and box cutters. It is difficult to understand how the conquest of Afghanistan could prevent another group of nineteen from performing a similar criminal act. Defense of the U.S. mainland begins at home with effective police and immigration procedures.

U.S. wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, even Pakistan, coupled with our all-out support for Israel, might motivate some Muslims and citizens of those countries to irrational revenge, what the CIA calls “Blowback”, the unintended consequences of military action and especially of foreign military occupation.

President Obama, give us the answers to our questions. If you don’t have them, at least separate yourself from the Afghan policies of George W. Bush and give us an exit strategy so that we can help these nations change their policies through diplomacy, economic help and our soft power while saving American lives and resources.

This blog post originally appeared on The Relentless Liberal on May 23, 2009.