At CCI, we see the need and possibility for changing this situation. When real people in large numbers get involved, amazing things begin to happen. Join us! Let's help reduce the tensions existing today between the two Superpowers.
Dear CCI Friends across America,
Please excuse the lack of posts during these last few weeks. I’ve been putting together CCI’s activities for 2018 and also took time off to be with family in Oregon. As for the 2018 work, we will need your help to carry it out!
Today, I’m sufficiently excited and I want to share some thoughts with you. The monthly Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (BAS) just arrived by email. This is the organization that keeps the Doomsday Clock, which warns when there’s imminent danger to the planet. The clock is now down to 2.5 minutes before midnight (Doomsday)––not good.
I was delighted to learn that the lead BSA article this month is on Dr. Ira Helfand, the past President of PSR (Physicians for Social Responsibility) and currently co-President of PSR’s global federation, the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War. He is also a noted authority on nuclear weapons and nuclear war. Helfand, with others, was seminal in the creation of PSR in the 1980’s when America’s doctors across the nation took the case against nuclear war to the American people. This led to rejecting even the notion of fantacizing about winning such a war with the U.S.S.R. He and PSR were critical to waking up America … including me.
It was 37 years ago that a San Jose physician looked across the bed of an unconscious patient and said, “We need you to help us start PSR in the Bay Area. I protested saying I was an ICU RN, not a doctor, which he quickly brushed aside and quipped, “We need all of the help we can get to educate the public.” That’s how I became a PSR volunteer which ended up radically changing the course of my life.
Dear CCI Friends,
The word “Realist” has a new connotation in our lexicon! It is now used to define the handful of youngish Democrat and Republican U.S. Congress members who claim that, “regime-change wars” have been devastatingly destructive to numerous other countries, and in addition, extremely destructive to American’s military budget and America’s image abroad. These wars have used up funds desperately needed at home for a slew of healthcare and educational needs in addition to infrastructure repair and natural disaster relief programs and more. What a drag on our entire society – plus millions of citizens killed, maimed or pushed into refugee status in these countries that have been reduced to rubble. Think about what’s happening on the other side of the world––it is unconscionable!
Let’s move forward into 2018 supporting and working with these congressional “realists.” Telephone them, email them, write them letters commending their positions and request that our Congress members become “realists” also.
Center for Citizen Initiatives
Asked how American policy would be different if realists were in charge on Capitol Hill, Congressman Massie says, “It would involve a much smaller global footprint for the United States.…We would leave Afghanistan. We would not be trying to engage in another war in Syria. I think we need to listen to South Korea on the issue of North Korea. They stand to have millions of casualties in the first few hours of a war with North Korea.”
“Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard attributes the nuclear-arms standoff on the Korean peninsula to “decades of U.S.-led regime change wars.” This history, she explains, has caused Kim Jong-un, the North Korean leader, to double down on his nuclear stockpile, hoping to avoid the fate of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya and Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Both lost their power and their lives once they gave up efforts to develop a nuclear arsenal.”
“Interventionism, declares Congresswoman Gabbard, has been “a destructive legacy.”
The American Conservative
November 13, 2017
Congressional Realists ‘Could Caucus in a Phone Booth’
By Finlay Lewis
Meet the eight: They may be scarce, but they’re indomitable.
They could caucus in a phone booth. They are known as “realists,” and their default position on questions of foreign policy and national security is one of skepticism about the value of interventions abroad and of respect for privacy at home. In a debate largely being litigated within the ranks of the Republican Party on Capitol Hill, the realists don’t have a prayer of prevailing in an up-or-down vote against the neoconservative wing of the party, proponents of an interventionist ethos to embed American values in lands far removed from domestic shores and traditions.
And yet the realists soldier on. They consider restraint a virtue and argue that foreign military adventures inevitably entail unpleasant and unforeseeable consequences. To nobody’s surprise, the realists were trounced on September 13 when the Senate slammed the door on Kentucky Senator Rand Paul’s challenge to the legal authority that administrations of both parties have embraced since 9/11 to wage war. Paul’s target was actually two laws, each known as an AUMF, or “authorization for the use of military force.” One AUMF, enacted in 2001, allowed the government to pursue terrorists in the wake of 9/11; the other, passed a year later, flashed a legal green light for the 2003 Iraq invasion.