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.

Sharon

Sharon Tennison
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.

[Continue Reading]

“I am making an appeal to the presidents of Russia and the United States. Relations between the two nations are in a severe crisis. A way out must be sought, and there is one well-tested means available for accomplishing this: a dialogue based on mutual respect.”

Washington Post
October 11, 2017

Mikhail Gorbachev was leader of the Soviet Union from 1985 to 1991.

This December will mark the 30th anniversary of the signing of the treaty between the Soviet Union and United States on the elimination of intermediate- and shorter-range missiles. This was the start of the process of radically cutting back nuclear arsenals, which was continued with the 1991 and 2010 strategic arms reduction treaties and the agreements reducing tactical nuclear weapons.

[Continue Reading]

Dear Friends,

An accurate appraisal of U.S.- Russia history appeared three days ago in the Boston Review by Thomas Graham. Over the decades, Graham has been a highly respected U.S. State Department official and thought leader. During Trump’s early days after the election, he was one of two insiders expected to get the role of Ambassador to Russia. He is a highly intelligent, knowledgeable expert on U.S.- Russia issues.

I’ve interacted with Tom since the late 80’s. His door was always open to me. I found that he had an exceptional ability to understand what is going on in Russia when others had little comprehension at all––but he said little publicly. After leaving U.S. State Department positions, he joined Henry Kissinger as the Managing Director of Kissinger Associates. We have taken our CCI Russian entrepreneurs to him there for discussions, something that he clearly enjoyed.

Knowing Tom had to rein in his public utterances given his role with the U.S. State Department, et al, I had always hoped that someday he would play an external role in helping Congress members and presidential advisors determine U.S. Russia policy.

Today on opening my emails I found the article below, giving the clearest picture to American officials and the public about the facts regarding the U.S.- Russia relationship up to today.

[Continue Reading]