In an age when U.S. power can be projected through private mercenary armies and unmanned Predator drones, the U.S. military need no longer rely on massive, conventional ground forces to pursue its imperial agenda, a fact President Barack Obama is now acknowledging. But make no mistake: while the tactics may be changing, the U.S. taxpayer – and poor foreigners abroad – will still be saddled with overblown military budgets and militaristic policies.

Speaking January 5 alongside his Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, the president announced a shift in strategy for the American military, one that emphasizes aerial campaigns and proxy wars as opposed to “long-term nation-building with large military footprints.” This, to some pundits and politicians, is considered a tectonic shift.

Indeed, the way some on the left tell it, the strategy marks a radical departure from the imperial status quo. “Obama just repudiated the past decade of forever war policy,” gushed Rolling Stone reporter Michael Hastings, calling the new strategy a “[s]lap in the face to the generals.”

Conservative hawks, meanwhile, predictably declared that the sky is falling. “This is a lead from behind strategy for a left-behind America,” cried hyperventilating California Republican Buck McKeon, chairman the House Armed Services Committee. “This strategy ensures American decline in exchange for more failed domestic programs.” In McKeon’s world, feeding the war machine is preferable to feeding poor people.

Unfortunately, though, rather than renouncing empire and endless war, Obama’s stated strategy for the military going forward just reaffirms the U.S. commitment to both. Rather than renouncing the last decade of war, it states that the bloody and disastrous occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan – gently termed “extended operations” – were pursued “to bring stability to those countries.”

And Leon Panetta assured the American public that even with the changes, the U.S. would still be able to fight two major wars at the same time—and win. And Obama assured America’s military contractors and coffin makers that their lifeline – U.S. taxpayers’ money – would still be funneled their way in obscene bucket loads.

“Over the next 10 years, the growth in the defense budget will slow,” the president told reporters, “but the fact of the matter is this: It will still grow.” In fact, he added with a touch of pride, it “will still be larger than it was toward the end of the Bush administration,” totaling more than $700 billion a year and accounting for about half of the average American’s income tax. So much for the Pentagon’s budget being slashed – like we were promised – the way lawmakers are trying to cut those “failed domestic programs.”

The U.S. could cut its military spending in half tomorrow and still spend more than three times as much as its next nearest rival, China. That’s because China, instead of waging wars of choice around the world, prefers projecting its might by investing in its own country. On the other hand, the U.S. under the leadership of Obama is beefing up its military presence in China’s backyard, more interested in projecting its dwindling power than rebuilding its economy.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower once noted that every dollar going to the military is a dollar that can’t be used to provide food and shelter for those in need. Today’s obscene amount of military spending isn’t necessary if the administration wished to pursue the quaint goal of simply defending the country from invasion. Maintaining “the best-trained, best-equipped military in history,” as Obama says is his goal? That’s a different story – for a different purpose. Indeed, as Madeline Albright observed, possessing that kind of military might is no fun if you don’t get to use it, as Obama has with gusto in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya and Uganda.

The truth is that the Obama administration’s “new” strategy is more of the same—a reaffirmation of the U.S. government’s commitment to militarism for the all the usual reasons: to promote American hegemony and, by extension, the interests of politically connected capital. And U.S. officials aren’t shy about that.

Indeed, throughout the strategy document the ostensible purpose for having a military — to provide national security — repeatedly takes a backseat to promoting the economic interests of the U.S. elite that profits from empire. Repositioning U.S. forces “toward the Asia-Pacific region,” for instance – including the stationing of American soldiers in that hotbed of violent extremism, Australia – is cast not just as a means of ensuring peace and stability, but guaranteeing “the free flow of commerce.” Maintaining a global empire of bases from Europe to Okinawa isn’t necessary for self-defense, but according to Obama, ensuring – with guns – “the prosperity that flows from an open and free international economic system.”

Of course, that economic considerations shape U.S. foreign policy is nothing new. More than 25 years ago, President Jimmy Carter – that Jimmy Carter – declared in a State of the Union address that U.S. military force would be employed in the Persian Gulf, not for the cause of peace, freedom and apple pie, but to ensure “the free movement of Middle East oil.” And so it goes.

Far from affecting change, Obama is ensuring continuity. “U.S. policy will emphasize Gulf security,” states his new military strategy, in order to “prevent Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon capability and counter its destabilizing policies” — as if it’s Iran that has been destabilizing the region. And as Obama publicly proclaims his support for “political and economic reform” in the Middle East, just like every other U.S. president he not-so-privately backs their oppressors from Bahrain to Yemen and signs off on the biggest weapons deal in history to that bastion of democracy, Saudi Arabia.

Obama can talk all he wants about turning the page on a decade of war and occupation, but so long as he continues to fight wars and military occupy countries on the other side of the globe, talk is all it is. The facts, sadly, are this: since taking office Obama doubled the number of troops in Afghanistan; he fought to extend the U.S. occupation in Iraq– and partially succeeded; he dramatically expanded the use of killer drones from Pakistan to Somalia; and he requested military budgets that would make George W. Bush blush. If you want to see what his military strategy really is, forget what’s said at press conferences and in turgidly written Pentagon press releases. Just look at the record.

Charles Davis has covered Capitol Hill for public radio and the international news wire Inter Press Service. More of his work may be found on his website.

Medea Benjamin is cofounder of CODEPINK: Women for Peace and GlobalExchange.

A: Action(s) – Take part in a daily or weekly action at your local “Occupy.” March, stand in vigil with a sign, speak out in a rally, etc. Don’t forget to make it fun: sing, dance, start a rhythmic chant at a march, as Molly Ivins urged us to.

B: Bring Our War $$ Home – Take the anti-war message to your local occupation, it’s going to take all of us to end the US wars and occupations.

C: Consensus – The occupy movement operates on a consensus model that emphasizes participation and inclusion. Watch this video to learn how the consensus process works to become an active participant in your occupy community.

D: Donations – they are vital to keeping this street-based movement going. Melanie Butler, our OWS organizer, strongly suggests donating flashlights and walkie-talkies for women’s security at night. You can also check the website and/or Facebook page of your local “occupation” for what is needed.

E: Economics is key to this populist movement. Move your money to a local credit union or a small community bank to help change the corrupt banking system. Make it fun, take your friends and do it as an action, talk it up, share it on Facebook, tweet about it or post it on your blog.

F: Facebook – share information and news, post your photos and help promote events and speakers of interest at your local occupation.

G: General Assemblies – GAs, gathering where issues are discussed and proposals are voted on, are the heart of the Occupy movement. Some use “the people’s mic”, some a megaphone, and some a combination. Listen, speak out, express yourself using hand signals, pay attention to who is NOT speaking up (often women), encourage quiet people to speak up, and learn, as C.J. Minster to facilitate a GA.

H: Hand gestures –they are an essential part of GAs

I: Inspire! Tell your friends, family, and anyone you meet why you’re involved in the movement and encourage them to join you next time you visit your local occupation.

J: Join a working group, such as direct action or facilitation, to share and build your skills, and get to know people on a deeper level. You can also help create safe spaces for marginalized groups, such as discussion groups and meetings, and places for sleeping and using the bathroom.

K: Know your rights! Educate yourself with this resource guide for understanding your rights as a demonstrator before, during, and after you take action

L: Learn something new every time you go to an “occupation” – 10 new names, a new slogan, song lyrics, etc.

M: Make____Not War photos are a fun activity and a great way to meet folks and help them express themselves! Directions to participate in this artistic response to war.

N: Nonviolence is a shared ethic of the Occupy movement. Donate books or pamphlets on nonviolence history, theory and practice, including CODEPINK’s “Stop the Next War Now”. Have a conversation about what nonviolence means to you; practice and train others in non-violent ways of de-escalating potentially hostile situations.

O: Observe closely. What do you appreciate, and what could be improved? Share your observations in emails, posts to your Facebook wall and/or blog, tweets, personal conversations with other codepinkers.

P: Pies are a treat; make one using a recipe from “Peace Never Tasted So Sweet” and bring it to the “occupation”, or have a pie-baking party with your local group and then bring down a bunch of pies.

Q: Questions, especially open-ended ones, are a great way to start a conversation with “occupiers.” What brings you here? Which of the issues is the most urgent to you? What have you been doing today? And of course, be ready to answer questions as well.

R: Record your experiences – write a blogpost , a local action report & post photos on our flickr page.

S: “Step Up, Step Back”: Encourage those who talk a lot to say less, and those who don’t talk much to speak up. If you tend to dominate the conversation, consider stepping back to let others have the floor; if you tend to shy away from participating in discussions, step up to take the floor.

T: Tweet your thoughts and photos. Use @occupywallst, @womenows, @occupy[yourcity] & #ows, #globalrevolution.

U: Umbrellas are going to be needed more and more as we go into the winter. Take up a “collection” from friends, decorate them with slogans, and donate them.

V: Videotape women and girls at your local “occupation” asking them the simple question, “Why are you here?” Upload your video(s) to youtube and include them in your local action report. Lisa Savage got some really interesting answers, watch her video here and here.

W: Women’s presence and voices are needed in the Occupy movement! Encourage women you know to join the conversation and participate in a Women’s group or start one. Call out sexism as necessary, and bring your womanly wisdom to the movement.

X: Xerox/photocopy flyers or other materials for your local Occupy folks.

Y: Youth – this movement is by you and for you. Encourage all the young people you know to join and lead in occupations, they are our future!

Z: Zero waste is what we are striving toward, help set up, and/or use the compost and recycle buckets.

Note: This list is based on actions that CODEPINKers from Augusta, Maine to Los Angeles, California have done or are doing!

On the positive side, the White House guarantees an official response to any petition that reaches 5,000 signatures within 30 days. The site launched yesterday and I immediately put up a petition for the U.S. to immediately withdraw all troops and contractors from Afghanistan and Iraq. The petition doesn’t have a lot of signatures yet. One reason is that it does not show up when you “view all petitions” or when you “search petitions by topic.” No explanation given why the anti-war petition doesn’t show up, but perhaps we can build momentum without their promotional help. Will you sign the petition today?

As if it wasn’t bad enough that they’re censoring the use of their petition site, in order to participate in this new process you must register for an account on whitehouse.gov And, some people have been unable to connect to the government server housing this petition site. They want petition creators to share a shortened URL (the anti-war petition is http://wh.gov/g07 ) but it can be an extremely slow process to get there.

Perhaps by next week, they’ll have the technical glitches worked out. In the meantime, join us in demanding an immediate end to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Below is the full text of the petition:

WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO: immediately end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and bring all troops and contractors home.

The Afghanistan War is already the longest in U.S. history and neither Americans nor Afghans are safer today than we were ten years ago. Our military presence has propped up a corrupt government full of war lords and drug lords.

In Iraq, our military continues to inflame ethnic tension and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

CODEPINK: Women for Peace and people throughout the United States demand an immediate end to the wars. All troops and contractors must return to the United States and funds should be re-directed to life-affirming activities. Make Jobs, Not War – it’s as simple as that.

Please take the time to sign our petition and review the other available petitions.

And if you haven’t done so already, send Obama an email telling him you agree the government should make jobs, but it should also end the wars.

Of course, I agree with their desire for legal protection for pregnant women. (Heck, it’s something I’ve started thinking about personally.) And I agree that all citizens should vote like their life depends on it.

But when I think about the idea of women’s equality in this country, I really can’t find the energy to believe in the celebration. I get that Bella Abzug wanted us to use the day to call “attention to women’s continuing efforts toward full equality.”

Here’s my problem: what does it mean to work towards women’s equality in a society dedicated to denigrating the lives of all workers, regardless of gender? In a country that cares more about corporate profits than human needs, how can I focus solely on women’s rights?

To be clear, I am a feminist. I believe that only through women’s equal participation in decision-making processes can we find real solutions to the world’s problems. I know that many of the problems this country faces are due to the lack of women in positions of power, including our woefully inadequate representation in the Congress, not to mention the fact that there’s never been a female president. My belief in the need for equal representation for women does not diminish my understanding of the need to make space for transgender people in our cisgender world.

But I’m that odd duck in feminist circles. I’ve always done my activism through women’s organizations (before joining the staff of CODEPINK, I was a leader of  Women’s International League for Peace & Freedom, an organization whose origins are deeply tied to the suffragist movement). Yet, I find it difficult to focus solely on American women’s issues. After all, we’re all being screwed by the war profiteers, corporatocracy, and unrepresentative politicians. It’s not like my health and economic rights are being diminished at a faster rater than the man next to me.

So tonight, as I welcome in the Shabbos bride, I’ll raise a glass to women’s equality. But my focus will remain engaging all people, regardless of gender identity, in developing cultural responses to a decade of war and fear through CODEPINK’s Create, Not Hate project.

Will you join me in building the movement to create a new world?

On May 11, 2011, the House Armed Services Committee voted to approve the Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). This bill includes, among other things, an expansion of the legal basis for the so-called War on Terror. It passed the committee by a vote of 60-1. The sole dissenting vote was that of John Garamendi (D-CA).  Garamendi explained his vote:

The Armed Services Committee voted to continue the war in Afghanistan, the longest war in U.S. history. Because I wholeheartedly support our soldiers and their families, I cannot in good conscience vote to extend a war without an endgame. To continue  to risk the lives of 100,000 American troops in support of the corrupt Karzai government in Afghanistan’s internal civil war is not in the long-term national interest of the United States.

CODEPINK thanks Representative Garamendi for his vote against this ominous legislation, which reminds us of Representative Barbara Lee’s dissenting vote against the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) following 9/11. She foresaw the consequences of that dangerous legislation, and explained her vote against it:

It was a blank check to the president to attack anyone involved in the September 11 events—anywhere, in any country, without regard to our nation’s long-term foreign policy, economic and national security interests, and without time limit. In granting these overly broad powers, the Congress failed its responsibility to understand the dimensions of its declaration. I could not support such a grant of war-making authority to the president; I believe it would put more innocent lives at risk.

Many of the things Lee predicted on September 14, 2001–endless war, loss of life, abuse of power, and so on—have come to pass. If the NDAA passes, the situation could deteriorate further, in ways that those who voted for it have not adequately considered.

The title of the “FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act” doesn’t even begin to hint at how disastrous it really is. Specifically Section 1034, “Affirmation of Armed Conflict with Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and Associated Forces,” an alarming proposal that could trap us in an endless war against unspecified targets:

This section would affirm that the United States is engaged in an armed conflict with al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section would also affirm that the President’s authority pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force includes the authority to detain certain belligerents until the termination of hostilities.

This language expands the president’s war powers outlined in the AUMF that led to the so-called War on Terror. Section 1034 of the NDAA allows the United States to wage war without end wherever the president chooses, against any country or entity in the world.

CODEPINK, along with 20 other national organizations, will be participating in a Week of Action to End the Afghanistan War starting Monday. Next week is when the full House of Representatives will discuss the military spending bill as approved by the Armed Services Committee and amendments. Watch this space for more information on how to get involved in these efforts. And don’t forget to tell your representative to support HR 780, the Responsible End to the War in Afghanistan!

By Medea Benjamin and Charles Davis

Given that President Obama daily authorizes the firing of hellfire missiles and the dropping of cluster bombs in places such as Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen, it was awful odd seeing him wax eloquent this week about the “moral force of non-violence” in places like Egypt and Tunisia. But there he was, the commander-in-chief of the largest empire in history, praising the power of peaceful protest in countries with repressive leaders backed by his own administration.

Were we unfamiliar with his actual policies – more than doubling the troops in Afghanistan, dramatically escalating a deadly drone war in Pakistan and unilaterally bombing for peace in Libya – it might have been inspiring to hear a major head of state reject violence as a means to political ends. Instead, we almost choked on the hypocrisy.

Cast beforehand as a major address on the Middle East, what President Obama offered with his speech on Thursday was nothing more than a reprisal of his 2009 address in Cairo: a lot of rhetoric about U.S. support for peace and freedom in the region contradicted by the actual – and bipartisan – U.S. policy over the past half-century of supporting ruthless authoritarian regimes. Yet even for all his talk of human rights and how he “will not tolerate aggression across borders” – yes, a U.S. president said this – Obama didn’t even feign concern about Saudi Arabia’s repressive regime invading neighboring Bahrain to put down a pro-democracy movement there. In fact, the words “Saudi Arabia” were never uttered.

It was that kind of speech: scathing condemnations of human rights abuses by the U.S.’s Official Enemies in places like Iran and Syria and muted criticism – if any – of the gross violations of human decency carried out by its dictatorial friends in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Yemen.

Obama predictably glossed over the reality of U.S. policy and, in an audacious attempt to rewrite history, portrayed his administration as being supportive of the fall of tyrannical governments across the Middle East and North Africa, ludicrously suggesting he had supported regime change in Hosni Mubarak’s Egypt – a claim betrayed by the $1.3 billion a year in military aid his administration provided to Mubarak’s regime right up until the moment he resigned. The president’s revisionism might fool a few cable news personalities – what wouldn’t – but it won’t fool Egyptians, less than one in five of whom even want the closer relationship with the U.S. that Obama offered in his speech, at least one that involves more military aid and neoliberal reforms imposed by the International Monetary Fund.

And Obama’s remarks shouldn’t fool their primary audience: American voters.

Contrary to the rhetoric of Obama’s speech, if the U.S. has sided with Middle Eastern publics against their brutal dictators it has not been because of their dictators’ brutality, which in the case of Mubarak was seen as a plus in the age of the war on terror. Nor has that support for the oppressed come in the form of – hold your laughter – non-violence. Rhetoric of change aside, how best to use the liberating power of bullets and bombs continues to be the guiding principle of U.S. policy in the Middle East.

And Obama certainly isn’t apologizing for that. In his speech he called the war in Iraq, which conservatively speaking has killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, “costly and difficult” – and, grotesquely, “well intended” – but that was as much an acknowledgement as he was willing to make of the deadly failure of U.S. policy toward the region in recent decades. Indeed, Obama argued it was not a failure of policy but merely a failure of rhetoric, a “failure to speak to the broader aspirations of ordinary people” that had prompted the “suspicion” the U.S. pursues its own interests at the expense of those living in the countries it invades or whose dictators it supports.

But the truth of these suspicions was evident when Obama explained why the U.S.’s supposed national interests were at stake in the Middle East, claiming that “our own future is bound to this region by the forces of economics and security.” Notice which came first (and just so you know: both have to do with oil).

The president also didn’t deviate from his policy of “unshakable” support for Israeli militarism, typified by his administration’s efforts to safeguard the Jewish state from accountability for its war crimes in Gaza – crimes that left some 1,400 Palestinians dead – and his determination to hand an already wealthy nation more than $3 billion a year in military aid, even as it flaunts the “peace process” and colonizes ever more Palestinian land.

Though typical of his first two years in office, Obama’s duplicity was more evident – and his rhetoric more sloppy – than usual. Mere seconds after proclaiming that “every state has the right to self-defense,” Obama called for the creation of a “sovereign, non-militarized state” for Palestinians, meaning one incapable of defending itself. And while he spoke of Israeli parents fearing their children “could get blown up on a bus or by rockets fired at their homes,” he did not deign to mention the much more frequent and deadly Israeli violence perpetrated against Palestinians, saying only that the latter suffered “the humiliation of occupation,” as if Palestinian parents feel embarrassment, not pain, at the loss of child killed by an Israeli strike.

Obama’s remarks on the killing of Osama bin Laden were likewise delivered with a complete lack of self-awareness. Describing the latter as a “mass murderer,” Obama – who since taking office has the blood of hundreds of Afghan and Pakistani civilians on his hands – said bin Laden’s philosophy of using bloodshed to achieve desired political changes had been discredited “through the moral force of non-violence” that has swept the region. Peaceful protests, Obama proclaimed, had “achieved more change in six months than terrorists have accomplished in decades” – and more than decades of U.S. wars and occupations, he might have added.

Talking up the virtues of peaceful protest is great and all, but the pretty words lack their power coming from the commander-in-chief of the most lethal and widely deployed military force in world history. Mr. Obama, if you want talk about the evils of violence, great – but follow your own advice.

—–

Medea Benjamin (medea@globalexchange.org) is cofounder of Global Exchange (www.globalexchange.org) and CODEPINK: Women for Peace (www.codepinkalert.org).

Charles Davis (http://charliedavis.blogspot.com) is an independent journalist who has covered Congress for public radio and the international news wire Inter Press Service.