Specifically, the letter asks for substantially increased funding for these accounts:

• The U.S. Agency for International Development’s International Disaster Assistance account responds to the growing numbers of internally displaced persons, particularly in Syria and Iraq, and to supports refugee hosting countries and promote regional stability.
• The Department of State’s Migration and Refugee Assistance and Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance accounts assist refugees abroad and identify, process and provide initial integration assistance to refugees resettled in the United States.
• The Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement’s Refugee and Entrant Assistance account ensures local communities have the resources they need to help refugees integrate and thrive as they rebuild their lives.
• The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, for the Refugee, Asylum and International Operations Directorate account to more expeditiously screen refugees for resettlement to the United States, a process that is currently fee-funded and in need of additional capacity.

Peace Action West applauds the decision of these lawmakers to take a stand for increased funding for aid to refugees and displaced persons overseas as well as for the U.S. vetting process to allow us to safely accept more refugees in this country. Increasing funding for these programs will not only help the millions of people fleeing war-torn countries in the Middle East, it will also undermine some of the most effective recruiting tactics that groups like ISIS use to bolster their ranks. It will undermine the message that the U.S. and the West in general hates Muslims and is at war with Islam, and it will undermine the economic incentives ISIS and other extremist groups provide by funding programs that provide food, housing, and other critical services to refugees and displaced persons. Therefore, increasing funding for these accounts is not only a moral decision in keeping with American values, it is also a strategic decision in keeping with a smarter approach to foreign policy that we desperately need.

Thank you to all Peace Action West members and others who took action to encourage their Representatives to sign this letter.

It will take grassroots pressure to move Congress. We can start by popularizing the possible steps towards a political solution. Instead of another endless war, Members of Congress should stand up in support of effective alternatives. Below are possible ways for the U.S. government to take action NOW! These are examples of the many alternatives available to move towards a political solution.

From November 11-16, over twenty national peace and justice groups will join together to press Congress in their offices, online, and in the streets to take action. One way to participate is on Twitter with our Thunderclap. Sign up by clicking here. 

The United States Congress can:

• Insist that President Obama seek congressional authorization for continued military intervention, and then vote to oppose our latest war in Iraq and Syria
• Cosponsor measures like H. Con. Res. 114, offered by the Congressional Progressive Caucus, to require Congress to debate, vote, and constrain U.S. military intervention
• Support measures to prohibit U.S. ground troops, sunset the 2001 and 2002 Authorizations for the Use of Military Force (the bills that authorized U.S. military intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan), and bolster the alternatives listed below

The United States can take immediate unilateral action to:

• Tighten loopholes in existing sanctions to help cut off ISIS’s funding streams:
  • ISIS profits from selling petroleum, archaeological artifacts, and wheat
• Condition U.S. support for the Iraqi government on success in stopping sectarian violence and promoting inclusive governance. This can undermine the roots of ISIS’s hold in Iraq
• Cut off U.S. government contracts with anyone doing business with ISIS
• Increase humanitarian funds for acute needs. The UN’s Syria Regional Refugee Response Plan for 2014 is only half-way funded. As winter approaches, the key World Food Program has run out of funds: rations will be cut and some refugees will go without any WFP aid
• Stop channeling weapons into the war. ISIS has captured and used U.S.-made weapons
• Support civil society efforts to build peace and reconciliation at the community level

The United States can support multilateral efforts to:

• Ensure that all parties to the armed conflict in Syria allow unfettered access to humanitarian organizations and agencies to provide assistance to civilians

• Build regional stability and security through aid for refugee host nation communities to reinforce stressed health, education, and housing infrastructure and to encourage job creation
• Keep the conflict from spreading to Jordan, Turkey or Lebanon etc. by encouraging a global effort to share responsibility for resettling refugees from Iraq and Syria
• Restrict ISIS’s access to the international financial system
• Support a political solution to Syria’s civil war:
  • With the UN and regional powers, press the regime and rebels to support truces to reduce non-combatant deaths and increase the focus on defending against ISIS
  • Re-energize diplomacy for negotiation on a political transition that would include all parties to the conflict as well as outside parties, such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia and the U.S. A regional Contact Group could lay the groundwork for peace talks
  • If necessary, the UN General Assembly could assume responsibility under the Uniting for Peace procedure (to circumvent possible Security Council inaction)
  • Begin discussions and planning for a possible international peacekeeping or stabilization mission in Syria (and possibly parts of Iraq)

The United States can work with regional states and organizations to:

• Engage in strategic outreach to Sunni communities in both Iraq and Syria to address political and economic grievances and thus undermine crucial political support for ISIS
• Work to impose an arms embargo against all armed actors in Iraq and Syria. Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait have provided weapons to the opposition, including ISIS, in Syria
• Work with the states near ISIS territory to close the borders leading into and out of ISIS areas, thus depriving the jihadists of supplies
• Conduct a social media campaign that exposes the grotesque nature of ISIS ideology:
  • “It is only when we contest ISIL’s presence online, deny the legitimacy of the message it sends to vulnerable young people and expose ISIL for the un-Islamic cult of violence it really is… that ISIL will truly be defeated,” said retired U.S. Gen. John Allen.

REFERENCES
Al-Qatari, Hussain and Schreck, Adam. “US Official Urges Allies to Combat IS Ideology.” AP. 7 Oct. 2014.
Baldor, Lolita. “Pentagon: Up to $1.1 billion cost for Iraq, Syria. AP. 6 Oct. 2014.
Barsa, Michelle and Williams, Kristin. “Syrian Women Know How to Defeat ISIS.” New America. 16 Oct. 2014.
Cole, Juan. “Iraq: Bombs & Bullets vs. Political Process.” 24 Aug. 2014.
Dahl, Omar. “The refugee crisis in Lebanon and Jordan” Forced Migration Review.Sep. 2014.
Davis, Danny, Lt. Col. “Airstrikes Against ISIS Are Tactics. Here’s a Strategy.” The Daily Beast. 17 Sep. 2014.
Drennan, Justine. “The Black-Market Battleground.” Foreign Policy. 17 Oct. 2014.
Fick, Maggie. “Islamic State uses grain to tighten grip in Iraq.” Reuters. 30 Sep. 2014.
Johnson, Patrick and Bahney, Benjamin. “Hitting ISIS Where It Hurts.” New York Times. 13 Aug. 2014.
Lister, Charles. “Cutting off ISIS’ Cash Flow.” The Brookings Institution. 24 Oct. 2014.
Lund, Aron. “Let Them Eat Bombs” Carnegie Endowment. 17 Oct. 2014.
Katulis, Brian. “Defeating ISIS: An integrated strategy”. Center for American Progress, 10 Sep. 2014.
Miles, Stephen. “Alternatives to Another War.” Huffington Post. 12 Sep. 2014.
Ross, Dennis. “A Strategy for Beating the Islamic State.” Politico Magazine. 2 Sep. 2014.
Simon, Steven and Stevenson, Jonathan. “A New Plan for Syria” The New York Review of Books. 26 Sep. 2014.
“The Islamic State: A Long-Term Strategy.” Friends Committee on National Legislation. 11 Sep. 2014.
Wong, Kristina. “Pentagon: ISIS Nabs US Weapons.” The Hill. 22 Oct. 2014.

The  flag of al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra flying over the  the Syrian city of Raqqa. The group controls the city and is using extremist tactics to repress the populace.

Should the U.S. send lethal arms to one side in a brutal civil war?

Earlier this week, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee answered that question with a hearty “yes”, voting 15-3 to arm the Syrian rebels in that nation’s brutal civil war.

With widespread war crimes and other abuses being committed by both sides in the conflict, Congress should think twice before endorsing lethal weaponry as the only strong action we can take to support the Syrian people. The bill, sponsored by committee chairman Robert Menendez (D – New Jersey) and ranking member Bob Corker (R – Tennessee), was a bi-partisan effort to get the Obama administration to cave into pressure to arm the rebels.

The Obama administration has been concerned about the Syrian rebel fighters’ ties to Al-Qaeda and the mounting human rights abuses by rebel forces.  At Peace Action West we share the administration’s concerns. We absolutely need to do even more to help the Syrians. But the choice is not between arming the rebels and doing nothing.  The U.S. could help, for example, by parachuting in  (figuratively at a minimum) badly needed humanitarian aide to the region. That would give immediate protection and support to Syrian noncombatants much more quickly and effectively than sending arms to rebels who could use those weapons to harm more noncombatants.

So far the administration has addressed the Syrian crisis by rallying international humanitarian efforts to protect Syrians impacted by the crisis. There are over a million and a half refugees in Turkey, Jordan, and Lebanon that we can focus on getting help to. The administration had also funneled  $115 million in non-lethal aide directly to the Syrian opposition for Syrian still in Syria.  This aid includes money to rebuild basic services like water, electricity, and public health in opposition controlled areas. Secretary of State Kerry is also leading a major diplomatic initiative with Russia, the Arab League and other regional players that would lead to peace talks beginning next month. These efforts can and should get increased funding and political emphasis.

It’s easy to get seduced by a narrative that arming the noble resistance would allow then to triumph against the evil dictator. But that’s far from the reality on the ground in Syria. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and others have detailed egregious human rights violations by rebel forces. Documented abuses include kidnapping, summary executions, targeting of minorities, torture, indiscriminate attacks that harm civilian non-combatants, and the use of child soldiers. These are the “good guys”? Needless to say, the violence of the Syrian authorities has been truly reprehensible. Assad’s regime are responsible for more than their share of the bloodshed. But both sides are clearly engaging widespread and serious abuses and increasing the firepower of one of the sides isn’t going to protect innocent bystanders.

Déjà vu all over again?

Not only are some of the Syrian rebels violating human rights with the weapons they already have, factions within the fractious opposition coalition have ties to Al-Qaeda. Rebel fighters and sometimes entire units have been deserting the main armed opposition group the Free Syrian Army for the al-Nusra front an al-Qaeda affiliate – their arms are no doubt coming with the deserting soldiers. Jabhat al-Nusra, sometimes called al-Qaeda’s Syrian arm, was founded by al-Qaeda in Iraq and they are an important part of the Syrian armed opposition. In areas controlled by al-Nusra their are reports of extremist repression like harassment and detention of women and girls for not wearing headscarves. Sound familiar? There’s a certain Alice in Wonderland quality in Congress’s eagerness to arm a coalition that includes strong participation from an Al-Qaeda group using the brutal tactics from of the Taliban when they ruled Afghanistan. Things sure do get curious on Capitol Hill.

Supporters of arming the rebels say they the arms will only go to “vetted” elements within the opposition.  But as Rosa Brooks, a former civilian leader in the Department of Defense, pointed out in Foreign Policy:

“It’s not clear that we even have the ability to provide weapons just to the “good guys.” Even if we think we can identify “the good guys” within the opposition, and then ensure that weapons are delivered only to them, there’s no guarantee that the good guys will remain the good guys (as opposed to taking their nice new U.S.-supplied weapons with them when they cross over to al-Nusra). And even if the good guys stay “good” in the short term, I wouldn’t place bets on their long-term goodwill towards the United States.”

In the same piece Brooks also points out caches of U.S. weapons intended for the Afghan police have wound up in the hands of the Taliban. Sound familiar? The same kind of thing happened in Iraq. If the U.S. can’t keep track of the weapons it is handing out to armed forces it is closely allied with in countries where tens of thousands of U.S. troops are stationed how will be able to monitor where these weapons are going from afar? Have we learned nothing from arming another loosely affiliated group of rebels — the proto-Taliban Mujahideen and the likes of Osama bin Laden? Does Congress need to be sent back in school to take Blowback 101 again to avoid being doomed to repeat history?

Cold feet even among interventionists

Even past supporters of arming the rebels are getting cold feet as the brutality of the rebels as well as the fractured and dubious nature of their coalition becomes more clear. Persian Gulf States are getting cold feet about their own plans to arm the rebels. Josh Rogin writing in The Daily Beast pointed out that here in the U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey, who had originally supported arming the opposition, appeared to getting more concerned about such an approach:

Last month, Dempsey testified that the idea of arming the opposition had become more complicated because U.S. understanding of the Syrian opposition groups was not clear.

“My military judgment is that now that we have seen the emergence of al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham notably, and now that we have seen photographs of some of the weapons that have been flowing into Syria in the hands of those groups, now I am more concerned than I was before,” he said.

It’s tempting to imagine that arming the good guys against the bad guys will protect the people we all want to protect. In Syria that’s dubious because both sides are already heavily armed and have fought to a stalemate. In general, the history of U.S. arming “non-state actors” has often ended in great harm to the very people we were trying to protect. From Angola to Nicaragua to the former Yugoslavia, U.S. arms intended to help innocent victims ended up fueling conflict and hurting innocents.

Congress should slow down on its plan to fund the Syrian rebels. If you agree call your Senator and ask them to vote FOR increased humanitarian funding and diplomatic efforts, and AGAINST arming human rights abusers. Call your Senate offices directly or you can reach them through the Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121.

The White House has been telling Americans fed up with the war that the deal signed Tuesday with the Afghan government is the light at the end of the tunnel. Meanwhile, the Obama administration is selling the same deal to NATO allies as a sign of the United States’ enduring commitment.

The reality is that the new strategic partnership agreement is not all things to all people. By the end of this summer, there still will be 68,000 troops in Afghanistan. The new agreement authorizes the U.S. military to “advise and assist” the Afghan military through at least 2024. That could translate to another 12 years of repeating our mistakes, with tens of thousands of soldiers still in harm’s way.

This means that a large majority of Americans have reason to be disappointed. According to a recent CNN poll, 77 percent of Americans want all U.S. troops out of Afghanistan by the end of 2014, with 55 percent wanting them out sooner. Last month, a Pew poll found that 59 percent of swing voters want them home as soon as possible. Americans want out of a war that costs us $2 billion a week. The NATO summit coming up this month is a chance to take real steps toward that goal.

The U.S. occupation is the primary target for the Afghan insurgency, which makes an enormous military presence inherently destabilizing to the Afghan nation. Recent revelations have underscored this reality, such as the photos of soldiers posing with dead insurgents, and the accidental mass burning of Qurans. It is no surprise that Afghans are growing more resentful of the American military presence. The international community could play a constructive role in helping Afghans rebuild their country and strengthen their government. But the trust needed to build that kind of partnership between Afghans and Americans is sorely lacking. A clear and responsible plan to withdraw U.S. troops as soon as possible would be a first step in building that trust.

Withdrawing should not mean abandoning Afghanistan. The United States has a responsibility to keep its commitment to Afghans. We also have an interest. After more than 10 years of war, our futures are linked. Afghanistan’s many challenges – from the lack of public support for the Karzai government to widespread corruption – are rooted in politics. These problems require political solutions that can’t be delivered at gunpoint. Ending the occupation could provide an opening for a diplomatic and development mission that would be not only more effective, but much less deadly and costly.

At the May 20-21 summit in Chicago, NATO will address its role in Afghanistan, and could lay groundwork for making this crucial strategic shift. This week marks one year since Osama bin Laden was killed in Pakistan. His death, along with a diminished al Qaeda presence in Afghanistan, removed the primary justification for this war. The next few weeks will be an opportunity to set forth a clear commitment and timeline to bring the troops home.

That means now is the time to act. If you want this war to end, call your congressional representative now. The House will be taking up a defense policy bill the week before the NATO summit. Tell your elected representative to use this debate to take a stand for a serious, detailed plan to end this war.

Rebecca Griffin leads Peace Action West’s campaigns for alternatives to war. http://www.peaceactionwest.org

Take action now. Tell your senators to vote against amendments to cut the budget for alternatives to war.

For far too long, the military budget has been a massive hammer and every problem from terrorism to human rights abuse is a nail. We can’t change that unless we rein in the bloated military budget and invest in tools like diplomacy and development that can prevent conflicts and make lives better.

Groups around the country are mobilizing people to make sure the Senate doesn’t make a shortsighted mistake on international affairs funding. Will you add your voice to our call?

This year’s budget for diplomacy and development will be setting the standard for the tight budget for years to come. We need to make sure we have as much support as possible for a strong budget. Click here to take action.

Thank you for standing up for peace.

We sent the letter below to super committee members to clearly outline the balanced security budget Peace Action West’s supporters would like to see. You can tell the super committee that you support these priorities by clicking here.

On behalf of Peace Action West’s 50,000 supporters, I am writing to urge you to produce deficit reduction recommendations that make Americans more secure by balancing our security budget and preserving domestic programs that contribute to security and prosperity at home.

Reduce wasteful military spending

The base Pentagon budget has increased by more than 50% in the last decade. Pentagon spending, including Overseas Contingency Operations, accounted for 58% of the FY2011 discretionary budget. Any serious plan to reduce the deficit must address wasteful military spending, especially when that spending competes with funding for priorities such as healthcare, job creation, and education.

Our safety is not best measured in dollars spent, but rather in the strategy served by our budget. There is room for substantial reductions in military spending without detriment to US national security. This could include:

·      Reducing all DOD contracts by 10% and freezing hiring of civilian DOD employees

·      Bringing troops home from Europe and Asia and reducing ground forces to pre-9/11 levels

·      Eliminating unnecessary weapons systems such as the F-35, the MV-22 Osprey and the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle

·      Curtailing national missile defense

The Sustainable Defense Task Force report offers details on a potential $960 billion in savings over the next ten years.[i]

Military withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan

US taxpayers have spent more than $1.2 trillion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in direct costs.[ii]  The Eisenhower Study Group projects the long-term costs of the wars, including such costs as veterans’ care and interest payments, will reach $3.2-4 trillion.[iii] There have also been opportunity costs, such as lost jobs and lack of public investment in infrastructure. The macroeconomic impacts have also been significant; the average homebuyer paid an additional $600 in mortgage payments last year because of the increase in interest rates due to borrowing money for the wars.[iv]

The administration is reportedly considering keeping 3-10,000 troops in Iraq beyond the agreed-upon withdrawal deadline. The current plan for Afghanistan leaves nearly 70,000 troops on the ground in the fall of 2012, with no clear end date for withdrawal. With fewer than 100 Al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan, there is no longer a compelling national security rationale for maintaining a massive military presence in Afghanistan. The raid that apprehended Osama bin Laden demonstrates that policing and intelligence are much more effective approaches to protecting Americans from the threat of terrorism.[v] There are several plans available with recommendations for reduced troop levels.[vi] Accelerating withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan would save taxpayers tens of billions of dollars over the next decade.

Reducing spending on nuclear weapons

With the Cold War over and a national security strategy that decreases reliance on nuclear weapons, the United States cannot afford to spend $700 billion over the next decade on nuclear weapons programs.[vii] In a 21^st century security environment, nuclear weapons are more of a liability than an asset; funding for weapons and delivery systems competes with more effective security priorities such as nonproliferation. Cuts could include:

·      Stopping construction of the Chemistry and Metallurgy Replacement Facility in New Mexico, saving $3-5 billion

·      Delaying the New Long Range Penetrating Bomber, saving $3.7 billion

·      Rightsizing the ballistic missile submarine fleet to eight boats, saving $27 billion over ten years

·      Canceling the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Plant, saving an estimated $4 billion

Avoiding disproportionate cuts to the international affairs budget

The international affairs budget accounts for only 1% of the federal budget, yet it has faced disproportionate cuts in the current budget battle, bearing nearly 20% of all discretionary funding cuts in FY2011. These cuts are even more devastating after years of neglect that have weakened our civilian engagement tools. As former Defense Secretary Robert Gates pointed out, the entire Foreign Service does not include enough people to staff one aircraft carrier.

These programs are essential to preventing costly military intervention, promoting stability and saving lives around the globe. Shortsighted cuts in international affairs funding would further the imbalance in our current security budget and could have detrimental impacts on US engagement and security in the future.

Peace Action West’s supporters strongly urge the super committee to develop a deficit reduction plan that reflects a smart security budget as outlined above. Feel free to contact me for more details on any of these proposals.

Sincerely,

Rebecca Griffin

Political Director

Peace Action West

[i] http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/1006SDTFreport.pdf

[ii] http://costofwar.com/en/

[iii] http://costsofwar.org/article/economic-cost-summary

[iv] http://costsofwar.org/article/macroeconomic-impact-military-spending

[v] http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9351/index1.html

[vi] http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2011/06/the-afghan-troop-number-game.html

[vii] http://ploughshares.org/sites/default/files/resources/What%20We%20Spend%20on%20Nuclear%20Weapons%20092811.pdf

Last month, we asked you to demonstrate your support for the international affairs budget by pitching in to fund Oxfam America’s work to deal with the food crisis in East Africa. Together, along with sending a strong message to the Senate, we raised enough money to build eighteen wells.

Oxfam America has put up new photos documenting the real difference that funding is making, bringing water and sanitation facilities to an estimated 11,000 people in a refugee camp. Check out the report here.

Right now diplomacy and development get less than 10% of what we spend on the military budget and wars. If we are really going to build support for these programs in Congress and the public, we need to understand why they are so crucial to our safety and prosperity, and that of others around the globe.

Deputy Secretary of State Thomas Nides shared his top 10 things you should know about the State Department and USAID on Huffington Post. A few of the key points:

4. We help to ensure the world is a safer place. Our nonproliferation programs have destroyed dangerous stockpiles of missiles, munitions and the material that can be used to make a nuclear weapon. The New START Treaty, negotiated by the State Department and signed by President Obama in 2010, reduced the number of deployed nuclear weapons to levels not seen since the 1950s. And, in 2010, the State Department helped more than 40 countries clear millions of square meters of landmines.

5. We save lives. Our programs that fight disease and hunger reduce the risk of instability abroad and, in return, protect our national security. Strong bipartisan support for U.S. global health investments has led to unparalleled successes in the treatment, care and prevention of HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, as well as saved millions from diseases like smallpox and polio.

6. We help countries feed themselves. In the United States, we know agriculture. Building upon what we do best – grow and produce food – we help other countries plant the right seeds in the right way and get crops to markets to feed the most people. Food shortages can lead to riots and starvation, but strong agricultural sectors can lead to stable economies, helping countries become strong U.S. trading partners.

7. We help in times of crisis. After this year’s earthquake and tsunami in Japan, State and USAID sent disaster response experts, nuclear experts and urban search and rescue teams to work assist the government of Japan with meeting immediate needs. Secretary Clinton personally delivered much needed supplies to Chile within hours of a devastating earthquake. From earthquakes in Haiti to famine in the Horn of Africa and devastating fires in Israel, our experienced and talented emergency professionals deliver assistance to those who need it most.

Read the rest here.

The good news is that the Senate has released their version of the State and Foreign Operations budget, and it includes $5 billion more for the baseline budget than the House version (they both included funding for Overseas Contingency Operations, which covers civilian work related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan). They were able to include a higher number and stay under the security spending cap imposed by the debt ceiling deal through keeping the baseline Pentagon budget at $513 billion, leaving out the $17 billion increase the House added.

Now we have a real fight ahead of us. Right now, Congress is working on an interim measure to fund the government through November 18th so they can buy more time to work out a 2012 budget. The House and Senate will have to come to some kind of agreement on a number for the diplomacy and development programs. Our voices will be crucial in making the case that members of Congress should fight for the higher number. For longer-term spending, we will need to push the deficit super committee to avoid slashing international affairs when coming to a deficit reduction deal, which is due on November 23rd.

Many of you joined us in the national call-in day Monday, along with activists from the ONE campaign, Bread for the World, Oxfam and others. Keep an eye on the blog and your inboxes for other opportunities to influence the 2012 budget and the deficit deal in the coming weeks.

House Republicans have proposed whacking another $8.6 billion from the budget for the State Department and foreign aid in fiscal 2012, starting October 1.

As the worst famine in decades stalks millions in East Africa, 29 percent would be cut from the overall account that funds Obama’s initiative for fighting global hunger, “Feed the Future,” according to the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition.

The deficit-cutting deal between Obama and Congress in August set out $917 billion in overall savings, which puts more pressure on foreign aid along with other programs.

Lawmakers must now find another $1.2-$1.5 trillion in deficit reduction across the government over a decade.

Unpopular foreign assistance may be the first to go.

Last month, you took an important step to help us show Congress that programs like diplomacy and development do have support from voters around the country. Hundreds of you put your money where it counts, donating more than $3,300 to Oxfam’s efforts to alleviate famine in East Africa. That’s enough to build 18 wells that can provide drinking water for years to come. Thank you!

We’re sending your messages to your senators to let them know that you were willing to step up to fund alternatives to war, and they should be too. This fight isn’t over, as the House and Senate will soon need to agree on a budget for 2012, and the super committee with be looking at long-term deficit reduction plans. To make sure you know the latest news and when you should take action to save these programs, join our Stand Up campaign to support alternatives to war.