Petraeus eyes troop drawdown in spring

Commanders are planning for how remaining troops will be deployed

WASHINGTON - The top U.S. commander in Iraq says he wants to continue the troop buildup there until next spring, amid debate over whether to bring some forces home months earlier than that.

When he delivers a much-anticipated report to Congress on Monday, Army Gen. David Petraeus said he expects to advise that there could be a gradual reduction of forces beginning in the spring because of some of the successes achieved so far with the escalation ordered by President Bush in January.

"Based on the progress our forces are achieving, I expect to be able to recommend that some of our forces will be redeployed without replacement," Petraeus said in an e-mail to the Boston Globe and published in its Friday editions.

"The bottom line is that ... I do not envision that the U.S. would need to send more troops," he said, adding that commanders are planning for how remaining troops will be deployed around Iraq "as the surge of forces inevitably runs its course."

Troops at record level

The Associated Press reported earlier this week that administration
officials said Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker recommended to Bush that he stand by his current war strategy.

But they also said that Bush was considering announcing by year's end that there could be a symbolic reduction in troops.

Sen. John Warner, R-Va., a former Armed Services Committee chairman, Navy secretary and key player on military issues on Capitol Hill, has suggested that some troops be brought home by Christmas as a gesture.

The United States would be hard-pressed to maintain the buildup level in Iraq indefinitely. Officials say the number of troops there now has climbed to a record 168,000 and is moving toward a peak of 172,000 in the coming weeks — a level that could extend into December — but that is only because of troop rotations. That is, as some brigades leave and others come in there is a temporary overlap.

The escalation ordered in January essentially added some 30,000 troops to the pre-buildup figure of around 130,000.

Bush himself suggested that modest troop cuts may be possible if military successes continue, but he gave no timeline or specific numbers. Speaking to reporters Wednesday during his attendance at the APEC summit in Australia, he restated his view that decisions about troop levels should be based on recommendations from military commanders.

Reducing troops before spring runs the risk, Petraeus and other commanders have said.
The five brigades sent as part of the buildup arrived from January to June, and the first will complete its 15-month tour in April.

More advice to comePetraeus is one of many who are advising Bush on Iraq. The Joint Chiefs of Staff met with Bush last week and conveyed its concern that the troop buildup is increasing strain on the forces, with the Army in particular hoping for an end to the surge because of the long and repeated combat tours it has caused.

Bush met privately at the Pentagon with the service chiefs and Defense Secretary Robert Gates in preparation for decisions about how long to sustain the buildup, whether to change course this fall and how to restore vibrance to the heavily stressed Army and Marine Corps.
The Petraeus appearance before Congress will follow the release of a host of grim assessments of conditions in Iraq over the past several weeks — providing fresh impetus for Democrats demanding troop withdrawals.

An independent panel led by retired Marine Gen. James Jones recommended that the Iraqis assume more control of their nation's security and that U.S. forces, seen as an occupying and permanent force, should step back. Its report, presented to Congress on Thursday, contended that "significant reductions, consolidations and realignments would appear to be possible and prudent."

The Jones panel also found that Iraq's security forces would be unable to take control in the next 12 months to 18 months and recommended that its national police force be scrapped and entirely rebuilt because of corruption and sectarianism.

The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, reported Tuesday that Iraq has failed to meet 11 of its 18 political and security goals. The agency's head, U.S. Comptroller David Walker, was scheduled to appear Friday before the Senate Armed Services Committee to discuss the report.

Congress Works Across Aisles on Troop Withdrawal

Cherry Pick Other NPR Stories on Iraq
All Things Considered, September 7, 2007 ·

Gen. David Petraeus is scheduled to testify before Congress on Monday about the status of the war in Iraq, but Congress is already talking about what will happen after that testimony.

CLICK HERE FOR A GUIDE THE IRAQ REPORTS

Democrats have been unable to pass legislation mandating a troop withdrawal. Now some of them are talking with Republicans about other steps in an effort to reach a deal that could lead to a reduction in U.S. forces. Other Democrats are wary.

Since taking control of Congress in January, Democrats have tried repeatedly to force President Bush to pull U.S. troops from Iraq, without success. Mr. Bush vetoed one war-funding bill with a withdrawal timeline attached. Senate Democrats have failed to get the 60 votes needed to break GOP filibusters on other bills, even trying an all-night session to pressure Republicans.

Now Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is trying a new approach: He wants to find common ground.

"We're working on consensus," Reid said. "We're willing to go halfway with [Republicans] as long as everyone understands that we're not going to do something that's cosmetic in nature."

Some Republicans, like presidential candidate John McCain, say Reid is talking with Republicans only because Democrats are losing the war of public opinion.

"They've lost the momentum," McCain said. "Otherwise, they wouldn't want to sit down with Republicans and negotiate a different resolution."

A number of proposals in the Senate could possibly win the magic 60 votes. The most buzz centers on a measure co-sponsored by democratic Sens. Carl Levin of Michigan and Jack Reed of Rhode Island. It calls for an unspecified but — in Levin's words — "substantial" drawdown of U.S. forces to begin this year, with a nonbinding goal of having most troops out by spring.

Reed says the Iraqi government has failed to take advantage of U.S. military efforts and that it is now time to act in the best interest of the United States.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), a moderate who is facing a tough re-election fight next year, says the Levin-Reed proposal is appealing.

"I draw a distinction between a timeline and a deadline," Collins said. "I am for a timeline for changing our mission. … What I've opposed is a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, a hard deadline that is unrelated to what is happening on the ground."

There is a similar movement toward the middle in the House, where a bipartisan group of 11 lawmakers sent a letter to their leaders asking that they "put an end to the political infighting and come up with a bipartisan approach to ending the war." One of the signers was Pennsylvania Republican Phil English.

"More and more rank-and-file members are exasperated by the level of partisanship," English said. "I think more and more members want to see forward movement, want to be in a position to say in their districts that they have reached out and they've pulled people together, that there is some common ground."

But some anti-war Democrats are dubious of that approach. Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) says he is all for reaching across the aisle, as long as it's not just for show.

"I'm not interested in providing cover to people who really don't want to take the responsibility to end this war," McGovern said. "I want something that is real, something that has some teeth in it, something that will bring this war to an end."

Congress will have several opportunities to debate the war in the coming weeks as it acts on a defense authorization bill, and a separate supplemental measure to pay for the war in Iraq.


Click Here to Listent to NPR's Story: Congress Works Across Aisles on Troop Withdrawal

Related NPR Stories

Sep. 7, 2007 Iraqi Watchdog Official Alleges High-Level Corruption
Sep. 7, 2007 Gen. Petraeus to Keep Iraq Troop Levels Till Spring
Sep. 7, 2007 U.S. Mission in Iraq Likely to Change
Sep. 7, 2007 Report on Iraq's National Police Shows Inefficiency
Sep. 7, 2007 Iraq Strategy Shifts as Warring Factions Don't Unite
Sep. 7, 2007 Bill Clinton Urges 'Substantial Drawdown' in Iraq
Sep. 7, 2007 Petraeus to Back Small Troop Reduction in Iraq
Sep. 7, 2007 Report on Iraq's National Police Shows Inefficiency
Sep. 6, 2007 Statistics the Weapon of Choice in Surge Debate
Sep. 6, 2007 Jones Report Calls for Reducing U.S. Troops in Iraq

Republicans: Iraq withdrawals 'off the table'

Hardened stance follows speculation of cooperation with Democrats

WASHINGTON - Leading Republicans in Congress on Thursday declared that troop withdrawal legislation should be scrapped because the United States has made significant progress in the Iraq war, just as Democrats were resuming efforts to bring soldiers home.

"It should be off the table," House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio said of Democratic attempts to pass legislation to force President George W. Bush to withdraw some of the 168,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and wind down the combat mission there.

The Republican hardened stance followed months of speculation that September could usher in cooperation with Democrats on trying to craft a new Iraq policy. In recent months a small but growing number of Republicans have said it is time to develop a bipartisan strategy to bring troops home.

Democrats pointed to a new report that said the Iraqi army was improving to bolster arguments for starting to withdraw U.S. forces.

Retired Marine Gen. James Jones, who headed the commission that studied Iraqi Security Forces told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the United States might be able to "adjust" the number of its forces in Iraq as early as next year, as the Iraqi army continues to improve.

The Iraqi army would be unable to take charge of the country's security for 12 to 18 months, and the national police should be scrapped and a new force set up to replace it, said the report by the Jones commission. Interactive

Fight for Iraq

Learn more about the ethnic, religious and political powerplays in this virtual tour led by NBC’s Richard Engel.

Meanwhile the United States should reconsider its "footprint" in Iraq, and "significant reductions" in U.S. forces were possible, the report said.

Many military analysts think the United States will have no choice but to remove some troops next year to give combat soldiers a rest. Jones suggested U.S. forces that remain take on more missions enforcing border security with Syria and Iran.

'Cut the cords of dependence'

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, said Jones' report showed "it is indeed long overdue that we cut the cords of dependence and push the Iraqis to take more responsibility and ownership by giving them the lead in counterinsurgency operations."

Levin is working on a bill to start a withdrawal of troops this year but with no firm date for completing the pullout.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said Democrats would renew their push for changing the direction of the Iraq war. In a conciliatory move, he did not say Democrats would necessarily insist on specific timetables for withdrawing troops as they did earlier this year.

But Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky told reporters of "significant progress in Iraq," and Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said the 4-1/2-year war effort was "finally paying dividends."

"We're at a crossroads. Pour it on. Seize the moment ... take withdrawal off the table," said Graham, who last month served in Iraq as a colonel in the U.S. Air Force reserves.

Next week Congress will hear from U.S. Iraq commander Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker. Both are expected to report significant military progress in Baghdad since the start of a troop surge last January.

Click for related content

Petraeus open to pullout of one brigade
Record high troop level in Iraq
Bush unlikely to cut Iraq troop levels significantly

Republicans are hoping their testimony blunts a more pessimistic assessment delivered to Congress this week by the congressional investigative agency. It said the Iraqi government had failed to meet 11 out of 18 political and military goals.

Reid alluded to "things we can do on a bipartisan basis" to get the 60 votes needed in the Senate to avoid procedural roadblocks to legislation. But Reid also warned that any bill "has to be meaningful and force the president to do something ... to change course" in Iraq.

Any legislation urging troop withdrawals without timetables could lose the support of some Democrats.

"If we take away deadlines, benchmarks, timelines, what is the urgency that will move them (the Iraqi government) to act?" asked Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, a leading Democratic presidential candidate.

Text of Gen. Petraeus’ letter to U.S. forces

Top commander in Iraq hails momentum, says security progress uneven

Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, Coast Guardsmen, and Civilians of Multi-National Force-Iraq:

We are now over two-and-a-half months into the surge of offensive operations made possible by the surge of forces, and I want to share with you my view of how I think we're doing. This letter is a bit longer than previous ones, since I feel you deserve a detailed description of what I believe we have — and have not — accomplished, as Ambassador Crocker and I finalize the assessment we will provide shortly to Congress.

Up front, my sense is that we have achieved tactical momentum and wrested the initiative from our enemies in a number of areas of Iraq. The result has been progress in the security arena, although it has, as you know, been uneven. Additionally, as you all appreciate very well, innumerable tasks remain and much hard work lies ahead. We are, in short, a long way from the goal line, but we do have the ball and we are driving down the field.

We face a situation that is exceedingly complex. Al Qaeda, associated insurgent groups, and militia extremists, some supported by Iran, continue to carry out attacks on us, our Iraqi partners, and the Iraqi civilians we seek to secure. We have to contend with the relentless pace of operations, the crushing heat, and the emotions that we all experience during long deployments and tough combat. And we operate against a backdrop of limited Iraqi governmental capacity, institutions trying to rebuild, and various forms of corruption. All of this takes place in a climate of distrust and fear that stems from the sectarian violence that did so much damage to the fabric of Iraqi society in 2006 and into 2007, not to mention the decades of repression under Saddam's brutal regime. Tragically, sectarian violence continues to cause death and displacement in Baghdad and elsewhere, albeit at considerably reduced levels of 8 months ago, due, in large part, to your hard work and sacrifice together with our Iraqi counterparts.


In spite of these challenges, our operations — particularly the offensive operations we have conducted since mid-June — have helped produce progress in many areas on the ground. In fact, the number of attacks across the country has declined in 8 of the past 11 weeks, reaching during the last week in August a level not seen since June 2006. This trend is not just a result of greater numbers of Coalition and Iraqi Security Forces; it also reflects your determination, courage, and skill in conducting counterinsurgency operations. By taking the fight to the enemy, you have killed or captured dozens of leaders and thousands of members of Al Qaeda-Iraq and extremist militia elements, you have taken many of Al Qaeda's former sanctuaries away from them, and you have dismantled a number of their car bomb and improvised explosive device networks. By living among the population with our Iraqi partners, you have been holding the areas you have cleared. By helping Iraqis reestablish basic services and local governance, you have helped exploit the security gains. And by partnering closely with Iraqi Security Forces, you have been strengthening Iraqi elements that will one day have sole responsibility for protecting their population. Indeed, while Iraqi forces clearly remain a work in progress, Iraqi soldiers and police are very much in the fight, and they continue to sustain losses that are two to three times our losses.

We are also building momentum in an emerging area of considerable importance — local reconciliation. Local Iraqi leaders are coming forward, opposing extremists, and establishing provisional units of neighborhood security volunteers. With growing Government of Iraq support, these volunteers are being integrated into legitimate security institutions to help improve local security. While this concept is playing out differently in various areas across Iraq, it is grounded in a desire shared by increasing numbers of Iraqis — to oppose extremist elements and their ideologies. This is very significant because, as many of you know first-hand, extremists cannot survive without the support of the population. The popular rejection of Al Qaeda and its ideology has, for example, helped transform Anbar Province this year from one of the most dangerous areas of Iraq to one of the safest. The popular rejection of extremists has helped Coalition and Iraqi Forces take away other areas from Al Qaeda as well, and we are seeing a spread of this sentiment in an ever-increasing number of Sunni areas. Now, in fact, we are also seeing a desire to reject extremists emerge in many Shi'a areas.

The progress has not, to be sure, been uniform across Baghdad or across Iraq. Accomplishments in some areas — for example, in Ramadi and in Anbar Province — have been greater than any of us might have predicted six months ago. The achievements in some other areas _ for example, in some particularly challenging Baghdad neighborhoods and in reducing overall civilian casualties, especially those caused by periodic, barbaric Al Qaeda bombings _ have not been as dramatic. However, the overall trajectory has been encouraging, especially when compared to the situation at the height of the sectarian violence in late 2006 and early 2007.

Many of us had hoped this summer would be a time of tangible political progress at the national level as well. One of the justifications for the surge, after all, was that it would help create the space for Iraqi leaders to tackle the tough questions and agree on key pieces of "national reconciliation" legislation. It has not worked out as we had hoped. All participants, Iraqi and coalition alike, are dissatisfied by the halting progress on major legislative initiatives such as the oil framework law, revenue sharing, and de-ba'athification reform. At the same time, however, our appreciation of what this legislation represents for Iraqi leaders has grown. These laws are truly fundamental in nature and will help determine how Iraqis will share power and resources in the new Iraq. While much work remains to be done before these critical issues are resolved, the seriousness with which Iraqi leaders came together at their summit in late August has given hope that they are up to the task before them, even if it is clearly taking more time than we initially expected.


In the coming months, our coalition's countries and all Iraqis will continue to depend on each of you and on our Iraqi counterparts to keep the pressure on the extremists, to help improve security and strengthen the rule of law for all Iraqis, to work with the Government of Iraq to integrate local volunteers into local security and national institutions, to assist with the restoration and improvement of basic services, and to continue the development of conditions that foster reconciliation. For our part, Ambassador Crocker and I will continue to do everything in our power to help the Prime Minister and the Government of Iraq achieve the meaningful results that will ensure that your sacrifices and those of your comrades help produce sustainable security for Iraq over the long term. A stable and secure Iraq that denies extremists a safe haven and has a government that is representative of and responsive to all Iraqis helps protect the vital interests of our coalition countries. A stable and secure Iraq will also benefit Iraq's citizens and Iraq's neighbors alike, bringing calm to a region full of challenges and employing Iraq's human capital and natural resource blessings for the benefit of all.

As I noted at the outset of this letter, over the next few days, Ambassador Crocker and I will share with the U.S. Congress and the American people our assessment of the situation in Iraq. I will also describe the recommendations I have provided to my chain of command. I will go before Congress conscious of the strain on our forces, the sacrifices that you and your families are making, the gains we have made in Iraq, the challenges that remain, and the importance of building on what we and our Iraqi counterparts have fought so hard to achieve.

Thanks once again for what each of you continues to do. Our Nations have asked much of you and your families. It remains the greatest of honors to serve with you.

Sincerely,

David H. Petraeus
General, US Army Commanding

SHIFT Happens!

Featured Multi-Media Piece 9/09/2007

This is a piece from Teachertube.com--an educator version of You Tube

I watched this last week as I was exploring Teacher Tube. This piece might be valuable with your colleagues, in your classrooms or with parent groups. The information is disarming and should prompt some serious thoughts with those that view it.

Lawmakers spar over panel’s call for Iraq shift

Assessment: U.S.’s sprawling presence gives impression of occupying force

WASHINGTON - U.S. forces in Iraq should be reduced significantly, according to a new study on Iraq’s security forces that inflamed debate in Congress on how quickly that can happen without hurling the country into chaos.

The report, authored by a 20-member panel comprised mostly of retired senior military and police officers, said the massive deployment of U.S. forces and sprawl of U.S.-run facilities in and around Baghdad has given Iraqis the impression that Americans are an occupying, permanent force.

Accordingly, the panel said the Iraqis should assume more control of its security and U.S. forces should step back, emboldening Democrats who want troop withdrawals to start this fall.

“Significant reductions, consolidations and realignments would appear to be possible and prudent,” wrote the group, led by retired Gen. James Jones, a former Marine Corps commandant.

The recommendation echoed previous independent assessments on the war, including the high-profile Iraq Study Group that said the combat mission could be transferred to the Iraqis by early 2008. But the burning question, left mostly unanswered by the panel, was precisely when Iraqi security units could take control and U.S. troops could leave.

Iraq not ready to control security

The study concluded only that the Iraqis could not assume control of the country without U.S. help in the next 12 to 18 months.

“We need to start transitioning to an Iraqi lead,” no matter the timeframe, said retired Army Gen. George Joulwan, a panel member and former NATO commander in Europe.


Click for related content
U.S., Iraqis battle suspected Shiite militiamen
Iraq violence kills eight U.S. troops, 44 civilians

“I think the signs are there to do that, and we have to reduce that dependency,” he added in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The study sparked ongoing debate among committee members on whether to pass legislation
ordering troops home.

U.S. political wranglingDemocrats want a firm deadline to pressure Iraqi leaders into taking more control. Most Republicans have so far balked at the suggestion, saying military commanders should make the decision.

“There’s a lot of people who are armchair generals who reside here in the air-conditioned comfort of Capitol Hill, who somehow do not trust the judgment of some of the finest leaders that our nation has produced,” said Sen. John McCain, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee and a GOP presidential hopeful.

Democrats and Sen. John Warner, R-Va., expressed skepticism that the Iraqis will reach the necessary political consensus without incentive.

“At the end of the day, we have to make judgments on whether or not we believe continuing military presence by American troops — whether they’re in Iraq for a day, a year or 10 years — will make any difference to the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people,” said Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., and another presidential hopeful.

Clinton sent a letter to President Bush on Wednesday, asking him to address 20 questions in his upcoming assessment on Iraq, including why the troop buildup has not prompted a political settlement.

A precondition to lowering violence

The panel’s finding that the U.S. should reduce its visibility in Iraq is not necessarily at odds with the Bush administration. President Bush has long said the combat mission must be transferred to the Iraqis as soon as they can take over and security conditions improve.

But the study suggests that lowering the profile of U.S. forces is a precondition to improving security conditions. It also says helpful “adjustments” could begin in early 2008.

The Pentagon said Thursday that U.S. troop levels — currently at 168,000 — are expected to hit a record high of 172,000 in the coming weeks.

When asked by McCain whether he would support a deadline for troop withdrawals, Jones said he would not.

“I think deadlines can work against us,” Jones said. “I think a deadline of this magnitude would be against our national interest.”

Jones’ report, released Thursday, concluded that Iraqi security forces would be unable to take control of their country in the next 18 months. If Iraqi troops were given more of a lead, as envisioned by the panel, it is expected that U.S. troops would still play a substantial role by providing logistics and other support, as well as continued training.

Study: Scrap national police force

Overall, the study found the Iraqi military, in particular its Army, shows the most promise of becoming a viable, independent security force with time. It predicted an adequate logistics system to support these ground forces is at least two years away.

“They are gaining size and strength, and will increasingly be capable of assuming greater responsibility for Iraq’s security,” the report says of military units, adding that special forces in particular are “highly capable and extremely effective.”

Worse off is the Iraqi police force. It describes them as fragile, ill-equipped and infiltrated by militia forces. And they are led by the Ministry of Interior, which is “a ministry in name only” that is “widely regarded as being dysfunctional and sectarian, and suffers from ineffective leadership.”

Jones’ panel recommended scrapping Baghdad’s national police force and starting over.

The U.S. has spent $19.2 billion developing Iraq’s forces and plans to spend another $5.5 billion next year. According to Jones’ study, the Iraqi military comprises more than 152,000 service members operating under the Ministry of Defense, while the Ministry of Interior oversees some 194,000 civilian security personnel, including police and border control.

The review is one of several studies Congress commissioned in May, when it agreed to fund the war for several more months but demanded that the Bush administration and outside groups assess U.S. progress in the war.

ACLU Applauds House Judiciary Action to Restore Habeas Corpus

Washington, DC – The American Civil Liberties Union is encouraged to see the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties is meeting to mark up a vital bill to restore due process rights to detainees. H.R. 2826, introduced by Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO) of the Armed Services Committee, will restore habeas corpus rights to those being detained by the United States government at the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility.

The following can be attributed to Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel for the ACLU Washington Legislative Office:

“Congress must do the right thing and restore habeas rights. We live in a country that is governed by laws and a Constitution. This means not keeping people in detention camps for years without any charges against them, or any legal process for determining their future. The Bush Administration has not heeded the wisdom of our nation’s founding fathers who enshrined the idea of basic due process protections in the Constitution. We hope that today’s action shows that the House leadership will start to focus on a major reason why they were put in power—to restore constitutional checks and balances and make sure that no president will ever be a king or queen.”

For more information on the ACLU’s efforts to restore the constitution please visit:http://www.findhabeas.com%20/ and http://www.aclu.org/mca/

Help End the US War and Occupation Iraq

Tell Congress Again to End this War in Iraq and Tell Them that Iran is Off-Limits

Today, Sept. 4th, Congress reconvenes after a month-long recess. As always, there will be many important issues our representatives in Washington must take up in the days and weeks ahead, but is there really anything more pressing than the urgent need to take decisive action to end the U.S. war and occupation in Iraq? Almost 10 months ago, voters declared their widespread opposition to the war in the midterm Congressional elections. But Congress has yet to take up the mandate they were sent to Washington with.

This month will be pivotal in determining the future of the war in Iraq.

Will Congress use its power of the purse to force an end to the war and the withdrawal of all U.S. troops and contractors, or will the Bush administration get the additional $190+ billion it wants to continue this deadly and disastrous occupation into the unforeseeable future?Because of the importance of these next few months, many actions are being organized. They take different forms, but all share the same goal: ending the war and bringing all of the U.S. troops home now! We call your attention to three of these efforts in particular, initiated and/or endorsed by United for Peace and Justice. We believe these activities will help strengthen our movement and keep the heat on Washington.

Thursday, Sept. 7: National Congressional Call-In!

Join the nationwide effort to flood the offices of your members of Congress with calls demanding an end to the U.S. war in Iraq and no new war with Iran. Let's make it clear: Congress must stand up to the Bush war machine! Call your representative and both of your senators at 202-224-3121, and ask to be connected to their offices. Tell them: I want you to act now to end the war and occupation of Iraq and to prevent a war with Iran. The Congress has the constitutional right and a moral responsibility to use the power of the purse to withdraw all U.S. soldiers and contractors from Iraq on a rapid and binding schedule. Congress must act to prevent a catastrophic war with Iran. On August 28, President Bush announced that he has authorized U.S. forces in Iraq to confront Iran militarily -- please speak out against and oppose this policy! (Click here to find out who represents you in Congress.)

Sept. 14-21: Declaration of Peace/Days of Decision - a week of nationwide coordinated local actionsDeclare Peace! by taking nonviolent action, including nonviolent civil disobedience or other forms of creative, peaceful witness at congressional offices or other relevant sites anytime from Friday, September 14, through Friday, September 21, the International Day of Peace. Declaration of Peace organizers ask that your local actions include at least these two components: (1) a public declaration such as an exhibit, a presentation to a member of Congress or his or her staff, or an event that includes a public signing of the Comprehensive Peace Plan for Iraq, and (2) nonviolent actions to dramatically highlight the reality of the war, such as a public die-in or other forms of creative, peaceful protest and action. To find out more, visit: http://www.declarationofpeace.org/

Friday, Sept. 21: Iraq MoratoriumNational in scope, the Iraq Moratorium is a campaign that takes place at the most local level possible. The idea is simple: Antiwar forces are coming together in their own areas to plan local activities that are easy for the largest numbers of people to get involved in, especially people who have never done anything publicly to oppose the war. On the 3rd Friday of every month, beginning on Sept. 21, these activities will take place: People from all walks of life will break with their daily routine to take some concrete step to demand an end to the war and the return home of the troops. This can be as simple as wearing black ribbons and armbands in mourning for all who have died in this senseless catastrophe. More information is available at http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=OSZgzi2bMQvMknCVBkfehVI3da8C9Ps2, and in Spanish at http://www.moratorioirak.org/.

As you can see from all of these activities, pressure is mounting and it's not going to stop once September is over. On October 27, 10 massive demonstrations initiated by United for Peace and Justice will be held in cities around the country. This national day of action to end the war will show that opposition to the war is strong, growing and stepping up to take action nationwide. Visit http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=diXNxsWN3OrShUcLumMTelI3da8C9Ps2 in the coming days for more updates and information on how to get involved in the demonstration in your region.

Check the UFPJ events calendar for many other nationally coordinated as well as regional and local actions. Please post any activity you are planning or know about on the calendar so others can find it and join you.

One Last Note -- Preventing the Next WarThrough it all, we need to keep up the pressure to prevent an attack on Iran. For analysis, petitions, and other resources, click here.

Iowa should lead in learning, not follow the 'standard' path

Iowa Educators Offer Opinions on State Standards, NCLB & Integrity in Education

By VICKY GOLDSMITH, DAVE O'CONNOR and ALAN YOUNG
SPECIAL TO THE DES MOINES REGISTER--September 2, 2007

VICKI GOLDSMITH, who was an English teacher at Roosevelt High School before her retirement, was the 2005 Iowa Teacher of the Year.

DAVE O'CONNOR is a social-studies teacher at Merrill Middle School.

ALAN YOUNG is a social-studies teacher and president of the Des Moines Education Association.

At a time when other states are reeling from educational standardization, powerful forces in Iowa, offering little credible research to support their case, are pushing for it.

Operating from flawed premises about the very purpose of public education and what constitutes quality teaching and learning, they promote misguided policies that won't help students learn. State-mandated content standards, justified as necessary to make our children "more competitive in the global marketplace," are their reform de jour.

Almost everywhere standards have been implemented, high-stakes testing has quickly followed as an enforcement mechanism for the standards. Education writer Alfie Kohn has referred to the two as "inextricably connected." We believe Iowans deserve better than a "standard" education.
Equating learning with what is easily measured on these cheap-to-grade tests that have changed little since the 1950s is a flawed and counterproductive framework. Tests don't measure imagination, curiosity, compassion, creativity, ethical choices, problem-solving ability or the wholeness of our lives, yet test scores have somehow become equated with student achievement despite the warnings of the test makers themselves and assessment experts such as Linda McNeil of Rice University, who said that "measurable outcomes may be the least significant results of learning."

When we focus on standards and testing to achieve the goal of a more competitive work force, we are pursuing not only the wrong means but also the wrong end. This approach inevitably narrows the curriculum only to what is tested while discouraging critical and creative thought - replacing it with a lesser corporate purpose that sees our children as mere cogs in the job machinery of the global economy.

The problem begins at the national level, where the devastating effect of the current version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the so-called "No Child Left Behind" legislation, cannot be understated. The law has pushed schools across the nation, and in Iowa, to implement narrow, test-prep curricula, all in the name of increased standardized test scores. State standards and tests serve as the conduit and choke point for coercing compliance with this regressive law.

Some Iowa students take 15 to 20 standardized tests per year, all leading to the granddaddy of them all - the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills, now used by the Iowa Department of Education to measure a school's "adequate yearly progress" under the No Child Left Behind law. This has occurred despite the warnings of assessment experts such as W. James Popham, who said using tests such as the ITBS or the ACT to gauge educational quality "is like measuring temperature with a tablespoon."

Standardization and high stakes testing are especially harmful for our youngest students. Andrew Hargreaves, a professor of education at Boston College, fears that this focus will "suck the soul and spirit out of ... children's early school experiences." That seems to be the case in parts of North Carolina, where a standardized test helps determine promotion in the elementary grades. The director of testing and accountability in the Rockingham, N.C., school district reported that "... administrators have to discard as many as 20 test booklets on exam days because children vomit on them. Kids are throwing up in the middle of the tests... They cry. They have to be removed. The stress is so much on the test that they can't handle it."

State content standards will push Iowa down North Carolina's path. Is this the direction we want to travel? We think not, because this approach drastically reduces the essential space to learn and develop the critical, creative, communicative and caring capacities and dispositions needed in a democratic society - the very capacities essential to a thriving, 21st-century economy.

Yong Zhao, of the U.S.-China Center for Research on Educational Excellence at Michigan State University, wrote: "Any effort to boost excellence in math and science by focusing on standardized test scores ... and centralized curriculum ... risks squelching U.S. creativity and innovation - the very things that our competitors in Asia are trying to copy in their own educational reforms."

Why? Acclaimed educational researcher Gerald Bracey says it's because "spending classroom time preparing for a standardized test is the opposite of asking questions or being innovative." Robert Sternberg, dean of the School of Arts and Sciences at Tufts University believes "that our 'massive' use of standardized tests 'is one of the most effective ... vehicles this country has created for suppressing creativity.'"

Preferring to rely upon the strong tradition of local control that made Iowa the nation's leader in public education, we have rightly resisted both national and state-controlled curriculum. We must continue to resist because we know that local school boards, parents and teachers - those closest to the children - are the best hope for fulfilling Thomas Jefferson's vision of "the general diffusion of knowledge" and citizenship skills necessary for the survival of our democracy. We also know that with reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act on the horizon, the current version of No Child Left Behind is not inevitable. There is a good chance that its "standard" approach to reform may soon give way to far better, research-based ways to educate the whole child.

By unshackling and empowering our localities and teachers in particular - those who know our children best - we can restore creativity, innovation, critical thinking and breadth to the curriculum. When it comes to state-controlled curriculum, why should Iowa be the last to follow when we can be the first to lead the nation down a far better path?

Midwest Peace and Justice Statistics

OUR WEEKLY HIT LIST--BAR CHART

Starting in week four through week 36 of the year we logged lost of great action and hits during the year. We've also seem some periods of inactivity. We attribute this with the activity of blogging and Midwest Peace and Justice Hotlines. Our week was Week 9 with 281 page loads, 177 unique visitors, 91 first time visitors and 26 returning visitors. Click on the graph to see it larger.

OUR WEEKLY HIT LIST--AREA GRAPH

Other big weeks for us include Week 7 with 266 page loads; Week 5 with 262 page loads; Week 25 with 248 page loads; Week 34 with 171 page loads. Click on graph to see it larger.

OUR MONTHLY HIT LIST--BAR GRAPH

We've had some worderful months. Our top month occured in February. We had 861 page loads, 241 unique visitors and 80 returning visitors. This was followed by the month of June with 491 page loads, 187 unique visitors and 50 returnting visitors.

MONTHLY HIT LIST--AREA CHARTS


This was followed by March. We had 398 page loads, 198 unique visitors and 45 returning visitors. This was followed by the month of August with 340 page loads, 310 unique visitors and 65 returnting visitors. Click on the graph to see it larger.

OUR QUARTERLY HIT LIST--BAR GRAPH


Quarter one did significantly better than quarter two for our blog. We had 1,319 page loads, 468 unique visitors and 135 returning visitors. This showed a correction in the second quater with 614 page loads, 269 unique visitors, 65 returning visitors. Click on the graph to see it larger.

OUR QUARTERLY HIT LIST--BAR GRAPH

Only a little over a week into the third quarter, we are on schedule to out peforming both of our previous quarters. Hopefull our Midwest Peace and Justice Hotline has helped us with this. Click on the graph to see it larger.


email your blog master at neapeaceandjustice.midwest@cox.net for more information on our blog and those who visit it.