Follow us on social


Why Dems should support Rep. Greene's more narrow cluster weapons ban

Despite late night rules committee switch, the need to prevent sending these weapons to Ukraine prevails over politics.

Analysis | Washington Politics

UPDATE 7/14: The vote on the cluster munitions amendment, which would have prevented any of the weapons from being sent to Ukraine, was defeated late Thursday night by a vote of 147-276 — with 49 Democrats joining 98 Republicans in favor of the measure.

Late in the evening of July 12, while the rest of Washington was sound asleep, Congress was hard at work finalizing amendments to the FY 2024 National Defense Authorization Act. Sadly, while the late night for Congress was atypical, the work of undermining good legislation and, thereby the will of the American people, was not. 

The House Rules Committee used the cloak of the evening to silently remove an amendment to the NDAA by Reps. Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.) and Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), which would have banned the U.S. from exporting cluster munitions to any country across the globe.

Why? Quite simply, it appeared that the amendment had too much support, as the final tally of co-sponsors reached 12, including two Republicans, mainly in reaction to last week's announcement that the Biden administration is providing cluster munitions to Ukraine — marking the first time the U.S. has transferred this highly controversial weapon since Congress imposed an export ban in 2009.

Replacing Rep. Jacobs’ amendment is a similar, yet more narrow amendment from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), which only bans the export of cluster munitions to Ukraine.

Despite this bait and switch, and despite our support for banning all transfers, the Quincy Institute is encouraging members to support Rep. Greene’s amendment co-sponsored by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.).

While the global ban would be ideal, the Greene amendment marks an essential step in curtailing a seemingly endless flow of escalatory weapons to Ukraine — a notion that seems to be gaining bipartisan steam on the Hill.

Over the last week, Democratic lawmakers and allied outside groups have joined Republicans in the House to harshly criticize the Biden administration’s decision to send these cluster munitions to Ukraine. This marked a fairly dramatic shift in how Democrats have been talking about the war until now. Congress should continue to show unity on this issue for the following reasons: 

1.) Cluster submunitions are indiscriminate weapons that cause disproportionate harm to civilians in war zones. That’s why 123 countries, including 23 NATO members, are party to the Convention on Cluster Munitions banning these weapons’ use, production, transfer, and stockpiling. 

2.) Proceeding with this transfer will cost the U.S. the moral high ground in the eyes of the world. Further, this high cost to the U.S. reputation will be done without the Biden administration having defined our objective in Ukraine. 

3.) The Biden administration’s reversal on cluster munitions is a mistake that civilians in Ukraine will pay for — with life and limb — for years to come.

4.) Additionally, the tactical utility of these weapons is — at best — overstated, and the DoD’s rosy estimates of the low “dud rates” of U.S. DPICM transfers will inevitably prove wrong, as they have before. 

5.) The idea that this war is exceptional and warrants exceptional weapons is a slippery slope, as is the argument that they “need” this weapon to counter a dug-in Russian force. These same arguments could be made for providing, chemical and biological weapons, and nuclear weapons.

It’s wrong when Russia uses these weapons, it’s wrong when Ukraine uses them, and it’s wrong when the United States uses them. However, transferring these immoral and indiscriminate munitions to Ukraine, a country with a history of avoiding accountability, risks opening a Pandora’s box that no one knows if we can close.

Editor's note: this story has been updated to reflect the 2009 congressional export ban on cluster munitions.

(wikimedia commons)
Analysis | Washington Politics
The Ukraine War at two years: By the numbers

KYIV, UKRAINE - July 12, 2023: Destroyed and burned Russian military tanks and parts of equipment are exhibited at the Mykhailivska square in Kyiv city centre. (Oleksandr Popenko/Shutterstock)

The Ukraine War at two years: By the numbers


Two years ago on Feb. 24, 2022, the world watched as Russian tanks rolled into the outskirts of Kyiv and missiles struck the capital city.

Contrary to initial predictions, Kyiv never fell, but the country today remains embroiled in conflict. The front line holds in the southeastern region of the country, with contested areas largely focused on the Russian-speaking Donbas and port cities around the Black Sea.

keep readingShow less
Navalny's death shouldn't close off talks with Putin

A woman lays flowers at the monument to the victims of political repressions following the death of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny, in Moscow, Russia February 16, 2024. REUTERS/Stringer

Navalny's death shouldn't close off talks with Putin


President Biden was entirely correct in the first part of his judgment on the death of Alexei Navalny: “Putin is responsible, whether he ordered it, or he is responsible for the circumstances he put that man in.” Even if Navalny eventually died of “natural causes,” his previous poisoning, and the circumstances of his imprisonment, must obviously be considered as critical factors in his death.

For his tremendous courage in returning to Russia after his medical treatment in the West — knowing well the dangers that he faced — the memory of Navalny should be held in great honor. He joins the immense list of Russians who have died for their beliefs at the hands of the state. Public expressions of anger and disgust at the manner of his death are justified and correct.

keep readingShow less
Big US investors prop up the nuclear weapons industry

ProStockStudio via

Big US investors prop up the nuclear weapons industry

Military Industrial Complex

Nuclear weapons aren’t just a threat to human survival, they’re a multi-billion-dollar business supported by some of the biggest institutional investors in the U.S. according to new data released today by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) and PAX, the largest peace organization in the Netherlands.

For the third year in a row, globally, the number of investors in nuclear weapons producers has fallen but the overall amount invested in these companies has increased, largely thanks to some of the biggest investment banks and funds in the U.S.

keep readingShow less

Israel-Gaza Crisis