HOPE--& HELP--IS ON THE WAY FOR THE WAR-WEARY
"All these extra troops start coming into Baghdad, you'll start reducing the anti-American violence. That way, it will show quick results for the Bush administration. And that way, 'Hey, we won the war, let's get out of here,'" said Pfc. Daniel Gomez, 21, a medic. But he said of the forces opposing the Americans: "They're like the Viet Cong, they can wait it out. We're not going to be here forever, and they know that. And then we're gone, and it's all theirs."
--"U.S. Unit Walks 'A Fine Line' in Iraqi Capital," Joshua Partlow, Washington Post, February 6, 2007
"Once more raids start happening, they'll (insurgents) melt away," said Sgt. 1st Class Herbert Gill, 29, of Pulaski, Tenn, who serves in the 1st Infantry Division in east Baghdad. "And then two or three months later, when we leave and say it was a success, they'll come back."
Soldiers interviewed across east Baghdad, home to more than half the city's 8 million people, said the violence is so out of control that while a surge of 21,500 more American troops may momentarily suppress it, the notion that U.S. forces can bring lasting security to Baghdad is misguided.
…"We can go get into a firefight and empty out ammo, but it doesn't accomplish much," said Pvt. 1st Class Zach Clouser, 19, of York, PA. "This isn't our war--we're just in the middle."
Almost every foot soldier interviewed during a week of patrols on the streets and alleys of east Baghdad said that Bush's plan would halt the bloodshed only temporarily. The soldiers cited a variety of reasons, including incompetence or corruption among Iraqi troops, the complexities of Iraq's sectarian violence and the lack of Iraqi public support, a cornerstone of counterinsurgency warfare.
"They can keep sending more and more troops over here, but until the people here start working with us, it's not going to change," said Sgt. Chance Oswalt, 22, of Tulsa, OK.
--"Soldiers in Iraq View Troop Surge as Lost Cause," Tom Lasseter, McClatchy Newspapers, February 3, 2007
Outgoing Army chief of Staff Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker said yesterday that the increase of 17,500 Army combat troops in Iraq represents only the "tip of the iceberg" and will potentially require thousands of additional support troops and trainers, as well as equipment--further eroding the Army's readiness to respond to other world contingencies…
…He could not guarantee the combat units would receive all the translators, civil affairs soldiers and other support troops they request. "We are continuing today to get requests for forces that continue to stress us."
--"Iraq Troop Boost Erodes Readiness, General Says," Ann Scott Tyson, Washington Post, February 16, 2007
Field upon field of more than 1,000 battered M1 tanks, howitzers and other armored vehicles sit amid weeds here at the 15,000-acre Anniston Army Depot--the idle, hulking formations symbolic of an Army that is wearing out faster than it is being rebuilt.
…the depletion of major equipment such as tanks, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, and especially helicopters and armored Humvees has left many military units in the United States without adequate training gear…Many U.S. units are rated "unready" to deploy…
…Despite the work piling up, the Army's depots have been operating at about half their capacity because of a lack of funding for repairs.
--"U.S. Army Battling to Save Equipment: Gear Piles Up at Depots, Awaiting Repair," Ann Scott Tyson, Washington Post, December 5, 2006
The success of the Bush administration's new Iraq strategy depends on a series of rapid and dramatic political and economic reforms that even the plan's authors have little confidence will work.
…Several sources expressed concern that the administration…has not left itself a fall-back plan in the event of failure.
…Some officials worry that the expanded U.S. presence will repeat the mistakes of the past…undermining the goal of turning the country over to the Iraqis themselves.
"It's the same old problem as in 2003," cautioned one official. "The same impatience that if they can't do it we'll step in and do it. There is a bit of that creeping into this dialogue."
--"Doubts Run Deep on Reforms Crucial to Bush's Iraq Strategy; Even Plan's Authors Say Political, Economic Changes May Fail," Karen DeYoung, Washington Post, February 4, 2007
You know, I wasn't going to do a blog post on all the reasons why this escalation of troops into Baghdad will not work. I'd written some on it before, and I figure those of you who are interested in the subject have already heard a lot of the arguments, pro and con.
And in fact, that is not the subject matter of this post.
But I thought it was essential to point out that military officials from the top down--as well as some administration officials who actually worked on this harebrained scheme--have deep and serious doubts about it.
And in fact, we are already seeing on the ground, in the first raids and sweeps of the Stryker Brigades in Baghdad, the truth of what the troops on the ground predicted--the bad guys "melted away," prior to the beginning of the so-called "surge."
Consequently, newspapers are reporting that many Iraqi families are actually leaving their front doors open for the American troops.
And let us be perfectly clear. AMERICAN TROOPS.
Out of a force 2,500 strong, only 200 were Iraqi Army. So don't kid yourself about any KIND of joint operation.
At any rate, the people open their doors, say, Come on in, look around.
Some who live there and fear their neighbors have complained that the Iraqi Prime Minister made such a big deal, publicly, about the security sweep--giving clear warnings for at least a month in advance--that all the bad guys not only had time to get out of town, but time to pack a bag and make a nice picnic lunch to boot.
This, of course, gives a false reading of the true success of this operation.
On the one hand, here comes the American cavalry, so to speak, riding to the Baghdadi rescue--only to sweep into a town empty of bad guys. They throw their weight around and pull back.
This may give Bush/Cheney time to tout GREAT SUCCESS, just in time for the upcoming elections…but don't be so sure. Because the guy running the show in Baghdad now wants the troops to remain for THREE TO FIVE YEARS, and we just can't do it. Don't have the troops, don't have the equipment, don't have the will.
So, what then? So what do we do? Babysit a civil war for the next TWO GENERATIONS, as my Special Forces Brig. Gen. brother-in-law says it would take?
How long are our guys expected to be the SOLE SUPPORTER of Iraqi security? And when we do pull out--and we will have to pull out--what do you think will happen then? They're going to go back to doing what they do best--killing each other.
No, we come up with a different strategy altogether. Now, later on in the week, I am going to do a serious analysis of what the best minds--other than the Iraq Study Group--have suggested for successful ways we can end the American occupation of Iraq with the least amount of chaos in our wake.
But right now, I want to concentrate on how help, and hope, is on the way, and it starts with Iraq war vets.
In the United States Congress, where decorum usually holds sway, Iraq war veteran Jon Soltz and his small band of veterans are saying things many Democrats would like to express but can't.
…The veterans are selling a blunt message: The Bush strategy on Iraq is a failure, and adding troops sends more young men and women to their deaths. If you care about the military, they told lawmakers, vote against the troop increase. Legislators who are stalling debate on the matter are "cowards," they said…Soltz, chairman of the group, VoteVets.org., called President Bush and Vice President Cheney "draft dodgers."
…"We are not fighting the war on terrorism, we are in the middle of a civil war," he said, referring to Iraq. "Meanwhile, the guy who attacked this country on 9/11 is living in a cave in Afghanistan."
…Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz)…dismissed VoteVets.org as a "handful of veterans" not representative of the military.
But VoteVet.org has 20,000 members, including 1,000 veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan…The veteran's group raised just over $1.3 million in the last election cycle.
--"Veteran's Group Speaks Out on War," Lyndsey Layton and Jonathan Weisman, Washington Post, February 8, 2007
VoteVets.org is an organization originally sponsored by Gen. Wesley Clark, who spearheaded the incredible job ending the turmoil in the Balkans in the 90's and who then ran for president on the Democratic ticket. I remember vividly, back in 2002, when war-frenzy was at its peak, Gen. Clark went on national television and insisted that, within days of the attacks on the World Trade Center on 9/11, he got a phone call from administration officials wanting him to find a way to tie the tragedy with Saddam Hussein.
He refused, and went public.
They accused him of being crazy. Or at the very least, of lying.
We now know, of course, that he was not crazy; he was right. You can draw your own conclusions as to who was really lying or crazy.
So then for the mid-term elections, Gen. Clark went on a crusade of sorts to recruit as many Iraq, Afghanistan, and other vets as he could find who would be willing to run for Congress or the Senate on the Democratic ticket, with the full backing of the Democratic Party. Consequently, a dozen combat veterans ran for office and something like eight of them won. On the Republican side, they could only scrounge up one Iraq vet to run, and he lost.
VoteVets.org was the organization that tirelessly raised funds to help get these veterans in Congress, and over time, the organization grew to include thousands of veterans from all over the country who have been outraged at the manner in which this debacle of a war has been handled, and now, a rotating phalanx of them are haunting the halls of Congress--taking turns as their time allows--lobbying--HARD--for Congress to end this war.
They're pissed, and not being politicians themselves, they speak truth and they don't sugar-coat. Oh, how long I have waited to hear someone actually refer to Bush and Cheney as "draft-dodgers."
And some in Congress are listening.
Senator Richard Durbin (D-Ill)…cited news articles that said some of the new troops being sent to Iraq are going without adequate training or equipment. "Now who is standing behind the troops?" he asked.
…Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) asserted that Mr. Bush cannot simply ignore Congressional opposition to his plan to send 21,500 additional troops to Iraq.
"I would respectfully suggest to the president that he is not the sole decider," Mr. Specter said…
…Mr. Specter read the results of a survey of service members conducted by the Military Times, which found that only 35 percent of respondents approved of Mr. Bush's handling of the war. The senator suggested that in that light, the military might be "appreciative of questions being raised by Congress."
--"Senators Assert Right to Block Bush on Iraq," John O'Neil, New York Times, January 30, 2007
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) yesterday linked her support for President Bush's war-funding request to strict standards of resting, training, and equipping combat forces, a move that could curtail troop deployments and alter the course of U.S. involvement in Iraq.
…"If we are going to support our troops, we should respect what is considered reasonable for them: their training, their equipment and their time at home," Pelosi said in an interview with a small group of reporters. "What we're trying to say to the president is, you can't send people in who are not trained for urban warfare…who are not prepared to contend with an insurgency."
…Congressman John Murtha, (D-PA), the powerful chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, outlined his plan for restricting the administration's use of war funds in an Internet interview released yesterday. Under that legislation, troops would be required to have one year's rest between deployments, combat tours could no longer be extended, and the Pentagon would have to halt its "stop-loss" program, which prohibits some officers from leaving the military when their tour of duty is complete.
The idea is to neutralize political charges that the Democrats plan to starve war funding. The party would still slow the war effort by other means, Murtha said in an interview aired on the new Web site MoveCongress.org.
"What we're saying will be very hard to find fault with," he said. "We're supporting the troops. We're protecting the troops. On the other hand, we're going to stop this surge."
--"Pelosi Backs War Funds Only With Conditions; Equipment, Training for Troops Would Face New Standards," Jonathan Weisman and Shailagh Murray, Washington Post, February 16, 2007
God bless John Murtha. Conservatives like to demonize and vilify him, but by God, he is the FIRST member of either House of Congress to even BRING UP the reprehensible practice of "stop-loss"--preventing retirements when they come due, stopping people from mustering out who have served their full terms and then some, with multiple deployments, and the crusty old ex-Marine and Vietnam combat vet is the ONLY member of either chamber to even MENTION that these so-called "fresh troops" that the media keep touting aren't fresh at all--they are troops like my nephew, whose Army Stryker Brigade company is being shipped out two months in advance, and who was told, "Don't even think about coming home," which meant that they could count on having their deployment extended way beyond the usual one-year hitch.
SO WHO'S REALLY SUPPORTING THE TROOPS?
And just in case Congress continues to hide in the closet and avoid dealing with this, almost half of the states have taken up the cause to goad action from the federal government.
…State legislatures across the country, led by Democrats…are pushing forward with their own resolutions.
Resolutions have passed in chambers of three legislatures, in California, Iowa, and Vermont…Maryland…urged opposition to the increase in troops to Iraq.
Letters or resolutions are being drafted in at least 19 other states. The goal is to embarrass Congress into passing its own resolution and to provide cover for Democrats and Republicans looking for concrete evidence back home that anti-Iraq resolutions enjoy popular support.
--"Democrats in State Capitals Push Antiwar Resolutions," Jennifer Steinhauer, New York Times, February 16, 2007
This is not just some lame peace-activist protest going on here, and it's not just some Democratic political maneuvering. THIS IS A SOUNDLESS WAVE OF PROTEST, MOVING FROM STATE TO STATE, ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY, A SILENT NO.
I wrote this on Friday but was unable to post it until Sunday morning, with news programs over my shoulder discussing every single one of these points.
So, what difference does it make? I mean, REALLY? Who cares if the House and/or the Senate pass resolutions that are non-binding anyway? Can't the King--er, the president, I mean--do whatever the hell he wants to? Can't he order up any kind of war action he wants? What does he care whether Congress approves or doesn't approve?
Turns out, contrary to what he may be posturing before the cameras, he DOES care. He HAS to.
And a non-binding resolution is, after all, only the first step.
(a former) Assistant Attorney General, Walter E. Dellinger III (1996), said, "Although it does not become law, how can it possibly be considered meaningless for each house of the Congress to exercise the view in a formal recorded vote that a planned addition to U.S. forces is a mistake?...I think that the framers of the Constitution would be astonished that a president would proceed to increase U.S. involvement in a foreign war over the expressed objection of both houses of Congress."
…Dellinger said there is a "striking consensus" on both the left and the right that Congress has the power to limit the scope and duration of a war--not only through the power of the purse but through other war powers.
--"Bush, Congress Could Face Confrontations on Issue of War Powers," Michael Abramowitz, Washington Post, February 16, 2007
"I think the constitutional scheme does give Congress broad authority to terminate a war," said Bradford Berenson, a Washington lawyer who was a White House associate counsel under Bush from 2001 to 2003.
…the other experts said that while the Constitution makes the president commander-in-chief of U.S. forces, Congress' constitutional power to declare war and fund U.S. forces also gave it the power to stop what it had set in motion.
…Arlen Specter, the Republican head of the Judiciary Committee until the Democrats won control from Republicans in November, said, "The decider is a shared and joint responsibility."
--"Congress Can Stop Iraq War, Experts Tell Lawmakers," Susan Cornwell, Reuters, January 30, 2007
The bottom line is this.
George can't run around playing with his toy soldiers until after dark any more without some responsible adult around to tell him it's time to come in.
He can bluster and pout about the "war on terrorism" all he wants, and his minions can yelp about how we're not "supporting the troops"--but at this point, even the TROOPS aren't listening any more.
George Will said on This Week With George Stephanopolous that even if the funding bill passes with Murtha's caveats, Bush can just do one of his famous signing statements, ignoring it.
May be. But with opposition growing more and more vehement, and more and more Republicans in Congress getting pressure from their own constituents and the presidential election looming…there will be some back-door meetings at the White House from Republicans saying to their fearless leader: END IT.
And if not, well, we can do in '08 what we did in '06. Don't think they don't know it, and with primaries running quicker than ever, they're all under pressure to do SOMETHING before the American people revolt.
And in the meantime, although we may not be able to stop the escalation into Iraq, at the very least, we may be able to stop escalating the war into Iran.
At long last, thanks to a message sent loud and clear from voters in November, We the People may be able to stop King George.
--"U.S. Unit Walks 'A Fine Line' in Iraqi Capital," Joshua Partlow, Washington Post, February 6, 2007
"Once more raids start happening, they'll (insurgents) melt away," said Sgt. 1st Class Herbert Gill, 29, of Pulaski, Tenn, who serves in the 1st Infantry Division in east Baghdad. "And then two or three months later, when we leave and say it was a success, they'll come back."
Soldiers interviewed across east Baghdad, home to more than half the city's 8 million people, said the violence is so out of control that while a surge of 21,500 more American troops may momentarily suppress it, the notion that U.S. forces can bring lasting security to Baghdad is misguided.
…"We can go get into a firefight and empty out ammo, but it doesn't accomplish much," said Pvt. 1st Class Zach Clouser, 19, of York, PA. "This isn't our war--we're just in the middle."
Almost every foot soldier interviewed during a week of patrols on the streets and alleys of east Baghdad said that Bush's plan would halt the bloodshed only temporarily. The soldiers cited a variety of reasons, including incompetence or corruption among Iraqi troops, the complexities of Iraq's sectarian violence and the lack of Iraqi public support, a cornerstone of counterinsurgency warfare.
"They can keep sending more and more troops over here, but until the people here start working with us, it's not going to change," said Sgt. Chance Oswalt, 22, of Tulsa, OK.
--"Soldiers in Iraq View Troop Surge as Lost Cause," Tom Lasseter, McClatchy Newspapers, February 3, 2007
Outgoing Army chief of Staff Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker said yesterday that the increase of 17,500 Army combat troops in Iraq represents only the "tip of the iceberg" and will potentially require thousands of additional support troops and trainers, as well as equipment--further eroding the Army's readiness to respond to other world contingencies…
…He could not guarantee the combat units would receive all the translators, civil affairs soldiers and other support troops they request. "We are continuing today to get requests for forces that continue to stress us."
--"Iraq Troop Boost Erodes Readiness, General Says," Ann Scott Tyson, Washington Post, February 16, 2007
Field upon field of more than 1,000 battered M1 tanks, howitzers and other armored vehicles sit amid weeds here at the 15,000-acre Anniston Army Depot--the idle, hulking formations symbolic of an Army that is wearing out faster than it is being rebuilt.
…the depletion of major equipment such as tanks, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, and especially helicopters and armored Humvees has left many military units in the United States without adequate training gear…Many U.S. units are rated "unready" to deploy…
…Despite the work piling up, the Army's depots have been operating at about half their capacity because of a lack of funding for repairs.
--"U.S. Army Battling to Save Equipment: Gear Piles Up at Depots, Awaiting Repair," Ann Scott Tyson, Washington Post, December 5, 2006
The success of the Bush administration's new Iraq strategy depends on a series of rapid and dramatic political and economic reforms that even the plan's authors have little confidence will work.
…Several sources expressed concern that the administration…has not left itself a fall-back plan in the event of failure.
…Some officials worry that the expanded U.S. presence will repeat the mistakes of the past…undermining the goal of turning the country over to the Iraqis themselves.
"It's the same old problem as in 2003," cautioned one official. "The same impatience that if they can't do it we'll step in and do it. There is a bit of that creeping into this dialogue."
--"Doubts Run Deep on Reforms Crucial to Bush's Iraq Strategy; Even Plan's Authors Say Political, Economic Changes May Fail," Karen DeYoung, Washington Post, February 4, 2007
You know, I wasn't going to do a blog post on all the reasons why this escalation of troops into Baghdad will not work. I'd written some on it before, and I figure those of you who are interested in the subject have already heard a lot of the arguments, pro and con.
And in fact, that is not the subject matter of this post.
But I thought it was essential to point out that military officials from the top down--as well as some administration officials who actually worked on this harebrained scheme--have deep and serious doubts about it.
And in fact, we are already seeing on the ground, in the first raids and sweeps of the Stryker Brigades in Baghdad, the truth of what the troops on the ground predicted--the bad guys "melted away," prior to the beginning of the so-called "surge."
Consequently, newspapers are reporting that many Iraqi families are actually leaving their front doors open for the American troops.
And let us be perfectly clear. AMERICAN TROOPS.
Out of a force 2,500 strong, only 200 were Iraqi Army. So don't kid yourself about any KIND of joint operation.
At any rate, the people open their doors, say, Come on in, look around.
Some who live there and fear their neighbors have complained that the Iraqi Prime Minister made such a big deal, publicly, about the security sweep--giving clear warnings for at least a month in advance--that all the bad guys not only had time to get out of town, but time to pack a bag and make a nice picnic lunch to boot.
This, of course, gives a false reading of the true success of this operation.
On the one hand, here comes the American cavalry, so to speak, riding to the Baghdadi rescue--only to sweep into a town empty of bad guys. They throw their weight around and pull back.
This may give Bush/Cheney time to tout GREAT SUCCESS, just in time for the upcoming elections…but don't be so sure. Because the guy running the show in Baghdad now wants the troops to remain for THREE TO FIVE YEARS, and we just can't do it. Don't have the troops, don't have the equipment, don't have the will.
So, what then? So what do we do? Babysit a civil war for the next TWO GENERATIONS, as my Special Forces Brig. Gen. brother-in-law says it would take?
How long are our guys expected to be the SOLE SUPPORTER of Iraqi security? And when we do pull out--and we will have to pull out--what do you think will happen then? They're going to go back to doing what they do best--killing each other.
No, we come up with a different strategy altogether. Now, later on in the week, I am going to do a serious analysis of what the best minds--other than the Iraq Study Group--have suggested for successful ways we can end the American occupation of Iraq with the least amount of chaos in our wake.
But right now, I want to concentrate on how help, and hope, is on the way, and it starts with Iraq war vets.
In the United States Congress, where decorum usually holds sway, Iraq war veteran Jon Soltz and his small band of veterans are saying things many Democrats would like to express but can't.
…The veterans are selling a blunt message: The Bush strategy on Iraq is a failure, and adding troops sends more young men and women to their deaths. If you care about the military, they told lawmakers, vote against the troop increase. Legislators who are stalling debate on the matter are "cowards," they said…Soltz, chairman of the group, VoteVets.org., called President Bush and Vice President Cheney "draft dodgers."
…"We are not fighting the war on terrorism, we are in the middle of a civil war," he said, referring to Iraq. "Meanwhile, the guy who attacked this country on 9/11 is living in a cave in Afghanistan."
…Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz)…dismissed VoteVets.org as a "handful of veterans" not representative of the military.
But VoteVet.org has 20,000 members, including 1,000 veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan…The veteran's group raised just over $1.3 million in the last election cycle.
--"Veteran's Group Speaks Out on War," Lyndsey Layton and Jonathan Weisman, Washington Post, February 8, 2007
VoteVets.org is an organization originally sponsored by Gen. Wesley Clark, who spearheaded the incredible job ending the turmoil in the Balkans in the 90's and who then ran for president on the Democratic ticket. I remember vividly, back in 2002, when war-frenzy was at its peak, Gen. Clark went on national television and insisted that, within days of the attacks on the World Trade Center on 9/11, he got a phone call from administration officials wanting him to find a way to tie the tragedy with Saddam Hussein.
He refused, and went public.
They accused him of being crazy. Or at the very least, of lying.
We now know, of course, that he was not crazy; he was right. You can draw your own conclusions as to who was really lying or crazy.
So then for the mid-term elections, Gen. Clark went on a crusade of sorts to recruit as many Iraq, Afghanistan, and other vets as he could find who would be willing to run for Congress or the Senate on the Democratic ticket, with the full backing of the Democratic Party. Consequently, a dozen combat veterans ran for office and something like eight of them won. On the Republican side, they could only scrounge up one Iraq vet to run, and he lost.
VoteVets.org was the organization that tirelessly raised funds to help get these veterans in Congress, and over time, the organization grew to include thousands of veterans from all over the country who have been outraged at the manner in which this debacle of a war has been handled, and now, a rotating phalanx of them are haunting the halls of Congress--taking turns as their time allows--lobbying--HARD--for Congress to end this war.
They're pissed, and not being politicians themselves, they speak truth and they don't sugar-coat. Oh, how long I have waited to hear someone actually refer to Bush and Cheney as "draft-dodgers."
And some in Congress are listening.
Senator Richard Durbin (D-Ill)…cited news articles that said some of the new troops being sent to Iraq are going without adequate training or equipment. "Now who is standing behind the troops?" he asked.
…Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) asserted that Mr. Bush cannot simply ignore Congressional opposition to his plan to send 21,500 additional troops to Iraq.
"I would respectfully suggest to the president that he is not the sole decider," Mr. Specter said…
…Mr. Specter read the results of a survey of service members conducted by the Military Times, which found that only 35 percent of respondents approved of Mr. Bush's handling of the war. The senator suggested that in that light, the military might be "appreciative of questions being raised by Congress."
--"Senators Assert Right to Block Bush on Iraq," John O'Neil, New York Times, January 30, 2007
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) yesterday linked her support for President Bush's war-funding request to strict standards of resting, training, and equipping combat forces, a move that could curtail troop deployments and alter the course of U.S. involvement in Iraq.
…"If we are going to support our troops, we should respect what is considered reasonable for them: their training, their equipment and their time at home," Pelosi said in an interview with a small group of reporters. "What we're trying to say to the president is, you can't send people in who are not trained for urban warfare…who are not prepared to contend with an insurgency."
…Congressman John Murtha, (D-PA), the powerful chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, outlined his plan for restricting the administration's use of war funds in an Internet interview released yesterday. Under that legislation, troops would be required to have one year's rest between deployments, combat tours could no longer be extended, and the Pentagon would have to halt its "stop-loss" program, which prohibits some officers from leaving the military when their tour of duty is complete.
The idea is to neutralize political charges that the Democrats plan to starve war funding. The party would still slow the war effort by other means, Murtha said in an interview aired on the new Web site MoveCongress.org.
"What we're saying will be very hard to find fault with," he said. "We're supporting the troops. We're protecting the troops. On the other hand, we're going to stop this surge."
--"Pelosi Backs War Funds Only With Conditions; Equipment, Training for Troops Would Face New Standards," Jonathan Weisman and Shailagh Murray, Washington Post, February 16, 2007
God bless John Murtha. Conservatives like to demonize and vilify him, but by God, he is the FIRST member of either House of Congress to even BRING UP the reprehensible practice of "stop-loss"--preventing retirements when they come due, stopping people from mustering out who have served their full terms and then some, with multiple deployments, and the crusty old ex-Marine and Vietnam combat vet is the ONLY member of either chamber to even MENTION that these so-called "fresh troops" that the media keep touting aren't fresh at all--they are troops like my nephew, whose Army Stryker Brigade company is being shipped out two months in advance, and who was told, "Don't even think about coming home," which meant that they could count on having their deployment extended way beyond the usual one-year hitch.
SO WHO'S REALLY SUPPORTING THE TROOPS?
And just in case Congress continues to hide in the closet and avoid dealing with this, almost half of the states have taken up the cause to goad action from the federal government.
…State legislatures across the country, led by Democrats…are pushing forward with their own resolutions.
Resolutions have passed in chambers of three legislatures, in California, Iowa, and Vermont…Maryland…urged opposition to the increase in troops to Iraq.
Letters or resolutions are being drafted in at least 19 other states. The goal is to embarrass Congress into passing its own resolution and to provide cover for Democrats and Republicans looking for concrete evidence back home that anti-Iraq resolutions enjoy popular support.
--"Democrats in State Capitals Push Antiwar Resolutions," Jennifer Steinhauer, New York Times, February 16, 2007
This is not just some lame peace-activist protest going on here, and it's not just some Democratic political maneuvering. THIS IS A SOUNDLESS WAVE OF PROTEST, MOVING FROM STATE TO STATE, ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY, A SILENT NO.
I wrote this on Friday but was unable to post it until Sunday morning, with news programs over my shoulder discussing every single one of these points.
So, what difference does it make? I mean, REALLY? Who cares if the House and/or the Senate pass resolutions that are non-binding anyway? Can't the King--er, the president, I mean--do whatever the hell he wants to? Can't he order up any kind of war action he wants? What does he care whether Congress approves or doesn't approve?
Turns out, contrary to what he may be posturing before the cameras, he DOES care. He HAS to.
And a non-binding resolution is, after all, only the first step.
(a former) Assistant Attorney General, Walter E. Dellinger III (1996), said, "Although it does not become law, how can it possibly be considered meaningless for each house of the Congress to exercise the view in a formal recorded vote that a planned addition to U.S. forces is a mistake?...I think that the framers of the Constitution would be astonished that a president would proceed to increase U.S. involvement in a foreign war over the expressed objection of both houses of Congress."
…Dellinger said there is a "striking consensus" on both the left and the right that Congress has the power to limit the scope and duration of a war--not only through the power of the purse but through other war powers.
--"Bush, Congress Could Face Confrontations on Issue of War Powers," Michael Abramowitz, Washington Post, February 16, 2007
"I think the constitutional scheme does give Congress broad authority to terminate a war," said Bradford Berenson, a Washington lawyer who was a White House associate counsel under Bush from 2001 to 2003.
…the other experts said that while the Constitution makes the president commander-in-chief of U.S. forces, Congress' constitutional power to declare war and fund U.S. forces also gave it the power to stop what it had set in motion.
…Arlen Specter, the Republican head of the Judiciary Committee until the Democrats won control from Republicans in November, said, "The decider is a shared and joint responsibility."
--"Congress Can Stop Iraq War, Experts Tell Lawmakers," Susan Cornwell, Reuters, January 30, 2007
The bottom line is this.
George can't run around playing with his toy soldiers until after dark any more without some responsible adult around to tell him it's time to come in.
He can bluster and pout about the "war on terrorism" all he wants, and his minions can yelp about how we're not "supporting the troops"--but at this point, even the TROOPS aren't listening any more.
George Will said on This Week With George Stephanopolous that even if the funding bill passes with Murtha's caveats, Bush can just do one of his famous signing statements, ignoring it.
May be. But with opposition growing more and more vehement, and more and more Republicans in Congress getting pressure from their own constituents and the presidential election looming…there will be some back-door meetings at the White House from Republicans saying to their fearless leader: END IT.
And if not, well, we can do in '08 what we did in '06. Don't think they don't know it, and with primaries running quicker than ever, they're all under pressure to do SOMETHING before the American people revolt.
And in the meantime, although we may not be able to stop the escalation into Iraq, at the very least, we may be able to stop escalating the war into Iran.
At long last, thanks to a message sent loud and clear from voters in November, We the People may be able to stop King George.
posted by Deanie Mills at 7:39 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home