The stand-off between the President and Congress continues. The supplemental appropriation bill needed to continue funding the war in Iraq will, after differing versions passed by the House and Senate are reconciled, land on the President's desk very soon. This bill will apparently impose a requirement on the Commander-in-Chief to begin withdrawing American troops from the war zone.
Bush rejects any "artificial" timetables for withdrawal, refuses to negotiate, refuses to compromise, and promises to veto the bill. Enough votes to over-ride such a veto by the Congress will not likely be forthcoming. In the meantime, American troops continue to stand in the crosshairs, in the thoroughly untenable position of being expected to referee an unresolvable sectarian civil war.
The President's vaunted surge strategy (the word "strategy" being a misnomer, inasmuch as it really represents only a shift in tactical emphasis, combined with an infusion of additional troops) has produced disappointing results. The chaos, murder, and mayhem in Baghdad, where the surge is focused, continues unabated. Thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqis continue to die every month--more than 200 in a single day in Baghdad last week.
At the same time, American troops are, likewise, suffering a high rate of casualties. Eighty-five (85) American soldiers have been killed in action (so far) in the month of April, and more than 3,300 overall in the course of the conflict.
What is the President's assessment? He says, "So far the operation is meeting expectations."
(What? Say again? THIS is what you expected, Mr. President, when you decided to commit an additional 30,000 troops to the fight?)
Yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was quoted as saying that Mr. Bush is out of touch with reality.
I ask you, who, of the two, do YOU think is right?
Last week Senator Reid claimed "The war is lost". I think that an objective assessment should lead any intelligent observer to conclude that the Senator makes a lot more sense than the Bush administration's claims ever have.
The President's mantra--"as Iraqi troops stand up, our troops will stand down"--becomes more and more patently absurd with each passing day. Iraq has several hundred thousand security forces in uniform, and still, after four-plus years, not a single American soldier has stood down. Instead, we send in MORE troops. And still, nothing changes.
It is true that the President, as the Constitutionally-designated "Commander-in-Chief" of the armed forces cannot be forced to order our troops out of Iraq.
It is equally true that the Congress, as currently constituted, cannot be forced to provide the funds to sustain military operations in Iraq.
I think it is abundantly clear which side has the upper hand in this controversy. The President can, if he chooses, continue to refuse to listen to the will of the American people--as expressed in the provisions of the war-funding bill requiring troop withdrawals passed by the people's representatives. Congress can--and should--refuse to be bullied into complying with Mr. Bush's outrageous demands. If the flow of money stops the troops WILL come home, and our involvement in this ill-conceived, fraudulently-predicated, and pointless conflict will come to an end.
To our Senators and Congressional Representatives: Ladies and gentlemen, you know what needs to be done.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 9
In WWII, my grandfather tells me, it was a hard battle to fight against tough enemies on their own soil. Far from home, they fought for many things, mostly injustices other people suffer. In the last few months of the war, the American people grew tired of having rations, and missing their boys, and not knowing exactly what we were fighting for. They forgot about the brutal attack of Pearl Harbor, they forgot what was done to the men,women, and children there. They forgot the American people's call to action... all they knew was that this war was affecting them in ways they did not want to deal with anymore... so they spoke out against it, in secret, in public, it didnt matter, they had the right. The troops felt the lack of support for their cause.. a cause they lived day to day, while the Amiercan people "suffered" through a war.
Liken this to today, we were brutally attacked.. on our own soil, where men, women, and children lost their lives, countless more suffered for that loss. America mourned, and then wanted action. Washington answered the call. Many men and moen joined the armed forces to ensure this does not happen again. We went to war. It has been almost 6 years since the attack on this country, we have forced the man responsible into hiding, we have captured and exectued a brutal dictator, we have thwarted the functioning of terrorists on our soil... all in the name of protecting the American people. It would be irresponsible to go in take out the brutal Iraqi leadership (Saddam Hussein) and then leave the country without ANY leadership, or the means to function... it would leave their country in ruins, and we did more of a disservice to them than we did a service. Unfortunately, all the American people feel is the effect the war is having on them at home. We are using our voice to tear down the leadership in our country that answered our demand for action. You say 3300 troops have died in our senseless war. I say 3300 troops have died protecting your freedoms and your way of life. You berate the president for their death... I honor their sacrifice to protect our inherant right to freedom. It seems to me a bit selfish of the American people to take what little truth the media gives them, and turn that into a failure to support our men and women overseas.
It seems to me that this is a chess game to see if the people can force the President to bring them home by cutting off finances. I am willing to bet if we take away the money and our troops run out of supplies, it might just mean more US military deaths... then you'll have something else to complain about.
I had to chuckle as I watched the press conference where our President said the above. I'm against artificial time tables too. I guess that's why I'd like to know a REAL one.
Thanks for the insightful and thought out article. I appreciate and look for that insight from Gather members, no matter what my political leanings may be on an issue.
You better believe I'm "grateful for the right to openly contest the presidingl power in this country" (AKA Emperor George). Someone needs to speak truth to power here.
I think your granddad--or your recollection of his words--was mistaken. The American people supported the second world war steadfastly to the end. They endured the sacrifices they were called on to make. They grieved the loss of their loved ones who perished, but they accepted the fact that they had died honorably in a just and necessary war. This war is neither.
9/11 provoked us to action, appropriately, in going to war in Afghanistan. That was exactly the right thing to do. We went after the terrorists who committed the atrocity and drove them into hiding, and deposed the Taliban regime who gave them aid and comfort.
Then, stupidly, Misters Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld decided to take their eye off the ball and attack Iraq, without justification, without a plan for the "post-kinetic" phase, and with no regard for the consequences. And their doing so had absolutely nothing to do with bringing the blessings of liberty to the poor, oppressed. Iraqi people.
And Russell, we are GOING to leave their country in ruins--in a state of total chaos. The only question is, are we going to do it SOONER or LATER (after having wasted who knows how many more of our troops precious lives).
Mitch, yes, I think that's self-evident. It's just another variant of whack-a-mole, and it's destined, ultimately, to fail. The lunatic wall-building idea that they came up with recently is no less futile. The country is in the process of disintegrating. The de-facto partition into sectarian enclaves is well on its way to completion. The war--the civil war--will continue unabated until the respective factions have won as much territory and oil as they feel they can acquire at a reasonable cost in their own blood.