The United States Congress and President Bush are engaged in a game of "Chicken". Each one is doing their best to put on a brave face and avoid making a strategic blunder in their fight over funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. However, when the American people went to the polls in November, they did not elect a Democratic Congress with a mandate to compromise with George Bush. The mandate was clear: ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. STOP THE WAR NOW!
American Amnesia
The midterm elections of last November were only five months ago. The old saying that Americans have a short memory must in fact be true. Republican lawmakers were tossed out in droves for a number of reasons but topping the list was their unqualified support for President Bush and a war that was going badly and getting worse. At the time, 3,000 American soldiers were dead, nearly 700 civilian contractors and government workers had been killed and an unspeakable number of Iraqis were dead and dying at the rate of over 100 a day. In this country, ordinary citizens, scholars and even military generals were calling Iraq the worst foreign policy blunder in 30 years. The Bush administration refused to call an obvious civil war a "civil war" and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld made light by saying "war is an untidy business". Untidy? The sectarian violence was so frequent and so deadly, blood literally ran in the streets of Baghdad. Remember?
Yet somehow, our national psyche has shifted to a place where it seems reasonable to offer the president a deadline of March or September of 2008 in exchange for his requested war funding. Have our citizens and the U.S. Congress been lulled into this place of compromise because that's how the American system of checks and balances works? Given the overwhelming will of the American people and the majority of the civilized world, how does it seem politically reasonable to allow American soldiers, diplomats and contractors to continue dying for another 12 - 18 months? There is a better way to handle this constitutional crisis that President Bush seems so eager to wage.
The November landslide election requires that Congress put the brakes on a president who has no regard for troops dying overseas and has no exit strategy. George Bush intends to fight this 'mistake of a war' that he started until his very last minute in office. If this Democratically-led Congress is going to live up to the mandate by which they were elected, they must use their power of the purse to end this war sooner rather than later. If they allow the Iraq War to continue into 2008, they are no better than the Republican-led Congress of yesterday who promised to serve America's interests and then blatantly served George Bush's interest.
A Real Exit Strategy
The House and Senate bills that will be negotiated in the coming weeks and sent as a final version to the White House should be George Bush's last and final chance to prolong this war beyond this summer. If President Bush vetoes this bill, Congress should not send another war funding bill for the remainder of this presidential term. Nancy Pelosi should stand on the House floor next week and tell George Bush, "Mr. President, Take It or Leave It!"
So what would happen if Congress acted (by default) to de-fund the war? First, it would send the political message that Democrats are just as determined to stop the deaths of our young people as much as President Bush is determined to keep flag-draped caskets rolling through Dover AFB. The entire progressive-thinking world is unified in wanting the Iraq War to end immediately. Democrats would be hailed as courageous as well as historic and the 2008 presidential election would be an even bigger victory for the left than five months ago.
Secondly, the Pentagon would be put on notice to immediately start extracting American troops, equipment and contractor personnel. As a practical matter, a de-funding action as a result of President Bush vetoing the bill would give the military 90 - 120 days to start flying troops home and to create a defensive corridor in Iraq through which units could begin the process of withdrawal.
Third, it would put the sectarian and insurgent forces on notice that the Americans are leaving - don't mess with a good thing! Their forces are laying low right now and will continue to do so, particularly if a withdrawal began in earnest. Through our intelligence and open news sources, we know that Middle Eastern factions like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah and others are quietly negotiating with one another more and more each day. While it is obvious that they will wage civil war with one another once we leave (now or in 2008), they realize that disturbing a withdrawal of American forces would be an incredibly self-destructive thing to do. When American forces pulled out of Vietnam, the Vietcong allowed it to happen without major incident. There was no wholesale slaughter of retreating U.S. troops then and there will not be one in the Middle East now.
The Democratic-led Congress was given a clear message in November that the American people want things to change and the war brought to an end. They did not vote for a surge and they certainly did not vote to allow President Bush to wage war until January 2009. If Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid miss this opportunity to bring the Iraq War to a close, they will only be remembered for endless investigations and failing to stand up to an incredibly unpopular executive who will eventually be ranked among the worst of American presidents. The message to President Bush should be as loud and clear as the electorate was in November. Stop the war now!
» left by David Tanguay (1 year 274 days ago.)
Yes Mr. Collins, when we were kicked out of Vietnam in 1975 the country has lived peacefully ever since and the American people including soldiers who fought the North Vietnamese (such as myself) are free to visit Vietnam today with no hostile feelings from those we fought as our enemy. Which only proves the real war in any country we evolve ourselves with, is with the politicians who are at war with themselves and send us brain - washed soldiers to do their dirty work for them. I seen on the news last night Bush coming from Easter services saying he was praying for peace. Fine! let’s hope he gives the Lord a chance to answer his prayers, by doing his will. Mother Teresa said “If you want peace don’t talk to your friends, talk to your enemies” Why doesn’t he (Bush) even make an attempt to talk to the enemy?
» left by Joseph Collins(402) Joseph Collins (1 year 274 days ago.)
David, thanks for commenting! First, the actions of this admin are inexcusable and unexplainable. Even a neo-conservative framework cannot explain the irrationality, callousness and incompetence of GWB. I can't explain it either. Having said that, Congress was elected by the people with a specific mandate - period. Time does not change that. Americans are smart enough to understand that defunding the war is not an abandonment of the troops. They need to come home and stop dying! Heaven help us! Respond to this comment
» left by robert melaccio sr. (1 year 273 days ago.)
Another to the point good article. Please don't take me wrong for being direct. It is not aimed at you. However, I sit here at home each day and listen to these politicans ramble on about all issues but resolve none except in the fashion that Americans do not seem to want. They do the opposite of what they say. Now our President can make a statement "Money always trumps peace" and then writers, the media and reporters ignore it while asking time and again why nothing has happened says a lot about where we are going and are as a nation. Does that one statement sum it all up? I leave it for others to ponder. Perhaps it is a question for your radio show as to what that means to your listeners? Let me know? Thanks, good job. Respond to this comment
» left by Joseph Collins(402) Joseph Collins (1 year 272 days ago.)
Robert, thks for commenting! "Money always trumps peace" sounds like a clever way of saying that INJUSTICE will always prevail as long as someone is willing to pay for it. Dr. King said "... the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."
Here is the bottom line: GWB does not work for himself. A fed. judge recently said, "There are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not granted by the Constitution." The US Congress has the $$$ power to say no to an unjust war!
» left by robert melaccio sr. (1 year 272 days ago.)
I can't respond to your response so forgive me for my reply here. That was a very insightful reply. I really appreciate it. That be said I didn't take that remark the way you did but it did add another perspective. It doesn't mean that is not what he meant but he did not clarify it and if he did I stand corrected because I never heard that from anyone else but you. I took it that the Global Dream is the answer to peace and when people are making money they basically have no time for war. The problem is just who is making the money? It certainly is not the average people of the world, is it? I suspect those large companies make a few $$$ on the war. Perhaps that is why no end or is it that this is more the beginning? But thanks for your insight. I would prefer your analysis is correct. Respond to this comment
» left by Joseph Collins(402) Joseph Collins (1 year 272 days ago.)
Robert, I can also see your interpretation as well. However, most of the time, war brings profits alot faster to people who are willing to wage it. Ahmad Chalabi comes to mind, the Iraqi businessman that duped a willing US admin. He almost became pres. of Iraq. Certainly contractors and others are guilty of war profiteering as well. However, I believe the genesis of this war has much more to do with morality and a misunderstanding of the new world order. The admin gambled badly and lost. Respond to this comment
» left by Sandra E. Graham (1 year 252 days ago.)
You're very good! I'm not really big on politics--although, I do vote. That may be bad in itself--not being good at politics and yet putting someone into office that can change the future of an entire country! I do the best I can to vote for someone that I think will do a good job. Oh, I didn't vote for Bush this go-around, but I got him anyway. I guess I'm just another gullible American. Respond to this comment
Thanks for commenting! My apologies for not answering sooner - I have not checked this article in recent days.
We all have a role in the political mosaic. We all can't camp out at Crawford or demonstrate in the streets. Nevertheless, you are doing your part if you vote. Thank God for that! Respond to this comment
» left by Simon Bennett-Odlum from Atlanta (1 year 245 days ago.)
Exiting Iraq will, in time, hopefully be a good thing. What we must remember is that we are not dealing with an enemy that is funded and supported by Communist ideologists this time, as was the case in Viet Nam.
Instead, we are dealing with a group of people who have been misled and brainwashed by a personality with a "Dr. No" mentality. This is neither a sane nor a rational man, but he is a very well educated (US PhD) charismatic.
In his distorted view, and thereby that of his followers, the squabbling in Washington is a sure sign to them that they are winning.
If all of you doves are paying any attention to the news at all, you will know the following:
1. Our Muslim enemies have stated time and again that they want to "wipe America out."
2. It is widely known that Bin Laden is seeking a nuclear device to use against us.
3. British intelligence let slip an late April 2007 that Al Queda plans an event that will dwarf Hiroshima and Nagasaki, very soon.
4. Former USSR Nuclear weaponry in former SSRs, and even in Russia, are considered to be very insecure, and all it will take is an enemy getting to the right guy with the keys to the silos, so to speak, and the result would be catastrophic.
As mentioned earlier, we are not fighting a country here, we are fighting an insane ideologist with his own agenda. He has recruited ill informed and impressionable people of all ages, but mostly youngsters.
These people will do anything for money, since they have not any.
Having lived in the Middle East for a few years, let me assure you that in spite of the enormous oil wealth that exists in the region, there is still abject poverty for the man in the street, and to him, Bin Laden sings a sweet song.
The war in Iraq is by now a civil war, and the terrorists created that situation to mislead us into thinking that we should not be involved in it. A clever ploy to get to the minds of the American people, and have us yelling that we should pull out.
That would be a major mistake on our part, and would embolden them further.
It is in Iraq where we can smash them, if we have enough resolve. War is very, very ugly.
We can not quit the fight against the terrorists, anywhere, until we win. What we must do is give our military leaders whatever it is that they need to prevail, once and for all.
If that means that we must reintroduce the draft, then do it. We must win, at any price, because we can not afford to lose.
By the way, I do not think that they are particularly interested in talking with us, so forget Mother Theresa and her advice this time. It won't work. Not with this lot.
Can you really imagine Bin Laden, Iraq and Syria, along with the Saudi billionaires who are providing the funding, support and resources, being willing to attend a peace conference?
I did not think so.
Not yet. First we have to bring them to their knees, and then, maybe, they will talk.
We are dealing with fanatics, rather like the Japanese in WW2. We had them licked well before Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but they were unwilling to surrender.
The rest is history, and now Al Queda wants to turn the tables on us!
If we quit in Iraq, we may as well surrender!
All of you who want us to bring the soldiers home need to wake up and pay attention to what is really going on, because if you don't, they will be on your doorstep, wanting to chop your bloody head off, along with your wife and kids! Or set fire you on fire, and hang you up on an overpass, or a bridge, while they burn you all to death.
We are not dealing with civilized people in this situation.
You certainly deserve credit for the longest comment ever appended to one of my articles! First of all, it is a little narrow-minded to accuse people who disagree with you as people who do not think or fail to pay attention. Good, smart people can disagree with one another.
Second, conservatives love to forget that 16 out of 19 9-11 highjackers were from Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. Further, Al Quaeda had no meaningful connections to Iraq until Bush turned it into a rallying point for the entire radical Muslim world. Remember, Bin Laden is religiously motivated, Saddam Hussein was a secularist. These guys didn't even chit-chat on the phone, less collaborate together.
Where I give you a little credit is that leaving Iraq is a dangerous proposition. However, it will be consequential now, a year from now or ten years from now. The only question is how many American soldiers, diplomats and contractors will die between now and the inevitable departure? Respond to this comment
Was this article helpful to you? Leave a Public Comment or
Question:
Disclaimer: All information on this site is provided for informational purposes only! By no means is any
information presented herein intended to substitute for the advice provided to you by any health care or other professional
or organization.
