You Can't Hurt a Troop By Defunding a War

[davidswanson]

By David Swanson

When Senator Russ Feingold and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid propose cutting off the funding for the war, they are proposing the only thing that can possibly benefit U.S. troops. In fact, there is no way to make any sense of the idea that they could possibly be hurting U.S. troops. The funding is not for the troops.

When President George Bush claims that the money is for the troops, he is quite simply lying. The funding is not for the troops.

When Senator Barack Obama or Senator Carl Levin claims to want to pressure Bush to end the war, while at the same time promising to fund the war forever in the name of funding the troops, we are being told something that cannot possibly make any sense. The funding is not for the troops. It is for the war. You can't end the war while providing it. You can't hurt a troop by denying it.

Nearly everyone across the political spectrum in the United States agrees, honestly or hypocritically, that we should "support the troops." I certainly think we should. We should do the only thing that makes them safer, the only thing that takes them out of a situation in which they can be charged with war crimes, the only thing the vast majority of them tell pollsters they want: we must bring them home. Then we must support them and their families, help them find education and work, help them recover physically, psychologically, and financially. We currently fail horribly at all of this.

But voices from across the political spectrum also talk about the troops in a way that makes no sense. Those on the right accuse Congress of trying to cut off money for the troops by ending the war. Those on the left accuse Bush of threatening to cut off money for the troops by vetoing a war funding bill. I receive Emails from activist groups promoting peace that gratuitously reinforce this piece of nonsense.

The biggest problem with this is the obvious one. If defunding a war really did hurt the poor men and women we'd lied to about fictional foreign threats and compelled to go risk their lives, then we could never defund a war. We would have to ask the Unitary Executive to end the war, while providing him with money to continue it. And when we'd dragged on in that manner for years, and it came time to pretend once again that we could solve everything through an election, we'd have to elect a new Unitary Executive committed to both ending the war and never defunding it. And we know which half of that incoherent position would win out post-election.

But the fact that believing "the funding is for the troops" gives us eternal war doesn't mean it isn't true that "the funding is for the troops." Maybe we simply have to have eternal war.

Fortunately, there are other reasons to conclude that the funding is not for the troops. First and foremost, the money that would be required to bring our troops safely home is such a small fraction of the Pentagon's budget, or even of the cash that the Pentagon has "misplaced" in Iraq, that there can be no question of ever cutting it off. The Pentagon could fund a withdrawal and never notice the financial expense.

So, when we talk about cutting off funding "for the troops," what are we really talking about?

We must be talking about their meals and armor and vehicles. But there are several problems with making that sort of claim. First, by cutting off funding after a certain date and demanding that the troops be brought home before that date, you are not denying them anything they need while they are deployed.

Second, we have never provided them adequate supplies and services, and the Congress Members who have pushed to cut off the war funding are some of the same ones who have pushed hardest to try to change that.

Third, the war funding has nothing to do with changing the level of equipment and services we provide the troops; the big bucks go to mercenaries, not troops; and the really big bucks go to the profiteers providing the worst services for the highest prices.

Fourth, if we start to talk about the need for troops to protect other troops, we get into an inescapable escalation without end.

Fifth, if we really cared about the well being of our troops, we would also care about the well being of our veterans and our nontroops, and the primary reason millions of them are living in misery is the mammoth amount of money we are spending in Iraq rather than on housing, health care, and education in the United States.

If Bush vetoes a war funding bill, he will be doing so because it asks him to end the war someday and he never wants to end the war. He will NOT be cutting off money for troops. And neither will Congress if it does its Constitutional duty and slams the vault shut and ends the occupation of Iraq.

The next time you say "fund the troops" in any context, you will be saying "Never end the war." Please don't say that. Please change the discourse. The funding is for Halliburton and Blackwater. Cut it off as soon as possible.

[Monkeyman]

1. Just Bring Them Home

[John Q. Citizen]

2. Amen! Thanks for saying it. There are a lot of confused people out there

who imagine troops with no underwear and socks.

Instead they should be imagining troops with no arms and legs.

Bring them out, now!

[puebloknot]

14. Beautifully said! This makes me think of...

...that Harper's cover with the picture of the young man with several prostheses.

So far, this has been allowed to be a "nice war," with body tubes coming home in the dead of night, no photography allowed. I'm reminded of the famous situation in Germany, after the war, when Eisenhower forced the citizens of a German town to walk through a local concentration camp, to see the skeletal bodies, to view the gas chambers.

A strong dose of reality is what is needed to wake up our sleeping masses, and make the consequences of this war real. Many don't actively *support* the war (or so they think), but they do not actively *not* support the war, either.

[pwb]

3. my thoughts also...cut it in half and you could still fund the troops.

fuck haliburton , blackwater, Kellogg brown and root and all the other war profiteers. kicked.

[JeffR]

4. Thanks for cutting through all the crap about this

well said!

[unlawflcombatnt]

5. Great Post K & R

:kick:

[bvar22]

6. Little Timmy and the Talking Heads (Meet the Press)...

ALL used the NoeCon/Corporate frame this AM.
"Will the Democrats REALLY cut off funds for the troops???...Yada...yada...yada

:puke: So mad I yelled at the TV (agin) :shrug:

The Democratic Party is its own worst enemy in this debate. The Democratic Wing of the Party (Kucinich, Waters, Lee, et al) got it RIGHT by framing it as: "Fully finding the WITHDRAWAL of our troops."

Too bad the Corporate owned stooges in the Democratic Party couldn't offend their owners by picking up this meme.

[Jcrowley]

7. Orwell is alive

Anti-war bill giving more funds to prolong the war? What's up with that?

Nevermind.

K&R

[bigtree]

22. of course, even Feingold and Kucinich provided "funds"

in their respective withdrawal plans they advocated for and support.

[MissWaverly]

8. Yes, Indeed and how much of this money is being diverted

to things we never dreamed possible, like the dummy defense contractors that are just starting to be investigated by Carol Lam, oh wait, she was fired, no she wasn't fired,
she was just removed from office for job performance, no wait, it wasn't her job performance, it was political but that's the same as performance if you are Kyle Sampson.
Oh, and Gonzalez didn't know about it, oh wait, he knew, oh wait...

[Flabbergasted]

9. This needed to be said. Thanks for posting.

[puebloknot]

10. K&R ...the clear stream of reason...

...seems to have you by the throat with this one, Mr. Swanson.

My Country Awake

Where the mind is without fear and the head held high;
Where knowledge is free;
Where the world has not been broken up into fragments by narrow domestic walls;
Where words come out from the depth of truth;
Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection;
Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way into the dreary desert sand of dead habit;
Where the mind is led forward by Thee into ever-widening thought and action;
Into that heaven of freedom, my Father, let my country awake.

Rabindrath Tagore

Your words come out from the depth of truth: "Defund the war."

Please do say that! Keep saying that!

[madfloridian]

11. Help me understand something.

We only really have control of the house, not the senate. Tim Johnson is still out, and Joe Lieberman loves his war.

So, we have control of one house of congress. They have the white house and basically the senate, because Joe is one of theirs.

So help me understand how we can get anything through to stop the war or stop the funds.

[John Q. Citizen]

15. Nancy Pelosi just doesn't schedule another funding bill after bush vetos the

current one.

No money, no war.

Harsh, but not as harsh as continuing the killing.

All appropriation bills must start in the house.

[zulchzulu]

16. This is the harsh reality of where our government stands at the moment

It's easy to say we need to end the war. It's easy to say that no troops will lose protection if funding ends. Then there's reality.

Democrats can go down as "wanting to not support the troops". The willing MSM would love to do that. The Repugs would love to have that message drilled ad nauseum as the election nears.

Frankly, if a bill came up in the House that said that all funding shall be stopped for the Iraq War, it will never, ever get passed. Anyone who thinks a bill like that is passable does not understand basic population dynamics where members of Congress represent. That's reality at the moment. Look how far any amendments went in the Supplemental that demanded a withdrawal by the end of the year... all those efforts failed.

[madfloridian]

17. Bush is heartless, and so are those around him.

I fear if the Democrats make too much effort to stop funding, he will use it to his advantage and not worry about the troops being hurt. He simply doesn't care. He has no soul, and he does not care how many more die....it does not matter to him.

So what I am trying to figure out here is that since it is a known fact we don't have the votes or the power, thanks to Lieberman especially...is if what is being said here that there should be a symbolic gesture geared to make some groups happy but which won't accomplish anything. And could technically hurt the troops in the hands of an incompetent Commander in Chief who would deprive them to spite the Democrats who oppose him.

It is like saying that congress must pass something they can't pass, and damning them even if they do try.

But then when I say such things I get branded for attacking the only true patriots when I am a true patriot myself.

My head hurts. I am still trying to figure why they are protesting Dean in Denver next week. Why are they so angry at him for trying to move the party westward? He is there to try to work out union problems. Why not work with them instead of following him to every venue and trying to shout him down which I understand is the part of the plan.

I am confused at how I, who oppose the war totally, and often write about its tragedies, could be considered out of line for saying to criticize in a fair way and not to demand of them what they can not do??

[Greyhound]

18. All spending bills originate in the House, so in this case the Senate is irrelevant

until after the House acts.

From the http://www.rules.house.gov/POP/approps_proc.htm">U.S. House of Representatives rules committee; "By precedent, appropriations originate in the House, with the Senate following suit."

Arbusto_® stated after the election that he would veto anything that the Democratic congress passed that interfered in any way with his doing whatever the hell he wants in Iraq, so there is nothing preventing the House from passing a bill that says in effect, "Hey Iraq, our voters have spoken, we're leaving ASAP. It will take us 3 or 4 months to leave. You have that long to get your shit together."

This action would have the effect of forcing the members to make a choice, comply with your employers demands or bear the consequences. Assuming they want to continue to be Representatives, the bill then goes to the Senate where the process is repeated, with the same effects. Assuming they want to continue to be Senators, the bill goes to the idiot in chief and is vetoed. Then the Speaker has the power to simply not allow any further legislation regarding further funding of the crime in Iraq to come to the floor.

Now every single member of congress has made their stand clear and has no place to hide, we either get our way or a whole new bunch in '08. The idea that not funding the war would leave a hundred thousand troops stuck in a foreign country with no food, no ammunition, and no way home is simply an often inferred lie, but an outright lie nonetheless.

[pacalo]

12. Thanks for this article.

[AnOhioan]

13. K&R Sometimes the obvious needs to be stated

[Pachamama]

19. Make that the defunding of an illegal war! And you support the troops by bringing them home!

Cut off Halliburton and Blackwaters feeding trough...NOW!!!

[Senator]

20. Only Impeachment ... "can possibly benefit US Troops"

The whole Cut The Funding Hoax is just another Rove DemocRat Trap.

This is why the DC Dems were goaded into it by the same Euphemedia stooges who had them terrorized by "Mushroom Clouds!" and still have them deluded into parroting "War crimes? What war crimes?" All the while the I-word is not allowed to be even whispered -- unless it's in a laser targeted appeal for money from the core neofascist base.

This one's more like a DemocRat's Maze. With the Non-Reality-Based DC Dems running around from timelimes, to funding, to benchmarks, to conditions, to binding resolutions and back again.

And the stinking elephant carcass remains rotting in the National Living Room. Congress is virtually impotent under "Rule By Signing Statement." With Impeachment "off the table," it is completely impotent.

Only Impeachment ... is The Cheese.

It is our ONLY moral, patriotic, Anti-War/Pro-Troop option.

Let's stop screwing around and get on with it.

--

[bigtree]

21. but, don't they still need resources and supplies?

your words:

"we have never provided them adequate supplies and services, and the Congress Members who have pushed to cut off the war funding are some of the same ones who have pushed hardest to try to change that."

Just because the money appropriated hasn't reached the troops doesn't automatically make the issue of 'funding' them a lie. There is certainly a need to make the administration and the Pentagon more accountable for the money appropriated, but the money appropriated in the Democratic supplemental is directed and tied to a withdrawal.

I think it's dishonest, though, to argue that our troops are being shortchanged NOW, and insist anyway that the lack of funds *doesn't hurt the troops.

I don't know if you are in a position to know how the money appropriated is being allocated once it gets to the Pentagon, but I think it's a huge presumption to claim that a funding cut-off isn't/won't 'hurt' the troops without detailing where the shortages are now. We know that units have already been sent into combat unprepared. We've seen the neglect and shortfalls affecting returning soldiers. We really have no way of knowing how funding shortfalls are affecting those troops in support positions around the region.

The most disingenuous part of your argument is that the alternative proposed would cut off funds with the expectation that readiness would decline to the point where Bush and his generals would be forced to abandon their mission. There is an obvious resistance from the administration to ending their escalation/occupation. Bush is intent on pushing our troops forward without regard to their safety and well-being. That's clear.

How can you argue that cutting off funding would grind the occupation to a halt, and not account for the soldiers who are at the heart of that effort? What do you expect will suffer first in Iraq as the resources dwindle (that is what you want to happen isn't it?); the men and women, or the machinery and weaponry? Our soldiers will suffer first from the cut-off you advocate - soldiers who YOU admit have never been provided with adequate supplies and services.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree