Who Really Supports the Troops?

In Congress representatives position themselves as supporting the troops while painting the other side as not supporting the troops. This verbal skirmish is just heating up. Between now and March 19th, the fourth anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq the rhetoric will grow ever more shrill. Every word, every vote, every speech on the House or Senate floor is considered for how it will play in the next election advertisement. Energy is being spent on positioning the message while the troops are in the position of being in harms way.

Here’s one idea we can all agree on: The war in Iraq is a disaster. What has the Bush Administration told us about the War in Iraq?

• Our administration said the war would cost $50 billion dollars. So far it has cost over $365 billion and we’re adding billions more every month, even without an escalation of the war.
  
• They said there was an Al Qaeda connection with Iraq prior to 9-11. That was not true.
  
• The President said repeatedly that we would find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We did not.
  
• The administration promised us we would have victory in 3 – 4 months and we would be out of Iraq in less than a year. On May 3, 2003, less than 2 months after the invasion of Iraq, President Bush stood on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln under a banner that declared “Mission Accomplished.” In fact, on March 19th, the US will mark the dark milestone of the 4th anniversary of the war in Iraq.
  
• We were told we would be greeted as liberators. More than 3,100 of our young men and women have died in Iraq. Another 23,417 have been physically wounded and thousands more suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Furthermore, according to Congressman Jack Murtha (D-PA):

• The average weekly attacks [by insurgents in Iraq] have grown from 430 in July 2005 to well over 1000 today.
  
• Iraqi casualties have increased from 63 per day in October 2005 to over 127 per day.
  
• 91 percent of Sunni Iraqis and 74 percent of Shia Iraqis want the U.S. forces out of Iraq.
  
• In January 2006, 47 percent of Iraqis approved of attacks on U.S.-led forces. When the same polling question was asked just 8 months later, 61 percent of Iraqis approved of attacks on U.S-led forces.
  
• Less than 30 percent of Americans support the war and only 11 percent support the President’s plan to increase troop levels in Iraq.
  
• A February 2006 poll showed that 72 percent of American troops serving in Iraq believed U.S. should exit Iraq within the year and 42 percent said their mission was unclear.

Now I have to admit that I’ve never served in the military and my voice might not mean as much. But here’s an interesting fellow, Senator Jim Webb of Virginia. His credentials include a stint as the Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Regan. He was also a combat Marine in Vietnam where he was awarded the Navy Cross, the Silver Star Medal, two Bronze Star Medals, and two Purple Hearts. You would think he has a perspective that most of us don’t when it comes to the argument about supporting our troops. So, what does he make of all of these non-binding resolutions and the debates over whether or not to debate?

"I know what that's like when you're sitting out on an infantry unit and seeing what you're doing interpreted politically. But ... it's an inverted political logic for people to basically say that we have to continue doing this for the good of the troops. We are not continuing this war for the troops. The troops are fighting this war on our behalf because we're continuing it. That's a vital distinction in the debate here."

The President has asked for $100 billion for Iraq on top of the $70 billion he has already requested for this year. He also asked for $145 billion for next year. All of this on top of the 11% increase he is seeking for the Pentagon, raising their budget to $481.4 billion.

Well, with money on the line, let’s see who really wants to support the troops. Murtha has said he wants to approve the funding the president has requested, but he wants to put some conditions on the funds. For example he has said:

1. You can’t send troops into battle until they have the equipment and the training that is required to do their jobs.
   
2. You can’t continue to extend troops overseas if they have been there more than 1 year. And when they do come home, he would like to allow them to stay home for a minimum of one year. Traditionally soldiers are allowed to stay home for two years, but in the current situation many troops are rotating back to battle after only six or seven months at home.
   
3. He wants to end the “stop loss” practice that allows the military to keep people in harms way even after their enlistment is over.
   
4. He does not want any of the funds spent to build permanent bases. A permanent base is a multi-decade commitment to support staffing and infrastructure. If Congress is going to appropriate funds, they should go to the troops.

If I were him, I would call this the “Troop Protection Act of 2007.” Keep in mind that there are no more troops to “surge,” so if we’re going to add 21,500 more troops to the theater, we’re going to have to extend the stay of those going over and we’re going to have to shorten the leave of those who are coming home. Also, you can’t add 21,500 troops without adding more support personnel. According to the Congressional Budget Office the actual surge will be more like 48,000 troops.

It seems to me that the proposal by Congressman Murtha is the best way to show support for the troops. If the president wants to surge, that’s fine. He’s the commander in chief, but he should not expect Congress to roll over and rubber stamp his proposal.

In essence, the President has asked us to trust him again and again. As for me, my trust bank account has been overdrawn by the current administration. It’s time for Congress to grow some backbone and to stand up for our troops. Let’s put some real conditions on funding that will show unwavering support for the troops.