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.

Why Oppose an Escalation in Iraq?

Last night President Bush announced his plans for what is being euphemistically called a troop “surge.” In military parlance it’s called an escalation. When faced with over 47,000 wounded and more than 3,000 dead, the president has decided to escalate – to pick up the pace. That seems to me to be heading the wrong direction.

The President, when faced with the message from the American people that “stay the course,” was an unacceptable practice, was faced with two options. He could draw down the troops, or he could escalate the war. I don’t think the President quite understood what we meant. I say, support our troops. Bring them home now.

There are three reasons why I oppose the escalation of troops. First, the President has proven himself untrustworthy. Second, the President is asking us to NOT trust reliable experts. And third, we’ve already tried this strategy with tragic consequences.

In his speech, the president has said, in essence, “Trust me.” This is the president who said:

• Trust me. Iraq is linked to September 11th.
  
• Trust me. Iraq has weapons of mass destruction that are a clear and present danger to the US
  
• Trust me. We can do this war on the cheap with very few troops,
  
• Trust me. Armor only slows our troops down. We don’t need armor.
  
• Trust me. We will be greeted as liberators.
  
• Trust me. Your National Guard troops are needed for a short period of time.
  
• Trust me. Mission accomplished!

No, President Bush. Like the national debt, I’m afraid your “trust” account is badly overdrawn.

To trust President Bush, we have to NOT trust such experienced voices as the Generals on the ground, former Secretary of State Colin Powel and the entire bipartisan Iraq Study Group. In fact, General Abizaid stated before the Senate Armed Services Committee, "I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the Corps commander, General Dempsey… And I said… if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no."

Keep in mind that this strategy has already been tried. Last summer we increased U.S. troops in Baghdad by 12,000. Unless you’ve been living in a cave, you already know the results – more injuries to US soldiers, more deaths, more civilian casualties and a strong upsurge in violence. The President and the military have had the opportunity to ask for more troops for several years.

In conclusion, I’d like to propose an alternative approach. If the President is looking for an escalation, he can escalate diplomacy. In a recent poll conducted by the University of Maryland, 82% of Democrats and 72% of Republicans said we should directly engage with Syria and Iran to establish a political solution in Iraq, as was unanimously recommended by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. Otherwise, what he can expect is an escalation in protests from the American people.

Here are ten actions you can take today to oppose the escalation of the war in Iraq:

1. TODAY - Attend a rally to stop the escalation in Iraq. You can look at Moveon.org or AmericaSaysNo.org to find a local rally. Can’t find one? Create one!
   
2. Call, email and text message all of your friends and encourage them to attend a rally.
   
3. Call your Senators and Congressman/Congresswoman and express your concern over the plan to escalate the war in Iraq. Call 202-224-3121.
   
4. Join Tom Vilsack’s campaign to Communities Opposed to Escalating the War Resolution. After you sign the pledge, you’ll be given instructions on how to pass a resolution in your home town, county and state.
   
5. Use the power of the pen (or word-processor)! Write a letter to the editor at your local paper. It’s best to actually print it out and carry it in. If not, most newspapers will accept an email, but not as an attachment. Or you can blog for peace. Hey, you read this, didn’t you? Why not write your own blog? If you would rather speak than write, call in to local radio shows to oppose the escalation of the war in Iraq.
   
6. Go big or stay home – literally. Join in the March for Peace. See http://www.unitedforpeace.org. The government brought the troops home from Vietnam, after we took to the streets in massive numbers. It's time to take to the streets today. On January 26th I’m going to be on a bus headed for DC. What are you going to be doing?
   
7. Sign the Mandate for Peace.
   
8. Jump on a train that is already moving! Join your local peace and activist groups. There are general activists groups. For example, John Edwards has formed One Corps. Moveon.org has set up Operation Democracy. There are also specific groups that deal with Human Rights, such as Amnesty International or Civil Liberties, such as the ACLU. And there are groups specifically devoted to peace activism such as United for Peace & Justice, Gold Star Families for Peace or Code Pink.
   
9. Create a photo petition. See the instructions here.
   
10. Support a candidate who supports peace. Two declared presidential candidates have come out in favor of bringing our troops home - Tom Vilsack and John Edwards. You can contribute to their campaigns. You can volunteer to work for them. You can hold rallies in your home to support them. If you contact the campaigns, they will give you plenty to do to work toward peace.

An Open Letter to President George W. Bush

Dear President Bush,

I strongly oppose adding more troops to Iraq, in what is being described as a "surge." To do so would be to override the expressed concerns of Generals on the ground, Secretary Powell, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group and the American people. Please bring our troops home. There is no military solution to this political problem.

Furthermore I would like to see the findings of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group implemented right away. We need to engage in aggressive diplomacy, not aggressive military operations.

Sincerely,

Tony Loyd