Senate Passes Withdrawal/Funding Legislation
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Foreign Policy, LegislationToday’s vote completes work on the rarest of bills: legislation to try to end a major war as fighting still rages. Democrats hope to send the measure to the White House on Monday, almost exactly four years after President Bush declared an end to major combat in a speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln. That would be a particularly pungent political anniversary for Bush to deliver only the second veto of his presidency.Last night’s House vote came after a fiery, partisan debate that has grown familiar after months of wrangling, first over a nonbinding resolution opposing Bush’s troop increase, then over the largest war spending bill in U.S. history.
The largest war spending bill in U.S. history. This is a vote not only about a lack of confidence in our current leadership’s ability to prosecute the war effectively, but also a vote about our own priorities.
In short, do we keep pouring billions into a war that seems lost or do we focus our energies elsewhere?
Here’s the response from both sides…
“How many more suicide bombs must kill American soldiers before this president offers a timeline for our troops to come home?” asked Rep. Patrick J. Murphy (D-Pa.), a freshman Iraq war veteran who lost nine fellow paratroopers this week in one of the deadliest attacks of the war. “How many more military leaders must declare the war will not be won militarily before this president demands that the Iraqis stand up and fight for their country? How many more terrorists will President Bush’s foreign policy breed before he focuses a new strategy, a real strategy? This bill says enough is enough.”“Every generation of Americans have had their obligation to stand up and protect their country, not just for today but for tomorrow and the next generation,” House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said. “We have a solemn obligation to the American people to finish the job we started.”
The problem is, they’re both right.
However, the Bush administration has so mishandled this war, many just don’t care about finishing what we started. They don’t see it as a solemn obligation to Americans. They see it as choice, and they’re choosing the Dems and withdrawal.
What are you choosing?
This entry was posted on Thursday, April 26th, 2007 and is filed under Foreign Policy, Legislation. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
April 26th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
I agree – largely, people’s feelings about this war are connected specifically to their feelings about this President. In any case, it’s a statement rather than a reality… since the veto is in order.
In case you want to post a clip of today’s debate: http://www.thenewsroom.com/details/244062/US
April 26th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
What are our objectives in Iraq?
Of those objectives, which ones have been accomplished, which ones are out of reach, and which ones are still in play?
The ones that are still in play are the ones that determine whether or not the war is still worth America’s while. Is there anything more substantial for the U.S. to do, that the U.S. can reasonably do, than merely refereeing the latest in a long line of Sunni-Shi’a conflicts throughout Muslim history? Not as far as I can tell. If that’s the case, then it’s time to let the Iraqis sink or swim without us hovering over their shoulders. If they sink, well, at least that will be over with sooner rather than later.
April 26th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
I think its rediculous that someone sees it fit to stay in Iraq for an obligation to Americans.
We invaded a sovereign country, and found no wmd’s.
Sadaam was hung for killing how many kurds? Pff….China kills that on a monthly basis. They are the world’s worst human rights abusers, and we sit idley by and watch….and continue to buy, buy, buy. Go find me ten things in your house that doesn’t say, “made in China”.
This war in Iraq is for profiteering and oil sharing agreements. Period.
Rove is being investigated, so is Condi, and articles of impeachment have been brought forth upon Cheney’s shoulders.
Explain why a Blackwater agent will get $80,000 a month to do the same job as one of our soldiers who gets about $25,000 doing the same task in Iraq?
Supporting our soldiers at this point means bringing them home, giving them the counseling they will be in dire need of, and going about things in a policy way, instead of being blindly lied to and led into a feverent pitch about nationalism, and spreading democracy.
We sit and watch those in Darfur die with flaming tires around thier necks, China has mobile killing vans to carry out thier death sentencing, and we are still trying to figure out wtf is going on in Iraq.
This isnt a right, or left issue. This is a human issue. Globalize human rights. Globalize women’s rights. Globalize humans where we love one another, regardless of race, creed, religion or status.
April 27th, 2007 at 2:49 am
IMHO, the war would not have gone anywhere near as badly if the military had spent less time destroying infrastructure on the way in, and more time on thinking about how to ensure that the invasion registered as barely a blip on the Iraqi economy.
If there was a group out there offering strategies that actually could produce results, fulfill our obligation to the American people (and to the Iraqis!), and get this war won, I’d say, by all means, let’s do it. But no one is offering such strategies, and I suspect the reality is simply that in an imperfect world, there are no perfect strategies. And Iraq is an especially imperfect part of the world at the moment. The sooner we recognize that this war cannot any longer be won, the better.
Given that, the choice we’re faced with is to continue to allow the war to be mismanaged and bungled, or we can get the hell out of Dodge, and stop having our brothers and sisters, sons and daughters die for a cause that none of us really believe in. In all seriousness, can we really afford to wait for a new administration to replace Bush, when we have the opportunity to save American lives right now? Something is terribly wrong if we honestly think the best course of action is to wait until January, 2009 and hope the next guy/gal won’t be as bad as Bush has been. The Democrat strategy may be retreat, but right now, that’s the best option we have available.
If they’re really smart, they’ll redeploy a large chunk of the men and women they’re pulling out of Iraq into Afghanistan where they should have been to begin with. And hopefully, they’ll realize they need to do that before Afghanistan starts looking like Iraq does now.
April 27th, 2007 at 8:23 am
One of the plans from the ISG was to make more technical advisors and training cadre to get the Iraqi Army and Iraqi Police on their feet. The ’surge’ pretty much undercut that option by sending more military folks onto the ground to not really ‘win’ the war but to regain the initiative we had lost so many years ago.
The problem with the ’surge’ is that it will take years to take the insurgents to the woodshed. May be with the news coming out that the local nationals are turning against the more extreme Muslim fundamentalists, the time line may be shorter. Regardless, it is going to take a lot of time to do the work. The counterinsurgency is also dependent on other tools than the ‘cudgel over the head’ approach of sending more and more troops on to the ground – reconstruction with the various PRTs, strong local and national government on the Iraqi’s part (which just ain’t happening), and other stuff.
If we are to continue on with the ’surge’, we then need to get more people into the military to share the burden of the conflict. More troops will be required to not only ‘win’ in the center of gravity, but also in the perpherial areas where we are continuing to play ‘whack a mole’.
I say move troops to the training side of the house and let the Iraqi folks start to fight for themselves. We cannot be in an indefinite commitment to keep the peace – it is really unfair to our military folks to ask them to continue to ’sacrifice’ while the rest of the nation continues on as if nothing is happening.
April 27th, 2007 at 8:29 am
It was said, “If they’re really smart, they’ll redeploy a large chunk of the men and women they’re pulling out of Iraq into Afghanistan where they should have been to begin with. And hopefully, they’ll realize they need to do that before Afghanistan starts looking like Iraq does now.”
Due to the terrain in Afghanistan, it is not like we can just place either a heavy brigade or a heavy division to do take the fight to the Taliban and AQ folks. The logistics to get them into the country is daunting as it is, but then the real question becomes what would we do with them when they are there? 101st, 82nd, 10th, and other infantry divisions are taking most of the duties in Afghanistan – can 4ID, 1CAV, 1AD, 2ACR, 3ACR, and others come in to do the job in Afghanistan?
I am just thinking out loud.
April 27th, 2007 at 11:14 am
[...] Donklephant says Americans see the war as a choice, not an obligation. [...]
April 27th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Agreed, wholeheartedly.