Both sides are guilty of using the soldiers in the field as political pawns. That’s what politicians do with soldiers.
The Democrats act as though they’re trying to ‘save’ the poor, dumb, misguided soldiers. Well, guess what, they certainly don’t need saving. If they felt that way they never would have signed up.
Meanwhile Bush acts, quite innocently, as though all he’s trying to do is keep the mean equipped and supplied while disingenuously sidestepping the issue that they’re deployed in Iraq on his orders and that he does have the direct authority to withdraw them.
What’s more important to him, I wonder – his ego, or his party’s future electoral prospects?
:dubious: What the Dems in Congress are trying to do is get the troops out of Iraq, by whatever means are available to them under the Constitution; that’s their “political agenda” here, and you can’t fairly characterize it as holding the troops hostage.
Look, your basic point is correct: this is what happens in a political disagreement over a war. But the above comment is absurd. Some of the soldiers over there didn’t sign up for the military, they’re members of the National Guard. So in a literal sense they didn’t sign up, at least not for this, and I’m sure some of them feel like they need saving.
I’m sure they hope ending the occupation before November 2008 will improve Democrats’ electoral prospects in that election, I’m (pretty) sure they’re right about that, and I’m sure that’s exactly how they should be thinking. Because, you know, democracy is supposed to be all about doing the will of the people; do it, and more power is your reward. Am I missing something here?
The National Guard *is *a part of the military. I joined the National Guard. I went through the *exact * same Basic Training as the other recruits. *Exact * same advanced training as the “regular” Army recruits in my MOS. My unit was activated and sent to Saudia Arabia and Iraq during the Persian Gulf war. While there may have been opinions about going, no one in my unit (mainly a bunch of college kids) was surprised or felt tricked. We were in the Army for Chrissakes! So, in a"literal" sense, we (they) most certainly did sign up for whatever military duty the Commander in Chief felt was necessary.
Sure I read some newspaper accounts of “poor me–I didn’t sign up for this” type of whining, but don’t let anyone fool you that anyone who signs up for the miliatry (any branch; any capacity), is somehow exempt from possible deployment.
W may have finally :rolleyes: found his “General Grant” in the form of General Petreus. I say give the guy a chance.
It may yet be a case of “too little, too late.” With barely 90 days in-theater to make his mark, I think it is too early to call the game. Speaking stricly for myself, though, I have little patience left for the General shuffle.
Petreus is certainly a breath of fresh air, unlike all those nervous nellies running things before. They were always complaining that they didn’t have enough troops, whereas Petreus just says he needs more. Its this sort of adroit strategic subtlety the Bushiviks have been seeking.
The military analysis of hippies is the stuff of legend, but nonetheless, whenever I think about his approach to Baghdad it reminds me too much of “enclaves”, it brings to mind sombre echos of Dien Ben Phu, and Custer. But I am probably too inexperienced to see the brilliant ploy hidden within, though it seems our troops are being deployed in much the same way as I deploy a worm when fishing.
But, as I say, there’s probably something very smart about all this.
Regardless of the purity of the Dems’ motives, how can their actions be described as ‘holding the troops hostage’? They’ve funded the troops once, albeit with the aim of bringing them home - which happens to be their prerogative, as the branch Constitutionally in charge of both the purse and the decision of whether we should be at war. They set a policy, and they funded it; Bush vetoed it.
And having been told to stuff it, the House has now provided funding for the war again, albeit for a shorter increment of time. Again, this has no ill effect on the troops. It doesn’t even change the policy, this time. It just funds the war for a few months (the war’s been funded entirely by a series of short-term bills), and requires Bush to report on some things. How is this holding the troops hostage? But Bush threatens to veto this, too, for no apparent reason other than it’s not exactly the pony he asked for.
Eventually, if Bush keeps on vetoing bills, the Congress will run out of time to come up with a new funding variant that a majority of both houses can agree on, before the troops actually do run out of money. And if this happens, who will have been responsible?
Like wax paper that you just pulled out from under a greasy pizza. However, just because it’s an obvious ploy doesn’t mean the public at large won’t be completely taken in.
Depends on how you interpret GeeDub’s intention. Admittedly, peering into his mind is like reading tea leaves in a toilet bowl, but I think he believes his own press releases, he believes that victory is right around the corner. All he need do is hang on for another Friedman Unit, maybe two, tops…and the sky will begin to rain ponies. He is not positioning himself to avoid blame, he is positioning himself to claim credit.
So he doesn’t need an long term strategy, a “run out the clock to the next administration”. That would definitely force him into compromise for funding. But he can shift things around for a few more months until the Day of Jubilee, and then he won’t have any trouble getting his money, he will be too busy resisting calls for him to be named President for Life.
I’ve never heard anywhere outside of conservative mud-slinging where the Democrats have claimed the troops are poor, dumb, or misguided. But some of them are being killed and I think we can all agree it would be good if we could save them from that.
However, I think you may have the seed of an interesting idea here. Maybe the Democrats should enact a limit on involuntary tour extensions - troops who have completed a two year tour of duty in Iraq will be allowed to rotate out of the country. Naturally, those who wish to volunteer for an extended tour will be encouraged and commended. But those who think they’ve done enough will be allowed to come home. Bush and the conservatives have been claiming all along that the troops in the field oppose withdrawal and feel betrayed by the Democrats who are trying to pull them out. If that’s true, well and good, and they’ll stay. If not and they don’t see that they’re serving any purpose in Iraq, we’ll find that out as well. If nothing else, instead of politicians announcing what the troops think, it’ll give them a chance to express what they think themselves.
They would volunteer to stay in droves. The overwhelming power of the bonding between soldiers in harms way obliterates everything in its path. You can read about the same phenomenon as far back as written history extends, soldiers loyalty to their “buddies” goes right to the spine.
You heard about the 11 ‘moderate’ Republican congressmen (really more ‘endangered’ than ‘moderate’) who gave Bush a piece of their mind a few days ago?
You know how many of them voted for the House’s short-term funding extension the other day? Zero.
The earliest I think we might see significant GOP defections is after primary filing deadlines have passed next spring. The GOP base still supports this war, and I can’t see their Congresscritters voting against it until they know they won’t face a primary challenger.
But even then, it won’t at first be enough to override a veto. And since we’re talking about spring of 2008, we still won’t be out of there until the next Administration if the Dems rely on a veto override.
The Dems’ real weapon is that they don’t need an override - they just need to not capitulate. No bill = no war.