![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jrtomThere's been a lot of debate about the recent Congressional push to set a specific end date for our troops' involvement in Iraq. In particular, the Bush administration and supporters have been equating 'refusing to pass an "emergency" (emergency my ass, but that's another rant) spending bill without such an end date rider' with 'refusal to "support the troops"'.
If Congress refuses to allocate money for Bush to keep troops in Iraq, this does not mean that we leave them all there to die, or even give them less food or ammunition (unless, of course, Bush so orders it, at which point I would fervently hope that Congress would finally summon the spine to impeach his not-nearly-sorry-enough ass for treason). It means that we bring them home. No war funding? Stop war. Not a difficult concept.
Furthermore, insisting that the troops come home by a specific time is not second-guessing the generals. The generals' jobs are to decide the best ways to use military force to achieve the ends that are given to it by our government. They are not the ones who decide what those ends will be.
More simply: we're not proposing to tell the generals how to do their job. We are telling them that we're done with this job, and it's time to stop trying to do it.
Somehow, the Democratic leadership, and others who are publicly opposed to further operations in Iraq, are not getting these messages out, despite their utter simplicity. Instead they're allowing Bush and the hard-core war supporters to frame the debate their way, and making themselves look like they're anti-military in the bargain.
(The first point, at least, has recently been prominently made by Doonesbury (this past Sunday) but not (as far as I know) elsewhere, so I thought it was time to try to get it some more air time.)
If Congress refuses to allocate money for Bush to keep troops in Iraq, this does not mean that we leave them all there to die, or even give them less food or ammunition (unless, of course, Bush so orders it, at which point I would fervently hope that Congress would finally summon the spine to impeach his not-nearly-sorry-enough ass for treason). It means that we bring them home. No war funding? Stop war. Not a difficult concept.
Furthermore, insisting that the troops come home by a specific time is not second-guessing the generals. The generals' jobs are to decide the best ways to use military force to achieve the ends that are given to it by our government. They are not the ones who decide what those ends will be.
More simply: we're not proposing to tell the generals how to do their job. We are telling them that we're done with this job, and it's time to stop trying to do it.
Somehow, the Democratic leadership, and others who are publicly opposed to further operations in Iraq, are not getting these messages out, despite their utter simplicity. Instead they're allowing Bush and the hard-core war supporters to frame the debate their way, and making themselves look like they're anti-military in the bargain.
(The first point, at least, has recently been prominently made by Doonesbury (this past Sunday) but not (as far as I know) elsewhere, so I thought it was time to try to get it some more air time.)