drankin said:
Here is the question, IMO. Do we want to stop funds for the troops in Iraq? Obviously the dems are trying to use the desire for the pro-war folks to fund the war as a way to strong arm their own agenda as well as fund a bunch of special interest pork.
If this is stonewalled, how long until the troops begin to really suffer from lack of funds? Ammo, food, protective gear, fuel, medical equipment... This is where modern politics no longer allows us to complete any military action that we participate.
I think the dems need to use a political angle that doesn't affect the conditions of our troops who are down there risking their lives.
It works the other way around for the pork. The pork was tossed into make it very hard for reluctant Congressmen to vote against the bill - i.e. some of the votes for the bill were bought. The bill wasn't run through as a way to fund a bunch of special interest pork.
None the less, I agree with your overall point. A more straight forward way of addressing the issue would be to rescind the authorization for force in Iraq. Theoretically, that would force Bush to withdraw within about six months.
In practice, it would create an interesting situation - if it had a chance of passing. Could Bush veto the bill to rescind authorization? Would there finally be a showdown on the President as CIC - Congress with authority to declare war issue?
A second way of dealing with the issue would be to set a fixed amount of funding for withdrawal with no additional forthcoming funds. Bush could use the money to withdraw troops or continue fighting until the money runs out, forcing another showdown further down the road. The most likely scenario would be a showdown when the money runs out. Whichever side is most willing to leave unsupplied troops in the field with no way home 'wins' the fight.
The current bill is fairly close to the second, but made a lot of compromises in order to pass. It's not as good as the first method and not even as good as the second, but it's as good as you get when you have to try and assemble a majority in Congress.
Bush can juggle things to keep the troops supplied in the field as long as he knows the money's coming eventually.
For one thing, military can't just quit when their paychecks stop coming. Government budget battles used to make military credit unions a near unanimous choice for military members - being designed for a military customer base and knowing the money would come eventually, the military credit unions just pretended the money did come and credited members' accounts even when budget battles postponed paychecks. Military members that used civilian banks were stuck between a rock and a hard place whenever budget battles delayed paychecks. It's been a long time (over 25 years, at least) since military paychecks have been stopped for budget battles, but civil service employees still get sent home without pay every decade or so because a particularly ferocious budget battle. Typically, the budget does get passed with a clause to pay civil service employees for the lost time, so, provided employees at least kept a little in the bank for hard times, a government shutdown turns into a paid vacation.
Having military forces fighting in Iraq with no paychecks would be huge symbolism for somebody. I'm not sure who would win. Would one of the sides win or would there be total disgust for both sides?
That is reprehensible.
