End Game

27 April 2007



Congress Passes War Funding with Timetable for Withdrawal

Yesterday, both chambers of the US Congress approved a bill providing $124.2 billion in spending. With the exception of a few pork barrel projects, the money would be spent fighting the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq-Nam. The bill also would require a withdrawal of US combat troops from Iraq-Nam to begin no later than October 1, 2007. The president has vowed to veto the bill. There does seem to be room for negotiation, but Congress has the upper hand, if it chooses to use it.

The Bush White House has complained that any timetable ties the hands of America’s generals, and the administration believes that the politicians shouldn’t tell the military how to fight the war. Coming from the same people who fired General Eric Shinseki for saying several hundred thousand troops were needed in Iraq-Nam, this is rich. However, in a democracy, the generals are not the people who decide how much longer a war goes on. When the people no longer see any point to continued fighting, they end it through their elected representatives. That what the timetable would achieve – giving the surge a chance to work, and when it doesn’t, ending the killing of US troops.

However, the Busheviks don’t understand one simply fact about funding the war. They need a bill signed. Without a new spending bill, the funding for the war will run out sometime in June, according to some Pentagon sources. So, the choice is to accept the timetable, or negotiate something acceptable with the Democrats in Congress. And some Democrats, like Congressman Dennis Kucinich, may not want to play nice. Indeed, it is in their interests to prevent a bill from being passed. Then, the clock merely runs out.

Politically, the Democrats are trying hard to end the war in such a way that no one can say they lost Iraq-Nam. The GOP is trying to present a debacle as a decisive triumph of American arms. While they position themselves, the fighting continues, and the real losers aren’t in the US. They are in Mesopotamia: the people whose country hasn’t been properly run in their entire lifetimes, and the US and other troops who are bravely trying to do the impossible with all the wrong tools.

A few simple facts should point the way forward. First, America’s involvement in Iraq-Nam is not an existential issue. If the US “loses” in Mesopotamia, there will still be the NFL, McDonald’s and bad TV talent shows. The government will not be taken over by some imam, nor will the churches be turned into mosques. Second, America is the richest and most powerful nation on earth, but that is not the same as having infinite power and wealth. Third, stubbornness and delusional thinking are not the same as leadership and will. Fourth, if ending a war loses an election, a true patriot wouldn’t mind looking for work come November.

© Copyright 2007 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Fedora Linux.

Home

Google
WWW Kensington Review







Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay Learn More