The US Congress took a symbolic but toothless vote to censure President Bush’s Iraqi troop increase. But now they must do more: vote to drastically cut funding for the Iraqi war.
Bush has again cynically mis-framed his increased funding needs as a “support the troops” argument. But Congress needs to turn it around on Bush by cutting the funding and forcing him to deploy troops consistent with that funding. Then, if he increases the troop level it is HE that is not supporting the troops.
The best course, both in terms of morality and effectiveness is to decrease our involvement and increase our talks with all parties—allies, neighbors and enemies alike. The voters voiced a dis-satisfaction with the war, now realizing it was a mistake sold on false premises. The last thing they voted for was an increase in our aggression.
Thus, the House has a mandate to pursue more peaceful and effective termination to the war. Their power over the purse strings is about the only option short of IMPEACHMENT, which I first endorsed nearly two years ago. They should allot only enough funding that would adequately support a much lower level of troop involvement.
A very rough analysis follows.
1) First, 2006 total military spending in Iraq was102 billion dollars. There were 138,000 troops, thus we were spending $739,000 PER SOLDIER. Vietnam by comparison: adjusted for inflation we spent roughly $61 billion in the peak year, 1969, during which our maximum troop strength was 543,000 or $112,000 per soldier in TODAY’S dollars. Side question: Why on earth would we spend SEVEN TIMES MORE for this war??
2) Even with these absolutely obscene expenditures in order to avoid any charge of shortchanging the troops Congress should keep the per soldier spending the same with the lowered troop levels that are essential for a lasting peace. Assume we withdraw at least half of the soldiers this year, if not all, as Britain is doing. Thus 69,000 troops at even the hugely inflated current budget would have the budget be $50 billion dollars.
NOW if he persists in not only keeping the current troop numbers, but adding to them, it will be President Bush that undercuts the soldiers by slashing the funding per soldier of the previous years.
Congress must cut funding or forever relinquish any claim to oppose this wretched war. It must not cower before yet another of Bush’s deceitful claims of false patriotism, but stand instead for what is right.
In doing so, Congress will place the shoe of responsibility squarely on the foot of its rightful owner.
Bush has again cynically mis-framed his increased funding needs as a “support the troops” argument. But Congress needs to turn it around on Bush by cutting the funding and forcing him to deploy troops consistent with that funding. Then, if he increases the troop level it is HE that is not supporting the troops.
The best course, both in terms of morality and effectiveness is to decrease our involvement and increase our talks with all parties—allies, neighbors and enemies alike. The voters voiced a dis-satisfaction with the war, now realizing it was a mistake sold on false premises. The last thing they voted for was an increase in our aggression.
Thus, the House has a mandate to pursue more peaceful and effective termination to the war. Their power over the purse strings is about the only option short of IMPEACHMENT, which I first endorsed nearly two years ago. They should allot only enough funding that would adequately support a much lower level of troop involvement.
A very rough analysis follows.
1) First, 2006 total military spending in Iraq was102 billion dollars. There were 138,000 troops, thus we were spending $739,000 PER SOLDIER. Vietnam by comparison: adjusted for inflation we spent roughly $61 billion in the peak year, 1969, during which our maximum troop strength was 543,000 or $112,000 per soldier in TODAY’S dollars. Side question: Why on earth would we spend SEVEN TIMES MORE for this war??
2) Even with these absolutely obscene expenditures in order to avoid any charge of shortchanging the troops Congress should keep the per soldier spending the same with the lowered troop levels that are essential for a lasting peace. Assume we withdraw at least half of the soldiers this year, if not all, as Britain is doing. Thus 69,000 troops at even the hugely inflated current budget would have the budget be $50 billion dollars.
NOW if he persists in not only keeping the current troop numbers, but adding to them, it will be President Bush that undercuts the soldiers by slashing the funding per soldier of the previous years.
Congress must cut funding or forever relinquish any claim to oppose this wretched war. It must not cower before yet another of Bush’s deceitful claims of false patriotism, but stand instead for what is right.
In doing so, Congress will place the shoe of responsibility squarely on the foot of its rightful owner.
_______________________________
CUT TOTAL MILITARY SPENDING!
CUT TOTAL MILITARY SPENDING!
Congress shouldn’t stop there. The US military budget, a full one fifth of the total budget, is a whopping 600 billion dollars for 2007. Bush wants $624.6 billion for 2008. We spend more than the next 14 countries combined and are fueling an international increase in arms spending. Even in Clinton’s last year, when the military was a stratospheric 250 billion we were spending more than the next 11 nations combined. Such expenditures only serve to make us and the world less safe. Although it admittedly creates jobs for the average citizen…and huge profits for the captains of industry.
To think that a band of criminals (the 9/11 hijackers) sparked the pre-set neocon plan to steal from our treasury for this unnecessary and counterproductive spending. [PLEASE SEE The Project for a New American Century, http://www.newamericancentury.org/ for details of this long planned escalation].
We should get back to 2000 levels of military spending and encourage it downwards from there.
To think that a band of criminals (the 9/11 hijackers) sparked the pre-set neocon plan to steal from our treasury for this unnecessary and counterproductive spending. [PLEASE SEE The Project for a New American Century, http://www.newamericancentury.org/ for details of this long planned escalation].
We should get back to 2000 levels of military spending and encourage it downwards from there.
No comments:
Post a Comment