Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiIf President Bush's Veto Is Not Challenged Tomorrow, Thousands of Iraqis and Hundreds of US Troops Are Certain to Perish
There is no overestimating the popular reverence Americans have for their men and women in uniform. A direct translation of "squaddie", a term steeped in class contempt which betrays as much antipathy and ambivalence as it does admiration in the UK, simply does not exist in the US. Fighting for your country is generally regarded as the ultimate form of public service.
Flight attendants will announce the presence of an active service man or woman to cheers from the rest of the plane. At anti-war demonstrations, protesters wave banners proclaiming "Support the troops, oppose the war." The nation may be irrevocably split on the moral value of any war, but when it comes to backing the people who are executing it, they speak as one.
If such widespread veneration for the military in a democracy is problematic, the reasons underpinning it extend beyond hyper-patriotism. Thanks to the draft during the Korean and Vietnam wars, many Americans have a close relative who is a veteran. The suburban myth that liberals abused soldiers returning from Vietnam has made progressives anxious to be vocal in their support for the military. And, whatever its reputation abroad, since the second world war the US military has been viewed domestically as an instrument of progressive social change. It was one of the first American institutions to formally integrate. Thanks to the GI bill, which gave housing or an education to those returning from the second world war, it was instrumental in creating the postwar middle class.
Finally, in a nation with no safety net, the military is one of the few government-backed means of advancement for the poor. "I was living in a trailer with my grandmother," says Darrell Anderson, 25, who earned a purple heart in Iraq and later went awol. "I was broke and I needed education and healthcare, and if I had to go to war for them that was just what I had to do. Going to the military was my last chance. My last option." If all else fails, you can yomp and shoot your way to the American dream.
So America's support for its military is as deep as it is complex. While that support may coincide with the backing for a given war, it may at times also contradict it. This may be one of those times. The showdown between the Bush administration and the Democratic Congress over the war in Iraq currently hinges on which side can claim ownership of the troops' interests, and harness that public affection to bolster their position.
President Bush has requested more money from Congress for the war. Congress has passed a bill that gives him more than he requested so long as he sets a timetable for withdrawing the troops. Bush has vowed to veto the bill, effectively demanding a blank cheque for the war. The Democrats do not have enough votes to override the veto. Bush cannot get the money without Congressional approval. For as long as the stalemate continues no money can be earmarked for the war, and at some stage the cash will dry up. In these deliberations the plight of Iraqis, who are dying in their scores every day, is subordinated to more local concerns: which side can convince the public that they are standing their ground to protect the troops, and thereby force the other side to compromise before the money runs out.
You would think this would be a slam-dunk for the Democrats. With approval ratings in the 30s, Bush is deeply unpopular. So is his war. According to a Rasmussen poll last week, 57% of Americans support either an immediate withdrawal (37%) or a deadline for withdrawal (20%), while 60% believe that his "surge" has either made things worse in Iraq or has made no difference. As though that were not enough, he will most likely sign the veto tomorrow, on the fourth anniversary of his "mission accomplished" speech.
Not only is Bush weak, but so is his standing with the troops. Since he announced the surge, the US death toll has remained steady at around three a day, while the situation on the ground has deteriorated and the Iraqi government has disintegrated. Last month came the debacle at Walter Reed hospital, where wounded veterans testified to lying in rooms infested with mice and cockroaches, with mould on the walls.
Then last week came damaging testimony relating to two of the "war on terror's" greatest icons. The first, Jessica Lynch, was hailed as the plucky "Rambo from West Virginia" after she was captured in an ambush at Nassiriya early in the war and later rescued by US forces. "I am still confused as to why they chose to lie and tried to make me a legend when the real heroics of my fellow soldiers that day were, in fact, legendary," said Lynch at a Congressional hearing.
The other was the family of Pat Tillman, a football star, who forwent a $9m contract to volunteer for the military. According to the defence department Tillman was killed by enemy combatants in Afghanistan in 2004 while leading an attempt to rescue US troops. Five weeks later they admitted he was killed by friendly fire. "We believe this narrative was intended to deceive the family but more importantly the American public," said Kevin Tillman, Pat's brother. "Pat's death was clearly the result of fratricide [friendly fire] ... the truth needed to be suppressed."
And so the world Bush occupies - where the war is justified, conditions on the ground are improving, and democracy in the Middle East will flourish - keeps getting smaller. Even those he cast as heroes no longer wish to share the stage with him.
All of this provides ample space for the Democrats to establish an alternative narrative for both supporting the troops and stopping the war. One that says the best way to support them is to remove them from a war they cannot win, and return them home where they will be cared for. An opportunity to represent the people who elected them, implement their mandate, and in so doing fulfil their constitutional duty to check and then balance executive power.
Like most acts of principle, making this move carries significant political risk. But not making it carries the certainty of thousands more dead Iraqis and hundreds more dead soldiers. A CBS-New York Times poll shows only 36% back withholding funds if the president uses his veto. That is where leadership comes in: the Democrats have yet to prove their ability to win people over to a course of action they believe is both justified and necessary. Who knows how many people would support them if they made the case for it. Who knows how many would have opposed the war if they'd been asked. The war is over. To postpone withdrawal is simply to prolong the agony.
Yet it seems the Democrats are set to cave in on their demand of setting a timetable, agreeing instead to "non-binding benchmarks" on the Iraqi government, an impotent body that lacks authority and legitimacy. That would not be compromise but capitulation.
This is only the second time Bush has used his veto. The first was six months ago, to stop a bill on embryonic stem-cell research becoming law. The bill, he said, "would support the taking of innocent human life ... and crosses a moral boundary our decent society needs to respect". Would that he lavished so much care on human life that has evolved beyond a collection of cells. Would that his moral boundaries stretched beyond the green zone. Would that he had an opposition worthy of the name.
© 2007 The Guardian
23 Comments so far
Show AllBack in late 80s and early 90s a small group of us communitarians joined a tax resistence movement whose purpose was to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. We argued the government had no right to make us pay to be killed in a nuclear war. Eventually, each of us paid our back taxes, but some sort of international agreement did reduce the number of nuclear missiles. So, perhaps a tax strike might be an effective way to bring the Bush Administration under the people's financial discipline? In my opinion, the government has no right to make citizens pay to be killed in Bush's illegal conquest of Iraq.
No funds for continuing in this bloody quagmire. No funds. Period!
Come hell and high water we will stay in Iraq. Not enough of our 'leaders' will allow us to leave until profits stop.
Peace advocates need to make this and other wars unprofitable for corporate elites. Then our mercenaries will leave. Withdrawal of official uniformed military will not be enough.
What the news doesn't report is who in Iraq is showing leadership and getting support from the people. On this May Day, it's good to see that there is hope for reconciliation in that country when we leave. Most Iraqis want a united and peaceful country -- the main obstacle is the presence of our troops.
I think Voxclamantis and Rebel Farmer are on to something--
If Shrub vetos this bill then send him another one with more stringent restrictions. Then use the time to start impeachment hearings on Cheney first, Bush next, then Gonzalez, then Rice, .....
Here is a letter I sent (I hope) to Nancy Pelosi:
The recent elections that put the Democrats in office and you in the Speaker's chair were not an aberration. We voted for change. We voted against the insane war in Iraq (and the pending war on Iran that I see fomenting in our president's speeches). We voted for change. We voted for a strong, independent voice in the Congress, one that would not automatically capitulate to the wishes of the administration. We voted for change.
The funding bill sent for signature will be vetoed; a promise from our leader. And then the Democrats will put together something with "benchmarks" instead of a demand for withdrawal of the troops. And the Republicans will ok it, the president will sign it, and we will be back (exactly) where we started from.
Why do we have two parties if the one we trust to make a difference is no different?
I wonder if she will ever see this...
I'm glad Bush will veto the bill. As far as that goes he can veto every bill, at least it's one way to stop the supplemental funding.
This is not about fighting the right - it is about a regime of dishonest thugs that has hijacked America; it is about the morality and soul of what America says it stands for.
To much of the rest of the world America has become a nation of thugs and thieves, a pariah. And by dumbing it down to just a fight against the right, an argument about protecting future elections is to avoid completely the real issues.
Neither Pelosi not any other Democrat is doing anythng except token fighting. And if they are constrained in their actions against the Bush and Cheney for because they fear it may affect the Presidential elections in 2008 they are beneath contempt. They are frauds if they say they fight for principle.
Here is one of the greatest moral wrongs since the 1940s (Vietnam had massive moral issues but that was nothing compared to the abyss that is Iraq) and people hold back for fear of losing an election 18 months away? What sort of calculating amoral minds do they have if that is a driver? Not the sort of people one would want as elected leaders.
And the Democrats are also holding back with weak action because they do not want to offend the big business friends of Bush that he is running the country for.
Kucinich, who is actually a Democrat, has owned two different guns in his life. One, he said, "to scare muggers." So now he's a big peace guy.
If we want to fight the right, we can't attack each other. Nobody's perfect, not even Kucinich. Not Nancy Pelosi. But they're both fighting Bush. Bush is the enemy. It will take everything all of us can do to win is '08. Kucinich won't win. At least he has the decency to step aside rather than throw the election to the Republicans.
When war is no longer championed, soldiers will not be given status in any society. The whole think wreaks of the most base and primitive urges in mankind. The identification with force, raw power and aggression is no longer viable on a planet where collectively we must work together to ensure long term survival. Neighbors who never say HELLO tend to be pretty darn nice to each other after a hurricane or when they're all flooded out. People will work together when they have to, when the threat they face forces them to overcome the previous false walls they constructed around civility and the realization that the tree of life has an intended branch for EVERY people.
The Democrats don't care any more than Bush what the public wants. Big Oil owns both parties and they didn't go into Iraq for nothing. The congressional bill not only gives the administration a record amount of money to continue the occupation, it makes withdrawal a non-binding suggestion. Until people wake up and realize they are living in a fascist dictatorship, nothing will happen.
The funding bill that is going to get vetoed by Shrub is so watered down that it is meaningless. If the Dem's had half a spine, they would send back a bill that only funds the WITHDRAWAL of the troops, not the continuation of this immoral and evil invasion of a soverign nation. you can write Pelosi at AmericanVoices@mail.house.gov to give her your thoughts on this matter. That said....
Kucinich introduced Articles of Impeachment against Cheney last week (HR333). If you REALLY want impeachment, then you are going to have to take action EVERY DAY to make that happen. Write, call, e-mail your Congressional reps and Pelosi EVERY DAY and DEMAND that HR333 be put in motion NOW!! No more excuses! No more stalling! Congress has the responsibility and the obligation to protect and defend the Constitution. This is about justice and accountability. It's not about party politics. It's about the survival of democracy in America. Period!
Oh, and by the way. Vote for Kucinich in the primaries. When the Dem's put up another one of their bought and paid for candidates, drop your Democratic registration. Let Pelosi and the DNC know that you will no longer support a party that does not represent the people. Then go and vote for any candidate of your choice. Or maybe we could just write-in Kucinich in '08!
I don't think much of this tepid bill Congress has put together, but I agree they should just keep sending it back instead of giving Bush what he wants. The public voted to DO SOMETHING, not cave in. So don't cave in. Support Dennis. He's not caving in. And call Nancy and vociferously object to caving in. That's not what the people voted for.
Congress should pass exactly the same bill and let the cretin from Crawford to veto it again.
And what of the Democrat's who are in the Presidential primary? Only Congressman Dennis Kucinich has consistently, forcefully and courageously maintained that we must leave Iraq now, coupled with a detailed plan for U.N. involvement and rebuilding. Gary Younge is correct in criticizing the Democrats - I hope he will point out the Democrat in Congress (Kucinich) who is answering the wishes of the majority of the American people who are crying out to end this tragic, brutal war founded on lies.
I'm with you JaneM. I stay mad at these gutless democrat's that we voted for to stop this illegal war and all they are doing is caving in to the moron who sent our troops to their death's.The democrat's should be impeaching Bush/Cheney and this most corrupt administration and send this bill with a withdrawl date right back to this idiot unelected president and let people see who is really not funding the troops.
If the Democratic controlled Congress is unwilling to impeach the criminally insane Bush Presidency, how are we going to save ourselves, our nation and the World from fascism, war and extinction?! Bush is committed to win his war in Iraq whatever the cost, even World War Three, his and Pat Robertson's biblical "Armageddon". That's insane. We have a madman in the White House!
We could keep a good thought here. The Democrats will rewrite the funding bill with specific and binding withdrawal deadlines and enough money to fund the "troops" until that is accomplished, and they will send it back to the President who can do with it what he likes. Then, in 2008, Americans will re-elect their brave Democrats (and brave Republicans), replace this rotten administration and begin the process of regaining our decency. This is clearly the best and most intelligent thing for Congress to do. What could possibly prompt them to do otherwise?
I am so disappointed in the Democrats I seethe every day as I see this charade carried on. Funding the troops is only going to keep the status quo. In order to stop the war, or attempt to, all monies must stop as soon as possible. The best way to support the troops is to bring them home.
Re my previous comment - that's Democrats, not Democrat's. I was thinking of the way they possess this war as much as George Bush. If you don't end it, it is yours.
"Would that he lavished so much care on human life that has evolved beyond a collection of cells. Would that his moral boundaries stretched beyond the green zone. Would that he had an opposition worthy of the name."
TOUCHE!
The Democrats are first and foremost opportunists. We need to put the heat on them and let them know thay have much to gain by standing up to this administration (and by bringing it to justice) and much to lose by backing down.
Let's stop the spin.
By vetoing the bill, Bush is putting the troops in harms way. Bush is not supporting the troops. He is vetoing the bill the Congress sent him.
The Democrats can not back down on this.
We, as voters, need to sift through the GOP propaganda and see that the GOP is acting against our troops.