The American Tragedy of Our Troops Held Hostage
President Bush is holding our troops hostage and threatening them with death. Here is what he is saying to Congress:”Order me out of Iraq, and I will abandon the troops in the field. The blood of your children will be on your hands, not mine.”
Every coffin that comes home shows he means business.
This is the ugly truth Congress wrestles with but will not name. Congress has been terrorized, like any family whose children are kidnapped and held hostage.
Vote to stop funding? Vote for an immediate start to withdrawal? American soldiers will die. As they have been dying. Bush knows he can blame Congress and the public’s lack of “will” for the continued horror.
“They would not have died,” he would say, “had the politicians in Washington not interfered with our commanders in the field.”
This is Bush’s threat. And everyone knows it, but few will talk about it. It is not easy to speak these truths about an American leader. But no other conclusion is possible.
Bush has so far, however, successfully framed the issue differently. Congress should not “cut and run.” He’s in charge. As the sad-voiced man in Ari Fleischer’s cynical and misleading “Freedom Watch” pro-occupation campaign ad puts it, “It’s no time to quit. It’s no time for politics.”
If there has ever been a time for politics, this is it. Because behind Bush’s bluster is a bloody threat, a presidential threat of a sort this nation has never seen.
Congress, of course, could simply do nothing and bring the stand-off to a head. Without new authorization and new funding, Bush might be forced to chart a new course or (again) defy the Constitution. There is plenty of money to effect a safe withdrawal. But Bush is unlikely to either order a safe withdrawal or admit defiance of the Constitution. He will simply let the blood flow. How many will die, like so many terror hostages of the past, before Congress approves more ransom money?
How much blood would head off threats of impeachment?
Congress does not enforce the Constitutional requirement that foreign military initiatives require affirmative Congressional approval every two years because they know they will be blamed for every American death in Iraq from that day forward. And they know in their hearts that Bush will do nothing to prevent those deaths. This is the president who refused to adequately train and supply the troops, who abandoned the injured upon their return to America.
Does anyone expect that this president would actually order a safe and effective withdrawal plan? That he would execute such a plan if he were ordered to do so? No, Bush would not do that.
Congress’s mistake was in framing the issue as if they believed he would ever accept their orders could they muster the votes to issue the orders. But Bush won’t obey those orders, and they know it, and so they are arguing with themselves and with us about whether or not to pay the ransom.
We have come to the horrible circumstance of an American president holding his own troops hostage in a foreign land.
This is a heartbreakingly true framing of Bush’s strategy for continuing his occupation of Iraq.
So what should be done?
As a first step, Congress must reassert its constitutional authority and restore the balance of power with a White House so drunk on power that it has brought our very democracy to the brink.
Congress could do this by immediately passing a resolution that forbids military engagement with Iran without additional prior approval of Congress. Yes, I said Iran. The Iraq War resolution of 2002 cannot, under any circumstance, be used to justify Bush’s military intervention in Iran. The balance of power will not be restored by this simple, critical act. But at least some weight will be added to Congress’ side of the scale. And, of course, another act of impetuous nation-invading might be stopped.
At the same time, Congress and all of us must call Bush out on his hostage-taking. We must name it for what it is and frame it truthfully. The tragedy of the Iraq occupation continues because the president holds our troops hostage on foreign ground. The deaths are ours to mourn, but Bush’s to answer for.
It will be much harder for Bush to follow through on his bloody blackmail if all of America is talking about what he’s doing.
Glenn W. Smith is a senior fellow at the Rockridge Institute.
If Bush had not invaded Iraq, millions of people would have been saved from death and horrible wounds.
America is ripe for revolution, and I’m surprised Glenn Smith didn’t go farther with his ‘military held hostage’ statement and make this link.
As I have said and written many times before the overthrow of the Bushies & their minions cannot be done by force. There is more than ample military power to stop any attempt at physically taking back our government. For those of you with the idea of grabbing your gun, rounding up other civilians, then marching to Washington for a confrontation your lunacy & ignorance is readily evident. It’s just not going to happen, and if attempted will not only be unsuccessful, but result in a bloodbath. This is NOT the eighteenth century, and weaponry & military capabilities have advanced way too far for such a scenario. Put your pipe down and just back away to the nearest corner. It’s the one over there with the dunce cap sitting on a stool.
HOWEVER…
Such a revolution could be possible with the support of the military. With flagging support of our military in the field has it occurred to anyone that Bush might not like to see our troops come home for this very reason? Could it be he understands they are very frustrated at being duped into this illegal war, and are thoroughly pissed off at the instigators who caused the needless deaths & maiming of their close friends & comrades?
A survey done recently showed only 38% approval by troops for the handling of the Iraq debacle. This means almost two out of three soldiers are fed up with this administration’s policies. Could it be Bush is afrid to have the troops come home because if dire consequences, not for the Iraqis or the ME, but for his administration?
He has made a shambles of our onece mighty military, disregarded military commanders “IN THE FIELD”, who have repeatedly said there is no military solution to Iraq, also said he would wouldn’t keep our troops there if the situation resolved itself into a civil war. Well, by all informed accounts, it IS a civil war, yet he wants to send in even more troops. Why is he so afraid of having our troops back home?
Bush doesn’t just hold our troops hostage, he hides behind them as well. He knew this political tact would protect him once the congress let him set foot in Iraq in 2003. Bush knew that once we got in Iraq, it would be hard to get us out, and the troops, congress, and patriotism would provide the perfect storm.
And here I was under the impression that it was the stated policy of the US Government NOT to negotiate with terrorists holding our citizens hostage.
There must have been a change in policy, or is it that US Policy is just very, very flexible?
Did Bush actually say that?
According to the so-called “Bush Doctrine,” Iran presently has the “right” to launch preemptive strikes against any country it perceives as a present or future threat. They also have the “right” to ignore the UN, form a “coalition of the willing,” and take care of said threat themselves.
At the moment, the only country threatening Iran would be Bushmerica.
Does it occur to anyone that this walking malignancy, our Moron-in-Chief received enough votes in TWO elections to be able to cheat and scam and manipulate his way into two consecutive terms as America’s Commander-in-Chief? Where is the just ire against all the fools and knaves who voted for this haute bourgeois tyrant? All Americans, all Iraqi’s and the world entire have these gullible, self-involved creeps to thank for what Bush, Inc., has perpetrated at home and abroad over the past 6 1/2 years. As the bumper stickers so rightly states: YOU VOTED FOR HIM/WE PAY THE PRICE.
That 40+ % of our countrymen and women bought his bilge and all his hateful insinuations of what he had planned to promote the welfare of the white power structure and the evil cadre of religious fanatics (our Christian mullahs), at the expense of absolutely everyone else ought to be publicly branded as the enemies of civilization that they are. What decent human being did not know after the first and then, incredibly, the SECOND election of this smirking, elitist playboy that awful things lay ahead for everyone with this psycho-opportunist at the controls? Where are all these enemies of humanity now? Why are they not flailing themselves in the streets in penance for the damage they have done to the whole world? Let them be known!
Let them wear the mark of Rove!
So that we might shun them.
Congress has but one task, hold Bush in contempt and lead him off to prison. He has threatened to leave our troops in Iraq without withdrawal funds; how dare he. Well, it’s past time to derail this horrible man. Bush is bent on seeing just how many deaths he can cause and he doesn’t give a damn for anyone but himself. If ever there was an anti-Christ, this is it. Don’t waste time on impeachment, just hog tie this brute and place him in a Federal Prison where he and his consorts belong.
It would require the generals and admirals to do that Paul. They just might do it too. A genuine Seven Days in May,___ or September.
Gotta remember this reply the next time some moron starts with the “if you cut off funds all the troops will die because they are stranded there” line of BS.
A counter attack accusing the moron of holding our troops hostage sounds just about right.
PS … military commanders have revolted (quietly) at least twice that I know of. One was a story from not too long ago that some officers, including the Admiral who had command in Iraq pre-Petreus, had vetoed Bush’s orders to attack Iran.
The other is back from the end of the Vietnam War. Every time the negotiations had a hiccup, Nixon and Kissenger wanted to send more troops back into Vietnam. Melvin Laird, the Defense Sec at the time basically ignored them and kept pulling troops out. The view of the Pentagon at the time was that the Vietnam war had pretty much destroyed the US Army. Officers were being fragged, most the troops were on drugs, etc. They felt they needed to pull the Army out to save it for uses in the cold war or the domestic unrest that was growing because of the Vietnam war. So the Def Sec and the Pentagon basically told Nixon no several times when he wanted to send more troops back into Vietnam. ( See G.Kolko’s book on Vietnam for the story)
To the people who voted for Bush in the last election, here’s my favorite newspaper cover reporting the election results. From the Mirror in the UK.
http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/docs/Mirror/0007ACB8-ADCE-118B-9E4F80C328EC0000.pdf
Very few of “our troops” retain any conscience. A very few handfuls have been brave enough to try to bring the atrocities routinely committed by their pals to the attention of the laggard press.
The ones who cry out “Let us finish our mission” are the ones who most enjoy a free pass to rape, torture, and murder.
Is there any possible way for US citizens to go before the police/law enforcement and report this war a crime and have the president arrested? I am serious, 3,738 counts of murder in the first degree as Bush lied to wage this war, these deaths are premeditated and 27,662 counts of assault and mayhem. Can the Congress go around the White House and approach the countries of the UN and NATO to mount a full scale rescue operation to save US troops?
In my opinion, we need to start thinking and do what’s never been done before as those in power in the White House have revealed they don’t care at all about the people they purport to serve.
COMark. Yes, several months ago, seven generals and an admiral, publically stated that if we invaded and or bombed Iran, they would resign. That was news for about a day and I never heard any more about it. But several generals and an admiral were re-assigned shortly after that.
judi,How does your well said statement become reality?
I also agree judi has a great plan. However, remember what happened to the Iraqi people who revolted against Sadaam after the Gulf War,— they were brutally destroyed. We also have a
dictator who seems fixated on killing, so let`s ponder that plan for a while before launching it.
Forgive a Brit asking you guys a question on all this - under the US Constitution is it ONLY the President who can declare martial law or has Congress that power? If so, and if they took that step and IF THEY can gather the support of the senior military cadre they could do so and THEN arrest Bush and his cronies, ..no?
Roger
Even given our forces have been misused (diverted to Iraq instead of focusing on Afghanistan where they should have concentrated, or even going after Saudia Arabia which would have been much more appropriate, since 15 of the 19 ’supposed’ hijackers were from that country while not one was even from Iraq), abused (multiple tours without adequate mandated rest periods, and tours that were extended from 12 to 15 months), neglected (lack of body armor & up-armor for vehicles, tainted water from Haliburton, etc), and underpaid (contracted mercenaries are making 4 to 12 times what our average foot soldier makes), they still remain a formidable fighting force.
It is sheer lunacy, however, to believe that if we can’t effectively deal with a nation of 28 million people we can successfully attack a nation of almost 70 million, especially since Iran’s forces are rested and have been preparing for just such an event since before we invaded their neighbor. Does this make sense, or is it just too logical for the strategically challenged chicken-hawk idiots in this administration to comprehend?
So if Iraq is a civil war (call a spade a spade), let’s just back the hell out of there, and let them solve their own mess. Take the tens of billions we would have wasted there and re-direct it with gusto & determination toward ramping up sustainable renewable non-hydrocarbon non-nuclear energy sources in this country. Conservation is our first consideration. Few people realize a 25-30% increase in vehicle fuel efficiency creates a situation where we don’t need ANY middle east oil at all, so why don’t we concentrate on achieving this? Oh, I forgot, it makes sense…instead of dollars for Big Oil and the Bushie corporate cronies.
The threat to abandon the troops in Iraq is obviously hollow. It is an accusation of treason against the anti-war crowd. The irony, of course, is that it is the pro-war crowd that continues to commit treason every day.
Stop the funding, the military will find a way to come home. They are not so incompetent that they can’t do that.
For Labor Day
Join in the battle
Wherein no man can fail
For who so fadeth and dieth
Yet his deed shall still prevail
William Morris
imperialism…1. The policy of extending a nation’s authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations. 2. The system, policies, or practices of an imperial government.
(The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language)
The ‘troops’ (ah, what a commodity to have at your disposal) are not coming home. With gigantic military bases in place and ‘the superfortress’ embassy, the size of Vatican City, do any of still have doubts? Don’t answer.
hubris…Overbearing pride or presumption; arrogance.
(from the same dictionary)
Most people in the U.S. military have never made as much money in a civillian job as they do now, and it is the ‘primary’ reason for enlisting or re-enlisting. The bonuses would make an old time Mafia hit-man blush. Don’t give me the nonsense about protecting us here from them over there, and the false patriotism jingoistic baloney.
We sure started the new millenium with a bang. Huh?
In this morning’s newspaper, an ‘Associated Press’ article by Susanne M. Schafer, titled,’ $20K bonus boosts Army recruitment’ explains what my other post said. The article was out of Lexington, S.C.
“People are calling here saying $20,000 is more than they’ve made in the past two years,” said an Army recruiter.
At least Willie Sutton was honest when they asked him “why he robs banks” and Willie replied, “cause that’s where the money is.”
Who is kidding who?
TWENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS TO RE-ENLIST!! Wow, do they still have an age limit, do they take men over 70?
KEM: We need you here in the homeland. (achtum! for the homeland) It is twenty grand to enlist, half of the bonus is paid out on completion of basic training and training in individual specialties, some of which could take a year. The remainder is to be doled out over the course of active-duty enlistment.
As for the age limit, they raised it several years ago from thirty-five to forty-two, I think. It may be higher now, but with these enlistment bonuses and re-enlistment bonuses, many stay in for ‘economic security’ (or what we used to call it when I was in…three hots and a cot)
In The Second World War, it was tough on the Germans as the casualty rate increased quicker than they were able to furnish the cannons with fresh fodder, and even their ‘elite’ blue-eyed blond SS divisions were being demolished by the Allies, especially by the ‘Red Army’, that they lowered the standards for the SS. People with dark hair, dark eyes, Eurasian, or even Slavic people they were fighting were eligible to enlist. I think even some ‘conservative’ Jewish people who despised labor unions, socialists, communists, anarchists, were excepted, and given Aryan status by Hermann Goering.
PEOPLE OF THE WORLD…WAKE UP AND PUT AN END TO MILITARISM!
We should start using the sound bite “our hostage soldiers,” or “our hostage troops,” and when people ask us what we mean, we should explain what Glenn has laid out here.