Le Sabot Post-Moderne: Dis-honoring the Troops

Can you provide an HR number for that bill? Because a search for 'armed forces' on Thomas yields about fifty bills, a number of which are commendations of the armed forces. This particular commendation was even co-sponsored by Congresswoman Pelosi:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:3:./temp/~c1082TTjwf::

So until you can provide an HR number and we can see that the bill is in fact an inocuous commendation of the troops with no problematic pro-Bush or pro-Iraq war language, I'm calling bullshit on your criticism of the House Dems. Furthermore, rhetoric is unimportant when the GOP has rolled back imminent-danger and family-separation allowances for troops, overused the National Guard and Reserves without a long-term plan for reducing reliance on them, failed to introduce necessary tax relief for servicemembers, and given below-average pay raises to new servicemembers (E-1s, E-2s, and O-1s got only a 2% raise in the 2004 budget proposed by the administration). If you don't believe me, ask the Army Times:

http://www.dailykos.net/archives/003248.html

Posted by: Chris at mars 19, 2004 07:30 PM

Yeah, I found it through the links you provided. Here is the bill in Thomas:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:1:./temp/~c108RrZn4E::

This is the problem with the resolution as written:

(1) affirms that the United States and the world have been made safer with the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime from power in Iraq;

It's pretty unclear thus far that the United States and the world is safer now than before. It is clear that Iraq is safer, but it's looking like a previous stable (though repressive) regime with no serious ties to terrorist organizations has been replaced by an unstable mix of groups with a growing number of terrorist organizations in their midst.

This vote was about affirming the war, not affirming the troops. It should be shame on the GOP for politicizing what our troops went through, not shame on the Dems for rejecting a problematic resolution on grounds entirely unrelated to our troops.

Posted by: Chris at mars 19, 2004 07:40 PM

Chris-

You won't be calling anything if you don't watch your mouth, because I'll simply siteban you. You can hold any opinion you want, but please respect that this is a Christian site and refrain from profanity.

As for your talk about Army pay raises, it's somewhat weird to try to make a case of Republicans being unsupportive of the troops. Are they perfect? Of course not. But they've been consistent advocates of spending for the troops for decades, much more so than their counterparts across the aisle. Clinton cut 1/3 of our active-duty divisions. If we're stretched thinly now, we have him to thank for it. He did this while massively boosting deployments. I know. I was in the Army during Clinton.

Bush has done a good job of rebuilding our military from the hollowed Army of the Clinton years.

It's an interesting twist you make -- congratulating the troops on making the world safer is "politicizing." Generic phrases like "I support the troops" has become something of a talisman for the Left allowing them to then in the next sentence undercut everything the troops have sacrificed for. Supporting the troops means supporting the work they're doing, not just mouthing a bare endorsement of the fact that they wear a uniform.

The idea that Iraq had no serious ties to terrorism is simply wrong. His large payments to the families of suicide bombers in the West Bank has been widely reported. But then again, those on the Left don't see them as terrorists, do they? After all, Arafat is something of a Saint to them, and those bombs which spatter Jews all over the streets are political acts of freedom fighters. Not REAL terrorism. Right? And the camp they found, with the aircraft fuselage. That was for training stewardesses, not terrorists. ;-)

The world IS safer with Saddam gone. He launched two wars of aggression against his neighbors. He won't do this again. Does "the world" only constitutes Western countries in your calculations? You'll mention the sanctions which held him in place. And I'll point out that they weren't sustainable in the long-term. He would have resumed his place as the 800-pound gorilla of the region.

A nascent democracy is growing in Iraq. It's disorderly in a way that dictatorships aren't. But in spite of this, I'm supportive of freedom and dignity for the long-suffering people of Iraq. I remember back when liberals had the same sort of beliefs.

I think that's the basic difference between old school liberalism and the New Left. The first was sometimes unreasonably dreamy and optimistic, but it had the ability to uplift and inspire. The New Left is just so. . . angry and jaded. Who would want to follow where they'd lead?

Posted by: Discoshaman at mars 20, 2004 12:27 AM

Chris-

Rereading my last post, it comes across much more aggressive than I intended it. We've been friends, albeit virtual ones, for some time now. I certainly have no intention of sitebanning you, and ask you to please disregard that statement. At the same time, I meant what I said re: profanity.

I wanted to add a quick point to the whole "world is safer" thing. Unless one maintains a great deal of faith in coincidence (and ignores Khadaffi's own words), it's difficult not to credit the Iraq War with Libya's dismantling of its WMD programs. Further, Iran's born-again experience with WMD inspectors has more than a little bit to do with membership in a particular Axis, and the presence of several US divisions next door. North Korea's willingness to enter into multilateral talks after being previously intractable is also very interestingly timed.

I think it would be hard to make a case that the world isn't "safer" with Libya out of the WMD business, Iran opening up, and North Korea agreeing to multiparty (as opposed to bilateral shakedown) talks. Will you make it?

Posted by: Discoshaman at mars 20, 2004 02:44 AM

Raindream-

Exactly. Like I said earlier, some Dems seem to think that intoning the phrase "I support the troops" then entitles them to add "despite their illegitimate presence in Iraq that has accomplished nothing, killed many innocent people and they're fighting for a lie." It's a new definition of 'support' that includes undercutting the troops' morale and purpose. But it's a new century, so who am I to judge?

Posted by: Discoshaman at mars 20, 2004 02:47 AM

Sorry about the profanity--I won't do it again. (Although I question the notion that using that particular word violates anything in the Law. But that's neither here nor there.)

The particular bill you reference in this post does politicize our troops' sacrifice, though. Here's how.

It's an open debate whether the world is or is not safer a year after we invaded Iraq. I'll give you that Saddam was a bad man. I'll even give you that he threatened his neighbors (with our help in a few cases, don't forget). However, all evidence points to his having been almost entirely contained. If you'll allow me the analogy, instead of a well-caged tiger, we have thousands of hyenas on the loose and hungry for flesh. I'd prefer the tiger.

Anyhow, given that debate, which is not resolve and does not fall along partisan lines (I know plenty of anti-war Republicans and plenty of hawk Dems!), it's really disingenuous to try to push a bill through Congress that affirms both the sacrifices of our troops AND something the country is divided on and cannot affirm. It's even more disingenuous to claim opposition to such a bill means anything about a particular legislator's feelings about our troops.

As for the Clinton-era drawdowns, I'll remind you that: a) everyone thought the Big Threat was over when the Soviet Union fell, b) it seemed like a good idea to a lot of people to start shrinking our military, and c) a lot of Republicans got on that bandwagon too, with Bush Sr. and Dick Cheney first in line to cut some major weapons programs before Clinton ever got in office. Not to mention the Republican GOP that happily cut along with Pres. Clinton. Don't blame the Clintons alone for those drawdowns.

Finally, I still maintain that the administration is going about the war on terrorism all wrong. Just about everyone in the field of political science acknowledges that the heyday of nation-state on nation-state warfare has mostly passed. What we're seeing right now is a lot of ethnic warfare (see the recent flare-up in Kosovo and the growing tensions in Iraq for recent examples) and a lot of terrorism that transcends national boundaries. Given that that's the case, we *should* be strengthening our first-response infrastructure, strengthening port security against the nukes we know are coming one of these days, and strengthening things like Interpol and the UN, which can cross borders to fight terrorism. Invading other nation-states and threatening their sovereignty just isn't going to go very far, because as we've seen with WTC1, Oklahoma City, Madrid, and Moscow (and Moscow, and Moscow, and Moscow), even fairly stable democracies fall victim to terror. It's not a nation-state problem fought with militaries anymore. That's the crucial piece the administration is missing; that's what a Kerry administration would correct.

Posted by: Chris at mars 20, 2004 07:11 AM

Whoops. That should be "not a nation-state problem fought primarily with militaries..." Huge difference. Obviously the military must play a role. But if the primary role in the war against terrorism is played by the military and not diplomats, aid workers, politicians, etc., then we've lost the war. We're not going to win it by conquering country after country that harbors terrorists or appears threatening.

Posted by: Chris at mars 20, 2004 07:21 AM

Chris!

Thanks for the gracious response. . .

"(Although I question the notion that using that particular word violates anything in the Law. But that's neither here nor there.)"

It comes under, "Let no unclean speech" . . . What constitutes unclean speech is culturally relative, of course. Our culture has decided that that particular word is taboo, and hence, unclean. I try not to be overly Comstockian about the whole thing, but there it is.

"It's an open debate whether the world is or is not safer a year after we invaded Iraq."

Why didn't you respond to the Libya, Iran and N.K. information? I'd say they're highly relevant to this point. Secondly, I don't see the "safer" issue as being a very open debate. There are those making the point that it was unwise, illegitimate or simply not worth it to go into Iraq. I haven't seen many, outside of the loopier regions of the Left, who actually make the case that we aren't safer for having removed Saddam. Loopier being people like Howard Dean, who got pretty lambasted by the mainstream for even suggesting it.

So I don't see it as politicizing. Our troops have made the world safer, both by removing an aggressive dictator who sponsored terrorism, and by punking other regimes who would have emulated him.

"It's even more disingenuous to claim opposition to such a bill means anything about a particular legislator's feelings about our troops."

We'll have to disagree. When a legislator can't say, "Good job, the world is safer for the sacrifices you've made", that's both petty and ugly. And, we should always take a defendant's previous record into account -- this is the party that has been at best tepidly supportive of the military since Vietnam. GIs remember Kerry's testimony before Congress. They remember the Dems in Congress under Reagan. And I can remember our reaction during Clinton when Chelsea freaked out when an Army colonel was added temporarily to her seurity detail. Her explanation: "My family hates the military." Gosh, how could she have picked up that impression from her pro-military pappy? This refusal to acknowledge what our troops have done is of a piece with these types of things.

I have an English class to teach in a few mins, so I'll have to respond to the whole terror strategy thing tonight. Take care of yourself. It's great to have you posting!

Your friend,
John

Posted by: Discoshaman at mars 20, 2004 10:30 AM

It looks like we have a difference of opinion on the Iraq thing that's not going to be easy to resolve. But on the subject of the bill itself:

We'll have to disagree. When a legislator can't say, "Good job, the world is safer for the sacrifices you've made", that's both petty and ugly.

What if Dems submitted a bill that both thanked the troops and called for censure of the President for misleading Americans about our reasons for going to war? Whether the administration did or did not misstate the case is also an open debate. Would you criticize the GOP for voting against a bill like that? That's what I'm trying to get at.

As for the foul language bit, I do see your point. And even further, I ought to be better about abstaining from such language even if it is culturally relative as you say—I'm conscious of running afoul of 1 Peter 2:11,12 otherwise.

I look forward to your comments on the terror strategy. It occurs to me that that particular question is at the root of the divide on the Iraq war. We Dems seem really conscious of the failure of the nation-state paradigm in the war on terror, whereas the GOP seems really conscious of the role of nation-states in fueling terror. Which focus is more correct is the whole question. :-)

Posted by: Chris at mars 21, 2004 10:42 PM

Pardon the interruption but...
Introducing a bill that says a) we support our troops AND b) the world is a safer place because of our action in Iraq (a line lifted straight from Bush's campaign speeches) is nothing more than baiting! Did the author (sorry I didn't catch who it was) really think people who opposed the war were going to sign on to this? No, he/she knew they wouldn't and then good conservatives like yourself would go running, saying,"Heavens to Betsy, the Dems don't support our troops!" It's ridiculous. Why don't they take another line out of Bush's campaign speeches and see who won't sign on?

As for the world being safer - Saddam posed no threat to the US. Having him gone doesn't make us any safer. Rather, we now have a breeding ground for anti-American terrorists among those who see us as occupiers rather than liberators. It also should be noted that al-Qaeda was not a presence in Iraq before now. They are there now, recruiting. Further, they have said they (in an apparent disregard for the health and safety of their Muslim brothers) intend to stir up discord among the Muslim factions there to create a civil war, so that our attempts to create a democracy there will be futile.

We would be safer if Bush had stuck to the real war on terror and eliminated bin Laden and enough of the al-Qaeda leadership to make the trainees left behind scatter. Instead they have re-vamped and "morphed into a hydra-headed [organization]" according to Richard Clarke (oops, you probably don't like him too much these days do ya?).

As for Libya, I think it's all a front. They will give up some so that they can continue the real work under the radar. All the while appearing to be in cooperation with the world community and not in the "axis of evil." Just a hunch.

Sorry if this sounds a bit too sassy, but I find myself getting impatient with people who are obviously intelligent and yet cannot see through the veneer of Bush's rhetoric. I used to question whether Bush was truly evil or just stupid and surrounded by evil. At first I was sure it ws stupidity (can you say "nu-cyu-lar"?)Then for a while the scales were tipping towards evil. But lately I've come to think the two are not mutually exclusive...

Posted by: AutMom at mars 27, 2004 08:46 AM

I do genuinely thank the troops for putting their lives on the line. I only wish their commander-in-chief respected their willingness to sacrifice enough to put them in harm's way only when truly necessary, to protect our people.
And don't tell me about all the good we've done there, I don't doubt the people of Iraq are better of than they were 4 years ago. This is not the United States of Iraq. If Bush wants to be their leader, he should run for President over there. If he wants to lead us here, he should focus on OUR needs. And that includes not sending our entire military to their deaths to remove from power a man who posed us no threat.

I've got a bro-in-law who spent a year in Iraq and now that they are talking about recycling the troops, he may have to head back. If he is killed what solace can I offer his wife? I couldn't say he died defending his country, he wouldn't have been. How sad is that? It's like all those lives wasted in Vietnam, which accomplished nothing.

Posted by: AutMom at mars 27, 2004 08:56 AM