Can one say they support our troops AND a decrease in funding for the Iraq war?

[Cruentus]

Can one say they support our troops AND a decrease in funding for the Iraq war?

This has been proposed by a number of sources as a means to try to put an end to the Iraq war. The idea is that if the legislature votes to decrease or stop the funding for the war, that it will effectively cause us to reduce or end our efforts in Iraq.

I personally think that this is faulty logic, and if executed could be detremental to our soldiers fighting who are in harms way.

I can understand people wanting to pull out of Iraq. I can understand that people are tired of spending money on the war. And yes, soldiers are dying or getting injured in Iraq. So I understand the whole "support the troops, bring them home" idea.

But I think that decreasing funding to these soldiers is the wrong way to go about trying to "stop" the war. Ultimatily, less funds means that we won't be able to properly equipt our soldiers who are fighting, thus endangering them even more. I personally want our troops to have the best equiptment and resources money can by, regardless of the nature of the conflict. Their lives literally depend on our decisions, and that of who we elect.

So, it would seem to me that saying "I support our troops" in one instance, but saying, "we should cut off funding for the Iraq war" in another is hypocritical.

But, perhaps there is something I am missing here. I am wondering about some of your opinions, as they often vary from from my point of view.

 

[Kennedy_Shogen_Ryu]

I'm very much with you on this! Not only is funding necessary for equipment, etc, it also shows the troops that their country is behind them, I think a lot of civilians forget that their army fights for them and their freedom, whether they agree with it or not!

 

[tellner]

"Supporting the troops" does not mean that you have to support any war they are sent to, its continuation or the people who started it. It is also possible to fanatically support a war and spending infinite money on it while treating the men and women who are doing the fighting extremely shoddily.

In fact, that is the situation in which this nation currently finds itself.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Well if there are no funds then the troops will be coming home as they simply cannot stay without the proper equipment, etc.

I do not think that anyone advocates having troops in a war zone without the proper equipment.

I think this is one of those checks and balances that our forefathers put in place to ensure that no one branch of Government has complete power.

Reality is that some of our troops especially the ones I have personally talked to feel they are being missused. (they are warriors not peace keepers) Many of them feel that they have been out and out mislead and are tired of the multiple deployments. Having said that all of the ones I have spoken to want to win and yet many feel that they are in a now unwinnable position! (these comments were spoken to me by people who have been on the front line)

Now as to the war itself, is it right or wrong? Well only history will decide and we are a long way from knowing one way or the other.

 

[Sukerkin]

I was going to posit the point of view that it was perfectly possible to have no desire to put troops in more of harms way than necessary and still use the cutting of funding as a political weapon to curtail the war.

However, Cruentus's OP is well balanced and shows an awareness of that, so there's not much point in my restating it .

I do believe that there is a danger in the flip side of this issue tho', where more funding and an expansion of goals comes about because of a reluctance to endanger troops on the ground.

I'm sure that it's not exactly a surprise that I do not support the actions taken by certain Western Powers in the Middle East and I do get quite annoyed when the 'flag' of "It's for your freedom!" is waved. I won't get into a thread-diverting detailed analysis of why that propogandised dictum is false because I think we've been down that route here a while ago.

Where I'm heading with this is that, at the base level, the invasion is about money and about the only way to get the darned thing to stop is to turn off the tap of funds that allow the incumbents to pursue their less than virtuous aims.

Which brings us right back to the cleft stick. How do you bring the hostilities to a close without needlessly endagering those who've volunteered to serve in the defence of their country? After all, it's not their fault that the use they've been put to is worthy of 19th Century imperialism rather than 21st Century democracy.

The only way I can see that happening is by a change of government when the newly elected actually decide to end it. Once you're on the back of the tiger, you can't dismount gradually without geting mauled - you have to jump away wholesale not piecemeal.

 

[michaeledward]

The original post just seems like another attempt to attack the patriotism and citizenship of those who believe the war in Iraq was wrongly started, wrongly executed, wrongly managed, and wrongly followed through.

Today, a large majority of American citizens want the soldiers out of Iraq. The civil war they are attempting to referee, is far older, far more entrenched, than we were prepared to deal with when the invasion was presented to us by the leaders of the military. And, the State Department's private military is not making things better for the United States military.

The argument presented is that George Bush, the self-described 'Decider', having successfully inserted the military into a 'war zone', is free to disregard the consent of the governed, and the other co-equal branches of the government in which he serves.

If any other foreign leader was granted the authorities I just described, Americans would call that leader a 'dictator', controling an autocratic regime. Is that the type of country we wish to live in?

And lastly, if arguments such as the original post continued to be raised, it will hasten the day when the 'Support the Troops' meme is cast off. When the citizens will recognize the soldiers are fighting in an unethical, and illegal war. Why should troops be supported if they are hurting the country and behaving in an unethical manner?

 

[Blotan Hunka]

The only way I can see it being done and not endangering our warriors is to pick a cut off date a year or 3 down the road. To say its cut off this instant is a disservice to our troops.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

When the citizens will recognize the soldiers are fighting in an unethical, and illegal war. Why should troops be supported if they are hurting the country and behaving in an unethical manner?

Cut em off and let em suffer, the babykilling jackbooted imperialist thugs! Is that it?

What do all you servicepeople prior and present think of THAT??

 

[Kennedy_Shogen_Ryu]

I served in the military for about a year and a half, and have many friends who have served and are presently serving in Afghanistan. I have also lost a couple of very close friends over there. The war be unethical and the war may be illegal, but our troops do their best to not get caught up in all the politics. They are paid to do their job and they do it. But, they believe in what they're doing, and when people start talking about 'unethical' etc. it hurts. Soldiers serve because they love their country and believe in it.
​

 

[Cruentus]

The original post just seems like another attempt to attack the patriotism and citizenship of those who believe the war in Iraq was wrongly started, wrongly executed, wrongly managed, and wrongly followed through.

Well, no it's not. I'm not looking at an attempt to attack people who are against the war. There are many reasons that are valid to be against it, and there are many people who I would consider patriots who are against it.

I am discussing the specific strategy that the congress has looked at as an option, which would be to vote to cut funding for the war in hopes that it would force us to reduce troop levels or end it all together.

I am of the opinion that this would cost even more lives, and greatly endanger our soldiers in Iraq. This is because this won't result in immediate withdraw, but rather a cut in spending on gear and equipment for the soldiers who are left there with lives on the line to do a job.

I can appreciate wanting a timetable to withdraw, and other strategies to end the war, even if I don't agree with some of these strategies. But to use this particular strategy is something that I cannot appreciate or understand at all, especially if people wanting to do this say they support our military.

And lastly, if arguments such as the original post continued to be raised, it will hasten the day when the 'Support the Troops' meme is cast off. When the citizens will recognize the soldiers are fighting in an unethical, and illegal war. Why should troops be supported if they are hurting the country and behaving in an unethical manner?

To clarify, are you saying that our troops are behaving in an unethical manner, and should not be supported? That's pretty ****ed up, in my opinion, but hey, at least your opinion would be congruent with wanting to cut funding regardless of the consequence of more soldier's lives lost...

 

[michaeledward]

You mention a generic idea that you describe as a specific strategy. Who's goal in Congress was to cut immediate funding. Who's plan are we discussing? Some courageous Representatives have called for immediate withdrawls and immediate withholding of funds. However, most of the proposals in Congress are far less severe. Are we discussing a straw man construction.

Most of the current plans in Congress require the troops have sufficient rest and training time as compared to time deployed in a combat zone.
Again, by a large majority, the American citizenry wants the soldiers removed from Iraq. Is it not required by our Congressional Representatives, to move to enact the wishes of their constituents?

And lastly, if arguments such as the original post continued to be raised, it will hasten the day when the 'Support the Troops' meme is cast off. When the citizens will recognize the soldiers are fighting in an unethical, and illegal war. Why should troops be supported if they are hurting the country and behaving in an unethical manner?

To clarify, are you saying that our troops are behaving in an unethical manner, and should not be supported? That's pretty ****ed up, in my opinion, but hey, at least your opinion would be congruent with wanting to cut funding regardless of the consequence of more soldier's lives lost...

It seems my paragraph asks a question. I did not ascribe it as my opinion.

However, I think it is a reasonable question, which is why I asked it.

As I recall, we have discussed on this board whether it is appropriate for a soldier to justify an illegal or unethical question with the phrase "I was only following orders". I thought it was encumbant on the American soldier to disobey an illegal order.

If this is true ~ if the American soldier is required to act ethically on the battlefield, even if it is insubordinate to his commander (and if it is not, let's clarify and discuss). Then can't we expect a similar responsbility of the American citizen.

Must the American citizen 'just follow orders' / 'support the troops'? Is there a point that the citizenry is require to withhold support for the troops because of the illegality or unethicalness of the orders of the Commander-in-Chief?

 

[Big Don]

The same people that claim to support the troops while trying to deny them the funding they need are the same type of people that won't allow ROTC's on campus or military recruiters on campus, or, in the case of the city of San Fransisco, a retired ship to be a museum in the harbor. But they support the troops, right? Yeah, like a rubber crutch.

 

[Cruentus]

You mention a generic idea that you describe as a specific strategy. Who's goal in Congress was to cut immediate funding. Who's plan are we discussing? Some courageous Representatives have called for immediate withdrawls and immediate withholding of funds. However, most of the proposals in Congress are far less severe. Are we discussing a straw man construction.

No, not really a straw man. I think I need to explain more...

Most of the current plans in Congress require the troops have sufficient rest and training time as compared to time deployed in a combat zone.
Again, by a large majority, the American citizenry wants the soldiers removed from Iraq. Is it not required by our Congressional Representatives, to move to enact the wishes of their constituents?

The plan actually came from some media sources being critical of the democrates for not proposing this strategy. This came up during an interview of Nancy Pelosi, where it was suggested that the democratically controlled congress hadn't done enough to try to stop the war, and that cutting funding was one of their options that the dems hadn't tried.

So, you probably should stop thinking in terms of different 'camps' or 'parties,' assuming that I have an agenda of some sort to accredit or discredit one or the other, because I don't really think that way. I actually agree with the democrates for not pursueing this avenue of approach.

What bothered me is why people would think that trying to end the war at the expense of the safety of our troops would be a viable option that congress should persue. Furthermore, it sort of bothered me that Pelosi, who claims to care about our soldiers, didn't fire back with my arguement that doing so would put our troops in danger. Instead, she basically said that they tried to get proposals through, but couldn't get through the senate. This implied to me that if something like a plan to cut funding could be put through the Senate, that they would.

It seems my paragraph asks a question. I did not ascribe it as my opinion.

However, I think it is a reasonable question, which is why I asked it.

As I recall, we have discussed on this board whether it is appropriate for a soldier to justify an illegal or unethical question with the phrase "I was only following orders". I thought it was encumbant on the American soldier to disobey an illegal order.

If this is true ~ if the American soldier is required to act ethically on the battlefield, even if it is insubordinate to his commander (and if it is not, let's clarify and discuss). Then can't we expect a similar responsbility of the American citizen.

Must the American citizen 'just follow orders' / 'support the troops'? Is there a point that the citizenry is require to withhold support for the troops because of the illegality or unethicalness of the orders of the Commander-in-Chief?

Well, right now this is derailing the argument into something far different then my original question. That is a whole different discussion regarding what point should a soldier decide to not follow orders.

 

[michaeledward]

O.K. So the proposal was not from a specific Congressperson, or any Congresspersons proposal.

Now, the proposal we are disputing is attributed to 'media sources'. This returns to the basic question. Which media sources?

Often the media masks questions under the unattributed 'some' and 'other', but do not attribute for whom they are acting proxy. Sometimes, this is done for the media 'gotcha moment', rather than concerns of a specific party.

Regardless of what Congress proposes, the Department of Defense is not going to have its budget changed to zero dollars. The Department of Defense has published the changes they would make to their annual appropriations to adjust to the protect soldiers in combat zones, if the Congress were to not authorize the Presidents new Supplemental Request. There would be changes in domestic allocation in order to protect soldiers. So again, aren't we also discussing a possiblity that will never come about, even if Congress does stop all war funding.

I'm wondering if we can ask the question ... 'Who wants the troops to be in more danger or less protected?' ... do you think anyone would argue for that?

 

[Cruentus]

O.K. So the proposal was not from a specific Congressperson, or any Congresspersons proposal.

Now, the proposal we are disputing is attributed to 'media sources'. This returns to the basic question. Which media sources?

Often the media masks questions under the unattributed 'some' and 'other', but do not attribute for whom they are acting proxy. Sometimes, this is done for the media 'gotcha moment', rather than concerns of a specific party.

Probably. It was Wolf Blitser that asked the question, but who knows who is actually suggesting this as an option; could be just something cooked up by the media to provide a 'gotcha' moment as you describe.

Regardless of what Congress proposes, the Department of Defense is not going to have its budget changed to zero dollars. The Department of Defense has published the changes they would make to their annual appropriations to adjust to the protect soldiers in combat zones, if the Congress were to not authorize the Presidents new Supplemental Request. There would be changes in domestic allocation in order to protect soldiers. So again, aren't we also discussing a possiblity that will never come about, even if Congress does stop all war funding.

I suppose. I guess it depends on the situation, and how the funds are going to be appropriated.

 

[Flying Crane]

Can one say they support our troops AND a decrease in funding for the Iraq war?

I believe, yes.

This has been proposed by a number of sources as a means to try to put an end to the Iraq war. The idea is that if the legislature votes to decrease or stop the funding for the war, that it will effectively cause us to reduce or end our efforts in Iraq.

that seems like the logical conclusion to me.

But I think that decreasing funding to these soldiers is the wrong way to go about trying to "stop" the war. Ultimatily, less funds means that we won't be able to properly equipt our soldiers who are fighting, thus endangering them even more. I personally want our troops to have the best equiptment and resources money can by, regardless of the nature of the conflict. Their lives literally depend on our decisions, and that of who we elect.

So, it would seem to me that saying "I support our troops" in one instance, but saying, "we should cut off funding for the Iraq war" in another is hypocritical.

But, perhaps there is something I am missing here. I am wondering about some of your opinions, as they often vary from from my point of view.

well, I think if the tap is instantly turned off, this may happen. But if it is done over a concrete and established period of time, it ought to force the "powers that be" to recognize a certain window during which our forces must be brought home and end our activities over there. Only a fool of a Commander in Chief would try to continue to deploy our forces if there is no funding and no ability to supply our forces in a foreign war.

I think "support our troops" arouses a very strong emotion, but it's important to separate the war itself from the soldiers. I feel the soldiers have been misused and abused in an immoral and unethical act of aggression on the part of the United States. The soldiers have my complete support. But the instigators of this war do not. I certainly do not blame the soldiers for the fact that we are in the middle of a screwed up war that we should never have started in the first place. That blame lies with our politicians. The soldiers are just doing their jobs, but they have been put to immoral use and the politicians who are the highest in the chain of command are the ones who must answer to that.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Can one say they support our troops AND a decrease in funding for the Iraq war?

This has been proposed by a number of sources as a means to try to put an end to the Iraq war. The idea is that if the legislature votes to decrease or stop the funding for the war, that it will effectively cause us to reduce or end our efforts in Iraq.

I personally think that this is faulty logic, and if executed could be detremental to our soldiers fighting who are in harms way.

I can understand people wanting to pull out of Iraq. I can understand that people are tired of spending money on the war. And yes, soldiers are dying or getting injured in Iraq. So I understand the whole "support the troops, bring them home" idea.

But I think that decreasing funding to these soldiers is the wrong way to go about trying to "stop" the war. Ultimatily, less funds means that we won't be able to properly equipt our soldiers who are fighting, thus endangering them even more. I personally want our troops to have the best equiptment and resources money can by, regardless of the nature of the conflict. Their lives literally depend on our decisions, and that of who we elect.

So, it would seem to me that saying "I support our troops" in one instance, but saying, "we should cut off funding for the Iraq war" in another is hypocritical.

But, perhaps there is something I am missing here. I am wondering about some of your opinions, as they often vary from from my point of view.

You are missing something. Nobody is asking anyone to send troops in without armor but say the president. Funding future operations and keeping soldiers armed, fed, and protected are two entirely different things and to be led into believing they are the same is a little John Dunn Scottus-esque. What we as a people are asking the president to do is to give up on the "fight until the oil deal goes through" mentality. No one in the parliment is going to vote for it; so, settling for less is all anyone is asking for. We don't wish to see future offensives. Thats about it.
Sean
Sean

 

[Flying Crane]

As I recall, we have discussed on this board whether it is appropriate for a soldier to justify an illegal or unethical question with the phrase "I was only following orders". I thought it was encumbant on the American soldier to disobey an illegal order.

If this is true ~ if the American soldier is required to act ethically on the battlefield, even if it is insubordinate to his commander (and if it is not, let's clarify and discuss).

This is an interesting issue, and I hope I don't derail the discussion too heavily by probing into this.

If a soldier disobeys his commander, if it is severe enough, he can be disciplined and court martialled. How does a soldier raise a defense of "my commander's orders were unethical and illegal, and it was just that I did not obey his orders."

What happens next? How does a soldier defend this plea? Is his commander put on trial for the orders he gave that the soldier felt were unethical and illegal? How often does a soldier successfully defend himself in this way? Is this a defense that gets any credibility, or is it sort of there in theory but not really given any credence?

I guess I should really be asking my brother, he served in the US Army JAG corps as a prosecutor...but if anyone has any knowledge of this, I'd be interested in hearing it.

 

[Big Don]

Do Senators Murtha, Kerry and Durbin's statements about the troops raise their morale? Is calling the troops stupid, or murderous supporting?

The statement that led to that sign's creation was not too supporting, IMHO.

 

[Big Don]

This is an interesting issue, and I hope I don't derail the discussion too heavily by probing into this.

If a soldier disobeys his commander, if it is severe enough, he can be disciplined and court martialled. How does a soldier raise a defense of "my commander's orders were unethical and illegal, and it was just that I did not obey his orders."

What happens next? How does a soldier defend this plea? Is his commander put on trial for the orders he gave that the soldier felt were unethical and illegal? How often does a soldier successfully defend himself in this way? Is this a defense that gets any credibility, or is it sort of there in theory but not really given any credence?

I guess I should really be asking my brother, he served in the US Army JAG corps as a prosecutor...but if anyone has any knowledge of this, I'd be interested in hearing it.

It is a very complex area. However, the bare bones runs something like this:
Soldiers should be able to tell right from wrong. If the soldier is ordered to do something wrong, he should ask his commander for clarification, and if not satisfied, take it up the chain of command. This is one of those areas where you have to be 100% right, anything less could cost you.