While conservative politicians, pundits and bloggers argue that Congress' timeline on withdrawing from Iraq shows lack of support for our troops, a study of the not-so-distant past illustrates the true hypocrisy of such a concept.
Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold writes about the predictable Republican resistance, drawing parallels to the biggest pre-Iraq US military failure in my lifetime.
…in [October] 1993, senators overwhelmingly supported successful efforts to cut off funding for a flawed military mission. …76 senators voted for an amendment, offered by Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, to end funding for the military mission in Somalia effective March 31, 1994, with limited exceptions.
None of those 76 senators, who include the current Republican leader and whip, acted to jeopardize the safety and security of U.S. troops in Somalia. All of them recognized that Congress had the power and the responsibility to bring our military operations in Somalia to a close, by establishing a date after which funds would be terminated.
The same day that the Senate voted on the Byrd amendment, 38 senators -- myself included -- supported an even stronger effort to end funding for Somalia operations. The amendment offered by Sen. John McCain on Oct. 15, 1993, would have eliminated funding for operations in Somalia immediately, except for funds for withdrawing troops or for continuing operations if any American POWs/MIAs were not accounted for. The mostly Republican senators who supported the McCain amendment were not disregarding the safety of our troops, or being indifferent to their need for guns, ammunition, food and clothing. They were supporting an appropriate, safe, responsible proposal to use Congress' power of the purse to bring an ill-conceived military mission to a close without in any way harming our troops.
Then as now, by setting a date after which funding for a military mission will be terminated, Congress can safely bring our troops out of harm's way. As Sen. Orrin Hatch said at the time, "The McCain amendment provides the president with the flexibility needed to bring our forces home with honor and without endangering the safety of American troops."
Wow – Republicans voted overwhelmingly to "surrender" and yet, they were supporting the troops? How is that possible? Oh yeah…when you put soldiers' well being ahead of your own political welfare, so-called surrender starts to look like an awfully noble option.
Feingold recognizes the "big differences between the military missions in Somalia and Iraq," but, he says, "Congress' constitutional power to end a military mission hasn't changed, and neither has the fact that this power can be used without jeopardizing the safety of U.S. troops." And that's the key, isn't it?
Iraq has been a nasty place for a long time, and it will remain a nasty place. I don't buy the "we're fighting the terrorists in Iraq so we don't have to fight them here" argument, as intelligence and military experts agree, we are in truth fighting them in Iraq so we can fight better trained terrorists at home and abroad in the near future.
Too many unfortunate people have and will continue to live and die in Iraq; can't we all agree that it is time to stop adding American soldiers' names to that regrettable list?
