So Basically... The War Continues Because The Republicans Are Cultists, The Democrats Are Afraid...

[WillyT]

and the people are stupid. And people are continuing to die, because we cannot effectively counter a meme.

Glenn Greenwald
Saturday May 26, 2007 10:55 EST
The complete myth driving our Iraq "debate"

<snip>

In Newsweek, Jonathan Alter has a long article defending -- as lamentably necessary -- the decision of the Democrats to fund the Iraq war without any limitations. Both Barbara O'Brien and Big Tent Democrat, among others, have very thorough replies to Alter's argument, so I want to focus on one specific (and, in my view, central) point Alter makes:

"The whole "support the troops" meme has become a terrible problem for Democrats. Even though, as Glenn Greenwald has argued in Salon, cutting off funding doesn't mean soldiers will have their guns and bullets and armor taken away in the middle of a battle, Americans have been convinced that it does. They want to end the war and support the troops at the same time -- i.e., send back the food and still eat.

This is not a figment of some spineless Democrat's imagination but the reality of what he or she will face back in the district over Memorial Day. Democrats who vote to cut funding not only risk getting thrown in the briar patch by Republican hit men in Washington; they also might not be able to satisfy their otherwise antiwar constituents at home."

Both of the premises which Alter sets forth here are correct: (a) de-funding does not even arguably constitute "endangerment or abandonment of the troops," but (b) "Americans have been convinced that it does." And therein one finds what is the most extraordinary and telling fact of our political landscape. Namely, our Iraq war policy was just determined, in large part if not principally, by a complete myth: that de-funding proposals constitute an abandonment or, more ludicrously still, "endangerment" of the troops.

It is difficult to overstate how irrational this theme is, and yet it is equally difficult to overstate what a decisive role it just played in ensuring the continuation of the war. Polls consistently demonstrate that Americans overwhelmingly favor compelled withdrawal of the troops from Iraq. Other than defunding, they overwhelmingly favor every legislative mechanism for achieving that goal -- from a straightforward bill setting a mandatory time deadline to a rescission of the resolution authorizing military force to compulsory benchmarks. Yet polls are equally uniform in showing that a solid majority of Americans oppose de-funding.

Yet, rationally speaking, this makes absolutely no sense. De-funding is nothing more than a legislative instrument for ending the war, and is substantively indistinguishable in every way from the other war-ending legislative means which Americans favor. Congress has used de-funding or the threat of de-funding multiple times in the past to compel the President to cease military action, and to invoke it, Congress simply consults with the military, determines how much time is needed to effectuate a safe withdrawal, and then de-funds the war accordingly. As I've written before:

"This unbelievably irrational, even stupid, concept has arisen and has now taken root -- that to cut off funds for the war means that, one day, our troops are going to be in the middle of a vicious fire-fight and suddenly they will run out of bullets -- or run out of gas or armor -- because Nancy Pelosi refused to pay for the things they need to protect themselves, and so they are going to find themselves in the middle of the Iraq war with no supplies and no money to pay for what they need. That is just one of those grossly distorting, idiotic myths the media allows to become immovably lodged in our political discourse and which infects our political analysis and prevents any sort of rational examination of our options."

That is why virtually all political figures run away as fast and desperately as possible from the idea of de-funding a war -- it's as though they have to strongly repudiate de-funding options because de-funding has become tantamount to "endangering our troops."

<snip>

More: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/05/26/iraq_myth/index.html

So it's true, we are our own worst enemies.

:shrug:

[Orsino]

1. The war continues because of the money.

So-called representatives are owned by Big Money, which likes the war just fine, thank you. We're only seeing some movement in Congress because Americans so dislike the war. At some point, they'll have to start listening seriously to us, but for now, they're content to sit and wait for corporate contributions.

[Vilis Veritas]

3. Money = Pork = Power

Mr. Smith goes to Washington was DECADES ago...why do people forget?

NWO...poppy said it. Sonny boy is starting it...the next president keeps up the status quo becuase by then the PMC's will be so powerful that..well, they are already powerful...

Is anyone awake yet?

I know...tin...hat...all I have left is this scrap of tin and a cup...

[no_hypocrisy]

2. That just about sums it up.

[WillyT]

4. Kick !!!

:kick:

[WillyT]

5. And One More...

:kick:

[Disturbed]

6. Sometimes doing nothing is best.

In this case the Dems in Congress don't need to put together any War Funding Bills. They don't need to do anything. This is not my concept. It is a Kucinich idea. I like that idea. The draw down would take around six months. A small number of troops and mercs would stay to defend the Green Zone and the Embassy Monstrosity. There are funds for that.

[Ezlivin]

8. Inaction could work

A body at rest tends to remain at rest.

Bush can't write his own bills, no matter how strongly he believes in the Unitary Executive. Take away his money and what do you have?

Support the troops by bringing them home.

[bigtree]

7. the meme that Democrats are "afraid"

That's false on its face.

And I wonder just where the effects of a 'defunding' scheme are supposed to take manifest themselves in a way that would cause Bush to notice or care, if not with the troops in the field? Where would the effects be felt first, if not with the troops who would rely on or benefit from those funds?