OpEdNews Op Eds

Support Our Troops

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

Become a Fan
  (20 fans)
American politics are at a tipping point. Since the Reagan era, Republicans have claimed to be the national security Party, labeled Democrats "liberal pacifists," and garnered the votes of most of America's military. At long last, public perception is changing. The debate over Iraq gives Democrats a golden opportunity to take back the mantle of national security. The pivotal issue is which Party truly supports our troops. After 9/11, believing the US was at war, Americans pledged allegiance to the Commander-in-chief. There was a shift away from democratic process towards authoritarian rule: President Bush was both popular and above the law. However, four years of a tragically mismanaged occupation, accompanied by continued evidence of the President's domestic incompetence, changed America's perception of Bush and his Party. As Americans lost confidence in George Bush's leadership, they also stopped trusting Republicans on national security and stopped believing they've kept the US safe. The November 7th elections were a referendum on Bush's Administration, as well as his complacent Republican House and Senate. Now the Democratically-controlled Congress has begun to reassert its authority to oversee conduct of the Iraq war. Central to this debate is Bush's judgement: whether he conducted the campaign in a sensible manner, made wise decisions that honor the lives and safety of our troops. It's too simplistic to characterize the adversaries in this debate as Republicans and Democrats. Rather the argument is between those who advocate blind allegiance to the White House-Lieberman and McCain-and those who maintain Congress must ensure that our troops are fully supported-Hagel, Murtha, and Pelosi. Tennyson's The Charge of the Light Brigade famously laments:
Their's not to reason why, Their's but to do and die: Into the valley of Death Rode the six hundred.
In every war there's tension between supporting the judgement of military commanders and the safety of troops: When is it appropriate to question the judgement of wartime leaders? When is it proper to "reason why"? In his memorable response to Bush's State-of-the-Union address, Senator Jim Webb addressed this issue: "[Armed forces personnel] trusted the judgment of our national leaders. We hoped that they would be right, that they would measure with accuracy the value of our lives against the enormity of the national interest that might call upon us to go into harm's way... We owed them our loyalty, as Americans, and we gave it. But they owed us sound judgment, clear thinking, concern for our welfare, a guarantee that the threat to our country was equal to the price we might be called upon to pay in defending it." Marine Corps veteran Webb argued that President Bush had shown poor judgement and, as a result, "The majority of the nation no longer supports the way this war is being fought; nor does the majority of our military." Nonetheless, the Lieberman-McCain faction in Congress maintains total confidence in President Bush's judgement. Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman views Iraq as the lynchpin in Bush's "war" against terrorism and argues that any expression of disapproval of Bush's escalation of the war, "will discourage our troops, hearten our enemies, and showcase our disunity." Arizona Senator John McCain blasts critics of Bush's escalation philosophy and calls their resolution "A vote of no confidence in both the mission and the troops who are going over there." Lieberman, McCain and a congressional minority believe President Bush deserves the unswerving allegiance of all Americans: Our's not to reason why, our's but to do and die. The Lieberman-McCain clique do not rely upon democratic process, but rather on authoritarianism by taking the position that it is un-American to question authority in times of national crisis. This is morally wrong. And, it jeopardizes the safety of our troops. For Americans unwilling to wait until the next President takes office for a change in Bush's disastrous national security policy, the only hope is Congress. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi mapped out a course of action that began with the February 16th passage of the resolution of disapproval of Bush's escalation. The next steps have a common theme: support for our troops. Pelosi's point man in these initiatives is Pennsylvania Congressman John Murtha . Murtha favors placing four common-sense restrictions on Bush's use of troops in Iraq: "The Pentagon would have to certify that troops being sent to Iraq are 'fully combat ready' with training and equipment; troops must have at least one year at home between combat deployments; combat assignments could not be extended beyond one year, and a 'stop-loss' program forcing soldiers to extend their enlistment periods would be prohibited." Murtha and Pelosi believe that these restrictions will win Congressional approval because they focus on the wellbeing of our troops. Whether or not these congressional measures win approval, or change Presidential behavior, Democrats have managed a remarkable political recovery: they've retaken the high ground of national security. Once again convinced Americans that Democrats support our troops.

 

Bob Burnett is a Berkeley writer. In a previous life he was one of the executive founders of Cisco Systems.

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

Go To Commenting
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Ten Telltale Signs of Republican Disease

Big Liars and The Voters Who Love Them

Obama vs. Romney: The Bottom Line

The GOP Chooses Fascism

Obama vs. Romney: The Popularity Contest

2011 Budget Battle: Obama Wins While Democrats Lose

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
7 people are discussing this page, with 7 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)
There is no real difference between R's and D's. ... by Ben on Wednesday, Feb 21, 2007 at 11:10:24 AM
The GOP seems able to lead the democrats by the no... by ardee D. on Wednesday, Feb 21, 2007 at 11:25:20 AM
A collection of articles that speak to what real s... by Styve on Wednesday, Feb 21, 2007 at 1:45:28 PM
The issue is not "whether [Bush] conducted the cam... by jpsmith123 on Wednesday, Feb 21, 2007 at 3:59:03 PM
A lot of mistreatment of GI's comes from the top, ... by cluelessfl on Wednesday, Feb 21, 2007 at 4:00:11 PM
I agree we are at a tipping point, but it is not a... by alan k on Wednesday, Feb 21, 2007 at 8:30:08 PM
are absolutely right. I really detest articles tha... by richard on Wednesday, Feb 21, 2007 at 9:05:45 PM