OPINION & EDITORIAL
Troop funding shouldn’t be jeopardized
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Joe Trovato:
- Conservative voice needs recognition (November 9, 2007)
- Ethno-political lobbying anti-American (October 24, 2007)
- Ahmadinejad invite unpatriotic insult (September 26, 2007)
- Play ball now: UW deserves baseball (September 12, 2007)
- Personal responsibility lacking in U.S. (May 8, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Column distorts troop funding bill (April 11, 2007)
- Democrats play dangerous game (November 20, 2007)
- Feingold right to forgo '08 candidacy (November 14, 2006)
- Russ Feingold in 2008? (September 1, 2005)
- Feingold political rarity in today's world (November 1, 2007)
by Joe Trovato
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Right-thinking Democrats are backing away from Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold's proposal to end funding for the war in Iraq by March 31 of next year. While Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has endorsed Feingold's plan, other top Democrats, such as Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., have been quick to distance themselves from the proposal.
Feingold's plan calls for war funding to terminate by March 31, 2008, as well as troop withdrawals to begin within 120 days of passing the proposal. This is a step up from the recent House proposal that set a deadline of September 2008.
This is no more than an attempt to simply starve our troops out of Iraq. Sen. Feingold seems to be gambling the lives of our servicemen and women by using the power of the purse to more or less bankrupt the military's ability to counter the insurgency in Iraq.
His intent is obviously to end the war. No one is claiming that he is trying to cause harm to the troops or anything of that nature. But the scary thing is how willing Sen. Feingold is to simply cut off the military's lifeline without exploring other exit strategies.
The troops deserve better than that. Feingold is using them as a mere political tool to force the president to withdraw. No matter what the circumstances, the troops should always have the funding and the support they need to carry out their missions, whether those missions are popular or unpopular. Their lives are not political tools that should be gambled.
While setting a timetable for withdrawal is a terrible idea that would produce disastrous consequences, this avenue of approach would at least still show support for the men and women who are risking their lives over there everyday.
Feingold's plan would effectively force the troops out of Iraq because of lack of support from home. Talk about support for the troops. Essentially, the troops would be told they are out of luck and unable to combat any threats to their security after March 31, 2008.
Luckily, not everyone shares the same sentiments as Sen. Feingold.
"We're not going to vote to cut funding, period," Levin said in a Fox News report. Other top Democrats echoed these sentiments.
U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who is also opposed to Feingold's proposal, said in the same report, "Nothing — nothing — will stand in our way of supporting the troops in every way."
Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., said in a letter to President Bush, "I do not believe that we can or should cut funding for our troops in Iraq or Afghanistan while we anticipate that our troops will be in harm's way."
Cutting off funding would send a clear message not only to our troops, but also to the insurgency. The insurgents are not cut off from the American media; they read our papers and watch our news. If they know the end is in sight and that our troops will no longer have the financial support they need, then they also know that all they have to do is wait it out.
This is yet another problem with applying a timetable to the war. If we set a concrete date for withdrawal, then all the war becomes is a waiting game.
Obviously, Iraq is a mess right now. But the United States must stay the course or it will leave a blueprint for any future enemy to defeat it. The troops must be funded until the Iraqi government can stand on its own and take care of itself independent of the United States. But our commitment cannot be indefinite either.
The Bush administration and Congress need to work together to pass legislation that keeps the pressure on the Iraqi government to meet benchmarks for progress. We made the mess, so let's clean it up and do it right. But if the Iraqi government becomes complacent and begins to rely solely on U.S. support, then we can talk about timetables for withdrawal.
Sen. Feingold's willingness to use the lives of the troops as a political tool on Capitol Hill is a frightening proposition. Under no circumstances should funding for the troops come into question. No matter what your position on the war itself is, if our servicemen and women are in harm's way, they deserve the country's full support until the job is done, and they are back home. Let the generals run the war, not the politicians.
Joe Trovato (jtrovato@wisc.edu) is a freshman majoring in journalism.
Anonymous (April 10, 2007 @ 6:15am):
The war can ONLY be lost in the streets of Madison, not Baghdad.
Anonymous (April 10, 2007 @ 8:03am):
Joe, we should support the troops? Nice cliche, but really, we haven't supported the troops from the BEGINNING, so why are you motivated to start now?
Remember when Rumsfeld said we go to war with the army we have, not the army we want? The army we wanted was one with adequate training, adequate body armor, adequate up-armored Humvees, and adequate health care when they come home with a few less body parts.
Feingold is not up for re-election until 2010, so your argument suggesting this to be a political stunt is tenuous at best. I content that Feingold is the only US Senator with any sense of direction and only US Senator with a set of brass balls.
If money for war is cut off, it is the job of the president to bring the troops home. OR ELSE, it is the PRESIDENT and the president alone who leaves them in harm's way. Ultimately, the choice is W's.
Anonymous (April 10, 2007 @ 8:52am):
Good article. Feingold's looking for publicity; I don't think even HE seriously wants to cut funding.
Anonymous (April 10, 2007 @ 9:53am):
Joey, when Congress votes to end funding, it's time to bring the troops home. If the troops are in any beyond that, it's because the government is keeping them over there. Hello? Did someone come to school without their thinking cap or something?
Anonymous (April 10, 2007 @ 9:58am):
Mr. Trovato, if the Iraqi government can't get its act together, then we shouldn't be wasting our time over there. The USA has been the cop shop of the world longer than long enough. Look what it's costing us! I say screw the rest of the world. Let 'em fend for themselves! For the next twenty years we'll have disabled veterans to take care of, and you support a foreign policy that will only produce more disabled vets and drive the country further into debt? Pal, I think you should go back to kindergarten and start over!
Anonymous (April 10, 2007 @ 10:36am):
Joe, take a look at how the money "for the troops is spent." Right now with my skill set from being in the military, I could go to Iraq and make $200,000. With the costs of sending me over (training, travel, insurance, equipment, etc.) and the huge profit that a government contracting company will pay, that means that I will cost over $500,000. Multiply that by 10,000 contractors, and you get $5 billion.... and there are a few more than 10,000 contractors in Iraq.
In addition, much of these emergency spending bills go for general costs assiociated with the normal costs of the military, such as stateside training that is not a part of the GWOT. By the way, I also was offered a stateside job as a contractor for six figures. This results in the Department of Defense being able to have a much lower budget and then beg for the rest under the guise of "support the troops."
Follow the money, Joe, and you will see that your tax dollars are going everywhere but where it is needed. Why are there complaints from troops considering inadequate training and body armor? Well, it is because the leeches of government contracting are sucking the money away from the troops. I say, cut the money: these funding bills are not benefitting the troops.
Just look at Walter Reed, Joe.
Anonymous (April 10, 2007 @ 10:52am):
Comment at 9:58. Yes the USA has been the "cop shop" of the world. But that is what happens when you are a superpower. All the countries look to us to help them and when we dont, they burn our flags and hold rallies. And the problem is we cant "screw the rest of the world, let them fend for themselves." Maybe you forgot 9/11. If we leave them alone, they will come for us. I hope they come for you first.
Anonymous (April 10, 2007 @ 10:57am):
Pro-war = Pro-debt
Anonymous (April 10, 2007 @ 11:04am):
Joe, ya ignorant farm boy, go back home! You support the war in Iraq only because it gives you a feeling of personal pride. Hey moron, look how many kids are dying over there so you can wave your stupid little flag in other people's faces! All so that you can stand around and brag about how you're such a big bad-ass patriotic American! Why don't you enlist? Why don't you donate your scholarship money to the cause if it's that important to you? If Bush runs out of money for his war he'll have to pack it up and bring the troops home, plain and simple. Keep giving him $$$ and he'll keep the troops over there forever. And for what?
Anonymous (April 10, 2007 @ 12:21pm):
Interesting points made by 10:36 (someone with actual knowledge, not just Joe's Fox News knowledge). We used to pay troops to staff the mess halls for the cost of troop wages, now we staff mess halls with private contractors who get paid two or three times the salary of the troops.
It's amazing how much blame Clinton takes for "ruining" our military through down-sizing, but our current situation is really the fault of Rumsfeld and the neo-con ideologs and their military "privatization."
Constitutionally, our military should be ALL military and never outsourced.
Mercenaries, as stated in "The Art of War," make for poor combat partners. (and poor prison guards, abu ghraib)
Anonymous (April 10, 2007 @ 12:46pm):
"using the power of the purse to more or less bankrupt the military's ability to counter the insurgency in Iraq."
Yeah, because 4 years of FULL funding did the trick.
Anonymous (April 10, 2007 @ 12:49pm):
hey 11:04....Joe's scholarship money actually comes from the department of defense...cuz he IS in the military...think before you speak
Anonymous (April 10, 2007 @ 2:06pm):
I don't see any data supporting your fears. Moreover, to propagandize your views by implying that the Democrats--and anyone who supports the Democrats--want to "starve" our troops out of Iraq, force our troops to hitchhike home without shoes or "Support Saddam" or some other phony smear attack is a manifestation of the dishonesty that has cost the Republicans and the conservative movement the trust and support of the majority of the American people.
If you want to get us feeling all Mom and Apple Pie, tell us what a smashing success the Department of Homeland Security is.
The Bush White House is incompetent. Someone above advised you to follow the money. It's not hard to see that all of our money--not just yours--went into the wrong pockets. Wise up.
Anonymous (April 10, 2007 @ 3:59pm):
2:06...where is he just criticizing democrats?? in fact, all of his quotes come from democratic senators who are opposed to feingold's plan.
Anonymous (April 10, 2007 @ 4:06pm):
The best way to save money, get the troops home safely, and win this war is to first, shut the politicians up. Second, provide the military with the objective and the resources to complete the objective with NO INTERFERENCE from Washington (that is what lost it for us in Vietnam). This action would be over in less than 6 months, the soldiers would be home, there would be respect for the U.S. again (with the exception of those on the left and countries that will always hate any sort of freedom), and the cash would stop flowing into Iraq.
BTW, anyone who has ever contacted Feingold's office with a concern dealing with the government knows he is a jerk and his staff will do zero to assist you because he has more important things to do than assist those who voted him in (personal experience). Russ is only in the game for Russ and will screw whoever he needs to in order to win. On the contrary, Herb Kohl is great, his staff works with you, talks to you, and gives you a straight answer (it really hurts me to say that because I disagree with 75% of what he believes in).
Anonymous (April 10, 2007 @ 5:03pm):
Cutting off funding for the occupation of Iraq is the only way to stop its continuation. Bush has stated that the next President can worry about bringing troops home and has shown a blatant disregard for the wishes of the American people concerning the Iraq conflict time and time again. Your personal attack on Feingold ignores the important issues in bringing the troops home. When the war first began the stated mission was to remove a brutal dictator from power, eliminate the threat from weapons of mass destruction, and allow the Iraqi people to hold elections. Saddam vanished prior to the invasion and was later captured and killed for a minor crime compared to some of the things he committed. There haven't been weapons of mass destruction as described by the Bush administration in the lead up to the war in years so an invasion wasn't necessary to accomplish this goal. There have been two elections in Iraq since the invasion. It seems that our goals have been accomplished thus it is time to let Iraqi people have their right of self-determination. Will the violence stop if we leave? Who knows, but the continued presence of a military occupier is not helping to reduce violence and death. Even with the recent "surge" deaths have stayed high as death squads have went into hiding and suicide bombers have replaced them. The mission is complete and our troops deserve to be home where they can protect us in a national emergency and not be in harms way with no clear mission.
Todd Dennis
Iraq Veterans Against the War
Anonymous (April 10, 2007 @ 5:25pm):
12:49, if he IS in the military, why is he in the Badger Herald. More accurately, he IS in college.
Anonymous (April 10, 2007 @ 7:42pm):
This is the inevitable end result of a massive slash in defense spending.
Anyone in academia old enough to remember the "peace dividend"? Well, this is it. Leftists couldn't wait to spend that Cold War military money on Bubbah's AmeriCorp and midnight basketball. Well, look at where that stupidity got us.
The only thing that can save us now is another massive military buildup, back to Gulf War levels, and to maintain it there through periods of peace. We either find the political will to keep the military at the necessary size or we'll have to find the political will to "stay the course" in conflicts all over the world for which we are woefully underfunded and understaffed.
If we're going to do this, do it right. Otherwise, just surrender to the barbarians now. As it is, Commodus Clinton has depleted the empire's legions, and we all know what happened to the Roman Empire after that.
Anonymous (April 10, 2007 @ 10:28pm):
joe,
any attempt to bring the troops home must begin with a cut in the funding. are you afraid that troops will be stuck over there with no protection or resources? because if you are that's really naive of you. Furthermore, do you know how money "for the troops" is spent? Here, check out this movie... "Iraq For Sale". you may learn something. And I'm sure you'll appreciate the idea of not having to read anything. Just stick in the video, and relax, just as you would during your evening fox news fix.
Anonymous (April 10, 2007 @ 11:41pm):
10:52am, you are such an ignorant redneck! Do you honestly think that the rest of the world will come after us? Everyone saw what happened when Japan made the mistake of bombing Pearl Harbor. You hope they come for me first? Oooh, that hurt me so bad. Shut the $*^% up, plowboy! It's dorks like you that they think of when they think of the U.S. Conservative like you are so stupid. Man, I thought liberals were good at making idiots of themselves until I read your post!
Anonymous (April 11, 2007 @ 1:08am):
Come on, everyone - we should try to keep the ad hominem attacks to a minimum. Saying "I hope they come after you first" is silly, and makes you look like a child. Calling some a "plowboy" is just as silly, especially when very few people are leaving their names behind and everyone is hiding behind the shield of anonymity.
Anyway, I just wanted to mention the results of the most recent Iraqi poll that I read, cited by the World Public Opinion Group...71% of Iraqis want their young government to ask US troops to leave within a year, or less. The general sentiment of SUPPORT for Iraqi-led attacks on our troops is INCREASING, to 61%! And this is by the general populace!
Look at it this way: If we're to believe Bush's truthiness, then we're spreading democracy to the Middle East. How is denying the majority rule democracy? Why do we treat the Iraqi people like children? It's racist, and insulting. Why do you, Joe, not see that it's our continued occupation of their country which is helping fuel the fires of insurgency?
I'm just a little disappointed in you. Although, I do plan on using you as an example whenever someone accosts me about the "liberal-controlled" UW-Madison media.
I hope that you read the well thought comments by some of your readers, too. I sincerely hope that you don't get all of your current affairs just from FOX News and your instructors at the ROTC.
Sincerely,
Zach Heise, Campus Antiwar Network
Anonymous (April 11, 2007 @ 10:44am):
If we're to believe Zach's truthiness, then we're not introducing representative democracy to the Middle East. How is bowing to mob rule consistent with that goal? Why do Leftist treat elected Iraqi government representatives like children? It is racist, and insulting. Why do you, Zach, not see that it is our support of Iraqi government resistance to attempts to destabilize their fledgling Iraqi democracy which is dousing the fires of Iranian/Syrian fascist subversion?
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
