The only way to end the war and save lives before Bush leaves office is to cut Bush's military supplemental and full appropriations requests. That power rests solely with the Democrats. If the Democrats don't exercise this fundamental responsiblity, no Democratic Party fundraising organization should be entitled to a single penny from any of us who oppose the war.
I read with great interest the op-ed by Gov. Tom Vilsack, who is the first candidate to openly challenge the Congress to use its power to cut funding for the Iraq war as part of a strategy to end the war. We know there are many competing plans to end the war, but none will end the war before Bush leaves office in Jan. 2009 unless there is a funding cut this year (2007) for any supplemental funding request or any FY '08 defense appropriations bill.
Candidates like Obama, Richardson and to a lesser extent, Clinton, have either made a commitment and/or set forth specific proposals to end the war. However, none has addressed the funding issues for 2007/08, which effectively means that the war will continue as Bush desires until someone forces his hand, or until he leaves office.
The LA Times has reported that the surge is not working. US soldiers are patrolling the streets, but are more or less passing through to avoid getting shot. They are not talking to the residents, not solving problems, and are not able to maintain order and calm once a patrol has ended. Many Iraqi soldiers never show up for duty and have so many conflicts of interest that work against American objectives that they are untrustworthy. In other situations, American soldiers are told by their commanders to steer clear of Iraqis and are instructed to drive on roads closed to the public and available only to the military. This makes it easier for others to target US soldiers as they are conspicuous. In short, the only the thing the surge/escalation is doing is putting more American soldiers at risk. This is morally unacceptable.
The reporting of the LA Times (and other news outlets) is backed up by the latest casualty reports. According to icasualties.org, 36 soldiers have died during the first 9 days of February.
Jack Murtha, whom many of us have relied on as the vanguard of the anti-war movement, is beginning to hedge on cutting funding. Rather than slash the appropriations request submitted by Bush by a fixed percentage or dollar amount, Murtha is planning to condition the deployment of additional troops on whether such forces have been adequately trained and equipped. Thus far, Murtha has no plans to actually cut the dollar amount of Bush's funding request. The Administration will simply claim that it has met Murtha's condition (assuming it passes both houses of Congress and is signed by Bush) and force the Democrats to prove otherwise. This will require time and Bush will already have sent the troops and spent the money. In short, what Murtha proposes is nothing short of a cop out.
As Democrats and progressives, we cannot tolerate our party abandoning the soliders and its electoral mandate just because they are afraid of being labeled as soft on defense by the GOP. There is no reason to wait for another 1000-2000 soldiers to die before we take action. If we begin the process of cutting the funding now, the war will end. The military would be unable to assume that funding would be available in the following budget cycles, and would therefore have to plan to redploy in advance of the 2008 elections.
The only way Congress will do what the voters asked them to do is if we deny the Democrats any money for the 2008 campaign. If the DCCC, DSCC or DNC calls, tell them they should cut funding for the war before we'll fund their 2008 campaigns. If Obama, Clinton or Biden asks you for money, tell them to adopt or support Feingold or Kennedy's measure to cut funding for the war. Otherwise, not a dime to fund their campaigns. That is the only way to reach a politican's conscience---via the pocketbook.
http://www.latimes.com/...