No Funding = No War.
THE POWER OF THE PURSE WAS GIVEN TO CONGRESS TO STOP WARMONGERING PRESIDENTS. USE IT!
There is no question that if the House Speaker refused to allow a funding bill that the war would stop.
The real question, not even debated, is whether it would ACTUALLY cause voters to turn against us for "Not supporting the troops."
I think Americans, a majority, who want us out of Iraq, would strongly support the Democrats after the troops actually came home.
To think otherwise is craven, shortsighted, and shows no more than a power-hungry fear of any action for the common good that might even Possibly Cause Problems.
That's it. We're represented by spineless chickens.
If it continues, we lose for being spineless.
If we stop giving BushCo, Halliburton and the arms merchants, money, then the citizens will have time to realize that the troops are home, people are killing each other, but we're not doing it.
There's a big difference between being responsible directly for killing, and being indirectly responsible for other people killing each other.
Why do we presume that religious sectarian tribal civil war is our fault?
If we remove the dictator, and then they kill each other for lack of a dictator, how is that our fault?