February 13, 2007
Support our sea mammal troops
Well after the squad of third graders over in the Senate blew off last week arguing over whether they should debate that Iraq war thingy and if so when and how they should hold such a debate, the House of Representatives actually found a way to start that conversation today.
Sure it was a charged atmosphere, but in these divisive times under the leadership of our uniting decider what else would you expect? The Senate got bogged down over the filibuster where the minority party Republicans could derail any debate by refusing to yield the floor, but the House follows no such decorum and the Democrats told the Republicans “Here’s the symbolic topic for non-binding debate. You each get five minutes to speak your piece, then we vote and the whole country can move on.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi opened things calling for a vote in favor of this hollow gesture as a way to declare no confidence in the executive branch and pave the way for actual checks from the Congress, the Senate blockade will prevent any actual legislation from taking any meaningful action in opposition to the management of the war.
Still, just because they’d been dragged to the debate kicking and screaming, that didn’t mean the Republicans weren’t going to bring their deadpan hyperbole and ubiquitous scare tactics. They went with a three-pronged pitchfork-styled strategy; attacking the pointlessness of a non-binding debate, raising the notion that debating any aspect of the war is a disservice to our brave troops, and that dusty old chestnut, “If we leave, they will follow us home. It’s that simple.”
That list bit came from House Republican leader John Boehner, of Ohio. He and his partymates were sure to hit on the other two points as well. He stated, “This is a political charade lacking both the seriousness and gravity of the issue that it is meant to represent.” and “Every drop of blood that has been spilt in defense of freedom and liberty — from the American Revolution to this very moment — is for nothing if we are unwilling to stand against this threat,”
California Republican David Dreier added his musings with elastic logic such as “Like it or not, it is a vote of no-confidence in our troops because it does not provide our troops what they need to succeed.” and “We go to war to win, we go to war with a mission, and we dishonor those who have made the ultimate sacrifice if we in fact abandon that mission.”
Then there’s the bold stance taken by Florida’s Ileana Ros-Lehtinen “As in the Cold War, our current struggle is one of survival. The enemy does not mean merely to chase us away. The goal of the Islamist extremist radicals is to destroy us. If we run, they will pursue. If we cower, they will strike.”
While I agree with the Republicans about the senselessness of these grandstanding debates over toothless proclamations, I think their other two premises don’t hold together all that well. The notion that debating the war, and questioning the strategies is bad for morale and a disservice to the troops seems to rely on the thought that the troops can not function if they don’t know the country is urging them on with all our secret dreams and wishes. I sure hope our troops can function whether or not they’re getting treated like Tinkerbell back home.
Then there’s the idea that if we leave Iraq, we embolden the enemy. That concept simplifies things way too far to be useful in reality. Americans are dying in Iraq because it’s a weapon-saturated environment with little reliable governance and people who dislike America have easy access to American targets. The main violence there is the sectarian variety as religious and cultural differences are being fought over in the streets.
Americans are getting caught in the crossfire some, accidently making enemies when they chose sides or get roped into helping one faction or another, and coming under attack from dedicated enemies who are taking advantage of targets within range. Maybe people should be advocating a strategy where we don’t abandon Iraq, but we do pull our soldiers back off the streets and focus on containing the violence inside Iraq’s borders while working with people in the region to negotiate for peace.
This way Americans are no longer in the range of people out to hunt Americans. That way we can move our famously light, nimble (and occasionally unarmored) military to continue the fight against the people who are out to attack American interests in the region without letting them chase us wee wee wee all the way home. (That is unless the Republicans really mean that if we don’t give al Qaida some soldier to attack in the Middle East there’s no way to continue to secure the homeland from those tireless terrorists.)
But all is not lost. If the Democrats in charge of Congress can’t find a way to successfully wield the power of their governmental branch, there might be another way to cut off the prosecution of this war. As our troops continue to get worn out serving multiple tours in combat, it’s getting harder and harder to recruit new soldiers.
A recent Pentagon report revealed that more and more inductees are only allowed to serve after receiving waivers for past criminal convictions. Last year more than 25 percent of recruits needed some sort of waiver to qualify. This comes on top of raising the maximum age for new recruits and accepting more recruits who score in the lowest range on aptitude tests.
The military is going so far as to enlist sea mammals when they can. Naval Base Kitsap-Bangor, on the Puget Sound close to Seattle may soon have a team of dolphins patrolling for strange divers in the harbor and highly skilled sea lions who carry underwater cuffs to snare intruders. The brave soldiers in the Navy Marine Mammal Program are just too cute to not get our support.
I think I missed by far the least intelligent comment made in Congress yesterday when Republican Rep. Todd Akin compared the current situation in Iraq to Davy Crockett at the Alamo. Watch the footage and read more here.