Support the troops by cutting the funding!

In the recent so-called debate in the House over the non-binding resolution opposing the troop surge, it’s unfortunate that the hot air generated can’t be piped into surrounding homes as an alternative to burning non-renewable fuel. You’d think from many of the Republican gasbags that it was measures such as this one that, as one Texan put it, “stymie success” in the war in Iraq. As if the insurgents, Shia death squads, and Al Qaeda fanatics had heretofore been restraining themselves because of the resolve shown by Congress to give Bush and company a blank check to continue what Lt. General William Odom has called the greatest blunder in American foreign policy.

However, the idea that cutting off funds for the war would not be “supporting the troops” is the biggest blast of hot air, and both Democrats and Republicans are guilty. The word “support” means to help someone accomplish something they want to do. I’m supporting my son by helping to fund his college efforts. But he wants to go to college. The root of the misunderstanding is the mistaken idea that the Iraq invasion and occupation were something the troops came up with. But of course, this is totally wrong. My son would have figured out a way to get to college without my support. But the troops weren’t gonna invade Iraq unless somebody else ordered them to. When blowhards talk about supporting the troops, they really are saying, support the fanatic ideologues and war profiteers who are demanding that they stay mired in this impossible war.

If we cut off funding today, what would happen? The blowhards would have you conjure images of the poor soldiers, running out of ammunition, threadbare uniforms, starving, at the mercy of the Iraqi wolves. Isn’t that absurd? If we cut off every last dollar of future money, what it means is, we use the money already allocated, which is more than enough, to bring the troops back on the next boat. Now THAT’S supporting our troops.