Supporting The Troops?

As Congress debates the war-funding bill later this month (spoiler alert: it's probably going to pass, despite Democratic opposition efforts), an amendment introduced by Sen. Webb (D-VA) is making waves.

Via The Hill, "the amendment requires the Pentagon to give active-duty troops at least as much time at home as they spent on deployments, and mandates that National Guard and Reserve members get to stay home for three years following their one-year deployments."

Sen. Webb defended his proposal in July on 'Meet The Press' by stating there "there is no operational policy that justifies what we've been doing," and that the changes he's seeking are in concert with traditional military policy.

Now the Secretary of Defense is urging the President to veto this if it comes to his desk, "branding it a dangerous 'backdoor way' to draw down forces." As opposed to the 'backdoor' draft methods-- stop-loss programs, multiple tours of duty, 15-month stays, etc -- that have been the reality of the Bush era, eh Bob?

Gates elaborates-

If Webb's amendment were enacted, Gates said it would force him to consider again extending tours in Iraq. He explained that the military commanders would be constrained in the use of available forces, creating gaps and forcing greater use of an already strained National Guard and Reserve.

"It would be extremely difficult for us to manage that. It really is a backdoor way to try and force the president to accelerate the drawdown," Gates said. "Again, the drawdowns have to be based on the conditions on the ground."

Sec. Gates knows full well that any drawdowns the President approves next year (and it's clear it's less than the hype) will not be based on the conditions on the ground. They are based on stretched military reality, the very issue Sen. Webb is hoping to ease.

If that hurts the President's policy, then he needs to come clean with the American public.

Does the White House truly believe his policy (or lack thereof, more honestly) is worth the loss of life, limbs, and treasure we continue to suffer? The President constantly refers to this war as being a battle for the very heart and soul of our civilization... like WWII, but ya know, more serious. And yet he asks for no sacrifices from the public at large, except for the very small number (comparatively) of military families with serving members. If the fate of western civilization itself is at stake, why not call a draft? Besides the fact that he knows that would cut in half what little support the war still has, the larger point is that even President Bush knows this is not a serious war.

The President and his supporters love to hide behind the troops and use them as political shields. So it's not surprising that when people call attention to the reality of life for them (ie. the Walter Reed scandal), the White House gets defensive. But while the Democrats may indeed lack the votes to end this unserious war during Bush's term, the least they can do is fight to give the real help needed to those who continue to fight it for them.

[PS- Mark Kleiman has some strategy suggestions for Democrats on the war funding debate.]