What would be the effect on the troops if we just cut off funds?

[bigtree]

. . . either Bush's or in Democratic legislation or the other proposals to just vote 'no'?

SOMETHING in those supplementals is meant to support the troops. Who are the folks who are vouching for the proposition that if Congress rejects the entire funding package, the troops won't be affected by the withholding of funds? What position are they in to vouch for the effects that they, themselves, say are intended to squeeze the life out of the occupation? Who is going to be affected first by the cut-off; the weaponry and machinery, or the men and women who've already been put in harm's way by Bush?

Even Kucinich accepted the 'Out of Iraq Caucus' amendment which would directly provide funds to effect their withdrawal (even though he said the funds are already 'in the pipeline'). Why is it seen as a 'courageous' course to direct our attack on the occupation by denying the funding which is intended for the troops, instead of pressuring Bush directly as the Democratic supplemental will?

It's amazing how little concern is expressed by the proponents for the effects of an approach which openly argues that the lack of money would force a reduction in the mission. Obviously, the expectation is that the commanders wouldn't be able to carry out their 'missions' and will urge a withdrawal. Or, that Bush won't continue without money for the troops he says he needs. Who thinks Bush would just stand down?

Who is guaranteeing the safety, security, and well-being of the soldiers in the aftermath of such a cut-off? Where do they anticipate the coercive shortfalls would occur in Iraq? Where would the effects be felt first? Where are they assuming that a command which has no compunction about keeping the troops hunkered down in sandbagged huts in the middle of the warring factions - knowing they are being killed at a rate of 1-3 a day - would feel the effects of the cut-off? How soon? To what degree would they expect Bush to tolerate our troops experiencing ANY shortfall or scarcity of resources before he bends?

Would the effect on the troops be immediate? Would the effects be made apparent by those now in command and control over the forces?

How do they expect to control all of these concerns by just having our legislators vote 'no' on the funding which is intended for the troops bogged down in the middle a combat mission in Iraq? What happens to the funds for those in the region who are in supporting roles?

What do they think will be the immediate effect? Short term? Long term? *Who will suffer? Will they know?

Do they have any idea at all what the actual effect of such a vote would be on the troops? Are they privileged to any data or analysis of the effect? What funds are the the military working with now? How much of that money - which has already been appropriated - reached the troops?

What would be the effect of such a cut-off on the safety, security, and well-being of the troops as we waited for Bush to bend?

Why the hell should ANYONE accept THEIR word that our soldiers wouldn't be affected by the withholding of funds? WHY?


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree

[youngdem]

1. Nothing. They would keep waging war while stealing money from general operating at the Pentagon

And the Bush administration would also illegally steal the funds from elsewhere in the government, or seek illegal funds or loans in the government's name without Congressional approval.

Illegal? So what. Bushco doesn't care.

Not that this is any real risk. Democrats are going out of their way to make it clear we won't be doing this.

[NormanYorkstein]

2. they would be on their way home

most likely

[Danieljay]

3. Nothing, other than political suicide. NOONE would abandoned our troops.

[cassiepriam]

4. Cut off funding. Then send airplanes, boats, ships to Iraq. Put troops on them.

Ships and planes come back to US.
Troops disembark and go home.

Simple isn't it.

[bigtree]

6. but nothing in that unilateral action by members of Congress would direct Bush

to do ANYTHING.

He'd likely still continue with his escalation using the original false mandate from the original IWR as justification. Democrats have directed him to end the occupation in the legislation that's advancing. They've provided funds to effect that gradual withdrawal without a scene like at the end of the war on Vietnam.

[cassiepriam]

9. Dems are making this too complicated.

I would take a simple approach.

1. No more funding.
2. Authorize plane and ship vouchers to all US troops in Iraq.
3. Pass a law preventing any executive or military retaliation to troops who come home.
4. Troops come home.

End of story.

[terisan]

5. Pentagon can use money from other parts of their massive budget. nt

[bigtree]

7. and continue to limp our soldiers along

overburdened, over-deployed, under-supplied, and not directed at all to leave.

[OHdem10]

8. Here is what some thoughtful commentators

say.

Cut off funding to troops and Democrats assume the
responsibility for war.
Something like this. Dems cut funding. Bush grabs
opportunity to end war. There is horrible upheaval
as troops leave. Bush announces--We told you so,
see the Mess caused by Democrats. This proves you
cannot trust Dems with foreign affairs and war.
Vote Republican.

The mantra Dems want to cut funds for troops is
a trap.

Up to now the Dems have held firm''This is Bush's
War.

Republicans want Dems to get the war hung around
their neck.

At this time there are no clear and easy answers.

[cassiepriam]

10. It is time for courage to do the right thing despite how it will by spun

by the repugs.

Stop the war now, stop the killing now.
Withdrawal of troops is the first step.

And if the Dems are going to be afraid of Rove's propoganda
then nothing will ever change. Ever. And Rove has won once again.

[bigtree]

11. again with the 'courage' smear

It takes no courage at all to propose solutions which have absolutely no chance of being enacted.

[cassiepriam]

15. It will take a great deal of courage for the Dems to stop the war. They are afraid of Rove.

[cassiepriam]

16. You are wrong. Stopping the war can and will be enacted.

Sooner or later the war will be over.
The sooner it ends, the more lives will be saved.

[sinkingfeeling]

12. Not much of anything for many months. The Pentagon would have to shift some money

around, cut off long-term research projects (development of weapons), cancel some travel and meetings. I've read that there would almost zero effect until the end of July. The Pentagon gets something like $700 billion a year for 'all' of its projects. I say let them hold a bake sale or maybe they could sell off some more of their 'older' weapons to foreign countries to supply funding.

[bigtree]

13. yet, that is ceding responsibility for the soldiers we purport to care so much about

completely to the will and whim of Bush and his generals.

[sinkingfeeling]

14. The care and support of US military personnel is the responsibility of the Pentagon and DOD.

What has our concern about them lacking armor or having their combat duty extended time and again accomplished? Can you pick up the phone and call Bush and ask him to make sure that they are all fully trained and supplied? They are at the whim of Bush and his generals and have been since the idiot boy started his little war.