Support
The Troops By
Sending Them To War!
By Kevin Zeese
24 March, 2007
Countercurrents.org
As
the United States enters the fifth year of the quagmire of the Iraq
war and occupation the Capitol Hill leadership claims: we need to continue
to fund the war to support U.S. troops. Does this claim pass the straight
face test? Is this what the troops want?
Do we support the troops
when we send them to die and kill? Do we support the troops when we
send them into a quagmire without adequate armor?
Three troops a day are killed
in Iraq, each month approximately 500 are listed as casualties (ten
times more are unlisted casualties who suffer physical, emotional and
mental injuries from Iraq) and countless numbers of Iraqis are killed
every day. So, when the Democrats call for a withdrawal by August 31,
2008 it means there will be 1,500 more U.S. troops killed, more than
8,000 officially injured and many tens of thousands of Iraqi children,
women and men killed. In 2007, if the supplemental passes, Congress
will have appropriated $165 billion, and in 2008 it is likely much more
will be spent.
And, the loopholes in the
House Democratic supplemental are large enough to ensure that even after
the deadline President Bush will be able to keep as many troops as he
wants in Iraq. For example, troops can stay to capture or kill members
of Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups. We have approximately 140,000
troops in Iraq doing that right now. With the wording of this supplemental
that will continue after the so-called withdrawal date. And, the supplemental
does nothing to prevent a military attack on Iran.
This supplemental is more
likely to lead to a larger war in the Middle East than it is a withdrawal
from Iraq.
How does this support the
troops?
On the Fourth Anniversary
of the war military families, Iraq War Vets, Gold Star family members
and active duty troops held a press conference with a simple message
displayed behind the speakers:
“DE-FUND THE WAR TO
SUPPORT THE TROOPS”
These are the members of
the mere 1.6% of the U.S. citizenry who bear the daily burden of the
Iraq War and occupation. The military and their families who live with
this war every hour of every day understand that sending troops into
a civil war, that is not supported by the American people or the Iraqi
people, is no way to support the troops. They realize that inadequate
funding for the Veterans Administration while at the same time flooding
it with new casualties is no way to support the troops. They have lived
not only with battlefield deaths and life changing injuries, but with
suicide, the dysfunction of PTSD, the guilt of killing women and children,
and broken families – all the result of Congress supporting the
troops by sending them to war.
The claim that the only way
to get Veterans benefits or armor for the troops is by supporting the
supplemental is patently false. The Democrats should have said that
Bush’s supplemental was dead on arrival and drafted their own
– a supplemental that would have supported the troops, funded
the VA, provided for the rebuilding of Iraq by Iraqis, the funding of
a regional stabilization force and a diplomatic surge in the region.
That would have been an appropriation that would have really supported
the troops.
Some of the speakers at the
military family’s press conference included Joyce and Kevin Lucey
of Belchertown, MA whose son Cpl. Jeffrey Michael Lucey, a Marine Reservist,
served in Iraq in 2003, and took his own life after being released and
refused treatment at a VA hospital in 2004. Also speaking was Tina Richards
of Salem, Missouri a mother of a Marine who is suffering from Post Traumatic
Stress Disorder and other injuries but may be sent on a third deployment
to Iraq. She recently had a chance meeting in the Halls of Congress
with Rep. David Obey, the Chair of the appropriations committee, where
he described war opponents as “idiot liberals” who “must
be smoking something.” She has a column in the Milwaukee Sentinel
Journal urging “We owe it to the troops and their families to
end the war now.” Corey VanBuskirk of Greeley, PA whose husband
is a Marine serving his second tour in Iraq. He was deployed 12 days
after the two were married. Stacy Bannerman of Kent, Washington whose
husband served for a year in Iraq with the Washington Army National
Guard, received a mental health exam eight months after serving at the
most attacked base in Iraq, and, almost one year from that exam was
notified by the military of his diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
These speakers at the Military
Families Speak Out press conference describe the real stories of soldiers
in Iraq. Rep. Jack Murtha described the Iraq War as more intense combat
than Vietnam or World War II citing a survey that found that 93% of
soldiers had been shot at and 86% knew someone who had been shot.
The opposition to the war
shown by these soldiers and their families is consistent with polls
of soldiers. More than a year ago a Zogby poll showed that 73% of soldiers
in Iraq believed the U.S. should come home within a year. And a poll
by Military Times found that their readers, who are generally more senior
and career military, found a majority opposed the war.
So, if the Democratic leadership
wants to support the troops, why don’t they listen to the troops?
A group of soldiers and their
families went to find out what the Democratic leadership was thinking
after the press conference. Tina Richards led a delegation of 30 people
to the offices of Speaker Nancy Pelosi after the press conference. Richards
has been trying to see Pelosi since November 8th – as soon as
the Democrats knew they had won majority control of both Houses of Congress.
Richards had worked on a
Democratic congressional campaign in Missouri and had made small donations
to Democrats across the country thinking that when they were in the
majority they would end the war. She has telephoned, written and visited
the Speaker’s office seeking to meet her. Last Friday, before
she broke through to the national media with an appearance on Hardball,
she received a call from the Speaker’s office saying they would
set up a meeting as soon as possible with Pelosi. But since that time
she has received no phone calls from the Speaker’s office and
one reporter told her that the Speaker had decided not to meet with
her.
So, along with other military
family members, vets and active duty soldiers she went to the Speakers
office to ask when she could meet with Nancy Pelosi. She did not receive
an answer despite her repeated contacts. She and other members of the
delegation insisted on meeting with Pelosi. TV cameras from networks
and citizen news groups monitored the discussion despite a Pelosi rule
that no cameras are allowed in her office (whatever happened to “Congress
shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press!).
The receptionist told Tina
and the others that someone from their press office would be coming
to meet with them. Of course, a media spokesperson was more to do damage
control with the media in attendance than to communicate with the vets,
soldiers and their families.
Terry McCullough, the Chief
of Staff for Speaker Pelosi, finally came out of her office and after
urging by those in attendance suggested a meeting with her. During the
meeting families, vets and active soldiers spoke about their opposition
to the supplemental that extended the war, their experiences with the
VA denying them basic health care, and the challenges they have coming
home from the war with no jobs or housing. They spoke about the impact
of depleted uranium poisoning. One couple described the suicide of their
son when the VA refused to provide him treatment for post traumatic
stress disorder.
Ms. McCullough could not
answer for Speaker Pelosi. She did not even attempt to explain how sending
troops to war – a war the Speaker says she opposes – is
supporting the troops. Ms. McCullough promised to convey the messages
of the delegation but wouldn’t it have been better if the Speaker
would meet with this type of delegation? Listen to their experiences?
Understand their reaction to the supplemental? Hear their disappointment
with the lack of leadership of the Democratic majority?
President Bush refused to
meet with Cindy Sheehan to explain to her for what noble cause her son
was killed. Will Tina Richards and other soldiers, vets and military
families have to camp out in front of Speaker Pelosi’s office
to finally get to talk to her? If so what does that say about the lack
of difference between Democrats and Republicans?
If the Democrats want to
“support the troops” shouldn’t they at least talk
to military families about their concerns regarding the continuation
of this war?
For more information visit:
Tina Richards website www.GrassrootsAmerica4us.org
Military Families Speak Out www.mfso.org.
Iraq Veterans Against the War www.ivaw.org
Kevin Zeese is director of
DemocracyRising.US and co-founder of VotersForPeace.US.
Click
here to comment
on this article