Blue Dogs Win, America and the Troops Lose

    The original is posted at Daily Kos

by BarbinMD    Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:25:07 AM PDT

    It's all over, save the congratulations and backslapping for a job well done.  With the wrangling over language for the supplemental spending bill hammered out, with the add-ons for unrelated, yet vital projects tacked on to gain more votes, and of course, with appeasing concessions dutifully slapped on, Congress will soon present their own new way forward for Iraq.  But through all of their compromises and political gamesmanship, they forgot one thing; the troops.

Buried on page 71 of this bill is the following:

Sec. 1901. (a) Congress finds that it is Defense Department policy that units should not be deployed for combat unless they are rated "fully mission capable".

(b) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this or any other Act may be used to deploy any unit of the Armed Forces to Iraq unless the chief of the military department concerned has certified in writing to the Committees on Appropriations and the Committees on Armed Services at least 15 days in advance of the deployment that the unit is fully mission capable.

On the face of it, finally, after nearly four years, common sense legislation that says unless a unit is certified as fully rested, trained and equipped, they cannot be sent to Iraq.  Who could object to such a simple concept?  Besides the administration and the Republican Party, there is one group that found this to be "tieing the hands" of George Bush; the Blue Dog Dems.  Almost to a man, they refused to back this unambiguous statement of support for the safety of the troops unless this language was added:

(d) The President, by certifying in writing to the Committees on Appropriations and the Committees on Armed Services that the deployment to Iraq of a unit that is not assessed fully mission capable is required for reasons of national security and by submitting along with the certification a report in classified and unclassified form detailing the particular reason or reasons why the unit's deployment is necessary despite the chief of the military department's assessment that the unit is not fully mission capable, may waive the limitation prescribed in subsection (b) on a unit-by-unit basis.

Yes, they are willing to allow George Bush to set aside their legislation and send ill-equipped, untrained soldiers to fight in Iraq's civil war under the guise of protecting our national security.  But was our national security at risk when two combat brigades were sent to Iraq without proper training?  Desert training that Tony Snow blithely suggested they would get in Iraq?  Was our national security at risk when it was decided to deploy:

...troops with serious injuries and other medical problems, including GIs who doctors have said are medically unfit for battle. Some are too injured to wear their body armor, according to medical records.

Is there any doubt that national security has nothing to do with this administration's willingness to send ill-prepared troops into battle?  That the overextending of the military for nearly four years has brought us to the point where there simply aren't enough "fully mission capable" troops to sustain this war?  But setting aside that question and the question of how sending our military to be targets in a civil war could ever conceivably have any bearing on our national interests, yesterday I called all 43 of the Blue Dog Dems and asked:

Does the Congressman support requiring that all troops are properly rested, trained and equipped before being sent to Iraq?

A simple yes or no question.  And some of the answers I received?

• I'll have to get back to you on that.
• Well I'm sure she does in principle...let me get back to you.  
•  I'm pretty sure he does...let me get back to you.
• Ummm, that's a sensitive issue. I'll get back to you
• I'd like to run that by him.  I haven't heard that question before.
• I don't know.  This is all so confusing with that supplemental.  I'll try to find out.

But it is not in the least bit confusing.  It's a simple question.  Yet out of the 43 Blue Dog Dems, only 4 were willing to answer it in the affirmative.  The rest?  They were either unavailable for comment or failed to follow up on their promises to find out.  And it's a question that deserves an answer.  It moves the concept of supporting the troops from mouthing a useful slogan to taking a moral stand. And that terrifies Republican Congressmen, and now it seems, some Democratic Congressmen as well. But as it stands, buried near the end of a 90+ page supplemental bill, made toothless by the inclusion of an ambiguous waiver option for George Bush, it's not going to be answered unless we force the issue.  

The question of whether we as Americans believe that our servicemen and women should not be sent into harm's way without Pentagon-mandated rest, training and equipment, shouldn't be an afterthought in Chapter 9, section 1901, of a massive spending bill.  It deserves it's own, separate amendment that forces Congress to vote publicly and in the clear light of day.  It's time to ask your Congressman to go on the record and answer the question, who do you support, the troops or the administration?  

* * * *

    I'm on my Congressman's ass at this very moment and I would think that maybe you should be on your Congressman about this also.

Technorati tags: Blue Dog Dems, Iraq, Troops