A Few Problems With The Supplemental Spending Bill

[Jcrowley]

By Phyllis Bennis
Institute for Policy Studies
26 March 2007


THE SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING BILL
The Democratic leadership in the House claims the $125 billion supplemental is the way to end the war. Something passed in the Senate may include some of the same claims. Aside from setting a date for bringing home troops, the House version included a number of items many in the peace movement would ordinarily support -- veterans' health benefits, Katrina survivors' assistance, children's health insurance ...

So if there's a timeline, what's the problem with the supplemental? Why shouldn't peace activists support it?

Because it gives President Bush another $100 billion to continue the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. And it doesn't end the occupation or prevent expansion of the war to Iran.

WHAT IT DOES:
It calls for pulling out some troops from Iraq by August 2008.

BUT:
It exempts whole categories of troops from the withdrawal ...

Troops "training the Iraqi military" can stay -- currently 6,000, perhaps as many as 20,000 (no limit in the supplemental).

Troops engaged in "special operations" can stay -- the Marines say they want 20,000 for Anbar Province alone, perhaps as many as 40,000 for the whole country (no limit in the supplemental).

Troops "protecting diplomatic enclaves" like the huge Green Zone and the US Embassy, the largest in the world, and maybe including the numerous US bases established in Iraq, can stay -- 20,000 is a conservative number (no limit in the supplemental).

That means Bush could keep unlimited numbers, perhaps 60,000-80,000 troops, permanently in Iraq -- and still be in compliance with the bill.

And the bill does not require that the troops withdrawn from Iraq be sent home; they can be immediately deployed to Afghanistan, or to bases in surrounding Arab countries, or to ships in the Persian Gulf -- or be used to attack Iran.

WHAT IT DOES:
It imposes restrictions on Pentagon deployments, prohibiting the deployment of troops not fully trained, not adequately equipped, and not adequately rested between deployments.

BUT:
It includes a waiver for President Bush to simply state his intention to override those restrictions, allowing him to send in as many untrained, badly equipped and exhausted troops as he wishes.

WHAT IT DOES:
Prohibit construction of new permanent bases in Iraq.

BUT:
It does nothing to close the existing permanent bases the U.S. has built across Iraq and includes billions for "military construction" presumably for those existing bases.

WHAT IT DOES:
Require Iraq's government to pass a new oil law.

BUT:
The law being debated in the parliament abandons Iraq's long history of maintaining control of its oil resources in favor of allowing international (especially U.S.) oil companies to take control of large sectors of the vital oil industry.

WHAT IT DOES:
Cut 10% of the funding for private military contractors.

BUT:
It allows 90% of the 100,000 or so mercenaries who fight alongside the U.S. military to remain in Iraq.

WHAT IT DOESN'T DO:

The supplemental does not prohibit an unprovoked attack on Iran.

The supplemental does not end the occupation of Iraq.

http://www.ips-dc.org/comment/bennis/tp49opposingsupplemental.htm

[Norquist Nemesis]

1. And so when Bush vetoes it, he has no excuse!

[Vincardog]

3. Bingo NM. LEt jr veto it then do NOT pass another.

[Parisle]

2. Wow,.... When you put it that way,...........

--- Doesn't sound like much would change,..... at least not outside of the stand-off between Bush and the Congress. Apparently this bill is just aimed at barely nudging Bush onto the right path,... acquiescing to the will of Congress,... and not much more.

[DaveJ]

4. What I expected - Dems are trying to tone it down a notch

I'm sure this will upset a lot of people, but I think that if the occupation must continue, Dems will do a better job at managing it.

[helderheid]

5. K & R

[Rydz777]

6. Revealing analysis

If American troops are still getting killed and maimed in Iraq in November 2008 the voters will be very, very unhappy. This is not the time to play political games. The cost of this war, by every measure, is staggering. We need to get out NOW.