Now, I’ve hardly been for cutting off funding for the war (actually, I’ve largely been against it for largely being ineffective and a political loser, overall, for democrats). However, that doesn’t excuse the Bush administration from making what amounts to BS threats for cutting funding for bases in the US.
The Army made public a document titled “Running out of OMA [Operations & Maintenance Army]: What the Army will Stop Doing”
This is what it says:
Assumption:
DoD will implement authorities of the Feed and Forage Act providing limited ability to continue some activities
What Stops:
- Army will warm [sic] base operations
- Child care centers, libraries, family and youth activities close [good excuse to screw social services I see]
- Post transportation, and custodial services stop.
- Environmental efforts stop [so this give a good excuse to screw the environment too]
- Training range operations cease [our boys will be unprepared!]
- Critical force protection, safety and health will continue at minimal operations using military labor – gate guards and fire protection.
- Civilian personnel will be furloughed.
- Up to 150,000 employees
- Furlough notices issued 30 to 60 days in advance (depends on local agreements).
- Family Advocacy Support Closes
- Terminate counselor services for returning Soldiers and their Families [one of the more vile threats, I thought]
- Respite care stops
- Media advertising will stop
- Unable to meet treaty obligations (NATO)
Impact:
- Retention may decline
- 5 to 6 brigades are returning from 15 month deployments to find curtailed services and support – a significant morale issue [like being in Iraq isn't demoralizing enough]
- Recruiting may decline
- Advertising stops and recruiting stations may close
- Delays initial entry training for those who have enlisted
- Depot Output Declines
- Orders decline, reset slows
- Operations to strategic readiness limited
- Civilian and contractor support for EUCOM, SOUTHCOM, and USFK stops. [So they cut down contractor support for Europe, South America, and Korea, but not Iraq]
- Army Command Operations reduced
- Civilian and contractor support for ARCENT, NORTHCOM, USARSO, and FORSCOM stops.
- Training Command operations stop.
- Recovery will be measured in years
Of course, what Bush and the Army doesn’t say is that Congress has already passed it’s 2008 Defense appropriations bill which should have already paid for all of this and, since those appropriation bills virtually always allow a certain amount of funds to be transferred as needed, the military could transfer funds to fund the war through Mid-February.
This ultimately is still a dicey situation for democrats, since historically, whenever something stops getting funded, people blame Congress, even if it’s largely due to presidential vetoes. However, if I were Congressional democrats, I’d basically go out and say “look, we already paid for this in the military appropriations bill. Bush and the Republicans shouldn’t make those working at domestic military bases and soldiers state-side suffer because they keep blocking our Iraq funding bills which are trying to end a war that no one but them supports.”
Ah, ignorance is truely bliss. The military has priorities. Their mandate does include social welfare programs but they fall lower in priority. They are required to pursue a war agains terrorist preferably on foreign soil.
Have a GREAT Thanksgiving, and remember it’s been the successes of the military that provide you with the oportunity to celebrate it.
Tony Z
Ah, you are correct that they need to fight those who would harm us (whether that is the so-called war on terror or something else).
Unfortunately, the vast bulk of the money, people, and resources are going into Iraq, which basically has nothing to do with that fight. Those fundamentalist terrorists in Iraq would probably be wiped out almost immediately once actual security and an actual government were put in place. Unfortunately, the Iraqis don’t seem interested in forming a government, even with the downturn in violence, so I’m not sure what point there is in keeping troops there.
And remember, the goal of the surge was to facilitate political, not to reduce violence per se. (Basically the surge was the means to and end, which itself was a means to an end. If we don’t have that ultimate end, the surge failed, even if we succeeded in the intermediate step – and that’s debatable too).
Bush could solve all of this by deciding to get us out of the mess in Iraq which would solve a multitude of problems, and probably cost us basically nothing in national security. However, he refuses and our troops and Iraqis continue to suffer, and now he appears intent on making those stateside suffer as well.