FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Co-Owning the War

by ROBERT FANTINA

Politicians with low approval ratings will often use that fact almost as a badge of pride and courage. They are doing what’s right, they will proclaim, despite the consequences to their popularity. This is easier to accomplish for a president halfway through his second and last term than it is for members of Congress, who can be re-elected for a seeming eternity and thus always keep a watchful eye on public opinion surveys.

As November of 2006 approached, some incumbents viewed these polls with justified trepidation; prior to the mid-term elections, things were not looking good for many of them, especially if they were members of the Republican Party and had voted lockstep with President George Bush’s policies for the previous six years. With the Iraq war the top priority for many voters, and its popularity dwelling somewhere in a dismal sub-cellar, Republican candidates had much to worry about.

On Election Day many of them were sent to an early retirement. The voters had spoken and swept the GOP out of power, replaced by the peace-proclaiming Democrats. The citizens were happy with their selection; a CBS news poll on January 4, 2007 indicated that 68% were optimistic about the new Congress. Members of that body talked about their plans for their first hundred days, and the war in Iraq was on everyone’s mind.

Fast forward to June 21, 2007. Congress’s approval rating, according to a Newsweek poll, is at 25%. What, one might reasonably ask, happened to all that optimism evident five months ago? Like the ‘political capital’ Mr. Bush claimed to have earned following his 2004 election, it evaporated in the dusty clouds raised by the bombings in Iraq.

The CBS news poll in January showed that voters felt Congress’s main focus should be on Iraq (45%). And in that, Congress did not disappoint them. From debates on whether or not to introduce a non-binding resolution, to passage of a bill setting a timeline for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, Congress has not neglected this issue. But implicit in the voters’ desire for Congress to focus on Iraq, and apparently not understood by the members of that body, was an expectation that they would actually do something constructive to end the war. After Mr. Bush vetoed the bill, Congress meekly handed the president exactly what he wanted, as it has done since prior to the invasion. And thus we see Congress’s slide to the bottom of the ratings barrel.

It does not take a genius to figure out what is happening: the members of the current Congress were elected with one aim in mind, the ending of U.S. involvement in Iraq. The opportunity was theirs; the bill they passed that mandated troop withdrawals was vetoed by the president. That left Congress with two good choices: 1) send a similar bill back to the president, or 2) allow funding for the war to end, thus ending the war. But Congress selected door number three, which when opened spilled out billions of dollars to continue the war.

As they waved their magic political wands and summoned from some apparently unknown source these vast amounts of money to continue the carnage in Iraq, they all suggested that they had to do so to ‘support the troops.’ Here we go again! Let us look at how funding the war supports the troops: 1) it causes Americans to remain in mortal danger; 2) it increases the number of Americans who will be in such danger; 3) it creates and aggravates financial, mental and emotional hardships for the families the soldiers left behind; 4) it places American soldiers at high risk of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which the government has proven to be extremely miserly in treating, and 5) it provides coffins for them if they die in Iraq. Mr. Bush has been victorious in his rhetorical campaign to convince Congress that black is white and white is black.

It is somewhat ironic that Congress’s rating is even lower than Mr. Bush’s; this could be due to the bitter disappointment Congress has been. The president was elected with the expectation that war would continue; Congress was elected with the opposite expectation. Mr. Bush has not disappointed.

Additionally, Mr. Bush has his loyal base of well-to-do conservatives who always have an eye on their own bottom line. While that is a very small group, it is probably sufficient to account for a significant number of the 26% of the voters who approve of his job performance. Congress has no such foundation; its members were elected with Republican, Democratic and Independent support, and while one might expect the Democrats to be the current Congress’s base, the war issue is sufficiently divisive to prevent it from being so. As a result, Congress is left adrift by its own cowardice.

The United States is nineteen months away from its next major election. Based on recent and distant history, Americans can expect the usual political posturing about ‘supporting the troops’ and ‘fighting terrorism.’ American soldiers, the world is told, are fighting terrorists. Yet, on closer scrutiny, these ‘terrorists’ mainly appear to be Iraqi citizens trying to protect their nation from foreign invaders. Mr. Bush discusses the need to ‘finish the job’ without explaining just what that job is. Hopeful Americans went to the polls last November and elected men and women who they expected would finish the job with a speedy exit from Iraq. There is nothing for the United States to accomplish there that is not detrimental to that nation’s citizens.

When polls for a candidate show his or her ratings have descended into some bottomless pit, the hapless individual often cites his/her own polls which show something quite different. This peculiar spin on reality is seldom successful; the candidate is usually defeated by whatever margin the first poll indicated. Congress can ignore its current rating or try to spin it in some positive manner, although how an approval rating of 25% can be so spun will make for some interesting verbal gymnastics, but the facts are plain for all to see. Unless and until Congress acts with the mandate the citizens gave it last November, its ratings will remain at rock bottom. And while the members of Congress sputter and spin and blather on about Iraq, Americans and Iraqis are dying in unforgivable numbers. This is no longer solely Mr. Bush’s war; Congress is now its deadly co-owner.

ROBERT FANTINA is author of ‘Desertion and the American Soldier: 1776–2006.

 

 

 

Robert Fantina’s latest book is Empire, Racism and Genocide: a History of US Foreign Policy (Red Pill Press).

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

Weekend Edition
December 02, 2016
Friday - Sunday
John Pilger
The Coming War on China
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: The CIA’s Plots to Kill Castro
Paul Street
The Iron Heel at Home: Force Matters
Pam Martens - Russ Martens
Timberg’s Tale: Washington Post Reporter Spreads Blacklist of Independent Journalist Sites
Andrew Levine
Must We Now Rethink the Hillary Question? Absolutely, Not
Joshua Frank
CounterPunch as Russian Propagandists: the Washington Post’s Shallow Smear
David Rosen
The Return of HUAC?
Rob Urie
Race and Class in Trump’s America
Patrick Cockburn
Why Everything You’ve Read About Syria and Iraq Could be Wrong
Caroline Hurley
Anatomy of a Nationalist
Ayesha Khan
A Muslim Woman’s Reflections on Trump’s Misogyny
Michael Hudson – Steve Keen
Rebel Economists on the Historical Path to a Global Recovery
Russell Mokhiber
Sanders Single Payer and Death by Democrat
Roger Harris
The Triumph of Trump and the Specter of Fascism
Steve Horn
Donald Trump’s Swamp: Meet Ten Potential Energy and Climate Cabinet Picks and the Pickers
Louis Proyect
Deepening Contradictions: Identity Politics and Steelworkers
Ralph Nader
Trump and His Betraying Makeover
Stephen Kimber
The Media’s Abysmal Coverage of Castro’s Death
Dan Bacher
WSPA: The West’s Most Powerful Corporate Lobbying Group
Nile Bowie
Will Trump backpedal on the Trans-Pacific Partnership?
Ron Ridenour
Fidel’s Death Brings Forth Great and Sad Memories
Missy Comley Beattie
By Invitation Only
Fred Gardner
Sword of Damocles: Pot Partisans Fear Trump’s DOJ
Renee Parsons
Obama and Propornot
Dean Baker
Cash and Carrier: Trump and Pence Put on a Show
Jack Rasmus
Taming Trump: From Faux Left to Faux Right Populism
Ron Jacobs
Selling Racism—A Lesson From Pretoria
Julian Vigo
The Hijos of Buenos Aires:  When Identity is Political
Subcomandante Insurgente Galeano
By Way of Prologue: On How We Arrived at the Watchtower and What We Saw from There
Dave Lindorff
Is Trump’s Idea To Fix the ‘Rigged System’ by Appointing Crooks Who’ve Played It?
Aidan O'Brien
Fidel and Spain: A Tale of Right and Wrong
Carol Dansereau
Stop Groveling! How to Thwart Trump and Save the World
Kim Nicolini
Moonlight, The Movie
Evan Jones
Behind GE’s Takeover of Alstom Energy
James A Haught
White Evangelicals are Fading, Powerful, Baffling
Barbara Moroncini
Protests and Their Others
Joseph Natoli
The Winds at Their Backs
Cesar Chelala
Poverty is Not Only an Ignored Word
David Swanson
75 Years of Pearl Harbor Lies
Alex Jensen
The Great Deceleration
Nyla Ali Khan
When Faith is the Legacy of One’s Upbringing
Gilbert Mercier
Trump Win: Paradigm Shift or Status Quo?
Stephen Martin
From ‘Too Big to Fail’ to ‘Too Big to Lie’: the End Game of Corporatist Globalization.
Charles R. Larson
Review: Emma Jane Kirby’s “The Optician of Lampedusa”
David Yearsley
Haydn Seek With Hsu
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail