The Occupation Project
February 27, 2007
Editorial Note: Shortly after the following was written, reports broke in the media that Democratic party leadership in the House is backing away from Murtha’s proposals on supplemental spending. In its place is the proposal that the full $93 billion will be approved by the House. This proposal would require that the President issue a waiver and notify Congress of any units deployed to Iraq which do not meet certain standards. Rather than acting to end the Iraq war, it would seem that the Democratic party leadership is playing political games with the lives of U.S. soldiers and Iraqi citizens.]
Democrats who have staked out an “antiwar” position, whether consistently over the years or more recently, are beginning to join with Congressman John Murtha in placing limited conditions upon the supplemental spending request submitted by President Bush to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the so-called global war on terror.
Even Representatives who have consistently voted against prior supplemental spending requests for the war and who have consistently co-sponsored legislation aimed at ending the war or placed restrictions on the waging of the war are showing indications that they will support a Murtha formulated version of the supplemental spending bill. The danger is therefore very real that fewer votes will be cast against the supplemental spending bill than were cast against prior supplemental spending bills.
Representative Ed Markey is clear in staking out this position publicly. He signed a pledge to vote against the supplemental spending request submitted by President Bush to Congress. The next day, Markey invented the Markey Two Step-declaring at a town hall meeting that he would vote against President Bush’s supplemental but that he reserved the right to vote for or against the Murtha crafted supplemental spending bill. Splitting hairs, Markey fails to acknowledge that there would be no Murtha bill to vote on if Bush had not submitted a supplemental request to Congress.
Let there be no mistake: a vote for ANY supplemental spending bill is a vote to continue the war and any Representative who fails to publicly pledge to vote against further Iraq war funding is fair game for an office occupation and civil disobedience as part of the Occupation Project campaign.
1) What is the Murtha position on the supplemental spending bill?
Murtha has not publicly stated any inclination towards reducing the $93 billion requested by Presdient Bush in additional war funding. In fact, at hearings of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee he has emphasized that he intends to ensure that the military has all the funds it needs and that, in the past, he has worked to increase the level of funds received by the military for the war in Iraq, above the amount requested by President Bush.
Murtha is proposing to add the following provisions to the supplemental spending bill which would fund President Bush’s request for an additional $93 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and the so-called global war on terror:
a) An end to stop-loss orders which force members of the U.S. military to serve beyond the end of their original term of enlistment. That is, you are supposed to be discharged from the military on May 31, 2007. Stop-loss would force you to serve beyond May 31, whether or not you want to.
b) An end to stop-move orders which force members of the military to extend their tour of duty beyond the original end date. For example, your tour of duty in Iraq is to end on May 31, at which time you are to return to your home base in the U.S. Stop-move would extend your tour of duty beyond May 31.
c) A requirement that all U.S. service members who return from Iraq be at home for a minimum of one year before being redeployed to Iraq.
d) A requirement that no unit be deployed to Iraq which lacks equipment and training.
2) How is the surge being implemented in Iraq?
The increase in troop levels in Iraq is being achieved through two mechanisms: the application of stop-move orders and the application of early deployments to Iraq (which Murtha seeks to address with the requirement that all units deployed to Iraq be at home for a minimum of one year between deployments).
3) What is the equipment level for troops being deployed to Iraq?
At a February 9 hearing of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, General Peter Schoomaker stated that all units deployed to Iraq are fully equipped with the necessary equipment. He stated that Unit A when it deploys to Iraq may have to borrow equipment from Unit B, which remains in the U.S., but Unit A has all that it requires upon deployment. He stated that the problem is that Unit B may lack in equipment to fully train while in the U.S.
At a February 27 hearing of the Senate Appropriations Committee, General Peter Pace, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated again that all units which deploy to Iraq have the necessary and required equipment. He stated that all units in Iraq which engage in patrols outside of base are in vehicles which are equipped with what he termed Level 1 armor protection, the best available to the U.S. at this time. He did state that new technology is being developed and that kits to further improve vehicle armor are being produced.
4) How many combat brigades will be deployed in Iraq once the surge is fully implemented?
20 combat brigades will be deployed in Iraq once the surge is fully implemented. This is an addition of 5 combat brigades to the 15 which were deployed in Iraq prior to the announcement of the surge.
5) What will be the impact of Murtha’s proposals upon the number of combat brigades in Iraq?
At the February 27 hearing of the Defense Appropriations Committee, General Peter Pace stated that Murtha’s proposal will result in the U.S. military being able to deploy between 14 and 19 combat brigades to Iraq at any given time. A combat brigade consists of about 3500 soldiers in the Army and about 5000 in the Marine Corps (which uses the term “regimental combat team”).
He also stated that Murtha’s proposals would create gaps between the time one unit leaves Iraq and the time another unit arrives. For example, Unit A’s rotation ends on May 31. Unit B’s tour of duty is to begin on July 1. Under Murtha’s proposal, Unit A could not be forced to extend its tour beyond May 31 and Unit B could not be forced to deploy early since it will not have been at its home base for one year until July 1.
Therefore, at the low end the U.S. would field 14 combat brigades in Iraq and at the high end would field 19 combat brigades, compared to the 15 combat brigades deployed at the time the surge was announced.
6) How is the surge being funded?
The surge is underway and has been for some time. President Bush is seeking $5.6 billion to fund the surge. At the February 27 hearing of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated that currently it is being funded via the reprogramming of already approved Department of Defense funds, funds approved for other purposes.
If the surge can be funded, at least temporarily, by other DoD funds then why are the powers-that-be unwilling to acknowledge that DoD funds can be reprogrammed for the safe and orderly withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq?
