Senior Seminar, Part 10 of 12

Introduction

            This is the unedited paper I wrote for my senior seminar back in 2007.  I am posting it as a sort of trip down memory lane during our current apocalypse.

            I have become a better writer since creating this.

            I have become much better informed since writing this.

            I am a very different person than when I wrote this.

Full Introduction Here

------------------------------------------------

Why would the process of budget removal not work in the armed conflict in Iraq?

            Currently the citizenry of the United States believes that whether they wish the conflict to end in Iraq, they are there and will utilize all of their resources to stabilize and exit the area.  The idea that any resources are being with held is not perceived as a political move against the war, as it would be intended, but might be interpreted as an irresponsible neglect of the military forces already present in the nation.  To promote the removal of money from the conflict, the loss of armor, medicine, or even basic entertainment devices for the troops would be political suicide.  Regardless as to whether the President has an incredibly low approval rating or not, the message of “support the troops, not the war” has permeated the American psyche, and no politician has the political strength of voice to clearly explain the reasoning behind the pulling out of money, and still have enough of an audience left to explain why they didn’t just remove the troops.

Why the process of budget removal work effectively in the ending of the Iraqi conflict

The President lacks the political strength to maintain the current status quo of the Iraqi conflict.  The American people have grown so tired of the current conflict that they would have patience to hear all relevant political strategies, and blaming the President has become such a common strategy that people can listen to how the Congress removing money is the only way to assail the problem, and it is the President who is not ordering the troops home.  People would be able to understand the removal of money as a political strategy to end the conflict.

Pillage

The conflict in Iraq is not the conflict in Viet Nam, the United States military is sitting on piles of unused weaponry, old but functional, the entire country has oil flowing out of it, so the militaries vehicles could run nearly indefinitely, and the military could take from the populace to satisfy their own needs as occupiers that, if the President saw it as a true need for the US military, he could order them to confiscate from the local population all that was necessary to maintain current troop operations, and then, the President could order more troops into Iraq.  Congressional removal of funds cannot stop the President from ordering subsistence combat from the military, and doing so would be within the Constitutional power of the President as Commander and Chief.  It would destroy the President politically, but the next person to take the office would never hesitate to use the same powers if he or she saw fit to do so.  The failure of Congress to financially support the army could lead to an escalation of conflict rather then an end to it as the occupation turns into conquerors.

  

______________________________

            If you like or hate this please take the time to comment, share on Twitter (click that link to follow me), Tumblr, or Facebook, and otherwise distribute my opinion to the world.  I would appreciate it.