Cal Thomas: the Voice of the Unelightened

In Cal Thomas’ recent column, “Congressional Indian Givers,” he equated the two most recent Iraq resolutions passed by Congress, as the title implies, to ‘Indian giving’. He writes,

How else should one interpret this "nonbinding" resolution when part one said,
"Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the
members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served
bravely and honorably in Iraq," but part two negates part one: "Congress
disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on Jan. 10,
2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to
Iraq. This is like sending your love a valentine last week and this week
sending a note withdrawing the sentiment.

How should a discerning reader interpret this – as nonsense. I interpreted this column as a job posting for an editor, because it is obvious he lacks one. The entire premise of his article rests on the notion that disapproval of the Iraq War escalation is tantamount to abandoning or not supporting the troops. However, as anyone can clearly see, for his 'Indian Giver' or valentine analogy to work, supporting the troops and resisting the escalation must represent diametrically opposed concepts. They, in fact, do not negate each other, regardless of personal opinions on the war and surge. Actually, as Tim Ryan eloquently explicated in a previous post, supporting the troops means ending the war. Even if we reject that notion, supporting the troops does not automatically equate to supporting the escalation.

I think Mr. Thomas should have penned this several months, if not years ago, when the Congress failed to support our troops and our veterans. Where was Mr. Thomas when the Republican controlled Congress cut funding for the research and treatment of brain injuries caused by bomb blasts – the signature injury of the war (USA Today)? Did he admonish the administration for not supporting the troops when some soldiers resorted to ‘hillbilly armor’ because the pentagon did not provide sufficient protection for the vehicles? How come, more than two years after Secretary of Defense responded to equipment concerns by stating, “As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time,” has the situation not improved? I did not notice an article condemning the administration for not supporting the troops. Nor did he comment on the lack of Congressional funding for Dr. Bob Meaders’ helmet upgrade. It took 3 years and Cher testifying before the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces in order to obtain helmet upgrades for our soldiers (Operation Helmet). But yet, opposing the troop surge shows a lack of support for our troops?

Over a month ago, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Marine Corps General Peter Pace both testified to the House Armed Services Committee that a debate over the Iraq war does not undercut troop morale. General Pace:

As long as this Congress continues to do what it has done, which is to provide
the resources for the mission, the dialogue will be the dialogue, and the troops
will feel supported (ABC
News).

Congress pledged to support and protect the members of the US Armed Forces; in essence, doing exactly what Pace and Gates asked for. Unfortunately, it only occurred after Democrats gained control and 3 years after the war started.

Although both Senators Olympia Snowe and Barak Obama support the Iraq War resolution, they introduced new legislation establishing mandatory mental health screenings for all returning combat veterans. Mr. Thomas, this bill epitomizes the notion of supporting the troops.

And just recently, the Washington Post discovered the deplorable conditions our troops endure while convalescing at Walter Reed Medical Center. Do we really want to increase troop levels just to see more wounded soldiers face neglect while recuperating in moldy, rat-infested hospital rooms?

Further, Mr. Thomas quoted Army Sgt. Daniel Dobson’s disgust concerning the debate, in both this article and a previous column entitled “A Letter from Mosul.” In the column, Sgt. Dobson commented:

The American military has shown a stone-cold professional veneer throughout the
seething debate raging over Iraq. Beneath that veneer, however, is a fuming,
visceral hatred. We feel as though we have been betrayed by Congress.

And again in the Indian Giver column, stating:

…it made me furious to see congressmen unashamedly proclaim their cowardice, but
the reaction of the soldiers tore my heart in two. The faces were that of men
that looked as if they were just told there is no United States to go home to.
The fury gives way to depression: the thought alone that our elected
representatives do not represent us anymore is more than depressing. We see
cowardice, sickening spineless cowardice and it makes soldiers sick.

Although I am almost positive he cherry picked soldiers who agreed with him, I will provide a quote from, not a hand picked soldier against the war, rather Secretary Gates. At the House Armed Services Committee, he said:

I think they're sophisticated enough to understand that that's what the debate's
really about.

Perhaps Sgt. Dobson is not sophisticated enough. Both General Pace and Secretary Gates understand the distinction between ending a war and not supporting our troops, maybe Mr. Thomas should as well.

However, despite a survey from the US Army, reported in the LA Times in December that shows “American soldiers who serve repeated tours of duty in Iraq are more likely to suffer from acute stress,” he supports the surge, which will decrease the time between deployments and increase the number of tours for more than 11,400 National Guard troops (Army, LA Times article, and NYT). If the primary means of supporting our troops is sending more into battle, should we not remain constantly at war, for ending war is tantamount to not supporting our troops.

Mr. Thomas, you are the Indian Giver. You sir, do not support the troops. Your desire to send more of America’s finest young men and women into battle ill-equipped and fatigued from shortened leaves and lengthened tours shows your contempt for the armed services.