De-funding the war and supporting the troops

Yesterday, the House Appropriations Committee voted out of committe a record $124 billion supplemental funding bill for the war in Iraq. It is widely expected that the full House, and following that, the United States Senate, are likely to pass the bill, sending it to the President for his signature. One might wonder why the Democrats, who have a majority in both houses, are affirmatively authorizing more than a hundred BILLION dollars, while they are also calling for the troops to come home as soon as possible. The common wisdom is fairly straightforward: If Democrats voted against this bill, that would be seen as undercutting the troops, and leaving them defenseless in harm's way. But what does this mean?

A reasoned explanation for this argument would probably go something like this: If you withold funding for the war, then there would be no money for the troops. But money for what? Congres has previously authorized billions of dollars, and no reasonable person can believe that if Congress didn't authorize this supplemental, the government would be unable to pay its bills tommorrow, next week, or even in six months. But, critics counter, the Bush administration would divert money appropriated for other purposes, and redirect it to the military. Thus, if Congress doesn't appropriate the extra money, the troops will suffer in some other respect. The bottom-line is that the troops would suffer the consequences, rather than the Bush administration.

Now, let me set up an alternative scenario. Suppose that a President decides to go to war with Canada to finish the job we left off in the mid-19th century. Suppose further that he sends a large number of troops to Canada to occupy it, and that the Canadians put up fierce resistance. In response, the President decides that he is going to intern all Canadian men aged 18-45, and shoot any resisters. Suppose that as a result of this policy, several massacres of young Canadian men have taken place. Now, suppose that such a war becomes very unpopular with the public, and that the opposition party which controls Congress wishes to do something to end the occupation of Canada. Now suppose that the President comes and asks Congress for a supplemental to support the further occupation of Canada. If Congress were to refuse such a supplemental, one of two things would happen:

1) The President would come to his senses, and decide that the collective voice of the American people expressed through their Congress were against a continued war effort in Canada, and would end the occupation of Canada
2) The President would decide to disregard the will of the American people, and continue the war effort by using other funds, thus depriving other programs of their funding. Alternatively, the President could start cutting corners for the troops, depriving them of certain equipment, supplies etc. but still keep them in Canada.

Now, let's assess the effect of each approach:

1) The Canadians would be happy, Congress would be happy, and the American people would be happy.
2) Everyone except the President would be unhappy, but whom would the American people blame? They would rightly see that Congress tried to stop the President from pursuing this mad policy of war by the means it had available to itself, but that the President was determined to carry on by any means necessary. Would they see this as Congress undercutting the troops? No, rather, quite rightly, they would understand the following: The members of the United States Armed Forces serve at the pleasure of the United States Government, and have to follow the orders given to them by the President. If the President orders them into Canada to wage an illegal war, they do not have the right to protest that the war is illegal. That is a determination for the political branches to make. If one political branch (Congress) decides that the other political branch (President) is waging an illegal war, it has certain tools to stop that war, and one of those tools is to decline to authorize funds to wage that illegal war. If Congress believes that the internment and killing of young Canadian men is intolerable, it can attempt to put a stop to it by de-funding the war. If we assume that most troops are basically decent people who would rather not be interning and killing innocent people, is it likely that they will perceive such an action by Congress as undercutting their position on the battlefield? Isn't it more likely that they will thank Congress for trying to end a situation where they are forced to do things that are despicable and contrary to basic human moral norms? Aren't the American people likely to agree with the troops in this assesment? Consequently, aren't they likely to blame the President if he persists in his madness, and continues the war, rather than Congress?

I realize that we are not in Canada, and that the American troops aren't engaging in internment and massacres in Iraq. But the fact remains that most of the American people, and Congress, oppose the continuation of the occupation of Iraq by US forces. My hypotehtical is meant to illustrate that a decision to de-fund a war because of its undesirability is not equivalent to undercutting the troops. Rather, it is an instrument which Congress is constituionally authorized to use to compel the President to end a war which Congress believes is not in the interest of the United States. So long as such de-funding provides enough money for an orderly redeployment, it in no way undercuts the troops, any argument to the contrary is simply wrong.