This is something I read about in the Iraq study group report. Funding for the war falls under the category of 'emergency appropriations' or something to that effect. As you said, anyone voting against it is seen as not supporting the troops, being unpatriotic, etc. Because the funding falls under this special category, it does not fall under intense scrutiny before being passed. It doesn't show up in the national budget (not even under DOD spending). One of their suggestions was to include funding for these wars in the budget...there's actually no clear figure how much has actually been spent, everything you hear on the news is a rough (but probably accurate) guestimate. $2 Billion a week seems to be a roughly accurate figure.
He needs approval for funding, and anyone voting against it will be seen as not supporting the troops.
"The public interest is not well served by the government's preparation, presentation, and review of the budget for the war in Iraq.
First, most of the costs of the war show up not in the normal budget request but in requests for emergency supplemental appropriations. This means that funding requests are drawn up outside the nomral budget process, are not offset by budgetary reductions elsewhere, and move quickly to the White House with minimal scrutiny. Bypassing the normal review erodes budget discipline and accountability."
What point are you trying to make? I don't think there are any other countries that are planning such a massive increase (either in absolute or proportional terms). I do feel grateful for the help we've received from the UK, Canada, Ukraine, Poland, Spain, Italy, Japan and South Korean troops that have made their ways into our Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. Did I forget any countries?
You are not the only ones over there. Not by a long shot. Try to remember this. Whilst the topic is about US troops increasing in number, try to look at your so called 'allies' activities.
I was able to convince my girlfriend that China was sending a million troops to baghdad. Man, she's stupid.
You're either incredibly brilliant, or an idiot.
here is NO easy answer, and the OP should either sign up to be elected, or not post teasers that are not answerable.
They actually said they might support a 'surge' to stabilize Baghdad. Here's the exact wording, page 73:
Inerestingly enough, the Iraq study group report states that the number of US troops in Iraq should be steadily decreased until a complete withdrawal.
"...we considered proposals to make a substantial increase (100,000 to 200,000) in the number of U.S. troops in Iraq. We rejected this course because we do not believe that the needed levels are available for a sustained deployment. Further, adding more American troops could conceivably worsen those aspects of the security problem that are fed by the view that the U.S. presence is intended to be a long-term 'occupation.' We could, however, support a short-term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad, or to speed up the training and equipping mission, if the U.S. commander in Iraq (which has just been replaced) determines that such steps would be effective."