On April 2, a delegation of nine area residents, members of Bloomington Peace Action Coalition (BPAC) and of Bloomington Declaration of Peace, visited Indiana Ninth District U.S. Rep. Baron Hill's Bloomington office to register their objections to Hill's “yes” vote on the “U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act.”

The Iraq Accountability Act (HR 1591), which originated as the $93 billion defense appropriations supplemental bill requested by the Bush Administration, was approved in the House of Representatives on March 23, on a vote of 218 to 212.

The Iraq Accountability Act appropriates nearly $100 billion more for the continued U.S. military occupation of the country of Iraq and for military operations in Afghanistan.

In a 40-minute presentation to four staff members of Congressman Hill, area residents declared their opposition to any more appropriations for the U.S. military occupation of Iraq. The anti-war delegation then presented a “Certificate of Ownership for The War in Iraq” to Hill's staff, stating that Hill voted to pay for the continuation of the war. Reading from the Certificate, Baer stated, “You bought it, you own it!”

The “awarding” of Certificates of Ownership to members of Congress who support continued Iraq war funding was initiated by “Iraq Veterans Against the War,” “Military Families Speak Out” and “Veterans for Peace” after the appropriations passed on March 23.

While the “Iraq Accountability Act” has been portrayed as a measure to end the war at the latest in August 2008, the provisions in this bill by no means guarantee an end to the U.S. occupation by that date.

BPAC organizers, Timothy Baer and Christine Glaser read from and then handed the “Certificate of Ownership” and an accompanying ”Warranty” www.mfso.org/article.php?id=953 to Baron Hill's staff.

Timothy Baer then highlighted several provisions in HR 1591 that show why the Act will not bring about an end to the occupation of Iraq in 2008.

What the Iraq Accountability Act does:

It calls for pulling out some troops from Iraq by August 2008 .

But: _It exempts whole categories of troops from the withdrawal. Troops "training the Iraqi military" can stay - currently 6,000, perhaps as many as 20,000 (no limit in the supplemental).__Troops engaged in "special operations" can stay -- the Marines say they want 20,000 for Anbar Province alone, perhaps as many as 40,000 for the whole country (no limit in the supplemental).__Troops "protecting diplomatic enclaves" like the huge Green Zone and the US Embassy, the largest in the world, and maybe including the numerous U.S. bases established in Iraq, can stay - 20,000 is a conservative number (no limit in the supplemental).

That means Bush could keep unlimited numbers, perhaps 60,000-80,000 troops, permanently in Iraq - and still be in compliance with both versions._And the bill does not require that the troops withdrawn from Iraq be sent home; they can be immediately deployed to Afghanistan, or to bases in surrounding Arab countries, or to ships in the Persian Gulf - or be used to attack Iran._

What the Iraq Accountability Act does:

It imposes restrictions on Pentagon deployments, prohibiting the deployment of troops not fully trained, not adequately equipped and not adequately rested between deployments._

But: _It includes a waiver for President Bush to simply state his intention to override those restrictions, allowing him to send in as many untrained, badly equipped and exhausted troops as he wishes.

What the Iraq Accountability Act does:

Prohibit construction of new permanent bases in Iraq._

But: _It does nothing to close the existing permanent bases the United States has built across Iraq and includes billions for "military construction" presumably for those existing bases.

What the Iraq Accountability Act does:

Require Iraq's government to pass a new oil law.

But: _The law being debated in the parliament abandons Iraq's long history of maintaining control of its oil resources in favor of allowing international (especially United States) oil companies to take control of large sectors of the vital oil industry. The bill hurts Iraq and Iraqi workers - is hotly opposed by Iraqi unions, particularly the General Union of Oil Workers.

What the Iraq Accountability Act does:
Cut 10 percent of the funding for private military contractors.

But:_ It allows 90 percent of the 100,000 or so mercenaries who fight alongside the U.S. military to remain in Iraq.__

What the Iraq Accountability Accountability Act does:

The supplemental does not prohibit an unprovoked attack on Iran.__The supplemental does not end the occupation of Iraq.

Glaser then stated why, instead of appropriating any more money for the occupation and thus dragging it on for many more months and possibly years to come, the complete withdrawal of U.S and coalition troops should start immediately and be completed before the end of 2007.

The continued funding for the Iraq Occupation is based on, and feeding, the myth that the U.S. troops are helping to stop a civil war, or that the presence of U.S. troops could somehow militarily enforce political stability in Iraq. U.S. military leaders in Iraq (before Petraeus), as well as British military officers, have stated for years that the stabilization of the country could not be achieved by military force. "Surge" tactics like the one used now in Baghdad have been used before, and they did not bring the desired results.

Baron Hill actually acknowledged this in a recent reply letter to Christine Glaser. What is happening as the result of concentrating forces in one area is that militant forces just disappear for a while and move on to spots that are not currently heavily controlled by the United States and Iraqi military.

The magazine Rolling Stone recently held a panel discussion organized with high-ranking military, national security and Iraq experts, including Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser to President Carter, Richard Clarke, counterterrorism czar from 1992 to 2003, Gen.Tony McPeak (retired), Juan Cole, Professor of modern Middle East history at the University of Michigan and many others. Not one of these experts thought the continued presence of the United States, even at drastically increased troop levels, could prevent the continuation and worsening of the civil war._ www.truthout.org/docs_2006/printer_031107E.shtml

With appropriating more money for the U.S. occupation of Iraq, the Democrats are upholding the myth that the United States has the willingness and the power to do something good not just for Iraqis, but also for the security of the United States

Instead, the continued presence of the United States is clearly fomenting terrorism in Iraq and around the world, and is the best recruiting tool that any terrorist network could hope for.

The truth is that U.S. soldiers are an occupying force, undermining Iraqi sovereignty, and supporting a government that does not have much power outside of the Green Zone. As was shown in a recent Mother Jones article, a majority of militants' attacks are still directed against coalition forces, to drive them out of the country. The number of attacks on occupation forces has grown over the years, along with Iraqi on Iraqi violence that usually captures the headlines in the U.S. media. www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2007/03/civil_war.html

Not surprisingly, a large majority of the people of Iraq have made it clear, in poll after poll, that they - both Sunnis and Shiites - want the U.S. occupying forces to leave their country. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070319/wl_mideast_afp/iraqbritainuslife_07...

Voters all over the United States were expecting the Democratic majority in Congress and Senate to use their power to bring the occupation of Iraq to an end.

Instead, by voting “yes” on the Iraq Accountability Act, the Democratic majority, including Baron Hill, has decided to prolong the U.S. occupation of Iraq, and very likely to prolong it for an indefinite time.

While brushing aside a will of the Iraqi and American people, and claiming to be looking out for the safety of the U.S. troops, Hill and the U.S. Congressional members voting for the Iraq Accountability Act also disregarded the strong opposition of Iraq war veterans and military families to any more funding for the Iraq occupation. Groups like “Iraq Veterans Against the War” and “Military Families Speak Out,” have come out very strongly against continued funding for the war, www.ivaw.org/faq and
www.mfso.org/downloads/OpenLetter.pdf, and over 1,700 active military personnel have signed an “Appeal for Redress.”

Delegation member Shodo Cedar Spring pointed out to Rep. Hill's staff the heavy toll those U.S. soldiers are paying who come back from Iraq alive and have to live with severe injuries and post-traumatic stress disorders, possibly for the rest of their lives.

After laying out the reasons for why the process of U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq should start immediately, six members of the delegation took turns in reading the names of U.S. and Iraqi people killed in Iraq. The names of 11 U.S. soldiers killed in the days since the passing of the Iraq Accountability Act were read. It was stated that nine other Americans had been killed in the past week, whose names have not been released yet. A memorial listing of some of the names of Iraqi victims of the war and the names of 60 Indiana soldiers killed in Iraq were then read.

Glaser then pointed out to Hill's staff that for every one U.S. soldier killed in Iraq (the number is now over 3,000), at least 200 Iraqis have been killed.

She pointed out that the Democrats know that a “surge” of U.S. troops cannot stop the violence in Iraq, since they talked about it in their speeches supporting the non-binding “anti-surge” resolution. Hill was one of the representatives who spoke against the surge, and who supported the non-binding resolution. www.house.gov/apps/list/speech/in09_hill/021607.shtml

Ninety-eight percent of all House Democrats and 17 Republicans voted in favor of the nonbinding resolution opposing the surge.

Why, she asked, could this majority in Congress not come up with a strong measure to end this occupation, rather than passing another Act that is not accomplishing this goal?

Baer then pointed out that House Democrat Rohm Emanuel is openly telling the media that he'd just as soon have the war still going on in 2008, because then the president can be blamed on everything that went wrong. (March 5, 2007, Can Congress End the War? (www.TomDispatch.com). Never mind that thousands of U.S. and Iraqi lives will be sacrificed for that political "benefit."

Kevin Zeese from “Democracy Rising” has this to say: "The Democrats seem to think the Iraq War is the 'goose that lays the golden votes.' They hope it is the golden goose that will expand their majorities and bring them the presidency. Keeping the war going, while showing their opposition through non-binding votes, criticizing Bush and conducting high profile hearings that point to the corruption of the administration as well as the mistakes of the commander-in-chief will get them more votes than ending the war. The Democrats can point to the Republicans as the problem and highlight Bush's reckless leadership as commander-in-chief and say 'elect us.'"
www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_kevin_ze_070303_the_democrats_want_t.ht...

So contrary to how the Supplemental Defense Appropriations bill is portrayed by Hill and the media - as a way to end the U.S. occupation of Iraq, at the latest, by August 2008 - the United States will still be entrenched in Iraq way beyond that deadline.

Isn't that what Bush wants, and what he diligently worked toward with building permanent military bases without congressional oversight and against the express will of the Congress? (Congress passed a measure against permanent military bases in Iraq that Bush completely ignored).

President Bush could not have ignored the de-funding of his war.

Congressman Hill had an opportunity to help stop a devastating war.

What Hill chose to do was vote to continue funding the illegal war and occupation in Iraq.

Timothy Baer and Christine Glaser are co-organizers with Bloomington Peace Action Coalition. Baer is a national organizer for The Declaration of Peace. They can be reached BPACpeace@hotmail.com.