Nonbinding? at No Man’s Blog

If something—say a House resolution, for example—is to be described as “nonbinding,” must it not first either suggest or demand some sort of action be taken by a person or an institution? That’s what has me confused about this recent silliness in the House of Representatives.

I posted this nasty thing a couple of days ago, but I’ll do it again because there’s not a whole bunch to it.

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That-

(1) 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; and

(2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

Stunning, isn’t it? Is this really what the Democrats voted for last November—for impotent declarations of “disapproval” or outrage? And what’s next? A declaration of disapproval that “all Americans don’t have access to adequate health care?” Or a statement deploring the tax burden on middle class America?

I’m not a Democrat, thank God. It’s just that the thought of 430-odd adults congregating in Washington D.C. to play word games (instead of getting things done) really makes me angry.

I understand that the House wants this resolution to be just the “first step” in a series of measures designed to reign in the administration’s policy vis-à-vis Iraq. Jack Murtha is already mooing about insisting that “no units be sent to Iraq until fully trained and equipped, including the latest armored protection against roadside bombs.” He also wants to require that military units “receive more time at home before they can be redeployed to Iraq and to end the practice of ‘stop loss’’ in which military personnel are kept on active duty past their date for leaving the service.” (San Francisco Chronicle.)

What I want to know is this: How does John Murtha intend to implement such a plan? Is he going to establish a House Office of “Combat Unit Preparedness Oversight” in which overpaid staffers are sent out to units identified for future deployment to scour their Table of Organization and Equipment (T/O&E) as well as the individual personnel jackets and training records of every soldier or Marine in the unit? (I don’t know what they call the T/O&E in the Marine Corps. Can anyone help me out with that one?) That’s pretty much what would have to be done. And what about the units who are sent to Iraq without large equipment items such as Humvees and Bradley fighting vehicles, etc.? Those units deploy and “inherit” such large pieces of equipment from the gigantic pool that is already available in country. While stateside, the records at units such as those might reflect that they’re not prepared for combat. What then? What kind of bureaucratic monster does Mr. Murtha want to create?

Inline poll:

Sorry, there are no polls available at the moment.

This whole Murtha thing is an absolute nightmare in my opinion. I don’t understand how a Vietnam vet with a distinguished record in the Marine Corps (Bronze Star with Valor device and two purple hearts) could possibly have become so out of touch with the exigencies of the military. Is the man senile?

Senility Sets In