Black Box Report

"Support the troops." It's a well-worn phrase the president and Republicans love to admonish war critics with. To them, it's metaphorical, meaning to cheer the troops on in their mission; right or wrong, for better or worse. But when we ask our soldiers to risk the ultimate sacrifice, "support the troops" should mean something more, like making sure they have the vehicle armor they need to stay alive:

Hundreds of U.S. Marines have been killed or injured by roadside bombs in Iraq because Marine Corps bureaucrats refused an urgent request in 2005 from battlefield commanders for blast-resistant vehicles, an internal military study concludes.

Of course, as usual, up is down, black is white, etc.:

Our president is once again calling Democrats soft on national security and at the same time an internal Defense Department study says that the Bush administration's malfeasance killed and injured 100s of Marines unnecessarily.

Marine Corps officials actually cited "cost" as a reason for refusing MRAP vehicles...like we're not already spending enough money on the war. But the administration's "support for the troops" doesn't end there:

The Bush Pentagon placed a $74 million contract for helmets from Sioux Manufacturing – as the company was being sued for making Kevlar that wasn’t up to military standards, and had covered it up. Tapes during their trial showed that even the quality assurance officer at the company was well aware of what they were doing.

Seems that $74 million could've been better spent. In fact, most of it could be better spent - or at the very least kept track of. On the other hand, maybe the problem isn't with the definition of "support," but with the word "troops." Apparently, to Bush, "troops" means contractors like Halliburton and Blackwater and the military-industrial complex:

The bloated, outsized defense budget is being propped up by wars and threats of wars. It's how the Air Force can claim that $144 billion is not enough of a budget and that they need more for things like "dorm furnishings"...
......
It's not that the military doesn't require funding and equipment, especially after years of war. It's that the expenditures are completely misplaced, going to contractors who police themselves and outdated weapons systems instead of what the troops need to save their lives.

But it's not just equipment. In his State of the Union address, Bush wanted a good crowd pleaser to "show" he "supported the troops," so he called on Congress to allow U.S. troops to transfer their unused education benefits to family members. Everyone cheered and a good time was had by all, but when government analysts later told him it would cost $1-2 billion a year, he left it out of his $3.1 trillion dollar budget:

How despicable is that? He wanted to make a dramatic announcement, but he didn't want to bother actually developing a policy to announce…Bush wants $170,000,000,000 more for the Iraq War, next year, but helping educate the families of those fighting the war is too expensive. All Bush can do is to cynically use the idea as an applause line, before a national television audience, but when the cameras are off, the families of the troops no longer matter.

"Support the troops" means nothing if you don't put your money - and your equipment - where your mouth is.