In a time when education, medicine, housing, transportation and food programs are struggling under federal budget sequestration, the U.S. military continues to spend like there’s no tomorrow. The latest military adventure for the U.S. appears to be over in Syria, where the Obama Adinistration is shipping weapons and cash to prop up one side in the Civil War. The Pentagon has also put together plans for imposing a no-fly zone over the country, which may lead the U.S. military to become directly involved in the civil war, even on the ground, as eventually happened after a no-fly zone was imposed by the U.S. over Iraq.
The time was, when you wanted to find anti-war sentiment in Congress, you’d look to the Democratic Party. During the presidency of George W. Bush, though there were many pro-war Democrats, most of the anti-war members of Congress were Democrats.
That’s not how it looks these days. With a Democrat in the Oval Office, few congressional Democrats are willing to counsel against American involvement in overseas wars. They’d rather let the U.S. go to war than make their own party’s leader look bad.
So, when bills were introduced in the U.S. House yesterday that would restrict funding for American involvement in the Syrian civil war, it was Republicans who were in the lead.
Ted Yoho, a Republican from Florida, introduced H.R. 2503, to prohibit spending to provide military assistance to Syrian rebels. Chris Gibson, a Republican from New York, introduced a similar bill H.R. 2494. Gibson’s bill attracted six cosponsors right away, but only two of those co-sponsors, Richard Nolan and Peter Welch, were Democrats.