Picture yourself rolling through the streets of Baghdad in an armored personnel vehicle, when an adversary pops out of the shadows with a rocket launcher. You are dead in his sights, and you suddenly remember that your vehicle lacks much of the armor it is supposed to have, and your bulletproof vest never arrived. At that moment, how much do you care about midterm Congressional elections, or the 2008 White House run? How much do you care about politics at all?
             Unfortunately, politics could weight heavily on the preparedness of America's troops as they battle a persistent insurgency in Iraq. Congressional leaders have attempted to tie a withdrawal date to much-needed military funds; one prominent Democrat, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, has even threatened to push for funding cuts. These tactics are part of a strategy to score political points over an unpopular war, but ultimately it will be America's troops who suffer. Polls show many Americans do not support the war in Iraq, and I myself have some serious misgivings about the decision to invade Iraq and what exactly America hopes to accomplish. But, like many Americans, I also understand that we can not choose to support our troops only when it is popular or convenient. As Americans, we have an obligation to maintain the funding levels that our troops need to have the best possible opportunity to accomplish their mission and return home safely.
             The U.S. government has been spending a whopping $2 billion a week on the war in Iraq, and the fact is that American troops have not been getting all the equipment, supplies and resources they need (Iraq war, No date). One of the first problems to emerge was a lack of spare parts, and military commanders often had to wait an average of 40 days to get parts they needed to fix vital tanks and helicopters (Ricks, 2004). Similarly, many armored vehicles lacked the armor they needed to protect their occupants, e
             ...