April 21, 2012 12:37 AM UTC

So You Want To "Bring The Troops Home," Do You?

•  
• by: Colorado Pols

A brief note in the record from this week’s news, CBS4:

Rep. Mike Coffman believes it’s time to start pulling out U.S. troops that are stationed in Europe…

“The Cold War has been over since 1989, the mission where these soldiers were initially sent over there has long since changed and it’s time to bring our folks home,” said Coffman.

He believes a leaner more mobile U.S. Military would still be able to react if needed.

Make no mistake, Rep. Mike Coffman has certainly proposed cuts to the Department of Defense in the past, and we’ve credited him for having the courage to buck his own party on the generally-sacrosanct matter of defense spending. But that’s not quite the whole story in this case. CBS4 reported that “many Republicans are opposed to the proposal,” but as it turns out, there have been multiple recent amendments to reduce American troop strength in Europe.

H.AMDT.130 to H.R.1 An amendment numbered 46 printed in the Congressional Record to prohibit the use of funds to maintain an end strength level of members of the Armed Forces of the United States assigned to permanent duty in Europe in excess of 35,000 members and end strength levels for active duty members of the Army, Navy, and Air Force of 565,275, 328,250, and 329,275, respectively, and the amounts otherwise provided by this Act for “Military Personnel, Army”, “Military Personnel, Navy” and “Military Personnel, Air Force” in title I of division A are hereby reduced by $155,914,688, $18,047,700, and $118,488,825, respectively.

Sponsor: Rep Polis, Jared [CO-2] (introduced 2/18/2011) Cosponsors (None)

Latest Major Action: 2/18/2011 House amendment not agreed to. Status: On agreeing to the Polis amendment (A120) Failed by recorded vote: 74 – 351 (Roll no. 118).

H.Amdt. 332 by Rep. Polis [D-CO2] Amendment sought to reduce the amount of troops stationed in Europe to 30,000 and would have cut overall end strength levels by 10,000 a year over the next five years.

An amendment numbered 60 printed in House Report 112-88 to reduce the amount of troops stationed in Europe to 30,000 and would cut overall end strength levels by 10,000 a year over the next five years.

May 26, 2011. On agreeing to the Polis amendment (A032) Failed by recorded vote: 96 – 323, 1 Present (Roll no. 365).

H.AMDT.575 to H.R.2219 An amendment to prohibit use of funds in the bill to maintain an end strength level of troops in Europe to more than 30,000 and to reduce military personnel accounts accordingly.

Sponsor: Rep Polis, Jared [CO-2] (introduced 7/7/2011) Cosponsors (None)

Latest Major Action: 7/8/2011 House amendment not agreed to. Status: On agreeing to the Polis amendment (A070) Failed by recorded vote: 113 – 307 (Roll no. 529).

When we saw this story, we recalled almost immediately that Democratic Rep. Jared Polis has repeatedly run amendments that would have reduced American troop strength in Europe. As you can see above, they all failed by substantial and bipartisan margins–a fully expected fate for such a bill in the GOP-dominated House, with even many Democrats unwilling to join a lost cause.

But folks, why did Rep. Coffman vote against every one of these amendments too?

We assume there’s a reason, beyond simply “going with the flow”–especially when Coffman is proud that his proposal to cut troop strength in Europe is unpopular. It’s a case where this seems logical given his record of supporting some defense cuts, but then you have to explain why he voted against amendments to do something similar to what he now says he wants.

What say you, Polsters? Is there some unexplained nuance that excuses these votes, or is Coffman an opportunist hypocrite looking to burnish swing-district credentials?