Dems Push Plan To Increase Time Stateside As Way To Force Withdrawal

[Richard Tafoya]

NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/15/washington/15cong.html?_r=3&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1189818243-7WQsFgF1r96PhgaxEsrhmQ&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Now that President Bush and Gen. David H. Petraeus have charted their course for the Iraq war, Democrats in the Senate say one of their proposals aimed at shifting the president’s strategy is finally close to winning enough Republican support for a real chance at being approved. It would require that troops spend as much time at home as on their most recent tours overseas before being redeployed.

The proposal, by Senator Jim Webb, Democrat of Virginia, has strong support from top Democrats, who say that the practical effect would be to add time between deployments and force General Petraeus to withdraw troops on a substantially swifter timeline than the one he laid out before Congress this week, and that it would protect troops from serving protracted and debilitating deployments.


Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., Democrat of Delaware and a candidate for president, called the proposal the “easiest way” for his Republican colleagues to change the war strategy on the same day that the Bush administration released a mixed report on the Iraqi government’s progress toward various goals.


The Pentagon sought on Friday to challenge the Democrats’ approach, with Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates saying at a Pentagon news conference that it would only create further hardships for the military, including the prospect of even lengthier tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[oxymoron]

This is just awful policy. Beyond that, the motivations are transparent. The Democrats are pathetic.

[pinky]

Why is it bad policy?

[Richard Tafoya]

How exactly is planning the U.S. side of troop rotations a bad idea? For reservists, it allows for employers to carve out return employment arrangements. For households dependent upon military personnel for income, it allows for budget planning as well as some domestic stability. For traditional stateside reservist functions like disaster relief, if plugs them back into the resource chain for FEMA. Troops spending more time at base will also receive more thorough training and re-deploy better prepared for combat.

But mostly, it reduces the mental health strains of endless tours, potentially affecting a decline in accidental injuries abroad due to mental fatigue, rage-in-uniform incidents abroad, suicide and depression incidents and domestic violence incidents upon return.

And the introduction of sane troop rotation guidelines may end some of the steep drop-off in recruitment since the war began. More troops in the rotation pool is the ultimate solution to the extended deployment problem.

What perceived negatives outweigh all of that?

[oxymoron]

We need to allow our armed forces the flexibility to fight wars as they see fit. While the comments about strain are legitimate, these are policies that should be enacted by the military leadership, not by a politically-interested congress.

It is easy to accept this kind of congressional interference into military matters when it jibes with your political goals. But some day it may not. The same argument civil libertarians use against deprivation of liberties or we use against torturing mass killers.

Moreover, the Democrats are completely disingenuous on this issue. It is clear that this is motivated by political goals.

I will not support a party that is more interested in achieving power than in helping solve this no win situation left us by President Bush.

The Democrats are absolutely pathetic. They are unprincipled cowards.

[Richard Tafoya]

Except that they don't have the flexibility today to fight this war as they see fit. Bush has regularly over-ridden the suggestions and objections of the Joint Chiefs in regards to the tactical execution of the war.

If the political motives of Democrats happen to involve giving voice to the majority of voters in the country who think our troops have paid too high a price for Bush's mistake, than that sounds like a representative democracy.

[oxymoron]

As much as you may not like the current occupant, the President is the Commander in Chief. I can just imagine the whining I would hear from the left if a Republican controlled congress started to interfere with a Democratic President's conduct of a war.

The voters have a recourse for their voice. It's called an election. Right now, their elected President is Bush. In case, you hadn't noticed he is running the war, not congress.

In fact, congress call to withdraw troops without any credible alternative is not a governing policy. Any serious Democrat knows that withdrawl of troops in a short time frame is completely untenable. Yet, since they know this won't happen, they are free to make it into a political issue. Which they have irresponsibly done.

Right now, I actually have more faith in Bush's execution of Iraq policy than the Democrats in congress. And that is incredible to me.

In the end, I trust the military leadership to look out for the interest of the troops more than politicians. Rather than micro-managing the war, the Democrats should:

1. Have stopped it in the first place

2. Propose realistic policy that can help solve our problems

Neither of these have happened.. And so I charge the Dems and their supporters with cowardice, self-interest and lack of principle.

[ConnieB]

As much as you may not like the current occupant, the President is the Commander in Chief. I can just imagine the whining I would hear from the left if a Republican controlled congress started to interfere with a Democratic President's conduct of a war.

The voters have a recourse for their voice. It's called an election. Right now, their elected President is Bush. In case, you hadn't noticed he is running the war, not congress.

In fact, congress call to withdraw troops without any credible alternative is not a governing policy. Any serious Democrat knows that withdrawl of troops in a short time frame is completely untenable. Yet, since they know this won't happen, they are free to make it into a political issue. Which they have irresponsibly done.

Right now, I actually have more faith in Bush's execution of Iraq policy than the Democrats in congress. And that is incredible to me.

In the end, I trust the military leadership to look out for the interest of the troops more than politicians. Rather than micro-managing the war, the Democrats should:

1. Have stopped it in the first place

2. Propose realistic policy that can help solve our problems

Neither of these have happened.. And so I charge the Dems and their supporters with cowardice, self-interest and lack of principle.Your comments have been very well said..and I agree, the Democrats are a pathetic bunch who only care about themselves and their motives, which is to play games, make the president look horrible ( they never liked him since the first day), and get money their agenda. If they really cared, they would do what it takes to make sure we do win in Iraq including securing our borders, and start redoing social security to help the younger generations enjoy their retirement, and go after those who gouge us in the healthcare system, such as prescription companies, the lawsuits, and so on. Of course, those are NOT on the top of their list...

The reason I disagree with this policy is because something could come up where we need more troops sent out, such as Iran, and this policy could put us into trouble because of limitations. Here's an example: As we start pulling out of Iraq, our troops are heavily attacked to the point we need to send many troops back in as an emergency...this could limit us to the point of sending almost no one to save our men. Or better yet, as we pull out of Iraq, Iran decides to start a war with us....now what????? we need hundreds of troops somewhere and we can't send them because of Dems limiting our troops. This policy will only lead to us being weaker in the future and it won't be the republicans fault this time.

Sorry, but this is what our military is for, to be ready to go anywhere when our Commander in chief calls upon them, no matter who it is (Bush, Clinton, Obama, McCain)...not when Congress decides they are ready to go. Congress has no control over troop mobilization and in my opinion have over stepped their bounderies with this one.

[pinky]

Your comments have been very well said..and I agree, the Democrats are a pathetic bunch who only care about themselves and their motives, which is to play games, make the president look horrible ( they never liked him since the first day), and get money their agenda. If they really cared, they would do what it takes to make sure we do win in Iraq including securing our borders, and start redoing social security to help the younger generations enjoy their retirement, and go after those who gouge us in the healthcare system, such as prescription companies, the lawsuits, and so on. Of course, those are NOT on the top of their list...
Of course, you realize that, except for the part about not liking Bush, you've also just described the Republicans, don't you?

[DoubleEdgeSword]

I don't believe there is much Congress can do to stop this war, short of cutting off funding, but I don't believe Congress will ever take that step. As far as I can tell, no Congress has ever defunded an active war. And of course, if they did, Bush would have the option of seeking outside sources of funds, and who would that leave us beholden to?

These parlor games the Democrats are playing with leave and tours of duty don't cut it. We need to get out, but there has to be a better plan.