Webb, in Defeat: Just Supporting the Troops?

In his post-defeat statement on his troop deployment bill, Senator Webb makes the following interesting point:

“From the vote on my modest amendment, which was designed with the sole intention of guaranteeing that our military men and women are able to spend at least as much time away from Iraq as they spend in Iraq, we have learned that the Administration and its congressional allies do not consider the present stress on our operating units to be of significant consequence."

Senator Webb's point is interesting in at least two ways. The Webb amendment limited deployments to both Iraq and Afghanistan (more accurately to OIF and OEF), but Webb makes no mention of Afghanistan in his statement, only Iraq.

Webb also says his sole intention was to guarantee military personnel would spend as much time away from Iraq as there. This may have been his sole intention, but numerous news articles discussing Democrat's strategy on the war imply that there was another reason they supported his amendment.

Here are two examples:

From the New York Times

September 12:

Senate Democratic leaders on Wednesday called the administration’s plan to keep 130,000 or more troops in Iraq through mid-2008 unacceptable and promised to challenge the approach through legislation next week.

Several proposals were being weighed, including one requiring the American military role to be shifted more to training and counterterrorism, in order to reduce the force by more than President Bush is expected to promise on Thursday. Another would guarantee troops longer respites from the battlefield, effectively cutting the numbers available for combat.

September 14

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.

As I pointed out in my earlier posts on this topic, the practical effect of Senator Webb's amendment would be either to force more troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan or leave the troops currently deployed there for even longer tours. Whether fighting with fewer comrades at your side, or staying longer without relief is true support for the troops, readers my ponder. Our readers may also judge whether Senator Webb expressed the truth about his intentions, my view however is:










Read More. . . .

Support Our Troops

Every politician wants to prove that he or she supports the troops. In recent months, "supporting the troops" seems to consist of Republicans wanting to keep doing exactly what we've been doing in Iraq and Democrats wanting to just give up the fight so all the troops can go home. I do not claim to speak for all the troops, but as a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom, I think I can speak a little bit to some of the support from political and military leaders that our fighting men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan would find helpful.


First of all, let's clarify the mission. I want the President, the Secretary of Defense, and even Congress to be very clear about what we need to accomplish in these fights and what resources of personnel and equipment will be required to accomplish that. I would also like to see a logical, if somewhat inexact, timeline laid out for what we plan to accomplish when, what role our Soldiers and Marines will be taking at various stages in the transfer of control to Iraqis, and how we plan to be able to reduce troop strength while still maintaining gains made. Much of the reason public support for OIF is so low is because the administration and even military leaders have consistently given the false impression that we were just a few months from being able to reduce troop presence in Iraq. Each time that has proven to not be the case, support has gone down. As public support goes down, the likelihood that the U.S. will have the political fortitude to fight in Iraq to a successful conclusion diminishes. The Soldiers and Marines know this, and it makes them concerned that they may be fighting with little hope of long-term success.

Increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps. Right now, Army units are deploying for fifteen months at a time and only getting a year between deployments. The Marines are deploying for less time, but also have less time between deployments. This ratio of time deployed to time at home station, still busy training and preparing for the next deployment, proves that the Army is still undermanned six years into the Global War on Terrorism. Senator Jim Webb, D-VA, proposed an amendment to require a minimum time at home station equal to the length of a servicemember's or unit's previous deployment. Although the Webb amendment would have some troubling effects, as noted by Chuck Young, its intent is legitimately supportive of our nation's warriors. The real problem is that the Bush administration has been using the men and women of the Army and Marines to such excess that legislative action would be necessary to make sure that they get adequate time at home to recuperate, spend time with family and friends, and train and prepare for the next mission. You may have to "go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want," but this war has been going on for well over four years now. It is long past time that we have the Army we need to successfully wage this fight.

Ensure that our servicemembers and veterans receive top-quality medical care. We heard about the problems at Walter Reed Army Medical Center a few months ago. There is no excuse for wounded veterans receiving sub-par care. This country asked these men and women to put their lives at risk. We owe it to them to take the best care possible of them when they are wounded.

Do not charge mid-tour leave against Soldiers. During year-long deployments, members of the Army receive a 15-day period of leave. Recently, the mid-tour leave was extended to 18 days, due to the fact that tours have been extended for all units to 15 months. However, those periods of leave count as charged leave days. These Soldiers work 7 days a week in a combat zone, many for twelve to eighteen hours daily, but the Army still counts as normal vacation days the only fifteen or eighteen days off that the Soldier gets all year. Remember, if you work five days a week, without even getting holidays off, you get 104 uncharged days off each year. Our deployed Soldiers don't even get fifteen. That should be remedied now

Cease adding demands on people who have already fulfilled their military obligations. The Immediate Ready Reserve (IRR) is made up of former military who no longer ever put on a uniform. They fulfilled their active obligation and are not a part of the Reserves or National Guard. They are civilians with previous military experience. In recent years, the Army has called up thousands of members of the IRR to fill deploying units. Additionally, the Army continues to regularly use "stop-loss" and "stop-movement" to keep deploying units filled, even now that we are over four years into the war in Iraq. Stop-movement means that Soldiers are unable to make their next career move because they cannot leave a unit that is about to deploy. The consistent use of this policy throws careers off track, preventing people from getting the training or positions they need to be able to get promoted or move to a preferred career field. Stop-loss prevents Soldiers who have fulfilled their active duty service obligation from being able to move on to their civilian careers. The continued use of this policy stretches the definition of an "all-volunteer Army" and proves that the Army has serious problems filling its human resources requirements. Stop-loss of Army veterans is the most glaring evidence of the Bush administration's willingness to heap the burden of this fight on a small number of patriots while asking almost nothing of most Americans. If our political leaders take the steps necessary, however costly, to increase the size of the military, as I recommended earlier, then the Army should be able to stop using stop-loss and stop-movement.

Please join me in making "Support Our Troops" more than a slogan. Send packages and letters to deployed servicemembers. When you see someone in the military, express your pride and support for what they do. Most importantly, hold your elected representatives accountable for how they treat members of the Armed Forces.

Read More. . . .

Three-Star Czar

President Bush has appointed Lieutenant General Douglas Lute to be the new "war czar" to oversee actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. LTG Lute may be an outstanding officer, but does he really have the authority to effect anything? How is he supposed to oversee combat in Iraq, when LTG Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, is of equal rank? Even a four-star general would struggle to coordinate the efforts of the Departments of State and Defense in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unless senior officials in these combat zones are reporting to (and rated by) LTG Lute, he will be unable to stop conflicts between departments. At a minimum, he should be given fourth star, so he'll have a fighting chance to get anything done.

Perhaps the smarter solution would have been to give LTG Petraeus additional responsibility as ambassador (or something equivalent) to Iraq and to do something along the same lines with the senior military commander in Afghanistan, giving one person executive control over all U.S. activities in each country. That might be somewhat unorthodox, but General MacArthur did pretty well rebuilding Japan. Read More. . . .