Posted on 08/11/2007 9:18:17 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - Democrats on Saturday touted legislation to guarantee troops time at home between deployments to Iraq. In the party's weekly radio address, Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif., criticized President Bush for threatening to veto the bill, contending his administration's policies on troop deployments have weakened the military.
"The president's surge has sent many of our Army units to Iraq for the second and third time. We are asking our troops to make heroic sacrifices — yet as soon as they return we rush them back into battle," said Tauscher, author of the bill that passed the House Aug. 2 on a vote of 229-194.
The measure would require that regular military units returning from the war receive at least as much time at home as they spent in Iraq. Reserve units would get a home stay three times as long as they spent in the war zone.
Under the Pentagon's current policy, active-duty troops typically serve deployments of up to 15 months, with a year at home in between. National Guard and Reserve ground units generally can be called up for as long as two years, to be followed by six years at home.
Bush's war adviser, Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, said Friday the Pentagon needs to reevaluate deployment lengths.
"Come the spring, some variables will have to change — either the degree to which the American ground forces, the Marines and the Army in particular, are deployed around the world to include Iraq, or the length of time they're deployed in one tour, or the length of time they enjoy at home," Lute said in an interview on National Public Radio.
Bush complained that Tauscher's bill would put arbitrary constraints on Pentagon commanders. But Tauscher noted that the measure includes waivers enabling the president to disregard the required intervals between troop deployments in the interest of national security.
"If we are honest about wanting to support our troops, there is no better place to start than with the rest and training they require to complete their mission and return home safely," said Tauscher.
In the Senate, similar legislation by Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., won a majority vote of 56-41 in July but fell four short of the 60 votes needed to advance.
The vote on Tauscher's bill shortly before Congress left Washington for its August recess was the latest challenge to Bush from Democrats aiming to end an unpopular war. Democratic leaders plan to renew the challenge in September, when Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, delivers a long-awaited report on the state of the conflict.
The president vetoed legislation this spring that included a timeline for a troop withdrawal.
Petraeus told lawmakers visiting Iraq this month that a U.S. presence in Iraq is likely to be needed for another nine to 10 years, said Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., who met with the general along with Democrat Tom Allen of Maine and four House Republicans. Petraeus has made similar remarks in the past, noting that the question is how many troops would be needed.
Schakowsky, a member of the Out of Iraq caucus, said she returned from the trip convinced more than ever the U.S. should set a deadline for troop withdrawals.
"Calling for patience, at this point, I don't believe is going to work with the American people," she told reporters in a conference call from Germany on Friday.
She'd a been every GI's bestest buddy and pin-up with such good intent at heart.
Schakowsky, a member of the Out of Iraq caucus, said she returned from the trip convinced more than ever the U.S. should set a deadline for troop withdrawals.
“Calling for patience, at this point, I don’t believe is going to work with the American people,” she told reporters in a conference call from Germany on Friday.
—
Methinks it is Z’Dems that should give it a rest.
Precisely. I wonder if she is also aware that fighting fires messes up the meal plan down at the fire station.
Peace time rotations and training cycles go out the window during war. What does she think it would have been like if the Soviets had headed to the Channel?
>>Boy, where was she in WW2?
She’d a been every GI’s bestest buddy and pin-up with such good intent at heart.<<
While I certainly doubt her motives, it does appear we need a bigger standing army for various reasons.
I believe that increasing the size of the standing army is in the works... and long overdue after the years of dems undercutting and shrinking our abilities to project force as necessary around the globe in a timely manner.
Clinton’s Rogue Gallery
UNDERMANNED AND POORLY EQUIPPED - SPREAD TOO THIN
http://www.alamo-girl.com/0013.htm
I’m not averse to giving troops all the rest they can handle but we are in the midst of a war and we have a limited number of soldiers to work with.
If she really wants to get them some rest, she should work to increase the size of our military so the troops can get the job done and come home for good.
RETHINKING FORCE STRUCTURE
By Congressman Duncan Hunter
May 29, 2003
http://www.house.gov/hunter/news_prior_2006/forcestructure-oped.html
Increasing the size of the Army and moving missions back out of the Reserves makes sense. We do have to be careful, however, not to plan on fighting the last war. There’s no guarantee the enxt war will result in a multi-year occupation of a hostile land. I doubt, for example, we’ll consider occupying Iran even if after we come to all-out war with them.
I have FReeped her more than once - right to her silly face.
"Now, if they can't extend people, if they can't send people back that don't have equipment and so forth, they can't continue the surge," he said.
Maybe it’s just me, but no Dem will ever convince me that they have the troops best interest at heart, no matter what they say. Clyborne (sp?) outed the Dem party last week. In regards to the WOT, the Dems only care about trashing all of our efforts because the polls tell them that trashing the Iraq War will get them the White House in 2008.
I asked my son-in-law (attached to S.F) about sleep. Answer; wet your finger, dip it in Copenhagen, then dab it in the eye.
Works.
Tauscher...you are not the Commander in Chief. You have no say. Butt out.
How do they expect to sell this with a straight face? Noone else gets to work a year and rest for two. It is a very questionable and inefficient policy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.