Gates: I Would Recommend That The President Veto Giving Troops More Time At Home

[babylonsister]

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/16/gates-webb-biden/

Gates: I Would Recommend That The President Veto Giving Troops More Time At Home

The Washington Post reported this morning that one of the “best opportunities” for war critics “to change policy” in Iraq is an amendment by Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA), which would “mandate that home leaves for troops last as long as their deployments.” The measure failed in July to break a Republican filibuster, “but it appears to be gaining momentum in the Senate.”

On Fox News Sunday this morning, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said he would recommend that the President veto the bill should it pass. “Yes, I would,” said Gates when asked by host Chris Wallace, calling it a “well-intentioned idea” that would “pose greater risk to our troops”:

GATES: I think that it’s a well-intentioned idea. I think it’s really, pretty much, a back door effort to get the President to accelerate the drawdown, so that it’s an automatic kind of thing rather than based on the conditions in Iraq, with all the consequences that I talked about earlier. I think, if as I believe, the President would never approve such a bill. It would mean, if it were enacted, we would have force management problems that would be extremely difficult and in fact create, I think affect combat effectiveness, and perhaps pose greater risk to our troops.

Watch it at link~

Later in the show, Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE), who’s son is set to deploy to Iraq in 2008, responded to Gates, arguing that the Webb measure is necessary because the “long-term consequence” of “these kind of deployments is absolutely disastrous for the United States of America and for the United States military.”

“If you don’t figure out how to get these folks some time home, you are gonna break, break this military,” said Biden. He also said that Gates’ concerns were overblown because “we can do what we need to do in Iraq with significantly fewer troops”:

BIDEN: What are the consequences of continuing to do what we’re doing with essentially the way in which we’re deploying these troops? As the military said we’re breaking, we’re breaking the United States military. Flat breaking it. And what we’re doing is we’re going to end up in a situation where you don’t have people signing up. you’re gonna end up having to go to draft. This long-term consequence, keeping these kind of deployments is absolutely disastrous for the United States of America and for the United States military. It’s not a good thing the other way either. You choose two very bad alternatives. One very bad and one okay. If you don’t figure out how to get these folks some time home, you are gonna break, break this military. That’s what this is about. and we can do what we need to do in Iraq with significantly fewer troops. That is my contention and the contention of a whole lot of other people outside this administration.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Army Chief of Staff, and other leading generals agree with Biden that the military has been stretched to a breaking point. The Webb amendment is a crucial first step towards guaranteeing it doesn’t actually break.

[spanone]

1. always thinking about 'his men'.....

god help us.

[tridim]

2. Does Gates "seem reasonable" now?

He's a Bush appointee, and therefore a Bush crony who will say anything BushCo tells him to say.

[Freedomofspeech]

3. Gee, the administration sure does know how to support the

troops, don't they? I personally believe that anyone that supports this invasion, should be over there. I don't care how old they are, or what kind of shape they're in. Obviously it's "their" war, so let them fight it.
One of the best signs at the march yesterday: Rich man's war, poor man's blood. How true.

[LeFleur1]

4. Of Course

Some big puff sitting at a desk wouldn't think it necessary to have a reasonable break from combat. And the point about having to have force management? Any management at all is beyond the administration's capabilities, as we have seen time and time again. If it doesn't involve lying, they can't do it.

[madrchsod]

5. i think they are afraid to bring them home.

the last thing these guys want is for the troops to come home and see for themselves what is happening. they are really afraid the troops would start refusing to go back,especially the national guard. if the troops come home and go back they are afraid many troops to refuse to fight..better a crippled or a dead soldier than one who refuses to believe in the crusade

[snappyturtle]

6. I saw Gates on tv this morning! What a rat......but he supports the troops!?

Did anyone else notice he couldn't look up....his eyes were cast downward throughout the interview.

[babylonsister]

9. YES! He could barely look George S. in the eye on ABC. nt

[SunDrop23]

7. "...after all they volunteered for it, so the pResident should continue to shat on them."

[frogcycle]

8. I think this is going to be the BIG showdown

And I think maybe, just maybe the sane will prevail.

The backlash against a veto of this measure will be huge.

The measure needs to be included in the funding bill with NO OTHER STRINGS.

The bill needs to give him the money he asks for, with no finger wagging, no "pork", no nothing to balk at but this. This needs to mandate the time at home,cap the length of deployments, and cap the percent of Nat Guard troops in theatre.

That will put a flat-out cap on the number who can be deployed at any given time. Effectively it would be one half of all people in uniform, which is more than the 130000*. But practically, it will hamstring them. They have been recycling the same pool of people, stretching the deployments and shrinking the breaks.


This goes directly to Rumsfeld's arrogant statement "you go to war with the army you have"

It's been six years since 9/11, longer than that since the PNAC started implementing its long-range plan to conquer and subjugate the entire MidEast. If, in fact, there were any case to be made for that plan being in our national interest, then a mobilization similar to WWII should have been called for. If, in fact, continuing the illegal police action in Iraq were critical to our national security, then a mobilization similar to WWII should be called for.

A draft should be called for; nationalization of auto companies to produce thousands of MRAPs should be happening; maybe gas rationing.

But no, rumsfeld and his cronies thought they could finesse a move to achieve world dominance on the cheap, with nobody realizing what they were up to. They have the same mentality as their derivative-investment hedge fund cronies where you can get rich by betting someone else's money. They never heard the expression "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch" because they grew up in their inherited-wealth lala lands.

Well, folks, it is time to pay the piper. Which is it going to be, mr bush? Put up or shut up.
Either you admit what you are up to and ask the American People to join you in your bloodthirsty quest for power, or we take away your toys.


Our Dems need to have this message down pat. They need to get right in Boehner's face when he starts crying and call him a liar, on camera. They need to repeat the message:

Which is it going to be, mr bush? Raise the army you need, or stop the war of choice? Come clean with the American People and state what your intentions are. Tell us what your "vision**" is. Where are you going with this? Who comes after Iran? What exactly is this "pact" you allude to which sounds like an excuse for a permanent presence? Do you plan on conquering the MidEast in a replay of our national shame of having stolen this country from its rightful owners? Will you name that big base you are building "Fort Apache?" Perhaps That base in Anbar should be renamed "Wounded Knee." The carnage in Iraq already ranks right up there with what we did to the Cherokee on the Trail of Tears. You looking to go into the Guinness Book of Records as the most brutal despot ever? Spell it out and ask for the proper support. If you get it, so be it, but you must stop abusing our troops until you do.

*DOD report for 2005 lists 368,000 army and 115000 marines in expeditionary forces http://www.dod.mil/execsec/adr2005.pdf That's 483,000, giving a theoretical max of 241,000. But there are troops deployed in Korea, Bosnia, etc. They are using Air Force and Navy in theatre in assignments not appropriate to their mission - like military police and such, and could do more of that.

** That speech was supposed to lay out a 'vision'. It turned out I was right: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1762820#1762865