CNN's Bash cites only opponents of Webb amendment on issue of "combat effectiveness"
SUMMARY: In reporting on Sen. Jim Webb's proposal to require that active-duty troops
spend at least the same amount of time at home as the length of their previous
tour of duty overseas, CNN's Dana Bash stated, "Defense Secretary Robert Gates
warns it would actually make him extend tours in Iraq, break up military units,
and reduce combat effectiveness." But Bash made no mention of military leaders
who have stated that insufficient time at home also reduces overall combat readiness.
During the September 18 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, CNN congressional correspondent Dana Bash reported on Sen. Jim Webb's (D-VA) proposed amendment to the 2008 defense authorization bill -- which would require that active-duty troops spend at least the same amount of time at home as the length of their previous tour of duty overseas -- and stated that "Defense Secretary Robert Gates warns it would actually make him extend tours in Iraq, break up military units, and reduce combat effectiveness." But missing from Bash's report was any mention of statements from military leaders that insufficient time at home also reduces overall combat readiness, a position reflected in Army and Marine Corps policy.
In a written statement presented to the Senate Armed Services Committee in March, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James T. Conway said that "[t]he current deployment cycle requires commanders to focus solely on those skill sets required to accomplish the mission in Iraq and Afghanistan," adding, "[t]he result of this strain is evident in the Marine Corps' limited ability to provide trained forces to project power in support of other contingencies. ... To fulfill our mandate to be 'most ready when the Nation is least ready,' our deployment cycles must not only support training for irregular warfare, they must also provide sufficient time for recovery, maintenance, and training for other contingency missions." While active-duty Marines currently spend seven months deployed in return for six months or less at home, Conway told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he would like to return to a 1:2 "deployment-to-dwell" ratio -- spending two months at home for each month deployed -- under which the Marines previously operated.
Similarly, in answers to the advance questions that Gen. George W. Casey submitted to the Senate Armed Services Committee in February as part of his nomination to become Army chief of staff, Casey stated that "the Army minimum goal for Active Component units" is a 1:2 "deployment-to-dwell" ratio. Casey said: "we've returned units to Iraq with less than 12 months at home station in order to meet the requirements on the ground. However, this pace exacts a toll on the force--on equipment, on Soldiers, and on their families." In April 2007, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced "a new policy" -- that active-duty soldiers would serve "not more than" 15 months on deployment in return for "not less than" 12 months at home, less than a 1:1 deployment-to-dwell ratio. But even Gates has acknowledged the importance of a 1:1 deployment-to-dwell ratio, as Webb has proposed. Indeed, Gates referred to the new policy as an "interim change," and noted that the "goal for active duty units is 12 months deployed followed by 12 months at home station."
Supporters of the amendment failed on September 19 to obtain the 60 votes required to overcome a filibuster.
From the 4 p.m. ET hour of the September 18 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
BASH: That's right, Wolf. Senate Democratic leaders have been talking to Republicans for more than two weeks trying to find compromise on a timeline for troop withdrawal. Today they announced they have virtually given up on that, and they are instead going to push for, once again, a timeline with a deadline for troop withdrawal. That means that it will be very hard to get Republican support for this to pass. It also means that the Democrats' best shot at Iraq legislation now lies with the Democrat from Virginia.
[begin video clip]
BASH (voice-over): Freshman Democrat Jim Webb thinks he's found a way to force a change in Iraq policy: focus on the overextended troops.
WEBB: There's nothing going on in Iraq that justifies requiring our soldiers and Marines to be in Iraq more than they're home.
BASH: His legislation mandates troops spend as much time at home as on the battlefield.
WEBB: This administration has continued this policy for four and a half years. It's reached the level where they are abusing, in my view, the well-being of our troops, and the Congress has a duty to step forward.
BASH: Webb is a former Navy secretary and fought in Vietnam. His son is now serving in Iraq. He is driven by personal experience.
WEBB: I know what it's like to have a father deployed. I know what it's like to be deployed. I know what it's like to have a son deployed.
BASH: Some supporters of Webb's proposal call it a back-door way to force redeployment from Iraq. The Pentagon is fighting to defeat it. Defense Secretary Robert Gates warns it would actually make him extend tours in Iraq, break up military units, and reduce combat effectiveness.
GATES: Cumulative effect of these kinds of things, we think, would, frankly, increase the risk to our men and women in uniform over there.
WEBB: Secretary Gates is a member of this administration. This administration has created a problem that is affecting the morale and the retention of their troops.
BASH: Webb, a former Republican, says troop rest is even more critical since the president admitted the U.S. will be in Iraq for some time.
WEBB: They were denying it and denying it for years. And now they openly are saying, "This is going to be like Korea," so I think they need to get their story straight.
[end video clip]
BASH: Webb appears to have 57 of the 60 votes he needs, and he says he is pretty confident he can find three more Republicans to actually pass his legislation, but he is up against staunch opposition, Wolf.















We have an awful lot of pundits and experts and administration officials telling us about the effects, and effectiveness, of Mr. Webb's Amendment.
Also, a lot of Senators from both sides of the aisle, have an opinion on Mr. Webb's Amendment, and the effect it would have on our U.S. Troops in Iraq, and on the "mission".
But what do our Sons and Daughters in Iraq, those U.S. Troops themselves, think about Mr. Webb's Amendment?
What do they think about about this Amendment to the Defense Appropriation, presently being filibustered by Senate Republicans...
What do the Troops think about their rotation, and their multiple tours?
If we can't draw them away from the sacrifice they are making, long enough to answer the question...
...then let's ask their Mothers and Fathers, the American People:
How do you feel, and what do you think, about Mr. Webb's Amendment, and the effect it will have on the rotation and on the tours of duty, of your Sons and Daughters in Iraq?
If you have a Republican Senator, get his attension. I don't know how an impession can be made on Liebermann. By all means keep on the Democratic folk and the few Republicans who have broken rank on this to come close to the magic number. If its going to happen, its people who are going to make it happen. with all the scariness and uncertainty that goes with that.
Even if it passed...wouldn't Bush just veto it? Or does that not come into play?
If Bush's rationality is supposed to determine legislative actions, Congress might as well take the next sixteen months off.
Make him veto it, show how he's not supporting the troops, and then put that same pressure on those in Congress to override the veto. Let them camp with Bush if they want to. The man is practically a political leper at this point, and his war is unpopular as well.
At the very least, they need to make the effort. The argument of "we didn't try anything because Bush would have vetoed it" is much weaker than "we did try something, Bush vetoed it, and here are the Republicans who backed him up" or even "we did try something, and here are the obstructionist Republicans who blocked it for Bush's sake".
So instead of trying to bring the troops home for good, they try to extend their "vacations" back home. Wow, I hope the troops feel that they should vote for Democrats now....before they get sent back into hell by those same Democrats!
Duex ex Machina or nothing um?
The longer this quagmire continues, the more we need legislation to allow those we've sent into harms way to recover.
I hope that this is used against every Republican and Democrat who didn't support this amendment who is up for re-election next year.
The Republicans don't give a damn about any of our people in Iraq. they're only concerned with protecting the one person responsible for the biggest foreign policy blunder in our history.
It's time we remove the yellow ribbons and the proud to be an American bumper stickers from our cars.
Support for the troops is just a slogan used by those who couldn't care less.
"they're only concerned with protecting the one person responsible for the biggest foreign policy blunder in our history."
There it is, in a nutshell. The GOP LIE machine has become very adept at bogging the Democrats down in minutia and keeping them on the defensive. When the Democrats took over Congress, I was hopeful that they would finally get around to investigating the reason we're over there, and the lies told to get us there. So far I've been greatly disappointed. The topic is apparently off the table. By all appearances, they're going to let Bush's puppeteers outmaneuver them again, while they run out the clock squabbling over timetables and who supports the troops the most. It's absolutely disgusting.
And the AIPAC and war industry money keeps flowing into those Democrat campaigns.