| Submit your comments on this article | ||||
| Home Front: WoT | ||||
| Rep Senators Call Feingold Bluff on Iraq Withdrawal | ||||
| 2008-02-27 | ||||
| If you check the link, note my rephrasing of the MSM headline In an about-face, Senate Republicans on Tuesday agreed with Democrats to advance an anti-war bill because they said the debate would give them time to hail progress in Iraq. The change of heart came after months of blocking similar measures. But unlike most of last year, security conditions in Iraq have improved, and Republicans say they now feel they have the upper hand on the debate. "bring it on, losers!" “We welcome a discussion about Iraq,” Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell declared. The measure, by Democratic Sens. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, would cut off money for combat after 120 days. It had been expected to fall short of the 60 votes needed to overcome a procedural hurdle and move ahead. But after Republicans agreed in a private meeting that the debate could help make their case, the Senate voted 70-24 to begin debating it in earnest. Aides said a final vote could come later this week, but may be pushed into next week. Time to get both sides on the record before the election, cowards
"and we've already seen how Sen. "We've lost" Reid and Rep. Nancy "We've lost" Pelosi D- Losers stand" Democrats said they welcomed the debate, although they accused Republicans of stalling on plans to debate other issues, namely the nation's housing crisis.
While Democratic voters remain largely against the war, polls have shown, the security improvement has helped to cool anxiety among Republicans and turned voters' focus to economic problems at home. Still, Republicans say they have more convincing to do if they are to control the White House next year. Sen. John McCain, the GOP's likely presidential nominee, said this week that to win the White House he must convince a war-weary country that U.S. policy in Iraq in succeeding. If he can't, “then I lose. I lose,” the Arizona Republican said. He quickly backed off the remark. McCain was not expected to return to Washington for the debate. But he said he opposes the bill. “If ever there was a case for precipitous withdrawal from Iraq – and I believe there never was – now is the last time anyone should consider such a step,” he said in a statement. Tuesday's Senate vote came as the Army's top general said he wants to reduce combat tours for soldiers in Iraq from 15 months to 12 months this summer. Gen. George Casey, the Army chief of staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he would not embrace going back to the longer tours even if Bush decided to suspend troop reductions for the second half of the year. The Army is under serious strain from years of war-fighting, he testified, and must reduce the length of combat tours as soon as possible. “The cumulative effects of the last six-plus years at war have left our Army out of balance, consumed by the current fight and unable to do the things we know we need to do to properly sustain our all-volunteer force and restore our flexibility for an uncertain future,” Casey said. Casey, who was the top U.S. commander in Iraq before taking the chief of staff job last spring, told the committee that cutting the time soldiers spend in combat is an integral part of reducing the stress on the force. He said he anticipates the service can cut combat tours back to 12 months this summer as long as the president reduces the number of active-duty Army brigades in Iraq and Afghanistan to 15 units by July, as planned. The committee chairman, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., pressed Casey on whether he could keep tour lengths at 12 months if Bush decides to suspend the troop reductions after reaching 15 brigades in July. “We believe it will still be possible, even with the pause,” Casey replied. When asked by Levin if that would hold true “regardless of the length of the pause,” Casey, replied, “Yes.” However, the number of soldiers retained under the service's “stop loss” policy – which forces some soldiers to stay on beyond their retirement or re-enlistment dates – is unlikely to be reduced substantially. “We are consuming readiness now as quickly as we're building it,” said Army Secretary Pete Geren, who also testified. Geren urged Congress to pass a $100 billion war spending bill this spring, contending that the Army will run out of money by July. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, the Army could probably last until August or September by transferring money from less urgent accounts. Army officials counter that this approach is inefficient and can cause major program disruptions. Time to get this out in the open, and allow Americans to vote for military and poltical success with the Surge
| ||||
| Posted by:Frank G |
| #13 I sure hope Hill and Hussein can make it back in time to participate in this important debate. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-02-27 15:56 |
| #12 The congressional dems and lefty moonbats don't get the whole "the Iraqis emulate our soldiers and Marines" thing. They think our fighting men are dumb, losers, sadists, murderers, psychopaths, etc, etc. I see their comments daily on the SF Chronicle comments section. Lots of them really hate our troops and can see no good that the troops could ever do. |
| Posted by: remoteman 2008-02-27 15:38 |
| #11 OldSpook and that is the heart of Iraq that will be ripped away with the bill. I love when the milblogs write of how the Iraqi's emulate them! Even to developing that Marine swagger. Should be some good sound bits coming from the floor of the Senate as the Dems are forced to voice how and why they should micromanage our wars. |
| Posted by: Sherry 2008-02-27 14:54 |
| #10 these guys will be feared and respected across the region. At which point we will have to explain to their politicians exactly why it's unwise to talk smack about Israel. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2008-02-27 13:20 |
| #9 Sherry, the "interlacing" of US and ISF is vital. Deeds are far louder than words. And anyone that knows basic military leadership, especially at the squad level, knows that your actions teach far more than your words. And our soldiers' and marines' actions, their professionalism, their attitude, and their bearing as warriors, not bandits, is really rubbing off. This is especially true of the Iraqi SpecOps guys who picked it up first - warrior to warrior has always been easy. But the Iraqi Army has picked it up now that we have done more weeding of the typical hereditary "Officer class" (damn the Brits for installing that across the ME and reinforcing the Caliph/peasant pattern) and gotten rpoper officers and NCOs stood up - and the academies that are producing more of them. The place where the next wave of improvements are starting to pick up in the Iraqi Police now that they are getting sufficient attention and time on patrol with US forces. And the local militias, who are learning what their brothers in the police and army have learned. To pull us out now would be a disaster and would collapse their system. They need 5-7 more years of exposure to and support from US forces. Fight-wise, they are getting there in terms of command and control and intel. Now we have to teach them troop sustainment: medical, food, logistics, etc. Something almost unheard of in the Middle East, who typically use their line troops and enlisted for cannon fodder. Give these guys a few years to develop and learn, get more USMA grads in there, get them time to form a true professional NCO corps (and the schools to develop them), these guys will be feared and respected across the region. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-02-27 12:22 |
| #8 Mitch H, in a word, NO. Better productivity in government means its more efficient, means we can cut the size of it. What conservatives want is to limit the scope and reach of government, and promote individualism. We realize there are legitimate functions for a government, and we woudl prefer those to be highly productive and thus very efficient in terms of smaller better faster and cheaper (and less intrusive). |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-02-27 11:44 |
| #7 There is even more to this bill than cutting off the money. This totally stops our guys from fighting and training. From NRO: A good staff analysis of the bill making the rounds in the Senate: The two limitations of greatest operational significance are the restriction of combat operations to targeted strikes against Al Qaeda and the restrictions on training of Iraqi Security Forces: Targeted operations against Al Qaeda: The bill probably does not authorize all those activities that the military thinks necessary for targeted operations against Al Qaeda. Under U.S. military doctrine that would include the entire current campaign plan in Iraq, which would entail no transition of mission. We are left to wonder what mix of strategy and tactics the bill authorizes as necessary for targeted operations against Al Qaeda. Can we supply the frontline troops fighting Al Qaeda with food and water? Probably yes. Can we clear neighborhoods where Al Qaeda are suspected to be hiding, even if we don’t know the particular house? Maybe; maybe not. Can we do intelligence-gathering and surveillance? According to current Army doctrine, intelligence-gathering requires making the population feel safe enough to expose the terrorists. No population security equals no intel for targeted operations, and population security is the essence of the Petraeus strategy. Limitations on training Iraqi Security Forces. Two limitations are imposed on the training of Iraq security forces: training former insurgents is prohibited, and both joint combat operations and embedding U.S. forces with Iraqi forces are prohibited. ·Prohibition on reconciliation with former insurgents. It is not clear whether this provision would prohibit training of all those convicted of carrying out attacks against U.S. forces (which would include virtually nobody in the Iraqi Security Forces) or rather suspected former insurgents (e.g., former detainees, which would include many current members of the ISF who are entirely innocent of wrongdoing). If the latter, it is impossible to imagine how the bill would be implemented. Small units of the ISF are likely to contain either former insurgents or former detainees or both. Should those still train with their units, but not when the U.S. is providing them with training? If, however, the bill refers only to those known to have carried out attacks against U.S. soldiers, then the effect of the bill would probably be negligible as a limitation on training of ISF. This provision also runs counter to the U.S. policy of encouraging reconciliation among former insurgents and militia-members. And because it would disproportionately affect Sunni members of the ISF, it also contradicts the policy of encouraging national political reconciliation. ·Prohibition on joint combat operations and on embedding with Iraq Security Forces. This provision would close the door on the most vital element of the military’s exit strategy for Iraq. Almost all operations in Iraq now – from neighborhood patrols, to targeted strikes against Al Qaeda – are conducted jointly with Iraqi Security Forces. There are many benefits: o The ISF takes heavy casualties that would otherwise be borne by U.S. forces targeting Al Qaeda on their own; o Joint operations are the most effective way to train local forces; o Iraqi troops help us interact with the population; we help them by providing logistics, tactical surge capability, and long-range mobility; o The Iraqi population has become friendly to us because they see our soldiers working side-by-side with theirs to provide security o The influence of the American military on Iraqi military culture will pay dividends for decades. The ISF are becoming the most capable – and most committed— military ally of the U.S. in the Arab world. And that relationship-building would be impossible if U.S. and Iraqi soldiers were not sharing the same bases and outpost facilities. Moreover, the prohibition on “embedding” U.S. forces is presumably meant to prevent U.S. and Iraqi soldiers sharing the same base facilities. But this would in effect prohibit the over-lapping of Iraqi and U.S. soldiers at the same base, which is the basic modality by which U.S. bases and outposts are “transitioned” to the Iraqi Security Forces. |
| Posted by: Sherry 2008-02-27 11:28 |
| #6 DepotGuy, the proper role of a conservative in government is to oppose the production of more government. As such, I would think that it would be the obligation of a properly principled conservative Senator to resist productivity whenever possible. |
| Posted by: Mitch H. 2008-02-27 09:46 |
| #5 “We welcome a discussion about Iraq, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell declared.” Oh goody…another symbolic exercise in political dithering. The Democrats get another chance to pander to the anti-war left. And the Republicans get to clear their representational throats. Of course, just like the 41 other Senate bills to limit the militaries ability to wage a successful war, this one will not pass by a veto proof margin – if at all. Pathetically enough, both sides are fully cognizant of this inevitable conclusion. And at the end of another wasted week Feingold will pad his “Progressive” resume and the Republicans will get a sound-byte here and a headline there. But obviously no substantial accomplishments will be achieved on either side. What’s even more pathetic is there won’t even be any political gains. In other words, in lieu of a major political breakthrough in the Iraqi government, the American electorate (Of all political persuasions.) has pretty much made up their minds on the level of success that has been achieved. Here’s a suggestion to the US Senate. Instead of pretending to be productive with all these futile gestures, how about you actually do something that will be productive. |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2008-02-27 09:24 |
| #4 First off I find the Dhimicrats bill disgusting and a slap in the face to the hard work our troops have expended so far. But I think McConnell will hit a home run when the entire Donk moonbats will debates this in the Senate. Just imagine the remarks from Hillary, Obama, Kennedy et al as they try to grab defeat from the jaws of success? |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2008-02-27 08:45 |
| #3 However, the number of soldiers retained under the service's �stop loss� policy � which forces some soldiers to stay on beyond their retirement or re-enlistment dates � is unlikely to be reduced substantially. Of course the reporter never did check the law. You know the law Congress wrote and enacted. TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART II > CHAPTER 39 > § 671a Members: service extension during war Unless terminated at an earlier date by the Secretary concerned, the period of active service of any member of an armed force is extended for the duration of any war in which the United States may be engaged and for six months thereafter. The fact that the vast bulk of members serving are separated at the completion of their 8 year contracts or attainment of retirement eligibility, is ignored. Another example that journalist aren't subject matter experts or even aware there's a war going on or they're just lap puppies for the unquestionable Donks. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-02-27 08:44 |
| #2 The dhimocrats and the MSM are a disgrace. They are truly undermining our troops in a time of war for their own political advancement. Traitors, every one of them. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2008-02-27 07:08 |
| #1 " a war-weary country" The only reason its war weary is that you f**kers in the press only see fit to publicize every negative and ignore the positives. If you feed oinly the negatives about anything for 5 years, people will get tired of it. Lying duplicitous sons of bitches in the MSM. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-02-27 02:01 |