Article

2007-09-17 Home Front: Politix

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2007-09-17 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11134 views ] Top
File under: Global Jihad

#1 So Roby is now 'crackin that whip' and doesn't want our boys to have time off for their families or a respite from that hellhole that is Iraq! Not entirely unexpected though, holding that line is a direct order by "W" and facing the option of resigning or taking that paycheck for another 13 months; I'd take it too! I'm pretty sure the University is keeping his 'seat' warm, for his graceful retreat when "W" is booted out on November 7th next year!!!

Posted by smn 2007-09-17 01:35|| 2007-09-17 01:35|| Front Page Top

#2 IOW, 'tis Washington-speak for US is indeed anctipating a US-Iran conflict before 2008, US needs to maintain high troop levels.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2007-09-17 04:24|| 2007-09-17 04:24|| Front Page Top

#3 This congress wants to force a drawdown in a manner where our troops are being shot at as they leave.
They want to upset the process no matter what. They are traitors.

This congress will not survive this surrender.

Posted by newc">newc 2007-09-17 05:03|| 2007-09-17 05:03|| Front Page Top

#4 smn - you're consistently an idiot. Is "W booted out on November 7th"? No. He's term-limited out in January the next year. Apparently you are unfamiliar with the American political system, aren't you?

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2007-09-17 08:19|| 2007-09-17 08:19|| Front Page Top

#5 So Roby is now 'crackin that whip' and doesn't want our boys to have time off for their families or a respite from that hellhole that is Iraq!

No, it's not that he doesn't "want our 'boys' to have time off for their families from that hellhole that is Iraq". They get time off already. What he doesn't want is a Congress doing a de facto cut in the number of troops available.

The bill would require that troops deployed for, say, six months, would get six months mandatory time at home. Since deployments are often for 10 months (Marines), that means units would be unavailable for deployment for 10 months. Meaning if another surge is required, or an immediate deployment elsewhere, there is a much-lessened list of units to draw from.

Since Congress has seen fit not to increase the troop levels, this is a transparent attempt to control how the Long War will be fought.

Posted by Pappy 2007-09-17 09:40|| 2007-09-17 09:40|| Front Page Top

#6 What does Webb think the military has become - like oil workers on the platforms in the gulf? 28 days on and 28 off - free airfare home? Of course, we are over extended and the Marines are showing it with their 7 in 5 out. But if we had some friendly R&R bases nearby (Goa, Maldives, Seychelles, etc.) we could do that every 3 months for the grunts.

Posted by Jack is Back!">Jack is Back! 2007-09-17 09:45|| 2007-09-17 09:45|| Front Page Top

#7 I don't suppose anyone's ever considered actually recruiting more troops.

Sure, it would take a while. That's why we should hurry.

Posted by Jackal 2007-09-17 11:21|| 2007-09-17 11:21|| Front Page Top

#8 Frank G #4, by 'boot out' I'm suggesting a shocking mandated upset by the electorate of the Republican candidates to keep the office. I know "W" is a 'Lamed Duck', which makes his remaining decisions iron-clad in significance, and Gates can only 'piss in the wind' because of it!

Posted by smn 2007-09-17 14:11|| 2007-09-17 14:11|| Front Page Top

#9 You must not be american, the phrase is "Lame Duck", not "Lamed Duck".

Posted by Redneck Jim 2007-09-17 15:22|| 2007-09-17 15:22|| Front Page Top

#10 Bush II is not actually a lame duck; he's merely finishing his second term in office. A lame duck is someone who has lost a bid for re-election; between the time he lost the election and the time he is scheduled to leave office, he is a lame duck. See, e.g., Carter & Bush I.

On a more personal note, Carter was a lame duck between the time he (Gott sei dank!) lost his reelection bid and the time Reagan took office. Ever since Reagan took office, Carter has been just lame. (Not that he wasn't before....)

Posted by Barbara Skolaut">Barbara Skolaut 2007-09-17 15:54|| http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/page/15bk1/Home_Page.html]">[http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/page/15bk1/Home_Page.html] 2007-09-17 15:54|| Front Page Top

#11 Jackal #7, You hit the nail right on the head, but remember; the last person in the ranks to seriously advise such a concept, was drummed out the Corps. Hmmm...General Shenseki!

http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Hayden_052104,00.html

Posted by smn 2007-09-17 16:03|| 2007-09-17 16:03|| Front Page Top

#12 You mean the Webb amendment is not to enlarge the military to sufficient size to give the boys more time off?

Looks like I'm going to have to write my Senator again!

Posted by Bobby 2007-09-17 16:53|| 2007-09-17 16:53|| Front Page Top

#13 remember; the last person in the ranks to seriously advise such a concept, was drummed out the Corps. Hmmm...General Shenseki!

1. Shineski was Army, not a Marine. hence no Corps to be 'drummed out' of.

2. His advice was for an increase of troops in Iraq, not an increase in the overall troop level of the Armed Forces. With everyone blathering how the 'general was right', I still hold reservations whether such an increase that early would have been effective and viable, given the war objectives at the time and the number of troops available. It might even have made matters worse.

Posted by Pappy 2007-09-17 21:17|| 2007-09-17 21:17|| Front Page Top

#14 I thought troop levels were increasing. Slowly, but nonetheless. I seem to recall that recruitment, at least for the Army and Marines, has been above 100% of annually increasing targets, and retention has been higher than expected, too. There was a bit of a fuss in the media about lowered standards in order to mee the higher targets. Do I misremember?

Posted by trailing wife 2007-09-17 22:22|| 2007-09-17 22:22|| Front Page Top

#15 I agree the Army deployments are too long. Soldiers already get 2 weeks(?) individual leave at the 6 month point. Why not follow the Marine model and rotate units in every 7 months. The amount of travel will still be the same and there will be less stress on troops and families.

Posted by ed 2007-09-17 23:33|| 2007-09-17 23:33|| Front Page Top

23:56 ed
23:33 ed
23:23 ed
23:22 newc
23:20 newc
23:18 Anguper Hupomosing9418
23:14 ed
23:13 ed
23:04 ed
23:03 Zenster
22:56 SteveS
22:54 ed
22:52 hiutopor
22:49 KBK
22:48 ed
22:29 DarthVader
22:28 mhw
22:27 Zenster
22:24 Pappy
22:22 trailing wife
22:18 Baba Tutu
22:17 Zenster
22:11 jds
22:10 Zenster