• silverwhisper said on Apr 03, 2007....

  i'm very anxious about legislating one-year leave, to be honest--legislating military deployments is to me extremely dangerous. i may not support bush, but i think this is undesirable legislative interference in the pentagon's business.
  
  ed

• bloc said on Apr 03, 2007....

  This is a perfect example of the timeless struggle between the ideal way and reality. I think you are right that, in an ideal situation, we shouldn't have such restrictions. However, when abuses happen we often have to trade in what would be best ideally to solve what clearly is a problem in reality.
  

• pascodelta said on Apr 03, 2007....

  It never ceases to amaze me, how the US and the UK need to send troops that have just come out of training.  I accept, in advance, that this may be my naivety about the actual mechanics of running an army, but, it seems that with the number of trained troops being as it is; shortening leave is just the more acceptable option and less of a political 'banana skin' than Drafting.
   
  Using legislation to fix the term of leave, could greatly reduce the armies flexibility and bring the Draft forward.
   
  In an unpopular war, the political pressure of a possible Draft may not seem a bad thing, but, in another scenario it could have a damaging effect on National and military morale...or worse, you may get drafted.

• bloc said on Apr 03, 2007....

  @pasc
  The problem is that the current policy will severely weaken the military. A volunteer army can not exist that way for very long.
  

• silverwhisper said on Apr 03, 2007....

  bloc, do you not see the dangerous precedent this can set? if congress gets the notion into their heads that they can micromanage the military--and make no mistake, for as well-intentioned as this is it's precisely that--this will lead to a blurring b/n the legislative and executive.
  
  i'm sorry, i cannot support this.
  
  ed

• bloc said on Apr 03, 2007....

  The congress' role is oversight. That's exactly what their purpose is. The only question in my mind is if this would be unconstitutional. It may be, but if not then I see now problem with it.

• silverwhisper said on Apr 03, 2007....

  sure, it's oversight, but there's a difference b/n managing and micromanaging, and this goes much more towards the latter IMHO than the former.
  
  ed

• bloc said on Apr 03, 2007....

  i agree. It's one of those issues where things got to a point they shouldn't have and someone had to come in and set set some rules that shouldn't have been necessary, but are. 

• muckpar said on Apr 03, 2007....

  I tend to agree with SW on this. Congress may be overstepping their bounds somewhat, but Bush has so botched this whole thing, I think they are tired of it and are trying to get his  attention.  If I were Congress I would fund his latest request but inform him in one years time, the funding will be cut off unless measurable benchmarks are met.  Then let him manage the war knowing he has one year and that is it.  Congress has every constitutional right to do that  Speaker Pelosi needs to stay home and do her job as speaker of the house, instead of Secretary of State.  And the rest of those congressmen need to stay home and address the serious issues we face beside the war.  Fact finding trips are fine to a point. But I want representatives and Senators working in Washington DC, not Bagdad.  Are you listening Mr. McCain?

• pascodelta said on Apr 03, 2007....

  I think it is dangerous for Congress to micro-manage, but, I also think Bush should really have considered the capacity of his forces before committing to such a massive task.  Whether he was gambling on the UN helping out or not, he, with advice, is solely responsible.
   
  However, publicly capping the war effort to a fixed budget and timeframe could be seen as an encouraging weakening of the US effort by violent insurgent groups and also enable those that wish to fight in the power void of an american withdrawl, to deploy spoiling tactics, in the meantime, and fully ready and focus their resources.

• bloc said on Apr 03, 2007....

  I'd love to hear sean's thoughts on these quick turn around deployments. 

• SeanRenaud said on Apr 03, 2007....

  Honestly it sucks.  And with the military having to recall members of the from inactive reserves to active duty I'm starting to like my cell phone less and less.  Specially since getting a letter asking me to rejoin.  Least I still fit most of my stuff.
   
  Now the bottom line here is that this sucks.  First and foremost this is Bush's fault for not completing one mission (Afghanistan) before starting a second (Iraq) and now it looks like there is a possibility of a third theatre opening.  Piss poor management.  Though in all fairness if Clinton hadn't reduced funding we'd probably have more folks but seeing how he doesn't have a crystal ball its hard to blame him.
   
  What kind of sacrifices would you expect him to ask for?  Shy of please join the military I can't think of much.
   
   

• bloc said on Apr 03, 2007....

  @sean
  Here's one example. He should roll back the tax cuts on the wealthy and use the money to give huge signing bonuses to new recruits. That's just an idea, not sure if it would work or not.
  
  Or maybe use that money to setup a fund that will ensure that any soldier seriously injured or killed in Iraq will have their immediate family taken care of for the rest of their lives.
  
  or a draft. We have two options in my eyes. Get more troops or get out. Not doing either of those is a recipe for disaster.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Apr 03, 2007....

  Its rare that I agree with you 100% but yeah. 
   
  The sign bonuses and make the existing sign bonuses more well known would probably help.  There are a lot of bonuses floating around as it is but nobody outside the military (and half the people in it) don't know the details.

• SeeingRed said on Apr 03, 2007....

  It was recently in the news that returning troops from Iraq will remain state side for at least two years. I do not know when that will in effect, be put into law.  But at least its in the works.  SR

• SeanRenaud said on Apr 03, 2007....

  The thing is that there needs to somehow be a way to allow free will effect.  I know of several Marines (myself included despite being inactive reserve) that would gladly spend a long time there.  If I were caled back I would prefer to spend the entire time in theatre. 
   
  Fighting is what Marines do and many of theme believe strongly they should be in theatre.  They live for it, I know even a year plus afterwards I yearn for it and I didn't get to taste combat.  Looking back its kind of, no its really scary how non-chalant I became about rockets.

• silverwhisper said on Apr 04, 2007....

  my brother-in-law wanted to re-up (he's a USMC reservist). his reason? the kids just out of boot camp don't know enough to keep them safe.
  
  seeingred, that appears to contradict the story here. if you can find a link to that, i'd really like to see it.
  
  ed

• bloc said on Apr 04, 2007....

  @sean
  I'm guessing you don't have a family. The attitudes of young unmarried soldiers is often very different from that of the soldiers with families. If you had a new born would you want him to barely know you 5 years from now because you spent 3 1/2 years in Iraq?
  

• SeanRenaud said on Apr 04, 2007....

  @Bloc
  I the Marine Corps wanted you to have a wife and child they would have issued you them.  :-P
   
  You're right but that even farthers my point that there are people who want to be there and people who don't.  If my going would prevent somebody else with a newborn from going I'd go in a heartbeat, I don't have a whole lot anchoring me here and while I'm sure its not nearly enough to support the mission there are a lot of people who wouldn't complain much about being thre 3 1/2 years.

• bloc said on Apr 04, 2007....

  I don't know how the marines work, but the army certainly didn't work that way. We had people willing to go to bosnia and they sent people that had newborns and not the ones willing. I know it's would be a logistical nightmare to shuffle a lot of people around, so I'm not sure that they made the wrong choice. 

• SeanRenaud said on Apr 04, 2007....

  The same thing happens in the Marines. 
   
  As much of a logistics nightmare as it would be it seems like it would probably be worth it.  It would do wonders for morale.

• letsramble said on Nov 12, 2007....

  I just returned from Iraq on 16 October and I have already started doing the work up to go back with the same unit next year to do the same mission they had this year, we will get about 5 to 6 months back and then off we go. It is really hard even after being in for 16 years, yes your kids are older but they still feel the effects of the missing person. I can't wait to retire.

  Mark

  www.letsramble.com

Comment on "Breaking the Military"

Currently tagged	war politics bush Troops draft Just returned from Iraq iraq (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment