• D6fer said on Jul 10, 2007....

  If it is feasible I say sure.....do we have enough replacements?

• silverwhisper said on Jul 10, 2007....

  wait--the leave should be as long as their last deployment? so active duty soldiers would be off for 3-4 years at a pop?
  
  [reads article]
  
  it's interesting that the norm, pre-iraq, was double the deployment time. senator webb is a marine as i recall and at first, before reading the article, i thought that perhaps this was perhaps a bit of grandstanding (although i should have known better) but now i see that he's serious about this legislation. 19 co-sponsors for a newly-elected senator is pretty damned impressive, too.
  
  i'd be curious to know if we have enough soldiers, too.
  
  ed

• bloc said on Jul 10, 2007....

  @d6 and sw
  we do not have enough soldiers. We are currently breaking our army and all the experts say that even if we don't pass this bill we will be unable to maintain these troop levels. Basically, we're going to be withdrawing soon, regardless of any rhetoric, simply because we don't have the troops. 
  
  
  maybe some of the ardent war supporters should enlist ;)

• bloc said on Jul 10, 2007....

  "The U.S. Army, strained by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, missed its recruiting goal for the second straight month in June, indicating a trend that some defense officials on Monday called worrying.
  The Army will announce the monthly data on Tuesday. Army spokesmen would not discuss the specific figures.
  But some defense officials said the Army significantly missed its June goal of 8,400 recruits. One official placed the shortfall at about 15 percent, a major gap for a typically strong month when recruiters normally find more willing young people fresh from high school graduation."
  
  source
  
  
  D6, I think the army needs you :)

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 10, 2007....

  That's why I got out of the Military.  No hard feelings about the war, no lack of love for my fellow soldiers, no fear of dying (unless boredom can kill) but spending more time deployed than home is bullshit.
   
  I strongly believe this bill needs to pass and will probably blog on it shortly.    I think that this is rather a scary situation that we can't handle two barely wars.  If a real threat were to present itself it seems we are woefully unprepared.
   
  That said I'm afraid they might start to recall people prior to withdrawing.

• bloc said on Jul 10, 2007....

  I think your comment got cut off :(
  
  
  
  
  "I think that this is rather a scary situation that we can't handle two barely wars. If a real threat were to present itself it seems we are woefully unprepared."
  
  
  This is an interesting topic. Iraq isn't a war, it's an occupation. I'm very confident in our ability to destroy a country. I.e. I'm fully confident in our ability to protect our country from attacks by other nation states. I'm not confident in our ability to keep a lid on ethnic hatred in a distant land that has existed for ages.

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 10, 2007....

  I think if our objective was to destroy a nation (which I doubt will happen , really ever again) that we are more than capable.  Thing is even in Japan and Germany we had to maintain the peace afterwards.  Occupation is part of many wars though you are right that Iraq isn't a war. 
   
  Actually for once I didn't get cut off.  I'm still on the IRR and so are many other people, I'm starting a new bussiness.  It's not like many other people where if they get called up they would be able to sue for their job back, I can't.  The opportunity may or may not be here in a year when I'd get back.  Is it selfish to put my bussiness ahead of the freedom and stability of some foreigners?  Yeah, do I care?  Not really.  I don't want to go back.  There have already been recalls and it wouldn't suprise me if there are more before this is over.
   
  That said the US is a lot bigger than Iraq, if we can't handle an insurgency there it's difficult to believe that with our pourus borders that we could protect ourselves.

• bloc said on Jul 10, 2007....

  "Thing is even in Japan and Germany we had to maintain the peace afterwards. Occupation is part of many wars though you are right that Iraq isn't a war. "
  
  True, but it's far different from the middle east. They didn't have bitter ethnic conflicts within their country, and we weren't seen as christian occupiers of muslim land.

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 10, 2007....

  No we weren't.  This thing in the Middle East is rather unique as far as how it occured and is occuring and one thing that is rather obvious is that the old/standard ways of tackling problems aren't working here.

• Zayda said on Jul 10, 2007....

  @silver--senator webb is a marine. he also served as secretary of the navy. in fact, he was the first naval academy graduate in history to serve in the military and then become secretary of the navy.   webb also currently has a son serving in the marines who is currently in iraq,  i believe.  or his son was serving at the time of his election
  
  
  @bloc--while the army did report that they did not meet their recruiting goals for june, which is one of their big months given all the high school graduations, USA Today July 5th edition) did report that the national guard passed its goal for recruiting, and  through may of 2007. in fact, the national guard has reached it's highest level of troops since november of 2001. the guard is pinning its success on a new recruitment program that offers bonuses to recruits who sign up as well as bonuses to members for every recruit the get to sign up and who makes it to boot camp.
  
  however, our troops are still stretched thin with deployments in iraq stretched to 18 months.  and even with the increased numbers in the national guard, if some major disaster, such as a series of destructive tornadoes or another hurricane on the scale of katrina, were to occur in the US, we would seem to be hard pressed to be able to marshal enough national guard to respond as many of them are being sent to iraq as well.
  

• bloc said on Jul 10, 2007....

  @zayda
  nice seeing you around these parts of the woods. One of my close friends (we were in the army together) and my uncle are in the guard. Both of their units have been to Iraq for 1 tour. This is amazingly difficult for Guard soldiers who have civilian jobs and lives. Fortunately my uncle works for the government outside of the guard so his job was held for him. Oddly he retired from that job recently, but not the guard :/ He wants to make one more rank before he retires. I told him that he's crazy. I'm not making a point, just rambling :)
  
  
  I've read numerous reports that we can't sustain our troop levels after march of next year. 
  
  
  Another thing no one talks about. We will have to pay to take care of all these wounded soldiers far into the future, and I highly doubt we'll take care of them adequately. So sad.

• bloc said on Jul 10, 2007....

  Here's a tid bit I just ran across.
  
  
  A reader sends in an email from his nephew in Iraq: "Yup, still in Baghdad. I fuckin' hate this sweaty, shit-hole country. At least i got satellite internet hooked up now. About 18 of us chipped in and bought - yeah we frickin' bought a satellite dish about 5 foot in diameter - stored it in one of the cans we live in until the English-speaking towel-head connected everyone's cable. So life is pretty peachy for Iraq. As for Julie, we met at Ft. Rich. She was supposed to greet and welcome the unit that was returning to Ft. Rich. except they got extended 3 months during the flight back home. Yeah, I fuckin' know. They literally turned the plane around and dropped them off back in Kuwait. Good thing they take all yur ammo away when it's time for the flight home. Shit, maybe that's the reason why, cuz id shoot myself too ... you know, just in the leg or something so i could go home for good. I'll just claim it was an accidental discharge (a.d.). All I'd get is an article 15, and right now that doesn't look like that bad of a trade. Good to hear from you. Take it easy." source
  
  
  When I was in Bosnia we were told it would last until we finished the mission we were on. (it was a special mission, not a normal deployment). When we finished they didn't send us home, but stuck us in a different unit that had another 5 months on their tour. It's very hard to be jerked around that way, but we were the exception back then. It seems to be the norm today. 

• bewaresmoothtalkers said on Jul 10, 2007....

  Bloc.....A couple of questions for you or any of the other bloggers. Why do we keep active duty troops in Germany, japan, South Korea, Kuwait & any number of smaller countries? Do you know how many active duty troops are stationed here in the U.S. Thats not including any of the reservist
   
  My question to any of you that are for rotation of fighting troops, do any of you have any idea what it's like to be in a situtation where people are trying to kill you every day? When we landed in Vietnam, we knew we only had to survive for 12 months & we were done,(that's if we were not career military). You are talking about bringing a soldier home after his or her tour-(how ever long it is!) Letting them stay home for an equal amount of time, then sending them back into harms way. How F.....ing stupid can you get! Do you think a professional ball player can jump right back into their game after having time off? The big difference is the combat soldier can end up dead, where the athlete may only lose their starting position. You can send all the support troops you want back & forth but if your going to pull combat troops off the line for anything more then R&R you might as well pull the troops out all together. Sorry if I sound a little harsh but I saw what that kind of thinking did to our troops in Vietnam.  BST

• bloc said on Jul 10, 2007....

  I was stationed in Germany the entire time I was in the army (not counting training). We actually have troops in something like 250 countries!!! I'm not exaggerating. The reason we do it is that we are an empire. I don't believe we should be an empire, but our leaders feel differently. 
  
  
  I'm not sure on the number you asked for. I did a quick search and didn't find anything. I can say for sure that we've significantly reduced the number in germany and japan since the early 90's. The Bush admin's plan was to move troops form germany/japan to bases in the middle east. I'm not sure what they've done in this regard, but it was a plan they made public a while back.

• Zayda said on Jul 10, 2007....

  @bloc--it's okay if you just ramble occassionally, rather than always making a point. :) it's nice to be back around these parts. i was away on a mini-vacation for a bit. and this particular blog caught my eye since i've been following jim webb's career for awhile.

• bloc said on Jul 10, 2007....

  I'm from VA so webb stays on my radar as well :)

• silverwhisper said on Jul 10, 2007....

  BST: um...germany is IIRC the HQ for american military operatios in europe, and with the way north korea's always been, the troops at the korean DMZ are pretty significant.
  
  ed

• husbandhater said on Jul 10, 2007....

  Supporting our soilders means exactly what it says. Sending all of our love to them. Letting them know that they are important not our idiotic president who would benefit greatly from hooked on phonics!

• D6fer said on Jul 10, 2007....

  me join?....you must really want to lose this war! ;p

  This is nothing new....my dad was in the navy during WWII.....they told them that they would be gone for 6 mos.....turned out to be 18

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 11, 2007....

  Once again BST proves that once you've got Jesus logic leaves the building.
   
  This wouldn't be leave time, it wouldn't be vacation it would be time for the troops to be stateside.  They would still be training, they wouldn't be sitting at home getting fact.  Even if they were the vast majority of military jobs are support jobs.  I can't imagine being too fat to do my job. 
   
  What is your point about Nam anyway, are you claiming that since we didn't keep the same troops in Nam the entire time that we some how did those troops a diservice.

• bloc said on Jul 11, 2007....

  did you dad do 3 tours of 18 months? I don't think so. It is something new!

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 11, 2007....

  In all fairness bloc it's more like 3 tours of 9 months.  The very very few who spend a full year or more in Iraq want to. 

• bloc said on Jul 11, 2007....

  Maybe the marines are different, but I can assure you that the army is spending a full year. They aren't counting time in-processing either if it isn't in Iraq! At least they didn't when my uncle went and one of my friends.
  
  
  And I wasn't trying to imply that they are doing 18 months. I was asking d6 how many tours his dad did in ww2.

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 11, 2007....

  The army is doing longer treks. but what is their down time in between?  I know they aren't spending 3 straight years over there.
   

• bloc said on Jul 11, 2007....

  clearly it isn't equal to the amount of time they are spending in Iraq!

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 11, 2007....

  Oh doubtless I wasn't meaning to debate that.  And without a doubt they should be spending as much if not more time here as they spend over seas.  More than that the people who want to go should be allowed to go.

• bewaresmoothtalkers said on Jul 11, 2007....

  Sean.....I see I didn't get my point across like I wanted. Maybe todays soldiers have training that is exactly like the real combat but when I was in, it didn't even began to resemble the "real thing". What does fat have to do with being in harms way every day. An athlete has hand & eye cordination that is lessened when they don't stay in shape, the soldier takes some time to get back to the level he was at before he is taken off the front line. If it's not R&R, then it is considered a new duty assignment-(rotation). That's a whole different ball of wax. When did a clerk, mechanic, or cook become combat soldiers ? these people can rotate with anyone with the same MOS & not effect the combat readiness of the unit.

  You lost me with that remark about Jesus & logic leaves the building?   

• bloc said on Jul 11, 2007....

  @bst
  are you suggesting that we keep them in combat tours non stop except for short breaks of R&R?

• bewaresmoothtalkers said on Jul 11, 2007....

  SW.....when I passed thru Korea, there was the 2nd Inf Div -( 12,000 men) located within about 12 miles of the DMZ, located at camp Casey. I see the 2nd Inf patch on soldiers in Iraq now, I just wonder who is holding down the fort up there now? The South Koreans have at least 2 Divisions that are as good as any of ours & they should be the ones defending their own country & we should be doing what the people in congress want us to do in Iraq. Act as a back-up to them. We should beable to pull out the majority of our ground forces & station them somewhere else. BST

• silverwhisper said on Jul 11, 2007....

  except that the risk is that the north koreans will throw thousands of bodies that would overwhelm. we know they're equipment isn't up to snuff, given that they have citizens starving what they have probably isn't maintained very well...perhaps that's the real reason kim is pursuing nukes the way he is?
  
  ed

• bewaresmoothtalkers said on Jul 11, 2007....

  Bloc....What I'm saying is; finish what they started this time-(surge), then pull the combat troops out of the hostile areas. Then if they can't get the Iraqi's to do the combat, then do what the anti-war crowd wants & pull out of Iraq & let the chips fall where they might ! I think it's ashame when the U.S trys to do something good & our own people are the first to denounce our actions as something evil or bad.

  Was there a defined tour-(time frame) for our troops during the Korean conflict? I don't know, Vietnam was 12 months. World War II was for the duration, meaning until we won. We don't need ground forces in either Germany or Korea. I think we should give the peace activist a chance to prove their way is the right way. Stay-out of all conflicts around the world & only worry about ourselves for a change. The middle east will work it's self out, & the moderate Moslems will be incharge. We can let Iran & Syria work-out a middle east peace deal with Isreal & everybody over there will love us again. Boy won't that be great ! 

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 11, 2007....

  That's what it sounds like he's saying.
   
  Athletes (pro wrestlers aside) get an off season, they don't get worse at their game it prevents them from breaking down.  Of course training isn't exactly like real combat, though to be fair you don't learn alot in real combat (unless your a combat unit) the rest of us know what we know and those who know more get overworked and the rest don't get any better because that isn't the time to be trying to figure out how to snap in a rocket or how to test a Mark 3. 
   
  That's not the time to get your HummV license, that's not the time to become certified on this that or the other.  You end up being a spare wheel who is mostly useless.
   
  If being out of shape isn't your point the rest of it is wrong.  Being taught new tactics, the proper workings of new equipment, not to mention the other things I mentioned would mean that he doesn't take time to get back to the level he was at before being taken off the "front line" (which the majority of troops aren't on) he actually returns better than when he left.

• bloc said on Jul 11, 2007....

  I could agree to that. It's such a bad situation. One of hte problems with having hte Iraqi's do the combat is that they are killing each other. Would we simply be arming and training them to more efficiently kill other Iraqi's not from their ethnic group?

• bewaresmoothtalkers said on Jul 11, 2007....

  Sean......Your right about new equiptment, back in my time we tested new equiptment in the field, Like the Law, if it got a dent in the tube before you fired it, it blew up in your face. The M16 would jamb easily if you got shit in it or you got a stovepipe, you had to break it down. we also learned not to put 20 rounds in the mag, the damn springs were too weak. There were other things but you get the point.

  Back to the main issue, Webb is proposing to give a soldier  the same amount of time out of the region as what he served in the region. If it is nine months, 12 months or 18 months, your are talking about being away from his unit, unless the unit is pulled as a whole, in which case you need another unit to replace it. If your talking about individuals where are you going to reasign them, are they going to beable to go where their families are, or will they have to go to a base where they are training people for combat. The army has post that train & post that have units stationed at them. Example: If your in the 82nd air borne, then your stationed at Ft. Bragg, 101st your stationed at Ft. Campbell, & if your with the 1st Cav, then your home is Ft. Hood. Does that mean that's where you'll go for your (dwn time), what ever want to call it or will you have to go to some other post while your back in the states or for that matter, what says you'll even get back to the states?

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 11, 2007....

  Try an M16 filled with sand.
   
  You may have field tested some of the things, but there is more to the military than grunts.  I know you grunts have no respect for us POG's but we exist and we matter.  They didn't test the Black Hawk in the field, they didn't give I highly doubt that the first people working with the radios were thrown a pack with some instructions on it. 
   
  Granted the amount of technology on the field has grown exponentially since "your" day.  But honestly you weren't a fucking Viking, the equipment you were using you were trained on before you went to war for the most part. 
   
   

• bewaresmoothtalkers said on Jul 12, 2007....

  Sean....lighten-up, that tit-bit about learning in the field was only to give you some comparision. Listen we have people in colleges that are working on future equiptment that will make the stuff of today look like the proverbal horse & buggy. What I meant is the equiptment is only as good as the final test makes it, which is under actual combat conditions. Remember!! the best part about being a grunt is being an X- grunt & able to tell about it. If a new piece of equiptment fails in the field, there's a chance a soldier is going to die, if the equiptment fails during test then it's back to the drawing board.

  It takes a hell of alot of people to support combat troops, just a note, during max build-up in Vietnam-(156,000 troops) the actual number of troops in combat was between 6,000 & 12,000. I'm speaking of ground troops that were in contact with the enemy.

  Back to the issue at hand; Why would you include a support person in a short rotation in Iraq, if that person is not in daily danger? 1st: if Iraq is considered a hardship tour, then the tour is less then that of a stateside or European tour & that person can be replaced by a person with the same MOS. Korea use to be a Hardship tour-( 13 months) & Vietnam was 12 months. What I'm saying is for all support personnel, they should not need special consideration like Webb is calling for. Iraq is no different then it was in Vietnam when it comes to support peronnel. They should have a fixed tour & then be rotated just like Korea or Vietnam.

  Wheither you know it or not, there were & are soldiers that extend their tours or re-enlist to stay in country. They did it in Vietnam & my understanding is they're doing in Iraq. May I point out that Bloc showed a letter of a young man that was aganist being in Iraq & would even shoot himself if he had to go back! Why didn't he mention the number of stories about soldiers that were wounded & still wanted to go back to Iraq. He always talks about fair reporting or showing both sides of a story. There are alot of americans that believe we are helping in Iraq & don't want to just pick-up & leave. BST

  P.S. Question: what percentage of all american military is combat ready? 

   

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 12, 2007....

  I know there are people who volunteer.  I volunteered several times to stay longer than I needed to.  We need to have a standard rotation, our soldiers commiting suicide en masse is not cool but that's what happens when they don't get to relax and get out from that pressure.  Bullets or no bullets there is still a certain mental strain that is coupled with being in theatre.  Spending as much time in this country as you do over seas shouldn't be a special consideration, it should just be normal.
   
  I know it takes a lot of support, I was support.

• bloc said on Jul 12, 2007....

  "May I point out that Bloc showed a letter of a young man that was aganist being in Iraq & would even shoot himself if he had to go back! Why didn't he mention the number of stories about soldiers that were wounded & still wanted to go back to Iraq."
  
  Him not wanting to go back wasn't the part of the story that interested me. His tail of soldiers on a plane, to come home, getting turned around and sent back to Iraq was the part that I was thinking about.
  
  
  You apparently don't read me closely. I don't talk about fair reporting. I talk about integrity. There is a difference. 

• bewaresmoothtalkers said on Jul 12, 2007....

  Sean.... I know Marines don't have the same setup as the army, Once a tour of duty is done, then the soldier can request his or her next duty assignment but that doesn't mean they'll get what they want. If there is an opening at the post you want & it is the same rank or higher & the same Mos & no one else with better connections wants it then you may get it. Most hardship tours are followed by a standard tour. These tours have varying lengths. I can't speak about the marines, even though my little brother was a jarhead & he spent 12 years in the corp.

  What I would like to read is how a combat platoon or a supply unit functions in Iraq. I know how we did it in Vietnam, I just wonder how much different it is in Iraq? Your the first person I heard mention anything about mass sucides. How is the drug problem over there?

   

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 12, 2007....

  Going to Iraq isn't consider a tour, it's a deployment.  If you say get stationed in Japan you get to pick your next station.  Whenever you switch you get the votes that you are talking about here.  Iraq is something where you and your unit/station go, and then you come back. 

• bewaresmoothtalkers said on Jul 12, 2007....

  Bloc.....the soldier's letter home sounded pretty bitter & based on his tone, I think he would believe anything he was told that was negative about Iraq. When I was in I heard all kinds of BS from guys that heard it from guys who got it from a reliable source. To me you were just using it to show another negative side to the conflict. BST

• bloc said on Jul 13, 2007....

  interesting how there is always some underlying problem when it's something you disagree with. To me you are just trying to minimize the disaster that is Iraq.

• D6fer said on Jul 14, 2007....

  You're right bloc....Iraq is a disaster....made worse by the modern day John Kerry's and Jane Fonda's of our country.....the useful idiots if you will.....had this country supported this effort with the vigor that was prevalent during WWII...it would be over....and we would be celebrating success.....you and the rest of your liberal friends were never behind this....you have owned defeat from day one!
   
  Might as well pull out....we cant win in this political climate....cant win.

• bloc said on Jul 15, 2007....

  How did my blog affect the outcome in Iraq? How did other peoples opinions affect the outcome of a fight in Iraq? This makes no sense. The tribal groups in Iraq that are killing each other wouldn't have decided not to if I'd kept my mouth shut. 
  
  
  Can you seriously give an explanation for that claim of yours? 

• bewaresmoothtalkers said on Jul 15, 2007....

  Bloc...... How come when someone wants to keep the arguement simple, you say everything is not Black & White. Yet; here your telling me if I look at your point & dig below the surface then I'm trying to cloud the issue. You argue your point as if it was the only side of an issue & that makes it right. Most of your sources that I've read approach the issues from the liberal side. That O'Reilly piece you used, I haven't been able to find the actual transript but I did read your source then I checked on the woman in the piece. She doesn't work for the Globe & Mail paper anymore nor the Toronto Sun & She is so far left she is almost off the charts. That doesn't mean your wrong or what was said is not the way you said it but I would like to read the actual interview myself. BST

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 15, 2007....

  We know the following things to be true.  The American Public wants out of Iraq, which directly effects Congress trying to get us out of Iraq to such an extreme that they pretty much played Chicken with the President wagering the lives of our soldiers.  We know that recruitment numbers (and reenlistment numbers) are down.  We know that we hear about every single time that somebody dies over there, and very little of the good.  I understand that it is difficult to prove a negative blah  blah blah thus making it difficult to speak on the days that nobody dies. 
   
  We haven't heard about schools or phone lines or anything else positive.  We get bashed over the head, not only with how horrible it is over there but also with what horrible human beings we are.  We torture, we hold without charging, we're racist, we want oil, we bully the world take your pick. 
   
  We are our own worst enemy, if we weren't bad mouthing ourselves then things MIGHT be different.  It wasn't the English, the Russians, the Iraqis or the Insurgents that found out about G-Bay or whatever the facility was over there.  It was us and not only did we find it but instead of dealing with it "in house" we broadcast it to the entire world. 
   
  As you've said (and I agree) people are more willing to surrender when they believe they will be treated fairly and well.  While ideally what you tell the world and reality are the same thing, what you tell the world should NEVER be negative.  If for some reason you are forced to come clean, you start making examples hard and fast, whatever it takes to prove to everybody that this was an isolated incident and that the situation is taken VERY seriously. 
   

• bewaresmoothtalkers said on Jul 15, 2007....

  Sean......I agree with what your saying but I fear the american public is not given the whole picture. The Anti-war crowd, which includes those that are aganist the Afghanstain war make sure the public gets a daily dose of anything bad. When was the last time you can remember that a picture of a power plant, new school or american soldiers helping repair a building makes it on the front page of any of the major News Papers. What should be on the front page of ever newspaper in this country is a great big question mark & under it should be the following question.

  What will be the new plan to fight Terrorism around the world, We will have plainly shown the rest of the world we can't be depended on to stick by our friends, even if we have the greatest military in the world. BST

Comment on "What does it mean to support the troops?"

Currently tagged	iraq war army senator web bill politics jim webb webb national guard hookedonPhoincs sent them bush Democrats (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment