Bush Adminstration Endorses 12-Month Deployment Plan It Said It ‘Would Never Approve’
Bush Adminstration Endorses 12-Month Deployment Plan It Said It ‘Would Never Approve’
This week, the administration is expected to announce that it will shorten troop deployments from 15 months to 12 months beginning this summer, after Pentagon officials and military families vocalized the toll the tours are taking on troops.
Today, NPR reported that Joint Chairman Mike Mullen said he was “very public for many months that we need to get off 15 month deployments as fast as we can.” Mullen said the military is now close to the “red line”:
First of all, we don’t want to cross it, not exactly sure where it is. I don’t think we’re standing right in front of it, but I don’t think it out there at infinite either.
Listen here:
As part of the administration’s new plan, it has indicated it will give troops equal time at home and deployed, according to the AP:
A senior administration official said Friday that plans are to deploy soldiers for 12 months, then give them 12 months rest time at home. Exactly which units would be affected is not yet clear.
While the Pentagon’s announcement is a welcome development, last year, the administration was stubbornly opposed a similar plan set forth by Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA). Webb’s “dwell time” bill would have mandated that troops be given time to rest at home at least equal to the length of their deployments.
The administration went on a full scale assault against Webb’s bill, pressuring Sen. John Warner (R-VA) to vote against it. Warner teamed up with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) to introduce a toothless “sense of the Senate” resolution to kill Webb’s “will of the Senate” bill.
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates also smacked down Webb’s “well-intentioned idea,” recommending a presidential veto:
I think, if as I believe, the President would never approve such a bill. It would mean, if it were enacted, we would have force management problems that would be extremely difficult and in fact create, I think affect combat effectiveness, and perhaps pose greater risk to our troops.
As early as June 2007, Webb predicted that “15-month deployments will not be sustainable for long.” Nevertheless, the administration insisted then that “Congress should not etch into law deployment and dwell times.” Now, the Bush administration is doing the same, but only after pushing troops to the extreme.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
29 Responses to “Bush Adminstration Endorses 12-Month Deployment Plan It Said It ‘Would Never Approve’”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
12 months in Iraq, then 12 months in Afghanistan is more what they mean.
April 7th, 2008 at 4:28 pmThere is a difference. In the Webb bill, the dwell time would be mandated by law. In the new version, we simply get a promise from Dear Leader. At this point, everyone should know what a Dear Leader promise is worth.
April 7th, 2008 at 4:31 pmGood job putting a negtive spin on this story.
Flip, Master Flop!
Flip I say!
April 7th, 2008 at 4:34 pmLemme get this straight. When Webb suggests it, it’s a terrible idea. When Mullen suggests it, it’s necessary.
It doesn’t really matter — if the Republicans are so small-minded that they need the credit, fine. The important thing is that the troops need whatever little relief they can get.
The sad thing is that the administration is only doing this because the military is running on fumes. And this isn’t really going to buy them that much more time.
April 7th, 2008 at 4:34 pm2spellicaint: Hate Fox New??? “Negtive” spin…Hmm how about bush fighting against a 3.5% pay raise,or the new G.I. bill???
April 7th, 2008 at 4:36 pmJust another example of GDumbya’s management philosophy:
1. too much, too soon
2. too little, too late
April 7th, 2008 at 4:36 pm*
I A D T O I I N G !
If A Democrat Thinks Of It It’s No Good !
*
April 7th, 2008 at 4:37 pm(help! quick, somebody think of a good one)
I think, if as I believe, the President would never approve such a bill. It would mean, if it were enacted, we would have force management problems that would be extremely difficult and in fact create, I think affect combat effectiveness, and perhaps pose greater risk to our troops.
My how ironic. What they said would happen if we lowered our deployments to 12 months happened because we kept them at 15 months.
April 7th, 2008 at 4:39 pmWebb’s bill was unacceptable; today Mullen’s proposal is acceptable = IOKIYAR
April 7th, 2008 at 4:41 pmThe repugs band together to defeat any and all democratic ideas, bills and proposals, but in time, they adopt them and they become the repugs own ideas.
I am happy to see the troops getting this little bit of relief, of course, but Bush&Co have been deplorable in every aspect of this illegal and immoral war/occupation.
manicare Says:
Good job putting a negtive spin on this story. And you hate Fox New!!
How old do you think this one is? It posts like it’s 10.
I guess it thinks we should be eternally grateful to our fearless leader who has run the military into the ground until it has nothing left to give. And then, he decides to do what he should have done a long time ago because he has to.
April 7th, 2008 at 4:43 pmMilitary families continue to suffer because the chickenhawk cowards did not listen to a real military man (Webb) in the first place.
Once again, the clueless politicians make our soldiers suffer because they were more worried about politics than actually doing right by the troops.
April 7th, 2008 at 4:44 pmtelling the truth = negative spin
lies that benefit R’s = positive spin
sure thing, kid.
April 7th, 2008 at 4:44 pmThings change in war libs! Too bad!!
April 7th, 2008 at 4:50 pmDon’t get excited. Webb’s proposal involved legislation. What the administration announced is a “plan” i.e. is not enforceable as anything other than happy talk. Between the failure to fully demobilize the escalation in Iraq and the increase in U.S. forces anticipated by Gates in Afghanistan this “plan” works only if the number of combat troops increases. Good luck with that (until McNutzi reinstates the draft to staff the hundred year Iraq occupation).
April 7th, 2008 at 4:50 pmWe care for the troops, as long as we don’t have to pay for it, or our unreasonable and totally impossible goals don’t suffer…..
April 7th, 2008 at 4:51 pmmisshusseinmolly Says:
April 7th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Lemme get this straight. When Webb suggests it, it’s a terrible idea. When Mullen suggests it, it’s necessary.
The sad thing is that the administration is only doing this because the military is running on fumes. And this isn’t really going to buy them that much more time.
I would not attribute this change of course to Bush’s now remarkable ’support of the troops’. I don’t think the Bush administration cares one toss about any soldier or their families. They never have. More likely is that the message is starting to come out that the ’surge’ is unsustainable and the Bush administration wants to ‘appear’ caring for them. If they truly cared for the troops this whole time, they would have supported Webb’s bill from the onset. Give no props to the administration over this one.
April 7th, 2008 at 4:54 pmOne year ago:
‘WASHINGTON (CNN) — Tours of duty for members of the U.S. Army will be extended from 12 months to 15 months effective immediately, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced Wednesday.
“What we’re trying to do here is provide some long-term predictability to our soldiers and their families,” Gates told reporters at the Pentagon.’
http://www.cnn.com/ 2007/ US/ 04/ 11/ military.stay/ index.html
Oh, so “predictability” doesn’t matter to the soldiers and their families anymore?
Geez.
(snark off)
April 7th, 2008 at 5:04 pmGee. Do you think that the parade of, forcibly retired, generals are starting to get through to the powers that be? Or. Are they afraid the next protest will be a IED in their sock drawer?
April 7th, 2008 at 5:06 pmI understand this change of heart by the Bush administration as purely a matter of political timing.
In the past, the Bush administration has opposed many initiatives until they felt they could control the message (9/11 commission, Iraq elections, etc.) only to “change course” afterwards and claim credit for taking the initiative.
It is no different this time. It’s all about catapulting the propaganda, not about doing what is right for the average Joe.
April 7th, 2008 at 5:08 pmHow do you say ‘No other effing option’ in neoconese?
April 7th, 2008 at 5:15 pmHow do you say ‘No other effing option’ in neoconese?
Mission Accomplished
April 7th, 2008 at 5:46 pmSupport the troops! Keep them in Iraq forever!
April 7th, 2008 at 6:08 pmMac says 100 more years of this crap is OK and not a problem. Pentagon says 12 months overseas, and 12 months back home. Like that’s a fair deal.
So a career military person entering service now and heading for 30 years, would spend 15 years baking in the Iraqi sand. Or the Afghani mountains. Or, someplace new and exciting (can you sing ‘bomb, bomb, bomb - bomb, bomb Iran’)? Assuming he or she isn’t blown to bits by an IED somewhere along the way.
And if we are there for Mac’s 100 years, then that career military soldier’s child and grand child would face the same prospects.
Wow. Three generations of every-other year deployments. Now that’s a recruitment poster slogan if I ever heard one.
We’ve got to end this insanity and vote these idiots out. We can’t sustain this lunacy at any level - economically, physically, emotionally, or with our generations of human resources.
April 7th, 2008 at 6:26 pmIf this government tried to reinstitute the draft, while the Iraq occupation continues, they would face far worse than was ever seen during the Vietnam war. And it wouldn’t matter whether there was a “Republican” or “Democratic” face on that effort. It could well lead to a real revolution, including but not limited to civil disobedience. Remember Bush’s admonition to the U.S. to “go and shop” after 911? Reverse it for one week, with the stated intent to stop the draft and stop the occupation. Non-violent but effective. This country runs on one single engine - consumerism. It can be stopped to regain control over what has become a completely out of control foreign policy that hurts us in every single way.
April 7th, 2008 at 6:29 pm.
L E G A C Y!
It all comes down to
L E G A C Y!
How different is this “PLAN” than McSurge’s?
.
April 8th, 2008 at 1:18 am12 months at home minus 6 months in the field training to go back, away from your family, equals only 6 months AT home. Don’t be fooled by the numbers. Equal time off is not equal time off. As a person who suffers from PTSD and on my 2nd tour, I would say we need to go to 15-12 just to alleviate some of the burden. At that point we may be able to keep just enough people in to keep the army afloat.
April 8th, 2008 at 1:50 amI thought Bush listens to his Generals on the ground?
April 8th, 2008 at 2:41 amI think, if as I believe, the President would never approve such a bill.
Of Course, lets push the soldiers pass the breaking point. Great strategy. Let’s not consider battle fatigue.
Bush has got to be the stupidiest man on the planet.
April 8th, 2008 at 6:37 amWell, golly, turns out the administration was wrong … again! Big surprise.
April 8th, 2008 at 9:46 pm