Comments on: Bush Adminstration Endorses 12-Month Deployment Plan It Said It ‘Would Never Approve’

By: fletc3her

fletc3her — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 01:46:46 +0000

Well, golly, turns out the administration was wrong … again! Big surprise.

By: Freedom Rebel

Freedom Rebel — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 10:37:58 +0000

I 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.

By: Robt

Robt — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 06:41:04 +0000

I thought Bush listens to his Generals on the ground?

By: mdbyrne

mdbyrne — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 05:50:31 +0000

12 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.

By: Max-1

Max-1 — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 05:18:23 +0000

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?

By: impeachcheneythenbush

impeachcheneythenbush — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 22:29:17 +0000

If 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.

By: Tired of being lied to

Tired of being lied to — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 22:26:23 +0000

Mac 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.

By: Krazny

Krazny — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 21:46:07 +0000

How do you say ‘No other effing option’ in neoconese?

Mission Accomplished

By: RUCerious

RUCerious — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 21:15:39 +0000

How do you say ‘No other effing option’ in neoconese?

By: Gregor Samsa

Gregor Samsa — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 21:08:12 +0000

I 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.

By: pete

pete — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 21:06:08 +0000

Gee. 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?

By: mary

mary — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 21:04:31 +0000

One 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)

By: StratRat

StratRat — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 20:54:46 +0000

misshusseinmolly 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.

By: raynman

raynman — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 20:51:33 +0000

We 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…..

By: paleolib

paleolib — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 20:50:50 +0000

Don’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).

By: tombaker

tombaker — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 20:44:47 +0000

telling the truth = negative spin

lies that benefit R’s = positive spin

sure thing, kid.

By: BrianFL

BrianFL — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 20:44:37 +0000

Military 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.

By: Bilbo Hussein Baggins

Bilbo Hussein Baggins — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 20:43:15 +0000

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.

By: Marie

Marie — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 20:41:08 +0000

Webb’s bill was unacceptable; today Mullen’s proposal is acceptable = IOKIYAR
The 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.

By: Bilbo Hussein Baggins

Bilbo Hussein Baggins — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 20:39:49 +0000

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.