Webb fighting back for his "dwell time" amendment

By: Rob
Published On: 9/19/2007 3:40:00 PM



Comments



I'm proud (Ingrid - 9/19/2007 4:12:45 PM)
to be his constituent.


Me too :-) (Susan Mariner - 9/19/2007 4:37:45 PM)
Senator Webb has been working hard and smart to realize the goals he spelled out in the campaign.  He won't back down.


God she's awful (mkfox - 9/19/2007 5:09:01 PM)
Deary, you ask a question and your interviewee responds; rinse, rather, repeat

But good for Webb! I'm so tired of whiny GOPs who refuse to do anything to counter Bush on the war because he's commander-in-chief (so I guess the military is his toy?). Congress has more responsibility to conduct the business of the nation than the White House, it's only harder because there's 535 of them. Congress has been with us since before independence was declared, the presidency was an afterthought ;)



Truly an awful interviewer (Lowell - 9/19/2007 5:11:17 PM)
How do people like this get hired?  TV is a joke.


She is an imbecile! (Ken C. - 9/19/2007 5:44:05 PM)
I listened to this interview while driving this morning and became so nauseas that I almost had to pull over to vomit!  Her interviews should be restricted to discussions with children under the age of 7 and various companion animals.


Wouldn't that constitute child abuse and (Lowell - 9/19/2007 5:44:54 PM)
cruelty to animals?  *snark*


Eye Candy and a Motor Mouth (Tony Mastalski - 9/19/2007 8:10:56 PM)
My God .... the interviewer would have better served her career by letting Webb speak ... then she would have looked brilliant ... instead we get "gotcha" journalism in a cocktail dress.

Jim Webb is authentic. You know where he stands and he makes thoughtful decent arguments that resonate. His perception of the Neo Con policy ... forecasted 5 years ago rings so true today.... and it's rather chilling.

Republicans have a serious house cleaning to perform and it will take many years I think. People cut from Ron Paul's cloth ... fiscal conservatives and libertarians will find it a gauling thing to remain under the Republican tent (ask Senator Chaffee).

Of course I doubt the Democratic Party has really figured how to attract and keep some of these independent minded people. Let's hope the next Presidential candidate does figure it out ... and can form a "New Consensus" from which to govern.



Well This Is One Reason (norman swingvoter - 9/19/2007 9:06:14 PM)
She used to be on fox news and I guess that CNN was hoping for a few viewers to follow her over.  One thing she can do well is paint easter eggs using old world techniques.  She did some one year, no yoke.


BODY SLAM!!! (The Grey Havens - 9/19/2007 5:10:31 PM)
McCain, down for the count!!!


Great Job, Sen. Webb (MikeF - 9/19/2007 5:11:35 PM)
Keep up the pressure.  The GOP keeps talking about supporting our troops.  But, when push comes to shove, they abdicate their responsibilities to the military.  They want to fight a prolonged war without giving the troops the required rest. Soon the military will not be able to get volunteers and the pressure will be on to institute a draft.  Sen. Webb is simply doing what the GOP talks about and that is "support the troops."

Thank you, Sen. Webb.  You are making us all proud.



Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution (Steve Nelson - 9/19/2007 5:15:21 PM)
Here are pertinent sections of the constitution that gives Congress the authority to pass this bill.

Article 1 Section 8:

"To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;"

"To provide and maintain a navy;"

"To raise and support armies"

http://www.law.corne...



That's about as clear as you can get. (Lowell - 9/19/2007 5:23:59 PM)
What part of "make rules" don't Republicans understand?


COMMENT HIDDEN (cominius - 9/19/2007 5:28:07 PM)


please (Sui Juris - 9/19/2007 5:49:58 PM)
show me the part of the constitution where Art. I, Sec. 8 powers are limited to amending the UCMJ.  Go on.  We'll wait.



I like your response better (Ron1 - 9/19/2007 5:52:15 PM)
Succinct and sarcastic, as is deserved.


So, what you're saying is that (Ron1 - 9/19/2007 5:51:28 PM)
The passage of the UCMJ by a previous Congress TRUMPS the ability of the current Congress to amend or alter that language or add other language because Webb's amendment does not amend the UCMJ, even though it's the SAME CLAUSES IN ARTICLE I SECTION 8 THAT GIVE/GAVE CONGRESS THE POWER TO PASS THE UCMJ IN THE FIRST PLACE ?!?

Congress may employ whatever means it deems necessary to alter deployment regulations. There is perhaps no area, other than the power of the purse, where Congress is given more deference than in making the rules and regulations for government, including the land and naval forces. Especially since war has actually not been declared, by what prohibition within the Constitution is this amendment not constitutional?



Gee, I must have missed that lecture in law school! (Ken C. - 9/19/2007 6:04:49 PM)
Care to cite any case law to back up your assertion that Webb's amendment is an unconstitutional infringement on the executive.  Last time I checked the UCMJ dealt with matters such as courts-martial jurisdiction and procedure. Please enlighten us.


Webb floor remarks (Lowell - 9/19/2007 6:41:27 PM)
FLOOR REMARKS OF SENATOR JIM WEBB ON BIPARTISAN, PRO-TROOP AMENDMENT

I rise today to offer, along with Senator Hagel as the lead Republican co-sponsor and 35 of my colleagues, a bipartisan amendment that speaks directly to the welfare of our service members and their families. I have just learned from Senator McCain's comments that Senator Warner will be offering a side-by-side amendment that goes to the sense of the Congress rather than the will of the Congress. I would like to state emphatically at the outset that this is a situation that calls for the will of Congress. It calls for the Congress to step in and act as, if nothing else, an intermediary in a situation that is causing our men and women in uniform a great deal of stress and which again calls for us in the Congress to do something about this.

We have been occupying Iraq for more than four years - more than four and a half years. During that time, it's sensible to assume that our policies could move toward operational strategies that take into account the number of troops that are available rather than simply moving from one option to another, one so-called strategy to another and continually going to the well and asking our troops to carry out these policies. This amendment would provide a safety net to our men and women in uniform by providing a minimum and more predictable time for them to rest and retrain before again deploying.

If you're a member of the regular military, this amendment basically says that as long as you have been gone, you deserve to have that much time at home. This is a one-to-one ratio that we're trying to push. Many of our units and our individuals are below that when the Department of Defense's stated goal and restated goal of the Commandant of the Marine Corps not long ago was to move back to 2-1. In other words, our troops right now are being deployed in environments, many of them, where they are spending more time in Iraq than they're spending at home, when traditionally, they should have twice as much time here in their home environments to refurbish their units, retrain, get to know their families and then continue to serve their country. For the Guard and Reserve, we have a provision in here that would require that no member or unit be deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan within three years of a previous deployment.

I would like to emphasize that this amendment is within the Constitution. There have been a number of members, including the Senator from Arizona, who have stated publicly that this is blatantly unconstitutional. It is well within the Constitution and I read from Article 1, Section 8, that "the Congress has the power to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces." This constitutional authority has been employed many times in the past, most significantly during the Korean War when the Administration in charge at the time was sending soldiers to Korea before they had been adequately trained. The Congress stepped in under that provision of Article 1, Section 8, and mandated that no one be deployed overseas until they had had at least 120 days of training. We are doing essentially the same thing in terms of a protective measure for the troops of our military but on the other end. We're saying as long as you have been deployed, you deserve to have that much time at home.

This amendment is responsible. It's been drafted with great care. We have put waivers that would apply to unusual circumstances into the amendment. The President can waive the limitations of this amendment in the event of an operational emergency posing a threat to vital national security interests. People who want to go back can go back. It does not stop anyone from volunteering to return if they want to waive this provision.

I have spoken with Secretary Gates - spoke with him at some length last week. I listened to his concerns. We put in two additional provisions in this amendment to react to the concerns that the Secretary of Defense raised. The first is a 120-day enactment period which is different from the way this amendment was introduced in July. In other words, the Department of Defense would have 120 days from the passage of this legislation in order to make appropriate plans and adjust the provisions. I also have a provision in this bill that would exempt the special operations units from the requirements of the amendment. The special operations units are highly selective.  Their operational tempos are unpredictable and we believe that it is appropriate that they be exempted.

This amendment is not only constitutional, not only responsible, but it is needed. It is needed in a way that transcends the politics. After four and a half years in the environment in Iraq, it's time that we put into place operational policies that sensibly take care of the people we are calling upon to go again and again. That is one reason why the Military Officers Association of America took the unusual step to actually endorse this amendment. The Military Officers Association of America is not like the Veterans of Foreign Wars, they're not like the American Legion. They rarely step into the middle of political issues. But this organization, which comprises 368,000 members, military officers, took the step of sending a letter of endorsement for this amendment, calling upon us in the Congress to become better stewards of the men and women who are serving. It is beyond politics in another way. We are asking our men and women in uniform to bear a disproportionate sacrifice as the result of this occupation.

Mr. President, this is this week's "Army Times." The cover story in the "Army Times" this week talks about brigade redeployments - who's gone the most, who's gone the least, who's going next. At least eight of the Army's 44 active brigade combat teams have deployed three or more times already, and these are year or 15-month deployments.  Another six, including three from the 101st Airborne Division, leave this month for round three or four.  There is one brigade in the 10th Mountain Division which is now nearing the end of its 15-month deployment to Baghdad that is on its fourth deployment. When these soldiers return in November, they will have served 40 months overseas since December 2001.

That is about two-thirds of the time that we have been engaged since December 2001. This amendment is needed for another reason, and that is that it's become clear since the testimony of General Petreaus and Ambassador Crocker that the debate on our numbers in Iraq and our policy in Iraq is going to continue for sometime. We have divisions here in the Senate, we have divisions between the Administration and the Congress. We're trying to find a formula, the right kind of a formula that can undo what I and many others believe was a grave strategic error in going into Iraq in the first place. But we have to have this debate sensibly. In the meantime, because this debate is going to continue for sometime, we need to put a safety net under our troops who are being called upon to go to Iraq and Afghanistan.

I noted with some irony on Monday, as I was presiding, when the Republican leader expressed his view that it would not be an unnatural occurrence for us to be in Iraq for the next 50 years. This comparison to Korea and Western Europe is being made again and again and again. I go back to five years ago this month when I wrote an editorial for "The Washington Post" six months before we invaded Iraq, and one of the comments that I made in this editorial, five years ago, was that there is no end point, there is no withdrawal plan from the people who have brought us to this war because they don't intend to withdraw. I said that five years ago. It's rather stunning to hear that ratified openly now by people in the Administration and by others who have supported this endeavor. We need to engage in that debate. We need to come to some sort of agreement about what our posture is going to be in the Middle East  and as we have that debate, it's vitally important that we look after the well-being of the men and women who are being called upon again and again to serve.

I would point out that we are seeing a number of predictable results from these constant deployments. We're seeing falling retention among experienced combat veterans, we're seeing Soldiers or Marines either retained beyond their enlistment or being called after their enlistments are over and being sent to Iraq or Afghanistan. We're seeing statistics on increased difficulties on marital situations and mental health issues.

There was a quote in this week's "Army Times" by one Army division Sergeant Major who was saying after the second deployment, "It's hard to retain our soldiers. They've missed all the first steps, they've missed all the birthdays, they've missed all the anniversaries." I've seen that again and again with people that I've known throughout their young lifetimes. One young man who is a close friend of my son just returned with an Army unit back for his second tour in Iraq and one of his comments at his going away party was that 15-month deployments mean two Thanksgivings, two Christmases, two birthdays.

So what we're trying to do with this amendment is to bring a sense of responsibility among the leadership of our country in terms of how we are using our people. It's an attempt to move beyond politics as the politics of the situation are sorted out. It is constitutional, it is responsible, it has been drafted with care, it is needed beyond politics. I hope those in this body will step forward and support it to the point that it can become law. I note that my colleague, the Senator from Nebraska, has arrived, my principal cosponsor for whom I have great regard. He and I have worked on many issues for over 30 years. I'm very grateful to be standing with him today, and I would yield back my time and hope that the Senator from Nebraska could be recognized. Thank you.



it baffles me at times (JScott - 9/19/2007 9:48:47 PM)
It baffles me at times how we manage to get ourselves boxed in without even knowing it. We can't on the one hand tell everyone that this Bush's war and he is not listening to the guidance of the military and then when the very military establishment like the Joint Chiefs, Secretary Army Geren and civilian Secretary Gates, the latter two which the leadership approved/confirmed this year is unsupportive of the deployment amendment we shouldn't listen to them. We can't keep having things both ways. I commend Webbb for making the good fight and keeping his word but without military support the card were stacked against him. Furthermore, I still hope he is under consideration for VP on someone short list because this talk about Wesley Clark is yet another "box", we can't say that we need a politcial solution in Iraq and not a military one and then have people tout Clarks military experience/expertise because by our own admission we don't need military solutions but political leadership. It baffles me.


Must not have paid attention (vadem - 9/19/2007 10:49:54 PM)
To the commentary that Wes Clark has been saying for years-just like Jim Webb.  Clark's military expertise and experience are exactly what would keep us out of a military conflict unless it were the last, last, last resort.  He knows just how to keep us out and would provide leadership on all levels-not just military.  Clark is hardly "another box", and that doesn't even make sense.


Wes Clark would be an awesome Vice President (Lowell - 9/20/2007 6:24:55 AM)
or Secretary of State, or Secretary of Defense, or...well, you get the picture.  Also, Wes Clark would be a great running mate for the Democratic nominee, whoever she he they may be.  As a diehard Clarkie, I strongly look forward to General Clark serving with distinction in a Democratic administration.


Warner (connie - 9/19/2007 11:09:32 PM)
Lowell, do you have a link to Warner's remarks?  I watched it on C-Span and it was rambling, repetitive and not as articulate as one  would have expected.  Almost sad.  No independent judgment, just "this is  what they tell me"...despite repeated references to Webb's sterling credentials and what good friends they are.  Anyone who didn't see or read it should.


jim webb, our senator (bernie46 - 9/20/2007 11:02:27 PM)
sure she's awful. she worked for fox noise. i think she's young enough to serve in the military.