Tuesday, July 17, 2007

Troop Rest Plan Amendment

After studying Jim Webb's Troop Rest Plan amendment, a proposed law that would require troops an equal amount of rest time as to their most recent deployment, I've come to a conclusion about what I think about it.

It's a proposal that sure sounds good but when you really think about it, it's not. I oppose it on constitutional grounds. The congress only has the authority to fund or not fund a war. The President is Commander and Chief and determines how the war is fought. Having Congress trying to micro manage the war is a bad idea and unconstitutional. The Generals and President need to have complete flexibility to fight the war and send whatever troops they need to whenever they need to. They can't be hamstrung by rules and laws that prevent them from doing this.

Again, our troops have volunteered and went into this knowing the rules. They know full well they can be called up at any time to fight.

This amendment is purely a political tactic to claim Republicans don't care about the troops while Democrats do. To say it's not a a political tactic is to be intellectually dishonest.

I know I'll get called out on this and labeled a hypocrite again, which is the purpose of this amendment, but I'll take the arrows and will not shrink from what I know to be right.


  1. Colby Natale7/17/2007 1:17 PM

    I am going to follow you around until you start defending things, Mr. Liberal-never-defend-their-ideas.

    "To say it's not a a political tactic is to be intellectually dishonest."

    This is utter BS. Sure, it is political insofar as it requires the use of politicians and parliamentary procedure to attempt to codify it into law. Beyond that small element though, this is about families, something a 'social conservative' should care about. I agree servicemen sign up knowing they can go away for a while, but never to this degree or amount. Webb is just trying to pay these troops back for their contribution by giving them something they deserve; time home with loved ones.

    By suggesting that an attempt to reunite families is a political trick, you show what a jerk you can be Andy. Do you not care at all about what those wives (and husbands) and children are going through? Isn't it time they get paid back for the contribution of the soldiers in their families?

  2. Andy, I don't think you're a hypocrite (victim complex much?). I just think you're wrong.

    If a tool is worn and ineffective, you fix the tool or replace it. There is overwhelming evidence that extended tours and over-deployment is damaging the military and those who serve in it. Constitutionally speaking, the Congress has a right to step in and ensure by law, that all citizens are given appropriate representation, even those who serve in our volunteer armed forces.

    Since it has now become a legal battle (it seems someone is suing over their 5th deployment in 6 years) this has and will become an argument of just (civil) treatment under law. The Constitutional argument you offer is weak, and getting weaker by the day.

    Further, you claim to "support the troops", and yet willingly hand their lives piecemeal into what some of them are even claiming as the equivalence of slavery. That isn't hypocrisy. It's just wrong-headed.

  3. Did you actually read Andy’s post Colby? Of course everyone wants the troops come home and spend more time with their families. But Webb’s amendment is clearly unconstitutional; therefore introducing it is just a political ploy. By the way, the name calling isn't helping you cause.
    Wulgar, how is a constitutional argument weak? And how are the troops not being represents? It is the constitution not some guideline that can be bent at will.

  4. Ryan. many 'Constitutional' arguments are weak. That's why we have a Supreme Court (or is that Constitutional argument weak if we can claim they are "activist"?) The Webb amendment was to a Defense funding bill. "Don't break the tools we, as Congress, are paying for", that's all it said. There might be a Constitutional argument here, but it's hardly appropriate to claim "support for the troops" if one believes that they are the sole willful property of the President (Comedian in Chief) to use and expend. Right?

  5. I think it is unconstitutional you don’t….guess we will just have to wait and see what the supreme court says.

    In my opinion this argument is based on a belief that most of the troops don’t believe in their mission and the mean President is forcing them to stay. This lets you all feel justified in bending the constitution a bit to circumvent that bully of a President. You may have a different experience, but most of the troops I have heard from still believe they can win and feel leaving would be a disaster.

  6. I also know a couple of soldiers and a marine who have served or are serving in Iraq. They are all gung-ho and while they hate being away from their families, they believe in what they are doing and really dislike the "support" they get from the left. They absolutely do not want us to pull out and leave. They want us to win this war regardless of how long it takes.

    It occurred to me last night that and it expands on what Ryan said, the Left approaches their arguments from the "war is wrong" point of view which influences their entire position on what to do about it. The Right approaches our argument that the "war is necessary" and that, in turn, influences our positions.

    Colby how am I not defending my idea? I said it was unconstitutional and explained why I though it was. If I'm a jerk for thinking it's a political trick, than so be it, I'm a jerk.

  7. Colby Natale7/18/2007 8:44 AM

    Sorry Andy; I am used to getting responses a little sooner, thanks for the reply.

    I have to ask if you would ever draw a line. What if the same servicemen were forced to stay deployed in a foreign country for 10+ years, apart from family? 20+ Is there ever a point at which you would demand they be returned, or is it all just the price we pay to pursue military action?

  8. I see the point you are trying to make Colby, but remember service men (and women) are signed up for 4 year or less. They will never have to go 10 years unless they chose to.

    And all that is just a diversion from the topic of is it constitutional? If it isn’t then it is clearly a plot.

  9. Andy-- You’re getting the standard liberal dog and pony show. Don’t be drawn into it.

    Liberals don’t care about soldiers. In fact, they hate them. Liberals don’t care about America. In fact, they hate her. Why? Because liberals are losers one and all, and they want to live among other losers in a loser nation.

    So long as America is supreme, liberals will attack her openly or attempt to subvert her.

  10. As a very staunch conservative let me be the first to say most of us don't think that way. There maybe a very very small segment that fit that bill, but the vast majority of our liberal friends don't. We all want the same thing, we just have very different way of getting there.

  11. Colby,
    I don't think 10 or 20 years is reasonable and that it would ever happen. Who would join?

    Back in WWII, soldiers were deployed for several years in a row in Europe and didn't get to return home until the war was over.

    Now, they get to come home for a period of time before redeployment.

  12. Ryan-- You obviously do not know anything about liberals. And if you really were a “staunch conservative,” you would not have any “liberal friends.”

    I have noted all the words you have wasted here arguing with the brain-dead Wulfgar and the sodomite-enabler Natale. You will get nowhere with them. They have no credibility and are not even marginal members of society. The only way they even know that they exist is when people like you make the mistake of trying to rectify their confused and depraved thinking.

  13. Point taken. I just have a peacemaker streak in me that I can't shake.

  14. Ryan-- You obviously do not know anything about liberals. And if you really were a “staunch conservative,” you would not have any “liberal friends.”

    Point taken. I just have a peacemaker streak in me that I can't shake.

    So, you're going to allow yourself to be bullied by a self-important anonymous troll? Damn, Ryan. I though I was having a discussion with a man, not a mouse.

  15. That’s probably better than being smothered in bullshit by some anonymous troll with a ridiculous name like “Wulfgar.”

  16. Wulfgar- Grow up. We aren't on the playground.

  17. I'm sorry, Ryan. I gt confused when I saw you climb on the teeter-totter with a troll. Perhaps if you boys were playing in the sandbox ...

  18. I wonder if old Gen. Patton would have been for the troop rest amendment?


    Big Swede

  19. Big world you live in, huh E. Nathan? Finding hate is keeping you fueled? Quite an example... or spectacle. whatever.

  20. A deployed modern combat unit operates in three phases: 1 year to regroup from a deployment, to replace troops who are rotating out of the service and taking in their replacements, promoting the worthy, plus re-equipping and -supplying. A second year to train with that equipment. The third year is spent deployed. That was the plan anyway.

    Jim Webb knows the service better than you, or me, or any of the "had other priorities" crowd running our military forces now. He was at least trying to even out the strain to a point where we didn't break the individuals in those units. Too many sergeants and captains are giving up their careers. These are folks in their mid-20's to early 30's, have young families and want to be with them as much as possible.

    I grant you that the president has the responsibility to make those decisions. He's just not that good at the job. Face it, we either have to fire up the draft, or start planning for our eventual withdrawal. Personally I'm waiting for him to raise the age of enlistment to 51 so I can sign up.