Almost one year ago exactly, the first piece of legislation that I introduced after being elected was a bill to set a timetable for the responsible redeployment of our armed forces from Iraq. Today’s announcement at Camp LeJeune by President Obama describing – in his own words – how “our combat mission in Iraq will end,” was a welcome one.
As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I will be reviewing the President’s strategy to draw down our troops in a timely way while ensuring their safe return. And, I believe it is critical that we continue to work to engage the international community to ensure political stability in the region.
We have the finest military force in the world who have done everything that’s been asked of them and more. And, as President Obama acknowledged, the war in Iraq taught us painful lessons about the price we pay for sending our servicemen and women into harms way. We must never take that cost for granted. I look forward to working with the Administration as they move forward to implement this plan and I am interested in your thoughts about this announcement, particularly around the number of troops that President Obama has proposed we leave behind to train and advise Iraqi security forces, hunt down terrorist cells and protect American civilian and military personnel working in Iraq, as well as regarding the length of time he proposed it will take to redeploy.
(1) On the length of time proposed, I think it makes sense. Obama’s campaign proposal was 16 months, and moving it to 18 months does not seem problematic given that the draw-down of troops is major logistical operation.
<
p>(2) As far as the troop number (35,000-50,000), I must say that this seems high. I certainly hope we can ensure that Iraqi military forces take control of the security situation to a greater degree than the necessity of having up to 50,000 troops remaining would imply. We must have more emphasis on Afghanistan — the larger the force in Iraq, the more it detracts from the more important and more difficult mission in Afghanistan.
On Tuesday, the President said,”As we meet here tonight, our men and women in uniform stand watch abroad and more are readying to deploy. To each and every one of them, and to the families who bear the quiet burden of their absence, Americans are united in sending one message: we honor your service, we are inspired by your sacrifice, and you have our unyielding support. To relieve the strain on our forces, my budget increases the number of our soldiers and Marines. And to keep our sacred trust with those who serve, we will raise their pay, and give our veterans the expanded health care and benefits that they have earned.“
<
p>This one paragraph packs in many key points. Niki, I am hoping that you can collaborate with the First Lady, helping the DOD and VA learn how to better support the families of our servicemembers and veterans.
<
p>Also, the VA is ill prepared to deal the many women that have served in sustained combat operations. It would be a shame for America to look back, twenty years from now, and see that we dropped the ball.
<
p>Thank you for all that you do for our district.
<
p>
find a way to allow the spouses and children of LGBT soldiers to get the support too. LGBT soldiers and their families are forced to suffer in silence, a special double burden assigned only to them thanks to DADT. Can you imagine your spouse laying in some hospital, alone, struggling to overcome a head injury or other major trauma, and you can’t be there for them because they’d get discharged from the military? It crushes the soul. Please Rep. Tsongas, start treating all American soldiers like human beings, not just the heterosexual ones.
<
p>Obama is proposing a 2.9% pay raise next year for the military. That’s not a raise—that is not even COLA.
<
p>And the icing on the cake: Congress is trying to figure out how thaey can end TRICARE ( Medical care for life) for the military and somehow wrap it up into universal healthcare. Problem being, Universal healthcare will implode the healthcare system, our healthcare system will become the abomination that Canadians, the English, and Swedes endure.
<
p>Right now—as we speak, there are veterans groups,organizations, retirees, the active military, and the medically discharged that are becoming very restive. These people devoted twenty and thirty years to service, they bore divorce, absence, injury, low pay and living conditions, and wars for multiple reasons. One being that they would have MILITARY healthcare for life. The peach basket has already been kicked out from underneath them once ten years ago. Now congress is stealthmode once again. Perhaps congress will pass a bill ending military retirement benefits entirely under the pretext that it was a hidden amenment or “we” didn’t get a chance to read the bill before we voted on it—(now a common excuse).
<
p>Nice to hear folks that despise the military speak with such platitudes.
Funny how when teachers get a 2.9% raise, folks like MCRD are all over it, saying we’ve got to cut costs and maintain level funding.
<
p>But when soldiers get a 2.9% raise, they’re all “that’s not a raise, that’s not even COLA!”
<
p>Just something to think about.
Is it the President’s backpeddling? Now the plan is to drop 2/3 of the troop strength and call it withdrawal. Wasn’t the plan to bring the troops back from Iraq? Not some, but all? This isn’t withdrawal. Haven’t the war industries and the politicians bled the country youth and wealth enough on these wars?
<
p>As the political leadership seek new ways to feast on the body politic, they cry for, “More!, More!, send ’em to Afghanistan!”. Would it not be change to end the nightmare of empire and bring the troops home from all the continents? To spend what must be paid for our defense in this country, not some foreign land? Maybe some of the moneys from the bailouts could be paid, or just other soldiers would be saved from wounds or death for the sake of profits and politicians.
<
p>Why not change the “Change!” to “Same!” just for the same of truth in advertising? I feel I voted for the lesser of two evils and got the equal.
Civil unrest in USA that is, under the command of NORTHCOM.
Just why did you think NORTHCOM was established?
I’m sure the politicians that thought out NORTHCOM realized how valuable it would be to terrorize the people. I wonder if they thought of the next step that history shows us will happen? How difficult is it to deploy on the Beltway and enter DC?
How long will it take you to get to Washington DC? The same man that brought you, ” Not to worry, I’m in charge.”
It is not the 18 months versus 16 months that is the disappointment, but rather the apparent insistence on “back-ending” the combat reduction and the continuation of a high level (35,000 to 50,000) for over a year after that. And then what – does it magically drop to zero on December 31, 2011?
<
p>
<
p>Why is that not the current mission? And why is the drawdown of forces not “front-loaded” if it requires 35,000 to 50,000 to accomplish that mission? Then after the 18 months the number of troops left behind should be no more than is required to provide basic protection to the US embassy.
Doesn’t the bureaucratic reclassification of combat troops into mixed bases with Iraqis expose our soldiers to more danger because of the infiltration of the Iraqi security services? And doesn’t this happen at a time when we will not have an overwhelming response because of reductions?
<
p>What about the provocative nature of the US presence in an Islamic country, and the continued disproportionate support of Israel, while lowering the guard of our troops in Iraq? Shouldn’t we first lower the temperature of anti-Americanism, and then once that happens, you can lower the guard? Where are the political actions?
<
p>Pray tell what were those lessons and how are they at variance from any other army engaged in conflict since, say, 500BC?
<
p>This is more glib nonsense from an administration that is performing something new that I have never seem before. This administration publicly makes statements that they have no intention of acting on, to whit: “We are pulling out all infantry brigades by August 10, 2010” (but we are leaving 50,000 soldiers in Iraq indefinitely)
<
p>”It all depends what the definition of “is” is.
<
p>
<
p>Oh this is rich. On what occasion has America given a crap for its military since 1948? Latest instances: Unarmored humvees, substandadrd weapons in Vietnam, defective munitions in WWII, rotting food and substandard munitions in the Civil War, Bill Clinton’s Sec Def refusing to send armored vehicles and indirect fire weapons to Somalia, Rumsfeld’s refusal to provide the US Army with sufficient manpower tp prosecute the Iraq incursion, putting returning wounded up in slums, Wounded Iraq veterans receiving substandard care for amputations and burns, Bill Clinto refusing to fund DoD to provide suffcient fuel and ammunition for training.
<
p>This is laughable. After 28 years in the military I have had to put up with this BS since Lyndon Johnson. The only two presidents who cared were Reagan and Bush 41. The Congress never cared. They only wanted to fatten the wallets of their friends and hope to scoop some of the cash up themselves.
<
p>Rudyard Kipling
<
p>I went into a public-‘ouse to get a pint o’ beer,
The publican ‘e up an’ sez, “We serve no red-coats here.”
The girls be’ind the bar they laughed an’ giggled fit to die,
I outs into the street again an’ to myself sez I:
O it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Tommy, go away”;
But it’s “Thank you, Mister Atkins”, when the band begins to play,
The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
O it’s “Thank you, Mister Atkins”, when the band begins to play.
<
p>I went into a theatre as sober as could be,
They gave a drunk civilian room, but ‘adn’t none for me;
They sent me to the gallery or round the music-‘alls,
But when it comes to fightin’, Lord! they’ll shove me in the stalls!
For it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Tommy, wait outside”;
But it’s “Special train for Atkins” when the trooper’s on the tide,
The troopship’s on the tide, my boys, the troopship’s on the tide,
O it’s “Special train for Atkins” when the trooper’s on the tide.
<
p>Yes, makin’ mock o’ uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an’ they’re starvation cheap;
An’ hustlin’ drunken soldiers when they’re goin’ large a bit
Is five times better business than paradin’ in full kit.
Then it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Tommy, ‘ow’s yer soul?”
But it’s “Thin red line of ‘eroes” when the drums begin to roll,
The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
O it’s “Thin red line of ‘eroes” when the drums begin to roll.
<
p>We aren’t no thin red ‘eroes, nor we aren’t no blackguards too,
But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;
An’ if sometimes our conduck isn’t all your fancy paints,
Why, single men in barricks don’t grow into plaster saints;
While it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Tommy, fall be’ind”,
But it’s “Please to walk in front, sir”, when there’s trouble in the wind,
There’s trouble in the wind, my boys, there’s trouble in the wind,
O it’s “Please to walk in front, sir”, when there’s trouble in the wind.
<
p>You talk o’ better food for us, an’ schools, an’ fires, an’ all:
We’ll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don’t mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow’s Uniform is not the soldier-man’s disgrace.
For it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Chuck him out, the brute!”
But it’s “Saviour of ‘is country” when the guns begin to shoot;
An’ it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ anything you please;
An’ Tommy ain’t a bloomin’ fool — you bet that Tommy sees!