WASHINGTON ? Senate Democrats are confident they can pass legislation to give troops more rest between Iraq deployments, a measure aimed at pressing the Bush administration to change its war policy.

 

Defense Secretary Robert Gates called the proposal by Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., a dangerous "backdoor way" to draw down additional forces. Gates said he would recommend a veto.

 

"If we get this next phase wrong ? no matter how you feel about how we got to where we are, the consequences of getting this wrong for Iraq, for the region, for us are enormous," he said Sunday.

 

Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., responded that shorter breaks were creating an undue strain on U.S. troops and their families.

 

"They deserve the same amount of time back home as they stay in the field," Reed said.

 

The comments represented the latest political clash over the unpopular war. President Bush last week announced plans for a limited drawdown but indicated combat forces would stay in Iraq well past 2008.

 

The Senate was scheduled to resume debate this week on anti-war legislation, including Webb's proposal to require that troops have as much time at their home station as they do deployed to Iraq.

 

Gates was asked in broadcast interviews about recommending a Bush veto should the proposal pass. "Yes I would," the Pentagon chief said.

 

"If it were enacted, we would have force management problems that would be extremely difficult and, in fact, affect combat effectiveness and perhaps pose greater risk to our troops," he said.

 

Supporters of Webb's measure say it has at least 57 of the 60 votes needed. It would need 67 votes to override a veto.

 

A separate proposal by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., seeks to restrict troops' mission to fighting terrorists and training the Iraqi security force.

 

"The president has dangled a carrot in front of the American people talking about troop reductions," Levin said. "But, again, it is an illusion of a change of course and the American people are not buying it. My colleagues are not buying it."

 

"I think we have a good chance of getting to the 60 votes to call for a change in policy. I hope we get there in the next couple of weeks," he said.

 

If Webb's amendment were enacted, Gates said it would force him to consider again extending tours in Iraq. Military commanders would be constrained in the use of available forces, creating gaps and forcing greater use of the National Guard and Reserve, he said.

 

"It would be extremely difficult for us to manage that. It really is a backdoor way to try and force the president to accelerate the drawdown," Gates said. "Again, the drawdowns have to be based on the conditions on the ground."

 

"A unit pulling out would not be immediately replaced by another," he added. "So you'd have an area of combat operations where no U.S. forces would be present for a period, and the troops coming in would then face a much more difficult situation."

 

Active-duty Army units currently are on 15-month deployments with a promise of no more than 12 months rest. Marines who spend seven or more months at war sometimes get six months or less at home.

 

Bush said last week that he approved a plan by Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, to withdraw 5,700 troops from Iraq by the holidays and reduce the force from 20 combat brigades to 15 brigades by next July.

 

The president has ordered Petraeus to make a further assessment and recommendations in March.

 

There are about 169,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.

 

Gates on Friday raised the possibility of cutting troop levels to 100,000 or so by the end of next year, well beyond the cuts Bush announced, in what appeared to be a conciliatory gesture to anti-war Democrats and some wary Republicans.

 

But on Sunday, Gates said he could not say how large the force would be in the coming years, stressing that it would depend on whether the security situation in Iraq had improved dramatically.

 

Bush has compared America's future in Iraq to the peacekeeping role U.S. troops play in South Korea, where they have been stationed for decades.

 

Gates spoke on "Fox News Sunday" and "This Week" on ABC. Reed was on ABC and Levin appeared on "Face the Nation" on CBS.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297032,00.html

 

I don't know how I feel about this, if it is infact some backdoor way to accelerate or begin a drawdown, then no friggen way. We always joke in my unit how we do deployments to America, since we're hardly ever here and when we are here we're out in the field training or whatever so we're never really "home." Mission accomplishment before troop welfare. If I have to do 6 months CONUS and 7 months deployed for the next 4 years to accomplish the mission, so be it. Sure, it would be nice... infact it would be f***ing awesome if I could just go home and see a real life Marlins game or something rather than be miserable out in the field, but that's just not how it works. If they want to ease the burden on troops or ease the stress level, there are better ways to do it than just more time in CONUS, because honestly aside from not having people shooting at you, time back home isn't that great when you're on active duty.

I think that this legislation makes a lot of sense from a practical standpoint. Our soldiers are really overextended in the field, and I don't see anything wrong with giving them some time with their families.

I think that this legislation makes a lot of sense from a practical standpoint. Our soldiers are really overextended in the field, and I don't see anything wrong with giving them some time with their families.

You don't understand, this means absolutely nothing as far as time with families go. If you're not in Iraq, then you're training to go to Iraq and you'll be in the field 3 weeks out of the month, that's the nature of the beast. We only get 30 days of leave a year, so whether you're home for 6 months or you're deployed for 6 months you're not going to see your family any more often unless they live on or very close to the base. For the past month i've been in the field at Ft. Pickett training hard everyday and during that time I did not even so much as speak to my family a single time, and next week we're going out on ship for several weeks and it will be the same exact thing. Being in America means nothing as far as down time or spending time with family in the military... and the training we do is a lot tougher than actually being in Iraq, I know that everyone in my unit would rather be in Iraq than back here training right now and deploying in a few months.

 

The more I think about it, the more this makes me think it's just "feel good" legislation but in reality it will change nothing. Unless they increase the amount of leave days we earn per month (which right now is 2.5 days per month), then this will not change a thing.

we could just stop fighting a frivelous war!

we could just stop fighting a frivelous war!

I'm sorry, but our esteemed President, since he knows so much about the military, insists that we stay and fight for....something. :|

we could just stop fighting a frivelous war!

I'm sorry, but our esteemed President, since he knows so much about the military, insists that we stay and fight for....something. :|

touche...the only thing he knows about our military is how to go awol

we could just stop fighting a frivelous war!

I'm sorry, but our esteemed President, since he knows so much about the military, insists that we stay and fight for....something. :|

 

 

we could just stop fighting a frivelous war!

I'm sorry, but our esteemed President, since he knows so much about the military, insists that we stay and fight for....something. :|

touche...the only thing he knows about our military is how to go awol

 

 

As opposed to two bozos on the internet who know more about the military who insist we leave? Give me a break!

Please tell me a legitimate reason why we are staying. I want to know.

Please tell me a legitimate reason why we are staying. I want to know.

What is the point of anyone actually taking the time to respond to this when you will post your usual rhetoric and hard headed bull sh*t in response?

Please tell me a legitimate reason why we are staying. I want to know.

What is the point of anyone actually taking the time to respond to this when you will post your usual rhetoric and hard headed bull sh*t in response?

LOL....look who's talking about rhetoric...

 

It's simple. If you really support keeping our troops in Iraq, tell me WHY we have to keep them there. I don't see a quality reason anymore. Enlighten me.

Again, what is the point.

 

Nothing short of a nuclear bomb with Saddam's head on it would convince you of anything.

 

There is no point in conversing or discussing it. No one has been convinced or had their mind changed about a single issue here.

There is no point in conversing or discussing it. No one has been convinced or had their mind changed about a single issue here.

I doubt it, but I seriously have no idea what the current reasoning for staying is. That's all.

we could just stop fighting a frivelous war!

I'm sorry, but our esteemed President, since he knows so much about the military, insists that we stay and fight for....something. :|

 

 

we could just stop fighting a frivelous war!

I'm sorry, but our esteemed President, since he knows so much about the military, insists that we stay and fight for....something. :|

touche...the only thing he knows about our military is how to go awol

 

 

As opposed to two bozos on the internet who know more about the military who insist we leave? Give me a break!

i grew up in a air force family...i used to be with my dad at homestead afb every single day when i was down there and i made many trips to avon park bombing range and i have studied history and military history for as long as i can remember...bozo...nice assumption godmother

There is no point in conversing or discussing it. No one has been convinced or had their mind changed about a single issue here.

I doubt it, but I seriously have no idea what the current reasoning for staying is. That's all.

Are you seriously this dense?

 

You don't support the war. No matter what anyone says you will never see 'the point' or reasoning behind it.

 

So again,

 

WHAT IS THE POINT?

Again, what is the point.

 

Nothing short of a nuclear bomb with Saddam's head on it would convince you of anything.

 

There is no point in conversing or discussing it. No one has been convinced or had their mind changed about a single issue here.

im sure thats why our government has all time highs in approval rating!

There is no point in conversing or discussing it. No one has been convinced or had their mind changed about a single issue here.

I doubt it, but I seriously have no idea what the current reasoning for staying is. That's all.

Are you seriously this dense?

 

You don't support the war. No matter what anyone says you will never see 'the point' or reasoning behind it.

 

So again,

 

WHAT IS THE POINT?

there is no point...hasnt been one since day one...so WHAT IS YOUR POINT

I'm not even discussing being for or against the war you millitary scholar, I'm saying what is the point in discussing the war with people who are 100% against it?

 

Don't answer. There is no point.

 

No one will change their opinion. This forum is a debate league with no purpose.

Then I don't see why you're even posting anything, since there's no point in debate.

Then I don't see why you're even posting anything, since there's no point in debate.

I'm responding to the pointlessness of you calling out The_Godfather and wanting him to tell him why we should stay in Iraq.

 

It accomplishes nothing more then bulding another pulpit for you to blow hot air.

You can call it hot air, but I call it the reality of the worsening situation.

 

I mean, for every so-called 'positive' report on our occupation, there are at least 15 negative ones. I think that's a little too overwhelming to be ignored.

There is no way Bush is going significantly below the pre-surge levels of troops prior to his departure. Right now he is playing the stall game because he does not want to be the one who pulls out of Iraq. His legacy is much more important than actually laying out a course of action in Iraq, which he has pretty much never done. Regardless of how I have always felt about the guy, it doesn't make that fact untrue.

 

However individual posters feel on this message board, this whole thing will play out in the 08 election. Republicans and democrats alike have said that if we don't start pulling out before the election cycle starts, we are not pulling out. That sort of stuff doesn't happen in election season.

 

Therefore there will be a big difference between the democratic candidate and the republican candidate on what we will be doing after the new president starts his job. The democrats are cleary going to be about winding this thing down and pulling significant troops out, while probably leaving special forces in place to root out AQ in Iraq, just as we did with Afghanistan.

 

What will the republican candidates propose? As I have seen it, we continue to see phrases like "no surrender" or "if we leave, AQ wins" or "if we leave, disaster will strike." To me that can say a lot of things. But at some point I think the republican candidate will have to move beyond these statements and actually get specific. Face it, people hate Bush because he refuses to lay out the long term situation.

 

So knowing that a distinction has to be made, and that it probably won't be what the democrats position is, what exactly will it be?

 

As a democrat, I'm am absolute fine if the republican position on this either a)continue with the same above statement and call democrats out for wanting to surrender or b)make it clear that we will be staying until the political situation is unquestionably stable(in addition to being the opposite policy we prefer). Because as far as the 08 election goes, that will be gold for democrats. We can debate the non-political aspect of it all we want, but 08 will be different than 04, when I would not have considered that very valuable for democrats.

 

I think the reality is that republicans know that that is an untenable position politics wise, but one most republicans prefer because it aligns more with the hawk aspect of the party, which is fine(just like many dems prefer government regulations that might be untenable politically). The problem is that the hawk policy has attached itself to a corrupt and weak Iraqi government that really doesn't want Americans to leave. So for all intents and purposes, republicans are in between a rock and a hard place on this. If this was any other country and any other situation, you might be able to argue that dem foreign policy is weak and inclined to surrender. But your hawk position on this is supporting someone you really don't want to support.

we could just stop fighting a frivelous war!

I'm sorry, but our esteemed President, since he knows so much about the military, insists that we stay and fight for....something. :|

 

 

we could just stop fighting a frivelous war!

I'm sorry, but our esteemed President, since he knows so much about the military, insists that we stay and fight for....something. :|

touche...the only thing he knows about our military is how to go awol

 

 

As opposed to two bozos on the internet who know more about the military who insist we leave? Give me a break!

i grew up in a air force family...i used to be with my dad at homestead afb every single day when i was down there and i made many trips to avon park bombing range and i have studied history and military history for as long as i can remember...bozo...nice assumption godmother

So you're an air force brat who took some history classes.

 

Impressive.

 

 

 

 

You don't know sh*t.

we could just stop fighting a frivelous war!

I'm sorry, but our esteemed President, since he knows so much about the military, insists that we stay and fight for....something. :|

 

 

we could just stop fighting a frivelous war!

I'm sorry, but our esteemed President, since he knows so much about the military, insists that we stay and fight for....something. :|

touche...the only thing he knows about our military is how to go awol

 

 

As opposed to two bozos on the internet who know more about the military who insist we leave? Give me a break!

i grew up in a air force family...i used to be with my dad at homestead afb every single day when i was down there and i made many trips to avon park bombing range and i have studied history and military history for as long as i can remember...bozo...nice assumption godmother

So you're an air force brat who took some history classes.

 

Impressive.

 

 

 

 

You don't know sh*t.

i certainly know more than you do...but hey...trying to change the oldest culture in the world is "mission accomplished"!!!

i certainly know more than you do

 

The only thing you know is what you watch on TV or read in a book.

 

I live it.

 

STFU

Wait, did jimmyjack just claim to more about the military than Accord, for ceral? :|