Webb to Republicans: Our Troops Want Real Leadership Not Procedural Tactics

Floor Remarks July 11, 2007 -- Below are remarks delivered by Senator Webb on the Senate floor today with respect to his amendment to support the troops through responsible deployment cycles:

First, I would like to say that I think there’s a lot of misunderstanding and misrepresentation that have been made over the past couple of days with respect to this amendment… I will address some of the things the Senator from South Carolina said that he is calling a “political moment.” I don’t think there is a political moment in this issue from the perspective, among others, of someone who served three years as Assistant Secretary of Defense where I was responsible for dealing with mobilization issues and was required to learn a great deal of detail what they used to call “war maps,” manpower flow issues.

I would like to also point out because of some of the other comments that have just been made that the Commandant of the Marine Corps when he took office said his goal was to see a 2-1 rotation cycle with respect to the deployment of Marines. I point that out because this amendment sets out a minimum floor for the use of American troops of 1-1. If you’ve been gone a year, you should get a year back. If you’ve been gone seven months, you should get seven months back. If we were arguing optimal scenarios I would understand a little bit more the push back that we’re getting from the other side.

We’re not trying to put optimal historical scenarios on the table here. We are trying to get a minimum floor that will protect the well-being of our troops. We have data that has been shown. I don’t need to go over it today of how this is affecting retention of high quality people and how this is affecting retention of high quality people and how it is affecting emotional difficulties people are having. We need to step forward and act responsibly.

Some Republicans have questioned the constitutionality of this amendment. There is no issue here. Article One, Section 8: “to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.”

Some say this is meddling in the President’s war-making authority. To the contrary, the Congress has the power and the duty to place proper restraints on executive authority, particularly when it comes to the well-being of our troops.

In the Korean War, the Department of Defense was sending soldiers overseas before they had been fully trained. The Congress, our predecessors, stepped in and put a law into place that said you can’t deploy anybody until they’ve been in the military for at least 120 days. This is what we’re doing only on the other end of it. We’re saying that after four years of ground occupation in Iraq, we have a responsibility to get some stability into the operational tempo.

Yesterday my colleague from Alabama warned, wrongly, that the amendment would, in his words, alter the traditional power of the President as it relates to all future wars any war now or series of wars in the future. My friend will re-read the amendment more carefully. He will find that it applies only to Iraq, Afghanistan, and certain NATO-sponsored activities.

Senator Sessions also stated his concerns, as he put it, “another amendment trying to set another strategy, written by a group sitting in air-conditioned offices.” I would like to emphasize a few points here.

First, this amendment does not represent a strategy. It’s an amendment that protects the well-being of our troops by setting a bare minimum floor on how they’re being used no matter what strategy is in place.

Second, the experiences that led some of us to this conclusion did not come from sitting in air conditioned offices. I would like to point out that as far as I can determine, Senator Chuck Hagel is the only ground combat veteran on the other side of the aisle. He certainly is the only ground combat veteran from Vietnam on the other side of the aisle. And he is a lead co-sponsor of this amendment. On this side of the aisle, all of the ground combat veterans are co-sponsors along with 35 members of the Senate. I must say that I believe that we, collectively, understand a truth acquired the hard way – a truth that transcends politics. And we are trying, in all good faith, to do something about it.

And finally, I would like to again point out that this amendment has the full support of the Military Officers Association of America. This is the largest Association of Military Officers in the country – 368,000 members and these are officers who are not restrained from speaking about their opinions by having to serve inside today’s political process.

Vice Admiral Norbert Ryan wrote a letter supporting the necessity of this amendment, he pointed out that his organization is very concerned that steps must be taken to protect our most precious military asset – the all-volunteer force – from having to bear such a disproportionate share of national wartime sacrifice.

He also said, “If we are not better stewards of our troops and their families in the future than we have been in the recent past, our organization believes strongly that we will be putting the all-volunteer force at unacceptable risk.”

These officers – 368,000 - are joining us in a very real concern – that under current policy, many of our ground forces are actually spending more time in Iraq than they are at home. This is four years into an occupation. There is no strategic justification for this, and there is no political reason to oppose an amendment that places proper restraints on this sort of conduct by the Executive branch.

This Amendment recognizes that the Congress has a duty to exercise leadership when it comes to the well-being of our men and women in uniform. In the words of Admiral Ryan, it is a recognition that we have a responsibility to become better stewards of our troops and their families than we have been in the recent past.

I would say to my colleagues that the American people are watching us today, and they are watching closely, with the expectation that we finally take some sort of positive action that might stabilize the operational environment in which our troops are being sent, again and again. They are tired of the posturing that is giving the Congress such a bad reputation. They are tired of the procedural strategies designed to protect politicians from accountability, and to protect this Administration from accountability. They are looking for concrete actions that will protect the well-being of our men and women in uniform.

The question on this amendment is not whether you support this war or whether you do not. It is not whether you want to wait until July or September to see where one particular set of bench marks or summaries might be taking us. The question is this: more than four years into ground operations in Iraq, we owe stability, and a reasonable cycle of deployment, to the men and women who are carrying our nation’s burden. That is the question. And that is the purpose of this Amendment.

Source: Senator Jim Webb

Bookmark/Search this post with:

 •    •    •    •    •    •    •    •    •    •    •    •