John McCain: McCain Statement On Webb Amendment To The Defense Authorization Bill

September 19, 2207 -- Washington, D.C.– U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) today made the following statement on the Senate floor regarding the Webb Amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill:

“Mr. President,

“On July 11th of this year, I spoke against Senator Webb’s amendment on dwell time. The amendment has not changed substantially since then.

“I thought the debate at the time was comprehensive and adequately addressed the merits of the proposal, but here we are again. Why?

“In July, Senator Webb said that “this is an amendment that is focused squarely on supporting our troops who are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that it “speaks directly to their welfare and to the needs of their families by establishing minimum periods between deployments….” More recently, he has called it a “safety net” for the troops. I have no doubt that he is sincere about his concern for our ground troops and their families.

“I share Senator Webb’s concerns for the well being of our troops and their families, as I know all senators do. But let me be clear, Senator Webb’s amendment is NOT a litmus test for whether you care about the troops. Wouldn’t it be great if our choices were that easy? I argued back in July, and I repeat today, that the amendment would do more harm than good and should not pass.

“But the question remains, why are we arguing again about this proposal? The reason is obvious. It was spelled out in a New York Times article on September 15 by David Herszenhorn and David Cloud, who stated:

“The proposal, by Senator Webb has strong support from top Democrats, who say that the practical effect would be to add time between deployments and force General Petraeus to withdraw troops on a substantially swifter timeline than the one he laid out before Congress this week…”

“Senator Biden was quoted in the article as calling the proposal the “easiest way” for his Republican colleagues to change the war strategy, and the reporters referred to the amendment as “a back door approach” aimed at influencing the conduct of the war.

“Secretary Gates echoed this assessment this past weekend in various interviews stating that the Webb Amendment is “really pretty much a back-door effort to get the President to accelerate the drawdown, so that it’s automatic kind of thing rather than based on the conditions in Iraq.”

“So, I would say to my Democratic colleagues, let’s not conceal or fail to mention the intended effect – or purpose – of this amendment. It is clear that, in the wake of General Petraeus’s report, that the Majority has brought this back in order to reduce the numbers of fully trained, and combat-experienced troops available to our military commanders and thus, to force an accelerated drawdown of troops and units in Iraq and Afghanistan. Let’s be honest about this.

“Let’s also consider the impact of this amendment on the force. The effect of the amendment will be to exclude fully trained, combat-experienced officers, NCO’s, soldiers, and Marines from military units that need them to perform in combat. I think we should ask the question: will an unintended consequence of this amendment be to cause harm to our troops?

“I argued last July, as did various other senators, that the amendment would cause harm – to the mission, the units and members who would have to succeed in combat despite the obstacles this amendment would impose. Now we have the view of Secretary Gates to consider.

“In a letter regarding the Webb Amendment, which, without objection, I ask to be entered into the record, Secretary Gates said:

“The amendment would dramatically limit the nation’s ability to respond to other national security needs while we remain engaged in Iraq or Afghanistan.”

“He said:

“The amendment would cause the Army and Marine Corps to resort to force management options that would further damage the force and its effectiveness on the field” and would result in the following actions for units deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan:

* Extension in Iraq and Afghanistan of units already deployed beyond their current scheduled rotation;
* Creation of gaps in combat capability as units would rotate home without a follow on unit being available to replace them. This, in turn, would “squeeze the ability to continue the practice of overlapping unit rotations to achieve smooth hand-offs and minimize casualties.

“That seems important – minimizing casualties. Secretary Gates goes on: The Webb amendment:

* Would increase the use of “in lieu of” units that are either minimally or not normally trained for the assigned mission.

* Would return to the cobbling together of new units from disparate units or unassigned personnel, a practice discouraged by the adoption of unit rotation policy; and, as a result of the Webb amendment:

* Would result in “broader and more frequent mobilization of National Guard and Reserve units would be inevitable.”

“Secretary Gates in his letter said that the Webb amendment would impose an “unacceptable choice on the President and our military: either to (1) accelerate the rate of drawdown significantly beyond what General Petraeus has recommended, which he and all of our military commanders believe would not be prudent and would put at real risk the gains we have made on the ground in Iraq over the past few months, or (2) to resort to force management options that would further damage the force and its effectiveness in the field.”

“Not surprisingly, Secretary Gates has stated unequivocally that if this amendment were included in the Authorization Act he would recommend that the President veto it.

“I urge my colleagues to reject again Senator Webb’s amendment. I encourage you instead to support my alternative amendment, which would express a Sense of Congress that, consistent with wartime requirements, deployed and non-deployed time for our active forces should at a minimum be equal.”

Source: Senator John McCain