Murtha Plan to end "Stop Loss", Require more rest before redeployment

[Coexist]

Great new SF Chronicle article:

(02-16) 04:00 PST Washington -- One of the most powerful congressional critics of the Iraq war spelled out in detail how House Democrats plan to force President Bush to reduce the U.S. military commitment in Iraq in the months ahead after today's vote opposing Bush's plan to send more combat troops into the war.

Murtha, D-Pa., the chairman of the House panel that oversees the military's spending, also said he plans legislation that would force the president to seek the authorization of Congress before widening the war to Iran. Murtha said he also would put conditions on the president's request for $100 billion more to pay for the war this year that would require more time between deployments for military units, more equipment and better training.

Murtha said that in mid-March he plans to push legislation through his committee that would make it harder for the Bush administration to send military units back to Iraq by requiring more rest between deployments and certifying that they meet training and equipment standards. He also wants to end "stop loss'' orders, the practice of keeping soldiers on active duty past their enlistment commitments.

<snip>
He also said he will attach conditions to the spending bill that would ban permanent U.S. bases in Iraq and is considering trying to order the gradual closing of the prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

Bless you, Sir.
:patriot:

[moc]

1. God Bless John Murtha!

:patriot:

[Breeze54]

2. Provisions he also proposed include:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/02/15/57473.aspx

MURTHA'S ANTI-SURGE PLAN

Posted: Thursday, February 15, 2007 12:05 PM by Mark Murray

snip-->

The provisions he proposes include:

-- prohibiting the Pentagon from sending people back into battle until they have had

a year at home after being deployed.
He says he has figured out that in order to fulfill the surge requirements,
the Defense Department would have to send people back after seven months at home;

-- prohibiting the Pentagon from extending tours;
-- ending the Pentagon's "stop loss" policy;
-- and prohibiting the establishment of permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq.

He says that the Pentagon would have to "certify" that any units deployed in the future were "combat ready."
In addition, Murtha says that he is "considering" adding provisions to close Guantanamo and "bulldoze" Abu Ghraib.
If his measures are enacted, he says, "they won't be able to continue, they won't be able to do the deployment."
Murtha's defense appropriations subcommittee is the first stop in Congress for the president's $100
billion request for the remainder of this fiscal year.
He says that it will be reported out of committee on March 15 and taken up by the House shortly thereafter.

-------------

Among the options is a provision that proscribes the use of new funds to extend the deployment
of Army and Marine troops beyond 365 and 210 days, respectively. A second provision would bar the
dispatch of more troops if a fixed percent of units left at home fall below readiness standards.

The readiness of Army units for combat is measured on a scale of one to four. Units rated at the
lower ends of the spectrum -- three and four -- are missing key leaders, training or pieces of
equipment that make them ineligible to deploy. The exact readiness levels of U.S. units are
classified. But senior Army officials and lawmakers have acknowledged in recent weeks that almost
all the big active-duty combat brigades in the U.S. currently aren't ready to deploy.

Forcing the Bush administration to maintain a certain percentage of units in the U.S. at high
readiness levels could constrain the president's ability to follow through on his plan to
"surge" troops into Baghdad.
It could also force the administration to call some National Guard and reserve units
back for a second year-long tour of duty in Iraq.

==============================

I don't care at all for that last part about the National Guard and Reserves though!!

[Coexist]

3. Here is a good critique of Murtha's plan

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2007/2/16/145943/043

But I still have a problem with the Murtha Plan. Murtha is going to attach 'requirements that troops be given at least a year's rest between combat deployments, special training in urban warfare and counterinsurgency, and safety equipment that the military has struggled to provide' to the next military appropriations bill. The idea is not really to make sure that all troops being deployed to Iraq are well-trained and equipped. The idea is to make it impossible for Bush to sustain troop levels because he will not be able to replace troops that are rotated out. It's a backhanded way of ending the occupation of Iraq. And it's not surprising that the Republicans are going nuts about it. It is a very controversial thing to do and it could set a troubling precedent.

Murtha's plan represents an absolute vote of no confidence in the President as commander-in-chief. Of that, there can be no doubt. The Republicans are squealing that the Democrats are hypocrites to unanimously approve General Petraeus but then turn around and undermine his mission. They're saying that, if we don't think the mission will work, we should just defund it rather than try to micromanage the deployments or strangle off the supply of troops. These are valid criticisms.

The people clearly want Congress to end the war. How can it be accomplished? Murtha's plan has a lot of advantages. It creates votes that the Republicans will be loathe to oppose. Do they want to vote for sending troops into battle without proper training and equipment? Do they want to vote for longer deployments? So, the first point is that Murtha has crafted a strategy than can actually win votes. Even more clever, he is going to attach it to the military appropriation so the President cannot veto it without losing his funding for Iraq.

It all looks like it can be effective. And it is more important to be effective than it is to do things a better way and be ineffective. But this is a very ugly way of getting this done. There is going to be a lot of bad blood about this for a very long time to come. The Republicans will argue forever that the Democrats used a cheap stunt to undermine the war effort. Rather than leaving the responsibility for losing in Iraq at the administration's doorstep, they'll be placing it on Congress. To some extent, they would attempt to do this no matter what strategy the Democrats used to end the war. But this one will have especial resonance because it involves, not voting to end the war, but interfering in the President's ability to wage the war.

I agree and wish there was another way - but this plan will do the job - even though it is back-door. I support it.

[Breeze54]

4. The last part about the National Guard scares me!

"Do they want to vote for sending troops into battle without proper training and equipment?
Do they want to vote for longer deployments? So, the first point is that Murtha has crafted a
strategy than can actually win votes. Even more clever, he is going to attach it to the military
appropriation so the President cannot veto it without losing his funding for Iraq."

It is a clever way to stop the escalation but I don't want my son going back!!
fuck.....

They should just be renamed The International Guard! gheesh!

[Coexist]

5. i am sorry - I hope he is not redeployed.

the National Guard should stay on this continent - to protect and help us HERE.

[partylessinOhio]

6. I disagree with this: "Require more rest before redeployment"

No more endless recycling troops and the guard into endless wars where they have increased odds of being killed.

Bring 'em home! Keep 'em home!

Peace is superior to war.

Dennis Kucinich wants to create a Department of Peace. Pelosi assigned him to meet on it in a "basement room." Grrrr.

[Breeze54]

9. Until they can stop it though

extending the time between deployments is another way to stop the escalation.
Some states require that the NG soldiers have a 24 month 'rest' before they can be re-deployed.

[Peace Patriot]

7. This something that really gets me! STOP THE USE OF U.S. TROOPS AS SLAVE LABOR!

These multiple tours of duty in a war zone are UNCONSCIONABLE! They are the result of the egotism and greed of these usurpers in the White House. It's just sickening, what they're doing--treating U.S. soldiers as their personal slaves, in their horrible corporate resource war.

The thing that bothers me most about this fascist junta is their utter callousness toward human life, and their utter disrespect for people who actually do their duty--whether it's JAG lawyers refusing to go along with torture, or generals giving them their best advice, or US attorneys doing their job of prosecuting crimes, or the CIA counter-proliferation agents refusing to go along with artificially manufactured war, or soldiers in the field who are obliged to obey orders. They have no respect for the people they give orders to. Just as they have no respect for the humanity of prisoners--and detain them without trial, and torture them.

The degradation of standards of behavior, and the encouragement of lawlessness, is so awful!

This is the thing that makes me feel despair, when I see Congress debating a NON-BINDING resolution. I know this is probably part of a very savvy strategy to stop the war, in the difficult circumstance of a Congress that does not fully represent the American people, even with Democratic majorities. (Diebold/ES&S has compromised our election too badly for it to produce true representation; and only 1/3 of the Senate was up for reelection in 2006--many Bushite dinosaurs still ensconced.) And I wish Congress well, and strongly support those who are trying to end the war. Still, when I think of what the Bush Junta HAS DONE--all of what they have done--I can't believe that they are still in office, giving orders to the military, and spying on all of us, and stealing us blind, and whatever else the hell they are doing. HOW CAN THIS BE?

And their treatment of U.S. soldiers--who are the least able to stand up for themselves--just drives me nuts. How dare they abuse the loyalty and dutifulness and skill of U.S. soldiers! HOW DARE THEY!

I think, of all the people in Congress, the one I identify with most is John Murtha--that old warhorse! I think that's how he feels, too: HOW DARE THEY!

Al Gore said this, too, about torturing prisoners: HOW DARE THEY! HOW DARE THEY!

It was the breach of ethical standards--leading others astray into violating the basic tenets of our standard of behavior as a nation--that he was talking about. HOW DARE THEY!

[Breeze54]

8. I feel your rage!!!!!

Indeed!! How dare they!!!! :grr: :mad:

Great post! If I could give you a recommend, I would!!

:headbang: :applause: :applause: