Dems Blast Troop Combat Extension
Democrats are seizing on the Pentagon's decision to extend troops' combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan as evidence President Bush's war policy is failing.
The announcement "just underscores the fact that the burden of the war in Iraq has fallen upon our troops and their families," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "The Bush administration has failed to create a plan to fully equip and train our troops, bring them home safely and soon, and provide our veterans with the quality care they deserve."
Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced Wednesday the Army would keep troops in Iraq and Afghanistan for 15-month tours instead of the yearlong stints that have become standard. The three-month extension will allow the Pentagon to maintain its 30,000-troop buildup in Baghdad for another year.
"Once again the failures of this administration are being underwritten by our troops," said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Democrats' criticism of the troop extension comes at the same time they are trying to build political momentum behind their proposal in Congress to set an end date on the war.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Pelosi said Wednesday they have agreed to meet with Mr. Bush next week to discuss the Iraq war, but will insist that it be a two-way discussion.
Mr. Bush has promised to veto the Democrats' proposal to withdraw troops, despite it being attached to $96 billion in military funding needed to finance combat operations through September. Republicans have promised to back the president, leaving Democrats short of the two-thirds majority needed to override the veto.
Mr. Bush told reporters April 3 that the funding delay would mean troops may have to stay in Iraq longer than planned.
"That is unacceptable to me, and I believe it is unacceptable to the American people," he said.
The three-month extension on trop deployments is seen as necessary to sustain Mr. Bush's plan to boost security around Baghdad. Troop levels are being boosted from 15 brigades to 20 brigades, and to keep that up beyond summer the Army faced harsh choices: either send units to Iraq with less than 12 months at home, or extend tours.
It's not just soldiers that are in short supply, reported CBS News national security correspondent David Martin. The White House is having a hard time finding a retired general to become a new czar to coordinate war strategy for both Iraq and Afghanistan.
At least five retired generals have said "no," Martin reported, some citing personal reasons. But one of them, Retired Marine Jack Sheehan, said he turned it down because "I don't think they've got a coherent strategy."
Service members and their families said they weren't surprised at the announcement to extend tours.
"Everyone that is there (in Iraq) has in the back of their mind that they could be there longer than they expect. They are prepared," said Maj. Bruce Williams, who returned this fall from his first deployment to Iraq. Williams, 37, is assigned to the 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, Ky.
Stephanie Carrao, whose husband has been serving in Iraq since October, said he had a feeling it would happen.
"I'm a military brat so I kind of always prepare for the worst and hope for the best," said Carrao, whose husband, Maj. Nicholas Carrao, is in Iraq with the 4th Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, based at Fort Bliss, Texas.
"Our forces are stretched, there's no question about that," Gates said. But Republicans and top military officials said the troops could handle it.
Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, "believes the troops are up to the task and committed to the cause," said Brian Kennedy, spokesman for the minority leader. "The more disconcerting issue facing American troops is the Democrats' refusal to fund them without undermining their mission and their safety at the same time."
© 2009 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report. The announcement "just underscores the fact that the burden of the war in Iraq has fallen upon our troops and their families," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "The Bush administration has failed to create a plan to fully equip and train our troops, bring them home safely and soon, and provide our veterans with the quality care they deserve."
Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced Wednesday the Army would keep troops in Iraq and Afghanistan for 15-month tours instead of the yearlong stints that have become standard. The three-month extension will allow the Pentagon to maintain its 30,000-troop buildup in Baghdad for another year.
"Once again the failures of this administration are being underwritten by our troops," said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Democrats' criticism of the troop extension comes at the same time they are trying to build political momentum behind their proposal in Congress to set an end date on the war.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Pelosi said Wednesday they have agreed to meet with Mr. Bush next week to discuss the Iraq war, but will insist that it be a two-way discussion.
Mr. Bush has promised to veto the Democrats' proposal to withdraw troops, despite it being attached to $96 billion in military funding needed to finance combat operations through September. Republicans have promised to back the president, leaving Democrats short of the two-thirds majority needed to override the veto.
Mr. Bush told reporters April 3 that the funding delay would mean troops may have to stay in Iraq longer than planned.
"That is unacceptable to me, and I believe it is unacceptable to the American people," he said.
The three-month extension on trop deployments is seen as necessary to sustain Mr. Bush's plan to boost security around Baghdad. Troop levels are being boosted from 15 brigades to 20 brigades, and to keep that up beyond summer the Army faced harsh choices: either send units to Iraq with less than 12 months at home, or extend tours.
It's not just soldiers that are in short supply, reported CBS News national security correspondent David Martin. The White House is having a hard time finding a retired general to become a new czar to coordinate war strategy for both Iraq and Afghanistan.
At least five retired generals have said "no," Martin reported, some citing personal reasons. But one of them, Retired Marine Jack Sheehan, said he turned it down because "I don't think they've got a coherent strategy."
Service members and their families said they weren't surprised at the announcement to extend tours.
"Everyone that is there (in Iraq) has in the back of their mind that they could be there longer than they expect. They are prepared," said Maj. Bruce Williams, who returned this fall from his first deployment to Iraq. Williams, 37, is assigned to the 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, Ky.
Stephanie Carrao, whose husband has been serving in Iraq since October, said he had a feeling it would happen.
"I'm a military brat so I kind of always prepare for the worst and hope for the best," said Carrao, whose husband, Maj. Nicholas Carrao, is in Iraq with the 4th Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, based at Fort Bliss, Texas.
"Our forces are stretched, there's no question about that," Gates said. But Republicans and top military officials said the troops could handle it.
Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, "believes the troops are up to the task and committed to the cause," said Brian Kennedy, spokesman for the minority leader. "The more disconcerting issue facing American troops is the Democrats' refusal to fund them without undermining their mission and their safety at the same time."
Popular on CBSNews.com
- British flower show in full bloom 16 Photos
- Boat hijack stokes tension between N. Korea, China
- China probes rice tainted with cancer-causing cadmium
- Hezbollah suffers heavy losses fighting inside Syria
- Israel and Syria exchange fire on Golan Heights
- Lebanon reportedly stopping Syria refugees at border
- Syria activists: 31 Hezbollah fighters killed in Qusair
- Russia shows accused U.S. spy heading home
The House and Senate almost UNANIMOUSLY GAVE G.W. BUSH THE AUTHORITY TO WAGE WAR AGAINST IRAQ. The Democrats have nothing but shame that cannot be white(flag) washed with an immediate pull out of troops.
There were no loud protests or even a moderate uproar from the people of the US. Thus, the US as a whole, hawks and doves, regardless of politics is responsible for their nations current position. The silent majority did nothing to prevent it.
The US went into Iraq like a bull in a china shop, with no idea how it was going to leave. Following the adage "You break it, you fix it or buy it", I'd say the humanistic thing to do is fix this mistake and don't leave leave the country for al Qaeda and Iran to fix for the US.
Posted by Sevenveils at 05:05 PM : Apr 14, 2007
--Sevenveils
You're stealing my lines! :)
The House and Senate almost UNANIMOUSLY GAVE G.W. BUSH THE AUTHORITY TO WAGE WAR AGAINST IRAQ. The Democrats have nothing but shame that cannot be white(flag) washed with an immediate pull out of troops.
There were no loud protests or even a moderate uproar from the people of the US. Thus, the US as a whole, hawks and doves, regardless of politics is responsible for their nations current position. The silent majority did nothing to prevent it.
The US went into Iraq like a bull in a china shop, with no idea how it was going to leave. Following the adage "You break it, you fix it or buy it", I'd say the humanistic thing to do is fix this mistake and don't leave leave the country for al Qaeda and Iran to fix for the US.
What a complete and utter load of sh*it! What a huge stinking steaming pile of garbage!
It is a military truism that you can not win a war against a popular insurgency against insurgents in their own country, unless you are willing to use massive repressive force including slaughtering civilians until the insurgency stops. We don't operate like that (nor should we), so this war was unwindable before it was started! They WILL win this war because they see themselves as patriots fighting against an occupying army and that's exactly what they are. In this war WE are the bad guys! For the very first time in our history we have a president that INVADED another country that was no threat to us! WE are the ones who are WRONG in this war, thanks to George W. Bush! There is no "victory" to be had here, no way of leaving with honor and there never was.
The ironic part is, the liberal activists don't realize that are a tool of the insurgents. G.W. bungles the war, the liberals encourage the insurgents to keep fighting, it's synergy! The worst part is, a loss would very likely mean that the Iraqi people will continue to die, because the government isn't stable enough to protect them. But, that won't matter to the Democratic party. It won't help them win elections. Then, if we're really lucky, Iraqi will spin so far out of control, we'll just have to send our soldiers back to clean up an even bigger mess. Though all you liberals can take heart, you teamed up with G.W. and potentially helped loss a war. That's almost bipartisan.
Posted by Infidel_US at 09:07 AM : Apr 13, 2007
Of course not. Why in the world should we ever go to war against a country that is currently in the midst of genocide to aide a nation of people that are pleading for help? They would like them out of Iraq because we had no business going to war against a country that did NOTHING to us. 14 of the hijackers on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia. Not a single one was from Iraq.
Our sanctions against Saddam worked, inspite of what Bush said & Most suicide bombers are from the UAE which Bush won't mention.
Posted by bm6005 at 01:08 PM : Apr 13, 2007
Some of them changed thier names, out of shame I suppose (like didntinhale). Still the usual idiots are still around to kick at. Lars, us_infidel, Agnim, etc. have at 'em!
Posted by jpesot at 07:11 PM : Apr 12, 2007
no... it is fascist nazi islam that is at war with all non muslims... with their death cult...
the religion of peace... hahahahaha
623 - Battle of Waddan
623 - Battle of Safwan
623 - Battle of Dul-'Ashir
624 - Muhammad and converts begin raids on caravans to fund the movement.
624 - Zakat becomes mandatory
624 - Battle of Badr
624 - Battle of Bani Salim
624 - Battle of Eid-ul-Fitr and Zakat-ul-Fitr
624 - Battle of Bani Qainuqa'
624 - Battle of Sawiq
624 - Battle of Ghatfan
624 - Battle of Bahran
625 - Battle of Uhud. 70 Muslims are killed.
625 - Battle of Humra-ul-Asad
625 - Battle of Banu Nudair
625 - Battle of Dhatur-Riqa
626 - Battle of Badru-Ukhra
626 - Battle of Dumatul-Jandal
626 - Battle of Banu Mustalaq Nikah
627 - Battle of the Trench
627 - Battle of Ahzab
627 - Battle of Bani Quraiza
627 - Battle of Bani Lahyan
627 - Battle of Ghaiba
627 - Battle of Khaibar
628 - Muhammad signs treaty with Quraish.
630 - Muhammad conquers Mecca.
630 - Battle of Hunsin.
630 - Battle of Tabuk
632 - Muhammad dies.
http://www.carm.org/islam/islam_chronology.htm
Posted by abbe7 at 09:30 AM : Apr 13, 2007
If I were CIC, they would be lining the US-Mexico border......so close together they could hold hands and form an unbroken line.
Orders: Shoot to kill