Call to Limit Deployments Is a No-Go in Senate
So much for "supporting our troops": A bipartisan proposal sponsored by two combat veterans to give exhausted U.S. troops more time between their military deployments overseas was defeated by Republicans in the Senate, the first vote of a two-week congressional debate on Iraq.So much for “supporting our troops”: A bipartisan proposal sponsored by two combat veterans to give exhausted U.S. troops more time between their military deployments overseas was defeated by Republicans in the Senate, the first vote of a two-week congressional debate on Iraq.
Jim Webb, a Virginia Democrat, and Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, sponsored an amendment that could effectively limit the number of troops deemed ready for deployment. The senators, both combat veterans, said the men and women in the military should be given the same amount of time at home that they serve overseas.
Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic majority leader, said the military had been stretched too thin as the war in Iraq extended into its fifth summer. “Our troops are not machines,” he said, “they are human beings.”
But Republican opponents argued that Congress had no business dictating how long troops would be deployed and suggested Democrats were simply trying to score political points from an unpopular war. “The best thing that we can do for our troops is to win,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina. “We’re playing yo-yo — political yo-yo — with people’s lives.”
Wait, before you go…If you're reading this, you probably already know that non-profit, independent journalism is under threat worldwide. Independent news sites are overshadowed by larger heavily funded mainstream media that inundate us with hype and noise that barely scratch the surface. We believe that our readers deserve to know the full story. Truthdig writers bravely dig beneath the headlines to give you thought-provoking, investigative reporting and analysis that tells you what’s really happening and who’s rolling up their sleeves to do something about it.
Like you, we believe a well-informed public that doesn’t have blind faith in the status quo can help change the world. Your contribution of as little as $5 monthly or $35 annually will make you a groundbreaking member and lays the foundation of our work.
Support Truthdig
The appointment of lobbyist Mark Esper to lead the department should be a huge scandal. That it isn't speaks volumes about our priorities.
Just shy of three months since Chuck Hagel was obliged to vacate the position, the Obama administration has a new secretary of defense -- and Ashton Carter has his work cut out for him.
Unbelievably enough, a bankrupt 13-year-old policy of war to the horizon remains ascendant in Washington, and “war fever” seems to be breaking out yet again. In this context, it's curious that four crucial aspects of war, American-style, were missing from the blitz of Hagel reportage.
Chuck Hagel's departure from his post as defense secretary has been attributed to his failure to fit in with the Obama cabinet's crowd. Among his other reported deficiencies was that he was only a sergeant in Vietnam, twice wounded.
It's a surprise to see President Obama actually fire someone. But I have to worry that Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel's forced departure may signal further expansion of U.S. military involvement in Iraq and Syria.
I don’t see anyone talking about how the Defense Department's response to Islamic State has gone.
There are currently no responses to this article.
Be the first to respond.