Pentagon Extends All Iraq Tours 3 Months

[Willow]

Iraq Tours

I have been screamed at by army families since this hit the news (I work for the DOD and volunteer with family support services for the military). I'm really surprised that no one here posted this.
I want to know where all the people who supposedly support the troops and think this surge was a good idea are.
This is incredibly damaging to the families and the troops.

 

[Navy Pride]

Iraq Tours

I have been screamed at by army families since this hit the news (I work for the DOD and volunteer with family support services for the military). I'm really surprised that no one here posted this.
I want to know where all the people who supposedly support the troops and think this surge was a good idea are.
This is incredibly damaging to the families and the troops.

Maybe if Clinton had not cut the military to the bare bone in the nineties we would not have this problem.......

During my Navy career while on deployment to the South China Sea on several occasions my unit was extended...This is nothing new.......It comes with the territory.....You as a dependent wife should know that..........

 

[Gibberish]

Maybe if Clinton had not cut the military to the bare bone in the nineties we would not have this problem.......

Who knew it would Clinton's fault that troops in 2007 got their deployments extended for 3 months?

During my Navy career while on deployment to the South China Sea on several occasions my unit was extended...This is nothing new.......It comes with the territory.....You as a dependent wife should know that..........

Now you are suggesting longer deployments are a natural occupancy and not a fault of Clinton. Unless of course Clinton is at fault for your longer deployment also?

In all seriousness I agree with Navy's last statement. If you are in the military while at war you are subject to extended deployments. If you don't like it then don't join the military.

 

[WI Crippler]

Tours get extended all the time, even during what you would call peaceful times. Its no shock to me that tours are being extended in a time of war, and it shouldn't be to anybody who is in the military, or is a family of a military member.

 

[oldreliable67]

Iraq Tours

I have been screamed at by army families since this hit the news (I work for the DOD and volunteer with family support services for the military). I'm really surprised that no one here posted this.
I want to know where all the people who supposedly support the troops and think this surge was a good idea are.
This is incredibly damaging to the families and the troops.

Iraq and Afghanistan continue to shape up as a true test of an all-volunteer force.

Note that this applies only to active duty Army, not Guard or Reserve units. Nor does it apply to the Marines.

 

[Navy Pride]

Who knew it would Clinton's fault that troops in 2007 got their deployments extended for 3 months?


Now you are suggesting longer deployments are a natural occupancy and not a fault of Clinton. Unless of course Clinton is at fault for your longer deployment also?

In all seriousness I agree with Navy's last statement. If you are in the military while at war you are subject to extended deployments. If you don't like it then don't join the military.

I worked for the Department of Defense in the nineties I personally saw what Clinton did to the military then..........Forcing good men out at four, eight, and tweleve years and forcing retirement on men with 15 years with reduced compensation......Cutting the number of ships the navy had in half........Your boy did that and the military has never recovered from it..........

 

[Gibberish]

I worked for the Department of Defense in the nineties I personally saw what Clinton did to the military then..........Forcing good men out at four, eight, and tweleve years and forcing retirement on men with 15 years with reduced compensation......Cutting the number of ships the navy had in half........Your boy did that and the military has never recovered from it..........

Interesting. Got any links on that?

Oh here is one where the GOP and Clinton both back to remove the Military Retirement Reform Act of 1986 (under Reagan not Clinton).

As the 106th Congress contemplates the budget surplus, it will almost certainly undo a deficit-cutting bill passed by the 99th Congress nearly 13 years ago: the Military Retirement Reform Act of 1986.

Bitterly dubbed "Redux" by the troops, the act cut the retirement benefits of any servicemember inducted after its Aug. 1, 1986, enactment. While the troops who entered service after that date have not reached the 20-year retirement mark, tens of thousands have reached the career point at which troops traditionally choose whether to stay through to 20 or take off the uniform.

GOP, Clinton, agree: Repeal DoD retirement cuts (2/3/99) Government Executive

 

[Iriemon]

Maybe if Clinton had not cut the military to the bare bone in the nineties we would not have this problem.......

During my Navy career while on deployment to the South China Sea on several occasions my unit was extended...This is nothing new.......It comes with the territory.....You as a dependent wife should know that..........

LOL! 7 years later and its still all Clinton's fault!

 

[Iriemon]

I worked for the Department of Defense in the nineties I personally saw what Clinton did to the military then..........Forcing good men out at four, eight, and tweleve years and forcing retirement on men with 15 years with reduced compensation......Cutting the number of ships the navy had in half........Your boy did that and the military has never recovered from it..........

Ya sure your not confusing Clinton with someone else?

This in 2001:

WASHINGTON—Aides to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld are calling for deep personnel cuts to the Army, Navy, and Air Force in order to pay for new high-tech weaponry and missile defenses that are cornerstones of President Bush's plan to "transform the military."

Rumsfeld Aides Seek Cuts In Armed Forces - WSJ 8/8/01

"After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B-2 bomber. We will cancel the small ICBM program. We will cease production of new warheads for our sea-based ballistic missiles. We will stop all new production of the Peacekeeper [MX] missile. And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles. … The reductions I have approved will save us an additional $50 billion over the next five years. By 1997 we will have cut defense by 30 percent since I took office."

George H.W. Bush, Jan. 28, 1992.

Gen. Colin Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at the same hearings, testifying about plans to cut Army divisions by one-third, Navy aircraft carriers by one-fifth, and active armed forces by half a million men and women, to say noting of "major reductions" in fighter wings and strategic bombers.

In January 1990, Cheney banned the hiring of any new civilian personnel in the Defense Department through the end of September, which left more than 65,000 jobs vacant. Under the budget proposed in 1990, the Pentagon would have reduced active military personnel by 38,000; selected reserves would have fallen by 3,000. The budget called for the deactivation of two Army divisions. Long range, the Pentagon planned to reduce its work force by 300,000, including about 200,000 military personnel and 100,000 civilians. In 1991, he called for reduction of 200,000 active and reserve military personnel over two years. In 1992, Cheney called for cutting 500,000 active-duty people, 200,000 reservists, and 200,000 civilians over five years. [Minneapolis Star-Tribune, 2/2/92; Chicago Tribune, 2/20/91; 1990 CQ Almanac, p. 672; Washington Post, 1/13/90; Boston Globe, 1/30/90]

REPUBLICANS EMPTY SCARE TACTIC - CLAIMING ONLY DEMOCRATS CUT DEFENSE | ItsYourTimes.com

 

[BWG]

George likes it, or not

“The bottom line is this: Congress’s failure to fund our troops will mean that some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to return from the front lines. Others could see their loved ones headed back to war sooner than anticipated. This is unacceptable. It’s unacceptable to me, it’s unacceptable to our veterans, it’s unacceptable to our military families, and it’s unacceptable to many in this country.”-GWB

Or is it just unacceptable when he can blame it on the Democrat lead Congress?...:shock:

 

[Kandahar]

I worked for the Department of Defense in the nineties I personally saw what Clinton did to the military then..........Forcing good men out at four, eight, and tweleve years and forcing retirement on men with 15 years with reduced compensation......Cutting the number of ships the navy had in half........Your boy did that and the military has never recovered from it..........

Bush has had seven years to "fix" the alleged damage that evil Clinton caused. Don't you think that the reduction in our armed forces might've had something to do with the fact that the Cold War ended in 1991?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

George likes it, or not

“The bottom line is this: Congress’s failure to fund our troops will mean that some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to return from the front lines. Others could see their loved ones headed back to war sooner than anticipated. This is unacceptable. It’s unacceptable to me, it’s unacceptable to our veterans, it’s unacceptable to our military families, and it’s unacceptable to many in this country.”-GWB

Or is it just unacceptable when he can blame it on the Democrat lead Congress?...:shock:

U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act, 2007
​

SEC. 1902.

• (a) Congress finds that it is Defense Department policy that Army, Army Reserve, and National Guard units should not be deployed for combat beyond 365 days or that Marine Corps and Marine Corps Reserve units should not be deployed for combat beyond 210 days.

SEC. 1903.

• (a) Congress finds that it is Defense Department policy that Army, Army Reserve, and National Guard units should not be redeployed for combat if the unit has been deployed within the previous 365 consecutive days or that Marine Corps and Marine Corps Reserve units should not be redeployed for combat if the unit has been deployed within the previous 210 days.

 

[TheNextEra]

Your boy did that and the military has never recovered from it..........

What a bunch of BS. Sorry, but it's not Clinton's fault this war in Iraq was half-assed run and YOUR BOY "STAYED THE COURSE" instead of correcting failures in the beginning.

I love how conservatives are STILL trying to blame Clinton for Iraq :rofl . I guess that whole personal responsibility thing you conservatives claimed to have is right out the window. This administration CHOSE to fight this war with the Military we had and it did a half-assed job at running it. You want to blame someone for Iraq, blame this administration.

 

[Willow]

This is nothing new.......It comes with the territory.....You as a dependent wife should know that..........

Really? When was the last time you were deployed to a war zone sent home for a few months deployed again, sent home for a few months and deployed again and sent home for a few months and deployed again....etc..etc..with no end in sight. We have soldiers on their third and fourth tours. The war has only been going on for four years. And there is no end in sight.
One extension would be normal to do it again and again and again and again is not right.
Our troops are exhausted, their equipment is breaking down. A real surge would be sending fresh troops (if they could find them) not extending people who have already done their duty.

Tours get extended all the time, even during what you would call peaceful times. Its no shock to me that tours are being extended in a time of war, and it shouldn't be to anybody who is in the military, or is a family of a military member.

And it wasn't a shock to me, what shocked me was the reaction of the families, I don't think I've ever seen that amount of anger and frustration (the troops here are going back for 15 after being home for only ten months). Of course anyone in the military should be prepared to go to war, I think in this case many of them were not prepared to go back again so soon and for so long.
What also shocked me is the cavalier response to this, "oh they should have known" etc. No one in the military five years ago would have expected this and recruiters lie all the time to get people to join. This sort of war and this sort of non stop deployment is not the norm and never should be, it places too much stress on our soldiers and their equipment and their families. (And the cavalier response also reminds me that are very few people who actually truly support the troops)
Mind you, outside of starting the draft up which would be political suicide, I don't know what the government can do.

 

[26 X World Champs]

I worked for the Department of Defense in the nineties I personally saw what Clinton did to the military then..........Forcing good men out at four, eight, and tweleve years and forcing retirement on men with 15 years with reduced compensation......Cutting the number of ships the navy had in half........Your boy did that and the military has never recovered from it..........

Please explain to me how the cutting of the US Navy (which you did not prove with verifiable sources and with all due respect I do not take your word as creditable) has affected the war effort in Iraq?

Are there Sunni, Shiite and Terrorist Navies?

 

[WI Crippler]

What a bunch of BS. Sorry, but it's not Clinton's fault this war in Iraq was half-assed run and YOUR BOY "STAYED THE COURSE" instead of correcting failures in the beginning.

I love how conservatives are STILL trying to blame Clinton for Iraq :rofl . I guess that whole personal responsibility thing you conservatives claimed to have is right out the window. This administration CHOSE to fight this war with the Military we had and it did a half-assed job at running it. You want to blame someone for Iraq, blame this administration.

The only problem I have with this, is that it makes it sound like the administration is conservative. It is anything but.

Otherwise I agree. Clinton can't be held responsible for the war in iraq. 9/11 there is some argument for that, but the war in iraq?? No.

Even though I think the War in Iraq is necessary towards the goal of a stable middle east, this administration screwed the pooch by pretending they were going to get to fight the war the way they wanted to, instead of looking at the cultures involved and planning for that. They went to liberate the Iraqis, and choose whatever reason you want, they ignored the culture of the very people they were liberating.

 

[Navy Pride]

Really? When was the last time you were deployed to a war zone sent home for a few months deployed again, sent home for a few months and deployed again and sent home for a few months and deployed again....etc..etc..with no end in sight. We have soldiers on their third and fourth tours. The war has only been going on for four years. And there is no end in sight.
One extension would be normal to do it again and again and again and again is not right.
Our troops are exhausted, their equipment is breaking down. A real surge would be sending fresh troops (if they could find them) not extending people who have already done their duty.
And it wasn't a shock to me, what shocked me was the reaction of the families, I don't think I've ever seen that amount of anger and frustration (the troops here are going back for 15 after being home for only ten months). Of course anyone in the military should be prepared to go to war, I think in this case many of them were not prepared to go back again so soon and for so long.
What also shocked me is the cavalier response to this, "oh they should have known" etc. No one in the military five years ago would have expected this and recruiters lie all the time to get people to join. This sort of war and this sort of non stop deployment is not the norm and never should be, it places too much stress on our soldiers and their equipment and their families. (And the cavalier response also reminds me that are very few people who actually truly support the troops)
Mind you, outside of starting the draft up which would be political suicide, I don't know what the government can do.

It was actually 1969 when I returned from a ten month deployment on the USS SACRAMENTO (AOE-1) ....We spent a month in our homeport then went on a 6 week shakedown cruise off San Diego, Loaded Bombs and Ammo and proceeded back to VietNam where we were scheduled for another 10 month deployment that got extended to a year........We had a turn around of about 3 months.......No one liked it but we accepted it becasue we were at war..........

You sound like the talking points right out of Murtha's playbook....I live within a few miles of Fort lewis Army Post and talk to soldiers from the Strykers division all the time.......They tell me that if they had their choice they would rather not go on another deployment to Iraq but most realize we are at war and in a fight for our very survival.......They believe in their mission in Iraq and feel they are turning the corner in spite of what the left wing media and the Murthas of the world say..........All they ask is a chance to complete their mission in Iraq.........

 

[Iriemon]

It was actually 1969 when I returned from a ten month deployment on the USS SACRAMENTO (AOE-1) ....We spent a month in our homeport then went on a 6 week shakedown cruise off San Diego, Loaded Bombs and Ammo and proceeded back to VietNam where we were scheduled for another 10 month deployment that got extended to a year........We had a turn around of about 3 months.......No one liked it but we accepted it becasue we were at war..........

You sound like the talking points right out of Murtha's playbook....I live within a few miles of Fort lewis Army Post and talk to soldiers from the Strykers division all the time.......They tell me that if they had their choice they would rather not go on another deployment to Iraq but most realize we are at war and in a fight for our very survival.......They believe in their mission in Iraq and feel they are turning the corner in spite of what the left wing media and the Murthas of the world say..........All they ask is a chance to complete their mission in Iraq.........

Do they think the insurgency is in its last throes?

 

[26 X World Champs]

You sound like the talking points right out of Murtha's playbook.

Do you have a link to that playbook? I've never heard of it and would like to see what you're talking about or are you just making it up again? Please link us to Murtha's playbook.

They tell me that if they had their choice they would rather not go on another deployment to Iraq but most realize we are at war and in a fight for our very survival.

Who are we at war with in Iraq, specifically? You see I can't answer that question accurately. Can you? Are we fighting the Sunnis? Shiites? Al Qaeda? Iranians? Syrians? Please tell us who the enemy is EXACTLY. Please do not use your regular talking point points and instead really tell us who we are fighting. I am sincerely curious who you perceive our enemies are in Iraq.

They believe in their mission in Iraq and feel they are turning the corner in spite of what the left wing media and the Murthas of the world say..........All they ask is a chance to complete their mission in Iraq.........

I'm also curious how we know that we've completed the mission? Certainly it's not going to be a democratically elected government presiding over a peaceful country so then what constitutes completing the mission?

As far as the surge working, would you please, again, provide some actual proof of that? It seems that you're wishing it works (which we all do) but that you're ignoring the facts, again.

Hell, just yesterday there was a bomb in the Iraqi Parliament building despite supposedly really strict security. Not too mention that the violence outside of Baghdad has increased AND the actual amount of deaths to Americans has also increased in March from February.

So Navy Pride please answer my questions! You claim to not like Liberals because we supposedly "CUT AND RUN" but it seems like everytime I try to debate you in all sorts of threads on many different topics you post one liners that have no proof as to their truth and when asked to debate you appear to be the one who "CUTS AND RUNS" from the debate.

Come on! Let's debate!

 

[DeeJayH]

myself, i would rather have experienced battle hardened soldiers on the battlefield
rathre than constantly rotating them out and bringing in newbies
that is just retarded
keep the experienced as they have knowledge of the situation
constantly sending newbies into the battlefeild is a recipe for disaster

 

[Jerry]

Iraq Tours

I have been screamed at by army families since this hit the news (I work for the DOD and volunteer with family support services for the military). I'm really surprised that no one here posted this.
I want to know where all the people who supposedly support the troops and think this surge was a good idea are.
This is incredibly damaging to the families and the troops.

I'm right here, though I'm finishing my degree before I enlist (in support of our actions in the Middle East) so that should my tour be extended my education will not be compromised.

 

[Navy Pride]

LOL! 7 years later and its still all Clinton's fault!

Because the "Great Communicator" Ronald Reagan won the cold war Bush 1 made cuts in the military.........Clinton carried them to and extreme because he hates the military.............

That is a fact of life.............The idea was to cut the civilian work force but very few civilians lost their jobs, they were just transferred..........That was not the case for the military.............It still has not recovered.......

 

[Iriemon]

Because the "Great Communicator" Ronald Reagan won the cold war Bush 1 made cuts in the military.........Clinton carried them to and extreme because he hates the military.............

That is a fact of life.............The idea was to cut the civilian work force but very few civilians lost their jobs, they were just transferred..........That was not the case for the military.............It still has not recovered.......

http://www.debatepolitics.com/532026-post9.html

 

[Kandahar]

Because the "Great Communicator" Ronald Reagan won the cold war Bush 1 made cuts in the military.........Clinton carried them to and extreme because he hates the military.

Or because we didn't really have any powerful enemies in the 1990s.

 

[Iriemon]

Or because we didn't really have any powerful enemies in the 1990s.

We still don't really have any powerful enemies. We could have cut the defense budget in 1/2 from 2000 and still have the most power military in the world by far.

Of course, if we are going to go around making up reasons to invade countries and create hostile forces we are trying to occupy, then we'll probably need *a lot* more troops. I'm not sure how spending big chunks of money on F-22s helps deal with occupation problems, though.

Since 2000, the defense budget has gone up 70% a year -- not counting the cost of the wars. That's over $200 billion a year more spent.

Yet I don't think we have *any* additional manpower in the armed forces. If not for hiring more soldiers, makes me wonder where the hell have all those hundreds and hundres of billions of extra dollars gone?