Gates Would Urge Veto of Webb Troop Deployment Plan
EmailABC News’ Tahman Bradley Reports: A proposal by Democratic Senator of Virginia Jim Webb to influence force levels in Iraq by requiring that US troops spend as much time at home as they do on deployments overseas drew criticism Sunday from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who said he would recommend President Bush veto such a requirement.
Gates expressed concern that Webb’s proposal would create a very difficult force management issue and could force commanders to tap the already stressed national guard and reserves.
"It would be extremely difficult for us to manage that. I think it’s really a backdoor effort to get the president to accelerate the draw down," Gates said.
"We’re having difficulty trying to keep to my policy of 15 months deployed, 12 months at home, for the active force and a full-year mobilization limit on the Guard and Reserve. We’re having enough trouble trying to make that work, without the strictures of legislation."
At a press conference Friday Gates raised the possibility that US troop level in Iraq could be cut to around 100,000 by the end of 2008.
"My hope is that when he does his assessment in March that General Petraeus will be able to say that he thinks that the pace of the drawdown’s can continue at the same rate in the second half of the year as in the first half of the year," he said.
Force levels in Iraq today are nearly 170,000.
Gates appeared on "This Week" and "Fox News Sunday".
The Senate is expected to resume debate on anti-war legislation this week but the White House has warned Congress should not try to influence deployment and troop rotation because it limits military commanders’ flexibility.
Also on Political Radar
ABC News’ Mary Bruce on Gates rebuking Alan Greenspan’s claim that the Iraq war is "largely about oil," also from "This Week".
Sen. DeMint: GOP Race Could Go Until Convention 
Obama Avoids Questions on Contraception Rule
All the Sunday media outlets today the pundits of staying in Iraq both media and administration could not give heartfelt answers to why we are still there and when we will leave. They all could not answer if we were safer because of the administrations policy.
So why does everyone still clamor for stay the course? Even if some want to reduce the troops by a small amount?
Are they all insane? For doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity. And they all but one clear voice says do almost the same thing over again by staying in Iraq and trying to administer an American solution. That lone sane voice is Rep. Ron Paul.
We need nation building here in the US
over 50% of the people chose not to vote! 70% of the people want change to the deadly policy of policing the world.
We have big security problems here in the United States! 15 to 30 million illegal aliens. 20% price increases in ffood and rent, people living the experience of losing their homes. The ccongress that cannot get higher than 220% approval ratings.
Only one person has the solution that is
Dr. Ron Paul. Cheers
Posted by: Ronald Murphy | September 16, 2007, 1:14 pm 1:14 pm
When a man (or woman) dies in war, there is no amount of financial compensation that can make that loss “right” for that person’s spouse and kids and loss to what could have been to future generations in that family. If the war was truly necessary, then that is the justification that compensates the family. But if the war was not truly necessary, then the consequences I believe are revealed to those repsonsible – politicians AND voters – by God when each of us are held accountable. Truly necessary, that is the question.
Posted by: David Schwalje | September 16, 2007, 1:24 pm 1:24 pm
Bush, Cheney, Gates, Petraeus or anyone else in the Bush administration can say anything they want responding to what Greenspan said. It will be a lie. Greenspan wanted Bush to succeed but unfortunately he watched as Bush gave large tax breaks to corporations and the richest 2%. Bush and Cheney are dangerous and someone in our government needs to clamp down on them so that they are not bombing Iran during the rest of their term. Cheney is a pycho goon who wants to attack Iran so bad he can’t stand it. While we in this country want Iran left alone and to get out of Iraq responsibly as soon as possible.
Posted by: Vicki | September 17, 2007, 12:08 am 12:08 am
Webb’s (and Murtha’s) “Slow Bleed” Strategy is a disgraceful, backdoor attempt to deliberately make our military forces less effective—rather than directly Stop the War. Then, when we can’t fight al-Qaeda as well and more troops die and more civilians die–the Liberals can cite the growing violence, and therefore a greater need to “re-deploy.” (wink, wink)
This way, the Dems can bring about defeat—but avoid responsibility for the defeat which they deeply believe is needed to cleanse our Imperialist souls.
If the Left feels the War is wrong, then their majorities should propose and pass legislation which Ends the War–plain and simple. If Bush vetos it, then he bears full responsibility for the ongoing carnage. It makes the choice crystal clear to America.
The problem is that the Left greatly fears the choice that most Americans would then make—support the Surge.
Posted by: here we go again | September 18, 2007, 3:16 pm 3:16 pm
“Here we go again Sep 18, 2007 3:16:05 post”… people who think this war can be simplified into “liberal” and “conservative” opinions miss the truth. People in their quiet moments know that they themselves would not volunteer for this war or encourage their loved ones to volunteer for this war. Responsible Americans will vote for Democrats in 2008 (President, Senate, and Representatives) because that is how this war will be ended. The refusal of Republicans to join with responsible Democrats shows the Republicans need to be held accountable for this war. Just for the record, I am a Pat Buchanan Conservative. The Neo-Cons need to be kicked out of office.
Posted by: David Schwalje | September 20, 2007, 2:24 pm 2:24 pm