Bush's Troop Deployment Time Mirage

Here's the problem with President Bush's announced reduction in troop deployment times from 15 to 12 months: it's a PR stunt.

Why? Because, according to the AP, this won't apply to troops currently in the field, but those deploying in August. Now, I may be no expert in the president's "fuzzy math," but my calculations tell me that 12 months from August, 2008 is August, 2009.

There's no President Bush at that point.

So this is a promise he can throw out there, and never has to keep. What it is, though, is a lifeline to Senator McCain. It makes it look like we're easing the burden on troops before the election. It's an illusion, allowing Senator McCain to try to make the case that conditions on the ground are so good that we can ease the strain on the military now. That talking point will come in handy when Senators Obama or Clinton try to raise the breaking of our military. It's also a little mirage of sugar, to help the medicine go down. Since the president announced he's stopping troop redeployments, his faux promise to reduce deployment times is an attempt to make the news sound not so bad.

If the president, and Senator McCain, want to put their money where their mouth is, then they can stop standing in the way of the Webb-Hagel "Dwell Time" Amendment. That amendment would put into law a reduction of deployment time and give troops as much time on the homefront as they spend in the field -- 12 months deployed, 12 months at home. That's a generous compromise amendment, as in the past there has usually been a 1-2 ratio in deployed-to-homefront time.

Senator McCain led the opposition to the common-sense Dwell Time amendment in the past, with the president backing him up every step of the way.

If they are truly serious about relieving the strain on our forces, they'll pass the Dwell Time amendment. If not, then everyone can only take one thing away -- this is political PR, and nothing more. But what else is new?

Follow Jon Soltz on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jonsoltz

Comments

[straightshooter]

04:26 PM on 04/13/2008

Ronald Reagan's view of George "W" in his diaries, recently edited by author Doug Brinkley and published by Harper Collins:

"A moment I've been dreading. George [Bush Sr.] brought his n'er-do-we­ll son around this morning and asked me to find the kid a job. Not the political one who lives in Florida; the one who hangs around here all the time looking shiftless. This so-called kid is already almost 40 and has never had a real job. Maybe I'll call Kinsley over at The New Republic and see if they'll hire him as a contributi­ng editor or something. That looks like easy work."

From the REAGAN DIARIES---­---entry dated May 17, 1986.

[LightningJoe]

06:59 AM on 04/15/2008

That must be why they loved Saint Reagan so -- even people he hated could count on him for a job.

-----
stop watching tv. just stop.

[OnceProudAmerican]

08:57 PM on 04/12/2008

Sounds like more SMOKE AND MIRRORS. Bush is so full of S#@% his eyes are brown.

[Davwbaird]

07:38 PM on 04/12/2008

Impeach Bush and get a jump start on McCain. Birds of a feather.

[LightningJoe]

07:03 AM on 04/15/2008

DON'T impeach Bush! If Cheney were to ascend to the Oval Throne, he could appoint whomever he wants, as his new VP. We ought to impeach both at the same time, and announce the verdict in the same sentence, so as to get them both out at the same time with no new Neo-Corpor­atist Prez or VP being appointed. Once Pelosi is in, she can appoint her own VP.

Just saying...

---
TV! Kill! Kill!

[MarkJohnHunter]

12:09 PM on 04/12/2008

Bush has tossed out a diversion from the Petreaus hearings. No need to even consider the withdrawal formula Bush put out. We read so little about the big picture of world political stability that we might as well be comparing the shoe sizes of presidents of different countries as discussing the Bush withdrawal plan, or The Dwell after The Surge. Alpena - Mark John Hunter

[Larry Kegel]

11:49 AM on 04/12/2008

How can believe anything that Bush says... He lied to get us into this war... If He wanted it so bad... At least He could have done it the way His Father did it... His Father got further & know one of Our Country got killed... But I guess He wanted to show His Father He was better than Him... Will He sure did a bad job doing it... He messed up not only there but Our Country!!!

[gasbomb]

09:53 AM on 04/12/2008

Is there no end to this nightmare we call a Bush Administra­tuin? We can hope as I understand Bush & co, cn be impeached even after they leave office. Is this true?

[wilso127]

08:05 AM on 04/12/2008

God Help These United States of America.

[3Ons]

02:46 AM on 04/12/2008

"Strain on forces"? You think we're that whimpy?

You think people courageous­ly VOLUNTEER to serve and protect, to defend all people equally, are joinging a 'health club?' A 'talkers circle'? A 'view the world from the privacy of your home pc!' ???

Dwell Amendment: get paid to PRETEND -- just like our own hateful Congress, FAKING 'majesty' while FAKING 'knighthoo­d' as FAKE 'knights' wearing FAKE 'shining-w­hite-armor­' riding FAKE 'white-sta­llions' to FAKE 'rushing-t­o-the-resc­ue' to FAKE 'saving-th­e-day.'

You know, there's people that sign-up as volunteers to help disaster victims. It takes big dollars to train them. They tell everybody. Photo-op at every opportunit­y. "Look at me! I'm so great! I'm positive!" nonstop. THEN, the moment they see the horror, or get a little dirt on their hands, the moment they are called to TASK, they say, "I didn't sign-up for this shit!" and they quit. They just go home. Take the desert and disert.

You could do feature-le­ngth documentar­ies of people like that, too self-absor­bed to actually HELP anybody AT ALL -- but whom DEMAND your 'help' at every obstacle encountere­d during their self-impor­tant 'busy' day, blaming Bush for his 'burdens' placed against 'volunteer­s.' a Dwell Amendment to make it ILLEGAL to 'help' more than '2-days' at a time -- with a minimum of 2-days PAID VACATION for your 'stress' and 'hardship' and 'sacrifice­' between 'helpings.­'

It's not just politics that's gone ridiculous -- it's punditry too.

[Decipherer]

10:25 AM on 04/12/2008

So, beyond having one of those idiotic "I Support the Troops" ribbons affixed to the rear of your SUV which, if removed, wouldn't even hurt your paint job, do you really "support the troops" or not?

If so, how so?

We have no draft, we've dumped the entire war ON Iraq mess on the military who were thrown into this cesspool with minimal preparatio­n for an insurgency (see Vietnam), we've cut taxes for the first time in U.S. history and are borrowing from China and God knows who else to pay for this disaster, and the American people are told to go shopping (the result of which is huge personal debt, mortgage foreclosur­es and other financial misery).

So, excuse me if I side with those who are trying to make it just a bit easier on those soldiers out there in harm's way on a mission from hell, led by the biggest idiot president we've ever had, with no end in sight.

I do agree, however, with your general assessment of Americans being spoiled, ignorant, lazy, self-absor­bed, and afraid to get their hands dirty when times are tough. The poster child for that attitude is, of course, none other than George W. Bush whose life in general and presidency in particular has made it OK for mediocrity­, failure, and negligence­. And that's before all the criminalit­y, but that's a discussion for another day.

[kenfoh]

12:11 PM on 04/12/2008

You sure use the words FAKE and REAL a lot in your posts. What is not FAKE is that we were sent to war on a lie... thats a fact. What is REAL is that thousands of our military have died and are disabled because of this lie. As far as the "wimp" comment...­. are we in 4th grade? One thing I agree with you on is that we joined the military to defend ALL the citizens of the United States as well as your Constituti­onal right to express your opinion. Look, I have been a soldier for about 10 years now and there is nothing FAKE about the suffering that is going on in our military right now in various forms. Can and will we get through it and accomplish the missions we are given....o­f course we will...tha­ts what we do. However, for you to come on here and defend people and actions that have no real defense is pointless. We made a lot of mistakes after 9/11. The most important one was taking our eye and focus off Afghanista­n. Let's get real about this so we can take the fight to those that attacked us.

[THINKB4USPEAK]

11:18 PM on 04/11/2008

Having thought, now I will "speak". Two brothers are fighting. If you intercede, they will stop long enough to beat you down, so they can get back to their fight. One cannot force "democracy­" on a society . Democracy must be the will of the majority of the people involved, or else fail by definition­. This appears to be the situation in Iraq. As far as congressio­nal support for the "war" goes, given the "evidence" presented at the time, it's understand­able. It's just that in an actual legal hearing, under the Constituti­on we used to use, that "evidence" could be described as "perjury". Some four years ago, I told a friend I thought the present administra­tion would stage an event, simular to 9|11, just prior to the 08 elections, so they could declare a state of national emergency and suspend the election (easier than fixing the entire state of florida, I guess.). i am seeing nothing to change my sense of this. I make no claim to historian status, but I do remember the bad old days of futility during Vietnam,wh­en the Nixon gang(meet the new boss,same as the old boss) tried to re-establi­sh nazigerman­y in the USA in the name of "national security". I believe that now, like then, when the files are opened, we will find the only thing being protected is the position(s­) of the already-po­werful. On a personal note,NUTCA­SE, hi there, Dayton.Sod­dy-Daisy here.

[Themadigan]

02:41 AM on 04/12/2008

This is pretty much "PR". The question is when are we going to convince our congress to get the guts enough to stand up to BushCo. to cut off all war funding (except that which would facilitate an immediate withdrawl)­?
The length of deployment­s is sooooo beside the point; our troops should not be deployed there at all!! Withdraw our troops now, and the question would be game, set and match!

[spyder03]

06:35 PM on 04/11/2008

When has Bush told the truth about anything, doesn't listen to anyone that doesn't aree with him such as many Military advisers he forced out or had them fired . You have to remember the Bush motto ''WHY LET FACTS GET IN THE WAY OF THE TRUTH, PRETEND THEY DON'T EXIST.'' Bush is getting more irrelevant everyday, its just a shame are troops are paying for his ignorance.

[whatsmyname]

05:48 PM on 04/11/2008

I suspected it before but now its there right out in the open; Huffpo, really caters to the east coast and leaves comments pending for hours and hours. Hmmm, someone must have "got to 'em" because they are getting more timid and really backing off pointing ANY FINGERS TOWARDS, "THAT HOUSE'. I've seen yellow journalism but this is NUTS......

[realistic2008]

05:21 PM on 04/11/2008

The biggest problem with Bush is that he has no idea what in the hell, where he has a space reserved,
has done, is doing and will be doing. He should be sent to Mars to show US how right he's been when he claims there is life there as much as there is death in Iraq. Would it not be wonderful for him to bring democracy to Mars by invading the Martians?

[accord]

08:31 PM on 04/11/2008

You're comment made as much sense as braille on a drive-up ATM.

[websmith]

05:12 PM on 04/11/2008

There is no plan to end this occupation­.

Obama plans on leaving a protective force in the country that will amount to 40-80,000 troupes who will continue to suffer casualties­.

There are two ways to end it. One is to withdraw. The other is to double the size of the force in there now and get it over with. The lesson from Desert Storm showed us that this strategy results in many less casualties and is less expensive than leaving the sustaining force in place now.

The only reason deployment time has become an issue is because of the political way this is being dragged on. The soldiers are suffering because the civilians are screwing things up.

[RTOTrainer]

10:20 PM on 04/11/2008

Politics has little to do with the time this takes. There are things we may do that can make it last longder, but the minimum time it will take will not change.

Never in history has a nation been built in less than about 20 years. In this case, 40 is probably more realistic, that's about what it took the Mahgreb states. By nation building I refer in particular to a stable governemtn with functionin­g courts and the capacity to defend itself.

It taeks 15 years to build a Brigade Commander or a 1st Sergeant--­that correspond­s, roughly, to a Chief of Police or a Detective as well.

[GnitenGoodLk]

12:42 AM on 04/12/2008

How confident are you Iraq will be a rebuilt nation devoid of extremism?

Won't it take a massive campaign of exterminat­ion of the population to ensure it doesn't end up just another Pakistan or Saudi Arabia? Or Iran?

Just wondering.­..you seem very knowledgea­ble. Would like your take.

[Decipherer]

11:10 AM on 04/12/2008

You mean 40-80,000 dance "troupes"? Fantastic!

That means the war ON Iraq is over, FINALLY, and all Baghdad can now relax and enjoy acts like the Rockettes, etc. while our SOLDIERS (AKA "troops") can come on home!

Hallelujah­!

Now that's real, honest to God, original U.S. entertainm­ent. The Iraqis deserve it as much as we do. After all they died for a little soft shoe even more than we did.

[whatsmyname]

04:59 PM on 04/11/2008

Soltz, a good article and the accompanyi­ng ap picture by the Shooter, Furst is a great one and no one is noticing that the troops have wore out their tans (desert camo fatigue uniforms) and they're wearing well, hell, probably ALL THEY HAVE TO WEAR, FOR CHRIST SAKE! I don't think thats the uniform FOR THE AREA, OK? And, Mr Soltz, I disagree with you as you claim, Bush won't be around. He ain't leavin' You, of all people should know a constituti­on, a law and whatever else you want to throw at those two will just roll off their back and you can almost hear cheney saying, "...and ya know what, kid? Are ya up for it? Let's really get their goat and fix that damn weanie congress..­.....whatt­a ya say, 2, 3 or so years? Hell, I'll drink to that.....a­nd to the peons...I mean the people burppppppp­pppp!"

[accord]

04:21 PM on 04/11/2008

While there are cases where less than a 1:1 ratio is observed (such as the 15:12 ratio currently in place for the short term), the predominan­t dwell time is on a one to one ratio.

While I think the intention of the bill is a good one, the armed forces already try to keep a 1:1 ratio. They don't want to have their hands tied, though, should a lower ratio be needed (such as the surge or an overpoweri­ng presences in a region).

I disagree that this is an attempt at a "backdoor troop reduction"­, but I do think it unnecessar­ily ties the hands of the DoD in trying to force them to do something they're already trying to do.

[kenfoh]

09:02 PM on 04/11/2008

when was the last time you went to Iraq or Afghanista­n? The "surge" was only "needed" to obscure the fact that we are never going to make Iraq into what we want it to be...and it was a method used to pass on this mess to the next President.

[RTOTrainer]

10:41 PM on 04/11/2008

I returned from Afghanista­n about a year ago. I cannot agree with you.

[RTOTrainer]

10:40 PM on 04/11/2008

Actually it would change nothing.

http://web­b.senate.g­ov/pdf/Web­bAmdtSep07­.pdf

Look at Section 1031 (e) on page 8.