Fred Kagan, fat-assed draft-dodging AEI Neoconservative legacy bottom-feeder writing about the Webb Amendment…

Posted on Monday 17 September 2007

The more successful we are, the more American troops can return home

George W. Bush
September 13th, 2007

We obviously are not going to hold the Iraqi Government to any "benchmarks" in the Iraq War. If last week was about anything that mattered, that was the only real clear message. Well maybe there’s a second message. One to our own soldiers. They can come home when they’ve won the [obviously unwinnable] War. It’s kind of interesting. Everyone – Bush, Petraeus, Democrats – starts every speech by talking about how magnificently our soldiers have performed in Iraq. I wish Mr. Bush meant it. Now we have Mr. Bush essentially blackmailing the soldiers – you can come home if, and when, you win. Ergo, not winning is your fault. Sounds like he’s setting a pretty high benchmark for them. At least that’s how I’d hear it were I still a soldier.

Now we have confirmation in the Administration’s reaction to the Webb Ammendment. It basically says that a soldier is only required to be in Iraq half of his/her life. Bush says he’ll veto it. Why? Says Dana:
— it would tie the hands of our generals who are trying to move troops around; that it might mean longer troop deployments for some troops; that it would impede his stated policy and the President’s stated policy of trying to get to a more predictive and stable rotation schedule — for active Army for example, one year on, one year off; and for National Guard Reserves, one year on, three years off. That is the goal that everyone is working towards. And Secretary Gates strongly believes that the Webb amendment would not be able to achieve these — would impede them from achieving these goals, amongst other problems that he sees with the bill. So he would recommend a veto.
Glen Greenwald points us to Fred Kagan, fat-assed draft-dodging AEI Neoconservative legacy bottom-feeder writing about the Webb Amendment:
Fred Kagan yesterday went to National Review — home to countless tough guy warriors like him who fight nothing — to argue against Senator Webb’s bill. There is no need to give our troops more time away from the battlefield, Kagan types. Besides, doing that would be too administratively difficult ("this amendment would actually require the Army and Marine Corps staffs to keep track of how long every individual servicemember had spent in either Iraq or Afghanistan, how long they had been at home, how long the unit that they were now in had spent deployed, and how long it had been home").

If troops want more time at home, Kagan says, there is an easy way to achieve that: "win the war we’re fighting." Of course, that would not even work, because Kagan and his friends at the Weekly Standard and the American Enterprise Institute have many more wars planned beyond Iraq for other families’ sons and daughters to fight. For that reason, Kagan actually had the audacity several months ago to type this: "The president must issue a personal call for young Americans to volunteer to fight in the decisive conflict of this generation."
If troops want more time at home, Kagan says, there is an easy way to achieve that: "win the war we’re fighting."  Sounds like President Bush’s message to me…
  1.  
    Smoooochie
    September 17, 2007 | 6:18 PM
     

    These are the kind of politicos that don’t see our children as children. They see them as fodder for their agendas. That’s it. They are not people. They are not individuals. They are “troops.” I’m sick to death of “leaders” that don’t get that there are actual people and lives behind the numbers.
    I want a little ROI on my tax dollars and by Bush and Cheney not being impeached I’m not seeing it!

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.