Posted on 08/08/2007 11:33:37 AM PDT by pissant
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I might consume.
Mr. Speaker, this is a well-motivated bill. I want to commend my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee for all the great work that they do, Democrat and Republican. Most of the time we're on common ground. In this case, I think that this bill does not accrue to the benefit of the troops. I think it hurts the troops.
I think that is a question every Member of the House has to ask themselves: Is this going to be good for the troops, or is it going to be bad for the troops?
I think it will be bad for the troops, for this reason: We are fighting a war in Iraq which requires innovation, flexibility and experience. This bill, which will put a straitjacket on our ability to deploy troops on the basis that their clock has not yet expired back in the United States before they go over, is going to have an incredibly detrimental affect on our ability to project a well-rounded, effective fighting team in the warfighting theater in Iraq.
Let me talk about that a little bit, Mr. Speaker.
You are going to have units which desperately require specialties. Some of the specialties, I would remind my friend, are IEDs, the ability to operate jammers, the ability perhaps to decontaminate if you come into contact with some of the chemical weapons stockpiles that were left by the old regime. Military effectiveness is built on dozens and dozens of specialities, all of which support the other.
The idea that you can't put this team together, that the Marines or the Army can't put their warfighting team together because they looked at the list of people who are most able to fill those roles, most able to move in and stand next to their fellow Marine, their fellow soldier, their fellow airman, the guy that is doing the mechanic work on that important helicopter that is going to be the transportation vehicle, the guy that is doing the repair work on that particular weapons system, those people are not going to be able to flow over into the theater because their clock hasn't moved appropriately on the one-to-one ratio.
Now, we consulted the U.S. Marines on this provision. We didn't consult political people in the White House. We didn't consult people who had an opinion on whether or not we should be in Iraq. We consulted the people who have the job of putting together these packages of personnel which are required in the warfighting theater and transporting them to the theater.
Of course, the Deputy Commandant of the Marine Corps for Plans and Operations is Lieutenant General Richard Natonski. Here is his statement he gave to the committee. He said, ``In order to support OIF requirements during Fiscal Year 2008 and comply with the minimum period between deployments proposed by provisions like H.R. 3159, a one-to-one ratio, the Marine Corps would have to adjust force generation plans. These plan adjustments would include extending unit deployments.''
Somebody has to stay on the battlefield. The battlefield is not going to be empty. So if you are not going to allow new Marines to come in, the Marines that are there right now are going to have to stay there.
It is the same with the Army. These plan adjustments could include extending unit deployments, creating provisional units. That means you are going to have to put new units together because the old unit hasn't had its meter expire yet. And forcing units to execute missions as in-lieu-of forces, meaning that units that don't have that specialty are going to have to become units that have that specialty. That means ``quickie'' training and moving people immediately into the battlefield to fill a role that otherwise could be filled by people who have a deep specialty in that capability.
Mr. Speaker, he finishes with this statement that every Member of Congress should listen to very carefully. He said, each of these adjustments that will be required by Mrs. Tauscher's bill, among others, incurs higher risk than that associated with deploying the unit at a deployment-to-dwell time of seven to six.
I want to remind my colleagues, higher risk means higher risk of casualties. That is what happens when the guy that is supporting you on the battlefield doesn't have as much experience as you would like him to have, doesn't have that specialty, hasn't been there before, doesn't have that insight that is going to keep you alive.
Mr. Speaker, this is a well-meaning bill. But if you ask this question, does it help the troops or hurt the troops, this bill hurts the troops.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
DH Ping
B4DH Bump for Duncan Hunter.
It’s refreshing to see a man who actually knows what he is talking about.
I like his analysis. Will the suckbags on the ASC listen (expecially HRC) to someone who understands the issue at more than a “scratch the surface” level?
Probably not.
They didn’t. They voted for the measure. Bush will veto if it makes it out of the senate.
B4DH Bump for Duncan Hunter!
He’s the only one who seems to. I’m kind of new here. Did anyone put me on the Duncan Hunter ping list yet?
You are kinda new! Welcome and congratulations for choosing the winning candidate!:)
Kinda new? That’s a spanking new newbie.
Thanks. One good thing about the premature election activities... Maybe everyone will be so sick of the frontrunners that they’ll start looking at the others-Hunter specifically!
I don’t know if I’m biased. I might be, but he is the only candidate who seems to have any credibility. I don’t have to vote on empty promises, because his record says it all. He is ALREADY fighting for our country, not just saying he will.
I have said this many times before. I believe his main problem is the MSM. He doesn’t get any time because he stands for what is right while the MSM doesn’t. Look at who they’re promoting. Democrats and RINO’s. MSM is OWNED by them.
All the RINOs get or claim some kind of link to Reagan. Giuliani(I probably spelled it wrong-oops!) is the worst poser in that regard, getting his kid involved too, at least that’s how I view it.
Hunter is the only would who could even touch Reagan and maybe even surpass him. No amount of BS from all the people who remind me that he doesn’t even figure in the polls will ever convince me to vote for anyone else.
It’s too early to say that he doesn’t have a chance. Anything could happen in the next 15 months. A landslide in our favor (ala Reagan)could be possible if we continue to support him, donate, spread the word and pray for his victory.
I refuse to give up!
If you are biased, so am I, and I’m from Tennessee.
This is the man.
Said it before; it bears repeating.
My dream ticket: Hunter\Romney
I think every Member of both Houses should ask this (and only this) question.
But considering that the Dems always ask, "Is this good for us getting more power?", it is, sadly, not likely.
You’re in with good company, then.
We’re not giving up either.
The article is just one more reason we need Hunter for POTUS. This country is facing real threats- from home and abroad. We need a president who is experienced, knows what he’s talking about, and has credibility on the issues.
Go DUNCAN HUNTER!
www.gohunter08.com
I can’t pick a VP for him. His judgment is so sound already whoever he picks will be just fine with me.
...agreed.
Courtesy BUMP
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
