Randy Kuhl has an op-ed in today's Democrat and Chronicle that defends his vote against H R 3159. That bill required mandatory rest periods between troop deployment. Kuhl's op-ed is worth close study because it perpetuates the kind of thinking that has us mired in Iraq.
Kuhl's first reason for his vote is:
This legislation would allow Congress to undercut our troop strength and commanders' decision-making capacity. I did not vote for this bill because Congress should not micromanage our troops on the ground. This is a job for our commanders.
This is a dodge. It has always been Congress' job to fund the army, not the executive, and not commanders on the ground. As part of its funding responsibility, Congress determines the size of the armed forces and has full oversight over their recruiting and retention activities. That's a legitimate role, not micromanagement. It's time for Congress to get back to that role instead of abrogating it to the executive branch.
Kuhl's second paragraph makes two interesting claims:
Specifically, this bill would hinder our military by reducing the number of troops in Iraq, thus putting troops on the ground in harm's way.
The under-resourcing of Iraq has been happening since the beginning. We've had far too few troops to accomplish the mission of occupying and pacifying the country. Why has Kuhl been silent about that all these years? Why only now does he begin worrying about the size of our Iraq force?
It also would extend the period of time troops can remain on the ground in Iraq, which may further strain and diminish their morale.
This bill only mandates the length of rest periods between deployments. If the armed forces are working sensibly, deployments would shorten, not lengthen, because the armed forces would want to be able to rotate troops back in theater pretty quickly.
Though the piece is short, it manages to impugn the patriotism of the Democrats twice. Democrats are "not concerned about the needs of our military forces." And they are willing to "put party politics ahead of our soldier's safety." Ever since 9/11, anyone who has questioned the conduct of the war has been met with these types of attacks. They're over-the-top and wrong. There isn't a single Member of Congress who isn't deeply concerned with the needs of the military forces or soldiers' safety. This kind of rhetoric is poisonous to the real debate that needs to happen, and happen quickly.
The consensus of military observers is our current deployment schedule is wearing out the armed forces. We need to come up with an alternative to ensure the security of our country. Limiting deployments is a blunt instrument, but if it's not the way to save our armed forces, opponents need to come up with another strategy. Calling names isn't going to increase recruitment and retention, and it isn't going to save the Army and Marines.
Comments
The way in which you stuctured this piece is the reason I read your blog every day, well done.
I've always thought that in order to refute these worn Republican talking points is to deconstruct their rhetoric; when reduced to its core, is fundamentally flawed. To criticize the patriotism of those who demand accountability, is not only irresponsible but also unjustifiable. Democracy attains balance through restrained dissent and debate.
It can be argued that Kuhl puts his own politics ahead of the troops for continuing to support Bush's war without the intelligent foresight that is an expected attribute of a leader.
Kuhl slipped up here, because he cited talking points, which may have defended the war in the past, but do not work in regards to the deployment/down-time ratio of soldiers. What he essentially said, was that he doesn't consider the mental integrity of our soldiers. Lengthy deployments contribute to combat fatigue and post-traumatic stress, with soldiers who are sent from their families for more than a year, and are even retained against their will through the Stop-Loss program, despite prior agreements with the Army on the length of their enlistment.
Kuhl needs to walk a mile in combat boots, then perhaps he'd understand what the proposal was about.
Thanks for the vote of confidence.
I agree that principled dissent and debate are critical to the process. Kuhl's op/ed uses two techniques to suppress dissent that have nothing to do with the argument advanced by the dissenters:
1. An (bogus) interpretation of the separation of powers.
2. Questioning the patriotism of dissenters.
(2) is pretty obvious when you see it. (1) is insidious, it is used all the time, and it is hard to challenge because challengers sound like they're giving a boring civics lesson.