1
   

Murtha: President's Iraq war plan requires draft

 
 
Reply Wed 18 Apr, 2007 03:01 pm
by Michael Roston
Published: Wednesday April 18, 2007

Rep. John Murtha, a veteran of the U.S. Marines who served in the Korean and Vietnam Wars, said that President George W. Bush cannot continue to carry out his current war plans in Iraq without starting a draft.

"The president asks the impossible and the burden continues to fall on the very few. The pressure must be taken off the current force and their families who have already sacrificed so much," said Murtha today to the Defense Appropriations subcommittee, which he chairs. "If the President insists on continuing the current operational tempo and policy, then he should call for a military draft. That is the responsible thing to do."

Murtha's full statement, which was sent to RAW STORY, is provided below.

#
Murtha calls for responsibility on the part of the President

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Congressman John P. Murtha, Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, issued the following remarks today while discussing Army personnel issues:

"I just returned from visiting three major Army bases: Ft. Hood, Ft. Stewart and Ft. Bragg.

"What I found was that the President's policy has forced the military to break its own rotation and deployment guidelines. Our forces have had to accelerate training, they have had to train on inadequate and insufficient equipment, and percentages have been deployed a third and fourth time.

"I discussed the length of deployments with a group of commanders who told me that more than nine months deployed in theater was harmful to them and their families. They were not complaining; rather they candidly acknowledged that after a certain amount of time, professional skills begin to diminish and extended tours could very well push soldiers and leaders beyond what is reasonable.

"I found a need for counseling for our military children and was told that the truancy rate is increasing while their academic performance is declining. A first sergeant commented, "We love being soldiers but we are also people with families and children. When we're not soldiers we're soccer coaches, Cub Scout leaders, and we're involved in our local P.T.A." Fifteen months from home significantly impacts the military family. Another soldier who had already served three tours said, "I just can't bear to tell my kids that I am being deployed again and that my tour will be extended beyond a year."

"Our Army will do what is asked of them, but it is unconscionable to ask the same men and women, who have deployed three or four times and who have already served a year in intensive combat, to now extend their time in theater for an additional three months. As one soldier put it, "after six months in Iraq, every day is another Groundhog Day."

"Our military has done a tremendous job with what has been asked of them. They have juggled and balanced with what they have, but what they have is not enough. The president asks the impossible and the burden continues to fall on the very few. The pressure must be taken off the current force and their families who have already sacrificed so much. If the President insists on continuing the current operational tempo and policy, then he should call for a military draft. That is the responsible thing to do."
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Murtha_Presidents_Iraq_war_plan_requires_0418.html
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 480 • Replies: 11
No top replies

 
Mills75
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Apr, 2007 05:01 pm
I oppose a draft, but perhaps reinstituting it is the only way Americans will wake up and force an end to Bush's war president play-acting.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Apr, 2007 05:09 pm
But when a dem congressman proposes a draft,the rest of the dems vote against it.

Also,isnt this the same Murtha that proposed a "slow bleed" of the troops by slowly cutting off their supplies?
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Apr, 2007 05:22 pm
mysteryman, this is the same Murtha people listened to in the Nov. election.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Apr, 2007 05:37 pm
blueflame1 wrote:
mysteryman, this is the same Murtha people listened to in the Nov. election.


Then why arent "the people" and congress calling for a complete and total defunding of the war?

After all,if thats what the people want,then why isnt congress doing that?

Also,you sidesteped my questions.
Be a man and answer them,instead of sidestepping them.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Apr, 2007 06:18 pm
Mills, I agree.
0 Replies
 
Avatar ADV
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Apr, 2007 09:38 pm
Why would we need a draft? We've had a much larger volunteer army than current levels, as recently as the early Clinton administration. Just authorize a few more divisions and build 'em up. Won't happen overnight, sure, but a draft wouldn't either.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Apr, 2007 08:00 am
Avatar ADV, somehow you missed the news that recruitment is very difficult these days despite raising the age limits and educational thresholds and opening the door to criminals.
0 Replies
 
Mills75
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Apr, 2007 09:16 pm
Of course, they could try raising the pay. Indeed, this is the sort of thing both Democrats and Republicans can get behind. The Dems will like it because they'll look like they give a $hit about the troops, and the Repubs will like it because it's good ol' fashion market economics--supply and demand: if an industry is experiencing a shortage of specialized labor, wages for that type of labor increase until supply equals or exceeds demand. Haliburton knows this; their truck drivers over there get paid three or four times what the average US soldier gets (we won't even get into what the private security contractors are paid).
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Apr, 2007 07:54 am
Mills said...

Quote:
Haliburton knows this; their truck drivers over there get paid three or four times what the average US soldier gets (we won't even get into what the private security contractors are paid).



As a veteran,I 100% agree that the military is underpaid.
But,for you to compare them to private companies is a mistake.
There are thousands of civilian jobs that pay more then the military.

Private companies are free to pay their employees whatever they want,they dont need legislation from the govt.

Yes,the military needs to get paid more,but it isnt Halliburtons fault that they arent.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Apr, 2007 07:55 am
Soldier Says He Was Deployed With Head Injury
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/042107Z.shtml
Army Specialist Paul Thurman stepped forward Friday as one of the 18 soldiers whose cases were cited by six senators in a letter to the Government Accountability Office requesting a review of alleged improper handling of traumatic brain injuries, post-traumatic stress disorder and ungrounded personality disorder discharges.
0 Replies
 
Mills75
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Apr, 2007 08:46 am
mysteryman wrote:
Mills said...

Quote:
Haliburton knows this; their truck drivers over there get paid three or four times what the average US soldier gets (we won't even get into what the private security contractors are paid).



As a veteran,I 100% agree that the military is underpaid.
But,for you to compare them to private companies is a mistake.
There are thousands of civilian jobs that pay more then the military.

Private companies are free to pay their employees whatever they want,they dont need legislation from the govt.

Yes,the military needs to get paid more,but it isnt Halliburtons fault that they arent.

No comparison, really. And I didn't imply that low military pay was directly caused by Haliburton (though corporations and the American citizenry certainly share a large part of that blame). My point is that corporations, following the business model and market forces that Republicans so frequently claim to follow, clearly understand that a real shortage of necessary labor means one must pay more for that labor and continue to increase wage offerings until the labor supply meets or exceeds the demand. Haliburton is simply and logically the first corporation to come to mind because it's doing business in Iraq and, understandably, had to pay workers more to entice them to go over there.

I agree that Congress is the main obstacle to better pay for our soldiers (an obstacle not present for private enterprise), which is why my previous post began with a suggestion that the two dominant parties of Congress take the lead in initiating better pay for soldiers.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Murtha: President's Iraq war plan requires draft
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/04/2025 at 10:22:57