So to simplify what should be a no-brainer for Democrats and Democratic candidates, here are a few of the more compelling facts that we all should be talking about NOW. Here are excerpts from the article but please read the whole article and use it's facts to convince others of the National Security Crisis that the Republicans have put us in.
The Army is being stretched to its limit: all available active-duty and reserve combat units are now deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan. The Associated Press recently reported that, "The Army's 38 available combat units are deployed, just returning home or already tapped to go to Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere, leaving no fresh troops to replace five extra brigades that Bush sent to Baghdad this year, according to interviews and military documents." (Associated Press, 8/20/07)General Petraeus testified that the military does not have the capacity to sustain the Bush Administration's troop surge in Iraq beyond April of 2008. Although the White House has portrayed its plan to drawdown U.S. forces to be the result of success on the ground in Iraq, the reality is that the Pentagon will have to reduce troop levels in the spring of 2008 regardless of the situation in Iraq. As General Petraeus acknowledged in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee last week, the Pentagon would be forced to withdraw 30,000 U.S. troops in the spring of 2008, barring a change in policy to further extend tours of duty for U.S. forces beyond the current limit of 15 months:
The Pentagon has been forced to take extraordinary measures to meet the Bush Administration's operational demands: The Pentagon is increasingly turning to private contractors to fulfill mission requirements in Iraq. According to media reports, the Department of Defense is looking to hire additional contractors take over logistics responsibilities for many military units, as U.S. support personnel are being tapped to provide force protection and perform combat operations. As the Washington Post reported earlier this week, "10 days ago [General Petraeus's] commanders in Baghdad began advertising for private contractors to work in combat-supply warehouses on U.S. bases throughout Iraq because half the soldiers who had been working in the warehouses were needed for patrols, combat and protection of U.S. forces. 'With the increased insurgent activity, unit supply personnel must continue to pull force protection along with convoy escort and patrol duties,' according to a statement of work that accompanied the Sept. 7 request for bidders from Multi-National Force-Iraq. All of the small logistics bases, called Supply Support Activities, or SSAs, are 'currently using about 50% of their assigned (currently less than 100% strength) military personnel for other required duties (force protection, patrols, escort duties, etc. along with performing 24 hour combat operations),' the statement says." (Washington Post, 9/17/07)
Although the readiness of National Guard and Reserve is at a historic low, with nearly 90 percent of units rated as "not ready," the Pentagon is reportedly planning to rely on these forces to help meet surge requirements in Iraq and Afghanistan. According to military officials, National Guard combat brigades are going to be called upon increasingly in the next year to relieve active-duty troops in Iraq: officials report that the Army Guard and Reserve are anticipated to grow from 20 percent to 30 percent of the deployed force. (Washington Post, 3/19/07)
?..that equipment shortages at home have left many troops unable to train on the same equipment that they are using in Iraq. As a result, some fear that troops are being sent into battle unfamiliar with critical equipment and that their performance on the field will be compromised. (New York Times, 3/20/07)
During his Senate confirmation hearing in July, Admiral Mullen identified the "stress on our ground forces" as one of the greatest risks to U.S. national security. "The stress that our ground forces are going through, specifically because of the number of deployments, number of rotations, and the prospect for more, and that they are, in fact, away a lot more than they are home, and the stress that that just puts on individuals who are performing magnificently in uniform, but also families." (Testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, 7/31/07)
The Army's ready brigade is not available to respond. "For the first time in decades, the Army's "ready brigade" - a unit of the famed 82nd Airborne Division primed to parachute into a hot spot anywhere in the world within 72 hours - is a luxury the U.S. Army cannot afford. All its forces are already dedicated to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. (Time, 4/9/07)
Comments
A dilemma (Quizzical - 9/24/2007 8:40:26 AM)To me this seems to pose a dilemma for Democrats in Congress. Democrats can attack the Bush administration for "breaking the Army", so to speak. But the Bush administration's response is going to be to ask for a vote on another $200 billion in defense appropriations, in part for the Iraq war/occupation. Anybody who votes against the appropriation, or who votes against it unless certain conditions are in place, is going to be accused of being unpatriotic and of stabbing the military in the back while it is engaged in combat operations. So the more you attack them for weakening the military, the more you are exposed to the political judo which will turn that attack against you.I also don't think there is much a climate of accountability for fraud, waste, abuse and stupdity in defense expenditures right now.
If you work in an office, chances are that if you mismanage your time and do something at the last minute that should have been done earlier, and you end up having to FedEx the paperwork somewhere, whoever is paying for it is going to complain about the unnecessary expense. In contrast, when the government mismanages the MRAP program and ends up having to FedEx 35000 pound vehicles to Iraq, that's a great act of patriotism.
When you're on the defensive it's a dilema (Dianne - 9/24/2007 12:03:06 PM)Understood that the Iraq funding issue will continue to arise as Bush keeps staying the course.But if things are to change including the Presidency and a veto-proof majority, Democrats must start crafting messages that Bush and the Republicans have put us in a National Security crisis. I think many heads might bob up if it's presented properly.
My point is here and of this diary is Democratic representatives/candidates need to start talking about what the Republicans have done to our military readiness.
Fish or Cut Bait (Evan M - 9/24/2007 10:30:56 AM)I've heard rumors that the Webb Amendment may be added to the conference report on Defense Appropriations (or maybe it was some other bill). I think that is an excellent idea. And this time, actually make the Republicans stand there and filibuster for hours and hours.Not when it comes to "Mandatory Christianity" (Shawn - 9/24/2007 10:56:10 AM)Pentagon Sued Over Mandatory Christianity
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | ReportTuesday 18 September 2007
A military watchdog organization filed a lawsuit in federal court Tuesday against the Pentagon, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and a US Army major, on behalf of an Army soldier stationed in Iraq. The suit charges the Pentagon with widespread constitutional violations by allegedly trying to force the soldier to embrace evangelical Christianity and then retaliating against him when he refused.
The complaint, filed in US District Court in Kansas City, by the nonprofit Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), on behalf of Jeremy Hall, an Army specialist currently on active duty in Speicher, Iraq, alleges that Hall's First Amendment rights were violated beginning last Thanksgiving when, because of his atheist beliefs, he declined to participate in a Christian prayer ceremony commemorating the holiday.
"Immediately after plaintiff made it known he would decline to join hands and pray, he was confronted, in the presence of other military personnel, by the senior ranking ... staff sergeant who asked plaintiff why he did not want to pray, whereupon plaintiff explained because he is an atheist," says the lawsuit, a copy of which was provided to Truthout. "The staff sergeant asked plaintiff what an atheist is and plaintiff responded it meant that he (plaintiff) did not believe in God. This response caused the staff sergeant to tell plaintiff that he would have to sit elsewhere for the Thanksgiving dinner. Nonetheless, plaintiff sat at the table in silence and finished his meal."
Moreover, the complaint alleges that on August 7, when Hall received permission by an Army chaplain to organize a meeting of other soldiers who shared his atheist beliefs, his supervisor, Army Major Paul Welborne, broke up the gathering and threatened to retaliate against the soldier by charging him with violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The complaint also alleges that Welborne vowed to block Hall's reenlistment in the Army if the atheist group continued to meet - a violation of Hall's First Amendment rights under the Constitution. Welborne is named as a defendant in the lawsuit.
"During the course of the meeting, defendant Welborne confronted the attendees, disrupted the meeting and interfered with plaintiff Hall's and the other attendees' rights to discuss topics of their interests," the lawsuit alleges.
The complaint charges that Hall, who is based at Fort Riley, Kansas, has been forced to "submit to a religious test as a qualification to his post as a soldier in the United States Army," a violation of Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution.
The Military Religious Freedom Foundation said Defense Secretary Robert Gates is named as a defendant in the lawsuit because he has allowed the military to engage in "a pattern and practice of constitutionally impermissible promotions of religious beliefs within the Department of Defense and the United States military."
The lawsuit seeks an injunction against Welborne from further engaging in behavior "that has the effect of establishing compulsory religious practices" and asks that Gates prevent Welborne from interfering with Hall's free speech rights.
Mikey Weinstein, founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, an organization that seeks to enforce the law mandating the separation between church and state in the US military, said the lawsuit would be the first of many his group intends to file against the Pentagon.
"This landmark federal litigation is just the first of a galaxy of new lawsuits that will be expeditiously filed against the Pentagon in a concentrated effort to preserve the precious religious liberties guaranteed by our beautiful United States Constitution," Weinstein said Monday. "Today, we are boldly stabbing back against an unconstitutional heart of darkness, a contagion of fundamentalist religious supremacy and triumphalism noxiously dominating the command and control of the technologically most lethal organization ever created by humankind: our honorable and noble United States armed forces."
A Pentagon spokesman said he could not comment on the lawsuit because he has not yet seen it.
Weinstein, a former White House attorney under Ronald Reagan, general counsel H. Ross Perot and an Air Force Judge Advocate (JAG), has been waging a one-man war against the Department of Defense for its blatant disregard of the Constitution. He published a book on his fight: "With God on Our Side: One Man's War Against an Evangelical Coup in America's Military." Weinstein is also an Air Force veteran and a graduate of the Air Force Academy. Three generations of his family have attended US military academies.
Since he launched his watchdog organization nearly two years ago months ago, Weinstein said he has been contacted by more than 5,000 active duty and retired soldiers, many of whom served or serve in Iraq, who told Weinstein that they were pressured by their commanding officers to convert to Christianity.
The lawsuit also includes examples of other alleged constitutional abuses by Pentagon officials.
Last month, the Pentagon's Inspector General responded to a complaint filed last year by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation alleging that Defense Department officials violated military regulations by appearing in a video promoting a fundamental Christian organization.
The Inspector General agreed and issued a 47-page report that was highly critical of senior Army and Air Force personnel for participating in the video while in uniform and on active duty.
The report recommended that Air Force Maj. Gen. Jack Catton, Army Brig. Gen. Bob Caslen, Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks, Maj. Gen. Peter Sutton, and a colonel and lieutenant colonel whose names were redacted in the inspector general's report, "improperly endorsed and participated with a non-Federal entity while in uniform" and the men should be disciplined for misconduct. Caslen was formerly the deputy director for political-military affairs for the war on terrorism, directorate for strategic plans and policy, joint staff. He now oversees the 4,200 cadets at the US Military Academy at West Point. Caslen told DOD investigators he agreed to appear in the video upon learning other senior Pentagon officials had been interviewed for the promotional video.
The inspector general's report recommended the "Secretary of the Air Force and the Chief of Staff of the Army take appropriate corrective action with respect to the military officers concerned."
The Army generals who appeared in the video appeared to be speaking on behalf of the military, but they did not obtain prior permission to appear in the video. They defended their actions, according to the inspector general's report, saying the "Christian Embassy had become a 'quasi-Federal entity,' since the DOD had endorsed the organization to General Officers for over 25 years."
Army Chief of Staff: "...probably have trouble responding to a major conflict elsewhere" (Dianne - 9/27/2007 9:07:30 AM)From today's WaPo, General George Casey validates this diary and what the Democratic Policy Council contends:Robert M. Gates asked Congress yesterday to approve an additional $42.3 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, bringing the Bush administration's 2008 war funding request to nearly $190 billion -- the largest single-year total for the wars so far.
The move came as Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the Army chief of staff and former top U.S. commander in Iraq, warned lawmakers that the Army is stretched dangerously thin because of current war operations and would . "The current demand for our forces exceeds the sustainable supply," Casey said yesterday. "We are consumed with meeting the demands of the current fight and are unable to provide ready forces as rapidly as necessary for other potential contingencies."