I just got off a half-hour blogger conference call with Sen. Webb on "troop readiness [and] fair deployment cycles." Other Virginia bloggers attending included Waldo Jaquith, "Teacherken," JC Wilmore, Terry Rea, Bryan Scrafford, Eileen Levandoski, and Virginia blogging alum (now Webb's Deputy State Director) Conaway Haskins. In addition, Spencer Ackerman from Talking Points Memo was on the call (note: there was also a "mystery blogger" - you'll see his excellent question below. UPDATE: The "mystery blogger" reveals himself! Ha.).Sen. Webb started off by talking about how he shared the "disappointment" of many regarding "the way the appropriations supplemental was handled by our party." He had hoped that his amendment, which would require that soldiers can't be redeployed unless they've been home at least that long, would have been attached to the supplemental. That would have cut right to the "inviolable bottom line" regarding how our troops are being used in Iraq. The logic on that was "unassailable and clear," so if the President had vetoed it, everyone would have understood what he was doing. According to Sen. Webb, this amendment also would have helped the relationship of the Democratic Party and the military.
Regarding the amendment, Sen. Webb talked about how traditionally, the ratio of time home to time deployed was 2:1 for active duty and 5:1 for national guard and reservists. Today, we've slipped below 1:1 on the active side towards a 0.75 ratio, and well below 3:1 on the guard and reserves side. Not surprisingly, retention is "going down the tubes" on the active side. For instance, the West Point classes of 2000 and 2001 are experiencing five times the attrition rate of pre-Iraq War classes.
Sen. Webb noted that some people have questioned the constitutionality of Congress dictating these things, but "that's an empty argument." According to Webb, we did this in the Korean War to make sure that people were fully trained before they were sent into combat. Others say that this is "micromanagement," but Webb disagrees, saying that this is about the well being of people in the military.
(blogger questions and answers on the flip)
"Teacherken" asked whether we could do better than a 1:1 ratio, why stop there? Sen. Webb responded that 1:1 is a floor, that he's aiming for 2:1 on the active side.
I asked Sen. Webb about PTSD:
Col. Charles Hoge, chief of psychiatry at Walter Reed, testified in July 2005 that PTSD rates were highest among units that served deployments of 12 months or more. Do you believe that a soldier with PTSD should be sent back into combat, or should they be treated for a serious medical condition, just as if they had a physical injury?
Sen. Webb responded that PTSD increases with multiple tours, that no downtime leaves the soldier no ability to decompress from combat. Webb noted that PTSD is very complicated, and that he had been involved with some of the "pioneering work" on PTSD with the "Forgotten Warrior Project" back in 1978 or 1979. Webb added that PTSD doesn't always manifest itself when you're on active duty, so there are short-term and long-term issues here. Over the long term, the VA rather than the mlitary should be dealing with PTSD.
Waldo Jaquith asked about the effect that Webb's amendment could have on troop levels in Iraq. Webb said he hadn't "modeled it," but that it's "no longer viable to design troop deployments around speculative operational strategies." According to Sen. Webb, the "surge" is "not even a change in strategy; there IS no strategy." Webb added that we don't need these troops over there, and that "it's time for the people in charge of this war to adjust to the well being of the troops."
Terry Rea asked whether governors had any power to limit National Guard deployments overseas. Sen. Webb answered simply, "no," that the Supreme Court had decided - correctly, in his view - that the army clause overrides the militia clause in the Constitution. Webb asserted that this should be dealt with at the national level to avoid the risk of having 50+ foreign policies.
Spencer Ackerman of Talking Points Memo asked about the politics of Webb's amendment, and whether this was something "wavering members" could "latch onto." Webb repeated that he thought Democrats had made a strategic error by not having something like this in the supplemental.
A mystery blogger - nobody seems to know who it was! [UPDATE: It was J.C. Wilmore] - asked whether Sen. Webb had any reaction to the statements by Sen. Lugar and others on Iraq. Webb said he thought they were a "healthy sign," that this should be treated as a national problem and not a source of political division. According to Webb, the best way to resolve this bad strategic error (Iraq) is to get a regional diplomatic conference, and to move our troops out of there. I believe this is a direct quote by Sen. Webb: "I won't be satisfied as a Senator or as an American until all our combat troops are out of Iraq." Webb added that he had read Sen. Lugar's entire speech and was "pretty gratified" that Lugar would "support pretty much everything we've been saying for years now."
Finally, Eileen Levandoski asked about traumatic brain injury (TBI). Sen. Webb noted that this is one area in terms of veterans treatment that is truly new in this war. That's because of the unique nature of IEDs as they go after vehicles, with most troops experiencing multiple IEDs while they're over there. Webb also noted that "there's a lot of bad information out there" comparing Iraq to past wars. Specifically, Webb refuted the notion that soldiers in Iraq are "exposed to the enemy for longer periods of time" than in previous wars - "that's just not true."
All in all, this was a very interesting call and I'm glad I got to participate. As far as I'm concerned, Jim Webb is doing a great job, and I'm very glad I helped "draft" him and worked on his campaign.
I've been reading Jim Webb since the 80's--not just the fiction but the speeches and articles he's written about national defense and the readiness of our military. Jim is the bottom line guy when it comes to how our military should be managed. He was the early warning man on this misadventure in Iraq and when you read what he said as far back as Desert Storm--he sounds like a prophet. It is beyond belief those damned fools in Congress are ignoring him now. He's the most qualified man on the hill to be talking about what's going on now and what will happen in the future.
Jim's right on point with his observations, and this failed amendment is just what we needed. We're not dealing with toy soldiers or a video game and there's a hell of a lot more to running a war than being good at Age Of Empires. When I think of our poor soldiers going back into combat long before they've had time to decompress, the number of tours they're pulling, the basic lack of support by our own government, both for active duty and veterans, I wonder how we're even able to field a functional division, much less run a war. We're losing the best of our officer corps and the best of our experienced NCO's. The long term effect of these losses will be devastating to our military. You can't have a good army without experienced NCO's and when we're losing such a large percentage of West Point grads, then the leadership of the military will suffer for decades. The graduates of West Point and the Navy Academy are our military's best and brightest. (I won't say the same for the Air Academy as they were sold out to the religous right for quite a while.)
Our Army is disappearing right before our eyes. We're seeing mediocre officers being promoted long before they're ready and no NCO with experience and leadership skills is going to stay in the service when he is constantly deployed in a combat zone.
With me, PSTD didn't manifest itself until more than 10 years after I came home. I didn't know what the hell was going on with me and was undiagnosed until I started going to a local Vets Center. I'm certain, with current soldiers pulling up to four tours with little down time in-between, there will be an epidemic of PSTD down the road and we are ill-prepared to deal with such a problem. I suspect that by the time we see the real numbers, the veterans of this conflict will suffer much higher PSTD rates than we had after Vietnam, if for no other reason than the repeated deployments. During Vietnam, most of us did one tour in Vietnam and then we were done. Career soldiers often pulled more than one tour but it was often voluntary, if I remember correctly.
One thing not talked about here but something I've noticed at least anecdotally. I've noticed with both myself and other Vietnam vets I know, some of us are showing some PSTD symptoms all over again. From what I've been able to find out, seeing this new war unfold, has woke some of those old fears and memories many of us carry around. In other words, in many cases PSTD is a life-long condition--the gift that keeps on giving.
I'm lucky. I have private health insurance and good doctors of my choosing so I get the help I need. But so many vets are left with nothing but the VA. I know people working in the VA system are dedicated to helping vets, but they are underfunded and overloaded with patients. This will only get worse as time passes.
The only thing that can fix this mess is money and proper leadership. When the wise council of Senator Webb is shouted down by chickenhawks who have trouble hunting quail on rich boy ranches, I fear for the very future of our country.
Senator Webb is our best voice of reason and experience in Washington and it makes me ill these damned fools don't pay more attention to such a well-qualified voice on military issues. Ten years from now, our military will be in worse shape than the years after Vietnam. I'm sure many of the naysayers will wish they had listened to Webb. I only wish they were listening to him now.