Call it mandatory R&R. Sen. Jim Webb (D., Va.) wants to give our warriors a break from the battlegrounds - no matter what.
He has introduced an amendment (S. 2001) to the Defense
authorization bill that would bar any unit - or any individual
soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine - from returning to service in
Iraq or Afghanistan unless they've been rested at home for at least
as long as their last stint "over there." He also would bar the
Pentagon from sending over any unit or member of the Reserves
(National Guard included) that's been deployed within the last
three years.
It's only natural to want to reduce war's stress on our troops and
their families. But the Webb amendment is a pernicious way to go
about it.
For starters, it would fundamentally alter how America fights
wars. The Constitution pegs the president, and only the president,
as our nation's commander-in-chief. Decisions on how we fight our
wars - both in terms of grand strategy and in the details
concerning troop deployments and rotation schedules - are to be
made in the Oval Office, not under the Capitol dome.
Beyond the little matter of unconstitutional encroachment of
power, there's another problem with Webb's amendment: It's
unrealistic. As a war veteran, Webb surely knows that armies rarely
go into battle with all the equipment, people, and preparation they
need. Had the idealistic rotation schedule Webb desires held sway
earlier, Americans would have never fought at Trenton, Cantigny,
the Battle of the Bulge, or the Chosin Reservoir.
No army can fight and win with these kinds of restrictions. Even
with a "safety valve" - a in event of military necessity - the
arrangement would be unworkable. Inevitably, waiver criteria - and
the intent to exercise the waiver option - would be highly
controversial. And delays in obtaining waivers could cost
lives.
The Webb amendment offers a waiver only in the event of an
"operational emergency posing a vital threat to national security
interests." To get a waiver, the president would have to certify to
Congress that the desired deployment is necessary. But "necessary"
is not defined, leaving any waiver open to debate - and doubt - at
the very time when national security is seriously jeopardized. The
amendment serves to undermine the
commander-in-chief's capacity to
defend the nation.
No one is more highly motivated to "take better care of the
troops" than their commanders. And they are already doing their
best in this regard:
Current Army policy, which allows soldiers to be deployed 15
months instead of the previous12-month limit, stipulates that they
receive no less than one year at home. And, as with previous
extensions, soldiers receive extra pay ($1,000 per month) or
additional time off for each month beyond 12 spent in combat.
The existing policy for members of the Reserve Component is one
year deployed and five years stateside, unless the soldier
volunteers for repeat tours.
Active-duty Marines are sent on seven-month combat tours with six
months at home between deployments.
Certainly America is asking much of its ground forces. But an
Associated Press analysis of Pentagon records found just last month
that 45 percent of our Marines and more than a third (37 percent)
of our Army soldiers have never been deployed to combat
zones.
There are reasons these forces haven't been sent to the
battlefield. They may not have the specialized skills required to
accomplish the specific missions needed. Perhaps their specialized
skills are better employed elsewhere overseas. Whatever the
reasons, they would be trumped by Webb's clumsy amendment, which
would require commanders to make operational deployment decisions
based on arbitrary time limits rather than battlefield needs.
In April, Defense Secretary Gates told reporters that, if he
hadn't been able to extend the standard tour length to 15 months,
he would have been forced to send five Army brigades to Iraq before
their year at home was up. The 15-month tour length, he said, was a
fairer approach, one in which all soldiers share an equal
burden.
The Webb amendment would produce the opposite effect, sending many
soldiers overseas far sooner than the Pentagon had planned. The
recent decision to extend some tours by three months lets military
leaders extend the time between rotations and the number of troops
they need in the pipeline. That, in turn, slows the pace of
deployments and relieves pressure on the force overall.
But, then, the Webb amendment isn't really aimed at relieving
troop stress. It's much more about ratcheting up the pressure - on
the commander-in-chief and our troops - to cut and run from
Iraq.
James Jay
Carafano is senior research fellow on national-security issues
at the Heritage
Foundation.
First appeared in the National Review