Cruelbreed
07-22-2009, 07:00 PM
1 senator stands against Army growth
By Rick Maze - Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday Jul 22, 2009 16:58:08 EDT
The lone senator to vote against increasing the size of the Army said he was thinking about the troops when he opposed an amendment to the 2010 defense authorization bill approving an increase of 30,000 active-duty soldiers.
The amendment, sponsored by Sen. Joseph Lieberman, the Independent Democrat from Connecticut, was pitched to the Senate as a way to reduce stress on the force and give troops more time at home between deployments. It passed 93-1, with Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., the sole voice against it.
Feingold said Wednesday that he voted against the amendment “because I did not believe it was in the best interest of our troops or our national security.”
“There is an incredible strain on the force right now, including multiple deployments and insufficient dwell time, due to our failure to promptly and fully redeploy from Iraq,” Feingold said. “Rather than spending billions of dollars to increase the size of the Army, we should promptly redeploy from Iraq so that we can focus on the global threat posed by al-Qaida and ... reduce the strain on our troops.”
Removal of U.S. troops from Iraq is not such a radical idea, he said.
“The Iraqi government has asked us to remove our troops from Iraqi cities and as a result many U.S. service members, including Wisconsin soldiers, are sitting on their bases with no mission,” he said.
Lieberman also said he was thinking about troops and their families when he proposed the active-duty expansion for the Army. He said the strain of lengthy and repeated deployments is readily seen “in some tough statistics: the increase in mental health problems, the increase in divorces of members of the service and, worse, the increase in suicides.”
More troops will mean “less pressure on every solder in the Army,” he said. “Every time we add another soldier to the Army — and we are talking about authorization to add 30,000 more — it means that much more time every other member of the Army can spend back home ... retraining, preparing and, most important of all, spending time with their families.”
Liberman’s amendment would authorize the 30,000 extra Army troops for three fiscal years, beginning Oct. 1, the start of fiscal 2010. This is slightly more than the 22,000 extra soldiers that Defense Secretary Robert Gates approved Monday.
Lieberman said the difference gives the Defense Department “some latitude, depending on how conditions go in Iraq and Afghanistan, to go a bit further — 8,000 more, if necessary — over the next three years.”
Feingold, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is no fan of how U.S. military operations are going in Afghanistan, either.
In a statement issued Tuesday, he said he is “sad that this has been the deadliest month for our service members in Afghanistan since the war began nearly eight years ago.”
“I continue to be concerned that the troop increase in Afghanistan will lead to more grim milestones like this one and will not have a lasting impact on our ability to deny al-Qaida a safe haven in that region,” he said. “Indeed, I am concerned that the so-called surge may actually make matters worse by pushing militants into Pakistan, a nuclear-armed nation which is still not effectively dealing with terrorist sanctuaries in that country.”
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/07/military_feingoldvote_armygrowth_072209w/
By Rick Maze - Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday Jul 22, 2009 16:58:08 EDT
The lone senator to vote against increasing the size of the Army said he was thinking about the troops when he opposed an amendment to the 2010 defense authorization bill approving an increase of 30,000 active-duty soldiers.
The amendment, sponsored by Sen. Joseph Lieberman, the Independent Democrat from Connecticut, was pitched to the Senate as a way to reduce stress on the force and give troops more time at home between deployments. It passed 93-1, with Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., the sole voice against it.
Feingold said Wednesday that he voted against the amendment “because I did not believe it was in the best interest of our troops or our national security.”
“There is an incredible strain on the force right now, including multiple deployments and insufficient dwell time, due to our failure to promptly and fully redeploy from Iraq,” Feingold said. “Rather than spending billions of dollars to increase the size of the Army, we should promptly redeploy from Iraq so that we can focus on the global threat posed by al-Qaida and ... reduce the strain on our troops.”
Removal of U.S. troops from Iraq is not such a radical idea, he said.
“The Iraqi government has asked us to remove our troops from Iraqi cities and as a result many U.S. service members, including Wisconsin soldiers, are sitting on their bases with no mission,” he said.
Lieberman also said he was thinking about troops and their families when he proposed the active-duty expansion for the Army. He said the strain of lengthy and repeated deployments is readily seen “in some tough statistics: the increase in mental health problems, the increase in divorces of members of the service and, worse, the increase in suicides.”
More troops will mean “less pressure on every solder in the Army,” he said. “Every time we add another soldier to the Army — and we are talking about authorization to add 30,000 more — it means that much more time every other member of the Army can spend back home ... retraining, preparing and, most important of all, spending time with their families.”
Liberman’s amendment would authorize the 30,000 extra Army troops for three fiscal years, beginning Oct. 1, the start of fiscal 2010. This is slightly more than the 22,000 extra soldiers that Defense Secretary Robert Gates approved Monday.
Lieberman said the difference gives the Defense Department “some latitude, depending on how conditions go in Iraq and Afghanistan, to go a bit further — 8,000 more, if necessary — over the next three years.”
Feingold, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is no fan of how U.S. military operations are going in Afghanistan, either.
In a statement issued Tuesday, he said he is “sad that this has been the deadliest month for our service members in Afghanistan since the war began nearly eight years ago.”
“I continue to be concerned that the troop increase in Afghanistan will lead to more grim milestones like this one and will not have a lasting impact on our ability to deny al-Qaida a safe haven in that region,” he said. “Indeed, I am concerned that the so-called surge may actually make matters worse by pushing militants into Pakistan, a nuclear-armed nation which is still not effectively dealing with terrorist sanctuaries in that country.”
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/07/military_feingoldvote_armygrowth_072209w/