Massive Spending and Broken Branches (of the military)

As Congress takes up the budget for the upcoming fiscal year, they are confronting the largest defense budget as percentage of all expenditures since World War II.

This massive spending increase comes at the same time top military commanders make grim predictions about manpower, materiel and readiness. In spite of all that additional spending, our military is strained nearly to the breaking point after five years of desert warfare, and four years of fighting on two fronts.

Army Gen. Bantz Craddock of the U.S. European Command (EUCOM) told a house committee last week that he is skeptical that the United States could mount a response to a new crisis in Europe "I'm skeptical that we have adequate forces available."

Troops who come back from Iraq get little or no down-time. They instead almost immediately start preparing for their next deployment. Readiness suffers because training is not happening. "We're not doing amphibious training, we're not doing mountain-warfare training, or other training that would be needed in another type of contingency," Gen. James Conway, the Marine commandant, testified in February before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The Navy and the Air Force are voicing similar concerns, even though those branches have born less of the burden, troops-wise. "We are currently meeting our wartime requirements, but our future dominance is at risk," Air Force Gen. John Corley testified at the same hearing. Some of the Air Force’s C-130 cargo planes "can no longer deploy to combat because we have literally flown the wings off of them," he said. "The center wing boxes are cracked."

The Navy has dispatched thousands of Medics, Seabee units and detonation experts to support coalition ground forces in Iraq, and the top Navy brass worries that the sailors are being used up. (The highly-technical Navy and Air Force spend a lot more money training their enlisted personnel than the Army and Marines spend training infantry.) Admiral Robert Willard, Vice Chief of Naval Operations, told members of congress last week that the medical deployments have “stressed our ability to provide health care" to sailors at home.

It isn’t the dire prediction that retired General and former Secretary of State Colin Powell that “the Army is about broken.” – but then, Powell was not an active-duty flag-rank when he made his statements before congress.

Given that commanders always display an upbeat attitude about the state of their own service when they parade before congressional committees, open declarations of concern are more than a little noteworthy.

House Armed Services Committee chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO-04) last week ordered two congressional investigations be undertaken; one on the effects of the war in Iraq on military equipment and the other on the recent reports that soldiers are being redeployed to combat zones after sustaining performance-impairing injuries.

I can not think of a more appropriate time to undertake those vital investigations ordered by Chairman Skelton than four years into a vanity war that is the root cause of the destruction tearing at our military – a professional force that took 35 years to create in the wake of Vietnam is now teetering on the brink of destruction after being used like toy soldiers pursuing the follies of a fool.

There's more: "Massive Spending and Broken Branches (of the military)" >>

Push-Back on the Hill

The White House was quite taken aback by the degree of open hostility with which Congress greeted the president's new "plan" for Iraq. Everywhere an administration official appeared before a committee on Thursday they had a rough go of it, to say the least. For three hours Condoleeza Rice faced a brutal grilling by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that at times became downright hostile as she tried to sell the notion that this time they are confident they have a plan that will work to stabilize Iraq and achieve "victory."

Not one Senator, Democrat or Republican, expressed even tepid support for the presidents proposed escalation. Chuck Hagel became visibly irritated with Rice's semantic quiblings, and Barbara Boxer confronted the Secretary of State with visual aids - posters with bullet-points detailing her past lies. Even those not openly hostile made known in no uncertain terms that they had no confidence in the president's scheme for fostering a functioning democracy in the heart of the Middle East.

The bipartisan support the administration claimed they were hoping for was instead bipartisan condemnation. "I've gone along with the president on this, and I bought into his dream. And at this stage of the game, I don't think it's going to happen." Sen. George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio) told Rice bluntly. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) offered a similar assessment. "I have supported you and the administration on the war, and I cannot continue to support the administration's position. I have not been told the truth over and over again by administration witnesses, and the American people have not been told the truth."

The White House was dismayed that legislators were not only unwilling to embrace the new scheme; they didn't even appear too eager to shake it's hand. Over the past few days, over 130 lawmakers had been summoned to the hill for personal meetings with the president as he attempted to cultivate support, but to no avail. The lawmakers didn't appear to be willing to do much more than acknowledge that yet again, the president had a plan. (This is the fourth one since June, for those keeping score at home).

White House counsel Dan Bartlett continued to tout the party line, maintaining that one consequence of a failed U.S. effort in Iraq would be "an emboldened and strengthened Iran." He added that critics should do more than take shots at Bush's plan. "We do believe that those who have decided to reject this plan before it has an opportunity to work have a greater responsibility to propose something that will work," he said. "We have yet to see that from Democrats." (Someone should take a moment to remind Mr. Bartlett that the Administration has no track record to mandate confidence in absolutely anything they do or say. We had an election a couple of months ago that drove this point home, or should have. I would also like to remind Mr. Bartlett that the Democrats have offered their own plans. That he doesn't want to acknowledge this fact does not nullify their existence.)

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) immediately threatened a filibuster if Democratic efforts to force a vote on a resolution disapproving the policy move forward, but opponents of the plan would most likely be able to muster the 60 votes needed to break his parliamentary obstacle. Part of me hopes it plays out that way - and hangs the sore loser appelation around McConnell's neck for all time...Remember the "Nuclear Option" that the Republicans threatened a couple of years ago when their cabal was threatening to trash years of tradition to install some specious judges?

There is little doubt that a fillibuster could be broken. Already six Senate Republicans have come out against the idea of escalation, and at least four more have expressed serious misgivings. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) predicted that the resolution would pick up 12 GOP votes, a count McConnell did not dispute.

Later in the day, Defense secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the joint Chiefs of Staff did not fare much better in front of the House Armed Services Committee. They faces grueling questioning from multiple committee members regarding the timing of the escalation of troops, and several committee members from both parties questioned the level of commitment from the Iraqi government.

Nine House Republicans sent a letter to the president detailing opposition to any increase in troop strength. Democratic leaders said they will push a resolution on support for the president's proposal, and House Republicans said Bush risks a major defeat. For Republicans who narrowly escaped defeat in November, the coming vote could be a nightmare, they said.

Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-VA) said he "would not say there are a lot of enthusiastic members over here" in support of the president. "I have zero comfort level with escalating this," he said.

There's more: "Push-Back on the Hill" >>

Overview of House Armed Services Committee Organizational Meeting

The House Armed Services Committee came to order yesterday with Chairman Ike Skelton presiding. The organizational meeting is the proverbial first step of the journey. It is in the organizational meeting in which Members ratify the Committee rules and the oversight plan for the 110^th Congress. The Committee rules include the legislative jurisdictions for Subcommittees during the 110^th Congress. Establishing a Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations was immediatly undertaken, restoring a panel that was eliminated in the Republican Revolution of the 103rd congress in 1995.

“As our agenda moves forward, we will restore the House Armed Services Committee’s historic commitment to robust oversight of the Pentagon and of the Administration’s military policies. Other priorities include, but are not limited to: taking care of the troops and their families; rebuilding military readiness, particularly for the Army and the Marine Corps; a comprehensive examination of our current policy in Iraq and identifying options for the future; refocusing attention on the war in Afghanistan; and placing greater emphasis on preventing nuclear proliferation,” said Skelton.

I, for one, am glad to have the grown-ups back in charge. I'll be back later, once the minutes of the hearing with SecDef Gates are posted...

There's more: "Overview of House Armed Services Committee Organizational Meeting" >>

Skelton: Sending more troops in is the inverse of what should be done

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton issued a strong statement opposing the president's *new* strategy for Iraq.

SKELTON OPPOSES TROOP ESCALATION
Iraqis Must Take Responsibility, Says Skelton

“Over the last month, I have met with the President twice and have shared my concerns about escalating the number of U.S. troops in Iraq. The proposed increase in U.S. troop levels in Iraq is three and a half years late and several hundred thousand troops short. The Administration had the opportunity before we invaded Iraq to heed General Eric Shinseki’s advice on the troop levels required to stabilize a country in crisis. Sadly, the General’s recommendations were dismissed out of hand.

This proposed troop increase is not a new strategy; it is a change in tactics. The President’s announcement simply repackages a military plan that has been tried before – admittedly without today’s hype – but our experience has shown that a limited infusion of troops will not necessarily produce the improvement to Iraqi security that we hoped. I remain to be convinced that increasing the number of U.S. troops in Iraq will have a measurable affect on the security situation in Iraq.

Only the Iraqis can change the situation there and bring lasting security to their nation. The President says that Prime Minister Maliki has made commitments that will allow political and security progress. This commitment must be backed up by action. And the Congress and the American people must be able to see clear evidence of the Iraqis taking more responsibility for their security and unifying the sectarian divisions that are tearing that nation apart.

I agree with the President that Iraq and the Middle East region are critical to U.S. national security interests today and in the foreseeable future. We have strategic interests in many parts of the world. To deal with them all, we must have a strong and capable military that is ready to deter, respond, or fight whenever called. Our force is under tremendous strain and this troop increase will only make the strain worse. While we will take a careful look at the President’s plan in a series of hearings, I remain convinced that a gradual and responsible redeployment of U.S. forces is the best way to help the Iraqis take responsibility for their security and to restore the full strength of our military.”

No surprises here, I agree with Ike.

There's more: "Skelton: Sending more troops in is the inverse of what should be done" >>

HASC Convenes This Week

Here is this weeks schedule for the House Armed Services Committee.

Week of January 8 - January 12, 2006

Wednesday Jan. 10, 2007, 2:00pm, 2118 Rayburn

The full committee will meet to organize for the 110^th Congress.

Thursday Jan. 11, 2007, 1:00pm, 2118 Rayburn

The committee will meet to hearing testimony on the way forward in Iraq.

Witnesses:

Honorable Robert M. Gates

Secretary of Defense

General Peter Pace, USMC

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

***************************************************************************
I'll be back with actual info after they actually do something.

There's more: "HASC Convenes This Week" >>