Bush announces push for shorter Army tours

[CommunityEditor]

WASHINGTON — President Bush announced Thursday he will seek to relieve the heavy strain on the Army by reducing the length of combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan to 12 months, down from the current level of 15 months. He said the change would take effect on Aug. 1, and would not affect U.S. forces already deployed on the front lines.

In another major decision, he ordered an indefinite halt in U.S. troop withdrawals from Iraq after July, embracing the key recommendations of his top war commander. Bush said Army Gen. David Petraeus will “have all the time he needs” to consider when more American forces could return home.

Bush’s decision virtually guarantees a major U.S. presence in Iraq throughout his term in office in January, when a new president takes office.

Bush said U.S. forces have made major gains since he ordered a buildup of about 30,000 U.S. forces.

“We have renewed and revived the prospect of success” the president said.

Bush delivered his remarks in the Cross Hall of the White House before an audience of veterans’ service groups and Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

The president’s decision had been foreshadowed by two days of testimony before a skeptical Congress by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Baghdad. Now in its sixth year, the war has claimed the lives of more than 4,000 U.S. troops and cost more than $500 billion.

Bush said the U.S. would proceed with planned drawdowns of U.S. forces, bringing home the 30,000 troops he sent to Iraq last year to combat sectarian violence. The additional troops were also intended to help restore basic security and provide a sense of calm to allow Iraqi leaders to attempt to achieve political reconciliation.

While acknowledging that “serious and complex problems remain in Iraq,” Bush said that “a major strategic shift” has occurred since the buildup.

“Today we have the initiative,” the president said.

Bush also called on Congress to send him a spending bill for Iraq that does not include any timetables for troop withdrawals or exceed the $108 billion he has requested. Last spring, Congress added $17 billion for unrequested domestic issues such as children’s health care, homeland security and heating subsidies.

Now, Democrats are eyeing using this year’s war funding bill to stimulate the economy with road-building funds, additional unemployment benefits, a summer jobs program and additional food stamp benefits. The measure is slated to advance later this spring.

Bush said he would veto the spending measure if Congress fails to meet his conditions.

“While this war is difficult, it is not endless,” Bush said in a message directed to troops but surely to the American public as well.

The president said that only as conditions in Iraq improve will he bring more troops home, a policy he calls “return on success.”

“The day will come when Iraq is a capable partner of the United States,” Bush said. “The day will come when Iraq’s a stable democracy that helps fight our common enemies and promote our common interests in the Middle East. And when that day arrives, you’ll come home with pride in your success.”


Article: http://www.militarytimes.com/news/20...qtours_040908/

Why is the president looking at 12 months for the army. That is still a ridiculous amount of time for people to be away from their families. The navy and air force only deploy for 6 months at a time, why is it that the men and women in the army are doing double the time?

[technomage1]

Let us put this in proper perspective. The current president, who leaves office in Jan 2009, has just announced that all Army tours after Aug 1, 2008 will be 12 month tours. This means that those troops will be due to come home in Aug 2009 - well into the next president's tenure. So Bush gets all the credit for reducing the Army tours - if it pans out, great. If those tours need to be extended again - guess who gets to do that? The new president, who will then get all the blame for having to do so.

I have my severe doubts that, without a major change in US policy, the 12 month tours will be sustainable. How can we surge troops, and maintain that surge, while cutting tour length? This plan doesn't account for any of that. It's less than a plan, it's just passing the buck.

[Mateo820506]

I joined the Marine Corps to travel as my number one reason. I love to deploy. So if that means I can deploy more to other areas I'm for it.

It does not really matter to me that they have changed the deployments back down to a year. I was deployed the last time before we moved to 15 deployments and still spent 15 in Iraq. We were extended twice due to the conditions there. I am preparing to deploy again this summer and will miss the 1 AUG date. I feel this is a never ending cycle and politicians are using dates only as benefits to there political needs. I feel the Army is going to be at hard times once all these deployments end.

Originally Posted by irlindasmi

Why is the president looking at 12 months for the army. That is still a ridiculous amount of time for people to be away from their families. The navy and air force only deploy for 6 months at a time, why is it that the men and women in the army are doing double the time?

I think also that it is not fair. My husband is down there on a 15month tour and b/c the new 12month rule won`t apply before 1.August, I won`t have him back for x-mas. Another major holiday without him. Our son was 6month when he left and when he comes back he will be walking and talking. I don`t think it is fair that our husbands are gone for so long and the navy and air force get the short deployments. It should be even for everyone

6 month deployments would make everything easier on everyone who deploys. Deployments wouldnt have to become something youdread. I wouldnt have to spend 2 Christmas' away from my wife and son. Even if we did miss a major holiday inside a 6 month tour we would be home for the next one. Having the soldiers here for 12-15 months while airmen and sailors stay for 6 is completely unfair. Even with all of the extra benefits the Army gives us for staying longer than 12 months I feel i speak for the majority of troops when i say we would give the bonuses up for more time at home withour loved ones. It would be too easy to stay positive after 5 months in this place knowing I go home in 1 month rather than 10.

[The Universal Curmudgeon_guest]

Originally Posted by irlindasmi

Why is the president looking at 12 months for the army. That is still a ridiculous amount of time for people to be away from their families. The navy and air force only deploy for 6 months at a time, why is it that the men and women in the army are doing double the time?

Tell that to your fathers (WWII) and Grandfathers (WWI).

Well, actually you should probably tell it to the soldiers in WWI whose countries were at war for more than 17 months out of 51.

Honestly it is hard to deal long deployments but shorter deployments will lead to people not gaining the experience needed to fight this war. For people who have been on multiple deployments this might not apply but when you get there and you take 2-3 months to get a handle on how to do things and how to do well planned efficient patrols and to build up a relationship with the locals and then 3 months later a group of new guys have to come in the and do the process all over again. Longer deployments now means a shorter war in the long run. thats if washington doesn't tuck tail and run.

Originally Posted by The Universal Curmudgeon_guest

Tell that to your fathers (WWII) and Grandfathers (WWI).

Well, actually you should probably tell it to the soldiers in WWI whose countries were at war for more than 17 months out of 51.

My father would be Vietnam, and my grandfather WW2/Korea. My father would have served one 12 month tour and then have gotten out of the service after his 2 year term was up.

My grandfather in Korea would have served one tour as well, for 15-18 months depending on points accrued.

In WW2 had he been the majority of US servicemen, he would have served at most one "tour" 15-18 months in length. Relatively few people from the US served overseas for more than 2 years.

My great-grandfather in WW1 would have been oveseas approximately 12 months.

Perhaps if you knew US military history you could be able to come up with better analogies?