Senator Jim Webb just completed a conference call on the testimony of General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Also, the call covered the reintroduction of the Senator’s “dwell time” amendment.
Early on Webb made the point that it was clear that the Petraeus-Crocker testimony was limited – either by design or by agreement – to Iraq. He repeated this throughout the call and indicated that the two of them provided exclusive interviews to Fox News. Webb was quite concerned that the narrow focus of the testimony creates problems within the public consciousness on the issues within the region.
Speaking about the surge, Webb reminded us that he mentioned at the time the surge was announced that it was not a strategic move but a tactical adjustment. The US military “will control whatever battle space” it is put into, but Webb believes that is not enough to solve the problems in Iraq. According to Webb, the countries surrounding Iraq – Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Turkey and Iran, among them – have historical ties to ethnic factions inside Iraq and the US needs to affect a strong diplomatic approach to the area. The surge has accelerated the deployment cycles and threatens to wear out the ground forces. The proposed 30,000 troop reduction is an inevitability as the result, but Webb pointed out that such a drawdown will only bring the number of troops in the region back down to pre-surge levels.
Webb’s “dwell time” amendment seeks to make it possible for the troops to have time at home equal to the time they spend deployed. He said that this ratio traditionally has been 2:1; that is, twice as much time at home as being deployed. Webb said that the military leaders have an obligation to draft operational policy to match the availability of the troops. He said his amendment was carefully crafted and he expects it to be reintroduced as early as next week. The original amendment got 56 votes, and with the return of Senator Tim Johnson, that gets the vote to 57, if all prior support remains the same. He has been talking to several Republican senators, including Senator John Warner, about their possible support. The amendment needs 60 votes to be filibuster-proof.
Overall, Webb maintained that he believes that the US can perform the mission in Iraq and still take care of the troops.
Technorati Tags: Jim Webb
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
so jim when are the troops coming home? and just what is the mission?
bring them home now.
when did this call take place
The call was at noon today.
I was also on the conference call this afternoon and most definitely agree that major message Webb seemed to want people to hear was that the testimony was limited and he would have liked to hear more about Iraq’s role in the entire region. Based upon some of the questions that were asked after Webb’s opening statement, that also seems to be the sentiment of others as well.
“Overall, Webb maintained that he believes that the US can perform the mission in Iraq and still take care of the troops.”
Doesn’t sound like a man determined to get us out of Iraq.
Well, as a supporter of Webb from the getgo, I will let him know I want our kids out of Iraq. I think he thinks the same but is trying at least to get our kids some rest. and the fact that the bush mob cans that, takes the cake.
While I commend Webbs efforts on behalf of military families, has not Secretary of the Army Geren confirmed in July already stated that the postion of the Army is to reduce the length of deployment from 15 to 12 months. I realize Webb seeks a measure passed by Congress but it seem the Army is already moving in that direction. I wonder if it is worth using the political capital to get the extra four or five votes out of the Senate for Republicans when that capital may be better suited for solving some of the presssing domestic issues facing the nation. I grow tiresome of the never ending debate on Iraq and if people are all in agreement that nothing will change in Iraq until a Democrat is in the White House then should this Congress not begin to do the peoples business they promised in 2006 and begin to move forward. Displacing the emotional and political issues over Iraq, there are countless other issues that Amercians that this Congress is failing to address; Katrina disbursement packages, healthcare, energy dependence, immigration policy, education, tax credits, etc. Just because the big issue of the day is one thing does not mean that these other things shoul be put of down the road. The electorate may not be so forgiving a year from now if nothing is accomplished on other fronts.
Not at all related: What in the heck is an “Alter” of Freedom? Freedom, but different?
Actually you’re very close, MB. The next GOP talking point: “Freedom 2.0: there’s less of it so that you’ll appreciate it more.”
The relation is we are spending our time furthering this debate while there is more work to be done. It has nothing to do with the GOP cronnies who are equally less inclined to address any of the issues that are truly impacting Americans. Webb’s concern for the stability of military families is honorable and admirable and I am sure his son has seen excessive deployment, but if the Army is already moving in that direction should we not focus our attention back on some of the other points of his agenda, like those he referred to in his address following the State of the Union.Its great that we have luxury to debate Iraq on a daily basis in the blogoshere, but the indiffereence or apparent indifference towards focusing on anything but thse days by our leadership I find unacceptable. I would just like us to use this opportunity to get some real impacting legislation passed that will benefit the country. Thats all.