National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008

Floor Speech

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008 -- (Senate - September 19, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

The fact is--I know it has been mentioned, but I reiterate--the Secretary of Defense, the person charged with the constitutional responsibility of deployment of the Armed Forces, has foursquare clearly stated that this amendment, while well intended, is certainly not a good amendment. It would dramatically limit the Nation's ability to respond to other national security needs while we remain engaged in Iran and Afghanistan. Secretary Gates, in a letter of September 18 to Senator Graham, indicated clearly his concern. He goes on to mention some other concerns.

General Petraeus announced--and the President affirmed--that there would be troop drawdowns in Iraq in the upcoming weeks. In fact, this amendment could have the effect of extending the tours of duty of troops in Iraq beyond their currently scheduled rotation.

There is another thing that bothers me. I think we also need to think about our constitutional scheme, how our Government is organized and ordered. Constitutionally to enact an amendment such as this would clearly be an encroachment on the constitutional duties of the Commander in Chief. This is not an area where the Congress is welcomed to dictate. We have one Commander in Chief, not 535. We only elect one at a time. This Commander in Chief has a Secretary of Defense. It is their responsibility under our form of Government to determine what our troop rotations should be.

There are other very practical considerations of why this should not happen, why this is a bad idea. The Secretary of Defense goes into several items in his letter. But it does make sense, when you look at it, that units do not always stay together. Following an individual rather than a unit and following the deployment of an individual rather than that of a unit is something that would be cumbersome, difficult, and, in fact, not a way in which we would be, in this very dangerous time, having to run our military. The fact is, there is something here which is maybe the most underlying and important reason of all why this amendment is not a good idea, which is the clear desire and design of the amendment to limit the options of our military forces to maintain the current policy in Iraq. We ought to not use the good intentions and the good ideas about our soldiers, about our troops and their rotations, to have an underlying mission of simply saying, they can't keep this up so they will have to pull troops out. We will change policy by dictating how troops are rotated in and out of the battlefield. The fact is, that could have serious consequences for our Nation as other nations would view this as a vulnerability. It would be viewed as a weakness, as a fact that the United States is overextended and incapable of responding to crisis. It is these kinds of misperceptions and misunderstandings that can lead irresponsible states to take irresponsible actions that could lead to frightening scenarios in the very dangerous world in which we live.

It is important to also note that many of the members of our Armed Forces consider it a privilege and an honor to serve this Nation at this difficult time. My recent trip to Iraq was in Tikrit. While there, I visited with a number of troops, some of them Floridians, all proud of their service. Over 90 percent of those troops had already reenlisted, knowing full well of our involvement in Iraq, knowing what the expectations of their service would be during their time of reenlistment, and they had voluntarily reenlisted. Reenlistment rates of those serving in the theater are larger than those of any other. It is a testament to their courage, valor, and sense of duty to their country. We would demean their service if we were to say to them that there had to be parity between the time in service out of the country and the time at home.

The goal ought to be for us not to have 15-month deployments. The hope would be that these would never be necessary. But a mandate from Congress that this is how we must operate our Armed Forces is ill-conceived. It is dangerous and does not serve either the national interest of the Nation or the interest of the soldiers on the field whom it is intended to serve. We should not have a subterfuge of policy to change direction in Iraq heaped on the backs of our brave men and women in uniform. If, in fact, there is the thought that this policy is wrong and it should be changed--and I know many Members feel that way; there has been plenty of debate about this issue--there ought to be the courage to say: We will not fund the troops. If you can't do that, you shouldn't do it this way. This is unnecessary. It is cumbersome, and it will be detrimental to the national security of the country.

I yield the floor.

Source