Cage Match

Well, with Mr. Straight Talk's track record, I think I'll believe Webb's version of events.

It's difficult to paint a war hero as being disloyal to the troops ...

Wanna bet? If the DNC doesn't succeed in doing this I want my money back.

Off topic, but can somebody post the video of HRC at the convenience store in Indiana? (Has gotten heavy play on MSNBC.) Talk about "out of touch" -- HRC has not driven nor filled up her tank in years, and obviously is not familiar with the art of filling up a cup of coffee in a convenience store.

Democrats have continued their attempts to slice off a chunk of the military vote:

It's nice to see you've retained your cynical ability to impute ulterior motives to anyone who is coincidentally doing the right thing.

The degree to which the National Guard and the Reserves make up a significant part of our current fighting force in harms way, is the degree to which St. McCain's position is indeed a betrayal.

Of course since you're trapped in the "Democrats hate the Military" storyline that permeates any and all coverage of the issue, you can't even imagine that they might actually see the Webb bill as a win-win and not just a ploy to "peel away votes"

I'm disappointed but not surprised.

Excellent post. Thanks, Ana, I hadn't seen this.

You know, when Bush was declared the winner in 2000, I thought that the silver lining was that the GOP would restructure the military so that we didn't draw on the Guard and Reserves the way we did in the Clinton era.

This administration's indifference to the well-being of people in the military has just been astonishing. Great that it's yet another aspect of the Bush legacy that McCain hopes to carry on.

"Democrats have continued their attempts to slice off a chunk of the military vote" AMC

From your link
"three years ago, in 2004, 60 percent of military voters polled by the Military Times identified themselves as Republican. Today, that number is down to 46 percent, or less than half"

It appears the Republicans may have something to worry about on that front.
I understand that doesn't fit your story but oh well.

Digby's site has some thoughts on this as well.
http://tinyurl.com/62cjx9

Hmm. The Pauls have a point about the GOP-friendly framing of that sentence in Ana's post... but remember, any post about the substance of the candidates' policies is evidence of bias towards Democrats. Let's call it a tie.

Thank god someone is finally pandering to the right people.

I'm imagining the DNC ad now: John McCain would rather soldiers stay in Iraq and out of school, just because he doesn't want a "new bureaucracy." Run it, DNC, day and night.

I'm trying to parse the Republican win-win. It would be a win on one hand because they'd get the bill they want, and because soldiers stay in the army...but on the other hand that's dependent on a continued rece-/depression.

Interesting how Republican win/win scenarios always seem to depend on the rest of the country getting screwed.

God, I love Webb. Can we just drop Clinton and Obama now and elect him?

From the Military.com article:

"Why would anybody stay for another deployment when they can go out on a four-year free ride, with guaranteed rent and utilities at the E-5 standard, which by long-standing DoD policy is a two-bedroom townhouse?"

Clearly these so-called troops want the terrorists to win!

*bashes head against the wall*

@Disenfranchised - Seriously. The more I learn about Webb the more I like him.

Paul, dude:

Perhaps my language was inartful. What I meant: The Democrats have stepped up attempts to appeal to military voters, and it appears to be working. (Check out the Washington Monthly article I linked to.) That "appealing to military voters" is often also "doing right by military voters" is a happy coincidence of democracy, not really an ulterior motive, no?

I have never written anything here -- or, I'd argue, elsewhere -- that would show that I'm "trapped" in the "Democrats hate military" storyline. My family -- chock full of yellow dog Democrats -- has a strong military tradition, so the formulation has never really even made sense to me. And there's really nothing in this post that would support implying that I buy into such a poisonous position. (And I actually noted that Webb erasing the distinction between reserves and full-time soldiers made sense... I guess I forgot he hated the military for a second! Sorry!)

The fact that the "surge" isn't working isn't helping McCain either...

But who woulda thunk it?

@AMC
Thanks for the correction. Having caught Joe Klein editing posts after the fact to erase an accusation that Democrats hope for bad news from Iraq, I'm quite sensitive to efforts to misrepresent opposition to the Iraq invasion as an anti-American or anti-Military sentiment.

I appreciate you explaining your position but hope that you will forgive my continued vigilance in spotting false framing and pointing it out when I encounter it.

AMC...was that last line SNARK???
welcome to the darkside...together we can rule the galaxy...

Why would McCain smear Webb in this way? I realize that the GOP is trying to create the false narrative that "the Dems refuse to work with us!" in order to provide an excuse for all of their obstruction but McCain has to realize that somebody would ask Jim Webb about this.

Really sloppy political hit job.

A strong incentive to not reenlist. The majority of hard grunt work in the military is done by young people. Its a young man's or women's game. However, the work is so hard that some grunts after only 3 years are banged up pretty good and this is in peace time. The military needs a much more steady flow of young people. While they do need the older folks to provide leadership the entry level is where they are really hurting.

AMC: The legislation supported by McCain...scales benefits, thus offering an incentive to stay...

In other words, "Sorry, son. You're gonna have to enlist for twice as long in order to get the same benefits your dad got when he served. But you'll still have the pride of protecting America during its hundred-year occupation of Iraq."

And this is supposed to encourage retention?

Meanwhile, the Pentagon is considering a plan raising beneficiary costs to double, triple, even quadruple in order to "avoid making the military health care system seem 'too generous' when viewed by American taxpayers."

I wonder what McCain's take on that is?

It's difficult to paint a war hero as being disloyal to the troops

One would think, though John Kerry might beg to differ on that one...

On the topic of the "All Volunteer Military" I think that the name misses the distinction between the two proposals. Sure, they volunteer, but do we want an 'All Professional Military' or do we want to incentivize a 'National Service Military'. The former group would be joining with the intention of making a career in the military and the latter group would be joining for an opportunity to serve, receive discipline, training, education and then go on to other careers (like, say, politics).

I do not believe the 'expert' who claimed that the opportunities in the Webb Bill would result in soldiers fleeing the military - the tragic misuse of the military has done that already. Most of the soldiers that I know who are going back are doing so because they do not have a choice. I do not see how the Webb Bill changes the ability for the Pentagon to call these soldiers back for another tour of duty. All that it does is give them an opportunity once they are finally able to rejoin civilian life.

From the link Paul gave to Hullabaloo, dday's take:

This is McCain's shtick. He looks to control the stakes of bipartisanship and define it as "everyone agree with me," and he'll lie about your intentions if you dare to defy him. Webb's GI Bill has 57 co-sponsors, pressure is being applied (good on Alaska Senate candidate Mark Begich to trap Ted Stevens on this), and then McCain barrels in, offers his own competing measure and threatens to blow up the whole deal, all because he didn't come up with it himself in the first place.

Hasn't Webb's bill been in progress for a year or something like that? And it's just now that McCain has gotten around to deciding that he doesn't support it.

"I do not believe the 'expert' who claimed that the opportunities in the Webb Bill would result in soldiers fleeing the military - the tragic misuse of the military has done that already."

Terrapinion: Well said. There are plenty of people getting out or do not want to reenlist now that would have if they were not losing their families, watching contractors doing the same job as them for more money, and being over extended. Nothing will make them want to stay now.

Why is McCain so worried about retention if it's absurd to suggest we'd stay in Iraq for a prolonged period of time with a continuing insurgency?

Would McCain's bill credit double time served for "stop loss"?

This is a well written press release by the McCain camp. Could you maybe try and have an opinion yourself next time?

"Why is McCain so worried about retention if it's absurd to suggest we'd stay in Iraq for a prolonged period of time with a continuing insurgency?"

Because no matter how you cut it, the military is wrecked. Let's say Obama gets in, and next week pulls all the troops out of Iraq (to create an absurd hypothetical). It's still going to take a lot of time and effort to get the military back to combat readiness.

Please note, I'm not saying McCain doesn't want an open-ended commitment to the Iraq War. I'm just saying that the concern about retention DOESN'T NECESSARILY correlate to an unstated desire for unending war.

"One would think, though John Kerry might beg to differ on that one..."

That's a great comment. I think it's fair to say that it is fairly easy to paint a war hero as "disloyal" if you have no conscience.

OT, for aficionados of over the top spin, check out Dana Perino on the fifth anniversary of "Mission Accomplished":

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/30/perino-rewrites-banner/

Also, thanks for the post, AMC. I'll count this as making up for 1 (one!) of the Wright posts.

Great link Crust.
"Mission Accomplished for the people whose job it was to make and hang this banner"

If we're not going to offer education benefits to get men and women to enlist, what does McCain propose - 72 virgins?

"Senators McCain, Graham, and Burr are shortchanging our veterans, and undermining America's heroes, as they reach for the American dream," said Jon Soltz, Chairman of VoteVets.org, and an Iraq War veteran. "Frankly, it hurts to have two veterans, like Senators McCain and Graham treat us like this. We would expect that they would have more honor than that."

The veterans stated that the McCain-Graham-Burr bill falls flat in its key differences from the Webb-Hagel Bill, which has the support of 57 members of the Senate, from both sides of the aisle.

1) The McCain-Graham-Burr legislation creates a flat education benefit, not taking into account the cost of state colleges where veterans live. This would mean veterans in states where the cost of education is higher than the benefit would have go to into debt to get an education, or uproot themselves and their families to move to a place where the benefit would cover college. The Webb-Hagel Bill determines the education benefit based on the highest state college tuition in a veterans' home state, allowing veterans to come home and attend college, without upheaval in their lives.

2) The McCain-Graham-Burr legislation creates second-class veterans, by offering those who serve in the military for 12 years the chance to transfer their education benefits to their children. This says to a veteran who serves for two years and loses both of his legs in combat that his service isn't as valuable as someone who has served for longer.

3) The McCain-Graham-Burr legislation leaves the National Guard and Reserve out in the cold. In the current conflicts, the National Guard and Reserve have served faithfully alongside their active duty compatriots, and deserve equal benefits. Yet, the McCain bill does nothing to reward our Guard and Reservists for their cumulative service. Under the McCain bill, over 160,000 members of the Guard and Reserves who have done more than one tour in Iraq or Afghanistan would get no credit towards an education for their additional sacrifice.

http://www.votevets.org/news?id=0126

OT:

Check out this brilliant piece by one of my favorite reporters:

White House: We 'paid price' for 'Mission Accomplished' - Yahoo! News

///
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The White House said Wednesday that it had "paid a price" for the "Mission Accomplished" backdrop to US President George W. Bush's May 1, 2003 Iraq speech, saying it left the wrong impression.

"President Bush is well aware that the banner should have been much more specific, and said, 'Mission Accomplished For These Sailors Who Are On This Ship On Their Mission,'" said spokeswoman Dana Perino.

"We have certainly paid a price for not being more specific on that banner. And I recognize that the media is going to play this up again tomorrow, as they do every single year," she said.

The "Mission Accomplished" banner hanging behind Bush on the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier has become a powerful symbol to his critics of how badly he underestimated the difficulties aheadin Iraq, where more than 4,000 US soldiers have paid the ultimate price.
///

There's more at the link. Read the whole thing. The rest is just as good.

Reporting is hard, hard work. It's hard work.

Ah Crust beat me to it. with the subject, but not with the piece.

GySgt213 - I value your opinion on this topic because something tells me that you are/were a Gunnery Sergeant.

If the hard physical work is done by the young then I would think that a strong package of benefits such as those in the Webb Bill would actually encourage young people to join up. You would be assured of a steady flow of non-profession-seeking recruits, some of whom would decide to stay. Does this sound valid?

I should also add that although I strongly favor Jim Webb's bill over McCain's graded benefits plan, I do not think that the McCain Bill is bad on its own merits. I just think that if this government really wants an "All Volunteer Military" then they need to take into account how they use the military. What the Neocons are learning is that they cannot wage a Vietnam-type war with a draft (a lesson they learned) because they will lose popular support - and they cannot wage a Vietnam-type war with an "All Volunteer Military" because, wait for it, they will lose popular support! The entire concept of the All Volunteer Military was that it would allow them to start these kinds of wars and not have to face the kind of popular condemnation that they faced during Vietnam. But it is not working. Why not just refuse to fight these kinds of drawn out, occupation-type clusterf#@ks in the first place?

Here's another thing about McCain's legislation:
I'm assuming that he's pushing a different bill for veterans in the hopes of not spending as much money.

Even assuming a pure desire for efficiency on his part (which I don't, really), it makes little sense, considering the vast wasteful expenditures going into weapons systems. Considering that we're pouring untold billions into development programs we might not ever need, why quibble about the cash for the people who are actually fighting? Why not just shell it out?

Why draw the line here, at wounded veterans, as opposed to the F-35 Lightning?

Terrapinion: "The entire concept of the All Volunteer Military was that it would allow them to start these kinds of wars and not have to face the kind of popular condemnation that they faced during Vietnam."

Well, in all fairness, the reason for an all-volunteer military was that the Armed Forces were ravaged by conscription: morale was low as draftees didn't want to be there, discipline was shoddy and the quality of troops was consistently lowered throughout the course of the Vietnam War (as the military changed the minimum acceptable level). The all-volunteer force was supposed to allow for tighter screens on those entering the military as well as ensuring that the people enlisting were actually motivated to do so.

As currently constructed, our military was NOT designed to fight another Vietnam. The doctrine, outlined by Colin Powell and on full display during Desert Storm, was overwhelming force with a very targeted purpose. This is why we had such an emphasis on fancy fighting systems (Patriot Missle batteries, Strikers, Bradleys) and jets (B-2 Stealth Bomber) - to project a lot of combat power rapidly to accomplish a narrowly defined mission.

When Rumsfeld took office at the DOD in 2000, the doctrine began to change. The goal was to streamline the Army into an expeditionary capable force (along the Marine Corps model) with the ability to rapidly cut off and kill the enemy, but not to overwhelm him. The death test case for this thinking, of course, came after September 11 and someone got the bright idea that we should invade Iraq.

I say all of this to say that while we are in a pickle in Iraq, the reason the military is constructed the way it is isn't to lessen the general population's awareness of crappy wars. It was built as such to keep malcontents out. Of course, as we're learning, it's hard to sustain that model when you're promising a recruit atleast one tour in Iraq and maybe one in Afghanistan if they make their mark on the dotted line -- so you get the kids with criminal records, drug problems and personality disorders that ruined the conscript army.

"If the hard physical work is done by the young then I would think that a strong package of benefits such as those in the Webb Bill would actually encourage young people to join up. You would be assured of a steady flow of non-profession-seeking recruits, some of whom would decide to stay. Does this sound valid?"

Yes it is valid. My other problem with McCain's plan is that a lot of wounded and injured soliders could wind up with a lot less after giving a lot more.

Dis Lib: I'm with you on Webb, and hope whoever our nominee is Webb will be V.P.

Kind of a Big Deal - I understand and appreciate your points. Vietnam was an excellent example of what an incompetent political strategy can do to a military fighting force. Iraq, too, has led to a lowering of standards for recruits in addition to the morally criminal institution of the 'stoploss' program.

I suppose I should rephrase my point to be not that the Neocons desired an All Volunteer Military in order to fight these kinds of wars; instead, what I should have said was that they desire an all volunteer military in order to continue to fight these kinds of wars. If we avoid having a draft then the traumatic burdern is kept on a population of Americans that conservatives find easy to ignore even in peacetime. A draft could arouse the public to bring an end to their war before, well, before the unicorns and the fairy dust spring from the desert sand. They have said as much (except for the unicorn stuff) although I am having trouble tracking down the quotes.

Plus, I apreciate this Freudian typo: "The death test case for this thinking, of course, came after September 11 and someone got the bright idea that we should invade Iraq." I can assure you that they had the idea to attack Iraq before Sept 11th.

GySgt213 - You wrote: "My other problem with McCain's plan is that a lot of wounded and injured soliders could wind up with a lot less after giving a lot more."

Amen to that.