John Kerry’s Military Plan

[paineinthearse]

I was within 4 blocks of this site of Kerry's speech, but had other commitments. So in lieu of a first-hand account, here is what has been posted to his Senate website.

Source: http://kerry.senate.gov/bandwidth/home.html

John Kerry Says America Must Stand By Our Military

Last month, I traveled to Iraq where I visited some of the most remarkable young men and women our country has ever produced. I met hundreds of American soldiers and Marines, including many from Massachusetts, and I am proud to report that they are doing a magnificent job in very difficult conditions.

=========================================================

John Kerry Says America Must Stand By Our Military

Below are the remarks of Senator John Kerry at the annual Worcester Telegram & Gazette Visions Ceremony in Worcester, Mass., today. The remarks that follow are as prepared.

Monday, February 14, 2005

Remarks by Senator John Kerry “Strengthening America’s Military” AS PREPARED

Last month, I traveled to Iraq where I visited some of the most remarkable young men and women our country has ever produced. I met hundreds of American soldiers and Marines, including many from Massachusetts, and I am proud to report that they are doing a magnificent job in very difficult conditions.

I wish I could report as proudly about what is happening in Washington to make sure these brave Americans have the support they need to succeed in their dangerous mission, and to return to a hero's welcome rather than families and businesses in crisis.

Regrettably, the polarized and partisan spirit in Washington confuses "supporting the troops" with just supporting the current administration's policies. This idea is factually and morally wrong. We support the troops by giving the troops what they need to succeed - and sometimes that means actually challenging the policies that have put them and kept them in harm's way, and harmed the families who pray each day for their safe return.

When the Administration in charge can’t bring itself to admit mistakes, "supporting the troops" means that the rest of us, especially in Congress, have a special responsibility to demand that failed policies be acknowledged and changed.

"Supporting the troops" means paying attention to the needs of our troops in the field and at home; understanding their lives both as warriors fighting for the defense of their country and as parents, brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, struggling for the prosperity and happiness of their families.

And in the long run, "supporting the troops" means supporting changes in our defense policies--in our systems, our budgets, and our military planning--that ensure that the brave American warriors of the future are fully prepared to fight and win tomorrow's battles in defense of America's safety, values and vital interests. Supporting the troops means strengthening America’s military, not just talking about it.

So it's time to take a long and honest look at what we need to do to build a twenty-first century military, and to provide a twenty-first century support system for our troops and their families.

And the first step is to acknowledge that we are years and even decades behind in meeting this challenge, despite the victories our military has achieved in places ranging from Kosovo to Afghanistan and Iraq.

Despite the obvious and central importance of such military missions as "peacekeeping" and "stability operations," these concepts still remain outside the day to day debate and the military planners who understand these new missions have to fight hard just to have their voices hard. Too many of the planners who designed today's defense policies are still mired in the post-Vietnam doctrine of only fighting "big wars" against strong hostile states, not wars in and against "failed states" in which enemy armies are the least of our problems. Wars are won, not merely by breaking the enemy’s army, but by breaking his will to fight. But in the decade after the 1991 Gulf War, we built a military prepared to break armies. We’ve invested in the tools of war and we are supreme in our ability to project force around the world. We’ve failed to invest sufficiently in the types of forces that win the peace-we’ve failed to invest in the people, the men and women, who turn battlefield success into strategic victory. Combined with failed diplomacy and poor judgment in Iraq, these failures have produced an Army stretched to the breaking point.

So I’m here today to talk to you about the need to expand the Army and the Marine Corps, to better invest in the skills our forces will need on future battlefields, to better shape the force for the missions it may face, and to provide a Military Family Bill of Rights that truly supports the troops by protecting their loved ones. One thing is clear: the American military today is both too small and ill-designed for today’s dangers. A force designed for the post-Cold War 1990s is too small for the war on terror and the challenges of the new century. The administration’s failure to address this issue, quickly and wisely, has only deepened the hole in which we find ourselves.

I first called for expanding the Active Duty Army in the summer of 2003 when it became apparent that the Iraq invasion had stretched our forces to the breaking point. Let me be clear: this was not, and is not a proposal to increase U.S. forces in Iraq itself. But our experience in Iraq is instructive. If we had acted to expand the Active Duty Forces in 2003, the Army would not be as stressed as it is today. The evidence is everywhere to be seen.

In the past, the Army gave units two years to reset, re-train, and prepare between combat deployments. Instead the 3rd Infantry Division is headed back to Iraq after only one-year. The 101st Airborne and the 4th Infantry divisions are headed back later this year after less than two years. The First Marine Expeditionary Force is already in the middle of its second deployment to Iraq.

Even with this timetable, we've made ends meet only through large contributions from the National Guard and Reserve. But in planning the next rotation of U.S. forces, we're running out of Guard and Reserve units to call on because they’ve already been deployed. 14 of the National Guard’s 15 most combat-ready units are either in Iraq now, recently demobilized, or on alert for duty in the coming year. Of the 205,000 Army Reservists, only about 37,000 remain available for deployment for the types of missions needed in Iraq. Last year the Army dipped into the Individual Ready Reserve. More recently, the Army has even begun to call back military retirees, ranging in age from their mid-40s to their late 60s.

The situation is so grave that Lt. General James Helmly, chief of the Army Reserve, recently warned that the reserves are “rapidly degenerating into a broken force” - and cautioned that at this rate we couldn’t meet the needs of “future missions.”

The war on terror-which we know requires a comprehensive approach-will have a military component. Surprises happen and our armed forces must be ready to meet those challenges, wherever and whenever they occur.

Since the end of the Cold War, every major commitment of American military power, including the “Air War” in Kosovo, has required a sizeable commitment of American ground forces, at the very least to provide post-conflict security and stability. There’s no technological substitute for boots on the ground, and we must always plan for the worst, so we never expose our troops to the unintended consequences of wishful thinking.

We saw that in Iraq. The administration told us our troops would be greeted as liberators. They said the reconstruction would be painless and self-financing. They believed that U.S. forces in Iraq would be quickly reduced to 50,000 troops. They told us to expect further reductions by the end of 2003. They were wrong. And American forces have paid the price ever since.

We have to act today to make sure they don’t pay that same price in the future.

The CIA’s internal think-tank, the National Intelligence Council, recently drew an important conclusion about conflict over the next 15 years: “Weak governments, lagging economies, religious extremism, and youth bulges will align to create a perfect storm for internal conflict in certain regions.” That’s a warning about the danger of failed states - and this should be a wake-up call for American strategy.

Failed states can become havens for terrorists. It was a failed state in Afghanistan that provided a training ground for al Qaeda. It was a failed state where al Qaeda made its plans, grew its forces, and emerged to threaten our national security.

We need a comprehensive foreign policy strategy to deal with failed states, but we must also have a military ready to act if necessary. For the foreseeable future, the United States will need a larger ground force. Failure to build one now will only diminish our national security in the future.

The war in Iraq proved that lightening-fast, high-tech force can smash an opposing Army and drive to Baghdad in three weeks. But there is no substitute for a well-trained and equipped infantry to win the peace or secure a failed state. Those missions require an investment in the men and women of the American military-to expand their number, and to increase the number of forces that specialize in certain skills.

When I return to Washington, I will introduce legislation to increase the size of the military by 40,000-30,000 in the Army and 10,000 in the Marine Corps-to meet the challenges of the new century.

I will do so, mindful of what we ask our soldiers and Marines to do. It takes a special individual to see your buddy get hit, and put yourself between him and incoming fire so that medics can tend to him. It takes a special person to work day by day in an environment where it is impossible to distinguish friend from foe.

But they do it. And they do it well.

They are sustained by the bonds they share within their unit, and by the love and strength they draw from home-from their families, their spouses, their children, their parents. Military families are unsung heroes who receive neither medals nor parades-giving everything they can to the men and women they love, men and women who have been called to war. They answered the call. And so must we-with a new commitment to smarter defense policies, like those I outlined earlier, and better care for military families.

Over the last year, I talked day in and day out about the need for a Military Family Bill of Rights, a set of policies enshrined in law, to provide assistance to the families of the American military. The need has not diminished since November 2nd.

Investing in military families isn’t just an act of compassion-it’s a smart investment in America’s military. Good commanders know that while you may recruit an individual soldier or Marine, you “retain” a family. Nearly 50% of America’s service members are married today. If we want to retain our most experienced service members, especially the non-commissioned officers that are the back-bone of the Army and Marine Corps, we have to keep faith with their families. If we don’t, and those experienced, enlisted leaders begin to leave, America will have a broken, “hollow” military.

We can begin by increasing the financial support military families receive. We can help them meet the increased expenses every military family faces when a loved-one is deployed. Thousands of reservists, for example, take a cut in pay when called to active duty. Some employers make up the difference in lost wages. We should reward those patriotic business leaders. And since small businesses don't have the workforces that make it possible to spread such costs, we should offer a Small Business Tax Credit to those who make up the difference between a reservist’s civilian and military pay. For all service members, we should permit penalty free withdrawals from Individual Retirement Accounts for deployment-related expenses, such as increased child-care and other costs.

As many as one-in-five members of the National Guard and Reserves don’t have health insurance. That’s bad policy and bad for our national security. When units are mobilized, they count on all their personnel. But when a member of the National Guard or Reserve is mobilized, and unit members fail physicals because they haven’t seen a doctor in two years, that’s bad for readiness and that’s bad for unit effectiveness. As part of the Military Family Bill of Rights, we will extend military health insurance eligibility to all members of the National Guard and Reserve, whether mobilized or not.

One of the unfortunate truths about war is that it takes lives-and mostly young lives. For their survivors, much of life remains, and we must be generous in our efforts to help them put their lives back together. During last year’s campaign I proposed increasing the military’s death benefit to $250,000. When combined with the Servicemembers Group Life Insurance, a family would receive $500,000 when a loved-one dies in the service of our nation. Now, no one can ever put a price on a life, but we ought to do what we can to help families coping with the worst of news. The President recently embraced a formula to reach the $500,000 threshold, and I’m glad he has joined this effort. Our generosity must not stop there. At present, survivors of those killed in action have 180 days to move out of military housing. But for those with young children in school, 180 days may mean starting a school year in one state, and finishing it in another. With all the disruption the loss of a parent will bring to their lives, survivors should have the flexibility to stay in military housing for one year after the death of a service member. It’s the least we can do for those who have paid the ultimate price.

But let’s be honest: no piece of legislation will ever anticipate all the needs of America’s military families. Someone will always fall through the cracks. And the legislation I intend to offer will try to fix that. Take the case of Jay Briseno. Jay was wounded in Iraq and left paralyzed from the neck down. The law authorizes the VA to provide $11,000 to modify a disabled veteran’s vehicle, but it doesn’t provide the resources a family needs to buy the specially out-fitted vehicle Jay needed. In his case, a generous member of the community donated the van the Briseno’s now use to drive Jay to doctors appointments and hospital visits. And we are all grateful for that act of generosity. But no family should ever have to be so dependent on charity to meet a basic need.

Americans will do everything in our power to help military families. But not all Americans can afford to buy modified minivans for wounded veterans, and not all military families have the same needs. So as part of my Military Family Bill of Rights, we will establish a Military Family Relief Fund. Every American who pays taxes will be able to contribute by checking a box on their income tax returns. Just as we let Americans donate a few dollars to finance our presidential elections on their tax forms, we should give them this opportunity to say thank you to our troops. The program will meet the needs we can’t expect with the flexibility and responsiveness our service members, veterans, and their families deserve.

Supporting military families must also extend beyond service in uniform-with programs across government to help with jobs, VA benefits, healthcare, and education. But in this time of war, we have another obligation to meet the needs of those suffering with the experience of war.

The Pentagon believes that as many as 100,000 new combat veterans across the country will need some level of mental health care. The New England Journal of Medicine has reported as many as 1 in 6 soldiers returning from Iraq show symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. Fewer than 40% of those have sought help. Military officials and mental health providers predict that up to 30% of returning soldiers will require psychiatric services associated with their experience in war. Through July of last year, 31,000 veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom had applied for disability benefits for injuries-and 20% of those claims were for psychological conditions. These are levels not seen since the Vietnam War.

Our VA medical facilities are not ready for increased demands for the treatment of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. In fact only 86 of 163 VA Medical Centers have PTSD treatment centers. We must do better. The wounds of war are not always visible, and we cannot not sit back and wait for people to ask for help. We have to be proactive.

Soldiers and Marines returning from war want to go home. They don’t want to do anything that could jeopardize their homecoming. That’s what happened to Jeffrey Lucey, a Marine Reservist from Belchertown. When he was leaving Iraq, his first instinct was to report traumatic memories of things he had seen in the war. But someone told him it might delay his return home, so Jeff kept quiet. But the safety, security, and joy of homecoming eluded Jeff. Haunted by the war and what he had seen, he began to drink heavily. He was plagued by recurring nightmares, and began talking about suicide. Last summer, Jeff took his own life. Jeff’s story is a preventable tragedy, and a call to action. As part of the legislation I plan, keeping faith with Jeff’s family who have become committed advocates in his memory, we will expand PTSD programs within the VA and require outreach efforts to find the veterans who need the care.

Our obligation is to keep faith with the men and women of the American military and their families-whether they are on active duty, in the National Guard or Reserves, or veterans.

Those who have stood for us should know that we stand with them, today and always. Each of us here today can do something to ease their burden -- but truly supporting our troops requires that we act not just as individuals, but as a nation. We owe our troops the opportunity to serve in the best-planned, best-equipped, and best-led military force in the world, and we owe them the peace of mind that comes from knowing that they and their families will be taken care of if they sacrifice life, limb or the ability to sleep without war's nightmares. We owe them not just thanks and best wishes, but action, and action in our nation's capital. In today's ever-changing and perilous world, there is not a moment to lose.

###

[paineinthearse]

1. BUILDING A STRONGER MILITARY, ENACTING A MILITARY FAMILY BILL OF RIGHTS

Source: http://kerry.senate.gov/bandwidth/home.html#

STANDING BY OUR TROOPS AND MILITARY FAMILIES

BUILDING A STRONGER MILITARY, ENACTING A MILITARY FAMILY BILL OF RIGHTS

Monday, February 14, 2005

John Kerry’s Plan: Increase the Size of the Military and Stand By Military Families This week, Senator Kerry will introduce legislation to expand the Army and Marine Corps and help meet the needs of America’s Military families.

Expanding the Active Duty Army and Marine Corps are essential first steps in strengthening our military, relieving the stress on the force, preventing the emergence of a “hollow” military and keeping America strong. Senator Kerry’s legislation will grow the Army by 30,000 and the Marine Corps by 10,000. Given recruitment and training times, it will take approximately two years for these new troops to be ready to deploy.

The American military must also be reshaped to meet today’s threat environment. The Pentagon should ensure the new troops are trained to perform stability operations, such as civil affairs, psychological operations and military police.

The U.S. military is too small for our national security needs. Current deployments have stretched the American military to its breaking point. Active duty troops are facing lengthy and repeated tours. Of the National Guard’s 15 most combat-ready brigades, 14 are either in Iraq, recently returned or on alert to deploy in the next year. The Chief of the Army Reserve recently warned that his force was “rapidly degenerating into a ‘broken force.’”

Our military must have the strength and resources to meet any challenge, now and in the future. Challenges to America’s security do not start and stop with Iraq. The war in Iraq taught us that a lightening fast, information age military can drive to Baghdad in three weeks, but it also reminded us that there is no technological substitute for boots on the ground. Our ongoing commitments in Iraq, the nature of the War on Terror and the need to be ready for any future challenges mandate larger ground forces, equipped and trained for any mission. Our armed forces must be ready to meet tomorrow’s challenges, wherever and whenever they occur.

Keeping America’s military strong also means keeping faith with America’s Military Families. About half of today’s military is married. Good commanders know that even if you recruit an individual soldier, you retain a family. Providing for America’s military families isn’t just the right thing to do, it’s also a smart investment in American military strength.

During the 2004 campaign, Senator Kerry proposed a Military Family Bill of Rights. Several of those provisions, including protecting imminent danger pay and family separation allowances, were acted on by Congress last year. This year, Senator Kerry will continue to fight for the unfinished portions of that agenda, introducing an updated Military Family Bill of Rights to improve the way our government treats military families. The proposal focuses on fundamental needs like health care, housing and financial security when a loved-one is killed or injured.

The Kerry plan will:

• Allow Americans to donate to military relief charities on their income tax forms, similar to the current earmark that can be made to public financing of elections; • Allow surviving widows and children to remain in military housing for up to 365 days, rather than the current 180 days; • Increase the death benefit to the families of troops who die in action to $250,000. Doing so, when combined with the $250,000 insurance policy already carried by service members brings total compensation to $500,000; • Allow penalty-free withdrawals from Individual Retirement Accounts for expenses associated with deployments; • Extend TRICARE eligibility to all members of the National Guard and Reserves, whether mobilized or not; • Provide COBRA eligibility to Reservists who prefer to keep their families covered with private health insurance; • Expand Post Traumatic Stress Disorder programs in the Department of Veterans Affairs; • Establish economic injury disaster grants for small businesses that employ Reservists; • Empower the Small Business Administration to help Reservist-owned small businesses prepare for potential mobilizations; and • Create Veteran Entrepreneurship Loans to help veterans start new businesses.

Cost of the Legislation

The total cost of the Kerry plan would be approximately $6.5 to $8 billion. Taken separately, raising the armed forces by 40,000 personnel will cost between $4.5 and $5 billion per year, and the Military Family Bill of Rights would be between $2 and $3 billion per year.

By comparison, the United States is currently spending about $5 billion a month on military operations and reconstruction in Iraq.

[paineinthearse]

28. self-delete

[welshTerrier2]

2. this is BULLSHIT ...

i had hoped that Kerry would finally acknowledge that our military has been OVERUTILIZED, NOT UNDERSTAFFED ...

i agree with many of the things Kerry spoke about today but his call for a larger military is DEAD WRONG ... i am truly disappointed that he chose this route ...

[LittleClarkie]

6. If it wasn't understaffed before, it is now

I'm thinking he's thinking that more active duty equals fewer National Guardsmen and Reservists out there. Considering the National Guard could be, oh I don't know, perhaps GUARDING THE NATION, it would good to get them home. Also, considering many of them are our first reponders, we need them home.

Not to mention it is the Guardsmen and Reservists who are treated like second class military citizens, barely equiped and resented when they get home.

Also, I've heard from more than one person that the military is hollow. That was their word, hollow. Not sure exactly what that means, except they seemed to indicate that infrustructure people were being used in combat. If nothing else, then, I guess the military could use some clerks.

I think Kerry's mentality is that more troops will take the pressure off the ones who've been trying to do everything with nothing.

And, whether we do or not, he believes in the threat of terrorism. The difference for me is I trust him to know what he's talking about. Whatever he would have done as prez, it would have been infinitely saner.

[Q]

67. What does Iraq have to do with 'believing in the threat of terrorism'?

I wish Democrats would stop giving credibility to the lie that we're in Iraq fighting the war on terrorism.

[LittleClarkie]

68. Reading it more closely

Something I didn't do the first time (I suspect I wasn't alone) I see that he appears to address each issue separately. Iraq is the failed policy that Bush won't acknowledge. The military as a whole needs reorganizing, partly because of the threat of terrorism. Believing in that threat has to do with reorganizing the military, no with what's going on in Iraq.

Of course, if there is a problem with terrorism in Iraq, it is of our own making, and wasn't there in as great a degree before we showed up.

Will it be solved by our leaving. I don't know. I had more faith in Kerry making the situation better, but I have no faith that anything Bush does will make any of it better. Worse, actually. But of course, they're not really worried about making things better. They wouldn't be building 14 bases otherwise.

[blm]

7. He's dealing with the reality of the military. They ARE overutilized and

because of the crappy decisions from the CIC they are stuck with, they are overstressed. TODAY.

The only thing that might make the difference between some corporal coming home and killing his family or committing suicide may be shorter deployments and more down time.

Sure, we all want to say just bring them home, but that is NOT going to happen unless Bush and Cheney wind up impeached in the next year.

Should Kerry offer a practical solution to an immediate problem or should he spit into the wind?

[welshTerrier2]

20. ah, t'were it so ...

Kerry said:

One thing is clear: the American military today is both too small and ill-designed for today’s dangers. A force designed for the post-Cold War 1990s is too small for the war on terror and the challenges of the new century.

and you said: They ARE overutilized ...

believe me BLM, i respect your opinions ... convince me that Kerry not only sees the troops as CURRENTLY being overutilized but also that the right approach for America going forward should require the use of fewer American troops ... i can't find that in the quote I provided ...

you know i supported Kerry even though I hated his IWR vote and thought he was wrong to vote the way he did ... i worked for him and i sent him some serious money ... perhaps more importantly, in spite of my differences with his Iraq position, I was still willing to have him, or anyone else, step up to the plate and show some real leadership in the party after the election ...

but MY Democratic Party needs to fight on two key fronts ... first, the premise that virtually all use of the American military has been done to protect multi-national corporate interests ... i deeply believe that to be the case in the Middle East ... and second, that our government has been sold to corporate interests and that we have lost our democracy in the process ...

it is not consistent with my views to increase the size of the military ... i appreciate that in a zero sum game, it is crazy to spend the kind of money on bottom-line padding weapons systems that we now are spending ... if i had to retain the current spending levels, i would absolutely shift my spending from hardware to personnel ... but better than both of those alternatives is to spend money on personnel in say, the Peace Corps, or Ameri-corps or whatever it's called ... that's the best way to promote peace in the world and protect this country ...

I am looking for leadership in the Party that represents my views on the military ... when America is attacked, we need to have troops ready to go ... when we are called, alongside the community of nations, to act as peacekeepers, we need to have troops ready to go ... we now have something like 150,000 troops in Iraq ... within 6 months, or perhaps the end of this year, we should have ZERO ... that frees up 150,000 troops if you're supporting my belief system ... some of these troops, as Kerry pointed out, should be based domestically doing traditional National Guard service ... what does he plan to do with the rest of the existing troops and where does he plan to deploy the additional troops he's calling for?

i can't tell you how disappointed i am with Senator Kerry's statement today ... this is likely to be a significant break in my willingness to support him politically ... as always, i'm more than open to additional discussion and reconsideration ... no door should be permanently closed, but i am truly dismayed by today's events ...

[blm]

22. He's stuck with the reality of the world Bush and Bin Laden have created.

Does he submit practical applications to ensure the health, integrity and strength of our military or does he spit into the wind?

If it was Kerry in that office he would be working to strengthen the spirit and sharpness of the military while working relentlessly to end the conflicts.

As it is, he must do whatever he can to help those who cannot submit those requests themselves.

[bahrbearian]

31. You make it sound like Bush and Bin Laden don't work together.

[blm]

76. Quite the opposite. Bush and Bin Laden have the same goal - perpetual war

that brings in lots of dollars for both of them.

[LittleClarkie]

38. I did think this bit was significant

"We support the troops by giving the troops what they need to succeed - and sometimes that means actually challenging the policies that have put them and kept them in harm's way, and harmed the families who pray each day for their safe return.

When the Administration in charge can’t bring itself to admit mistakes, "supporting the troops" means that the rest of us, especially in Congress, have a special responsibility to demand that failed policies be acknowledged and changed."

What he's saying about Iraq, and what he's saying about the military seem to be two different things. I like his emphasis on "challenging the policies that have put them and kept them in harm's way" and in mentioning once again that Bush won't admit a mistake, that "failed policies (should) be acknowledged and changed." Bush won't do that, of course.

But as I read, I think two things. One, that he's saying something he's already said before, which is that what Bush is doing is breaking the military. I think one of the things Kerry is calling for is just to repair the damage that Bush is doing.

I see he talks about winning the peace. I remember what he said during the campaign about Bush winning the war but losing the peace. I'm not quite grasping what he means by needing more military in order to win the peace. I'd have to go back to an earlier speech to be reminded of what that phrase means to him. I do remember that during the campaign he would call for an increase so that we could finish the work in Iraq regarding training and such so that we could get out of there.

If I go back and look, I wouldn't be surprised if I find that he's just saying what he'd always said about the military. If that feeling is correct, then I wouldn't understand why supporting him now and supporting him during the campaign would be that much different.

But whether we want to hear it or not, I also wouldn't be surprised to find out he's exactly right. I will likely print out this article and watch for his recommendations to be either slowly adopted by the admin as if they were Bush's or Rummy's idea, or for the experts to call for just this sort of approach. I'll be looking for the "I told you so" moment. That seems to happen fairly frequently with Kerry.

[welshTerrier2]

54. Kerry took "ownership" of the increase

this is the part of Kerry's speech that, at least to me, goes way beyond being stuck in this position because of the failures of the bush administration ... this seems like Kerry's world view ... it seems he believes that a larger military is needed because of the war on terror ... it seems like his view, although he heaps plenty of criticism on bush, is that the reality of the situation in a post-cold war world necessitates more troops ... here were the statements he made that seem to give him "ownership" of the need for more military beyond any foul-ups bush caused ... his words go beyond blaming bush for the need to increase the number of troops ...

Kerry said:

One thing is clear: the American military today is both too small and ill-designed for today’s dangers. A force designed for the post-Cold War 1990s is too small for the war on terror and the challenges of the new century.

i'm sorry it came to this ... i really am ...

i'll ask you the same question i asked BLM ... if we are going to withdraw from Iraq, say over the next year, that frees up 150,000 troops ... some of them are National Guard ... where exactly does Kerry believe we'll need to deploy more troops ... if we invade Iran, maybe ... i wouldn't support that ... Syria? ... i wouldn't support that ... playing "policeman to the world"? i wouldn't support that ... we are currently engaged in an active war that should be winding down ...

i don't see the justification for more troops unless there will be more war ... i support the idea of moving from hardware to personnel ... and i support the idea of refocussing our military personnel to be a lighter, faster fighting force ... but increasing the number of personnel should not be necessary as a war winds down and the emphasis is changed from militancy to diplomacy ...

our military has a role to play internationally; the concern i have is that calling for more military envisions roles i don't support ...

added on edit: sorry, forgot to respond to the point you made ... you said:

If I go back and look, I wouldn't be surprised if I find that he's just saying what he'd always said about the military. If that feeling is correct, then I wouldn't understand why supporting him now and supporting him during the campaign would be that much different.

the answer, for me, is easy ... i was not pro-Kerry; i was ABB ... the election is over and I don't like Kerry's Iraq position and I don't like his call for more troops ... i'll always give credit where credit is do ... i like Kerry's campaign to get health insurance for kids ... but i'm afraid his views on the military are more hawkish than i can live with ...

[LittleClarkie]

60. Well, it's true, he is too hawkish for some

it used to annoy me when folks would say during the campaign "He'd better be talking that way just to get elected." To which I'd reply, "No, that's the way he feels."

You seem to be making a distinction between supporting the politician and supporting a bill of his that you like. I hope so. Truly, that's all I'm after in the next 4 years. Supporting the politician or not supporting the politician can wait until we are nearer an election. Though you don't support him, I would hope that you can continue to support his health care plan, or any other good idea he comes up with. Is it possible?

As for a parting of the ways, I would like to thank you for your help during the campaign, and I'm sorry there is this difference of opinion regarding miliary policy. You seem to have solid reasons for yours, and I do believe Kerry feels he has the same. But if you can't reconcile how you feel with what he thinks best, then perhaps you're right. You will likely be supporting someone else in the next election. I suspect I will still be in Camp Kerry, if only because I think I've found an honest politician, and that's worth holding on to.

I hope you will be able to continue to give credit where credit is due.

[Skwmom]

96. Of course he wants a larger military.

You don't think he'd want his kids (or the kids of his rich donors) at the mercy of a draft do you?

On edit. Plus, he doesn't want to appear weak on national security. Nothing like using the military for political gain but what the heck, that's nothing new for Kerry.

[LittleClarkie]

99. In Vietnam, it was the children of the poor,

not the children of the rich, who were drafted.

I doubt this draft would be much different, esp. if college deferment is allowed.

Not to mention that his children are not of drafting age: Vanessa is 27, I believe, and her sister would then be 24. His step-kids are older. The average number in the last war was 19.

So I truly doubt that Kerry is worried about his kids or the kids of his rich friends.

But if you ask his band of brothers, who were all from working class backgrounds, I'm sure they'd tell you that he seemed very concerned about them, almost the first officer they'd encountered who was.

The one thing John Kerry would never do is use the military, or veterans, for political gain.

According to the statement on his Senate website, his way of supporting the troops regardless of whether he supports what is being done with them is to get as much of his military family bill of rights onto the supplemental bill as possible. That might be one of the reasons he's supporting the thing.

"It's the right thing to do for Congress to stand by military families as part of the supplemental funding that will soon face a vote in the United States Senate. Starting with the coming debate on the supplemental, I will fight to pass as much of my Military Family Bill of Rights as possible. There's no time to wait. Congress must act now.

“We're told that supplemental funding is needed to deal with emergencies around the globe, and I agree. But the urgent needs of our military families must also be addressed. Military families have higher expenses during deployments, and they should be able to make penalty-free withdrawals from their Individual Retirement Accounts for increased child care and other deployment-related expenses.

“We need to extend TRICARE military medical benefits to all members of the National Guard and Reserve, whether they are mobilized or not. It impacts readiness when a Reservist is called up and doesn't pass his physical because he hasn't been to a doctor in two years. We also need to expand Post Traumatic Stress Disorder programs within the VA system and require outreach efforts to find the vets who need the care.

“We also need to be more flexible with families who have lost a loved one. Widows currently have 180 days to move out of military housing if a spouse is killed in action. For those with young children, that may mean starting the school year in one state and finishing it in another. We should let them stay for a year. It’s the least we can do.

“It's time for a debate about what it really means to support the troops, in actions not just words. Truly supporting our troops requires that we act not just as individuals, but as a nation. We owe our troops the best-planned, best-equipped, and best-led military force in the world, and we owe them the peace of mind that comes from knowing that they and their families will be taken care of.”

[Skwmom]

100. I think you need to check that drafting age.

For people with certain skills, I read somewhere that the drafting age was going to be 40 (doesn't one of his daughters have a medical background)? Furthermore, I believe that Rangel wants a draft that would be a heck of a lot fairer than the prior one.

Please don't tell me that Kerry would never use the military for political gain. The guy has a LONG history of doing just that.

[LittleClarkie]

101. If you would illuminate that point, I'd appreciate it

as I just don't see it.

It depends on how you spin what he's doing, I suspect.

Having given the man a good hard stare, I'd say he's spent his life in service of the veteran, from his founding the Vietnam Veterans of America to his fighting for VA funding.

So, if you have examples that prove your point, I'd like to see them.

[KoKo]

102. GACK! A larger Military for more Imperialism....I really have a big

problem with this. Geeze, no wonder he and Edwards refused to acknowledge the pleas of the Anti-Iraq Demonstrators. :eyes:

[whistle]

3. John Kerry is not this country's Commander in Chief, although he

...most certainly had the support and backing of all of those who voted for him, including mine. He did not stand his ground and fight for what could have been rightly his against those who stole this presidency twice. Now he must do what a senator does when an illegal war has been declared and engaged in by this country. Kerry along with all of the other senators must stand up against the impeachable persons who lied and committed fraud and bring our troops home as soon as possible, or step aside and let those in our party who have the courage to make this right do so.

[YvonneCa]

4. We need ALL our Democratic Party leaders..

...including John Kerry, to lead our country in a better direction. I, for one, am THRILLED to see him continue to lead. It will be a sad day if he, and our other party leaders, give up. He needs our continued support!:-)

[dogindia]

5. I'm with Friedman. Investment in green energy

technology, sustainability is the only way. All those wasted lives and dollars could create a sustainable economy and exportable technology rather than wasting everything for a finite resoure that is destroying the environment as well.

It is beyond short sited. It is ruinous. It is suicide.

[LittleClarkie]

8. And they won't even admit that's what they're doing,

well, half of them anyway.

Half want to fight the "safe Israel" war.

Half just want "cha-ching... bling... bling!"

[sandnsea]

10. Of course it is

But even if we started tomorrow, it wouldn't resolve the conflicts that are brewing and will erupt over the next 10-20 years. We're not prepared for peacekeeping type operations and that's the point of this speech.

[paineinthearse]

12. Welcome to DU, YvonneCa

:hi:

[YvonneCa]

55. Thank you! n/t

[paineinthearse]

11. Kerry has every right to behave as the "shadow" president.

Due to the election being stolen.

[YvonneCa]

56. Yes he does...GO PRESIDENT KERRY!!!

[sandnsea]

9. NEW Military Strategy & Forces

Which we will need because people are developing allegiances to groups outside their government. We won't face sitting armies in the future, we'll face broken countries and we will need something besides a traditional military to deal with that. We will need people with skills in peacekeeping and stability operations and that can't be any clearer with the disaster in Iraq. It doesn't matter if Iraq had had WMD and they had welcomed us with open arms, Bush's policies and the military strategy we have now would have fucked it up anyway.

http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=375

[CWebster]

13. Someone, somewhere suggested that they "felt dirty" voting for Kerry

Ain't it the truth.

What a pathetic loser to be strutting himself as a hawk while we pour money and lives into the black hole of what we created in Iraq.

Disgusting.

[sandnsea]

14. lol

Oh I can't fucking wait until Howard Dean has to speak to national defense, terrorism, and restructuring our military. I promise you, I will NOT FORGET. Read.

http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=375

[blm]

16. Didn't Dean agree the military needs to be upped by at least 40, 000?

?

[sandnsea]

18. I think so

Here's what CNN has

"More troops to Iraq and Afghanistan; promises world's "strongest military"
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/special/president/issues/index.dean.html

Q: What about Lieberman's comment that if we had followed your ideas toward Saddam Hussein, he'd still be in power?
DEAN: I actually don't believe that, because given the time that's elapsed, we could have done the proper thing, which George Bush's father did, and put together a coalition to go after somebody who was a regional threat but not a threat to the US. We need a concentrated attack on Al Qaeda and on Osama bin Laden. Saddam Hussein has been a distraction.

Now what the hell does that mean?
http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Howard_Dean_Homeland_Security.htm

[LittleClarkie]

19. Dean is sensible most of the time, so I'm sure he did

I know he favored the alternate Biden/Lugar Resolution that Kerry also preferred over IWR. But only one of the two had to actually make the tough decision of how to vote at the time, so Kerry seems to be held more accountable no matter how much Kerry and Dean may have sounded alike much of the time.

[marcologico]

36. Dean, 12/15/03: "I will expand our armed forces' capacity

to meet the toughest challenges -- like defeating terrorism, countering weapons of mass destruction, and securing peace -- with robust special forces, improved military intelligence, and forces that are as ready and able to strengthen the peace as they are to succeed in combat."

Source: http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/002698.html

I can't wait either!

[LittleClarkie]

39. Good god

Is it too late to hire Dean as Kerry's campaign manager?

Almost exactly what Kerry is trying to say, but once again, Dean says it better.

See, they often agree. Proof again that Dean is neither nearly as liberal, nor nearly as crazy, as the RW tried to sell him.

Crazy like a fox.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LittleClarkie]

17. No, that would be a legitimate stance of his

no strutting needed. He isn't "like" a hawk, he "is" a hawk on this issue, but as folks thought it was a campaign stance. It wasn't.

From my pov and perhaps his, it costs more lives if they are understaffed and overworked and underequiped. The more active duty folk in there, the more Reservists and National Guards, who were never really trained for this shit, can come out.

He knows foreign policy. He knows the military. Whether I agree with him or not, I respect his points of view. I think he often knows what he's talking about. Often his positions are the most realistic, whether people want to hear them or not. He may have a blind spot on in this area since he's been talking about the threat of terrorism since at least 1997. I don't think he sees the "Vietnamization" of the Iraq War as clearly as one would think. But still, I respect that his perpective is an informed one.

But anyway, he is a decent man. I never quite understand why some folks, often you for instance, are so down on him.

[marcologico]

27. I'd keep a civil tongue. Now that Deano's chair he might report you to KOS

for dissing his boss.

Just a friendly suggestion.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[marcologico]

37. You tell 'em!

:yourock:

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

83. LOL!

Oh what a happy little Kerry reunion we're having here!

[KoKo]

103. He was Bush Lite...there's no other way to explain his behavior before and

since the election. He had to be dragged into supporting the Washington State Recount and dragged into supporting a recount in Ohio. He refused to support those in the party who wanted a totally new foreign policy.

This is just disgusting. He's so "inside the Beltway" he can't see out.

:-( I wish to hell I had just left the vote for President "BLANK" but then my vote probably "defaulted" to Bush anyway..

[blm]

105. Funny. Dean had the same position as Kerry during the debates, and

there weren't too many calling him Bush-lite then or now. In fact, some of his biggest supporters are attacking Kerry now.

Knee-jerk?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

106. That is so unfair

there is only no other way to explain his behavior if you are willing to apply such simplistic labels.

[Extend a Hand]

21. Just where are they going to get the soldiers...

for this "expanded military"

it won't be by drafting my kids.

It seems like they ought to be talking about how and when we're going
to bring home our soldiers :(

[LittleClarkie]

23. Kerry won't call for that

but I wouldn't put it past Bush.

I believe the thinking is that we can't bring home the soldiers until the area is stable. We can't stabilize the area until we stop trying to nation-build on the cheap. Under Kerry, I believe the plan would be increase now so that you can decrease soon. However, if others attempted such a plan, I fear they'd end up with a Vietnam-style open-ended buildup.

The ultimate difference, the very important difference, is that Kerry would have understood the need for an EXIT strategy. Go in with what you need, get the job done, then get the flock out. The job in this case, since Bush boy disbanded the Iraqi Army, would be getting the Iraqis ready to defend themselves. But in the fear-filled climate over there right now, I don't know if that's doable.

[sandnsea]

47. He has called for that

He has said we need to make it clear that our intention is to withdraw the troops. He is not calling for more troops in Iraq. He is calling for a different type of troop and military strategy overall, which we should have had before we ever went into Iraq and certainly should have had by now. He is also calling for a complete change of policy and strategy in Iraq, which we also should have had by now. That doesn't include additional troops.


http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=375

[LittleClarkie]

49. Oh, I'm sorry. The "that" I meant was the draft

Kerry would never call for it.

After reading the speech a bit more, I'm getting the same impression you are. He's outlining what the Bush Admin should be doing just as he schooled Condi on what her job was supposed to be. I doubt they're listening, but he is trying.

Weird though, but didn't Bush talk about about rebuilding the army for more rapid response. Was it a similar plan, or are they completely different? And something tells me, even if they were similar, Bush's was mostly talk.

Something just occurred to me. Whatever happened to pulling troops out of certain areas like Germany. It was a very popular plan with the servicemen and their families at the time. But has Bush Co. DONE any of it? Have they started pulling out troops like they said? It was some kind of crazy 10 year plan, as if Bush would have control after his tenure.

[sandnsea]

51. Oh, sorry

I misunderstood. I think the Bushies are talking about a different kind of rapid response killing military. Kerry is talking about troops that are trained to stabilize countries, which we obviously need. I haven't heard Bush talk about that, although if Rummy was planning that they just wouldn't tell our red blooded Murican fightin' man! I also haven't heard another word about Germany. In fact, I forgot about it. Just too much to keep track of and I'm sure that's part of their plan.

[LittleClarkie]

53. It just sounded good for the campaign

And Bush figured that it would get him votes I'm sure.

Yes, stabilization. Winning the peace. That's the key and what's sorely missing now. Without winning the peace, there can be no exit plan. Without an exit plan, we've got a Vietnam on our hands.

[Hell in a Handbasket]

24. it would matter a lot more if he was the CINC.

but right now, it's not much use.

[LittleClarkie]

25. Eh, he's announcing what he's going to be arguing and working for

even in his more limited capacity.

I kind of like the "shadow prez" quality of this. It's sad in some ways. But if what he says makes more sense than what Bush Co is doing, then perhaps we can add to the buyer's remorse.

[Hell in a Handbasket]

26. buyer's remorse....that's pretty accurate.

i really envisioned all of the coming four years under a Kerry presidency. and now...when he talks, i keep having to remember that it doesn't, well- it's not that it doesnt matter, but honestly...what's going to come of it?

[LittleClarkie]

44. Funny thing is, they usually start working toward what he says anyway

a couple of pundits have noticed this. So perhaps, after a lag, they will copycat him again. I swear he's like an unpaid advisor.

It would be funny if he were aware of how they steal ideas, and so he's putting them out there, WANTING them to steal his ideas so they'll actually get done.

Problem is, they'll get done BADLY, with this group of clowns in charge.

[Old and In the Way]

46. Worse than that.

Whatever Kerry proposes, you can be sure Bush will do the opposite.

[paineinthearse]

29. BG - Kerry calls for 40,000 new troops, more help for military families

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/02/14/kerry_calls_for_40000_new_troops_more_help_for_military_families/

Kerry calls for 40,000 new troops, more help for military families
February 14, 2005

BOSTON --Sen. John Kerry called for tens of thousands of new U.S. troops on Monday and said the country should adopt a series of initiatives to support military families. Kerry said he plans to file legislation to increase the size of the military by 40,000 -- 30,000 in the Army and 10,000 in the Marines -- to help support the country's efforts in Iraq and the larger war on terrorism.

He also said the country needs to do more to help families of those serving in the military, from boosting death benefits to extending psychiatric care to veterans returning from Iraq. "The war in Iraq proved that a lightning-fast, high-tech force can smash an opposing army and drive to Baghdad in three weeks. But there is no substitute for a well-trained and equipped infantry to win the peace," Kerry said in remarks delivered Monday at an annual ceremony sponsored by the Telegram & Gazette of Worcester.

One program being pushed by Kerry would allow families of veterans killed in combat to remain in military housing for up to year. Currently, families must move out of the housing after 180 days. The Massachusetts Democrat also said the country needs to do more to support businesses whose employees are called up for service. He is pushing a small business tax credit for businesses who make up the difference in lost wages for reservists.

<snip> (recommendations same as in release)

"Our obligation is to keep faith with the men and women of the American military and their families," Kerry said. Kerry also used the speech to renew his criticism of the Bush administration, saying it underestimated the level of resistance facing the military after it toppled Saddam Hussein. Kerry has made some of the same recommendations in the past. During his campaign for president, Kerry also called for an increase in troops, saying the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan had strained the military.

[TayTay]

30. Kerry is doing what he said he would do in the 3rd debate

This is from the transcript. He said he would do this if elected, and I am glad to see that he hasn't dropped this. I don't agree with the war, but I also don't want to take it out on the troops or their families. It's not their fault their CIC is a moron. Kerry's proposal makes sense.

SCHIEFFER: All right, let's go to another question. And it is to Senator Kerry.

You have two minutes, sir.

Senator, the last debate, President Bush said he did not favor a draft. You agreed with him. But our National Guard and Reserve forces are being severely strained because many of them are being held beyond their enlistments. Some of them say that it's a back-door draft.

Is there any relief that could be offered to these brave Americans and their families?

If you became president, Senator Kerry, what would you do about this situation of holding National Guard and Reservists for these extended periods of time and these repeated call-ups that they're now facing?

KERRY: Well, I think the fact that they're facing these repeated call-ups, some of them two and three deployments, and there's a stop- loss policy that prevents people from being able to get out when their time was up, is a reflection of the bad judgment this president exercised in how he has engaged in the world and deployed our forces.

Our military is overextended. Nine out of 10 active-duty Army divisions are either in Iraq, going to Iraq or have come back from Iraq. One way or the other, they're wrapped up in it.

Now, I've proposed adding two active-duty divisions to the armed forces of the United States -- one combat, one support.

In addition, I'm going to double the number of Special Forces so that we can fight a more effective war on terror, with less pressure on the National Guard and Reserve. And what I would like to do is see the National Guard and Reserve be deployed differently here in our own country. There's much we can do with them with respect to homeland security. We ought to be doing that. And that would relieve an enormous amount of pressure.

But the most important thing to relieve the pressure on all of the armed forces is frankly to run a foreign policy that recognizes that America is strongest when we are working with real alliances, when we are sharing the burdens of the world by working through our statesmanship at the highest levels and our diplomacy to bring other nations to our side.

I've said it before, I say it again: I believe the president broke faith to the American people in the way that he took this nation to war. He said he would work through a real alliance. He said in Cincinnati we would plan carefully, we would take every precaution. Well, we didn't. And the result is our forces today are overextended.

The fact is that he did not choose to go to war as a last result. And America now is paying, already $120 billion, up to $200 billion before we're finished and much more probably. And that is the result of this president taking his eye off of Osama bin Laden.

[Extend a Hand]

33. He also promised an exit plan

And he is not in a position to deliver on that.

Without and exit plan, and with Bush&(PNAC)&Co in the whitehouse, any talk of expanding the military really frightens me.

Everything I've read indicates that military recruiters are having
trouble now. Do they really think that by improving benefits
they will get more recruits. I don't.

[marcologico]

40. And he delivered. I've heard it so many times I can recite it by heart

1: train Iraqi security forces.
2: rebuild the country.
3: negotiate with neighbors to participate.
4: hold elections.

What the heck have you been watching/listening to/reading/surfing, anyway?

[Extend a Hand]

41. he hasn't delivered.

and he is not in a position to deliver.

Iraq is currently in shambles.
Iraqi troops are not even close to trained
And with Bush in the whitehouse, other countries aren't exactly
lining up to help

Kerry outlined and exit plan that he would implement if elected,
Sadly, he wasn't.

I do not believe the current administration has the credibility
the competence, or the desire to get us out of Iraq.

So I'm really not sure what to make of your comment.

[marcologico]

42. He promised a plan, he delivered a plan. Glad we agree. n/t

[sandnsea]

48. This isn't primarily about IRAQ

Agh. I bet 3/4 of the people in this thread didn't even read what he actually said. Which is exactly what I figured would happen.

http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=375

This is about terrorism and failed nations. NOT Iraq. He is taking lessons learned from Iraq and applying it to the future because the fact is, we've got alot of nations that could easily end up like Afghanistan. He isn't even calling for traditional military troops, rather peacekeeping type troops to intervene before we have situations like Iraq. In places like Darfur. We still support doing something about Darfur, dont' we?

[marcologico]

50. good point.

On the other hand, there's what, 120,000 US troops in Iraq? They've got to get out of there somehow, the place has to be patched up, and we're the ones who broke it.

[marcologico]

32. Given the choice between a few trillion $ on useless anti-missile sytems

and a few billion on armor (and health care) I'll take the equipment any day. It's not like they don't get every penny they ask for anwyay. He's saying they're spending it on the wrong stuff.

[Califooyah Operative]

34. the plan - STANDING BY OUR TROOPS AND MILITARY FAMILIES

STANDING BY OUR TROOPS AND MILITARY FAMILIES

BUILDING A STRONGER MILITARY, ENACTING A MILITARY FAMILY BILL OF RIGHTS

Monday, February 14, 2005

John Kerry’s Plan: Increase the Size of the Military and Stand By Military Families This week, Senator Kerry will introduce legislation to expand the Army and Marine Corps and help meet the needs of America’s Military families.

Expanding the Active Duty Army and Marine Corps are essential first steps in strengthening our military, relieving the stress on the force, preventing the emergence of a “hollow” military and keeping America strong. Senator Kerry’s legislation will grow the Army by 30,000 and the Marine Corps by 10,000. Given recruitment and training times, it will take approximately two years for these new troops to be ready to deploy.

The American military must also be reshaped to meet today’s threat environment. The Pentagon should ensure the new troops are trained to perform stability operations, such as civil affairs, psychological operations and military police.

The U.S. military is too small for our national security needs. Current deployments have stretched the American military to its breaking point. Active duty troops are facing lengthy and repeated tours. Of the National Guard’s 15 most combat-ready brigades, 14 are either in Iraq, recently returned or on alert to deploy in the next year. The Chief of the Army Reserve recently warned that his force was “rapidly degenerating into a ‘broken force.’”

Our military must have the strength and resources to meet any challenge, now and in the future. Challenges to America’s security do not start and stop with Iraq. The war in Iraq taught us that a lightening fast, information age military can drive to Baghdad in three weeks, but it also reminded us that there is no technological substitute for boots on the ground. Our ongoing commitments in Iraq, the nature of the War on Terror and the need to be ready for any future challenges mandate larger ground forces, equipped and trained for any mission. Our armed forces must be ready to meet tomorrow’s challenges, wherever and whenever they occur.

Keeping America’s military strong also means keeping faith with America’s Military Families. About half of today’s military is married. Good commanders know that even if you recruit an individual soldier, you retain a family. Providing for America’s military families isn’t just the right thing to do, it’s also a smart investment in American military strength.

During the 2004 campaign, Senator Kerry proposed a Military Family Bill of Rights. Several of those provisions, including protecting imminent danger pay and family separation allowances, were acted on by Congress last year. This year, Senator Kerry will continue to fight for the unfinished portions of that agenda, introducing an updated Military Family Bill of Rights to improve the way our government treats military families. The proposal focuses on fundamental needs like health care, housing and financial security when a loved-one is killed or injured.

The Kerry plan will:

• Allow Americans to donate to military relief charities on their income tax forms, similar to the current earmark that can be made to public financing of elections; • Allow surviving widows and children to remain in military housing for up to 365 days, rather than the current 180 days; • Increase the death benefit to the families of troops who die in action to $250,000. Doing so, when combined with the $250,000 insurance policy already carried by service members brings total compensation to $500,000; • Allow penalty-free withdrawals from Individual Retirement Accounts for expenses associated with deployments; • Extend TRICARE eligibility to all members of the National Guard and Reserves, whether mobilized or not; • Provide COBRA eligibility to Reservists who prefer to keep their families covered with private health insurance; • Expand Post Traumatic Stress Disorder programs in the Department of Veterans Affairs; • Establish economic injury disaster grants for small businesses that employ Reservists; • Empower the Small Business Administration to help Reservist-owned small businesses prepare for potential mobilizations; and • Create Veteran Entrepreneurship Loans to help veterans start new businesses.

Cost of the Legislation

The total cost of the Kerry plan would be approximately $6.5 to $8 billion. Taken separately, raising the armed forces by 40,000 personnel will cost between $4.5 and $5 billion per year, and the Military Family Bill of Rights would be between $2 and $3 billion per year.

By comparison, the United States is currently spending about $5 billion a month on military operations and reconstruction in Iraq.
http://kerry.senate.gov/high/record.cfm?id=232106

[cestpaspossible]

43. This is what supporting the troops looks like.

[YvonneCa]

57. YES!

[TheDonkey]

52. Good for Kerry!

But sadly the media ignored it....

[cindyw]

58. God how I wish he was CIC. It makes me sad. There would be some hope

by now.

[LittleClarkie]

61. I know

Maybe that's what makes the loss so hard to take sometimes. Just seeing him reminds a person of what could have been, but isn't. I'm glad he's not going away, but it still makes me sad to see him sometimes, wishing that were my president instead of the silver spoon sociopath we have now.

[zulchzulu]

62. A Soldier who knows war and peace tells it like it is

As long as Chimpy is in power, Kerry's hopes for a larger military will never happen. People know that they had better find other ways to make a living...other than fight and die or Halliburton and PNAC.

[leesa]

63. So Kerry STILL doesn't get it, huh? The invasion was illegal, immoral and

unethical and we have zero business being in Iraq. They hate us and they want us out. Our coninued presece can only cause more harm.

Amazingly, he STILL doesn't get it.

[zulchzulu]

64. That's not what he said, dearie

Nor is it ever what he said....

[LittleClarkie]

65. Reread what he wrote

He is not calling for an increase in Iraq. In fact, he says that Bush's Iraq policy is faulty and needs to be challenged. He says that challenging Bush's Iraq policy is one of the ways a person can "support the troops."

"We support the troops by giving the troops what they need to succeed - and sometimes that means actually challenging the policies that have put them and kept them in harm's way, and harmed the families who pray each day for their safe return.

When the Administration in charge can’t bring itself to admit mistakes, "supporting the troops" means that the rest of us, especially in Congress, have a special responsibility to demand that failed policies be acknowledged and changed."

Failed policies need to be acknowledged and changed. Sounds like he "gets it" to me.

As for his other plans, they involve the military as a whole and its readiness. For all his talk of being strong on defense, Bush is destroying the military.

[Skwmom]

97. Maybe he should have supported the troops when it counted.

Like voting no on giving Bush a blank check to go to war.

[tuvor]

66. Am I alone in having trouble caring about his plan?

I still feel like he betrayed everyone.

Count every vote, at least until I roll over like a good democrat doggie.

[LittleClarkie]

69. Judging from the rest of the thread, no you're not alone

However I completely disagree with your assessment and rather resent the manner in which you expressed it.

Rolling over implies that there was a chance he didn't take. Unless we were planning a civil war I think he did the only thing he could.

He has been taking good stances since, as with Condi and Gonzalez, and is generally a good man. I don't believe he deserves "good democrat doggie." That would be Zell.

[tuvor]

70. He definitely rolled over.

He promised supporters that EVERY VOTE would be counted, and that trust was betrayed.

Just calling it like I see it. Sorry if the good-doggie comparison causes you resentment. Fair's fair, he's treated us as though we were chumps. Bare minimum, an expanation is long overdue.

P.S. Zell Miller is just an insane old man, and I'd never denigrate my canine friends by comapring him to them.

[LittleClarkie]

71. He took steps to ensure that, and continues to do so even now

There was enough activity from him after the election that he didn't have to engage for me to believe he was still trying to make sure every vote was counted, even after the election. Even though it would benefit him in the slightest, he still had a presence in Ohio. And Lousisana. And Washington.

[wisteria]

72. An increase in our military personnel

is necessary. Additional troops in Iraq will possibly allow us to withdraw from this country sooner by allowing for the protection and proper training of the Iraq troops as well as providing a more stable environment for the Iraq people in general. Having more troops available for peace keeping assignments is also a good idea as it allows us not only to keep the peace abroad, but allows for adequate protection of us here in America.Have any of you considered what would happen if we were to again become the target of an act of aggression or the victims of an all out attack here in America while a majority of our troops are currently being over extended in Iraq? I support John Kerry's proposals. I just have one concern, are the benefits he mentions enough to entice people to enlist? I have read that enlistment numbers increase the current enlistment goals have not been met recently.

[wisteria]

73. correction

I just wanted to correct the confusing last sentence in my post, I actually meant to say, I have read that current recruitment goals are not being met.

[GetTheRightVote]

74. We are there for all the wrong reasons, it is time to pull out before more

American Children die for no reason at all, do not listen to those who would send our children to die in a foriegn land for oil or for imperialism, for get it, my children will not die behind this bull SH*T. * lied, bring our children home now.

:kick:

[marcologico]

75. One question: how?

We're in there, face it. Also we totally trashed the place. They have no police, no army, barely running water. Let's say we pulled a Saigon and skedaddled. 1) it would take months to get all our shit out of there and 2) they'd kick US out of the U.N.!

[cestpaspossible]

85. Yeah, they should come home now, but even if we pulled out today

our experience in the last 2 years has shown that our military is not structured right. There is too much reliance on guard and reserves.

[CWebster]

77. Advice to all but the usual suspects

stay away from the circle jerk threads. Let them spin their wheels trying to rationalize this idiocy and it will just fade into the horizon and sink like a stone.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LittleClarkie]

84. Oddly, I was just thinking something similar

only my cast of usual suspects is different... and my definition of lunacy is too, apparently.

Is this where I get to say I'm being abrogated? It always looked like so much fun when others claim it. Can I, huh?

Gee, I thought we were discussing the merits and disagreeing. What else is going on here? Because it's Kerry, I suppose some are dismissing out of hand and some are accepting, or at least giving it a chance without kneejerking. But some decent conversation has come out.

So what's your definition of a circle jerk. Does it usually include debate?

[whistle]

78. This part of Kerry's military plan I agree with 100%....

<snip>

"Our VA medical facilities are not ready for increased demands for the treatment of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. In fact only 86 of 163 VA Medical Centers have PTSD treatment centers. We must do better. The wounds of war are not always visible, and we cannot not sit back and wait for people to ask for help. We have to be proactive."

What is essential to caring for the returning wounded vets who have both severe physical wounds and psychological wounds is to stop creating new wounded vets. I'm sorry, but the tone I'm beginning to hear out of more and more of our leaders in Washington and around the country is very similar to the "peace with honor" rhetoric that came out of the Nixon/Kissinger Vietnam War era. This country does not need another quagmire in the middle east. We need to get our troops home. Another indicator that the war in Iraq is continuing to be unmanageable is the results of their free elections. To win control and install a U.S. friendly government there will require a blood bath and that will create U.S. casualties beyond anything this country has experienced in the last 35 years of fighting and occupation.

Kerry's military support plan can be carried out while at the same time withdrawing the bulk of U.S. troops from that region. All that congress has to do is set their minds and priorities to do that.

[paineinthearse]

80. Let's lay the Kerry and * plans side by side.....

I'll do the grunt work when I can find a copy of the * plan. What's that you say??????? No published plan?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

81. Kerry is weeping over the graves of the troops he sent to kill and die.

Kerry thy name is hyprocisy.

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LittleClarkie]

86. Over-simplistic, misrepresentative of the vote

and the ire cannon is pointed at least 45 degrees to the left in the wrong direction. Kerry made it abundantly clear he was voting for diplomacy.

I don't know how much he thought Bush would keep his word. He certainly used the fact that Bush didn't keep his word during the campaign. Over and over he repeated what the administration said they were going to do, and how they hadn't done it, like that should have been damning enough. I guess it was in Kerry's world.

I wonder if he thought Bush could be trusted. Or did he not imagine that even Bush would use 9/11 as a politicial tool. Or did he think that there were sainer voices like Powell and Bush's dad who would keep things sain. I don't think even he realized how much debate and dissent had been squelched, even from one's father. You'd think someone would have stopped the little cowboy. But no.

But no, Kerry's intention wasn't to send boys to kill and die for no fucking reason. Feeling as he does about veterans, it could never have been his intention.

Were you one of the people who thought he was campaigning when he stood over the grave of that soldier right after the election? Are you saying he has no right? Perhaps part of the reason he DOES weep is because he recognizes his part. But Bush deserves the lion's share of that blame to be sure.

Sorry, he's former military. He will therefore tend to be more hawkish than some would prefer. And I don't think his opinions on these matters should be dismissed out of hand. A good part of the time he turns out to be right, I hear.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LittleClarkie]

91. Just going by what he said at the time

No spin really. Have you ever read what he had to say at the time. Are you familiar with his experience with international crime and terrorism? Have you read what he had to say about holding Saddam accountable in 1997? How much do you know about the man? Or do you mostly ass-u-me?

I am the daughter of Navy, sister of both Air Force and Army, and sister-in-law of Navy again. And knew several former military who were rather large supporters of Kerry (ie Vets for Kerry). So apparently being former military doesn't forbid giving the guy the benefit of the doubt.

As for what you thought about Kerry at the funeral, I can't say. It would likely get me banned.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LittleClarkie]

88. I have to stand up for the Clarkies and Deaniacs

It's not fair to label those we disagree with as a supporter of Clark or Dean. I feel the same about that as I do about the person above commenting on "the usual suspects" who will defend Kerry. The posters who do so are a mixture of folks who support Kerry, and folks who are cutting him an even break at that moment. On the other side, those who are disagreeing are a mixture of people who seem to have a continual bug up their butt regarding Kerry, and those who legitimately have a beef with his stance.

There's a near automatic negative reaction that can be counted on from a few posters, but it's not fair to assume they are all Clarkies and Deaniacs, as if to say that all Clarkies and all Deaniacs are anti-Kerry. They're not. And not all Kerrycrats are anti-Clark or Dean.

And the circular firing squad continues...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

90. Kerry collaborated with Bush and sold the troops out.

We all knew what Bush had in mind for those troops in Kuwait but Kerry wanted to strut his pro-military "tough on defense", "tough on terror", bullshit and outBush Bush. It didn't sell. Still doesn't.

[wisteria]

92. What????

I respectfully have to disagree with you. You are making assumptions and not providing any facts. Have you read Kerry's actual positions concerning the war and our soldiers? John Kerry would never ever sell our troops out.

[Skwmom]

98. He's not weeping.

Once again he's USING them to try to further his political career.

[KnowerOfLogic]

93. Until he says "I was wrong. Bring the troops home now," i don't really

care what else he has to say.

[LittleClarkie]

94. What does he have to say he was wrong about?

He's already said he'll never trust Bush again. That's the only thing he did wrong in my estimation of his IWR vote.

And he won't say "bring the troops hom now." Dean isn't even saying that. And neither is Kerry the one who sent them there in the first place.

Bush is.

[Skwmom]

95. Like he stood by them when he gave Bush a blank check to

go to war. Of course Kerry would like to expand the active duty military. Keep enlisting the poor kids while Kerry's kids are safe at home. He failed to stand by the military families when it counted and now is using them in an attempt to keep his plans for 08 alive. If Kerry thinks this will win him the military support in 08 or will make him strong on the issue of national security, he is not only self serving but a complete idiot.

[blm]

104. Except that kerry has been submitting pro-military family bills for 20 yrs

now, so why would you see this as an aberrant submission calculated just for 2008?

He proposed these changes during the campaign and is standing by them now as Senator, yet you don't like it?

Should he just go away because you think he should? Isn't that exactly what the rw wants?