AP: Kerry Decries Bush Plan to Recall Troops

Democratic Presidential Candidate John Kerry (news - web sites) shakes hands with veterans after delivering a speech during the 105th Veterans of Foreign Wars National Convention in Cincinnati, Ohio(AFP/Hector Mata)

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040818/ap_on_el_pr/kerry

Kerry Decries Bush Plan to Recall Troops
By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer

CINCINNATI - Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites) on Wednesday criticized President Bush (news - web sites)'s proposal to recall up to 70,000 foreign troops as a hastily announced plan that raises more doubts about U.S. intentions than it answers.

"Nobody wants to bring troops home more than those of us who have fought in foreign wars," Kerry said. "But it needs to be done at the right time and in a sensible way. This is not that time or that way."

(snip)

"Why are we withdrawing unilaterally 12,000 troops from the Korean Peninsula at the very time we are negotiating with North Korea (news - web sites) — a country that really has nuclear weapons?" Kerry asked.

(snip)

"Let's be clear — the president's vaguely stated plan does not strengthen our hand in the war on terror," he said. "It in no way relieves the strain on our overextended military personnel. It doesn't even begin until 2006 and it takes 10 years to achieve. And this hastily announced plan raises more doubts about our intentions and our commitments than it provides real answers."


You hit it out of the park, John.

-MR

CBO: Troop shift Costly, unnecessary


http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5415&sequence=0

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5415&sequence=1&fr...

ftp://ftp.cbo.gov/54xx/doc5415/05-03-ArmyOBasing.pdf

CBO: Troop shift Costly, unnecessary

CBO's analysis points to several conclusions:

Because the United States has invested heavily over the past 50 years in base infrastructure for its troops stationed overseas, any major shifting of forces--either between overseas locations or to the United States--would require significant spending to provide that infrastructure somewhere else.


There would be limited annual savings to offset the large initial investment needed to restation U.S. forces, unless U.S. presence overseas was greatly reduced. In that case, annual savings could exceed $1 billion, but the net up-front investment would be substantial--on the order of $7 billion.


Restationing Army forces would produce, at best, only small improvements in the United States' ability to respond to far-flung conflicts. The reason is that deploying Army units to many potential trouble spots from the likely locations of new bases would not be significantly faster than deploying them from current bases.


Bringing forces that are permanently stationed in Europe and South Korea back to the continental United States (CONUS) and maintaining a presence in those regions through unit rotations would reduce the need for infrastructure overseas. It would also reduce instability in Army units by lessening the extent to which soldiers come and go, thus potentially enhancing unit cohesion. But maintaining the current level of overseas presence with unit rotations would limit the forces available for other operations--including the occupation of Iraq--and could hurt retention in the Army by increasing family separation.


If large numbers of forces were relocated from overseas, the need for additional basing in CONUS for tens of thousands of personnel could preclude some of the closings that might otherwise occur as part of the 2005 round of base realignments and closures (BRAC).

NPR reported that the reception of Kerry was unenthusiastic. But his "thoughtful speech" got him a standing ovation when he finished. He must have done a good job.

Bush sounds like the one who's weak on defense. (and of course, HE REALLY IS!!!)

I mean, it puzzles me why they wouldn't do the same for AWOL-in-Chief. :shrug:


War veterans Jere Hill, middle, from Warham, Mass., and Robert Gibson, right, from Lexington, Ky., stand with their backs turned during Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry (news - web sites)'s speech at the 105th Veterans of Foreign Wars National Convention in Cincinnati on Wednesday, Aug. 18, 2004. Man in foreground is unidentified. Kerry received a polite if not overwhelmingly positive reaction from the VFW. But there was a clear divide, with scores of veterans sittings with their arms folded while others clapped. (AP Photo/David Kohl)

SOME will never forgive Kerry for his VVAW and congressional testimony and will hate his guts forever, but most veterans have a more balanced view. As it is veteran support is split fairly evenly.

Kerry! A VET who turns his back on another VET should be questioned! A VET who stands up for AWOL National Guardsmen should be questioned!

only on the grisly policy and missions which they found themselves in.
Great point!

I personally did not like the use of the word "decries." I am noticing AP headlines towards Kerry are always ambiguous or implied 'weak.'

Hey Nedra, hydra, whatever, you need a thesaurus!