 |
U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Tierney Nowland |
“How can there be any confusion on whether or not to fund the troops, the military commanders on the ground, and the commander in chief by a nation at war?” asks Paul A. Morin, national commander of The American Legion. “Congress voted and approved the commander in chief’s decision to deploy troops to Afghanistan and Iraq – now is not the time to play political games with funding for those placed in harm’s way,” he said.
“The nation faces many, many funding decisions for FY 2008, but there is no fiscal obligation more important than sustaining a strong national defense,” Morin said. “Not funding the Global War on Terror is shameful. The very men and women doing their jobs in the Middle East expect elected officials in the Hall of Congress to fulfill their constitutional responsibilities to ‘provide for the common defence (sic),’ ‘raise and support Armies,’ and provide and maintain a Navy.’”
Right now budgetary shortfalls in Afghanistan and Iraq will be covered by taking money away from other defense accounts – once again asking the military to make more sacrifices while members of Congress and their families make plans to enjoy another peaceful recess,” Morin points out.
“Many of these elected officials will participate in Memorial Day services in their local communities and pay tribute to the heroic men and women that made the ultimate sacrifice.
“There is no greater way to honor these patriots than making sure their comrades still on duty have the resources they need to complete their military missions.”
The American Legion continues its call for passage of the Emergency Defense Supplemental Appropriations for FY 2007 that funds the on-going costs of war but without timelines attached designed to determine the prosecution of the Global War on Terror.
Founded in 1919, the 2.7 million-member American Legion is the nation’s preeminent service organization for veterans of the U.S. armed forces, including active duty, National Guard and Reserves, and their families. A powerful voice for veterans in Washington, The American Legion drafted the original GI Bill and was instrumental in establishing the agency that today is the Federal Department of Veterans Affairs.
Comments (2)
Is Commander Morin Whacked out of his head? Here's what W is up to now! Stand up for the troops legion! Dont let your leaders sell you down the river!
Military update:
White House: Planned pay gains too costly
By Tom Philpott, Special to Stars and Stripes
Pacific edition, Saturday, May 19, 2007
As the House of Representatives prepared to pass its fiscal 2008 defense authorization bill, the White House urged lawmakers to reconsider a host of costly personnel initiatives added by the Armed Services Committee.
Initiatives opposed by the White House included:
Bigger pay raises
The House was set to vote for a 3.5 percent basic pay increase for January 2008. That’s 0.5 percent higher than proposed by the Bush administration. The House would continue a string of annual raises set 0.5 percent higher than private sector wage growth through at least 2012.
A 3 percent raise next January would be enough to keep military pay competitive, said the White House’s Office of Management and Budget in a “Statement of Administration Policy” on the bill, HR 1585, released May 16.
The “unnecessary” extra half-percentage bump in pay would cost $265 million in 2008 and $7.3 billion over six years, budget officials complained.
“When combined with the overall military benefit package, the President’s proposal provides a good quality of life for servicemembers and their families,” said the OMB letter to committee leaders.
Both House Republicans and Democrats disagreed. Rep. Thelma Drake, R-Va., offered the amendment, adopted by the armed services committees, to stretch the string of bigger raises out to 2012.
The Senate Armed Services Committee will mark up its version of the defense authorization bill next week. That committee is said to be more supportive of the administration’s view that military pay is competitive now and will stay competitive with a 3 percent raise in January.
Higher Tricare fees
The White House is disappointed that the House bill does not allow Defense officials to raise Tricare fees and co-payments for retired military beneficiaries under 65 or allow implementation of some new set of cost-containment actions expected to be recommended soon by the DOD-appointed Task Force on the Future of Military Health Care.
The administration says fee increases are needed to sustain a high-quality health care benefit “by largely capturing the inflation increases that have occurred since cost sharing was first established in 1996.” Blocking any such initiatives this year will add $1.86 billion to military health costs in 2008 and more than $19 billion through 2013.
The House bill also would restore $200 million in health care spending that Defense officials sought to remove through unspecified “efficiency wedges” imposed on service medical budgets.
‘Fair pricing’
The administration “strongly opposes” a provision in the House bill to require drug manufacturers to give the Defense Department the same price discounts on drugs dispensed through the Tricare retail network that they provide to base pharmacies, the Tricare mail order pharmacy and VA clinics and hospitals.
The White House says “market competition,” not government price control, “is the most effective way to promote discounts.” Rep. Steve Buyer, R-Ind., reiterated that argument on the House floor. He said price-setting in Tricare retail pharmacies will eliminate retail competition and, in time, endanger drug discounts for veterans using VA health care.
Reserve GI Bill
The administration also opposes a provision that would transfer oversight for the Reserve Montgomery GI Bill from the Department of Defense to the Department of Veterans Affairs. Proponents say it’s a first step toward raising reserve GI bill benefits and increasing them in future years in concert with VA-provided active duty GI Bill benefits.
The White House says the change would mean DOD loses control of a critical incentive program for reserve recruiting and retention.
To comment, e-mail milupdate@aol.com, write to Military Update, P.O. Box 231111, Centreville, VA 20120-1111 or visit: www.militaryupdate.com
© 2006 Stars and Stripes. All Rights Reserved.
Posted by Natally | 05/18/07 10:02 AM |
While Commander Morin fiddles and the troops are dying in a civil war please read todays story on the imminent collapse of Iraq. WAKE UP LEGION!!!
Iraq is on the verge of collapse: report
Thu May 17, 2007 3:05PM EDT
By Ibon Villelabeitia
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq's government has lost control of vast areas to powerful local factions and the country is on the verge of collapse and fragmentation, a leading British think-tank said on Thursday.
Chatham House also said there was not one civil war in Iraq, but "several civil wars" between rival communities, and accused Iraq's main neighbors -- Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey -- of having reasons "for seeing the instability there continue."
"It can be argued that Iraq is on the verge of being a failed state which faces the distinct possibility of collapse and fragmentation," it said in a report.
"The Iraqi government is not able to exert authority evenly or effectively over the country. Across huge swathes of territory, it is largely irrelevant in terms of ordering social, economic and political life."
The report also said that a U.S.-backed security crackdown in Baghdad launched in February has failed to reduce overall violence across the country, as insurgent groups have just shifted their activities outside the capital.
While cautioning that Iraq might not ultimately exist as a united entity, the 12-page report said a draft law to distribute Iraq's oil wealth equitably among Sunni Arabs, Shi'ites and ethnic Kurds was "the key to ensuring Iraq's survival."
"It will be oil revenue that keeps the state together rather than any attempt to build a coherent national project in the short term," the influential think-tank said.
The oil law, among benchmarks Washington has set Baghdad as critical steps to end sectarian violence, has yet to be approved by parliament. Ethnic Kurds, whose autonomous Kurdistan region holds large unproven reserves, oppose the draft's wording.
Rather that one civil war pitting majority Shi'ites against Sunnis nationwide, the paper said Iraq's "cross-cutting conflicts" were driven by power struggles between sectarian, ethnic and tribal groups with differing regional, political and ideological goals as they compete for the country's resources.
The author of the report, Middle East expert Gareth Stansfield, said instability in Iraq was "not necessarily contrary to the interests" of Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.
"(Iraq) is now a theatre in which Iran can 'fight' the U.S. without doing so openly," Stansfield said, adding that Iran was the "most capable foreign power" in Iraq in terms of influencing future events, more so than the United States.
The rise to power of Iraq's long-oppressed Shi'ite majority has caused concern in Sunni Gulf states, particularly Saudi Arabia, which deeply distrusts non-Arab, Shi'ite Iran's influence in Iraq, Stansfield wrote.
Should a U.S. withdrawal herald the beginning of a full-scale Sunni-Shi'ite civil war in Iraq, Saudi Arabia "might not stand by," the paper said, "with the possibility of Iran and Saudi Arabia fighting each other through proxies in Iraq".
Posted by Natally | 05/18/07 10:06 AM |