Comments anyone?

[Neil D]

NN) -- Tours of duty for members of the U.S. Army serving in Iraq and Afghanistan have been extended from 12 months to 15 months effective immediately, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday.

"What we're trying to do here is provide some long-term predictability to our soldiers and their families," Gates told reporters at the Pentagon.

The new policy will give all units a year at home between deployments. CNN.com asked readers what they thought about the decision, as well as its impact on the country and the troops and their loved ones. Below is a selection of the responses, some of which have been edited:

Dolly Perry of Cheney, Washington

It is with a heavy heart that I hear the news of extended deployments. As a military wife I have spent a lot of time with my husband in foreign countries. I know personally the heartache a family feels when their husband/son/father is gone. That time will never be regained. A child only learns to walk or talk during a small period of time. Those memories can be described, but the true knowledge and experience is lost to those far away from home. As a mother to four I have experienced the pain of children racked with sobs crying for their father. I learned tools to comfort and help my children cope with their pain and anger as I learned to cope with all of my feelings.

All of this said, I feel pride that my husband has served valiantly with the Air Force for more than 20 years. I feel proud that I love such a man who would defend his beliefs and country and sacrifice so much to be available to be of use to his country. Would I do it again? Well, I'm ashamed to say that I might grumble ... But yes! I would be my soldier's home base again!

Barbara Cash of Chicago, Illinois

As a citizen and as a parent, I have never been so angry at my government as I am about what we are doing to our young men and women. They fight for an ideal unknown in Iraq, but more importantly, unwanted. They die for people and a country where they are unwanted. They serve for lengths of time that are constantly changed and extended, and then are recalled multiple times, leading directly to the mistreatment of prisoners and mental breakdowns, for which they cannot even get proper treatment here in their own country.

Our leaders will not call for a draft, because they know that this country will not accept a draft when our country is not threatened. Iraq will never be a democratic country, no matter how many of our children die over there. We started a war against a country that had done nothing to us, based on deliberate lies and with no plan for what to do after the fighting stopped. Oh, that's right, the fighting has not stopped and it never will, as long as our children are over there. For this, our children are dying.

We need to impeach a president for violating us, not for having consensual relationships outside of marriage. (Oh Newt, America is calling.) In this election, people don't want to talk about personal issues, and I am sure that everyone knows why. Because we are governed by a bunch of hypocrites.

L. Miller in Diyala, Iraq

Currently, I am an Army officer serving my second tour of duty in Iraq. I fought in Falluja in 2004. I protected Iraqi voters during the first elections in 2005. I'm currently slugging it out with insurgents and terrorists in the violent Diyala province. My soldiers and I have seen and been witness to things that no one should ever have to see and have lived through events that keep me up nights. Like most combat arms officers here, I live with the fact that many of my soldiers have not survived the battles we have fought, yet we survivors continue to soldier on. To learn of my unit's extension by watching the news is an insult. Many commanders and leaders throughout the Army, including myself, only learned of this extension after their own subordinates saw a press conference on TV and questioned them about it. Informing soldiers this way is a disrespectful act and angers me, many of my soldiers, and many of their family members.

While my own soldiers informing me of the inevitable extension of tours of duty disappoints and angers me, the fact that an already arduous yearlong tour is being extended absolutely infuriates me. Do leaders have absolutely no respect for soldiers and their families or is the Army this broken? I'm sure reality lies somewhere in between. As for myself, I am tired. I'm tired of this war. I'm tired of seeing my soldiers die. I'm tired of never being home. I'm tired of having no answer when my soldiers ask me if we're really defending our nation. I'm tired of not seeing my newborn son or my wife. I'm tired of not being home for Christmas. Because I am so tired of these things, I will tender my resignation when I return home ... whenever that is. I'm pretty sure I won't be the only one.

Kaitlyn Colburn of Milford, New Hampshire

My fiancee is already missing our first baby, who will be born in August. We had a planned wedding for when he comes home [for mid-tour leave] in August and now [with the mid-tour leave date changing] we don't know what's going to happen. Many people in the government do not understand that the extra money means nothing to us. You cannot put a price on a human life and you cannot imagine what families go through every single day while their soldier is gone. The extension is ridiculous and is ruining a lot of families. We should not even be in Afghanistan in the first place. When my fiancee comes home, our son will be almost a year old. A lot happens in a year and he will miss it all, and we can never get those things back. Why can't the Marines make their tours longer? Seven-month tours? Are you kidding? Why is active duty being extended to 15 months and the Marines still have half of what we have to go through? They come home for good when our soldiers are coming home for their mid-tour leaves. This is just not fair. The heartache this decision has put on families is indescribable.

Tricia Hoyt of Louisville, Kentucky

With today's bombing in the "secure Green Zone," I am at a loss as to why we are still planning to extend our service in Iraq. Here is a space that you are reporting as impenetrable by unauthorized people. CNN is reporting surprise and bewilderment that this area was breached. This war was begun by President Bush under the basic promise of "world peace." We would be safe if we took down Saddam [Hussein] and destroyed his weapons of mass destruction. I found that promise to be ridiculous then because evil exists and bad things happen to good people, period. It is something that we need to protect ourselves from and prepare for, but as the saying goes, "Where there is a will, there is a way." If someone wants to hurt us, they will. We should focus our efforts on peacekeeping and preventive missions rather than justifying someone else's mantra of evil.

Thom Moriarty of Virginia Beach, Virginia

I can only hope that the American people -- especially our elected representatives -- truly appreciate what is being asked of the men and women in uniform who are fighting this war on our behalf. An extra three months may not seem like much, but, as a retired active-duty service member who has deployed, I can tell you that it has a significant impact not only on the service member but on their family as well. This is especially true for those who are on or are about to begin a subsequent combat tour. Each and every American owes these brave young men and women our full support while they are on the field of combat and afterward when they return home -- especially those who come home with life-altering injuries. This is our duty as citizens and we must not fail in our promise to do it. Freedom isn't free!

Jennifer Howell of Fort Campbell, Kentucky

I am an active-duty Army wife with a deployed husband and I'm fed up and disgusted with this entire thing, not to mention this administration. Why does just the active-duty Army have to carry the extra burden? It's absolutely unfair and that extra $1,000 each month comes up to $1.38 an hour. You think that's fair? It all stinks to high heaven. Bring them all home now! The Democrats were elected for a reason.

Horace Hill of San Antonio, Texas

This is an issue only because CNN chooses to make it an issue for a political purpose. Check with veterans from past combat situations and you will find that a large majority of us were extended. Many, like myself, for the duration of the war or as long as you were needed to protect the peace, and some for a designated time period. You understand that this can happen the day you enter the military. My time in Korea was due to end August 1952 and my discharge date was September 1953. I was extended and came home March 1956 and was discharged in April 1956. Did we like it? No, we didn't, but we understood why it was necessary. I know this is a well-worn cliché, but many do not understand that "Freedom is not free." Never has been, never will be. Someone will always have to pay a price when others choose not to.

Cathy Cott of Tahlequah, Oklahoma

The powers that be in the military say this now, but down the road the "policy" will be changed. When they need troops and no one is enlisting anymore because they've jerked them around so much in the past, they'll proceed to jerk them around some more and keep them there as long as they like and then send them back as fast as they can. It's all a matter of changing policy to suit their needs. They don't view those soldiers, sailors, airmen or marines as human beings. They are nothing more than chess pieces in an actual life-or-death game they are playing. They are not to be trusted and their promises aren't worth a thing.

Ken Prescott of Cincinnati, Ohio

Extending troops in a combat zone is wrong. The rotation times for combat zones were set up to prevent troop burnout and have a date to look forward to when they will be home. Between the stress, fatigue and now low morale, troops will begin to make more mistakes. When this happens, the insurgents will take advantage of the situation and casualty rates will begin to go up. Casualty rates are always lowest when troops are fresh.

Wayne Yost of Macon, Georgia

Hey, it is an all-volunteer military. They are doing what they want to do. I am happy for them to be able to extend their tour! I wish I could do what I wanted to do.

Tim Bovard of Indianapolis, Indiana

As a Vietnam combat vet, the only thing that kept us sane was the fact that when your 12-month tour was over, you would never worry about being shot at again! The troops do not have that comfort now. The pressure, both mental and financial, must be terrible. We had the heat, snipers, no showers and sometimes no drinkable water, but we knew the date it would all end. God bless our troops!

Robert Vincent of Green Cove Springs, Florida

Yes, this will have an effect on my friends overseas. But the way Congress is treating the solders and Marines is remarkable. They need funding and it is stupid to think that winning a war like this one only would take five or six years. We must be there to provide stability throughout this region of the world. I know the fighting has been there for more than 1,000 years, but we are the ones who have the means to put an end to this conflict. If the United States turns its back on these people, that leaves no choice but to allow the criminals of al Qaeda to run this country.

Mike Huffman of Maryville, Tennessee

I believe it's time to activate the draft system. Twelve months of duty is enough. And only one tour every five years should be enough also. It's time for everyone to get involved, male and female. Let's get this war on and over with already.

Kathleen Royer of Overland Park, Kansas

Why are we conducting an overseas war with a peacetime army? If Mr. Bush truly wants to prosecute an overseas war, he should put the nation on a wartime footing instead of making the men and women of the armed forces pay the price for his arrogance.

Jessica George of Baltimore, Maryland

I am really, really sick about this, and am glad you have this forum. I can't begin to express how upsetting this is to me that this president continually uses our soldiers over and over. The whole war is a total lie, mess, fiasco. However you try to describe it. This president got us into this and can't figure out how to get out. But to continually use our troops like this is disgusting. Our National Guard is to be commended and is beyond brave, but its members were never trained to get into a "civil war."

I think we really need to look at the whole troop situation, and unfortunately because our leaders are refusing to reason or look for alternative solutions, there may need to be a draft. I hate to say that, but to keep up this way is not the answer. Really, I think it might be a good idea to draft all of Congress. I'm serious. See how quickly things would change.

Charles Leon of Fayetteville, North Carolina

It seems that the government cares more about the Iraqi people than our own families. It's unfortunate that soldiers have to return home to see how their own kids won't recognize them. Has anyone thought of a study that focuses on how this affects the soldiers and their families? On top of everything, they tell you they will give you $3,000 extra dollars, like our lives and our families are worth a dollar value.

Linda Kemp of Riverview, Florida

Simply put, our armed forces are stretched to the limits. Looks like the draft will have to be instilled. But of course, Congress would not approve of sending their own sons and daughters to war. We need to keep in mind to keep the home front safe and if we are this stretched by numbers, who will protect us?

Dave Jones of Ewing, Virginia

This is another example of poor planning and mismanagement by the Bush administration. It's like having to take out a second loan halfway thought a construction project. Bush did not take time to do the math.

[Dr. Shane]

Our military needs to increase its size which means more money. Democrats need to quit playing politics with the troops and approve the funds for the war effort.

[bevin]

It is not Congress's job to fund presidential stupidities.

The reason Congress was given the purse strings was to give them some way of hindering a president's folly that comes from his inability to say "I was wrong" and cut his losses.

In short, Bush needs to stop trying to throw good money after bad, and (given that he is not showing this common sense) Congress needs to cut off his money supply.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Congress needs to cut off his money supply.

That will mean even longer tours in Iraq, shorter stays back at home, and less protection for the troops in harm's way.

Democrats cannot say they support the troops when they cut off their funding. They cannot have it both ways. If they want the troops to come home, they need to come up with a plan on how to accomplish that. They need to become part of the solution. Just pulling out will result in massive bloodshed like what happened in Cambodia when Congress cut off all their funding. Hopefully we will not repeat the same mistake.

Message to Democrats: Quit playing games! Fund the troops!

[Neil D]

Message to the Republican Bush Adminstration

Quit rejecting your agenda, including more than your requested budgeted money and support our troups

[Dr. Shane]

That makes no sense whatsoever.

[bevin]

Quote:

Just pulling out will result in massive bloodshed like what happened in Cambodia when Congress cut off all their funding

The bloodshed in Cambodia was not caused by our pulling out of Vietnam

Quote:

That will mean even longer tours in Iraq, shorter stays back at home, and less protection for the troops in harm's way.

Only if the moron tries to increase the troop levels on the ground, contrary to the desires of the American and the Iraqi people. The whole point of cutting the budget is to force him to ask explicitly for the funds he needs, or withdraw the troops based on what he has got.

Right now he is just coming back to the trough every few months begging for more money because, with just a little bit more, the problem will be finished - even though he can't say how, and even though he has told the same obviously wrong story every 3 months for the last 3 years.

A spike in the bloodshed may be exactly what is needed for the Iraqi factions to realize that cooperation rather than competition is in their best interests.

The trouble with the basic strategy of escalation is that it doesn't force the two sides to cooperate. It just provides a breathing space for them to build up their forces for the fight that is inevitable when we eventually do pull out.

Right now we are like a referee in a boxing match, stopping the fight every time it looks like one or other will get so damaged they can't continue, and giving them just enough shelter to build up strength to come back and do it again.

Bush knows his administration has completely messed this up, and is simply refusing to admit that it is as broken as everybody knows it is, and is just running out the clock so he can blame its failure on someone, anyone, else.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

The bloodshed in Cambodia was not caused by our pulling out of Vietnam

Did I mention Vietnam?

Quote:

Only if the moron...

I would be careful using that word. One wouldn't want to be the pot calling the kettle black now would they?

[Dr. Shane]

Congress has to work with the President. That is how the system is set up. It is a system of checks and balances. If the majority in Congress does not have enough votes to override a presidential veto - they cannot completely dominate legislation.

The Democrats in Congress have a very slim majority due to winning a number of congressional races by very slim margins. They simply have to work with the President of the government will run out of money and it will shut down - like it did during the Gingrich/Clinton years.

The Democrats know this. What they are doing is playing theatrics in hope that it will help them in the 2008 election. In the meantime, our troops will spend more time in danger and have less protection. Of course, as long as the Democrats gain more power in 2008, they are willing to let a few more troops die, especially when they think they can blame it on the Bush Administration. They are hardly supporting the troops. Quite to the contrary. They are using the blood of fallen soldiers in hopes of gaining more power in 2008.

[Neil D]

That makes no sense whatsoever.

President Bush asked for $103 billion for expenses related to fighting the war on terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. He got that and more: not only a series of deadlines for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, but also $21 billion in additional spending, much of it unrelated to war.

Those opposed to the bill stated these reasons....

Several of the sweeteners were agricultural, mostly to compensate for weather-related and other losses.

Spinach growers got $25 million because the fall E. coli scare depressed sales. The shrimp industry received $120 million for Hurricane Katrina losses. Federal support for peanut storage, due to expire after 2006, was extended one year at a cost of $74 million. Shellfish producers were compensated $5 million for losses from a disease, viral hemorrhagic septicemia.

"Spinach, shrimp, peanuts and shellfish?" said Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.). "That's not a war funding bill, that's the salad bar at Denny's."

Democrats were largely content to let Republicans take their shots, although Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.) came to the defense of a $50-million item to clean up asbestos at the U.S. Capitol's special power plant. Working conditions in the plant are deplorable, Obey said, and workers should not have to wait for improvements.

And as someone once told me, "pork" is part of the political package....

la times

[Bravus]

Quote:

Democrats cannot say they support the troops when they cut off their funding. They cannot have it both ways. If they want the troops to come home, they need to come up with a plan on how to accomplish that. They need to become part of the solution.

The Democrats are *trying* to come up with solutions - even though a pretty good general principle is that the person who is responsible for the problem in the first place is the one on whom the majority of the responsibility for solving it should fall. But if Bush simply digs in his heels and accepts no solution but 'stay the course' or (worse) escalation, what then do you expect the Democrats to do? They have very limited avenues available to them, and one of those is the budget process.

[Dr. Shane]

Unless they have the two thirds majority to over-ride a presidential veto, they don't have full control over the budget. The fact that the Speaker of the House is willing to sit down with the King of Syria but not the President of the United States tells us how much she wants to be part of the solution.

The President is open to solutions - finally! He has fired Rumsfield but he is not going to establish a false time table for withdrawal. That would be foolish. We all know the blood shed that will happen over there if the US pulls out prematurely. And we also know that the terrorists will come after us and we have even more means to do so once they are in control of Iraq's oil.

Democrats are delusional is they think they can force a time table on the President. They know they can't. All they are doing is setting up an campaign issue for 2008. This is all part of their plan to gain more power. The problem is that it comes at the cost of our troops. More American soldiers will die and those that don't we go without seeing their loved ones for a longer periods of time so the Democrats can play their games and have a campaign issue in 2008.

[bevin]

American soldiers die because their Command In Chief made bad decisions

It is the CIC who sends them into combat with insufficient training and armor, and no plausible plan for winning

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

We go to war with the Army we have, not the Army we want to have. The reason the Army didn't have many of the things that would have made it better prepared for war was because its budget was drastically slashed during the 1990s. The CIA's budget was also slashed during the same period which may be one of the reasons why the 9/11 attack was not prevented and why our intelligence on Iraq was mistaken.

The President sent them into war with Congressional approval. That cannot be overlooked. Furthermore, many of the Democrats that voted for the war, have been running away from that vote. Those in Congress that voted for the war are just as responsible for us being there as the President is. However, even those that didn't vote for the war, should support the troops. We don't deny our troops funds to recruit more and defend themselves because we don't like the effort unless we are willing to accept the responsibility of the consequences - longer tours of duty and more loss of American life.

Let's remember the war was a noble effort. We, and much of the world, believed Saddam had WMDs and was preparing to use them in an attack on us. The anti-Bush crowd repeats the mantra that Bush cherry-picked intelligence and only looked at what he wanted to see. However that flies in the face of the facts. Hilary Clinton has said she reviewed the intelligence, personally talked with leaders in the CIA and with cabinets members of her husband's administration and after all of that, came to the same conclusion as the President. President Putin of Russia has admitted that he told President Bush of Russian intelligence regarding a plan of Saddam to use terrorists and WMDs to attack the US on American soil. Invading Iraq was noble and based on the evidence we had at the time, it was the right thing to do.

War, like competitive sports, is results orientated. Bush's execution of the war has gone terrible. That is where I part company with the "neoconservatives". While I agree the war had a justifiable start, I am quite disappointed in its execution. I don't consider those critical of the war as being unpatriotic. I point out that criticism without solutions is not helpful. Just pulling out and letting a slaughter take place and the oil profits fall into the hands of the terrorists is not the answer. I would like to hear some of these Presidential candidates explain how they would get us out of Iraq and prevent those two disasters from happening.

[lazarus]

We go to war with the Army we have, not the Army we want to have.

Quote:

This was a war of choice not of necessity.

No it really wasn't. Noble means of higher and superiour motives, quality. The motivion for this war even if we accept the Admins reasons are not higher. They are like many other country's motives - self interest.

Here's the key difference between Bush and most of the rest of the world: Bush pulled the trigger, he went to war. Many who stayed out of Iraq understood the dangers.

Look up what Bill Kristol said about any potential difficulties between Sunni and Shia in Iraq. When there are profoundly ignorant people formulating executing policy there's bound to be a mess.

Bush was wrong and American soldiers are paying the price for that incredible mistake. Unfortunatley he may never be held accountable his incompetence.

Quote:

Invading Iraq was noble and based on the evidence we had at the time, it was the right thing to do.

It was clearly the wrong thing at the wrong time. The evidence is the disaster that is Iraq. Unless Bush et al admit this and change course the disaster will continue.

Quote:

War, like competitive sports, is results orientated.

It you put it that way then we are winning in Iraq

3300 american Soldiers V 100,000 Iraqis or is it 50,000

That's a shut out in my book.

People are in Jail even though they had good intentions. They were neglegent, incompetent and careless.

The US army is not invincible. It is not omnipotent. It has met its match in Iraq. Restart negotiations with the insurgents and get out!

[Dr. Shane]

We can argue about the meaning of the word noble. However since the President, Congress and over 30 other nations believed we were under the threat of an imminent attack, the war was justifiable. Bush is to be commended for doing what appeared to be necessary. A lesser man would have waited for another attack.

[bevin]

Quote:

I point out that criticism without solutions is not helpful. Just pulling out and letting a slaughter take place and the oil profits fall into the hands of the terrorists is not the answer.

It is not proven, or even likely, that pulling out would give terrorist organizations any more control over Iraq than they have today - ie: none.

/Bevin

[lazarus]

We can argue about the meaning of the word noble. However since the President, Congress and over 30 other nations believed we were under the threat of an imminent attack, the war was justifiable. Bush is to be commended for doing what appeared to be necessary. A lesser man would have waited for another attack.

There was no imminent threat.

Bush denies that they thought/said an attack was imminent.

BLITZER: But the president, with all due respect, and the secretary of state, when he went to the U.N. Security Council, they gave the impression there was an imminent threat from Saddam Hussein.

BOLTON: No, sir.

BLITZER: That he was about to use those stockpiles in an awful way.

BOLTON: No, sir. In the 2003 State of the Union message, the president took on the imminent threat argument and rejected it. He said, some have argued that the threat must be imminent, but since when have terrorists or dictators ever given advance notice of their intentions?

[Dr. Shane]

When I read that, "since when have terrorists or dictators ever given advance notice of their intentions?" all that means to me is they were not sure if it was imminent or not. However, like Blitzer, I think most that supported the invasion, including those in Congress, believed the threat was imminent. Certainly, with all the intelligence President Bush had, including the warning from President Putin, to take the action he did was the responsible thing.

[bevin]

The UN WMD Inspectors were on the ground

They were getting immediate access to establishments

They were telling Bush there was no evidence of any WMD

The CIA had determined there was no cooperation between Al-Qieda Iraq

Bush had been told by Tenet how weak the evidence was

Most countries in the world were opposed to it

Almost half the USA population was opposed to it

He was told by General Sinseiki (wrong spelling) how many troops it would take to occupy Iraq

He was told by everybody and anybody that we would not be welcomed as friends and liberators

He knew there was no Iraq 9/11 link

and the fool went ahead and attacked anyway

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Quite the revision of history there. In fact, I remember the inspectors say the Saddam was not being forthcoming. They found a forbidden WMD (a short-range missile) just a few weeks before the invasion. During the invasion Hans Blix was making excuses why the US troops may find the WMDs that he couldn't (and they did - over 500 of them). What Tenet was telling Bush was that the it was a "slam dunk". We were welcomed as friends and liberators (I remember the statute falling and crowds cheering) and still are in Kurdastan. While Saddan did not help in the 9/11 attacks, he was giving safe harbor to those that did.

What does the Bible say about calling people fools again? Oh yes, if you call someone a fool you will be in danger of hell fire.

[Dr. Shane]

Matthew 5:22 whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.

[Neil D]

An observation:

Shane, you have an answer for everything, don't you?

[lazarus]

Proverbs 15:5 states, "A fool despiseth his father’s instruction: but he that regarded reproof is prudent."

Why we didn't remove Saddam: George Bush snr.

While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

[Woody]

Some are never wrong and never have need for an apology.