The Webb amendment to ensure that troops in Iraq and Afghanistan get a fair shake in tour rotation is a well-intentioned humane caring for our men and women in combat, but in reality it is but a coward’s ploy to draw-down troops through the backdoor, especially in Iraq. Not least, it capitalizes on the fact everyone knows our armed forces are thoroughly strained and at its lowest ebb.

The amendment, moreover, does not specifically target combat units; it assumes that anyone overseas is entitled to stateside respite. There is not a frontline commander worth his gold icons who does not recognize the need for a unit within a larger unit to be placed in reserve or rest while the other platoons, companies or battalions fight on; whereas the amendment leaves the impression that if a unit is on a one year tour it is entitled to one year off stateside, failing to take into account the numerous days of rest or in reserve while overseas. If we had a couple of million combat ready troops this would be possible and even desirable. Alas, we abandoned the concept of “overwhelming force” long ago. In addition, the amendment overlooks the fact that the vast majority of the 160,000 men and women are not even involved in combat, though surely often in danger.

As for the ruse that units be sent home as though they were fatigued, tattered nut jobs is ludicrous. True, troops deserve to be furloughed for a brief time with family, but they are quickly dispatched to retraining bases for rigorous maneuvers, which can hardly be construed as well- earned rest.

If on the other hand the amendment were designed for the active reserve and national guard it would be somewhat sensible to limit their tour duties as opposed to the professional armed forces in as much as service is not their primary career. The Guard per se is primarily designed for home front emergencies and should be given more slack than the Reserves which is not made of units but many individuals on call to fill in the cracks of the professional forces. Once, however, they are assigned as replacements to a combat unit to fill in for casualties they are in all intents and purposes and integral member of the volunteer ranks.

Unquestionably as casualties mount and the surviving members of the unit begin to find themselves on an endless, seamless tour of perhaps as much as two years should be entitled to an individual furlough, provided reserves or new volunteer recruits are available. Still, a professional grunt should not expect relief as long as his unit has been fairly placed on reserve from time to time; whereas a reservist should expect his tour, unless the combat situation does not warrant it, to be no more than a year.

The Webb amendment, then, is poorly crafted as a military exigency, and one can only conclude it is indeed but an expression of frustration in winding down the war in Iraq. Democrats consistently fail by not taking the dog of war by the ears and de-authorizing the war and cutting off funds.