S 2012 provides for waivers for the President and waivers for each of the Commandmants of each service. This is a summary of the amendment:

The Amendment provides for fair and reasonable waivers. In event of an operational emergency posing a vital threat to national security interests, the President may waive the amendment’s limitations by certifying to Congress that the deployment of the unit or member is necessary. The military departments also are provided waiver authority for individual volunteers who seek to redeploy before the expiration of the mandated time between deployments.

RATIONALE:

After more than four years of combat operations, we must provide our troops and their families with a more predictable operational tempo with adequate time at home between deployments.

We are burning out our ground forces. We are seeing it in falling retention of experienced combat veterans and an increase in mental health issues arising from multiple deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan.

The constitutional authority for Congress to act is clear: Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution empowers Congress “to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.” There are many precedents for Congress acting in this way when it was obliged to address the welfare of our troops. The current strategy does not justify extending deployments repeatedly without an equal amount of time at home.

The amendment also has the support of the 368,000 Military Officer Association of america.

... Article II, Section 2: "The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states ..."

Commander in Chief. The head guy in charge. The one who runs the military every day. The Congress wrote the UCMJ. That's rules and regulations. The Congress does not write every unit's personnel policies, unit rotation schedules, etc.

And as for the chaos that would result if Webb's proposal was enacted ...?

If you're driving a Hornet, you need to release those AIMs at a good long safe distance. You don't want to be getting in close. You aren't good there.

Article I, Section 8: Powers of Congress: "The Congress shall have Power . . . To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces."

I lost count of the number of times this had to be quoted to the unlamented 'Bart' every time he resorted to "Article 2" to explain this disgrace.

Let's see if the fighter driver understands it better than the former supply clerk and DUI lawyer.

No has an actual response. Ok thanks. At least NOW you're being intellectually consistent.

We call him Tilde Man, or Tilde Boy, or just A~~hole.

And only poor people could speak for the poor . . .

Isn't that the rule you clowns used against John Edwards in the fairly recent past?

are you going to wander off now that you have been spanked, or are you going to change the subject? If you were honest, you would admit you were wrong about the constitution and move on with some integrity intact. Will you?

Ouch

... Article II, Section 2: "The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states ..."

Yes, the President is the Commander in Chief. No-one here is arguing otherwise.

Does this mean he can deliberately ignore the other branches of government and the laws they make governing the operations of it all, including the military? The only reasonable answer is and emphatic no.

Please don't tell you're one of these extreme types calling for military dictatorship. I'd be bitterly disappointed if you were.

And as for the chaos that would result if Webb's proposal was enacted ...?

-- Hornet Driver

No chaos at all. They already know how long people are in or out. All this does is set the parameters. Are you disingenuous or stupid? Not that it really matters and I suppose "both" is a valid possibility..

Again,

Article II, Section 2: "The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states ..."

Commander in chief. The guy who runs the show day-to-day. Who tells units where to go, what to do, when to do it, etc.

Please tell me where I'm wrong?

When are you going to stop beating that straw man to death?

Nobody says that only ________ and/or ________ get to have or take a position on _______ and/or _______.

What most here are saying, including Greenwald is that the opinion of someone who has experienced first-hand the life-threatening task of _______ is in a much more credible and authoritative position to speak out on ________.

You're just a common, garden variety asshole. And that is a subject that you obviously are experienced first-hand.

I hope you will remember that and THEN you can chime in. thank you.

Try to make sure you know what you're talking about before you piss all over yourself.

Now if you'll go back and read what I actually wrote several hours ago, I cited the personnel problems we had in Vietnam because of a screwy personnel-rotation policy. That's what I was referring to, and Glenn knows it, because he's been highly selective in which letters he responds to.

Now run away before you get piss on everyone else, too.

No has an actual response. Ok thanks. At least NOW you're being intellectually consistent.

There were several responses, and while I don't know if they are "actual" under whatever criteria you're rattling in your noggin, they made sense to me.

Let's explore your comparison:

President Bush announced today a "Global War on Fire", after a terrible fire in New York killed around 3000 people.

"We must not allow fire to destroy our freedoms. We will do whatever it takes to put out all fires everywhere," said Bush.

Although the suspected arsonists were from Saudi Arabia, Bush rushed as many of the nation's firefighters to Iraq. The tactics his top fire officials proposed involved setting many fires in populated areas, so that, at minimum, ten times as many Iraqi citizens were burned to death as the terrible conflagration in New York. "You have to fight fire with fire," said Bush. Not only that, more firefighters were killed setting and putting out fires in Iraq than were New Yorkers killed in that terrible blaze.

Pundits Hagan and Kristol recently suggested that the firefighters were not trying hard enough to defeat fires in Iraq and they should stay there getting killed until all fires are put out. Firefighters who suggested that setting more fires to put them out was not the most effective way of dealing with them, but were derided as cowards and as being "soft on fire."

Does that sound stupid to you? Then don't compare apples and oranges.