I would submit that somebody needs to go in to the big boss and close the door and talk about what this is doing to the United States military.

I personally cannot see any element of a strategy of a commitment that's been going on for more than 4 years that can justify doing this to the soldiers and the Army.

A lot of people who wanted to move us into Iraq were openly saying that we should be on the ground in Iraq for the next 50 years.

Right, and I think that the thing that we often miss in this debate, because it's become like the Battle of the Psalm, politically, in terms of the way people have dug in up here on trying to resolve this issue, but there are instabilities…

I think that he is the right individual for this job.

the question has been, how we recuperate, as a Nation, for what many of us believe was an enormous strategic blunder.

I am deeply troubled by the 15-month deployment requirements that have been put on the Army.

I would like the opportunity to pursue that at the subcommittee level.

we need to get back to the goal of a 2-to-1 rotational cycle for our troops.

Timely responses to questions from people appearing before this committee are an essential function of what we do up here.

These 15-month deployments are going to wreck the Army.

I would submit that if those other individuals were properly doing their job, this position wouldn't be necessary.

when you have a uniformed military individual making political judgments and giving political advice to a political administration.

political considerations have to come in play.

I think it's a serious problem in a lot of different ways.

I had a political position and an advisory position, but I was a part of an administration and I was identified with that administration.

I know the sacrifices that they've had to go through to help you reach the position that you're in.

Aye.