Jim Webb

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have moved up to a better mike here.

I would, first of all, like to thank all the panelists for their testimony.

Someone may have asked this question before I got here, but I have heard it said that a lot of the proponents of wage insurance, argue, either directly or implicitly, that it would encourage workers to take lower-paying jobs.

The risk is always there, Senator.

There were opportunities that this administration had that were arguably overlooked that could have affected Iran's conduct in a different way.

But this does impact on the question of Iran's motivation in taking certain actions.

But as a guiding principle, I think we should all agree that there should be no political input in the promotion process other than through the forms of fitness reports.

Strategic dispersion of the fleet may have made sense during the Cold War, but there is no sound national-security reason for doing so today

I intend to support, strongly, everyone here.

It's a really serious issue, in terms of what we are trying to do.

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

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…

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

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.

The issue of regional instability, what you've alluded to a number of times in your testimony, is the key.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

Political considerations have to come in play.

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