Murtha Speaks Loudly - Use the Sword to Cut & Run
By Denise Best | Related entries in In The News, WarCongressman John Murtha’s press release calling for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq is no doubt being viewed by the insurgents as a victory, while at the same time with puzzlement and disbelief by our military currently deployed.
The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We can not continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interest of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region.
Fairly damning words that negates what has been achieved by the efforts and sacrifices of our military during this engagement. No acknowledgement of the removal of a dangerous despot and no mention of the freedoms that the Iraqi people have achieved through this “flawed policy.”
What strategic option, besides “cut and run,” is being offered by Murtha? Are the ramifications of his demand for an immediate withdrawal even being considered?
Establishing a plan and timetable for transferring more power and accountability to the Iraqis is a more reasonable, responsible approach than admonishments to disengage immediately. Congressman Murtha has managed in a few paragraphs to jeopardize national security more by omitting the risks associated with reducing our military presence at this pivotal time.
The irony is that by following Murtha’s recommendations, more lives could be placed at risk; more sacrifice and loss has the potential to occur by taking a reactive, tactical approach than the strategic approach that is so desperately needed at this point in time.
This entry was posted on Thursday, November 17th, 2005 and is filed under In The News, War. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
November 18th, 2005 at 12:18 am
We often hear the argument that the US presence in Iraq is creating terrorists; presumably, if the US retreated from Iraq, there would be fewer Muslims, inflamed by our efforts there, turning to terrorism. A little thought and a little review of Bin Ladin’s history will show this argument to be wrong and incredibly dangerous.
How did Bin Ladin make his name in radical Muslim circles? By claiming the credit for driving the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan. According to Bin Ladin, his rag tag army of faithful mujahadin drove the Soviet Union out and defeated a super-power. In 1996, he issued his Fatwa declaring war on the US. In the same period, he merged with the Egyptian based terrorist group that had carried out the first WTC attack. In 2001, he attacked the US again, rather successfully. The US reacted by invading Afghanistan and then driving a dagger into the heart of the Middle East, by invading Iraq and taking down Saddam and his loathsome regime.
Now, imagine how it will look if the US takes Murtha’s suggestion and bails out of Iraq. Bin Ladin will be able to claim that he had now defeated the remaining superpower. He’d be right.
And the Muslim masses, that sat on the fence, will now see which is the “stronger horse�. Every disaffected Muslim youth, in the Middle east and Europe, will revere him. Hundreds of thousands will flock to his banner. Why not? He delivers.
November 18th, 2005 at 2:07 am
Agreed. That’s why I think we need to re-up troop strength in the region and make sure we win hearts and minds.
However, it’s hard to do that when we have a torture policy that makes us look like hypocrites.
November 18th, 2005 at 2:19 am
It is really not important whether the insurgents view Rep Murtha’s speech as a victory or not. I believe most of the military brass and certainly most of the troops bearing the brunt of the fighting and dying must be blissfully puzzled and wondering how much longer will the tragedy in Iraq continue. Certainly the troops and their families have borne the sacrifice in this war. Over 2071 soldiers have paid dearly with their lives and over 16000 with maiming injuries. Hardly anybody talks about the injured soldiers but they exist.
The Republicans, by deceit and lies, wrapping themselves in the flag, and 9/11, were able to blind the American public for almost two years. Since the war started the American public in general has not sacrificed anything because this is not a war of National Survival. Yes, we have sacrificed at the pump, but that is another story related to the Administration’s incompetence, corruption and selling out to big oil.
This is a war of overt conquest and imperialism imposed, through deceit, on America by an Administration basically crazy with power but that was so inept in planning and finishing the job that the reason why we are still in this war is due to their gross incompetency.
Whether removing Hussein, a despot propped up by the Reagan Administration, was worth going to war is really not for us to decide. the same goes for the “freedoms” that iraquies enjoy now. It is really not for Americans living in the comfort and safety of this country to claim that Iraquies are living better now than under Saddam.
Despite American troops and a de facto American installed government in Iraq there is still corruption, embezzlement, torture, and death at every corner. What is wrong with “cut and run” now? Probably not much. I do not believe that national security will suffer much because our domestic protection is more than adequate. American prestige will suffer but not more than what it has already suffered under the Bush Administration. Iraq will descend into civil war? There is already a civil war there. Next year if Republicans sense an impending loss at the polls, they will “cut and run”.
For Republicans being criticized about the war the present is always a “pivotal time”. However; for two years we have heard about the so called plan and timetable for transferring power and accountability to Iraquies, but so far no plan and no timetable. Why is this? Incompetency? A desire to continue the occupation?
Republicans just do not like being criticized for their foul ups and deceit. They think they are the banner carriers for the flag and patriotism. They have a loose tongue in calling a critic unpatriotic and a betrayer of America.
It may help to remember the words of a True Republican of another time and delivered at the time of a real war of national survival.
“As a matter of general principle, I believe there can be no doubt that criticism in time of war is essential to the maintenance of any kind of democratic government … too many people desire to suppress criticism simply because they think that it will give some comfort to the enemy to know that there is such criticism. If that comfort makes the enemy feel better for a few moments, they are welcome to it as far as I am concerned, because the maintenance of the right of criticism in the long run will do the country maintaining it a great deal more good than it will do the enemy, and will prevent mistakes which might otherwise occur.”
Robert A Taft Republican Senator from Ohio
speech delivered on December 19, 1941
“Twelve days after the worst attack on American soil in the country’s history, perhaps with bodies still floating in the harbor, the leader of the congressional opposition said to the president, we will question, we will probe, we will debate. “
November 18th, 2005 at 7:47 am
“This is a war of overt conquest and imperialism”. Chomsky 101. The American people are pragmatic. They’d support the war if “staying the course’ was succeeding. It’s not. Americans haven’t gone Ward Churchill.
November 18th, 2005 at 8:50 am
Is this thutmosis guy serious? Now he is going to say the Pacific front of WWII was an illegal, immoral war of imperialism? One more thing:
NO ONE IS SAYING DEBATE IS UNPATRIOTIC. THE PRESIDENT, THE VP, NO WAR-ADVOCATE HAS EVER SAID THAT.
enough already.
November 18th, 2005 at 9:05 am
Pat-
Bin Laden is not in Iraq, He’s in Afghanistan or Pakistan- so we think? Being that it’s been 4 years since we went into Afganistan and The Iraq War is diverting so much of our attention and energy away from the man and organization who actually attacked us, we really have no idea where he is. But it is more irresponsible to say that Bin Laden wins if we leave, just as it was irresponsible for Reps to link 9/11 to Iraq, and confuse who really attacked us. (Go ahead Righties, try to say they did not link the two- or Saddam to TERRORISTS… ie Osama Bin Laden)
I’m actually with Reps who say we need to win this war, but we can not win it the way things are at the moment. So, one of two things need to be done. Leave or as Justin suggested increase troops to Iraq. Preferably the later. If we leave Iraq now, it will be in shambles, if we keep this status quo it will be weak and eventually in shambles.
However, it is un-American to say that no ill-word can be spoken about this war. America is a Free country, and to point out that the war is not going well and should be reconsidered is the only American thing to do. Possibly with all the criticism of this administrations policies, they will get their head out of their ass and fix the mess that they created. However, they will not and keep going dragging this thing out till the Iraq gov’t is just strong enough to stand before they “Cut and Run”. Then with their fledging democracy and having just got up, a still active insurgency will knock it down, and we will end up in the same place that we would be if we left now. So is Murtha all that wrong?
November 18th, 2005 at 9:11 am
-Noodles
Are you crazy? They have all but said that. They keep saying that “now is not the time to question the administration’s policy’s regarding Iraq and that it’s un-american to do so” I can find actual quotes if necessary, but the point is, if not now, When? After the war? Then it will be all 20/20 hindsight, just as it is now regarding the lack of actually intelligence and debate before the war. Unless of course you meant by they have not said it to be “Plausible Deniability”, then I think you’re right on. They have not said that Debate aqaints the war was un-patriotic, but I think America is starting to see through Rove’s theory on Plausible Deniability, don’t you?
November 18th, 2005 at 9:42 am
I mostly disagree with Mr. Murtha about “cutting and running” now, but he does have one good point: “The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq[.]” Or at least, we are quickly getting to that point, where Iraq’s success or failure as a benign and decent society (much less a liberal democracy) has little if anything to do with the coalition’s continued presence. In the meantime, our main function in Iraq seems to be to keep America’s collective nose thumbed at al Qaeda. That may serve a good propaganda purpose, but is it enough to justify keeping our soldiers in harm’s way? That’s a perfectly valid question. Unfortunately the Democrats seem to be preoccupied instead with revisiting the decision to go to war in the first place, which regardless of its merits (or lack of same) is water that went under the bridge a long time ago.
November 18th, 2005 at 9:52 am
In Thutmosis rant above, the claim of ‘over 16000 maiming injuries’ is more blanent pro-terrorist propaganda….
From Mudville Gazette http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/003835.html
“There have indeed been over 15,500 wounded. But of those, 8375 returned to duty within 72 hours - so although those wounds weren’t funny perhaps those wounds weren’t quite serious either. Still, 7347 troops have been wounded severely enough to require over 72 hours recuperation. Furthermore, 2,791 Soldiers were wounded seriously enough to require evacuation to Stateside Army Medical facilities. And 280 amputees have been treated in Army facilities as a result of the war. A lot of unscrupulous types who just want to pretend to “support the troops” ignore these facts in favor of the less correct (and more impressive) claim that 15,500 troops have been seriously wounded, or maimed, or mutilated. The real numbers are big enough - I just can’t understand why some feel the need to pad them.”
Not that mere facts will sway the terrorist supporters of course.
This&That
November 18th, 2005 at 10:56 am
This and That. You make a great argument, but you destroyed it with the “blatant pro-terrorist propaganda” bit. Common man, can’t some one be against the war and not pro-terrorist? The righties have managed to water down the word Terrorist to mean anyone that is against the US, or more this administrations, opinions and beliefs. Don’t add to the nonsense.
November 18th, 2005 at 10:58 am
Murtha is suffering from the same crippling disease of the spirit as Marshall Petain in 1940 France. He’s an old soldier who has seen too much death and destruction, and it’s sapped his will to fight. The problem is that he, like Petain, is in a position to prevent those who still have a will to fight from doing so. Yes, there are many seriously wounded troops in this war. However, you don’t see great numbers of them joining the Code Pink demonstrators outside Walter Reed. They suffer physically, but their spirits are still strong. They believe in what they did and what their buddies are still doing.
Murtha is just a tired old soldier who has seen too much suffering and death in his day. Unfortunately, just as with Petain, his air of defeatism is out of step with the troops. Even worse, while Petain was right that the French were losing, Murtha is wrong about the course of the war. We’re winning in Iraq.
November 18th, 2005 at 11:16 am
Brian: I hope you’re right about winning the war. GWB’s ’stay the course’ strategy doesn’t have much gas left in its tank politically. A a seismic shift is coming in the 06 elections unless there’s great improvement. Staying the course may succeed over a 5-10 year period. But sadly, pro-warriors don’t have that kind of staying power on the US political front.
November 18th, 2005 at 12:51 pm
BOA - CONGRATULATIONS!!! it is complete, you sir have won the title of the first Rightie to tie Murtha to France and in the same breathe to Cindy Sheehan. Amazing and in such little time. Now the circle of smear and indignation is nearly complete. Murtha is compared to Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan and France. Now if he would have just been in the administration quit they could have used “disgruntled ex-employee”. Maye they can link him more directly to terrorists, instead of just saying he supports their cause.
Man Leave this guy alone. At least he fought in a War. Put those Pussies Bush, Cheney and the other Chicken Hawks on the front lines before you smear this cat.
November 18th, 2005 at 1:32 pm
John, I’m not smearing Murtha. As a veteran who has seen it in others I’m just diagnosing what I recognize in a fellow soldier. Murtha, like Petain, is in a position of leadership in his country. That’s why the parallel is fitting. Any soldier with as distinguished a record as Murtha’s or Petain’s who breaks down and cries about the suffering of the troops when those troops themselves don’t feel like they’re suffering has lost his sense of perspective. If the troops at Walter Reed were suffering as Murtha feels they are, I would expect them to show a bit of support for Code Pink and their protests outside the hospital doors. I don’t know or care if Cindy Sheehan is tied to Code Pink, they’re just the bunch protesting outside Walter Reed, where Murtha has spent a lot of time with the troops, and where it seems he’s had this change of heart.
This has nothing to do with Bush or Cheney. This is one veteran saying that he recognizes a problem in another veteran. I think Murtha, in his empathy for our wounded soldiers, has lost the big picture. I may be wrong, but I think the troops in Walter Reed and on the ground in Iraq would agree with me. They don’t seem to think this is all a waste.
Kreiz, I think we can still lose this, but the signs are mostly pointing in our direction now. I didn’t support the war when we went in because there was no way Iraq posed a near term threat (and this stank a little of being a personal vendetta on the part of GWB). However, we do seem to have finally stumbled upon a winning strategy. It’s going to be slow, but al-Sadr is joining the political process when a year ago he was vowing to fight to the death in Najaf. The Sunnis stayed away from the election in January, but now we see the Iraqi Islamic Party, including some who just months ago were hard-line insurgents, voting in the constitutional referendum. The talk of imminent civil war has evaporated. A Shiite torture cell has been shut down and condemned. Small signals, but encouraging ones. Maybe I’m just an incurable optimist.
November 18th, 2005 at 2:03 pm
BOA - You can say that it’s just your criticism of Murtha, but it sounds exactly the same as what others on the Right are saying. It also appears to be in the same vein as the smear policy this administration bolts out with everytime a new critic appears. I don’t buy it. Look, democracy is not the band-aid that will fix Iraq. The problem is that the war is being waged poorly, and there is no indication by this administration that the war will be waged any better. So people like Murtha and others that say pull out are only stating that the “Stay the Course” is not working and it is political suicide to commit more troops. And there is also no indication that the insurgency is ending. That is why this war is seeming hopeless. The number of insurgent attacks are just as high as they were a year ago. So see this war through Rosey Glasses all you’d like, but people there are pissed at us, and not only there, but all over the middle east. We could have, although I still think the war a mistake, fought this war, and dedicated the number of troops needed to “win the peace”, but they thought they could do it on the cheap. They were wrong. and unless we start to see more troops going in instead of troops going out there is no chance for success. Iraq is not stable enough to stand on it’s own against an insurgency that is able to stand up against our millitary. The insurgency must go first, then we can leave, and again the only way that is going to happen is with more troops. What will happen though is a slow removal of troops over the next two years, and in the end, an Iraqi civil war or a despot and dictator in charge. Nation Building does not work.
November 18th, 2005 at 2:08 pm
“now is not the time to question the administration’s policy’s regarding Iraq and that it’s un-american to do so�
john, Please find the republican politician or administration official who actually said this. I’m sure you can find some douchebag commenting on a blog that doest count, I doubt even shawn Hannity would say something like this.
You said you would find the exact quote if neccessary, Please find it and post it here if you don’t mind. I will take back what i said If it is Dick chaney or Rummy or one of the neocon-zionist Hitlerburton cabal.
November 18th, 2005 at 2:13 pm
“Now the circle of smear and indignation is nearly complete. Murtha is compared to Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan and France.”
Are you implying that Michael Moore, and Cindy Shehan are unpatriotic? If dissent is pro-American, what is so wrong with lumping Murtha with these tried-and-true Patriots?
I agree, associating Murtha with france was crossing the line a bit =P
November 18th, 2005 at 8:59 pm
Noodles, Plausible deniability has won out on this. I did not find the administration to say DIRECTLY that to protest the war was unamerican. However, I will connect the dots on the statements they have made following this. While it is enough for politicians to use ensinuations to make their point it is often followed directly by the pundits on the right that fill in the blanks.
Oreily- Nov. 15, 2005
“And they are anti-American people. They hate this country. They do. And if you read their garbage day in and day out, we’re the bad guys. We’re always wrong. Blame America first. That’s who these people are on the far left on the Internet. And they are well funded by George Soros and Peter Lewis, the radical billionaires. They’re as dishonest as they come. And you need to know about them.”
Limbaugh - September 26, 2005
“these are people who haven’t amounted to diddly-squat, who desperately want to matter, and they are being led and inculcated, manipulated, and promoted in ways — by people who actually do have an agenda — actually do have an anti-American agenda.”
Discourse between Colmes and Coulter- Jan 28, 2005
COLMES: How can you oppose the war? Let’s say you legitimately feel on principle —
COULTER: I can answer that, too.
COLMES: — that you are against this war?
COULTER: I can answer that, too. There is one patriotic anti-war position.
COLMES: What? What is it?
COULTER: One person, and that is Pat Buchanan. You want to know how to take a principled, patriotic anti-war position, listen to Pat Buchanan.
COLMES: Because he’s a conservative. Okay.
COULTER: No, because he loves America.
Ollie North - September 24, 2004
“Lookit, we mistakenly refer to it in the media as anti-war. It’s not anti-war; it’s anti-American. I mean, [Senator] John Kerry’s whole history is one of anti-American positions, whether it’s the Panama Canal or –”
David Horowitz August 12, 2005
“She has made herself a willing tool of anti-American forces in this country that want America to lose the war in Iraq and the war on terror generally.”
Oreilly- August 9, 2005
“I think Mrs. Sheehan bears some responsibility for this, and also for the responsibility of other American families who have lost sons and daughters in Iraq, who feel that this kind of behavior borders on treasonous.”
November 18th, 2005 at 9:00 pm
Insinuations, sorry.
November 18th, 2005 at 10:37 pm
I interpret the Anti-Americanism refered to by these pundits as the type of statements and actions that do not neccessarily constitute responsible dissent. No one in any of the statements you quoted claims that simply disagreeing with the decison to go to war on its merits is un-american. Anne coulter said directly there that its possible to be against the war and love america at the same time
They are refering to Code-Pink types and the che-guaverra-T-shirt-wearing douchebags that show up at protests claiming capitalism is evil and bush is hitler, and the iraqi terrorsists are the “revolution,” or “minutemen.” Most of these people are truly anti-american anyway and they jumped on the anti-war bandwagon.
How many times do you think war supporters get shouted down as “fascists” by these a**hole moonbats on college campusses throughout this country? To be fascist is inherently un-american, so I would argue that the vast majority of accusations of anti-americanism come from the left, wouldn’t you agree?