This week, Democrats have been offered an opportunity to step out of their silent support for the war in Iraq. One of the Democratic hawks from blue collar 12th Congressional District in Pennsylvania surrounding Pittsburgh, John Murtha, a retired and highly decorated Marine veteran says its time to get the troops out of Iraq now. In reviewing the discussion on both sides of the argument about what to do in Iraq, it's clear there is very little understanding of Murtha's point.
Congressman John Murtha - Press Releases
Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are united against U.S. forces and we have become a catalyst for violence. U.S. troops are the common enemy of the Sunnis, Saddamists and foreign jihadists. I believe with a U.S. troop redeployment, the Iraqi security forces will be incentivized to take control. A poll recently conducted shows that over 80% of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition troops, and about 45% of the Iraqi population believe attacks against American troops are justified. I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis. I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy. All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free. Free from United States occupation. I believe this will send a signal to the Sunnis to join the political process for the good of a “free†Iraq.
My plan calls:
- To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.
- To create a quick reaction force in the region.
- To create an over- the- horizon presence of Marines.
- To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq
Meteor Blades at The Next Hurrah has some well placed statements in support of Murtha and then joins the debate on the right course in Iraq.
Congressman John Murtha’s stunning remarks Thursday may have finally broken the logjam of posturing, triangulating, and hemming and hawing that has plagued certain Democrats ever since the Dubyanocchio Administration let it be publicly known that the United States was going into Iraq 41 months ago. That is, if those Dems can keep from being cowed by anti-American pissants like this one. For smacking down such creatures, all they need follow is Murtha’s superb roundhouse kick to the head of chickenhawk Cheney.
Not that we’ll necessarily see a complete withdrawal from Iraq in six months or even a year. George Walker Bush still has 1158 days to serve. But Murtha, the decorated Marine, has left other far more liberal Democrats with no further excuse for continuing to shy away from discussing the inevitable: America will leave Iraq before that country is democratized, rebuilt or even stabilized because efforts to do so have failed. Even if the Administration was to yield in its obstinacy and change course along the lines suggested by, say, General Wesley Clark, it’s too late to turn the situation around.
I don't see Murtha saying this at all. I see him supporting something close to the strategy laid out by Juan Cole last August. Cole called for a redeployment of US troops to a supporting role, the use of special forces advisors and air support in the model of Afghanistan. Presumably, the Iraqi government would need some time to build a coalition force amongst the various Shiite and Kurdish militias. This would very likely involve partitioning up parts of the country by assigning the militias geographically. Iraq would be left without an invasive force for the Sunni provinces, something will allow the Sunni's some breathing space to consider their political options. Naturally there would be an expectation that the US troops would be gradually drawn down, but not until the status quo is stabilized for some time. Contrary to what many Republicans are shrieking, there is no "cut and run" philosophy, it's simply a disengagement and repositioning of US troops to a position they could be called upon to defend the Iraqi government if necessary.
Meteor Blades then launches into a discussion comparing the positions of two generals who have been opponents of Bush's Iraqi strategies from two different points of view. He presents General Wesley Clark position and General William Odom both from August of 2005. Now that it's November, I suspect Clarke anyway is reconsidering his view in response to Murtha. Clarke seems to rule out disengagement but working on the training and support of Iraqi army, and political and diplomatic emphasis. Odorn, the head of the National Security Agency during the Reagan administration, believes the war is lost and we should go home and give Iraq to the insurgents. I don't hear anyone else advocating this position which is truly a "cut and run" strategy. But he does suggest some good talking points for Democrats.
Ask This > What’s wrong with cutting and running?" href="http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=00129">Nieman Watchdog
Most surprising to me is that no American political leader today has tried to unmask the absurdity of the administration's case that to question the strategic wisdom of the war is unpatriotic and a failure to support our troops. Most officers and probably most troops don't see it that way. They are angry at the deficiencies in materiel support they get from the Department of Defense, and especially about the irresponsibly long deployments they must now endure because Mr. Rumsfeld and his staff have refused to enlarge the ground forces to provide shorter tours. In the meantime, they know that the defense budget shovels money out the door to maritime forces, SDI, etc., while refusing to increase dramatically the size of the Army.
As I wrote several years ago, "the Pentagon's post-Cold War force structure is so maritime heavy and land force weak that it is firmly in charge of the porpoises and whales while leaving the land to tyrants." The Army, some of the Air Force, the National Guard, and the reserves are now the victims of this gross mismatch between military missions and force structure. Neither the Bush nor the Clinton administration has properly "supported the troops." The media could ask the president why he fails to support our troops by not firing his secretary of defense.
Ok, so these are complex talking points, but why haven't I heard them before? I'm interested in the complex arguments. The Dems have been sitting on their hands. The Dems need substance to counter Bush character assasination.
No comments:
Post a Comment