Murtha Calling for Abandoning Iraq, Again

Murtha is a disturbing character in politics. He's obviously an experienced military man who seems to have completely lost any knowledge of military actions, or has never had a grasp of military history at all. Both are convenient for his stance on Iraq. I may be a mere amateur in military history, but even I can acknowledge that there are multiple examples of insurgency and national conflicts that came to proper resolution through the use of a little patience. This Op-Ed of his shows another rehash of the cut-and-run policy he's been pontificating about for to long and just doesn't seem to provide anything new.

The Republicans are running scared. In the White House, on Capitol Hill and on the campaign trail, they're worried about losing control of Congress. And so the administration and the GOP have launched a desperate assault on Democrats and our position on the war in Iraq. Defeatists, they call us, and appeasers and -- oh so cleverly -- "Defeatocrats."

Vice President Cheney has accused Democrats of "self-defeating pessimism." Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has faulted us for believing that "vicious extremists can be appeased." The White House calls Democrats the party of "cut and run."

It's all baseless name-calling, and it's all wrong. Unless, of course, being a Defeatocrat means taking a good hard look at the administration's Iraq policy and determining that it's a failure.

"Baseless?" I don't know about that. I suppose if you don't like the label it would seem that way, but seeing that the only proposal that Murtha and his ilk have layed on the table is exactly a definition of cut-and-run, I find it hard to say that it's baseless. At least Durbin has layed an alternative on the table that doesn't call for just running away.

In that case, count me in. Because Democrats recognize that we're headed for a far greater disaster in Iraq if we don't change course -- and soon. This is not defeatism. This is realism.

Our troops who are putting their lives on the line deserve a plan that matches our military prowess with diplomatic and political skill. They deserve a clear and achievable mission and they deserve to know precisely what it will take to accomplish it. They deserve answers, not spin.

I don't mind at all if you view the present course in Iraq as leading to disaster, but screeching for the military to run away isn't going to end in anything but assured disaster. If there is another strategic course, by all means, step right up and put it on the table. Murtha loves to call all other commentary spin, while his spin is just straight talk. It is straight, just leads straight to hell.

Some of my Democratic colleagues questioned whether Iraq posed an immediate threat to our national security; some were not convinced that Iraq was accelerating the development of nuclear weapons and had an active chemical and biological weapons program; and almost all believed that Iraq was not involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. They turned out to be right on all three counts. Nevertheless, since our forces deployed to Iraq, Democratic support for the troops has never wavered.

In the past nine months alone, $962 billion has been appropriated for the Defense Department, $190 billion for the war effort. A vast majority of Democrats voted for the funding. Democrats also identified shortfalls in body armor, armored vehicles and electronic jammers to defeat roadside bombs. Democrats uncovered problems with the military readiness of our ground forces in the United States and fought for measures to restore it. That's hardly defeatist.

You have to love how he cherry picks his wins. Some Dems may have had concerns on the clear and present danger of Iraq, as I've seen lots of quotes from them stating that Iraq was indeed such a threat. Then the WMD/Nuclear worry, which again many Dems publicly stated were present. And the Iraq-9/11 thing, which seems to continuously rear its head in these conversations, irrespective of the findings of the 9/11 commission and the Senate Intelligence committee, which both clearly state that the Administration never said that there was a link.

Then there is all the Dem calls on the short comings of the military preparedness. They "uncovered" these problems, though most were brought forward by the military themselves and most had fixes in the works when the Dems "uncovered" them. I suppose by "uncover" he means brought into the political spotlight for political benefits.

Then there is the General argument, again.

We are seeing an astonishing and unprecedented parade of retired U.S. generals calling for a new direction in Iraq. These are voices of bravery, experience, conscience and loyalty. These are men who have been taught to look coldly and objectively at the facts of bloodshed. Can they all be wrong? How about the 15 intelligence agencies that recently offered the opinion that this war has not made us safer? Are they all defeatists? Are they to be ignored?

Are they to be ignored? No, but Murtha completely ignores the generals that supported the Administrations positions, and ignores that some of the generals complaining also made one hell of a mess with creating the Iraqi military and police forces that they were assigned to train. Not that Murtha is here to make a logical argument, looking at all sides of the issue, he's obviously here for political posturing.

The United States is about to begin its fifth year of occupation and fighting in Iraq. That makes this war longer than U.S. participation in World Wars I and II, and longer than the Korean War and our own Civil War. With every year of occupation, our efforts to fight global terrorism and our military's readiness to fight future wars have further deteriorated, along with our standing in the world. Meanwhile, the radical Islamic cause wins more and more recruits.

Fifth year? I thought the third Persian Gulf War started on March 19, 2003. That gets you about three and a half years to date. I suppose he must have some date in mind, but I don't know what it could be. The participation dating is also humorous. German occupation could arguably be put to much longer as well as the occupation of Japan. As for Korea, last I saw we were still militarily active in that conflict. But I suppose guarding a border with a hostile combatant state isn't the same for Murtha.

Murtha then goes on to list the failures as of late, while completely ignoring any forward motion. His listing of higher injury rates of troops is fascinating in that it ignores lower death rates and the fact that US military forces are in increased combat scenarios over the quoted time period. Who's spinning here?

Defeatocrat is an appropriate title for Murtha. He hasn't the stomach to do the job right, and has the mouth to complain constantly about it. If he had any real proposals to the issues at hand, he certainly has no intentions of bringing them to the table.