Redstate

Is Murtha an actor? Can he truly believe what he is saying? Where is that secret Democrat war room where they hand out talking point assignments? How do they all communicate in lock step? Is it just power they crave, or a total socialist takeover!

Since my whole life has been reduced to No Limit Hold 'em poker analogies, this is how I see it. Basically, when you have no hand you have no option but to represent you do. That is what I think the Murtha speech represents. I think they know they have nothing. The only way they get out of the hole they have dug is to call for withdrawal. They are going to make the 2006 elections a referendum on the war. Their position is going to be that now that we can see the summit we should climb back down the mountain. What a bunch of hacks.

The 06 elections were always going to be a referendum on the War.

But you say it like that's a bad thing..

Murtha pulls out the tired old "If ya ain't fought in a war, ya can't say words for it,nor criticize those wantin' to cut & run" mantra.

Silly, superior nonsense.Dick Cheney, the target of his cheap scorn, was Sec'y of Defense during the brilliant campaign of Gulf WarI.Somehow, that doesn't count? I sent Congressman Murtha an e-mail this a.m. asking what tough, manly military experience Lincoln, Wilson & FDR had displayed that gave them the right to lead the nation in wars.In fairness to Mr.Lincoln,he had drilled occassionally over 6 months with the Illinois Militia. Mr.Murtha does grave disservice to the honor of the Marine Corps to tout such fatuous snake oil.John Kerry loves to hide behind his combat service of 3 months in VietNam 36 years ago...After decades of undercutting the U.S. armed services.This is POST 9/11 in America, Boys! Not a time to retreat in the face of stoneage nasties.Neville Chamberlain wasn't AMERICAN.Appeasement ain't either!

I thought 2004 was a referendum on the war?

I can't believe the amount of defeatism and pessimism in that statement.

1.Saddam gone.

2.Elections held.

3.New governement in place

4.Constitution in place

5.Terrorists forced to place pathetic roadside bombs because they can't gather enough popular support for a real resistance.

And yet the democrats see defeat...

Jack Murtha did nothing today to strengthen the military. He only hurt the mindset of the troops.

Well, I'm happy for Jack and the Dems. I've just got one thing to say. Keep it up guys, show everyone what's really inside.

If Frist (spit) is really more interested in asbestos legislation than the war and the confirmation of Alito, then we deserve to loose.  Why shouldn't the Donks continue to pound on the feckless GOP?  The GOP needs to debate the war at length, and defeat the Donks.

Thank you, Mr. Cheney.  At last, a politician willing to call it like it is (and has been for more than a year.)  Where is the spine in the rest of the GOP?

I don't know, but my gut instinct is saying to me that Murtha is a racist, who doesn't like wasting American lives on the freedom of "brown-skinned people." What else can explain it? Senility?

Bush took the gloves off with respect to the "Bush Lied" democrats.  Republicans need to follow suit.  

Don't say, "This is inappropriate," or "These remarks aren't helpful," etc.

Republicans need to say:

"Democrats call for United States to SURRENDER to terrorists!"

Call a spade a spade.

Americans will not support surrender in Iraq.

the most disgusting part of this is were we to do as  the Demfeatists wish it would be called a defeat of America, by the very same people who are clamoring for it.  Further, it would be Bush who led us to defeat, and everything the Demfeatists said or screamed would be wiped from the memory board, right down the stalinist black hole of instant revisionism.   A mockery of lives lost,sacrifices made,heartbreak and hope,and any kind of decent future Iraq, and the Mid east might have.  And then the Islamic terrorists, excuse me,insurgents, would sit back,relax and rearm, and at their leisure pick their next targets.  Which targets when they are hit will be Bush's fault.  The word Scum comes to mind, but loyal and patriotic scum to be sure.

Has this site been taken over by Democratic trolls trying to make RS look bad? These kind of comments, along with the other recent "treason" thread make me think so. There's no way these can be serious comments.

"Terrorists forced to place pathetic roadside bombs because they can't gather enough popular support for a real resistance."

-Pathetic roadside bombs! Tell that to the thousands of Americans missing a limb, or is deaf, or is blind.  See what they say.  Tell it to the scores of family members who have lost a loved one to these "pathetic bombs"

I think this whole strategy is going to backfire in a big way. My guess is that the Dems are overestimating the willingness of the American people to give the terrorists a win.

If your cynical, you might think the American people are stupid enough to buy their argument.

the most disgusting part of this is were we to do as  the Demfeatists wish it would be called a defeat of America, by the very same people who are clamoring for it.  Further, it would be Bush who led us to defeat, and everything the Demfeatists said or screamed would be wiped from the memory board, right down the stalinist black hole of instant revisionism.   A mockery of lives lost,sacrifices made,heartbreak and hope,and any kind of decent future Iraq, and the Mid east might have.  And then the Islamic terrorists, excuse me,insurgents, would sit back,relax and rearm, and at their leisure pick their next targets.  Which targets when they are hit will be Bush's fault.  Words don't fail, I just can't print them.

If the Dems think that 2006 is going to be a referendum on the Iraq war, they may be mistaken.

Iraqis have voted for a new Constitution by a 78% majority, and their armed forces are more and more able to fight terrorists. Next month they will elect a "permanent" parliament (in office for four years, which will outlast the Bush Administration). Give them a few months to sort out who gets what ministry, and by next spring you have THEM running the country under THEIR Constitution. Saddam Hussein will probably be convicted and executed by his own people.  

The new Iraqi government, probably with a Shiite majority, an allied Kurdish party, and a token Sunni presence will know where the problem areas are (mostly in the Sunni Triangle), and probably start telling American troops that they are not needed in the Shia south and the Kurdish north. Since it will then be THEIR country, they could actually ask some American troops to withdraw, who would come home as victorious heroes. Any remaining American troops will be essentially peace-keepers in an allied Iraq. If the failed suicide bomberess in Jordan starts singing like a bird (as she probably will), either the Americans or Iraqis will probably nail Zarqawi, and Iraq will calm down.

Then, suddenly the Deaniacs and half the Dem party will be without an issue. Unless they start talking about a real issue instead of "Bush lied about Iraq".

2006 will be a referendum on Iraq? BRING IT ON!

Murtha's comments on May 6, 2004 weren't just "we're losing":

Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) told his Democratic colleagues Tuesday that he feared the war in Iraq is unwinnable if the U.S. military does not dramatically increase troop levels, provide more ground support and seek significant international involvement. (emphasis added)

Calling for more troops is something which was seen alot on the Right as the insurgency was gaining strength.  Essentially, he's was saying "do it right, or don't do it at all".  A year and a half later, lacking the commitment he sees is necessary to win the war, namely alot more troops, he says it's time to declare victory and leave.

I understand that most of you believe the war can be won with current troop levels, but Murtha's belief that more troops would be required to win is hardly irrational.  It seems like RedState's problem with Murtha should not be defeatism, for he wished far more resources would have been devoted to winning.  Your problem with him should really be in his assessment of military strategy, if you believe that current troop levels are sufficient.

I'm sorry, I suppose you'd like it if I were nicer to the bombers. Perhaps you and your fellow defeatist libs would like me to romanticize the terrorists in Iraq. Oh, wait you guys already do that.

We marines always say that there are no ex-marines - only former marines.  Once a marine, always a marine.  This guy makes me ashamed....

But why wait until spring to throw up the white flac and leave?  If it is so important, why not tomorrow???

... And we get to see exactly who these Democrats are and what they would really do.

Iraq has been a success, has any other country come so far so quickly? Next summer will be perfect timing, door meet Democrat face.

The reason Iraq will be a success, something you hear little about, the Iraqis want it.

fox showed tonight that murtha has been incoherently all over the place from wanting a draft to this and I read his whole speech and its pretty lame,

 but I see no basis for the racist slur

and lacking evidence shouldn't you retract that and take an antacid for the gut

...is an American.  Why all this polarization?  Another thing or two about Rep. Murtha...he's a  Vietnam combat veteran and a retired Marine Corps colonel with 37 years of service, a rare combination of experience that enables him to understand defense and military operations from every perspective.

Jack Murtha has no right to vote authorize Bush to go to war and then turn around half way through it and say he's not happy with the way Bush is running the war. Conservatives were just as wrong in this regard. The fact is casualties are very low by any reasonable measure. Broad based criticism, such as Jack's is not justified with these low casualties.

The political process is what is winning this war for the US. As it moves foward, the enemy continues to lose ground. As the enemy loses ground the enemy makes the Iraqi people its enemy. Soon the Iraqi people will make the terrorists the enemy. 50,000 extra troops have always been unnecessary to this strategy.

Its the political process that will win this stuggle for freedom. The military is there to ensure it isn't suffocated by the terrorists.

Well, what's your explanation for Murtha's call for unconditional surrender to Zarqawi? For turning Iraq into a big money (from oil) factory for terrorists?

I agree with you that Congress was derelict in passing the buck with the war vote. However, it isn't rational to fight a war which you do not expect to win.  Murtha does not see the enemy losing ground, and objective measures of the size of the insurgency and number of attacks would back him up.  You may disagree with him strategically, but he's consistent and logical.

...and Murtha does not see victory as possible on the current course.

malice requirement. good answer guy

but, do you live in his dist or state

or know of a history that informs your gut

I am indebted to Jack Murtha and to every other American who served in this country's defense.

But giving the man a pass for making those kinds of remarks because of somethign he did forty years ago reeks of non sequitur.

I love and respect Jack Murtha the soldier, and I would be honored to shake that Jack Murtha's hand.  I scratch my head when considering Jack Murtha the Democrat politician.

I don't see anything defeatist about what this guy is saying.  Its the first time I've ever heard his name mentioned.  It sounds like he has a good idea for getting us out of Iraq while still leaving much of the accomplishments in-tact.

- Greg

I thank Murtha for his service to the nation 30 years ago.  But he, as a soldier who served in a war which lost the support of the people at home, should surely remember what that is like, and what becomes of the people who are left behind.

I believe that he sees himself as a Democrat first, and only secondarily as an American.  

You go to fight with objectives. We achieved those objectives except ensuring democracy. That final objective is falling into place by any reasonable measure.

I disagree that the insurgency is gaining ground. I just believe its getting more ugly in its tactics. The numbers of innocents killed by terrorists is going up. However, the Iraqi army and police force numbers are increasing much faster than those of the terrorists.

its the collective 60 yrs since we fought and won a war of major consequence ignorance

exacerbated by the vietnam paradigm and the msm false history

saved by the reagan victory making the loss seem not as bad

see hagel

not much better

I see hardly any congressmen that show real righteous anger at the enemy and steely determinatioin strong enough to take on their colleagues as they would if this were 1941-45.

bush and cheney and rummy and condi do

"Jack Murtha has no right to vote authorize Bush to go to war and then turn around half way through it and say he's not happy with the way Bush is running the war."

Why not?  Bush always claimed that he didn't really need the authorization anyway. Why is the it relevant for any purposes now?  And at any rate, Congress is a coordinate branch of government, even in wartime and even with respect to war matters.  

Maybe more troops would have helped, but we're not going to get more troops.  And who but the Commander-in-Chief is to blame for the fact that we're not going to get more troops?  We've been there more than two years; there's been plenty of opportunity to increase troop strength.  Either this President doesn't think it's necessary, or he can't admit that he's been wrong, or he's not willing to bear the political cost of increasing troop strength.

I'm sure he saw himself as not an American when he got those 2 purple hearts of his.

What an absurd comment.

Really.

I understand that it irritates some of you so much when decorated combat veterans who hold political office destroy your armchair macho ideas of someone else going off kicking butt while you urge them on from behind the keyboard, but please.  If you disagree with them, fine.  But slurring their patriotism?

should be honored and respected for his long and distinguished service to his country.  Amen to that.

But, the libs are screaming about how the intelligence was not only mishandled, but what was given to them was out of date.  Rep Murtha was on active duty for only several years, the OVERWHELMING amount of his service was in the Reserves.  Giving the Reserves all the credit they are due (which I think is something; I wonder how he feels about Pres Bush' service in TANG, btw?) and extra credit for his volunteering to be reactivated to go to Viet Nam, it is still implausible for him to claim he has the insight and knowledge of the former Secy of Defense.  Cheney was trained to think in strategic ways Reserve Colonels are not.  

And as for out of date, it is easy to conclude that the war Rep Murtha was trained for, the Cold War, is as out of date as the Civil War.  The Rep is still thinking in Cold War analogies, fighting the massive manpower of the Warsaw Pact.  This is a fight with an elusive enemy where you could have a division surrounding a small town and not realize that a dozen hard core enemy are sitting at the cafe drinking coffee, eating baclava.  Again, if one will believe that Pres Bush listened to his Generals (but the BushLied crowd wont) he gave them the manpower requested.

In the best case, Col Murtha, who retired from the USMC Reserves in 1990 is an old warrior who, like many before him, are fighting the last war, much like the French Generals on the Western Front as they had their men charge machine gun emplacements.  In the worst, the Repub pushback and the pressure placed on him by his ultra liberal Democratic leadership to counter it have been able to wear down a 73 year old man.

The Dems would be better off sticking with Wesley Clark.  He says to cut and run, but at least he is able to claim he's fighting this war.

What a shame that our country apparently can't even discuss the proper resolution of a costly war in which it's embroiled that daily costs the lives of its sons and daughters.  Those who echo the concerns of a majority of their constituency, as worthy a task as any for an elected official, are immediately tarred as defeatists, traitors, flunkies of terrorists, betrayers of our troops, and various other nuggets of verbal vomit that shut down debate and turn a desperately needed discussion into a macho slugfest.

We need an honest, rational public debate about the value of our continued presense in Iraq.  Are we holding back bloodshed and anarchy?  Or are we prolonging Iraqi dependence and feeding the insurgency with our presense?  And in either case, why?  

I, for one, can't tell either way.  Rather than simply attack their critics, I'd like the President and his party leaders to explain, supported not by simple-minded, patronizing happy talk but rather facts, logic, and rebuttal, why our current course is wise and proper.  I'm not hearing it...

if he cant see the progress and the enemys desperation. We are winning.

You should have seen brians report on murtha on brit tonight. The guy has been all over the lot.

HE WAS FOR A DRAFT EARLIER THIS YEAR!!!!!!

If that ain't enopugh, read his whole speech. It is pitiful and most of it is not true.

When was the last time a democrat ever saw victory as a possible course?

There currently isn't a stalemate. We and the Iraqi government are achieving our pre-stated political objectives. What exactly does Murtha not see about that? Does he not see a new government? Does he not see a 76% voter turnout? Does he not see a new constitution? Does he not see comprimise? Does he not see a process moving forward?

He's just a politician playing politics with our military.

Congressman Murtha may have very well already traveled this road?

H/T Glenn

Civilian casualties are turning the tide of public opinion against the terrorists.  As of this week, you can add Jordan to the list of the disaffected.

Terrorist strongholds are being assailed and terrorists are being shot to tiny bits.  Public services are slowly coming back on line.

How does this meet your definition of a stalemate?

only readers of the NYT and WaPo can be so pessimistic.  Every objective met, every town cleared, is a yawner.  The bloggers from the military, who are out and about talk of a Kurdish area safer than Washington, DC.  No mention of that.  Joe Biden has the same speech, he just keeps changing the dates.  

Lets tell the cold hard facts:  If I ran a major newspaper, I could turn this country into a slaughter zone.  Period.  Every single fatal traffic accident in this country I could list, 150 last night, 103 the next, etc.  The carnage and blood would be overwhelming.  I guaratee the outrage would be incredible.  People would stop driving.  The Dems would balme Bush.  States woul raise the driving age.  The legal alcohol limit would be .02.  

In 2004 there were  42,636 traffic fatalities.  16,694 involving alcohol.  Still dont think I can spin this into a national emergency?  If you don't your a fool.

   The MSM in this country is attempting to lose this war when you see facts like that.

called cut and run.  Period.  To say wea re gone in X time is not a military tactic.  Again, period.  If u were the enemy, why fight when you know you're getting the ground in X time?  Even Hamas and Palestinian Jihad saw that in the Gaza strip.  All hostilities ceased until the Israelis left, then, BOOM, when they retook the ground.

Calling Rep Murtha's comments simplistic, ill-conceived, wrong, etc is not attacking him.  It is pointing out that no enemy is over defeated by disengagement.

Perhaps the proper course to take would be to leave and see what happens.  If you are proven wrong we can always ask the terrorists to cease and desist while we come back and take over the ground we gave them before we left.  I'm sure being the good sports they are would surely comply.

And Rep Murtha was re-elected touting his Bush views on the war, not his Pelosi's.  Will he be reelected again with his new stance?  Probably, but until then his views may very well NOT reflect those of his constituents.

I completely agree with your sentiment, and find the general political landscape - on both the left and right - depressing. It's all chest thumping, loud shouting, speaking in generalities, little specific fact or policy, and worst of all, a persistent rage and need to demonize anyone who questions or criticizes a given position.

I'm very middle of the road on the Iraq War. I supported the initial invasion and reasons for going in, but now have a very difficult time understanding what we're doing there. More importantly, it is not clear to me, and I find the Adminstration has failed to even remotely articulate this, how we define victory in Iraq and know when the mission is completed.

Jack Murtha, in his speech today, also said the following (which was annoyingly not linked in the original diary post):

"Our military has been fighting a war in Iraq for over two and a half years. Our military has accomplished its mission and done its duty. Our military captured Saddam Hussein, and captured or killed his closest associates."

I don't know if this is correct. I'm not sure whether others do or do not. But that's really the point. Have we achieved victory? And if not, how DO we define victory?

At the time the US went into Iraq, most Americans would have said victory was capturing or killing Saddam and his inner circle, disarming the biochemical/chemical/nuclear arsenal (ahem), and then generally supporting the Iraqi transition to some sort of democracy.

Well, we've achieved 2 of those 3 objectives (we got a freebie with the WMDs) and Iraq has now had 2 coming on 3 elections and has a constitution. So the 3rd objective is drawing near (knock on wood).

However, the country is still crawling with insurgents - some foreign, some Baath, some criminal, some combination thereof - and the Iraqi military remains relatively unprepared.

So when are we done? Or are we done? And if we aren't done, will it require the US to remain until all these insurgents - in part generated by a steady flow of foreign fighters from throughout the Middle East, Iran, Chechnya, et al - are capture or killed? Is THAT even possible?

And here's another question: if, hypothetically, the US were to declare "victory" in Iraq and redeploy troops, and then there still turned out to be some level of insurgency and/or some level of terrorism (say continued IEDs or suicide bombings), will the US be viewed as having surrendured by some in this country? Can the insurgents/terrorists declare victory if there remains some low level opposition in existence in Iraq?

Put differently: is the US mission considered not achieved, is victory not secure, until we have literally killed or captured every last insurgent or terrorist? Does anyone remotely believe that is possible?

These are all questions that I think a lot of middle of the road, non knee jerk partisans would like to know. In plain English. Not platitudes and political sloganeering.

Perhaps someone can shed some light.

Do Democrats plan on giving up sovereignty with their surrender?  Cause that's what surrender usually means.

Are we holding back bloodshed and anarchy? Or are we prolonging Iraqi dependence and feeding the insurgency with our presence? And in either case, why?

Forgive me for asking, but is this the best way to call for rational, logical argument? I believe your comment I quoted contains several distractive fallacies, does it not, in which only two options are presented as possibilities? I can think of at least one other: attempting to establish a democratic Iraq that will be a model for the Arab world.

It's not what Republicans in general must say now.  It's what President Bush must do now.  He must take to the airwaves upon his return from Asia and hit Murtha and his ilk right between the eyes.  He needs to lay down three markers before the American people.  First, he should call Murtha's and the Democrats' PR bluff and demand that the Senate devote substantial debate to Murtha's cut and run policy, and then also demand that Frist call for an up or down vote.  No amendments, nothing but a yes or no to the question "Should the United States immediately withdraw all its armed forces from Iraq?"  Let's put all these Senators on the record.

Second, he must tell the American people, as well as the Congress, that as long as he is the president, we will never cut and run from our commitment to the Iraqi people.  He needs to tell Murtha to visit Iraq again, this time speaking directly to the Iraqi people, and ask them whether our continued military action is in their best interests.  Let's ask Murtha what he thinks would now be in the best interests of the Iraqi people and how he would achieve it.

And the third marker the President must lay down is the most important.  He must tell the Congress that any attempt to scuttle a special appropriations bill re: funding the war effort, will be met head on.  He must tell the American people that we made that mistake once over 30 years ago, and that we will not make it again.  He can go into as much detail on that as he thinks appropriate.  You know the appropriations issue will be the next battleground.  The issue needs to be pre-empted now.

This response must be made by the President, not by McCain, Frist, Warner, Lott or any of the other useful idiots.  I won't hold my breath waiting, however.

That's the other one I'd been trying to remember for my mini-list, "cut and run".  That one's just lovely, since it not only shuts down debate but implies the other party is a coward, or at least that their stance constitutes cowardice.

I'd like to hear a thoughtful answer to the credible assertion that being gone in X = infinity time doesn't light the needed fire under the rears of the Iraqis to get their house in order.  If they can always depend on us, why depend on themselves?  

When I read that Iraqi troops are making raids on insurgents, a closer reading generally turns up the fact that the troops in question are Kurdish or Shiite.  I'll be more optimistic once I hear about significant numbers of uniformed Sunnis fighting back.  Please enlighten me if this is happening...I'd love to be mistaken on the point.

while the senator's comments are silly calling him "pathetic" is just ridiculous.  this man has served his country and he is probably the only democrat I would actually listen to when in comes to comments about the war.

a Vietnam Vet and 37 year retired Marine Corps Colonel, he actually thinks that. He's been "there" himself.  Isn't that worth some credibility?

Murtha and the Democrats are demonstrating a sustained wilt to fail.  Pathetic.  A betrayal to the soldiers in Iraq and a betrayal of the Iraqi people.

to question (as in oversight), who does?  And if he voted to authorize the use of force, does he not then not only have the right but the obligaton to ask if that authority is being used wisely?  

If you place American troops in harms way, is it not a duty to ask for accountability?  And, if he believes, honestly believes, that placing them in harms's not only is no longer accomplishing something but in fact is doing damage to his country's best interest would he not then be a failure and a fraud by remaining quiet?

we're seeing the last gasps of the insurgency, right?

I can see it as a betrayal of the Iraqi people, who had no say in this and would be abandoned to their fate, but the soldiers in Iraq?  Why?  Because they were not allowed to complete their mission?

This might not be the right blog for you.

As a rule of thumb, we accord our policymakers no greater or less gravamen for military service. We thank them for their service, but remember that all sorts of loons and heroes have come out of the services in their time.

Chickenhawking, anyone?

Murtha is a Congressman, not a Senator

that our elected officialis owe absolutely no loyalty to the Iraqi people.  You can reasonably say that we should continue on because it's the right thing to do but do not agree that our Congresscritters owe any allegiance to the Iraqis.

And might they be mere pass-throughs?

But I don't understand your point.  I apologize for being dense.  

"The reason Iraq will be a success, something you hear little about, the Iraqis want it."

Is that our Congresscritters owe a duty to the Iraqis only to the extent that we do, because the former are our servants, and govern only by our consent; they are a mere pass-through for any obligations or requirements we make.

Thus, if one believes that America owes some sort of duty to the Iraqis, then Congress does, by definition. If not, not.

"to yield to the power, control, or possession of another upon compulsion or demand"

So I guess the answer to your question is, yes.

At least for this particular Democrat. He is willing to give up the sovereignty of the Iraqis, our allies, to the terrorists.  Which, by the way would actually produce the terrorist breeding ground/haven that the Democrats are claiming Iraq is now. Leaving now can't make Iraq better.

Sensible Democrats know this and should be condemning Murtha.  Silence will be viewed as agreement with him.

fair enough.  But a man who's been in and seen war earns some right to hold an opinion about such things and be respected even in disagreement.  

But that wasn't the thrust of the comment to which you were responding.

This is pretty well out of line.

I do not understand your statement at all.

I consider what we've accomplished in Iraq a success, hardly a failure.  We've accomplished a LOT of what we set out to do and I'm satisfied with the outcome.  Its time to come back home now though and start taking care of problems in this country (the state of our finances is an absolute disgrace).

What you call betrayal, I call "passionate support".  How can we differ so much on these points, I wonder?

The Iraquis need to stand up for themselves.  Freedom for yourself (or your country) cannot be given to you or earned for you.  We are doing no favors to the Iraquis by being a crutch for them.

I also, almost want to scream at you, for suggesting that this is a betrayal of our troops.  I want our troops out of harms way and the sooner the better, (as long as there is no compelling reason to leave them in harms way, of course).  Our military stands in harms way so we don't have to.  It is disrespectful to ask them to do it longer then necessary because of idealogy.  That's just wrong and I'm afraid, that's exactly what I think is going on here.

- Greg

what?  How is victory defined?  If the Iraqi people cannot amongst themselves agree about  their own future, or if they decide their future is to algin with Iran, we should stay until they can agree, or support them in that in that self determination?

His service is irrelevant to the debate over the war. Those comments he made today are politics, not real military advise.

Well, when you're the short stack in Congress, and the President keeps bullying you around, you can't wait around for aces to make a move.

Of course, you don't push with 72o either, and that's what the Democrats are doing here.

"Any .... person of basic good sense and goodwill, regardless of party, is welcome to participate and hopefully come around to the ideals of Republicanism."

Of course he was for the draft - he wanted to win the war by sending enough troops.  That ain't happening, though.  He pointed out that our presence is the cause of the insurgency (according to military brass there), and since we aren't going to commit the troops to defeat it militarily, we have to get out and give control to the Iraqis.

I read the speech and came to a very different conclusion as you did.  I don't see how any of it is pitiful or untrue - could you elucidate?

a disagreement over the meaning of the terms "basic good sense" and "goodwill."

I'll let you guess whos interpretation controls.

I think you said it best. They want us to lose. They want us to come crawling back to the UN and become a "good neighbor again."

Indirectly the anti-war movement and the media are on the side of the terrorists.

if he agreed with "stay the course," stuck by his original vote, it would be "military advice," but if he does not its "politics"?

Is it the "undue burden on your temper" standard?

It'd be politics either way.

It has nothing to do with the "sweet mystery of posting privileges."

In fact, the mere recitation of that phrase will likely put an end to said privileges if I come across it.

"Well, what's your explanation for Murtha's call for unconditional surrender to Zarqawi? For turning Iraq into a big money (from oil) factory for terrorists?"

The comment assumes he has some vile or twisted motivation for holding the opinion he does, that its not grounded in his own experience.  Agree with him or not, it seems to me he's earned some right and stature to hold that opinion, and to hold it in good faith, that's all

that leaving now would be bad I certainly don't consider withdrawal as being the equivalent of a surrender.   Just as it is unlikely that there will ever be a day in which we can claim "victory" in Iraq there isn't likely to be a day in which we would call withdrawal a surrender.

so Cheney is indulging in politics just as much by making the statements he is, no?

Well, to a certain extent, I will grant you that they are. However, there is a difference to be made in the sense that the Presidential Administration is, in fact, involved in strategy (although I doubt Cheney himself is), whereas the House of Representatives is not.

Also, you shouldn't misinterpret my comment to mean that because a comment is political, it's irrelevant - many wars are won and lost on the political battlefield, rather than the strategic (see Vietnam).

As Rumsfeld said some months ago

Months ago, eh? Boy, that's a long time.

I'll tell you a secret: to a man in his 70's, anything that is going to happen in the next ten years is "imminent," and anything that happened in the last ten years is "recent."

I know that because I'm about at the point where five years is the blink of an eye, and ten years lasts about an hour. This is not a bad thing. In fact it is a kind of wisdom. It keeps one from being distracted by nits.

perhaps I should have stated it plainly, is that the President and the Veep have blasted the Dems for BushLied™.  Them Democrats have, in turn, accused the President of referring to them as "unpatriotic."

Sticking with that meme, the Dems are daring the President to chastise Murtha, which they equate with calling a war veteran unpatriotic.

This was a political speech.

If we were losing thousands of guys, if there was a popular uprising against our troops and we weren't working towards our final objective, I'd say Jack is within his rights, but in this case none of the above is true. Jack is wrong.

for thousands of islamo-facists. The only folks surging at us are the remnants of saddam's hated regime and the terrorists that no lopner have afghanistan, khalid mohammed and the $$$ to plot mass murder in clinton america.

D-day fueled a nazi recruiting surge.

the vietnam-chamberlain language and logic of appeasement and defeat

OUR PRESENCE

IS WHAT THE CALIPHATE MONGERS DETEST

OUR PRESENCE

should we obey bin laden any time he resents our presence

should we all move to st louis so bin laden has some space

what of the 85% purple fingers

what FUELED that

10-26 years of weakness fueled a lot

our presence

it must be so sad to be so consumed with self loathing and inferiority

saddam and zarqawis presence fuels the USA

I was pointedly advocating any position.  But I'm not.  I merely ask questions.  Is that not the essence of true debate, not how the truth is arrived at?  

If we were losing thousands of guys, IF there was a popular uprising against our troops (like Vietnam) and IF we weren't working towards our final objective of ensuring democracy, I'd say Jack is within his rights, but in this case none of the above is true.

Jack is wrong on the facts of the war and he's swimming with the rest of the democratic party over to the kook end of the swimming pool.

Didn't see that.  Did he refer to the President's and Vice President's claim that policy disagreement is is unpatriotic?  As best I can tell, no.  He merely stated his own view of what policy should be.  Is that not what Congressional representatives are supposed to do?

Its one thing to disagree with him, or his reasoning; its another to attack him personally or his motivation for holding the view he clearly does.

To some extent a withdrawal from Iraq now is not surrender. OTOH, it is clearly different than a withdrawal of our troops from Germany. That is clearly no longer surrender. I guess Korean withdrawal is the middle ground.

Semantics aside, complete and immediate withdrawal from Iraq could lead to disaster at worst, and pretty bad consequences at best.

Gradual withdrawal starting next year and leading into the 2006 elections is far more likely, probably very achievable, and politically astute - thus, it's almost certain to happen.

I think the reason Murta wants the troops to come home over the next 6 months is due to the low possibility of success and high costs involved if we stay longer.  He has given the President and his team the chance to prosecute the war as they saw fit for 2 1/2 years now.  They have proven to be not up to the job.  His 37 years of military experience has led him to the conclusion that our best option is to leave Iraq in relatively short order.  He has led troops in battle, he has seen war first hand, and he has had to make tough command decisions in the field.  Bush and Cheney, well lets just say they don't (I am being charitable here).  

To me, I make my support for the war (any war) contingent on whether I would be willing to fight (and possibly die) for the cause.  This assumes that leaders of our county are committed and competent to win the war.  I think Murta has come to the same conclusion as I have (and most Americans have), the administration has shown gross incompetence in the planning and prosecution of the war.   It is time to bring our boys home.

the french vichys? funny we still fought on

v-e day

v-j day

still, we stayed and spent 5-7 years before germany and japan had govts

by any historical standard, Iraq is a miracle for any not in pathological denial  with eyes that are willing to use them and avert ones glance from the fantasy world of msm

the courage of the Iraqis humbles me

look, if the size of the baathist insurgency proves anything, it proves just how large a core of monsters saddam raised up in 30 years of facism and just how hated they are by the 90% that they cant live with them.

and so shows that we had to start over from scratch on the army and police

too many of us are just soft and ignorant 60 years from a war we won

and some are old and some are stupid

see gibbons

I think that many people in this country (even Republicans now) no longer consider the enemies and terrorists in Iraq worth fighting. Many/most people keep throwing the words "surrender" and "cut-and-run" around as if they are dirty words, but what type of intelligent thinking beings, what type of democratic state would we be if we cannot or are not allowed to change our minds? Is it somehow anathema to Americans to say, "I believed with all my heart that XYZ was the best course of action, but now that I have accomplished XY, it's time to go, because the cost of Z is too high?"

This should not be a pride thing, i.e. "America doesn't surrender. Ever!" Admitting that we have done all that we are willing to do for a cause and coming back home is not like surrending our country over to invaders--we can simply find better ways to fight this battle.

Remember, the WOT was never supposed to be a solely military battle; we all know that. So why not say now that this particular phase is done?

Murtha: "It is a U.S. intelligence failure and the way that intelligence was misused."  That, m'friend, is BushLied™.

If the President criticizes Jack Murtha, the Dems will claim he's accusing Murtha of being unpatriotic, which is something not true of a non-treasonous veteran.  Say what we will about Murtha, but he is not treasonous and I do not believe him to be unpatriotic.

...the way that intelligence was misused.

This is easily decipherable and reads: Bush Lied™.

Now your turn.  

Did he refer to the President's and Vice President's claim that policy disagreement is is unpatriotic?

Link please.

as to precisely how many Talking Points™ and Known Facts™ are found in this 100-word or so post.  Pretty efficeint use of language, I must admit.  Hardly a word to spare.

Sadly however, it's not even an amusing display of the usual claptrap.  Boring.  Yawn.

gasps lasted 2 years and one year respectively.

btw

can you direct me to your diaries on the wisdom of W's approach to reforming big govt for slow reduction over time as opposed to a meat cleaver approach

as I share your view apparently as I was advised earlier today

but sincere question: What does nt mean?

Sorry to be so blog illiterate.

So, when did you stop beating your wife?

Personally I don't think an immediate withdrawal is feasible even if we wanted to.  But I agree with you.

I never said he was a Senator.  I said let's let the Senate debate the question since they are the great debating society.

I find that to be very strange.

I am not saying you have to serve, to have an opinion on policy related to war, but certainly I think its reasonable that a person who is experienced with war has more expertise in these matters, and therefore there opinions should be given greater consideration that

someone who does not have that experience.

You'll see several variants...

(nt) - my personal choice

n/t

nt

etc.

All mean the same thing - empty message.

Cheers.

I find your analogy to be strange,  I know some very good poker players, including a professionl poker player.  Are you good?

Instead of dismissing my points out of hand, where do you fault my, Murtha's or a majority of the American public's reasoning on this?

I, Heretic

if we withdrawl from Iraq now, we will be surrendering our sovereignty of Iraq....

oh wait that's not our sovereignty.

voted to re-elect Bush after more than a year of Kerry and the msms Bush mislead us into war BEFORE the purple fingers and constitution.

That poll was irrefutable, despite media between election polls that had Bush all over the place when to speak to a pollster didn't put a mcgovernite in the white house

america has never voted for an appeaser, knowingly

see ya in 2006

we ain't following murtha

hint

the msm is a fake reality that keeps the dems from fixing themselves

dems have no power in the real world

because they are not points - the are assertions on your part that are generally unsupported by reality.

Folks who have been here some time longer than I have long since ceased to traffic in the debunking of talking points - and I'm certainly not going to waste my time on that exercise, either.

I don't see any fallacy in what I wrote.  The first sentence is inspired by the longstanding tradition of multiethnic countries ripping themselves apart when the coercive force that holds them together is removed or weakened: Yugoslavia, Congo, Nigeria, Southern Asia, etc.  The second is also a rhetorical question with two valid points to be argued pro or con.

Maybe I'm being negative and calling the glass half empty, since democracy is a good and worthy goal.  Surely no one would argue that that's not a desirable goal.  But I'm interested in a viable debate on what will happen if we leave and what will happen if we stay. Democracy could be established in either scenario...but which is more likely, and specifically why?

D-Day fueled a nazi recruitment surge.

where do you people come up with these "facts".

But you're a looooong way away.  So far, in fact, that I can't even understand you.

People like me can't understand this:

XYZ was the best course of action, but now that I have accomplished XY, it's time to go, because the cost of Z is too high?"

It is not pride.  It is determination.  If XYZ was our goal, for what reason did we include Z?  Did we believe it was important?  Maybe even crucial?

Maybe we believed that X = Remove Saddam from power to remove the threat that he posed to his neighbors and to us. (Remember - we thought he had or was developing WMD that he might share with terrorist groups.)

Y might have = Assisting the Iraqis in forming a working democracy because we believe that democracies are, by their nature, more peaceful and more likely to be allies of other peaceful nations (like US).

Then Z was probably = Stay to ensure that fledgling democracy was established enough to ensure its survival against terrorists and other Baathist hangers-on who might wish it to be destroyed so that they could enjoy the life of Riley as Saddam II.

Those of us on the other side of the universe from yourself don't believe we would ever think to ourselves, "Gosh, we didn't know it would take 2 1/2 YEARS, what were we thinking?  Never mind, we'll just come home and wish for the best.  We don't think Zarcowy would be all that bad if he had a little more oil to grease his skids."

We think, "Git 'r done."

And don't think for one second that we don't believe that these same cowardly quitters who would surrender now, wouldn't surrender the nation if some invading despot promised them he would quite pinching their ears.  That's why, in spite of GWB's problems, Americans still don't trust the Ds on national defense.

And here I thought Tricky Dick won big points on Vietnamization....

I don't know Murtha from Martha. The only things I've found are that he's older (mid 70's?), his district is in western Pa., and he was an "unindicted" conspirator or party in the Abscam scandals.

The first fact could mean anything, and the second fact is simply an hilarious blast from the past.

I'm sure the oppo research teams are at work, and I wonder if he's vulnerable next fall, or even still running, or a lifer, or whatever.

Seems more like a MSM incident than anything serious.

Now - off to look around the local Pa. political sites.

Japan? How about South Korea?

Going all in isn't a bad thing for them. Right now their chip stack is low and they are facing the Little Blind in 2006 and the Big Blind in 2008. They might as well try to double up right now.

Having just wandered over to a few 2004 election summary sites, it's interesting to note Congressman Murtha's opponent in the 2004 race - none!

I suspect he's just invited himself an opponent for the 2006 race. I'd bet there are a few veteran's willing to take an R next to their name for such a race - it's Deerhunter country for goodness sake. What's up the Pa. GOP party, could they miss this opportunity to groom a successor?

I think they are pushing all in with a suited connector right now. The Bush adm is holding Big Slick and all they have to do is not fold.

Chances are the troops are going to here a Bush quote more than any other. I think that anything that gets him in front of a mic spoutin' 'fightin words' is good for morale and the country.

Someone have the Pentagon 'call him up' and send him to Iraq as an experienced military officer. Wish asked... wish granted... now there is  increased troop levels Murtha!

doesn't mean he knows anything about military success or failure. Just because he's a US Representative doesn't mean he knows anything about geo-political or diplomatic reality.

Well, in this case, Murtha apparently learned the lesson of "military" failure brought on by lack of political will to win at home.  He sees this war as the reflection of his country's failure in Viet Nam, yet he unconsciously is setting the stage to repeat the failure.  I say "unconsciously" only because I can't imagine anyone, even a Democrat, who would want to participate a second time in his country's military and DIPLOMATIC loss, let alone be a significant cause of it.

Make no mistake about it.  If we were to follow his misguided lead, we'd not only lose in Iraq, we'd lose the confidence of all our allies overseas, especially those who might be looking to us for support in their struggle to escape tyranny such as previously existed in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The US has an unfortunate history of leaving its allies in the lurch, starting at the Bay of Pigs and going at least through the desertion of the Iraqis during the first Bush and the Clinton administrations.  George W. Bush is conducting this war in a manner to regain the respect of all those peoples, and to quit now would completely undermine any hope for their future trust and friendship, or that of anybody else.

how did bin laden increase recruitment when we left Somalia

where does the left get the "fact" that our presence and not desperation born of suddenly being removed from power in the presence of 95% of the people that hate you for 30 years of mass murder and oppression FUELS the killing of innocents

showing signs of senility. Look at Carter and is stooge, Stanfield Turner. Plain pathetic. The MSM, as with Cindy the Media Slut, just doesn't have the decency to turn away.

We are losing thousands of guys, so zero on that point.  And the insurgency is largely home-grown, but drawn primarily from Sunnis, so one-half there.  And our troops seem to be splitting their time between stabilizing the country and spending their time in deja-vu-inspiring episodes of whack-a-mole, fighting the first battle of Fallujah, the second battle of Fallujah, the third...well, let's give that point 3/4, giving due credit to successful elections.

So that's 1.25 out of 3 for you (or 1.75 for him), so I think there's some room for debate there.

carter (80) and dukakis points

was burnt last week in France. It's going to take months for France to get it back to production levels to satisfy their own needs much less export any.

Guess we are going to have to go with Plan 'B' and win in Iraq instead. Murtha et. al will be so dissapointed.

than a military decision.  It's more correctly seen as a geo-political/diplomatic decision.  The consequences of the action advocated by Murtha would be international tragedy.

Thus, the "I don't know, but..."

I didn't know the "R" word was off limits. The Dems sure throw it around much more matter-of-factly than I did here.

The rest of us are better served if you share your views on the actual point.

The IEDs are quite deadly and we have tens of thousands very badly injured as well - I don't see what's defeatist about pointing that out, and where is the poster romanticizing terrorists?  The Sunnis are quite outmanned, so their chosing to fight indirectly makes tactical sense.  

As for hand-to-hand combat, are you calling the Secretary of the Defense and the US military wimps for avoiding it whenever possible?

In a war, each side chooses to spill as much of the blood of the other side as possible, while spilling the least of their own.

Our problem here is that the "terrorists" are actually fighting a civil war against the Kurds and the funadmentalist Shias.  The question is whether we gain more from being in the way than from letting these people fight their own battles - or choosing to accommodate the Sunnis politically.  I don't know the answer.

we just don't like moron's with strawman arguements... Murtha's 'choices' are between something he can't have/US won't do and surrender in defeat. What choices are those? What serious man would propose such a thing? We are left with determining that such a person is being a political hack (and thus un-patriotic by extension of this particular arguement) or a craven... and who really want's to think of an ex-marine as a craven?

Charles Lindbergh was considered a great hero prior to World War II.  Yet for quite some time he went around advocating isolationism and thought we had no chance to defeat the Germans.  Just because he had a very impressive background doesn't mean he was right.  Murtha has an impressive military background but that doesn't mean he is right about Iraq.  

I realize there are sincere people out there troubled about Iraq.  But the fact is we are fighting a war against the terrorists there.  We can continue that fight or capitulate.  Murtha was right, in my opinion, in thinking more soldiers should have been sent there.  But he is wrong about wanting us to give in to defeatism.

That put up a bill to re-instate the Draft and then didn't vote for it. If it is then why would anyone listen to this bozo? His reputation is already in the trash-heap.

there's a good factual argumetn.

The draft bill, introduced by Democrat Charlie Rangle and appearing in emails that had young people worried about a draft reinstatement, was rejected today. I guess we can just say he is consistent(ly stupid).

However, he did vote for it!

---- YEAS    2 ---

Murtha

Stark

creative justification for incredible spending, astronomical deficits, and astronomical off shore borrowing I have ever seen.  Squirting money at the world?  So much for fiscally conservative.

We've lost 2000 over 2 and 1/2 years. So I think that means we are not losing thousands. Thousands is multiple thousands and continuing. So I'll give myself a point for that.  

leave it alone. It is for your own good. Don't try to understand it. Maybe later when you are older you can try it again.

We won the War already, we are working on keeping the peace now.

Iraq army - defeated.

Iraq leaders - dead/imprisoned.

Foe Troops dead/imprisoned: 40,000 to 50,000+

Our Troops dead: 2000+

Oh and for comparison... since the start of the Iraq war... at least 405 police officers have died in the line of duty.

I made valid points and that guy acts like your assembly-line liberal with his  "tell that to the grieving families" as if anyone, Republican or Democrat, in any war, for any reason, could possibly tell a familiy anything that would make up for the loss of a loved one.

So you see I have very little patience for debating with someone who dusts off the old well you should feel guilty! playbook. That doesn't get us anywhere.

"We are losing thousands of guys"

Well, yes, we did just go over 2000 deaths.  Isn't that about 8000 less than we were supposed to lose the first few days of the war, according to its true, early opponents?

How many people have been killed by criminals in the US since the war in Iraq started?  More or fewer than 2000?  And the criminals are mostly free-lancers.  For us to lose only 2000 to an organized enemy that can disappear into the background is an amazingly high level of success.*  In fact, it is testimony to the progress we've made in gaining the support of most Iraqis.

"fighting the first battle of Fallujah, the second battle of Fallujah, the third..."

Do you think all beachheads and hills are secured the first time they're taken by an army?  Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of hills were taken, lost, taken, lost, and taken again during WWII, Korea, and even Viet Nam.  Winning those small battles was important, but they meant nothing in the end until the war itself was won.  Better to fight the battle of Fallujah ten times, than to fight battles in ten different cities greatly dispersed throughout Iraq.  I'd say that if we could keep all our domestic criminal fatalities confined to Detroit, Phoenix, New York, and sections of Washington, D.C., we'd consider it a major victory in our ongoing war on crime.

*Before I close, I want to make clear that I'm not minimizing the loss of over 2000 lives in Iraq.  Every one of them was a personal tragedy, and the men and women involved have my greatest admiration and thanks.  But we can't debate the situation there without considering those deaths within the bigger picture.

where does the left get the "fact" that our presence and not desperation born of suddenly being removed from power...

Ummm... we got that from U.S. generals in Iraq:

General Casey said in a September 2005 Hearing, "the perception of occupation in Iraq is a major driving force behind the insurgency."  General Abizaid said on the same date, "Reducing the size and visibility of the coalition forces in Iraq is a part of our counterinsurgency strategy."

Are Generals Casey and Abizaid not a good source?

I for one don't subscribe to "Bush Lied" and I'm not sure Murtha did either.  But I do think there may be a case for incomplete information.  

If I heard Murtha right, he was saying, to paraphrase, "I voted for this on the basis of the information I was given, I now think that information was not complete and certainly wasn't accurate.  We've done as much as we can can, its time to stop losing lives in the pursuit of a goal that was based on a misconception and appears not to be achievable."

If he really believes that, and I've no reason to think he doesn't, he should argue for getting out.

As for the other, my point exactly - he wasn't engaging in tit-for-tat, he was merely stating his view.  Right or wrong, he most certainly has the  right to do that and not be accused of being unpatriotic, no?

- we've lost nearly three times the KIA "keeping the peace" that we lost "winning the war."

If this isn't a war I'm not sure what is.

so lets see - we've lost 405 officers policing the entire US while at the same time losing nearly 1,500 "policing" Iraq?  

I find it hard to accept the argument that we are not in a war today. Last month was the fith mostly costly month out of the 32 we've been there.  The others were Nov 2003-(110), March 2004-(140), Nov 2004-(141) and Jan 2005(127).  All were after "Mission accomplished", in what you are calling police action.   In fact less thatn 300 of the more than 2,000 dead were in the ware by that definition.  

Aren't we twisting words here?    

do it?  Where did he trot out guilt or grief?  I think he was just saying that the IEDs are quite deadly and should not be treated lightly.

As to your points, you said

1.Saddam gone.

2.Elections held.

3.New governement in place

4.Constitution in place

5.Terrorists forced to place pathetic roadside bombs because they can't gather enough popular support for a real resistance.

I don't think anyone disagrees with you on your first 4 points.  The real issue is do they mean very much, as long as the disgruntled Sunnis have not yet been included in a political settlement, but remain outside?  Don't forget that behind your use of "terrorist" there is a real civil war.  It's also worth noting that among the Iraqis on "our" side are the Shia, who are blood brothers with Iran and are doing there best to set up a fundamentalist stae in Basra.  

I think there are lots of military guys who would agree with Murtha that, if we feel it is our obligation to solve this civil war, then we really need ALOT more troops (I don't know - but isn't that Murtha's point?).  Didn't Pres. Bush himself just say in his Veterans Day speech that "Reasonable people can disagree about the conduct of the war"?

If reasonable people can disagree about the conduct of the war, then why is unfair to challenge troop numbers?  How right has the Admininstration's crystal ball been on the war, anyway?  Forget the WMDs - who was right about troop levels going in - Rumsfeld or Shinseki?  That mistake has been biting our ass all along - both in enabling post invasion chaos and destruction of infrastructure and in letting the Sunnis from disbanded Iraqi take all the explosives that they are now using for the IEDs.  Our own mistakes have cost us very dearly.

I don't know where we should go from here, but I don't want to lose what we've gained.  I also know this is a real mess that cannot be easily "won" with a democracy created overnight (which seemed to be the Administration's initial public theme).  I take very seriously the opinions of those who say we should ramp up, as well as the opinions of those who think that our presence is counterproductive to the Iraqis cutting a political deal among themselves.  

Sometimes leaving a mess is the best option - that does not necessarily mean that the initial intervention was a mistake.  I do not consider this discusssion unpatriotic - just as Reagan was not a traitor for taking us out of Lebanon.

The Democrats' position on this is totally inconsistent. Supposedly we are angering the Muslims by having too many of our oppressive imperial occupier troops on the ground, but at the same time we don't have enough nearly enough troops on the ground.

Well not actually at the same time... they switch between the arguments whenever it suits their purpose.

If they can always depend on us, why depend on themselves?

There's the small matter of soverignty, pride, culture, etc. They will be more than happy to take over as soon as they can. They aren't content to sit back and let us run things forever.

Maybe attention spans are too short now to ever win any significant military conflict. If you look at it historically, the Iraqis have made very great progress in the short time they've had.

Your line of reasoning, in turn, leads one to conclude:

Just because someone is a blogger doesn't mean he knows anything about military success or failure.

We all got a collective case of ADD. Much of the world would be ruled from Berlin now if we had the same kind of patience and determination to finish something as we do now. We would've be talking about a negotiated peace in 1942.

He said misused. There is no other way you can interpret that.

And we know how critical that conflict was to the security of the United States.

He is planning on running against himself.

Can someone explain to me at what point, with respect to the "terrorists" or "insurgents" (I'm not sure what the difference is anymore), the US could withdraw from Iraq, and not be considered as having "surrendered"?

Does the American military need to kill or capture ALL the terrorists? Can we leave 5% of them there? 10%?

Put bluntly, if there remain terrorists in Iraq that we have not killed, and we leave, and they therefore continue to operate, will we be considered to have surrendered?

Can someone put a number and/or percentage on this?

It would be really helpful to get a better understanding.

It has nothing really to do with how many terrorists there are. It is related to how strong the Iraqi government and police are.

The plan is for the Iraqis to take on more front-line duty as it goes on while the Americans hang back as the backup team or the backup-backup team. Eventually the forces can be drawn down as they aren't needed as often. They've already started that process but it doesn't happen overnight.

Republicans?  How about Clinton in Kosovo - those are important military bases we gained from that.

It's just not so simple, I'm afraid, to make a Dem/Rep distinction.  Didn't  Reagan withdraw from Lebanon?

As far as achieving our stated objectives, doesn't that depend on whether the Shia and Kurds Sunnis can agree on a political solution?  What are the metrics on that - lessening of attacks, degree of participation by Sunnis in elections?  Yes, we've made progress, but those are the things we need to look at to save we've accomplished our goals.

But the problem is that you seem to believe that it is never possible to re-evaluate goals. That is is also possible to see that a job may in fact have been so poorly done that it has become near impossible to do well.

What you call determination can also be called arrogance, an unwillingness to face new truths and new reality. And those "cowardly quitters" now include a majority of the country--including many Rs.

And your attempt to put words in my mouth will fail: it is not the time frame involved which makes that majority of the country oppose this war: it is the handling of it and the lack of progress, the gains for those billions of dollars and 2000 lives, which cause some people to believe that this course is no longer worth the cost.

You may disagree, you may feel otherwise, and that's fine. But the attempts to denigrate those whose calculus comes out otherwise demeans you and your argument.

twisting something but I don't really want to know about it.

Yes, the US. Where did you think Antarctica?

Of course the military would always choose to fight, to their credit.  But our elected officials choose the battles and when to end them.

He sure has the 'cut and run' down pretty well. Hopefully someone will show him how to 'stand up and fight' for his office in 2006.

Perhaps the House of Saud frowned on a serious conflict there? Reagan chooses to comply with Saudi wishes to ensure assistance in taking down the USSR? Maybe even a horsetrade on those elements alone. Reagan obviously tackling the greater of two evils for sure, but still a sad result for Lebanon's Christian population.

1970's 60-65% of the population.

Present day 30-35% of the population.

from Lebanon thru uss cole as making defeat of a paper tiger a real option for him. Too bad he didn't make the 911 mess before the real man took over or we could have left another mess as the better option, eh?

saddam obviously thought he could defy us too, due to our "mess" phobia

Dubya doesn't have the phobia aka appeasement and cowardice

We do need to constantly re-evaluate.  I'd like to see more metrics on progress, and to hear more from the Administration on its comparative cost/benefit analysis - what do we expect to gain from the invasion, what are the costs we expect, is our continued presence at this troop level about right and for how long, and why is this better than any other option?

I am with you on the ad hominem attacks issue.  Wasn't it Bush himself who just said that "Reasonable people can disagree about the conduct of the war?"  I think we should take him at his word and assume that was not politics.

While I certainly don't want to lose all we've gained inj Iraq, I am also sceptical about current troop levels and expected benefits.  If the Administration expected to be where we are now three years ago, they certainly didn't tell us.  Seems like there have been enough bad judgments by the Administration that we have legitimate cause for concern about whether their cost-benefit analysis at this point makes sense.  

Tough for the Maronites, certainly.  Like in Lebanon, we need at times to reconsider our fights, both on whether they are "winnable" and in our strategic best interests.

the generals who specifically have not, to date, implemented such a policy, given that staying a while longer and KILLING them might just be discouraging to those we kill

or

that maybe KILLING, for now is more important than how the insurgents feel

Im sure the sight of the instruments of their loss of facist power makes them mad

but surrendering makes them rulers of a terrorist state

however discouraging

 maybe the generals care more about the feelings of the 95% of the iraqi people risking their lives for freedom

lefties are such losers

quoting generals to pretend they are surrender monkeys

Murtha's points were:

1. We can't win against bin Laden in Iraq.
   
   
2. We've lost 2,000 people in Iraq, we should give up.
   
   
3. Our Military is falling apart and about to collapse because of Iraq.
   
   
4. 80% of Iraqis hate us and want us gone.
   
   
5. We should withdraw completely in six months.

All of these points are idiotic and reflect poorly on Murtha.

If we can't win against bin Laden in Iraq we can't win in Afghanistan either, we might as well just surrender to him now and start chopping off heads.

If our "run away run away" point is 2,000 dead, this pretty much guarantees we will get hit again with another 9/11; imagine how quickly we'd submit to bin Laden as our absolute Islamic ruler if we lost a city. Or perhaps we want Iran's new President to rule us as slaves.

Funny, I don't see signs of military collapse from mil bloggers in IRAQ. Or Afghanistan.

Funny as well I see the Kurds and Shias wanting us there; it's only the Sunnis who used to run the OTHER 80% of Iraqis who want us gone for Saddam Part Two the Bin Laden years.

Withdraw in six months?  The BEST scenario is that bin Laden takes hold of the middle, the Iranians by proxy the South, and the Kurds don't declare independence. The WORST is a massive war in the region as Iran, Saudi, Turkey, Jordan, Syria all fight over Iraq's corpse and bin Laden ends up with the basis of the new Caliphate (parts of Iraq, Syria, Jordan).

Conclusion? Murtha is a partisan hack. I personally don't see how turning over Iraq to Zarqawi and his head hackers will win votes. There's certainly space for an alternative plan (escalation into Syria and then possibly Iran) but surrendering to bin Laden's #1 henchman isn't a plan. It's capitulation.

If bin Laden could do 9/11 with Afghanistan, imagine what he'd do to us with Iraq and it's oil.

Was Dubya's father as well, for stopping at the Kuwait border?

I am sure that they both were aware of the posible interpretations that some might take, but did a cold calculation of what was in America's best interests.  If such a calculation means we stay in Iraq (short-term or indefinitely) - or invade Iran, Pakistan or N Korea - then I'm all for it.  Can you direct me to any place where I can find such a discussion?  I am afraid all of the emotions just cloud our judgment.

post without clicking at all.  But if some have to click (I wonder why mine is different?), then I guess the nt makes sense.

If you give up on Z you lose X and Y. That is the conclusion they came to and they are right about that.

Also, who exactly were our allies supporting the Bay Of Pigs invasion, who we apparently let down??  Please enlighten me.

If the Bay Of Pigs was a good idea, does that mean you like Kennedy?

Finally, your compassion for the Iraqi people is commendable; and I am inclined to agree that perhaps we should have overthrown Saddam in the first Gulf War.  But we still must acknowledge the current reality that 85% of Iraqis want U.S. troops out of their country, and 45% say that attacks on U.S. troops are justified.

Whether or not you support an immediate withdrawal, that should give us great pause, and cause us to reconsider the current course.

So having fought in a war does't give you credibility (or two wars, for that matter) in discussing military strategy.  Nor does fighting in a war right now.

What does?

Or, at the very least, why support tax cuts in the middle of a war?

Is McCain correct to suggest sending more troops?  If so, then why is Murtha wrong to suggest the same thing?

Ban him.

How about we ban you instead?

Except to add that a 20 year sergeant, captain, colonel, or general, with loads of combat experience, for example, is someone I'd probably want at my side (or in front, or behind, as appropriate) in a firefight (well, maybe not the general, we're not talking a young man anymore), but who may or may not have any better understanding of politics than I do.

The problem with Vietnam (among many), and this isn't a segue, is that it truly screwed up the perception of the relationship between the civilian authority and the military. Loosely speaking, three camps of popular note emerged: Folks who hated (the) war, and who hated or disliked the military for prosecuting it; folks who defended the war, and the military, sometimes too passionately, and somettimes developed an emotional attachment as a result; and a substrain in the military command chain, who decided that the civilian authority couldn't be trusted to prosecute wars, and who decided that they'd handle the decision making from now on, thanks (see, e.g., the Powell doctrine). The reason this isn't a segue is this: The nice fellow about whom we're speaking is a product of that Kulturkampf. Our reactions to him are products of that Kulturkampf. The proper way to view his views is this: He's an elected Member of Congress, entitled to his views, and a small amount of additional respect for his service to the nation as a politician. If he wanted to alter the military prosecution of the war, he could run for President or try to renew his commission. If he wants to critique strategy and tactics, we should listen respectfully, but accord him less than dispositive weight. If he wants to critique the geopolitics involved, he has no greater standing than you or I -- he's just an ordinary fellow who has a (D) after his name.

See here.

He said misused.  

And I don't see any link for accusations of unpatriotism.

sheet metal work on more than two buildings, but I don't think you'd want me designing them.

is the only way you could have come to this conclusion:

That is is also possible to see that a job may in fact have been so poorly done that it has become near impossible to do well.

And the fact that a majority of Americans only watch headline news, doesn't affect the fact that they are wrong.

It is beyond me now you could say that we are not making progress.  Do two elections mean nothing?

Do 100,000+ Iraqi armed forces mean nothing?

Does the fact that the vast majority of the nation is safe and calm mean nothing?

Do you think that all of that was inevitable?  It wasn't.  Our boys are doing their job and doing it well.

It's impossible for me not to denigrate the ones who would quit in the face of success; those who encourage the terrorists to fight on another day; those who discourage our troops.

You are doing a great job this morning.  I'm always thrilled when I see you on patrol.

your one warning on chickenhawking.

I'd have banned you for that.

Out of line is out of line regardless of what the other guy makes a practice of.  Randomly calling specific people racist based on absolutely zero evidence or reason is bad practice.

I have no particular use for Murtha, but I've never heard any indication of public or private racism on his part.  Have you any actual quotes you'd like to share, or are you just throwing around ad hominems?

I think that meets our quota of points we agree on for the year.  

World War II and this occupation are completely not comparable.  Not in the way the wars were fought, the stakes, or the levels of support.  

Big Slick beats a suited connector only 3 times out of 5.

WWII was a tough hard slog, and the outcome was far from certain in 1942. If the British had been led by anyone but Churchill, they would have negotiated terms with Hitler. There was pressure on him from all sides to do so.

In Iraq, by contrast, we're winning.

Also in contrast we're fighting an actual war right now.  We are fighting in an occupation.  There is a significant difference.  

There are many other differences as well.

Caught,and a bit embarrassed.  Re did post but with typical tech clumsiness it wound up posted anyway.  I tend to think,given the stakes, that it's warranted,but that's another story.

We can argue red herrings all day. And you can disagree with the original war aims all you want (I certainly disagreed with them, in early 2003).

We're not an occupation because, as our leadership have stated many many times, we'll leave the minute the duly elected government of Iraq tells us to.

If Jack Murtha, you, or anyone else believes we should leave without finishing the job, for any reason whatsoever, (and I don't care to debate those reasons- been there, done that, a million times already), then you are accepting the consequences of military defeat. If you are prepared to accept defeat then that means that you  either 1) don't think the consequences will be that bad, 2) are making a moral judgement that we deserve those consequences because of our bad behavior in going to war in the first place, or 3) are actively on the side of the enemy.

Which is it?

By working toward a military defeat, the Democrats hope to defeat our current leadership and buy an electoral victory for themselves. Given the awesome costs of a defeat that will spread out over decades, that's reason enough to hate the Democrats forever and ever and ever. Just for thinking about it.

Flyerhawk, I respect you too much to put you in that camp. So I still would like to know your answer in regard to the first three possibilities. (Unless of course I misunderstood you, and you are not actually in favor of an early withdrawal.)

I personally do not think that withdrawing at this time is a sound move.  But I do wonder when the right time will be?  How will we know that the Iraqis are capable of handling things themselve?  Regardless now is not the time.

My point here was only that World War II and this occupation are not comparable. And, ftr, I can't see how this can be considered anything but an occupation.  We invaded the country. We have imposed martial law and have our military performing most police duties.  Seems like textbook occupation to me. I'm sure we will leave at some point but that doens't mean anything. The Russians left Hungary and Czechoslovakia.  But I'm fairly certain we would agree that they occupied both for a time.  We occupied Germany and Japan although we fully planned on leaving.

I thought Murtha's comments about what Iraq is capable of had an Al Campanis quality to it. That's what I meant. Maybe I should have said it that way, but how many people remember who Al Campanis is, or what he said in 1987?

seriously, but where do these poll numbers come from?

after the first paragraph.

The second is so full on incoherency that I wouldn't even know where to start.

But the people designing the buildings would welcome your input on the construction process.

Do you think design & build firms bring in sheet metal mechanics for their input? No. They design it, you build it.

zuiko said that if today's generation were fighting WWII, we would come to terms with Hitler rather than fight to win. Your counterpoint was that Iraq is not  comparable to WWII. The WWII generation would not question the wisdom of completing the task of pacifying Iraq. We stuck it out for years with Germany and Japan, in the face of bitter opposition from the editors of the New York Times. Part of why we stuck it out was because most American families had personal losses in that war, and many of us hated Germany and Japan for that. But it was also because of people like Marshall, Truman and Acheson, who recognized that establishing peaceful and stable nation-states on the territories of Germany and Japan could only provide benefits for us. The same calculus applies in Iraq, with the difference that the aggregate cost to us will be far lower.

I haven't seen anyone compare the Iraq situation to the American Civil War. In April 1865, the great fear was that the Confederate Army would disappear into the hills and pursue a bitter, low-level guerilla war for decades. The leadership of Lee prevented that horrible outcome. But if he hadn't, what would we have done?

...doesn't mean he knows anything about blogging success or failure, and when he is touted as an expert on blogging by those with a blogging-related agenda, we should keep that in mind.

That is the analogy I see here.  Otherwise, you're just standing in the prodcue section with an apple in one hand and an orange in the other.

Oooh, this is getting fun.

Are you referring to a specific "blogging expert" or speaking in the abstract?

Ok, that's interesting.

So, by your suggestion, the overriding goal of the US forces is to train, support, and ultimately be replaced by the Iraqi forces.

That makes sense.

But then our overriding goal is not to kill or capture all the terrorists. It is rather to kill or capture as many terrorists as we can along the way of training and supporting the Iraqi forces.

Put differently, the "success of the mission" is not pinned on "defeating the terrorists", but rather transferring authority to the Iraqi forces. But I thought we were supposed to defeat the terrorists in Iraq. Not fight and kill and capture them up until the point in which the Iraqis can do that and we can go home. No?

So then, I don't get this "surrendering to the terrorists" talk. If the US forces pull out of Iraq at some date in the future, turnover the country to the Iraqi forces, and the insurgency ends up continuining, or terrorist attacks continue (or heaven forbid, increas), will be viewed as having not defeated the terrorists?

Will some in this country view us as having walked away from the fight with the terrorists because they're still there, and we're back here (in the US)?

Trying to get a clearer understanding of this.

OK, now what does "5" mean? I see it often and figure it is some kind of compliment or statement of agreement?

p.s. did you ever think 4 words and a hyphen would generate such response!

that it wasn't that the people were different back then.  They simply understood the urgency and importance of fighting World War II.  Can you honestly say that the justifications for fighting this war have been nearly as clear cut?

Let's remember that the American people wanted NO PART of World War II.  Had FDR not prodded the Japanese into attacking it is unclear if we EVER would have jumped into that war.  However once the Japanese attacked it, and in such a despicable way, American resolve was set.  The Germans, abiding by their alliance pact with Japan, then declared war on us.  It is entirely possible that we STILL wouldn't have declared war on Germany after December 7th had they not declared war on us.  

American resolve was set after 9/11.  Virtually ALL Americans knew we had to get Bin Laden and take out AL Qaeda and the Taliban.  There was universal support for this action.  The same cannot be said about Iraq.  Many people never bought into the justifications for attacking Iraq.   That is why it is different than World War II.  

...is a monumental tribute to the MSM.

"Also, who exactly were our allies supporting the Bay Of Pigs invasion, who we apparently let down??  Please enlighten me."

Free Cubans.

"If the Bay Of Pigs was a good idea, does that mean you like Kennedy?"

I don't know what this question--other than the phrase "Bay of Pigs"--has to do with the comment, but I'll bite:  The Bay of Pigs with close air support was a good idea. and I still like Kennedy, even though he dropped the ball on this.

"But we still must acknowledge the current reality that 85% of Iraqis want U.S. troops out of their country, and 45% say that attacks on U.S. troops are justified."

Who's the pollster? When was the poll done? "out of their country" when? 45% of Iraqis will probably tell you Saddam was a great leader, too...until he is dangling from a noose.

The extent of the ignorance about what we are accomplishing in Iraq is what gives me great pause.  

In the sense that "experience does not equal expertise".

I disagree with your statement that Americans are not different now. Fwiw, although I would never put words in his mouth, I think gamecock partially agrees with you- see this short thread for more.

We probably shouldn't keep hammering this red herring so I'll let you have the last word (which I've noticed is very important to you :-)), but your point about WWII is still misplaced. As your discussion of the events of 1941 illustrates, you're stuck on the antecedents of the war. But we're now in the aftermath of a war, so the more apt comparison is with the years following 1945. We probably ought to be debating the value, wisdom, and yes, the morality of continuing our effort to pacify Iraq. I firmly believe we need to stick it out.

I don't much care about the last word.  But I do like to continue on points that I think are unfinished.

If you wish to compare this to the post-World War II that's fine.  But then saying that we would have surrendered to the Germans isn't particuarly relevant, is it?  

But coming to terms with the Nazis would have been entirely within the realm of possibility. You can argue that Britain wouldn't have lost the war if they had done that, as they were sorely tempted to do during the Battle of Britain.

You're challenging the comparability of WWII with Iraq. I have to tell you that I think if a repeat of late 1941 were to take place today, that America would not rise to the challenge. Since this is a counterfactual exercise, there's no way to prove it to you.

Back in 2003, I asked a lot of people if they would have gone to war against Hitler in 1941. They all said "of course." I would ask why. "Because of the Holocaust, stupid." But the full scope of the Holocaust didn't become widely known until 1945. "Hummmuna hummuna hummuna..." Do we really have to see six million dead Jews before we fully commit? I shudder to think that today's answer may be yes.

The real lessons here are for our enemies, current and future. And don't think the lessons are lost on them. I would not bet on American resolve in any future conflict, regardless of the stakes. In this I disagree with you and others who believe America will find the resolve to fight the "right" kind of future war. The very fact that this doubt exists destabilizes the world because it will encourage a rash adversary to take bigger risks.

both President Bush and Murtha have said, "Mission accomplished?" Bush said it two years ago. Murtha said it yesterday: "Our military has accomplished its mission and done its duty.    Our military captured Saddam Hussein, and captured or killed his closest associates." So why all the "Democrats want surrender" talk? Do they want surrender if, according to Murtha AND Bush, the war is already won? How can you surrender a war you've won?

your first and only warning for obvious trolling.

If the Iraqis aren't ready and can't hold it together, it is a surrender. We lose everything we've fought for (and then some).

The idea is the Iraqis will be able to better enforce their borders and deal with any terrorists they have on their own soil themselves.

When Iraq can stand on it's own it will be a major defeat for the terrorists. Defeating the terrorists doesn't have to be about killing them one at a time.

The people of 1941 DID NOT rise to the challenge until AFTER Pearl Harbor and they only declared war with Germany AFTER Germany declared war on us.  As a  matter of fact a report had been recently "leaked" about FDR having a attack plan against Germany that was likely to have gravely damage his administration had it not been for Pearl.

We also have Afghanistan.  After 9/11 Americans were  DEMANDING action against Afghanistan and the Taliban.  The President was given a rubber stamp and could have done whatever he wanted.  Our actions in Afghanistant were wildly popular with the American people and, if anything, many Americans wanted us to "finish the job" in Afghanistan.

Iraq is simply not that cut and dried.  The arguments for invasion were muddled.  The threats, as stated by the administration, were simply not compelling.  Had the Administration been able to show an ACTUAL tie between Iraq and 9/11, the invasion would have been a slam dunk.  But they couldn't.  Instead they used the WMD card and tried to build up outrage that way.  It didn't work, at least not the way they had hoped.  They also failed to sell the right kind of war.  They were saying, repeatedly, that this would be a quick war and that we would be greeted as liberators.  This also hasn't turned out to be true.  

I ask again, why are you blaming the American people?  Do you really believe this junk about the American people being weak-willed and soft?  

Nice attempt (again) at putting thoughts in my head, but you don't get to assume where I get my information. I cover dozens of news sources a day, from red blogs to blue, from libertarian to authoritative, foreign and domestic.  Policy wonks, politicians, educators. Do you do the same?

One thing which is constantly in agreement, from the moderate as well as the blue sources, is that the underlying planning for the post-war went like crap. And this comes from red sources as well.

Also, the bullet points of progress you mention (nice talking points, btw) are an evasion. NO ONE said that there hasn't been progress. No kidding, they had elections, and that much of the country is stable, and they have Iraqi troops (although the 100k # is inflated). But saying that the country has these certain successes and ignoring the other huge problems faced, including the increasing perceptions by the Iraqis themselves that we are the problem, is to risk becoming blind followers. And I am way, way too American to followly blindly.

...in your post which I'll ignore.

It's not particularly interesting to me to re-debate whether we should done the Iraq invasion in the first place. But it alarms me that we are not showing the resolve to finish it.

I hate war in all its forms and for any reason or lack of reason. I was against the Iraq war before it started. As regards 1941, I would have been against war in Germany but for the fact that Hitler had already started it in Austria, Czechoslavakia, and earlier. I would have wanted to smash his filthy butt at essentially zero cost in the Rhineland in 1936, as his own generals feared would happen. History tells us that war is a sad constant of human nature (and no, I won't argue that one from first principles either). The only sure way to avoid war is to stand ready, willing and able to fight and win. Shrinking from finishing the job in Iraq is a lamentable lack of resolve.

if I sounded unreasonable in my post.  I wasn't trying to.

And to be clear, I am NOT trying to re-argue Iraq.  What's done is done and I hope that we succeed now that we are at this point.  This is why I believe we have no choice but to stay the course in Iraq until we, at the very least, the country has a somewhat stable government and infrastructure.

But I am not going to blame the Americans for having a lack of resolve for a fight that they had only tepid interest in to begin with.

Regarding Hitler and his actions in Europe let's remember that America had, in general, a very "Europe's problems are their own" mentality prior to Pearl.  To most Americans the annexation of the Sudatenland and Austria was nothing more than political infighting.  

I completely agree that we must never shriek away from wars that must be carried out.  Personally I think that Clinton's greatest failure was his lack of action in Rwanda.  That was something we COULD have stopped but chose not to.  But that doesn't mean that every fight is always worth fighting.

I think that's a good answer, and I agree with you. If the Iraqis can't hold it together, and we leave, it is indeed a surrender.

Well put.

But therein lies a frustrating logical reality.

You say: "The idea is the Iraqis will be able to better enforce their borders and deal with any terrorists they have on their own soil themselves.

What support is there for that idea? Simply that Iraq will be able to have a larger force than ours? Why should we believe the Iraqis will be any better at enforcing their borders and dealing with terrorists than we?

IF the terrorists are operating at the level they are currently - killing 75+ people in Baghdad just today - while the strongest military in the history of the world (America) has 130,000 highly trained and motivated troops on the ground, hunting them down, is it reasonable to assume that the Iraqi forces - in a best case scenario - could do any better than us?

I pose that as a question. I don't know the answer.

But it seems to me that as long as there are terrorists/insurgents in Iraq, the force opposing them - currently the US, later Iraq - is never going to be stronger, better armed, better coordinated than it is today.

So, in effect, unless and until the terrorists are simply run out of Iraq - and who knows if that's even possible anymore - is there any reason to believe the situation in Iraq would be markedly better even IF the US fully trains up the Iraqi forces?

What am I missing here?

two things.

First and foremost, this is a political struggle with military events punctuating it. Every day that goes by the Iraqi government gets stronger in hard and soft power. Right now with US forces doing a lot of the heavy lifting the Iraqi government can focus farther down the road in developing its institutions and infrastructure.

That is our big role now, protecting a nascent government and allowing a society that was virtually bereft of respected civil institutions to gain its feet.

While the Iraqi army will never be as well trained or equipped as ours, they bring a lot to the table. They speak Arabic. They know the culture. They know by accent where people are from. And so when they reach a level of training far below what it would take to hold their place in line of battle by Western standards they will be more effective in many functions than Americans.

from the days of forums where you had to click to open the message.

Maybe that's why the japanese automakers are beating U.S. automakers.  The Japanese business model welcomes input from the people who work on the assembly line.

though it seems to me that the input is pretty much limited to how to do your own job better.

But I am not going to blame the Americans for having a lack of resolve for a fight that they had only tepid interest in to begin with.

That's a good point, and it bears comparison to our experience in Vietnam. I certainly don't blame the Americans for anything, but I do fear that resolve will be lacking the next time our vital interests are at stake, especially if the situation involves nuclear weapons. And btw, your comment about Americans' attitude towards Austria and the Sudetenland applies equally to the British people in 1938, and this willful blindness was one of the paving stones on the road to disaster.

Clearly if the government is on solid footing and we don't have much of a presence there, Iraq becomes much less of a promising target for the terrorists.

We ARE drawing terrorists to Iraq just by being there (as evidenced by all the foreign terrorists operating in Iraq), but there is no way around that. They have it in for us and will fight us whereever they can. Iraq is the easiest place to do this right now.

If we leave Iraq with a stable government with a capable police and military force, many will leave in search of easier and more significant targets.

I think the British people, much like the French of that era, do deserve some credit.  They fought a VERY bloody war not that long prior and had no desire to fight another one.  It wasn't until it was painfully obvious that they had no choice that they entered WWII.

I think that's a good point, and one I meant to mention in my previous post.

Certainly, the Iraqi forces will be far better suited to developing intelligence on insurgent groups, foreign nationals flowing across the borders, and dealing with locals.

That said, all it takes for the insurgents/terrorists to continue to wreak havoc is the occasional suicide bomb, the occasional beheading, and the fanning of sectarian flames.

So while I think your point is a very good one, I just wonder how much of that will matter if these guys are getting overrun by insurgents regardless.

But who knows. I presume that we will never entirely know how they are going to stand up until after we leave. Then we'll see.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Your assumption is that the majority of the problems caused by the insurgents and/or terrorists is foreign driven.

The truth is we don't know precise numbers on who all these guys are.

But I think it's fair to assume that the majority of the insurgents are local Iraqis - Sunnis, Baathists, criminals. The foreigners are cannon fodder and suicide bomb pack mules.

Moreover, I think the notion that the foreign terrorists are simply going to pack up their tents and go elsewhere if/when we leave is not particularly realistic.

Iraq, whether they like it or not, are going to be tied to American prestige for a long time to come. Anti-American and anti-western terrorists will have more than a vested interest in seeing Iraq fall into chaos long after America has left.

Maybe that's simply Iraq's problem at that point. And no longer ours. But I don't think that will be the case.

on the nature of the enemy and your conclusion

However... I would say while the target value of Iraq doesn't disappear, it does fall relative to the others that are already out there.

Certainly you have Iraqis insurgents but you have organized terrorists working there as well. Maybe those already there won't pack up and leave, but it won't be such a draw for new ones to replace them. There are many other targets (such as Jordan or Saudi Arabia) that are just as viable.

<nt>

what military strategy is murtha discussing? Oh yeah, that french inspired vietnam surrender strategy. deep thinker

murtha is magnified because the msm magnifies him

scores of elected vets in congres support the war but somehow aren't "news" on msm

funny

Reagan made a mistake in my view and it is cited by UBL as part of the paper tiger evaluation that emboldened him. But, in reagan's defense, there was no ao qaida in 1983. The islam-facist movement  was in its infancy and not apparent.

I think 41 did appease saddam or better, his authoritarian neighbors in making the fatal historical mistake of leaving a king injured but not dead. 41 is of the limited war, so-called "realist" school that I think was totally discredited by Reagan's winning approach to the USSR and rejection of detente and appeasement of Nixon-Kissinger, etc, Korea, Vietnam and countles examples in history.

Clinton is more culpable by far given ability to look back in hindsight and his own words that described a threat far more grave than one would suppose from his tepid actions against same.

that the House will vote at 7 PM tonight on Murtha's plan to immediately withdraw US troops from Iraq.

I hope this pans out.  This is just the thing that needs to be done.  Expose the Dems for playing politics with the war.  Anyone venture to guess how many Dems will vote Yea?  I think less than 10.

This is what Murtha himself introduced:

Whereas, Congress and the American People have not been shown clear, measurable progress toward establishment of stable and improving security in Iraq or of a stable and improving economy in Iraq, both of which are essential to "promote the emergence of a democratic government";

Whereas, additional stabilization in Iraq by U, S. military forces cannot be achieved without the deployment of hundreds of thousands of additional U.S. troops, which in turn cannot be achieved without a military draft;

Whereas, more than $277 billion has been appropriated by the United States Congress to prosecute U.S. military action in Iraq and Afghanistan;

Whereas, as of the drafting of this resolution, 2,079 U.S. troops have been killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom;

Whereas, U.S. forces have become the target of the insurgency,

Whereas, according to recent polls, over 80 percent of the Iraqi people want U.S. forces out of Iraq;

Whereas, polls also indicate that 45 percent of the Iraqi people feel that the attacks on U.S. forces are justified;

Whereas, due to the foregoing, Congress finds it evident that continuing U.S. military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the people of Iraq, or the Persian Gulf Region, which were cited in Public Law 107-243 as justification for undertaking such action;

Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that:

Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.

Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines shall be deployed in the region.

Section 3. The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.

on this nonsense as well.

They will vote sometime between 5:30 and 7:30pm EST tonight...

Get them on the record this must be a roll call vote please

ever reaches the House floor.

What Murtha actually said.

We used to have a ratings system where we gave good comments a 5 and bad comments a 1 (average comments got 2-4).

It got to be more trouble than it was worth, so we scrapped it but occasionally we still give someone a 5.

I suppose it's useless to point out that one of the great laws of economics is that sunk costs aren't considered in future planning...

One issue I have is that "XYZ" can just as easily apply to a whole raft of countries. Iran springs to mind. Why didn't / don't we invade Iran?

They're building weapons of mass destruction far more capable than those of Saddam-era Iraq. There's far more definite evidence that they're building nuclear weapons than was ever gathered on Saddam. They're a definite security threat to their neighbors, routinely call for the extermination of us and our allies, and seek to export theocratric revolution around the mideast.

So...could someone please explain how Iraq was a greater threat than Iran, better deserving of our blood and treasure? Frankly, I'm baffled...

And heck...if mission number one is exporting democracy, there are dozens of easier choices than Iraq. If we want to knock off a dictator and secure some oil in the process, we should invade Equatorial Guinea. I'd wager this modest proposal would only take a few weeks.

Yes, I am kidding.  Sorry, dark humor.

The more, the merrier.

"Thousands" is the plural of thousand, defined as two or more, and thus a value greater than or equal to 2,000 is by definition "thousands".  And it's continuing apace. So your point is confiscated.

I don't ascribe the fact that we have to take and retake and retake town after town in Sunni areas to just the circumstances of war. I think it's clear evidence that we don't have enough troops there to keep and hold ground.

First we didn't occupy the western and Sunni areas of the country decisely after Saddam's defeat because there weren't enough troops.  Then once the insurgency began to fester, we let it do so in towns like Fallujah because we didn't have enough forces to do more than cede control over swathes of territory while we battled the Mahdi Army in the Shia areas. Then we decided that no, we do need to take those towns, and have proceeded to alternately take and cede territory since we haven't had enough forces there to keep a lid on what we take.

But Rumsfeld declared that there were enough troops simply because he said so.  And he made it clear that he'd brook no argument, even taking as circular evidence the statements of his commanders who likely knew exactly what would happen to their careers if they disputed a point that has risen to the level of ideology.

The thought that we've spent our troops' lives to cover for mistakes by stubborn old men disgusts me to the point of physical nausea. We could win decisely tomorrow and I'd still be bitter about this. I think 500,000 troops instead of 150,000 would have made this a much different war, even if they'd been added as late as 2004.

So...are you willing to take up a gun yourself and embark on a grand new adventure there?

If I've learned just one thing from this war, it's that I never intend to support any military conflict in which I wouldn't be willing personally to fight and risk dying were it asked of me.  I find that thinking this way puts things in more perspective.

Are you willing to have your entire savings account emptied for every social or government program you support?

Chickenhawking is a bannable offense around here. Choose wisely.

I don't think we have to see this as a Dem/Rep. issue or a test of American loyalty: Bush wanted to give freedom and a voice to the Iraqis themselves, and according to a UK poll conducted in Iraq and reported in the Telegraph, over 80% of Iraqis want us to leave. How can we say that we are bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq if we ignore this statistic?

(i.e.: government by referenda), then nonsense like this poll may matter to policy makers and you'd have a point.  Otherwise, those polled might instead talk to their elected representatives - almost all of whom seem to want us to hang-around a little longer.

BTW, got a link to that poll?  I cannot seem to find it at the Telegraph web site.

"want U.S. troops out of their country"

certainly gives me pause.  After all, that mean we have been there for over two years and suffered only 2000 fatalites, while facing overwhelming odds against us (85% of the native population).  

That would indicate we've been extremely effective militarily, but extremely ineffective politically, perhaps because of the constant sniping against the administration at home by the "loyal opposition," and the incessant misrepresentation of "reality" by the MSM.  The sniping and misrepresentation encourages some Iraqis who would otherwise support us to stay in a want-and-see mode, because they're well aware of the US history of failing to stay the course against despots.

"I am inclined to agree that perhaps we should have overthrown Saddam in the first Gulf War."

Interesting.  What makes you think things in Iraq would have been any different had the war occured 10 years earlier?  In the interim, Saddam killed and tortured hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, more of his countrymen.  Yet somehow you think that endeared him even more to those people?

The Iraqi civilians who oppose the US military presence are either Sunnis/Baathists expecting to take over again when we leave, surviving family members of Iraqis killed during the "active" war who might understandably bear a grudge, other Iraqis who are afraid of the Baathist terrorists and that they might be killed by one of the terrorist roadside bombs, or just cautious Iraqis who don't want to appear to support the Americans in case the Americans desert them, too.  The idea that those groups make up 85% of all Iraqis stands in stark contrst to the fact of millions who voted during the free Iraqi elections since Saddam was deposed.

If we reconsider the current course, what do we change that won't make things worse for everybody after the "cheering for returning servicemen" dies down?  (The quotation marks indicate that I know the cheering would not be for the servicemen, but would only be the Leftists congratulating each other for successfully undercutting the Bush policy.)

The only viable course that's good for America is to make sure a democratic government is able to support and protect itself in Iraq after we leave.  Anything else would result in the minority Sunni/Baathist militants siezing control again by military force.  

Hoping to rely on a "political solution" is pointless in the absence of a stable government capable of protecting itself.  That's a lesson taught by Israel for fifty years, and by history for millennia.

to assert that we have needed more troops, either at specific times or all along.

Don't be nauseated, remember that you are putting your trust in certain people who may well be trustworthy, but wrong.  Others, such as Rumsfeld, have put their trust in certain people in whom THEY trust, but for different reasons.  We get our information second- or third-hand, at best.  They get theirs first-, second, or third-hand, at worst.

Don't be surprised that the opinions disagree.  It's been almost forty years since Tet, and there are still legitimate questions about the reportage of that event and the war that surrounded it.

What do you think the chances were of getting 500,000 troops approved for Iraq, at any time?  How would you have used them?

I hope the link below works-- the poll is from 10/23.

Not sure why you would call the poll "nonsense," though I take your point about the distinction between direct and representative democracy. Still, I'd think that Iraqi sentiment wouldn't be an entirely irrelevant consideration.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml

Emptying my bank account neither kills nor maims me. Although either condition could preclude me from refilling it, or ever again doing much of anything for that matter. So I figure it's a pretty serious risk to ask others to take, particularly if I'd not be willing to do so myself. I think that's a legitimate sentiment to express that at least for me brings home the gravity of going to war.

So I'm willing to part with the standard 20% or so of my bank account, and, yes, I'd even raise the figure some if I could designate what it'd go towards.  Death, in stark contrast, is a binary proposition.

My concern is whether he gets information at all that he needs to hear, since he cultivates a personality of intimidation likely to inspire self-censorship in those around him.

But let's see, if I'd had a half million troops...well, first off, I'd have sent a good portion instead to Afghanistan. I'd have disarmed some of the more noxious warlords a lot more swiftly and extended the writ of the new Afghan government a lot farther from its capital. In short, I'd finish what I'd started and make that country my model for Islamic democracy.

But if I were, for the sake of argument, convinced of the imminence of a threat from Saddam, I'd not simply invade until enemy resistance collapsed, but rather until I'd decisively occupied the entire country in the first phase of ground operations, particularly those areas most likely to become restive at the prospect of an ethnically representative government. And I'd not disband the defeated Iraqi army, but rather selectively purge its command structure. And all soldiers would have at least 100 words of Arabic as part of their ammunition. Of course for that matter, with all this hypothetical power at my disposal, I'd have long before begun training rafts of Arabic linguists (and Chinese, Pashto, Urdu, and Farsi while I'm at it).

Rumsfeld entered his office with a vision of transforming the military from a Cold War behemoth capable of fighting assaults by massed Soviet armor in Germany into a lighter, more dynamic, information-driven force with a smaller footprint to allow more flexible deployment.  Worthy goals in many respects, and it's easily forgotten that before 9/11, he had encountered such strong resistance from the military that his reforms were sputtering and he was increasingly being considered a failed SecDef soon to depart D.C.

Afghanistan and Iraq gave him laboratories to validate some of his transformation ideas, particularly the idea that overwhelming application of technology and information allows a combat force to employ fewer troops. And it seemed like he was right in Iraq...for a few months. Then I think he failed to react to the transformation of the war to a sustained battle against a guerilla insurgency that required a larger pacifying presense. He and the rest of the administration apparently decided that any appreciable shift in policy or deployment would constitute admission of errors, a sign of weakness unforgivable for reasons I don't fathom.

And so, here we are...

Emptying my bank account neither kills nor maims me.

If done correctly, it eventually will.

So I figure it's a pretty serious risk to ask others to take, particularly if I'd not be willing to do so myself.

Good thing it's a volunteer military. And that the risk of death is so very low.

I think that's a legitimate sentiment to express that at least for me brings home the gravity of going to war.

Hey, you've gotten your chickenhawk warning. You want to explain why you think expressing that particular slur -- which our vets around here take no more nicely than the cowards like I do -- won't get you banned, have at it. You're wrong from the get-go, but however you want to do it.

So I'm willing to part with the standard 20% or so of my bank account, and, yes, I'd even raise the figure some if I could designate what it'd go towards.

In other words, by your own standards, you lack the courage of your convictions.

Death, in stark contrast, is a binary proposition.

No, death is actually an absolute proposition.

because if it weren't we'd be hearing calls for the adoption of the Murtha strategy from the elected Iraqi leadership.

And that is just not happening.

At some point, for these "polls" to no longer be nonsense those Iraqis elected to represent those supposedly "polled" should probably have to start to be reflect their popular will, don't you think?

And don't you think that if there was this sort of obvious clamor for us to LEAVE! NOW! then there would be someone, anyone, in the elected leadership of Iraq who would be trying to tie-in with that obvious majority?

It looks like this poll was done in Sadr City - that's like taking a poll in Harlem and Detriot and suggesting that's the way most Americans feel.

Not. Serious.

BTW - thanks for the link.  I'm not sure why I cannot get there obviously from the homepage, but there it is.

Cheers.

like the Germans wanted us to leave West Germany:

They wanted until we actually acted to do something about leaving.

Of course they want us out - after things are quiet and peaceful And of course they want it quiet and peaceful yesterday, and us out tomorrow.

And I want Santa Claus to visit this year, but I am not going to refuse to buy presents for the kiddies because I am waiting for Saint Nick.

The polls are useless for precisely the same reason that Murtha's cut and run resolution that the DNC cheered is useless: because it reflects a mere posture, a sentiment that even a moment's thought dispels.

Good thing it's a volunteer military. And that the risk of death is so very low.

Good thing it's voluntary whether we decide to deploy that military, and voluntary whether we reelect those who make the fateful decision. And that "low risk" has claimed and ruined thousands of lives and puts a lot of families through a lot of anguish.

Hey, you've gotten your chickenhawk warning. You want to explain why you think expressing that particular slur -- which our vets around here take no more nicely than the cowards like I do -- won't get you banned, have at it. You're wrong from the get-go, but however you want to do it.

How what I've said is a slur eludes me, and I'd be curious hear why you consider it such.

In response to my question of why we didn't invade Iran as it seems to pose a greater threat than Iraq, you said:

Hey, I see no reason to leave out Iran. The more, the merrier.

This struck me as a call for military action expressed with a casualness with which I'm not comfortable. If it's not, please correct me. My response that I'd not want others to risk their lives if I'd not be willing to do the same seems like a reasonable proposition; I wasn't calling for war with Iran, I was asking rhetorically why it wasn't deemed the greater threat. If you care to swap apples with oranges and equate considerations of mortality with my bank account, well, I simply disagree that the cases are equivalent.

If you wish to ban me, then have the courtesy to simply do so, rather than dangle it over my head. Threats aren't a basis for discussion between adults. But if you'd care to explain just why I've given offense, then I'm listening with genuine interest.

Good thing it's voluntary whether we decide to deploy that military, and voluntary whether we reelect those who make the fateful decision. And that "low risk" has claimed and ruined thousands of lives and puts a lot of families through a lot of anguish.

As my military and ex-military friends say, you signed the dotted line. Why we have to be paternal toward these adults is lost on me.

And, historically speaking, this is an incredibly low risk war.

How what I've said is a slur eludes me, and I'd be curious hear why you consider it such.

The idea that a precondition to advocating military action is that one must be willing to fight the war itself is decidedly un-American. Our country has never, not once, required its citizenry to enlist for wars they support. Never. Plenty of proponents of war with the South, for example, never enlisted, and never served. The idea you're pushing comes dangerously close to crushing the two centuries old view of the military as the arm of power for use by the elected government of the United States as an instrument of policy; instead, somehow, we have to enlist in every war we think worth fighting, or not use that tool at all.

This is chickenhawking. It is a bannable offense, a slur, and a decidedly un-American idea. You may not like that; there are fever swamps where the locals will love that idea. That is more explanation that I've ever given on this topic, and the last explanation I'll ever give on it.

This struck me as a call for military action expressed with a casualness with which I'm not comfortable.

I'm terribly sorry that I upset you. If it makes you feel better, the full statement, absent snark, is that we must leave open the idea of war with Iran insofar as they threaten our safety and/or national interests. If any current member of the Armed Forces disagrees with this, they probably need to elect not to reenlist. Given the ridiculously high retention rate, I think I'm ok so far.

My response that I'd not want others to risk their lives if I'd not be willing to do the same seems like a reasonable proposition; I wasn't calling for war with Iran, I was asking rhetorically why it wasn't deemed the greater threat. If you care to swap apples with oranges and equate considerations of mortality with my bank account, well, I simply disagree that the cases are equivalent.

You're entitled to be wrong. You're not entitled to chickenhawk.

If you wish to ban me, then have the courtesy to simply do so, rather than dangle it over my head.

Actually, what I did in the penultimate comment was to warn you. The follow-up was simply irritation that you couldn't take a hint; no Damocles blades were intended.

...there's a whole lot of brave young men and women who are ready and willing to fight and die so that you may have the luxury of deciding what you're willing to fight and die for.

I don't think you are missing anything.  You just don't buy the rhetoric.  As far as those who believe that we are the target of the insurgency, that is true, but not the whole picture.  If and when our troops are gone, the current government and all those who are seen as having collaborated will likely be killed off or disappear. Iraq will quickly revert to being controlled by a Taliban-like regime.  But also important for the over-optimistic to understand is that the US will continue to be a target of Al Qaeda and extremist groups.  That will last as long as we are seen as allied with Israel and the Palestinians are the oppressed.

One thing some people forget is that in the first Iraq war, Bagdad was not taken because if the US had not agreed leave it alone, there would have been no Arab countries in the coaliton, no bases of operation in the region and no planes or missiles flying over their space.

That's my 2 cents for now.

a little nba rush new fallujah humor

But it leads into my point

the numbers, the trend of the last 2 yrs and the fact that our "withdrawal" will be not quite what the word implies

the insurgency is small in numbers and the largest possible pool to increase it within the country is a small minority

they have been reduced to killing innocents and now even sunnis

we will have a large contingent there for years just to make sure the govt holds

and we would come back if there were any chance it was about to fall

we will not abide Iraq returning to be a terror state

havoc can be wreaked

but they will not overthrow the govt that 80% vote for

I think history, esp the purple fingers, but also the last 5000 years and common sense shows this

I dont see the numbers to over run with a large Iraqi army, us as back up and the people against them

but the fact is that none of this argues for us to leave now or anytime unrelated to the facts on the ground

its like paying the mtg

work at it everyday

and have the will

as Churchill said to never give up

and have people that wont try to break their own countries will

or have people that will denounce them as foolish or worse for doing so

I failed to say that while we can't just cut and run for the reasons already mentioned, we can't continue "as is" either.  To all those out there who say questioning policy is unpatriotic or is giving aid to the enemy, I say that failing to demand better answers is what got the troops where we are.  The best we can do for them is to make sure the planning is well thought out.  I'm not hearing a solid strategy from either side.  The division in this forum would seem to back that up.  I have to side with the person who said that thousands killed is by definition anything more than 2000.  It may not have reached 10k but it's still rising.  And the number badly wounded is probably near that. We do not "have them on the run".  The battle is far from over.  Is that any discredit to our men and women on the front lines?  Absolutely not!  And lastly, there is a big distinction between being forced by the enemy to retreat from captured objectives as opposed to abondoning them for the lack of manpower.  One results in unnecessary loss of life to retake.  Need I say which?  A lesson not learned from Vietnam apparently.

How dare Kerry quote someone from his own party as a way to support his unpatriotic belief that we shouldn't be in Iraq despite all of our success there.  We have almost crushed the resistance into submission, the suicide bombers are about to quit, and they almost have a democracy.  

WE CAN'T LEAVE NOW!  There are so many more countries to democrafy in the Middle East and Iraq is in the middle of it with good bases.  

Shut up you unpatriotic pig John Murtha, you traitorous liar!  If you don't agree with the President, shut up and die.  Killing is our God given right, and no one can take that AWAY!

Tex Shelters

Thank you for visiting RedState. We hope your stay has been an enjoyable one. But like all good things, it must end.

Now.