Tuesday, January 03, 2006
Jack Murtha is undermining the war effort
I came home after a long day at the office to the sound and fury of Bill O'Reilly, who has worked himself into a high dudgeon over Jack Murtha discouraging people from volunteering to serve in the military. In case you missed Murtha's comment:
Murtha, the ranking Democrat on the Defense subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, is out of bounds. It is one thing to argue against the foreign policy of the United States, which many principled people have done. It is another thing to subvert the means by which the United States recruits volunteers to serve in the military. Whether or not sincere in his opinion (sincerity being the all-time overrated virtue), Murtha is undermining our military in two ways. First, he is helping our enemies achieve their victory conditions to no useful purpose. Second, he is choking off the only means by which the American military can replace its soldiers.
I know, I know -- I'm a chickenhawk and this is all a piece of my mongering of war and crushing of dissent. But there is a difference between legitimate dissent and subversive, illegitimate dissent. Both are lawful and obviously protected under the Constitution, but only the first is moral. Subversive dissent is not.
To be clear, all dissent in times of war helps the enemy, but this is especially true in limited war. As I wrote last year,
However, the simple fact that anti-war dissent helps the enemy does not mean that it is illegitimate:
The test, therefore, is whether the giving of hope to the enemy or the demoralizing of our soldiers is a purely unintended consequence of a principled argument over the propriety or wisdom of a war. But that is not what Jack Murtha did. Whatever the legitimacy of other arguments about the war -- and certainly any number of them are worth debating -- there is nothing legitimate to be gained from discouraging Americans from enlisting. Not only does that spectacle give comfort to the enemy, which considers itself in a war of wills with the United States, but it increases the chances that any given soldier will have a longer tour in the Iraq theater. Discouraging, and at the margin preventing, the replacement of a soldier is precisely the opposite of "supporting the troops". It is undermining the troops.
Until leading Democrats distance themselves from Murtha's statements, let us not hear any more about how they "support the troops." One can criticize the policy or its execution and support the troops, but you can't interfere with the recruitment of new soldiers and then shout Semper Fi to the voters. I don't care how many medals you won in Vietnam thirty years ago and did or did not toss away thereafter -- if you discourage or obstruct the recruiting of new troops, you help the enemy without contributing to thoughtful discussion of the war and under no circumstances can you be said to support the troops.
Jack Murtha needs to retract his statements, and if he doesn't any Democrat who wants to be president had better make it clear that he (or she) does not agree with Murtha.
Gateway Pundit has more here.
"Would you join (the military) today?," he was asked in an interview taped on Friday.
"No," replied Murtha of Pennsylvania, the top Democrat on the House of Representatives subcommittee that oversees defense spending and one of his party's leading spokesmen on military issues.
"And I think you're saying the average guy out there who's considering recruitment is justified in saying 'I don't want to serve'," the interviewer continued.
"Exactly right," said Murtha, who drew White House ire in November after becoming the first ranking Democrat to push for a pullout of U.S. forces from Iraq as soon as it could be done safely.
Murtha, the ranking Democrat on the Defense subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, is out of bounds. It is one thing to argue against the foreign policy of the United States, which many principled people have done. It is another thing to subvert the means by which the United States recruits volunteers to serve in the military. Whether or not sincere in his opinion (sincerity being the all-time overrated virtue), Murtha is undermining our military in two ways. First, he is helping our enemies achieve their victory conditions to no useful purpose. Second, he is choking off the only means by which the American military can replace its soldiers.
I know, I know -- I'm a chickenhawk and this is all a piece of my mongering of war and crushing of dissent. But there is a difference between legitimate dissent and subversive, illegitimate dissent. Both are lawful and obviously protected under the Constitution, but only the first is moral. Subversive dissent is not.
To be clear, all dissent in times of war helps the enemy, but this is especially true in limited war. As I wrote last year,
A civil insurgency such as the one raging in the Sunni Triangle of Iraq cannot defeat the United States, in the sense of vanquishing its armed forces. It is perfectly within the capacity of our country to spend $80 billion a year on this war and suffer perhaps 1000 fatalities a year ad infinitum. The insurgency can therefore have only two victory conditions. First, to shape the political circumstances of post-war Iraq. Second, to induce the United States and the rest of the coalition to withdraw from Iraq (some insurgents would probably be happy to see this result under any circumstances, but al Qaeda wants humiliation to accompany the withdrawal). It is therefore manifestly the case that to the extent that anti-war dissent achieves those of its objectives that require an American withdrawal, the domestic opponents of the war have helped the enemy achieve at least the second of these victory conditions. And, since American withdrawal would probably (although not necessarily) increase the political leverage of the insurgency, it might also help the enemy achieve its first victory condition. How can it be otherwise?
However, the simple fact that anti-war dissent helps the enemy does not mean that it is illegitimate:
The American system of government depends on open and public debate about policy. If some of that debate has the unintended consequence of giving hope to the enemy or demoralizing our soldiers, that is an acceptable price to pay. Our soldiers understand that the free society they defend exercises its freedom by arguing over the propriety and conduct of limited wars. They also understand that reasonable Americans can disagree about limited wars without being “unpatriotic,” even if their arguments inflict collateral damage on the war effort.
The test, therefore, is whether the giving of hope to the enemy or the demoralizing of our soldiers is a purely unintended consequence of a principled argument over the propriety or wisdom of a war. But that is not what Jack Murtha did. Whatever the legitimacy of other arguments about the war -- and certainly any number of them are worth debating -- there is nothing legitimate to be gained from discouraging Americans from enlisting. Not only does that spectacle give comfort to the enemy, which considers itself in a war of wills with the United States, but it increases the chances that any given soldier will have a longer tour in the Iraq theater. Discouraging, and at the margin preventing, the replacement of a soldier is precisely the opposite of "supporting the troops". It is undermining the troops.
Until leading Democrats distance themselves from Murtha's statements, let us not hear any more about how they "support the troops." One can criticize the policy or its execution and support the troops, but you can't interfere with the recruitment of new soldiers and then shout Semper Fi to the voters. I don't care how many medals you won in Vietnam thirty years ago and did or did not toss away thereafter -- if you discourage or obstruct the recruiting of new troops, you help the enemy without contributing to thoughtful discussion of the war and under no circumstances can you be said to support the troops.
Jack Murtha needs to retract his statements, and if he doesn't any Democrat who wants to be president had better make it clear that he (or she) does not agree with Murtha.
Gateway Pundit has more here.
3 Comments:
By 
, at
Wed Jan 04, 02:34:00 AM:
just wanted to say i appreciate all the national security type stories your blog has been doing, i only read about once a week but I'll follow more closely now with the Iran thing.
By 
Cassandra, at
Wed Jan 04, 11:48:00 AM:
What is happening to my comments?
*sigh* I tried.
By TigerHawk, at
Wed Jan 04, 12:02:00 PM:
The 'Villain lost a comment, too. There's something hinky going on with Blogger comments.
