Monday, June 19, 2006
Murtha vs. Murtha: We've Met The Enemy And They Iz Us Edition
John Murtha, the lithe and incredibly buff victim of repeated vicious and completely unprovoked attacks from Karl Rove's fat backside, talks about the importance of being willing to change direction:...it shows you how important it is to change direction in Iraq. Reagan changed direction in Beirut. Clinton changed direction in Somalia. We need to change direction. And they can't seem to get it.
He should know. Unlike the present administration, Murtha has displayed a commendable willingness to change his mind. Only a year and a half ago, the unrepentant hawk maintained America would lose credibility if we withdrew according to a "political timetable":
“Nevertheless, a war initiated on faulty intelligence must not be followed by a premature withdrawal of our troops based on a political timetable. An untimely exit could rapidly devolve into a civil war, which would leave America's foreign policy in disarray as countries question not only America's judgment but also its perseverance.
-John Murtha, late 2004
Less than a year later, Murtha changed his mind. Now, there could be no credibility without a timetable:
"...the American people want a timetable... even the Iraqi leadership wants a timetable...after all how else are they ever going to have any credibility in the region?"
- Murtha, 2005
By November, the demand for a timetable had morphed into a proposal for immediate redeployment of US forces in Iraq and the establishment of a "quick reaction", "over-the-horizon force" in the region:
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.
- John Murtha, November, 2005
Fearing non-military folks might not understand technical terms like "quick response" and "in the region", Rep. Murtha helpfully defined these terms for the public half a year later:
MR. ROVE: Congressman Murtha said, “Let’s redeploy them immediately to another country in the Middle East. Let’s get out of Iraq and go to another country.” My question is, what country would take us? What country would say after the United States cut and run from Iraq, what country in the Middle East would say, “Yeah. Paint a big target on our back and then you’ll cut and run on us.” What country would say that? What country would accept our troops?
MURTHA: Kuwait’s one that will take us. Qatar, we already have bases in Qatar. So Bahrain. All those countries are willing to take the United States. Now, Saudi Arabia won’t because they wanted us out of there in the first place. So—and we don’t have to be right there. We can go to Okinawa. We, we don’t have—we can redeploy there almost instantly. So that’s not—that’s, that’s a fallacy. That, that’s just a statement to rial up people to support a failed policy wrapped in illusion.
MR. RUSSERT: But it’d be tough to have a timely response from Okinawa.
REP. MURTHA: Well, it—you know, they—when I say Okinawa, I, I’m saying troops in Okinawa. When I say a timely response, you know, our fighters can fly from Okinawa very quickly. And—and—when they don’t know we’re coming. There’s no question about it. And, and where those airplanes won’t—came from I can’t tell you, but, but I’ll tell you one thing, it doesn’t take very long for them to get in with cruise missiles or with, with fighter aircraft or, or attack aircraft, it doesn’t take any time at all. So we, we have done—this one particular operation, to say that that couldn’t have done, done—it was done from the outside, for heaven’s sakes.
Though of course Americans who haven't been in combat really have no right to comment on Rep. Murtha's proposal, some of you civilian types may be wondering exactly what military terms like "get there quickly", "rapid deployment, and "over-the-horizon force" mean? Fortunately, Rep. Murtha is well-versed in combat logistics. There's no question about it:
...this ignores the six week 24/7 Taskforce 145 "Unblinking Eye" intelligence and surveillance operation that led to having a Delta SR team with eyes on target and designating it with a laser. Apparently Murtha thinks that somebody called 1-800-ZARQAWI with 10 digit grid coordinates and voila! an F-16 launches from Okinawa and 10-12 hours later... poof, no more Zarqawi.
The straight yellow line extending across the middle of China and Iran is the distance from Okinawa to Baghdad as the crow flies which is approximately 4200 nautical miles. Obviously, the Chinese and the Iranians wouldn't be cool with that, but let's just roll with it. The max combat range for the F-16 with external fuel tanks and 2000 lbs of ordnance is 740 nautical miles so that's like a minimum of SIX midair refuelings in EACH direction.
The main thing is that when we make mistakes, our national interest and the respect of the international community depend on our willingness to change direction, as Clinton did, leading to our notable success in Mogadishu, Somalia:
...your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge, but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal.
You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the "heart" of every Muslim and a remedy to the "chests" of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut, Aden and Mogadishu.
- Usama bin Laden
"Our people realize[d] more than before that the American soldier is a paper tiger that run[s] in defeat after a few blows," the terror chief recalled. "America forgot all about the hoopla and media propaganda and left dragging their corpses and their shameful defeat."
- Usama bin Laden, 1998
After all, the last thing we want to do is give a microphone to our enemies
“We’ve become the enemy. We’ve given a microphone to people like Zarqawi,” said Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa.
Finally Rep. Murtha says something we can all agree with.
9 Comments:
By 
Cassandra, at
Mon Jun 19, 12:25:00 PM:
Sirius_sir:
Shame on you. Words have meaning, you know:
We're not withdrawing.
We're advancing in a retrograde fashion....
By Dawnfire82, at
Mon Jun 19, 06:37:00 PM:
Hey Screwie, isn't it about time that you pop up and talk about how we can't insult/assault the Rep. here because he's such a good hearted veteran?
*cue*
OOC, Cassandra, what does your husband think about Murtha? Being a fellow Marine officer and all. I don't know any Marine officers to ask.
By Gordon Smith, at
Mon Jun 19, 06:57:00 PM:
Cassandra,
I was wondering when someone would go after Murtha on the substance of his comments rather than just spitting on him because someone told them it was a super idea. ;-)
"An untimely exit could rapidly devolve into a civil war, which would leave America's foreign policy in disarray as countries question not only America's judgment but also its perseverance.
-John Murtha, late 2004
Less than a year later, Murtha changed his mind. Now, there could be no credibility without a timetable:
"...the American people want a timetable... even the Iraqi leadership wants a timetable...after all how else are they ever going to have any credibility in the region?"
Cass - it seems to me this isn't really what you call it. Untimely exit is a bad idea. Creating a timetable can provide for a 'timely' exit, eh? Close enough for blogging though, right?
However, Murtha has certainly altered his position with the immediate redeployment tack.
It's interesting, because, aside from Bush's "Stay The Course and Stop Watching The News!" strategy, there's no rival stance with any broad support. The "Get out now" crowd is fairly small. The "redeploy this year" crowd want us out but not in an "untimely" fashion. The "stay there but hidden behind immense walls and let the Iraqis sort it out until they want us to come help them" crowd, quiet in their timidity, will probably end up victorious.
The idea that any change in plan is a victory for Al Qaeda is patently absurd, and you should read 1984 again.
Murtha's position is Murtha's position, and he's entitled to it. He's got more military knowhow than any other member of Congress, so his credibility is sound. Your post makes him out simply to be wrong.
Maybe he is. But we know that Bush has been wrong again and again, yet folks keep thinking that he can lead us to some sort of victory. Republicans want something they can label as a victory before the '06 elections, I know. And I'm sure Karl Rove will cook up a nice "Welcome Home" parade on the National Mall for several thousand troops soon, so folks will at least have the impression that our troops are coming home from this mistake of a war.
I liked your post, and I look forward to hearing you talk more about Bush's strategy.
By Cassandra, at
Mon Jun 19, 08:21:00 PM:
Thank you Screwy.
He's got more military knowhow than any other member of Congress, so his credibility is sound.
Wow - more than John McCain? I doubt it. Being in the Reserves for as many years as he was is just not the same as doing the job 24/7, and believe me I mean no disrepect to the Reserves. And military people are having a field day with his Okinawa comment. It's really ludicrous on it's face, Screwy. My husband has been in Okinawa twice (which I rather doubt Mr. Murtha has) and no credible military person thinks we could have staged the Zarqaqi op from there.
aside from Bush's "Stay The Course and Stop Watching The News!" strategy, there's no rival stance with any broad support.
I'm amazed that it doesn't occur to you that there *isn't* really a viable alternative strategy - not if we intend to accomplish the goals we've set. Even liberals over at The New Republic (which I read religiously and respect very much) say the same.
War sucks, Screwy, and I have studied and read about the last few wars. The old adage "no plan survives first contact with the enemy" could not be more true. If you ever watch an arty bn in the field, they are constantly revising, making mistakes, and finding out that reality is never much like your plans. Military people know this. They are doers, not talkers or abstraction artists. That's why they're generally far more supportive of the enormously difficult job the adminstration is trying to do.
You see, they've been there and so their expectations are a bit more realistic than those of the half-vast punditocracy.
And FWIW, I've written quite a few posts substantively criticizing Murtha for his ideas. That's why I can't stand the guy - this is far from the first time he's totally contradicted himself.
By Cassandra, at
Mon Jun 19, 08:25:00 PM:
What does my husband think of Murtha?
He thinks he is about one step up from pond scum, and my husband is far from being an uncritical Bush supporter or a knee-jerk thinker. The last comment he made about Murtha was pretty much unprintable :)
I've been married to the guy for 27 years (and dated him for two years before that) and he still amazes me with the subtlety of his thoughts and his insight.
FWIW, though I'm sure you can find Marines who like Murtha, I've never met one, and that says something. Not sure what.
By 
, at
Mon Jun 19, 10:13:00 PM:
"...it shows you how important it is to change direction in Iraq. Reagan changed direction in Beirut. Clinton changed direction in Somalia. We need to change direction. And they can't seem to get it." -Rep. John Murtha (if the quote was correct, I guess).
Based on my reading of "Blackhawk Down", the Army Rangers and Delta Force operators who were there on that dark day in 1993 when everything went wrong, were very much against withdrawing from Mogadishu. Regardless of how bad things went that day, they still felt that they had a mission to accomplish, and that it was still possible to restore order to that tragic place. After the loss of their friends that day, most felt more strongly than ever the mission was important, and that withdrawing was a bad idea.
In hindsight, based on the latest news of "Islamic Courts" now governing Mogadishu, and soon, possibly the whole country (shades of the Taliban?), perhaps they were right? The deployment there had become a political liability for President Clinton, and he wasted little time in shedding that problem from his itinerary. The history of the last 12 years might have been very different, if he had persevered.
But hey, that's just one man's opinion.
-David
By Gordon Smith, at
Tue Jun 20, 08:40:00 AM:
Still with the blame Clinton routine? How long?
Six years of GWB and you still blame Clinton?!? It's astonishing.
By Cassandra, at
Tue Jun 20, 09:56:00 AM:
Still in denial?
The point here is that Murtha says his main beef with the Bush administration is its perceived inability to "change directions".
He then cites as example Clinton's reversal of policy in Somalia; one which in retrospect proved to be unwise, since Somalia is now a locus for terrorists.
Including al Qaeda.
One logical inference is that if we withdraw from Iraq before it is stable, the same fate will befall that nation. History doesn't show that if you retreat before bullies, they give up and go back to what they were doing.
On the contrary, as bin Laden's words show, the only lesson they draw from appeasement or inaction is that you will not oppose them. It's hard to argue (as Murtha consistently has) that pulling out of Iraq will change the presence of terrorists there appreciably.
They are fighting for dominance in Iraq. Murtha's absurd and historically unsupported proposition is that if we give them what they want, they will suddenly abandon the goal they've fought for since 2003.
By , at
Tue Jun 20, 11:36:00 AM:
Mr. Hoolie,
Frankly, no, I don't "blame" Pres. Clinton for everything/anything that has gone wrong since then. He is not an Islamic Jihadist, he does not wish for bad things to happen to this country and its people, and I'm sure that with hindsight, he WOULD have done some things differently, because, afterall, he is just a mortal man, as we all are. He is not the all-seeing master of time and space, and much of what has happened (before) and since that day would be beyond the "control" of anyone in the White House.
My point is that he did the thing in Somalia that was the path of least resistance, and it seemed "reasonable" to all the smartest people at the time. Yet, from the perspective of the men on the ground in Mogadishu in 1993, and with the perfect 20-20 hindsight of history, a different tactic MAY have yielded a better result.
Going forward, we should be wary of the "easy" and "popular" way. The fate of millions of people beyond our borders hangs in the balance.
And again, that's just one man's opinion.
-David
