Murtha was wrong!

<p>I’m glad to say that a year following his speech, Congressman Murtha has, without any doubt, been proven wrong, and things ARE much better today than when he made his ill-fated speech, the troops ARE coming home, the insurgency is flagging, Anbar province has been pacified, oil is flowing freely, and the Iraqis love us:</p>

<p>"The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region.</p>

<p>"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 part of our counterinsurgency strategy.”</p>

<p>"For 2 ½ years, I have been concerned about the U.S. policy and the plan in Iraq. I have addressed my concerns with the Administration and the Pentagon and have spoken out in public about my concerns. The main reason for going to war has been discredited. A few days before the start of the war I was in Kuwait - the military drew a red line around Baghdad and said when U.S. forces cross that line they will be attacked by the Iraqis with Weapons of Mass Destruction - but the US forces said they were prepared. They had well trained forces with the appropriate protective gear.</p>

<p>"We spend more money on Intelligence that all the countries in the world together, and more on Intelligence than most countries GDP. But the intelligence concerning Iraq was wrong. It is not a world intelligence failure. It is a U.S. intelligence failure and the way that intelligence was misused.</p>

<p>"I have been visiting our wounded troops at Bethesda and Walter Reed hospitals almost every week since the beginning of the War. And what demoralizes them is going to war with not enough troops and equipment to make the transition to peace; the devastation caused by IEDs; being deployed to Iraq when their homes have been ravaged by hurricanes; being on their second or third deployment and leaving their families behind without a network of support.</p>

<p>"The threat posed by terrorism is real, but we have other threats that cannot be ignored. We must be prepared to face all threats. The future of our military is at risk. Our military and their families are stretched thin. Many say that the Army is broken. Some of our troops are on their third deployment. Recruitment is down, even as our military has lowered its standards. Defense budgets are being cut. Personnel costs are skyrocketing, particularly in health care. Choices will have to be made. We cannot allow promises we have made to our military families in terms of service benefits, in terms of their health care, to be negotiated away. Procurement programs that ensure our military dominance cannot be negotiated away. We must be prepared. The war in Iraq has caused huge shortfalls at our bases in the U.S.</p>

<p>"Much of our ground transportation is worn out and in need of either serous overhaul or replacement. George Washington said, “To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace.” We must rebuild out Army. Our deficit is growing out of control. The Director of the Congressional Budget Office recently admitted to being “terrified” about the budget deficit in the coming decades. This is the first prolonged war we have fought with three years of tax cuts, without full mobilization of American industry and without a draft. The burden of this war has not been shared equally; the military and their families are shouldering this burden.</p>

<p>"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. But the war continues to intensify. Deaths and injuries are growing, with over 2,079 confirmed American deaths. Over 15,500 have been seriously injured and it is estimated that over 50,000 will suffer from battle fatigue. There have been reports of at least 30,000 Iraqi civilian deaths.</p>

<p>"I just recently visited Anbar Province Iraq in order to assess the condition on the ground. Last May 2005, as part of the Emergency Supplemental Spending Bill, the House included to Moran Amendment, which was accepted in Conference, and which required the Secretary of Defense to submit quarterly reports to Congress in order to more accurately measure stability and security in Iraq. We have not received two reports. I am disturbed by the findings in key indicator areas. Oil production and energy production are below pre-war levels. Our reconstruction efforts have been crippled by security situation. Only $9 billion of the $18 billion appropriated for reconstruction has been spent. Unemployment remains at about 60 percent. Clean water is scarce. Only $500 million of the $2.2 billion appropriated for water projects have been spent. And most importantly, insurgent incidents have increased from about 150 per week to over 700 in the last year. Instead of attacks going down over time and with the addition of more troops, attacks have grown dramatically. Since the revelations at Abu Ghraib, American causalities have doubled. An annual State Department report in 2004 indicated a sharp increase in global terrorism.</p>

<p>"I said over a year ago, and now the military and the Administration agrees, Iraq can not be won “militarily.” I said two years ago, the key to progress in Iraq is to Iraqitize, Internationalize and Energize. I believe the same today. But I have concluded that the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is impeding this progress.</p>

<p>"Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are untied against U.S. forces and we have become a catalyst for violence. U.S. troops are the common enemy of the Sunnis, Saddamists and foreign jihadists. I believe with a U.S. troop redeployment, the Iraq security forces will be incentivized to take control. A poll recently conducted shows that over 80% of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition troops, about 45% of the Iraqi population believe attacks against American troops are justified. I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis. I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy. All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free. Free from United Stated occupation. I believe this will send a signal to the Sunnis to join the political process for the good of a “free” Iraq.</p>

<p>"My plan calls:</p>

<h1>To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.</h1>

<h1>To create a quick reaction force in the region.</h1>

<h1>To create an over-the-horizon presence of Marines.</h1>

<h1>To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq.</h1>

<p>"This war needs to be personalized. As I said before, I have visited with the severely wounded of this war. They are suffering.</p>

<p>"Because we in Congress are charged with sending our sons and daughters into battle, it is our responsibility, our obligation, to speak out for them. That’s why I am speaking out.</p>

<p>“Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home.”</p>

<p>“Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home.”</p>

<p>Amen.</p>

<p>And see article in todays New York Times - “Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terror Threat”.</p>

<p>The problem is, to modify Colin Powell’s analogy, is once you drop an egg on the floor, it doesn’t matter how hard you try to patch it back together. You might indeed want to make it whole again, but it isn’t about you. Americans seem to suffer from the sin of pride - we think (as we did in Viet Nam) that the outcome in Iraq is about us, when the reality is far, far different.</p>

<p>We could have made a deal with Sistani three years ago. Guaranteed Kurdistan. Provided some protection for the Sunnis. Guaranteed access to the oil pipelines. Perhaps even have provided for permanent military bases. Now we can do none of the above. Not only has the military situation worsened, but the political possibilities are much, much narrower, and are growing narrower by the day.</p>

<p>Luckily for the Republicans, the Democrats are too fixated upon their own navels to figure it out.</p>

<p>I would agree with Congressman Murtha were it not for a whole hearted belief in the old adage, “You broke it, you bought it.” It was completely wrong and immoral in my opinion for us to go into Iraq four years ago. That being said, given the havoc we have wreaked there it would be even more immoral to bail now.</p>

<p>But your assumption is that we “could” fix it if we wanted. That’s the hubris of the guy who drops an egg on the floor and expects he could put it back together. We “bought” a whole egg, and smashed it on the ground, and no amount of moaning and groaning about the importance of the whole egg is going to put it back together again.</p>

<p>I agree with the Republicans that “success” (whatever that is) is critical to “our” mission of safeguarding the oil pipelines, controlling oil markes, and setting up permanent U.S. military bases outside of Saudi Arabia (and bordering Iran). Where I differ with them is the idea that the ability to do so is up to us. Frankly, I think “we” count for very little. What are we going to do, triple the troop levels? force Shiites and Sunnis to marry each other? Squelch Kurdish claims on southern Turkey, or Kirkuk? Assassinate Al-Sadr?</p>

<p>I seriously need to get my eyes checked! I saw the subject heading and thought it said, “Martha was wrong!” and thought…hmmm…this forum is so obsessed with college dorm bedding…maybe this was about that? Oops, I was very wrong…back to your regularly scheduled program!</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m not sure that the voters will share such sarcasm come November…indeed, who are the lesser of two evils? The clueless or the shameless?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>HA! He’s one of the few figures in Iraq keeping society over there in order, he’s powerful and very influential; if he’s taken out, the country would die with him.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>That’s actually a damned good idea, but try passing that past Dumbya and Rummy…</p>

<p>“But your assumption is that we “could” fix it if we wanted. That’s the hubris of the guy who drops an egg on the floor and expects he could put it back together. We “bought” a whole egg, and smashed it on the ground, and no amount of moaning and groaning about the importance of the whole egg is going to put it back together again.”</p>

<p>Actually I am not assuming any such thing. I don’t truly believe we can fix it. My concern is more along the line of dropping an egg on the floor and then walking away with the expectation that somebody else will clean up the mess. I don’t know the answer, we never should have invaded Iraq in the first place IMO. The problem is we did, and now we have created a country in chaos, on the brink of civil war because of our actions. I’m not sure that it’s appropriate to try to atone for one immoral act by committing another.</p>

<p>When the egg fell and smashed, ants came and began to carry pieces away, fighting among themselves as they did so.</p>

<p>When my kids broke things when they were small, they were last people capable of fixing them. The best object lesson that could come out of the experience was learning to keep their hands off.</p>

<p>It’s not that the Democrats (or even the Republicans) can’t see clearly. A Democrat in the House of Representatives, with a safe district, towards the end of his career, is perfectly free to speak the truth: The money we are spending and the lives we are losing in Iraq aren’t going to make anything better for anyone at this point. But the Democrats and the Republicans who still have some kind of ongoing political ambition, i.e., the “leaders” – they can’t bring themselves to say that. The Republicans because it would be an act of betrayal against their party, and the Democrats because the Republicans’ only strategy at the moment is to hope that somehow they can blame the “loss” of Iraq on the Democrats, or Jane Fonda, or anyone but themselves.</p>

<p>One of the things that has always struck me, reading the various “insider” accounts of high-level Vietnam strategy years after the fact, is how clear Johnson’s and Nixon’s vision really was. At every step of the way, Johnson knew he was being snookered by the military, and he raged against the lack of any discernible Plan B or exit strategy, but he couldn’t bring himself to be a public quitter, especially in the face of military commanders who insisted they could win. In the Nixon White House, there was no point during the first three years of his Presidency that Nixon didn’t believe he had to end the war within six months or face a terrible judgment of history. The only principle to what he did was to force some kind of concession and movement to a negotiated solution by the North Vietnamese . . . and of course, he failed at that and brought his Presidency to ruin as well.</p>

<p>Honestly, I don’t know what I would do if I were King, much less President. Just pulling up stakes and leaving would be a terrible risk: Horrible, open civil war, quite likely followed by the confirmation of Iran as THE superpower in the region, with hegemony over Iraq’s oil reserves and public nuclear capacity. Complete betrayal of democratic moderates throughout the Islamic world (not that that hasn’t happened already). Further destabilization in Afghanistan, and probably elsewhere in the conflict areas for Islamists (Palestine, Thailand, Phillippines, Chechnya, Central Asia, East Africa).</p>

<p>We can always speculate about what “might” happen, but we do know what “is” happening. The hubris is that we assume that it is in our control to determine. If we accept the NIE assessment that the occupation has worsened the terror threat, then it is logical to assume that continuing the occupation worsens it still further (over and above what it might have been otherwise.)</p>

<p>Of course, we could nuke it.</p>

<p>That, of course, is an Ann Coulter type of wish…turn the whole middle east to glass.</p>

<p>Actually, it was pretty much the Wolfowitz vision - a Middle East with no Middle Easterners in it. </p>

<p>Anyhow, it’s now almost a year since Murtha, soldiers are doing “positive things”, and everything is just so much better that, why, even some of the troops are coming home! (but don’t ask how…)</p>

<p>“That being said, given the havoc we have wreaked there it would be even more immoral to bail now.”</p>

<p>So we stay forever?</p>

<p>I don’t think this is a situation where we can make it better. It’s going to be a bloodbath no matter what.</p>

<p>“I’m not sure that the voters will share such sarcasm come November…indeed, who are the lesser of two evils? The clueless or the shameless?”</p>

<p>I’m not even sure which is which some days!</p>

<p>Iraq today is an historical accident and a partition of the current Iraq would be the best way out.</p>

<p>The following statements were made by President Clinton on December 16, 1998.</p>

<p>“Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.”</p>

<p>“Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.”</p>

<p>“The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government – a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.”</p>

<p>Strange, there was nothing in the speech about a Vietnam style cut and run from Iraq - once the going got tough</p>

<p>Having killed half a million Iraqi children (more than ALL the Kurds killled by Saddam Hussein, and, for that matter, all Iraqis killed by Saddam Hussein), he ought to know.</p>