Say Anything Blog

[...] Trackback URL for this entry:http://haloscan.com/tb/rainmaker/113263746345317216Murtha Says We Cannot Win In IraqExcerpt: JOHNSTOWN, Pa. - U.S. Rep. John Murtha, a key Democrat on military issues, on Monday defended his call to pull U.S. troops from Iraq, saying he was reflecting Americans’ sentiment. “The public turned against this war before I said it,&#82...Weblog: Say AnythingTracked: 11.21.05 - 8:11 pm [...]

You’re fortunate that you’ve heard the media dismissing Friday’s House vote as a political stunt.  All the media that I have seen / heard have decided to totally ignore it (except for a few stories Sat. morning) They instead have been focusing on Murtha.  This is the same crap that’s been going on since Nov 2000.

Since when is the collective voice of a nations worth of representatives less newsworthy than one loudmouth from PA?
After Friday, I expected the left to finally shut up about all this since they had their chance and chose not to take a stand.  Instead, the media just won’t let this one die and also chose to vilify Cheney for merely defending the administration’s position ("Cheney slams war critics”, etc.).  The media has been hoping for “another Vietnam” since ‘03 and when they don’t get it, they make one up.

We’re winning in Iraq and the left refuses to acknowledge it.

Harry Ried’s closed session was an unusual special session to force accountability form the administration but this vote was a disgraceful stunt. At least you know what side the MSMs on.

att, were we turning Iraq into the 51st state you would be correct. It has been our intention from the begining to leave Iraq in the possesion of it’s people, and to move to the next theater of operations in the continuing war against international,Wahabist terrorism.

YES!! The tactics we were using at the insistence of the Dept. of State and senior Dems still in positions to force their veiw failed. Hence the shift to the military running counter-insurgency ops correctly. Hence the shift to Iraqi Army and Police taking on more of the tactical ops, with support provided by Coalition forces. Hence the implementing of plans to draw down Coalition foces over the next few months. As was put forward by the Pentagon and MoD.

I guess it all depends on what your definition of “win” is.

If by “win” you mean “play whack-a-mole until hell freezes over,” then we’re “winning.”

But we don’t have enough boots on the ground to grind the insurgents and the entire Sunni Triangle into the dust the way Sherman ground the South into the dust, making them beg for mercy. That’s what I would take as a “win.”

We’re matching 150,000 highly dangerous U.S. troops against a substantial fraction of a population of 26 million. That substantial fraction is merely dangerous rather than highly dangerous, but there are a hell of a lot of them.

Go read your Sun-Tzu. We’re losing. LOSING. LOOOOSING.

And I do read Sun Tzu. I have 3 different translastions on the shelf 24 inches from my right hand as I type this. And next to them is Clausewitz, may he burn in hell.

attobuoy:

We’re losing. LOSING. LOOOOSIN

I guess that depending on what you mean by losing.

If you mean a continuing loss of prestige by the Democrats and liberals in general, then yes we are losing.

If you mean remove Saddam Hussein and his totalitarian regime from power, and replace it with a democracy, we’re winning.

It was never our goal to subjugate the Sunni Arab minority, just to protect them from reprisals.  We wanted enough soldiers to maintain stability until the Iraqis could take over.  When we left, there had to be enough of a power structure left in the Sunni Arab minority to prevent large scale reprisals from the Shi’ite majority, and to act as a secular counterweight to theocratic tendencies within the Shi’ite majority.

att, the only losers are you whiny wimpy leftist liberals.  We are so fortunate that you, Murtha and your ilk are not partaking in the defense of this country against the terrorists.  Do me a favor, just butt out and enjoy you latte and vegetarian diets and we, the people, will take care of our nation, the nation you would destroy with your defeatist attitudes.

The worst cut of all is that now some Iraqi leaders are falling for Murtha’s peacenik propaganda by requesting a timetable and even suggesting that coalition soldiers are legitimate targets for the Iraqi resistance. Talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth.

They’ve been saying that this was all just a “stunt” because Murtha wasn’t really calling for an immediate withdrawal of troops.

You believe Murtha was calling for an immediate withdrawal?

My contention has been that when Murtha said that troops should be withdrawn “as soon as practicable” that pretty much meant as soon as they could wrap things up and ship out.

You believe Murtha was only calling for a withdrawal after they “wrap things up”?  By “wrap things up,” do you mean passing control of the regional security back to the Iraqis?  Just trying to clarify.

For reference, the Murtha resolution in full:

Murtha Resolution To Redeploy U.S. Forces from Iraq:

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

November 17, 2005

MR. MURTHA introduced the following joint resolution, which was referred to the Committee on _____________________

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% of the Iraqi people want U.S. forces out of Iraq;

Whereas polls also indicate that 45% 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

I) Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in

2) Congress assembled,

3) That:

4) Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is

5) hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable

6) date.

7) Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines

8) shall be deployed in the region.

9) Section 3 The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq

10) through diplomacy.

The Republican resolution:

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that
the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces
in Iraq be terminated immediately.

From Murtha’s press conference:

Murtha: ”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.”

[...]

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.

Far from cutting and running or wanting the US to fail, Murtha’s proposal is reasonable, moderate, and thoughtful.  The US is the target in Iraq - nothing will ever change that.  We have not won the hearts and minds of Iraqis (45 percent think it’s just fine to kill our troops).  We were not greeted as liberators.  Foreign fighters are flooding Iraq and the locals are getting involved as well.  This is an unwinnable situation, so Murtha is proposing we make the best of it instead of making it worse by stubbornly refusing to leave at all costs.  Letting the Iraqis know we really are not occupiers and encouraging Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds alike to be involved in their new government will send a clear message and lessen the strength of the insurgents who claim we’re nothing but invading Crusaders.

MikeAdamson:

The worst cut of all is that now some Iraqi leaders are falling for Murtha’s peacenik propaganda by requesting a timetable and even suggesting that coalition soldiers are legitimate targets for the Iraqi resistance.

When you read beyond the headline of this article, it actually sounds pretty encouraging.

First to address MikeAdamson’s tongue-in-cheek comment, the discussion about a timetable for withdrawal is of course entirely unrelated to anything Murtha said.  I suspect that none of the participants at the reconciliation conference even knows who Murtha is, let alone any of the details of his proposal.

From the WaPo article:

1. Most of the news from the conference was much more positive than you are allowing:

Sunni leaders have been pressing the Shiite-majority government to agree to a timetable for the withdrawal of all foreign troops. The statement recognized that goal, but did not lay down a specific time _ reflecting instead the government’s stance that Iraqi security forces must be built up first.

Put into English, this means that the Shi’ite leaders rejected a specific timetable, opting for setting benchmarks for predetermining the point of the US withdrawal.  Some Sunni leaders predictably are calling for a specific date for the pullout, but that is not news either.

2. This is not a change of position, but rather the same course that they were following before.

3) They did state a general timeframe,

On Monday, Iraqi Interior Minister Bayan Jabr suggested U.S.-led forces should be able to leave Iraq by the end of next year, saying the one-year extension of the mandate for the multinational force in Iraq by the U.N. Security Council this month could be the last.

“By the middle of next year we will be 75 percent done in building our forces and by the end of next year it will be fully ready,” he told the Arab satellite station Al-Jazeera.

Encouraging news.  Things are pretty much on the expected track that I laid out for you several months ago.

We are starting to wrap things up in Iraq, so naturally the Democrats and other liberals are lining up to try and take credit for it.  They fought against the war, they argued that we couldn’t win, and now that we are winning, they are trying to argue that we lost, and that they saved our butts.

Fascinating.

Carrick...I think the fact that the parties are talking is encouraging in itself. I wouldn’t expect the Shiites to agree to a specific timetable either but the fact that they’ve agreed in principle probably holds some significance. Regardless, I wouldn’t expect anything earth shattering before the election...which the Sunnis are participating in so that is two positive things in one of my posts for those that are keeping score at home.

Ryan:

(45 percent think it’s just fine to kill our troops).

One number means nothing.

Agreed.

MikeAdamson

Carrick…I think the fact that the parties are talking is encouraging in itself.

Me too… However, I think a veritable gulf still separates the two sides.  As we begin to look past the US occupation and what that signifies from an international perspective, the biggest problem for Iraq looming on the horizon is the continue marginalization of the Sunni’s in the new government.  Leaving aside that they did this to themselvs, it is a potential source for conflict that goes far beyond just seeing the US as an occupying power.

What I found very funny about this Murtha bull, was when the Republicans put withdrawal to a vote Friday night, Murtha voted to stay the course.

3 votes to withdraw
6 present votes
the rest where stay and fight

After all his comments, Murtha’s vote Friday night shows that he is posturing and grandstanding for the media. Whether it’s to divert attention from abuses of power or to work on his future re-election is irreverent, he has no business in Congress. He is there for his own gain, and not for the people of his state.

Ryan G said, This is an unwinnable situation, so Murtha is proposing we make the best of it instead of making it worse by stubbornly refusing to leave at all costs.

You’re always telling us that this war is “unwinnable”.

Just like you told us that there would be massive casualties.

Just like you told us that the vote would never be successful.

Just like you told us that the constitution wouldn’t pass.

Just like you told us that Bush wouldn’t win.

Your comments are unwinnable Ryan.

lik: Your comments are unwinnable Ryan

Which is just a nice way of saying that like all other deafists, Ryan, you are a loser.

A point that the left keeps putting forward from Murtha’s prop. is the maintaining of an over-the-horizon reaction force. Well, where are they going to be stationed? Florida? California? Perhaps Hawaii? Iraq is where that force will be stationed. A mikeforce, by it’s very nature, must operate within the boundaries of about 100kilometers. Base in center of circle that is the strike range for AirAssault strikes. It takes more than 30 minutes for them to reach you, you are going to get rolled. Ryan? That is a bad thing, O.K.? You cannot stand off at 1000 miles or more and support ground operations. That is not feasible. Murtha has put himself forward as wanting to precipitate a rapid withdrawal of Coalition forces, but when you actually read it, it is the same as the administration’s current operational plans. The only difference is he wants a large flashing count-down clock running for all the world to see. That includes terrorists. Real good idea?

[...] Which means that if forcing America to run from the conflict in Iraq with our collective tails between our legs is what it takes to make the current Congressional and White House leadership look bad so that they can win elections, Democrats are going to do that. [...]

In 20 years....

When there are 10,000 dead

The debate about whether we can win or when we should leave Iraq will still be going on. Bush will be our of office and still saying every sacrificed life was worth it.

Maybe in 50 years this debate will have an answer.

Glad to see someone has paid attention. And yes. In 9 years my son will be one of the troopers at the tip of that spear. So all the dovehawks can spare me the WAA-WAA routine.

All this hindsight bs is just that - bs.  The past is behind us soon to become history.  Whether the events of history were worth the struggles which accompanied them is a subject for historians and philosophers.  Anyway in 50 years most of us will be dead and won’t care one way or another.

[...] Democrats have been telling Americans, almost since the beginning of this war, that Iraq is a “quagmire.” That we cannot win. That things are going terribly and we should just cut and run. Yet our troops, who are actually on the ground and dealing with the day-to-day realities of our occupation of Iraq, don’t feel that things are going terribly at all. They believe in their mission and feel that they’re making great progress. They are inflicting casualty ratios on the enemy that near 20 or 30 dead terrorists to every one dead American soldier. They are rebuilding schools and hospitals. They are watching as democracy they fought for takes root in a long-oppressed land. [...]

[...] Seriously though, while Democrats like John Murtha are over here in America are telling us that we can’t win in Iraq and that we should withdraw as soon as possible people like Joe Lieberman are going to Iraq and actually observing the progress we’ve made. [...]

[...] Pelosi is endorsing Murtha and his call for immediate withdrawal. Murtha is saying that we cannot win in Iraq. Pelosi is saying that what Murtha is saying is “great wisdom.” Pelosi also voted against immediate withdrawal from Iraq. [...]

[...] The Dems cannot continue to say that they are against immediate withdrawal, or that they are for finding a plan for victory in Iraq, and still support Murtha. Murtha is saying that we cannot win. Murtha is saying that we should bring the troops home now. He is saying that our military is tired, worn out and that they’ve accomplished all they can in Iraq. [...]