John Murtha - A true patriot

[SilverNRed]

Which in practical terms insofar as accomplishing anything meaningful is the same thing. Whatever the "withdrawl" plan is, isn't or might be...setting a defined time line does nothing more than play into the adversaries hands.

507183[/snapback]

Waving a white flag yesterday or announcing that we'll wave the white flag in six months really doesn't seem that different, does it?

 

And the seem people demanding we retreat will be the ones screaming that "Bush lost the war!" after we do.

[chicot]

I can't disagree with any of that. As a matter of fact, I agree with it. In the case of the nazis, the fascists, the communists, whatever Japan called a party...we knew that "the trains had to run on time". Why this was handled so poorly, I'll never understand. We'd be about out of there by now if maybe three or four things had been done differently. I also understand the heavy handed tactics, too. When one is being shot at, one does not respond wearing kid gloves. But, sadly, it was very hard for the guys on the ground to be able to analyze, and pick and choose. That should have been done upfront to the best of anyone's ability, and as a continual process. No method or answer would have been perfect, but it could have been done better. Maybe a newer understanding between all concerned can be reached. I don't know, but at least now I think both sides are trying to make the effort.

507181[/snapback]

 

I'm not blaming the guys on the ground. They were being asked to do a job (peacekeeping) that they weren't really properly trained nor prepared for.

[Ghost of BiB]

I'm not blaming the guys on the ground. They were being asked to do a job (peacekeeping) that they weren't really properly trained nor prepared for.

507204[/snapback]

 

Neither am I.

[blzrul]

Waving a white flag yesterday or announcing that we'll wave the white flag in six months really doesn't seem that different, does it?

 

And the seem people demanding we retreat will be the ones screaming that "Bush lost the war!" after we do.

507188[/snapback]

Well so far he's not winning it.

[Campy]

Well so far he's not winning it.

507274[/snapback]

Do you think the US is losing the war?

[Ghost of BiB]

Well so far he's not winning it.

507274[/snapback]

 

Leather and rubber tonight? What's wrong with your webcam?

[PastaJoe]

Do you think the US is losing the war?

507277[/snapback]

 

Depends on which U.S. you're talking about. If you mean the U.S. soldiers; no, they're following orders and performing to the best of their ablility given the situation they've been placed in. If you mean the U.S. civilian administration who have made numerous wrong decisions and have done a disservice to the military and the public, as well as those that continue to blindly follow them, then yes, they are losing the war in Iraq, and missed the opportunity to further the war on terrorism (not terror like Bush says; terror is a tactic, terrorism is a movement) in the countries that it was mainly located in before the floodgates opened in Iraq.

[Ghost of BiB]

Depends on which U.S. you're talking about.  If you mean the U.S. soldiers; no, they're following orders and performing to the best of their ablility given the situation they've been placed in.  If you mean the U.S. civilian administration who have made numerous wrong decisions and have done a disservice to the military and the public, as well as those that continue to blindly follow them, then yes, they are losing the war in Iraq, and missed the opportunity to further the war on terrorism (not terror like Bush says; terror is a tactic, terrorism is a movement) in the countries that it was mainly located in before the floodgates opened in Iraq.

507309[/snapback]

 

The "War on Terrorism" or "War on Terror" is a seperate though related entity, and IS being prosecuted with many successes. It is simply a very different kind of war, fought through very different means. For one thing, it doesn't require a lot of troops, relatively speaking. It is intell heavy, and requires expertise in areas such as international banking and criminal investigation. We have many, many allies in the GWOT - several who for whatever reason were opposed to invading Iraq. France, Russia and Germany come forefront to the mind. Point is, the things going on in Iraq aren't diminishing the global efforts towards combating terrorism.

[Mickey]

This has become the proverbial self licking ice cream cone. I still think that out and out civil war can be avoided. What really chaps my ass is that a lot of the native insurgency could have been avoided simply by understanding Arab and African culture. For one thing, kicking down doors has a much different meaning there than even here. For that type of violation, an culturally emeshed Arab male has an obligation to exact revenge as it demonstrates his inability to protect his household. One can list dozens of other examples.

 

To the plus side, The external terrorist issues are getting better. Zarqawi has seriously overstepped and not only has HIS ass in some hot water, but also Bin-Laden's by proxy. They are going to have to adjust their tactics to continue any real influence. Fortunately, Iran doesn't like them - but sometimes makes bedfellows of convienience.

 

Will the Iraqis ever recognize their new government as a people? Maybe, it's not impossible. But, it's going to take more than a year. And now, we have to not only deal with internal insurgency, external terrorists, Iran stirring up crap, Syria stirring up crap...but also have to police the very people we put in charge.

 

Iraq wasn't Iraq not that long ago. If it weren't for where the oil reserves lie, letting it restructure into 3 separate entities might not be a bad plan. If there were some way to do that and still share in the oil revenues it might make things easier.

507160[/snapback]

 

I agree, Z made a mistake in Jordan. I don't think it was our strategy to get him to bomb some muslims who's feelings about the USA aren't so terrible that they are glad to be bombed for it. Even so, if it was luck, I'll take all the luck we can get.

 

Hasn't the civil war already started? I know it is not "out and out civil war" and maybe we can avoid that but they are killing eachother. Are our expectations now so low that limiting this to a hit and run civil war as supposed to an "out and out civil war" is our goal? Is it realistic to think this government is going to last much longer than the presence of our troops?

 

I understand your point about patience, who cares what the score is at half time, its the final score that counts. Still, the more time that goes on with seemingly little progress being made, the less time we have. I don't know precisely when it will become politically/economically, etc, untenable to remain in Iraq any longer, I just know that as each day passes, we get another day closer to reaching the end of that line. There comes a point where the prospects for the victory once hoped for: a free, stable, peacful, prosperous and democratic Iraq become too long of a long shot. One sign of that are diminished expectations.

[Adam]

I've been on the fence on whether the troops should stay in Iraq indefinitely with no plan for their departure, but after listening to someone with the stature and military experience of John Murtha, who has always looked after the best interests of the military and the country, I've been convinced that it's time to leave.  His plan for a 6-month withdrawl period, and the establishment of a regional quick-response force are the way to go.  It's time for the Iraqis to handle their own internal security. 

 

And for Dick Cheney to question John Murtha's and others patriotism because they disagree with the administration is laughable.  Murtha handled it perfectly.

When asked about Cheney's remarks on Wednesday, Murtha replied sarcastically: "I like guys who've never been there that criticize us who've been there. I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done."  In the Vietnam era, Cheney had five deferments and did not serve in the military.

506597[/snapback]

I don't question either man's patriotism- they just have different viewpoints.

 

I do disagree with Murtha about feeling we should leave- that would allow the insurgents to take over, and make Iraq a threat

[Ghost of BiB]

I agree, Z made a mistake in Jordan.  I don't think it was our strategy to get him to bomb some muslims who's feelings about the USA aren't so terrible that they are glad to be bombed for it.  Even so, if it was luck, I'll take all the luck we can get.

 

Hasn't the civil war already started?  I know it is not "out and out civil war" and maybe we can avoid that but they are killing eachother.  Are our expectations now so low that limiting this to a hit and run civil war as supposed to an "out and out civil war" is our goal?  Is it realistic to think this government is going to last much longer than the presence of our troops?

 

I understand your point about patience, who cares what the score is at half time, its the final score that counts.  Still, the more time that goes on with seemingly little progress being made, the less time we have.  I don't know precisely when it will become politically/economically, etc, untenable to remain in Iraq any longer, I just know that as each day passes, we get another day closer to reaching the end of that line.  There comes a point where the prospects for the victory once hoped for: a free, stable, peacful, prosperous and democratic Iraq become too long of a long shot.  One sign of that are diminished expectations.

507460[/snapback]

 

I see some parallels to the situation in the Balkans. Ethnic groups artificially pushed together in maplines drawn up by a third party. Some how, that's getting worked out. A part of the problem in effecting a coherent strategy in Iraq is that everyone is not playing off the same page. This is more than a military problem. I strongly suggest reading what you can Google on "Beyond Goldwater-Nichols", published by the NDU. It describes the adjustments that could and should be made to our approach to such situations, by combing and effectively utilizing ALL elements of national power to affect and effect a goal. Something that was successful in the Balkans was the creation of a Joint Interagency Task Force reprting to the NSC. A political-military plan was drawn up specifically for the situation, under PDD-56. To my knowledge, this hasn't been done by this administration. Everyone is playing, but as far as I know, not really in concert. In my "perfect world" this would have been created and functioning well up front, before a Bradley ever crossed the border.

 

I still, personally believe that there is time to do something along these lines so the crap can get straightened out and we can get the hell out of there. What is "victory"?

 

I'll work on another post for that.

[SilverNRed]

Well so far he's not winning it.

507274[/snapback]

So we're losing? Tell that to the guys over there. Like Matt Lauer did.

 

1. We are winning and we've accomplished a whole helluva lot in just over two years.

 

2. Announcing that we're leaving, either tomorrow or in sixth months, doesn't help.

[Mickey]

A part of the problem in effecting a coherent strategy in Iraq is that everyone is not playing off the same page.

507485[/snapback]

 

Two plus years into this bloody war and we still don't have a "coherent strategy in Iraq." Yikes.

 

I can't guess at the future in Iraq. I do know that if any part of it depends on drumming up the vanishing support for the war here at home, the administration is in trouble if they can't figure out anyway to shore up their own credibility besides attacking democrats.

 

The right just doesn't get the extent to which the WMD's, the "last throes", the Niger yellowcake and the like have destroyed the administration's credibility. I heard Rummy this morning and he is still spinning that 212,000 Iraqi's in uniform number even though the military itself says only 700 are ready for independent combat. As John Q. Public, what the freak am I supposed to think about the progress on Iraqi troops being able to take over from us? Is it 212,000 or 700? I mean, that is a range of 211,300. Somebody is either waaaaaaaayyyyyy off or a total and complete bullshitter. Really, who cares if there are 80,000,000,000,000 Iraqi's in uniform if none of them can take over for our guys?

 

Tell me why, after hearing that on two different shows from Rummy this very morning, that I should ever believe a thing he or his administration ever says about this war?

[Mickey]

So we're losing?  Tell that to the guys over there.  Like Matt Lauer did.

 

1.  We are winning and we've accomplished a whole helluva lot in just over two years.

 

2.  Announcing that we're leaving, either tomorrow or in sixth months, doesn't help.

507541[/snapback]

Precisely what has to be achieved before we can leave and how will those achievements be measured?

 

Is the insurgency more lethal, less lethal or just as lethal as it was last year? Last month? Last week?

 

If we have not been able to defeat this insurgencey in over two years with the best equipped, trained and motivated force in the world with the most advanced weaponry and other technology, what makes you think the Iraqi's themselves will be able to accomplish this?

 

If defeat of the insurgency is not necessary for victory to be achieved, define what victory means in this war.

[SilverNRed]

If we have not been able to defeat this insurgencey in over two years with the best equipped, trained and motivated force in the world with the most advanced weaponry and other technology, what makes you think the Iraqi's themselves will be able to accomplish this?

507594[/snapback]

Probably the fact that there are about 25 million Iraqis not taking part in the insurgency. And there is a limit as to how quickly we can train them.

 

A relatively small group of people can still blow up cars and kill civilians but they aren't growing in influence and popular support. Zarqawi is desperate enough that he's just lashing out at any soft targets he can find, to the point where he just killed any sympathy/support he had in Jordan. How on earth can anyone look at the coalition/Iraqi forces and the terrorists, and come to the conclusion that the terrorists are winning? It's really not that difficult for 2-3 people to blow up a car and murder some people, but they aren't achieving anything. While we're continuing to transfer power/sovereignty to the people of Iraq, what are the terrorists working to do besides kill civilians and even attacking mosques? In other words, tell me how they plan to win.

 

Better question for anyone in favor of immediate or announced removal of US forces: Why wouldn't the terrorists view that as a victory? Wouldn't this embolden them in the future by making the US a "paper tiger" like we were after Somalia? It's basically the only victory they can possibly achieve.

 

And if "losing" the war means we're taking casualties and suffering setbacks, then the United States has "lost" every single war it has ever fought.

[Ghost of BiB]

And if "losing" the war means we're taking casualties and suffering setbacks, then the United States has "lost" every single war it has ever fought.

 

Excellent line.

[SilverNRed]

Excellent line.

507629[/snapback]

Thanks, boss. Was the rest of it any good?

[Ghost of BiB]

Thanks, boss.  Was the rest of it any good? 

507651[/snapback]

 

Yes, but that one was the quote line.

[Mickey]

Probably the fact that there are about 25 million Iraqis not taking part in the insurgency.  And there is a limit as to how quickly we can train them.

 

A relatively small group of people can still blow up cars and kill civilians but they aren't growing in influence and popular support.  Zarqawi is desperate enough that he's just lashing out at any soft targets he can find, to the point where he just killed any sympathy/support he had in Jordan.  How on earth can anyone look at the coalition/Iraqi forces and the terrorists, and come to the conclusion that the terrorists are winning?  It's really not that difficult for 2-3 people to blow up a car and murder some people, but they aren't achieving anything.  While we're continuing to transfer power/sovereignty to the people of Iraq, what are the terrorists working to do besides kill civilians and even attacking mosques?  In other words, tell me how they plan to win.

 

Better question for anyone in favor of immediate or announced removal of US forces: Why wouldn't the terrorists view that as a victory?  Wouldn't this embolden them in the future by making the US a "paper tiger" like we were after Somalia?  It's basically the only victory they can possibly achieve.

 

And if "losing" the war means we're taking casualties and suffering setbacks, then the United States has "lost" every single war it has ever fought.

507623[/snapback]

Well, in two plus years we are up to 700 of those 25 million Iraqi's ready to fight on their own. So by 2008 we should be up to 1,400 and by 2010, 2,100. Hmmm. Of those 25 million Iraqi's, how many of them want to kill us? How many want us out, now? If numbers are the problem, and all those Iraqi's the solution, shouldn't we send in more troops? Didn't we send in too few to start with?

 

I don't think anyone is arguing that taking a casualty means we are losing, if they had, you would have mad a hell of a point. Save that line, maybe someone will and you can trot it out then.

 

The point is that the lethality of the insurgency has not been reduced.

 

What needs to be achieved for us to leave and deny the terrorists their victory and how will those acievements be measured? Is reducing the lethality of the insurgency something that must be achieved or is that meaningless?

[chicot]

As you may have picked up on, I'm no fan of this war.  Two people I know, one fairly well, the other only in passing, were killed in Iraq.  A third is trying to get the money to get a prosthetic lower leg (for some reason supporting the troops seems to stop when they come home maimed).  Nobody wants the remaining troops to come home ASAP more than me.

 

That said, I don't see how they'll be able to come home in 6 months.  Leaving Iraq with a rather unstable government and probably on the verge of a civil war over the recent Sunni abuse scandal, and a spotty infrastructure to boot, would be perhaps the worst thing they could do.

 

IMO, it would destabalize the entire region, and if we thought Iraq is/was a training ground for terrorists, an unstable, unsettled, and unsecure Iraq would make Taliban-era Afghanistan look like an amusement park.

That's a pretty powerful retort by Murtha.  The administration has gone on the offensive.  It's an age-old tactic in politics.  They control the debate, they control the topic, and it deflects the debate from other areas where the administration is embroiled in controversy.

 

Murtha's comments and retort only serve to assist the administration's goal of keeping the real issues off the front page IMO.

506690[/snapback]

 

 

The problem I have with this sort of argument is the assumption that Iraq can ever be stable while being occupied by foreign troops. Where is the evidence for this? The levels of violence are getting worse, not better and the same goes for sectarian tensions between the different communities. Iraq cannot be stable while the occupation continues because the presence of these troops is in itself a major destabilising influence.

 

What emerges in Iraq out of all this is not going to take shape until it is left to the Iraqis by themselves to determine what this will be. All the occupation is doing is putting off that day and all the time more and more people are dying.

 

The establishment of a definite timetable for withdrawal will do the following:

 

1) It will force the eternally dithering Iraqi government to actually start making some decisions. They will know that they will have to come to some sort of arrangement with the insurgents (excluding Zarqawi and his fanatics who will have to be killed/captured) because they know that otherwise they face the very real prospect of civil war. At the moment, the US presence acts as a security blanket for them and they can dither endlessly and get away with not making any real decisions.

 

2) Iraqi nationalists that are fighting to end the occupation will think again. Is it really worth them risking their lives if the US is leaving in 6 months anyway? This will also drive a further wedge between Zarqawi fanatics and Iraqi nationalists. The continual refusal of the US to give some sort of timetable for withdrawal only fuels the idea that the US never really intends to leave and plans permanent bases in Iraq (this is a very commonly held viewpoint in the Arab world).

 

It's also worth remembering that, in theory at least, this is not a call that is the US's to make. It has said that it will leave if asked by the Iraqi government. The shia alliance that holds most of the seats in parliament had as one of it's major policies the establishment of a clear timetable for withdrawal. This was mysteriously forgotten once they gained power. Even so, 30-40% of the members of parliament voted in favour of setting a definite timetable for the troops withdrawal. With increased Sunni participation in the forthcoming elections this may well become a majority in the new parliament.