A pro-military Democrat who once voted to back the war now says it is time to bring the troops home. "Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency," Rep. John Murtha said Thursday.
| Iraqi civilians have become the primary targets of the Iraqi insurgency. The Iraqi insurgency is the secondary target of American troops. Their primary target is the Zarqawi international terror network. |
"They are united against U.S. forces and we have become a catalyst for violence. The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion."
 Those are statements of opinion, presented as fact. If they're "united" against U.S. forces, why are many joining the Iraqi government forces? Exactly who is "united"? That doesn't seem to include the Kurds, who are mostly pro-American. It doesn't seem to include a large — my guess would be a majority — segment of the Shiites, who're joining up to fight against the bad guyz. What he seems to be referring to is the Sunnis, who are approximately 20 percent of the Iraqi population and close to 100 percent of the domestic insurgency. We're a "catalyst" for violence in the sense that we're an excuse. If we were to withdraw tomorrow, the violence would continue, probably resulting in the Kurds "withdrawing" as well; the Sunni areas would probably come to resemble Somalia, with the tribal primitives fighting the international terror network for control and the opportunity to impose themselves on the Shiites. The Shia areas would likely split, as well, with parts aligning with Iran and parts attempting to retain their Iraqi identity. So what Neville's proposing is a recipe for anarchy. That's what I'd call "a flawed policy, wrapped in an illusion." But I don't think Neville has any illusions; I think his remarks are for domestic consumption, and that he doesn't give a rat's patou whether they aid and/or abet the bad guyz in Iraq. |
As a Vietnam veteran and top Democrat on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee with close ties to many military officers, the 30-year Pennsylvania lawmaker carries more credibility with his colleagues on the issue than a number of other Democrats who have opposed the war from the start.
| Yet there are any number of other Vietnam, or other veterans for that matter, many of them with close ties to military officers, who don't share his opinions. One doesn't have to be a veteran to recognize the facts on the Iraq war. All one has to do is pay a minimum of attention. |
"Our military has accomplished its mission and done its duty," Murtha told reporters at news conference with a half-dozen American flags arrayed behind him.
 All those American flags are a nice touch. I consider myself to be pretty patriotic, but I have an abiding suspicion of ostentatious flag displays. But then, I've never called a news conference, either, and I never lived in Washington for 30 years receiving a congressional salary, either. I've never had the opportunity to play politix with the military, never jockeyed for position. I don't have the political skills for glad-handing, and I have enough contempt for the Democrat antiwar caucus not to want to be identified with them any any way.
The Dems took great umbrage at the "mission accomplished" banner behind President Bush when he made his speech thanking our troops for their efforts two years ago. The mission, they charged, was far from accomplished. They were either dissimulating at the time, or they had already ceased paying attention, since that immediate mission — tossing Sammy from the Seat of all Power in Baghdad had, in fact, been accomplished. But as I wrote here in the runup to the war, once we had taken Iraq, Iran and Syria and the Soddies would try to snatch the bone away from us. Anyone with a 3-digit IQ had to realize that would happen, whether they envisioned it happening in the form it's taking or not. Personally, I was expecting something a lot more subtle. |
"It's time to bring them home," he said.
 If we're fighting a War on Terror, which Neville's obviously not, that statement simply makes no sense. Sammy and his Elite Repulican Guard™ and his 7-million strong Quds Army, and his vicious Fedayeen can be dismissed as speed bumps on the road to the real enemy, which is Zark and his Minions of Evil. Ansar al-Islam, tucked away in an obscure corner of Kurdistan, was only a tiny part of Zark's operation, which at the time the war began was primarily the al-Tawhid organization, which was even then active in Europe. We're now grappling with them, up close and personal, and we've beaten the snot out of them in Fallujah, in Ramadi, and Qaim. There's a continuous flow of recruits, and whenever they concentrate in one place we beat them up.
Hand in hand with the military operations on the ground are the diplomatic and political operations in the area. Iraq represented the weakest link in the Middle East's stagnant pool of "stability." Syria's the next weakest link, and we're putting pressure on them using a wide variety of tools, to include military pressure from Abar along the border. We're putting pressure on them as well from the UN, where even the Frenchies are working generally toward the same ends we are. The stupidity of Syria's leadership helps, and they misstepped horribly with the Hariri bombing, which got them tossed from Lebanon, which was another domino. Leb has its own problems, given its Byzantine internal politix, but I can see Hezbollah becoming more isolated as the puppet mask comes off further. Neville's somehow missed that all these events, and no doubt lots more that we haven't noticed, are interconnected. Removing the U.S. troop presence in Iraq removes one of the weapons in our arsenal.
Probably the greatest mistake Neville and his fellows in the antiwar caucus are making is to assume the U.S. is taking a passive, reactive position, that events are beyond our control. In fact, we're the drivers in the Middle East at the moment. The beast is hard to control, the enemy is vicious, tenacious, and intelligent (often in an Islamic or Arab sort of way), but as long as we're concentrating we're in tenuous control. It triggers my gag reflex that our domestic politicians either can't see it or don't want it. |
Referring to President Bush, Murtha said, "I resent the fact, on Veterans Day, he criticized Democrats for criticizing them."
| The criticism is quite justified from our point of view, be it on Veterans' Day or any other day of the year. For years, We the People have tolerated this kind of carping, not only un-patriotic, but anti-patriotic, through good times and bad. The national interest is dismissed with contempt. Doing the right thing is dismissed with contempt. Having Learned the Lessons of Vietnam™, these hacks publicly "support our troops" but never their objectives, while their supporters suggest the troops kill their officers and reenact some sort of Battleship Potemkin uprising. |
"Congressman Murtha is a respected veteran and politician who has a record of supporting a strong America," said White House press secretary Scott McClellan, with Bush in South Korea for a meeting with Asian leaders. "So it is baffling that he is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party."
| I don't find it baffling at all. He's decided there's more political capital available on that side. His vision ends at the boundaries of his district. |
Murtha estimated that all U.S. troops could be pulled out within six months. He introduced a resolution Thursday that would force the president to call back the military, but it was unclear when, or if, either GOP-run chamber of Congress would vote on it.
| I'd call that political grandstanding. But it doesn't matter when the troops are pulled out. It could probably be done in a month if the planning started tomorrow. What matters to Neville and the antiwar caucus is that it's done, and done under pressure. If we stay in Iraq ten years, and we kill every turban in sight, cleaning the Augean stables squeaky clean, and then start planning for withdrawal, people like Neville will be standing up in Congress and hollering and introducing resolutions demanding it be speeded up. And when the troops are home they'll take "credit" for pulling them out. |
On the Senate floor Thursday, Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., called on Bush and the White House to stop what he called an orchestrated attack campaign. "It's a weak, spineless display of politics at a time of war," said Reid, who spoke while Bush was in Asia.
 My breath's taken away by the pure dishonesty of that remark. Bush is reacting to a continuing series of weak, spineless displays of politix in a time of war by the antiwar caucus, of which Reid is a proud member. I'd like to see Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and Rice and all the other leading lights of the administration beat them up each and every day. As I've remarked on a number of occasions, the biggest mistake Bush has made from day one has been not to remind the American people day in and day out exactly what kind of enemy we're fighting and why. Instead, the national attention span's been allowed to wander from Afghanistan back to Britney's bosom. Short of another major boom within our borders, it's doubtful it will wander back. The result is that people don't realize the extent of the Islamist threat, to the point where fellow travelers have begun referring to it as "fictitious." That's a really bad sign. |
|