I said a couple of days ago that no serious political figure on either side of aisle was agitating for immediate withdrawal from Iraq. I also fretted in comments that the Republican leadership of the Senate sending what could only be read as a presidential rebuke on the conduct of the war in Iraq (albeit non-binding) could only lead to a race to the bottom.
The fact that I’m now hitting .500 as a prognosticator is one that I take no pleasure in. John Murtha is a serious man, a respectable member of Congress and a lion of the Democratic Party. He is a distinguished combat veteran and a reliable friend to the troops. He’s no lightweight, neither is he a rabid partisan, nor any week-kneed jelly belly – not with a Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts. So when he advocates for a quick return of the troops in Iraq, it is incumbent on those of us who support the effort to set aside our knee-jerk reactions and think for a moment about what the man is saying.
Mr. Murtha does have a point: Our troops are a prime target of the insurgency and some of the violence there would certainly subside if our folks came home. The planting of roadside IEDs in particular would probably be vastly reduced – they are meant to disrupt coalition force routes of communication and are one of the primary sources of murder and maiming among our troops, especially since the insurgents, for the most part, avoid stand-up fights.
Or at least, Darwinism being still in effect, the insurgents that are still alive avoid stand-up fights.
There is a nationalist, even patriotic element to the insurgency that is undeniable, even while it is lamentable: The presence of foreign troops on Iraqi soil is an unendurable goad to tens of thousands in the Sunni west particularly. Many of these represent the former ruling elite of Iraq, or imagine that they do. Just as the European royalty in centuries past referred to themselves as the countries they led, “Here comes France, in all his proud glory,” so too do the fat men of al Anbar consider themselves to be Iraq, to personify it. It is theirs. The 60% of the population made up of Shia exist for these men as the peasants did in feudal times on the continent: To squat in misery until they are called up, herded in to lines and whipped to the front to provide cannon fodder for wars declared by their betters. The Kurds to the north are seen by them as foreigners to be viewed with deep suspicion, if they weren’t being ethnically cleansed from their ancestral homes, or gassed in the streets.
Because at this moment we need to be very clear: The people responsible for the butchery over there in Iraq, apart from the odd foreign jihadi come looking for his trip to paradise, are the same ones that were responsible for it back in the bad old days.
They’re just doing it from opposition, now.
There are some other things that ought to be made clear as well, as serious men make ultimately unserious proposals: There is no taking it back. We don’t get a do-over. Done is done. I have said before that there were serious and principled, patriotic even, arguments to be made against the war back in the long summer of 2002, the fall and winter. Once the decision was made and the boys stepped over the line of departure though, all of those arguments became moot. From that point on the only choices on the table were victory or defeat. From that point on, you either hoped we won, or hoped we lost.
There is of course a third potentiality: It is possible to be convinced that victory was unachievable in any case, and that we ought to cut our losses as soon as we could and leave the field to the most efficiently brutal cut-throats. In order to believe this to be true, you’d have to believe either that brown people don’t deserve the kind of freedoms that we in the West take for granted, or that perhaps they do, but they’d rather be enslaved than be granted those freedoms by strangers, or that they do but that the cost of gifting freedom to a troubled region is too high for us to bear. Terror is an awful thing, after all – but they can’t get us all.
A person could believe that, I suppose. It would do him no credit, but he could believe it.
(Parenthetically, were you aware that almost 40% of the Iraqi population was under the age of 14? Ten million souls, out of a population of 25 million. Does that put things into sharper perspective when you reflect that 10 million people went to the polls this fall to vote on the constitutional referendum? Sixty-seven percent of the voting age populace turned out to purple their fingers and choose their future in the face of the worst kind of terror in a land that had been, two short years ago, no stranger to oppression and tyranny, and has been, in the intervening period, no stranger to senseless, orgiastic slaughter.
In our 2004 national election, the most sharply contested as a percentage of the voting age populace since 1968, our turnout was almost 61%. This in an environment of perfect security.
We could learn about democracy from these people.)
So we leave, the job undone. What happens next?
Jaafari’s government struggles on a while, trying to accommodate the Sunni west. The hard-won victories on the banks of the Euphrates fade away in memory as the fat men consolidate their power. The mayhem continues in the capital, just to keep the funding lines open from Syria, from Saudi. Just to keep the jihadi’s showing up for more. Just to keep the Shia off-balance.
Tit-for-tat murders escalate as blood feuds replace the throttled rule of law. And as always, in that sad, shattered land, fingers wet to sample the prevailing winds. The Iraqi Army fights, dies, fragments, falls apart and is replaced by local militias. The Sadrists take up arms in the east, the Badr Brigades in the south, the pesh merga in the north and the Saddamite Ba’ath in the west. Everywhere, the knives are sharpened.
Jaafari is assassinated, or removed in a coup, and a “unity government,” a triumvirate of Shia, Kurd and Sunni attempt to stop the bleeding. But in the west, the fat men continue to plot, consolidate and butcher. This is their Iraq. The gutters run red, and at night the sound of gunfire and explosions merely set off the continuous ululation of the widowed, maimed and orphaned.
Another coup takes place against the ineffectual central troika. A Shia general takes his place at the palace and the murdering escalates. The Kurds have had enough and take their leave, bringing Mosul with them and all the oil wealth of the north. The Turks eye a nascent Kurdish homeland uneasily, frowning. They draw their own swords and sharpen them. Forced emigration of Arabs from the north, a reverse “Arabization,” fuels the rage in the center. The philosophical middle ground evaporates, leaving the dialogue to be carried out by the most extreme. Baghdad becomes Beirut. The ones that trusted us die in their tens of thousands, and six thousand miles away we cannot pretend we did not know that this would happen. The remorseless eye of international media feeds all of it into our living rooms and we cannot look away. Some of us will blame it all on the man who sent us in. Others will blame it all on those who called for us to leave. Never having lost a fight in battle, our soldiers will feel betrayed – few of the next generation will wish to follow after them.
And all of this will scarcely matter, because while we hurl recriminations upon each other, they will continue to die in industrial quantities. Eventually the south secedes, aligning itself with Islamic Republic of Iran in order to protect itself from the increasingly desperate depredations of the resource-starved Sunnis. The Saudi’s clutch at their robes and put their own fingers to the air, while the worst of their princes expiate their guilt at all the whoring and drinking they have done across the causeway by sending millions more to Wahhabist madrassas throughout south asia. The streets burn in Kuwait.
At this point, although it seems but small beer compared to the anguished cries of a million souls, gas is $5 per gallon and you are bicycling to work, if you still have a job.
The Syrian Ba’ath recognizes that we are done for another twenty years or so, and organizes more clandestine mayhem in Lebanon. Civil strife, bombings and another coup precede a “request for assistance.” The Syrian army returns to their Lebanese barracks. Those who waved flags for the Cedar Revolution offer up their bodies in resistance, certain that the world will come to their aid this time. They die disabused of that notion. Everyone else takes note: Murder bonds are up, freedom bonds are down. Don’t make eye contact.
Once again the rockets begin to fall to earth in the north of Israel. Once again the Israelis shoot back. The Iranians call our bluff, and the reactors go to work re-processing spent Uranium. The jihadis congratulate themselves on having been proved right: They knew we weren’t up to it. Thus gratified, ranks swelling, they go back to planning new devilry, using the tools and infrastructure of relatively modern Arab state.
Everything falls apart. The center cannot hold.
You think winning is hard? You should see what losing looks like.
Don’t pretend we couldn’t see it coming. Don’t pretend you didn’t have your part in it, one way or the other.
Eyes wide open.
Brilliant, Lex.
God help us all.
You are absolutely on target, Lex. That is the price of whimping out in THIS war. The price in Viet Nam was “only” 50,000 dead on our side (nobody counts the Hmong or South Vietnamese who fought at our side). The price here will be absolutely catastrophic—a watershed moment in human history. Something like the reverse of Martel the Hammer.
Seconded.
Nice work as usual Lex.
Excellent hypothetical scenario about the vacum certain to be created, guaranteed civil war and further ME radicalization. I’m sure you could go on and on but no matter which direction you went the potential situation would be all bad, real bad..for us and the west.
Yesterday, I really listened to what Murtha had to say at the original press conference announcing his position. In a nutshell, this is what he proposes:
a- immediate redeployment-6 month timeline.
b- his beloved Corps to maintain a quick response force off shore (MEU size?) to respond as required (no definition as to what) ad infinitum. Yep, that’s all….
With all due respect to Mr. Murtha (and he got plenty of that last night despite what thet caricature Pelosi had to say), that is unacceptable and strategically unsound. As such, Chairman Hunter called his and the houses bluff, and effectively nuetralized a real bad idea- over whelmingly. That’s a fact Jack, spin it as they may (will).
From THE bottom line for me is this. The troops from boots to senior NCOs support the mission as do 98% of all the officers up to the CENTCOM commander. They do not want to quit, continue to report progress, and continually conceptualize an endstate, that Lex faithfully reports on on this site. As such, I will not stand in their way from that vision and neither should anyone else. It ain’t right. Trust me- If I hear otherwise from the troops prosecuting it, I will back off supporting this war like a hound off a skunk.
OK. So let’s have a debate about resources, strategies, tactics, interogation, etc., etc. but not about not completing the mission. Maybe last night will put us on a different track….
Clears head.
Nah– the MSM will spinning again by Sunday, Plamegate will continue to be-fuddle all and the “Bush-Lied” crowd will continue their mantra….
B2
Linky Love
Lex paints a picture of what a premature pullout from Iraq would look like; it’s not pretty. Rationales and questions of implementation aside, this is why we can’t just “let it go.”
Scary scenario if we pull out before the job is done. I don’t want us to abandon the good work that is being done. As you said, the debates over Operation Iraqi Freedom should have stopped as soon as our troops were on the ground.
In many ways I’m one of those damn liberals myself, very many of my mates make me seem far right….. It’s been a long road but I’ve managed to show most why leaving Iraq as is would be a complete disaster… It’s always quite satisfying to convert a pacifist…
In any case the latest MinDef meeting has been more of the same… it seems the current Govt. will have the ballls to stay involved…
I personally think that we need to pull out. Bring my son home. Forget the sacrifice made by men that aren’t afraid like Murtha (and Murtha brought his rebuke from Marines on his own shoulders – no one did it for him) and bring ‘em home.
Then I would institute a rule that no one that voted for the war or served in the war could hold a position in the military. Only those that do not believe in war should be allowed to defend the country.
I am reorganizing and going into the casket making business. I’ll be rich. And living in Costa Rica.
Frankly, after watching the events of the past three weeks unfold I no longer believe we can fight a sustainable war. I also do not believe that the Left of this country are worth defending anyway. Losing friends and attending funerals does that to a man. Funny how that works.
But of course we will stay the course. That damn thing called Honor demands it. Were it so that I, like Murtha, could find my way to forget what I had ingrained in me about Honor, Duty, God, Country in order to advocate surrender to an ideology. It would make life so much easier!
Meanwhile, let’s continue to support our enemies from the Floor of Congress and further handicap the men and women on the ground. Who needs ‘em anyway. They always vote Conservative anyway. And we all know that our’s is only false patriotism and false pride. The true goals of country are all about peace and mankind. Let’s just see how many replays we can get on Al Jezeera and Arab CNN to help our boys with the boredom of dying. Maybe we can expand the whole “your mission is a lie” or Murtha’s new meme “we can’t win it so cut and run” to include and encompass the old tried and true “baby killers” to spice things up a bit. That should definitely relieve the boredom of death don’t ya’ think? Hey! since we’re so far along the road of the 60s and 70s we might as well, eh? What’s next? Getting spit on in the airports?
Bush Lied! You Were Maimed For A Lie! No Blood For Oil! We Can’t Win So Let’s Run!
As of 11/18/2005 Al Qaeda need only sustain and wait. Murtha will have his wish.
Yeah, cynicism works for me!
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.” Thus spake each and every member of Congress when they assumed their office.
We are at WAR; our country’s very life is threatened, not (yet) with nuclear holocaust, but a foreign enemy more invidious, insatiable and bent on converting or killing all infidels. Loyal opposition is expected in a democracy. However, it seems our ‘domestic enemies’ are the very members of Congress that speak the Oath, but do not recognize its import.
I find it most interesting the Rep. Murtha voted against the measure he ‘sponsored’.
One of your very best !
We are surrounded by shameful politicans. Thank the Lord for the brave men in uniform who know what Honor means.
Lex – what you said about really taking a moment to listen to what Murtha has to say is an excellent point. Too often on both sides there is a knee-jerk party-line reaction to what someone says about this war. The ones doing the job in the ‘box are smart enought to know that his stance does not mean he doesn’t support them – it means he gives a damn.
Mistakes have been made all around on this thing – the intel was wrong, but pretty much everyone (Dem’s and Rep’s alike – except maybe Scott Ritter) was willing to trust it – just look at the votes in Congress. The press went along willingly – what a story opportunity. The President showed a remarkable lack of understanding when he said to the insurgents “Bring ‘em on.” The five-sided puzzle palace planned a brilliantly right up to the point of winning Baghdad. Etc., etc.,etc.
Both sides need to sober up and really work on a way to close this thing out without letting the whole region descend into the 7th circle of hell. The solution is not to cut and run. But at the same time, Bush needs to get out of his echo chamber, speak frankly and plainly about this thing, and LEAD. F the polls – he’s not up for re-election anyway.
Thanks, Lex.
I support the war in Iraq and the troops, but I have watched with increasing dismay as various folks in the political world, the commentariat and the blogosphere have trashed Representative Murtha with vile, shrill personal attacks.
This approach screams ‘weakness and lack of confidence’ and is beneath the dignity of anyone who believes in their cause.
You’re taking exactly the right approach: let’s talk facts, reason, and the likely outcomes of our actions.
Vile, shrill personal attacks huh Barry? Gee, I guess him getting Marines killed with his BS rhetoric amounts to only politics huh? Anything for the party line is just okie dokie huh?
You know who is taking him to task the most Barry? The Marines themselves. You remember them don’t you? The ones with the rifles on the ground and all that? Here’s a quote from one for you:
“The Marine Corps is a pack of wolves. We have far more distinguished combat veterans currently serving that will most certainly become statesmen someday. We speak little. The wolf pack doesn’t support that. That Marine Colonel was making a loud statement from inside the pack, “You must hunt alone now. We do not share our food with you.”
Another:
“Why do I describe the Marine Corps this way? Because EVERYTIME you hear and believe anything that prevents your Marines from completing our job in Afghanistan, Iraq and around the world you now know what you are disgracing and how you are dishonoring the fallen Marines that have held it to custom for 230 years.”
Again:
“Once a Marine Always a Marine, I guess I?ɬ
Vile, shrill personal attacks huh Barry? Gee, I guess him getting Marines killed with his BS rhetoric amounts to only politics huh? Anything for the party line is just okie dokie huh?
You know who is taking him to task the most Barry? The Marines themselves. You remember them don’t you? The ones with the rifles on the ground and all that? Here’s a quote from one for you:
“The Marine Corps is a pack of wolves. We have far more distinguished combat veterans currently serving that will most certainly become statesmen someday. We speak little. The wolf pack doesn’t support that. That Marine Colonel was making a loud statement from inside the pack, “You must hunt alone now. We do not share our food with you.”
Another:
“Why do I describe the Marine Corps this way? Because EVERYTIME you hear and believe anything that prevents your Marines from completing our job in Afghanistan, Iraq and around the world you now know what you are disgracing and how you are dishonoring the fallen Marines that have held it to custom for 230 years.”
Again:
“Once a Marine Always a Marine, I guess I’ll have to send a reminder to Congressman Murtha as he didn’t “get it” when I saw and talked to him a couple months ago here in Iraq!”
Again:
“You spent 37 years in the Marine Corps, was wounded in Viet Nam while serving as an intelligence offer, watched the aftermath of America’s abandonment of South Viet Nam, and you, of all people, are calling for an immediate withdrawl of American forces from Iraq..?
Are you crazy?”
Again:
“Murtha, you served 37 years, and retired a Colonel?
You must be a better politician than you were a Marine…”
Would you like me to continue? I’ve got a hundred more.
The statement read by Ms. Schmidt was legit. If you cannot see what Murtha just did then I suggest you throw on a kevlar, vest, grab an A2 and check it out for yourself. You just simply cannot comprehend the escalation words can cause. Go live it and then come back and tell me what is vile and shrill. Or would you prefer I simply list the names and hometowns and save you the trouble? More anaesthetic that way and insular.
We live in an instantaneous comm world Barry and Murtha is playing 24/7. All Murtha. All the time. In the mosques. On the streets. Anywhere. Everywhere. The muj’s best recruiting tool of the month. You cannot intellectualize the damage done.
Yeah, Lex is a much better man then I’ll ever be. His take is the proper one and filled with positive direction. There’s only a small handful of folks I admire and respect and Lex is one even though we’ve never met. But he is Navy and Murtha broke the Trust.
I’ll never forgive the SOB! Then again I guess after awhile you get used to death so maybe I’ll give Murtha a second chance. Not!
Consider me on the top of the list of the vile and shrill!
JarheadDad -
You’re completely entitled to your opinion, your reaction of visceral disgust, and so forth. Venting is good for the soul, and no doubt for the blood pressure as well.
That’s fine, but it doesn’t address this very real problem: we seem to be losing the poltical center, in this country, on the issue of the War in Iraq.
I’m conservative and pro-military, and have supported the intervention in Iraq from the beginning; most people like me always have, and will continue to, and what Murtha says isn’t very convincing to me or others like me.
Most liberals haven’t, and probably never will, support the war; Murtha may encourage them, but he is preaching to the converted.
Listen up: Murtha is a conservative/populist Democrat, NOT one of the usual lefty-loony suspects, and is a veteran Congressman with enormous credibility on the Hill in military matters, and is, as Lex noted, traditionally a strong supporter of the U.S. military.
The political “center” is crucial, and when people like Murtha turn, we’re in danger of losing them.
Let the Marines howl in outrage, by all means, every last one of them. A friend in the military has pointed out that family squabbles are always ugliest, and he’s totally right.
And let the far right wing of the party personally excoriate Murtha and call him “traitor” and “quisling.” Great. Hope you feel better, gang.
But if that’s all we’ve got to counter him, we’re going to lose the middle, and that means we’re eventually going to lose the crucial margin of support for the war in Congress… and that means we’re going to lose the war.
I’d prefer to win.
And that means that those of us who support the war need to counter Murtha with the facts, not with namecalling.
There have been some egregious mistakes in how this war has been conducted so far, and we need to be mature enough to admit those, but we damn sure also need to point out that we’ve learned from our mistakes and have had some very real, tangible successes; we need to talk about those, and talk about how we’re going to win, and what happens if we don’t.
My opinion only. As I said, I respect your right to your opinion, but I think outrage and vitriol is a losing strategy here.
And apparently the President agrees with me, as he has toned down the anti-Murtha rhetoric emanating from his Administration quite considerably in the last 24 hours. Why, just last Friday, Murtha was “endorsing the policy line of Michael Moore,” but today he is “a fine man” with whom the President respectfully disagrees.
The President, or at least his advisors, know a losing strategy when they see one, too.
Make no mistake Barry, I understand what you and Lex are saying and it is the proper tact. Meanwhile, we’ll keep burying Marines because of the “words” of those like Murtha.
My whole point with all of this, and the Marines’ as well, is that “words” have cause and effect. It’s time these people understand that when they go off like Murtha did it has instant and draconian results. It is something they need to understand and right now.
Dissent and debate are fine things. There is a very thin line between dissension and sedition. Murtha crossed that line and I can guarantee you he realizes it now. Like I said, I’ll supply you with the names and hometowns. If anyone wants to debate I see absolutely no problem with that. If you want to advocate surrender or give recruiting aid and comfort to our enemies then I have a major problem with that. Vitriol? Heard Pelosi, Dean, Kennedy, Kerry, Clinton, et al lately? What they need to understand is what that equates to on the ground.
Or do they and just don’t care? When their vile and shrill rhetoric cost lives it is no big deal. When we who sit on the sideline and remain silent finally get our backs up we are vile and shrill. That is why Murtha is catching it from the Marines. Enough is enough! Who would of ever thought this stab in the back would’ve come from such a man? He will never make his peace with the Grunts of that you can be certain. They are the ones paying the price for his transgression. And for what? Politics? What a load of two hump camel excrement that is!
What life is politics worth? Guess it’s easier to make the grand jesture when you’re not busy burying your own.
JHD, I’ll leave it to Lex to defend himself, but I’m not sure that he and Barry and seeing things from quite the same point of view. As I read it, Lex is saying, “Okay, let’s stop and think about what Murtha is really saying–what it will mean if we follow his advice?” Lex’s conclusions on that point are rather damning, I think–damning to Murtha himself, too…
And as far as what playing politics here at home does to the guys on the ground.,.. I’m right there with you, JHD.
Oh, I’ve been watching the discussion with agreement all the way around. Both gents are making excellent points, and what we’re really debating is tactics, having all agreed on the strategic necessity of: We must win.
JHD is rightly concerned, his son being boots on ground in Iraq, at any ill-thought words emanating from our political branches which might give moral strength to a despicable enemy and cost us more lives. Barry is concerned that an over-reaction in the political branch might cost us the war as the center falls apart.
Even public men can make mistakes – the problem for them is that consequences can be so severe.
I heard Rep. Murtha on talkin’ heads yesterday claiming we’ll be ought of Iraq by 2006 (Murtha-speak- See, I was right…) is a violation of OPSEC in my estimation. Unimpressive again.
I haven’t heard elected officials from the oppostion trashing him personally. We know the Pelosi Doctrine of the Left- ooze out phony righteous indignation & establish a victims lodgement.
Onn the other hand, what I do hear, is lot of folks trashing his proposal- call it immediate withdrawl if you will, but to military folks it means Cut n’Run which equates with a “cowardly” and dishonorable policy. Sorry folks without the stomach- thats what it is…
He (Murtha) is not a coward, his proposal is cowardly. IMO.
We all saw Friday night how the story was presented in the news. WaPo, NYTs and Al Jazeera (yep) had almost identical headlines. Mr. Murtha may claim he’s misunderstood, but the Arab Street & Al Queda got the word and we know where that leads. Keep up the suicide attacks, keep making IEDs and outlast them because they don’t have the stomach for war….which leads to the deaths of Marines and more. JHD, I’m on your side.
Sure, we can have debate on this war- resources, number of troops, body armor, Strykers, F-22 procurements, Abu Ghraib, interrogation techniques, WMDs, Strategies, Tactics, sexual harrassment, women in combat, blah, blah, blah. But no discourse by the leadership about ANYTHING that directly impacts the troops, their morale, or emboldens the enemy.
IMO, proposals like Murtha’s fuel the insurgency more than anything else including our presence in Iraq & Afghanistan. The opposition to this war and this administration (one and the same) have gotten progressively more verbose in their rhetoric and have crossed the line over the past summer/fall to the point we are now. That vote the other night should have been like drinking a good cup o’shut the F%^& up for the opposition…but it wasn’t. Rather they view it as an “opening”. What hypocrites.
More than mixed signals to the troops, too.
B2
CAPT Lex,
A great post. Provoked the only thought I could get in my head today. Me bein’ a squid and all.
I’m with JarHead Dad on this one. I know your position is to listen. If we don’t listen, we will miss the golden nuggets of intelligence and knowledge when we throw out the crap in the tub of verbage. I agree.
I listened to what I could hear of Congressman Murtha’s words. I listened to the proposal. If American servicemen are part of the problem because they are in Iraq, what good will moving them to Kuwait do if they are to become a “quick reaction force” ready to return at the drop of a hat? How many times will they return in a week and to how many places? The number of chopper sorties to deliver them back to trouble spots would rival the invasion itself. How long will our Men suffer at the hands of infinite chopper sorties to return to the scene of fighting, only to find out too late the battles are over, the Iraqi Army either fixed the problem or lost badly enough they will have to land in a hot LZ and take casualties just getting in when they could have prevented the bloodshed by their presence in the first place? What circus of the macabre coughed up this “plan” from someone who is classified as a “serious hawk”? Serious on the schoolyard, maybe. Show me the professional commanders and staff who think this is a good plan and I’ll show you a dozen monkeys screwing a football.
Everyone blogging has said Congressman Murtha is a serious, heroic individual. He may be heroic. I don’t belittle him in that regard. It takes guts to get up in public and speak and possibly be laughed at for it. At least as much guts as it took to go to VietNam, do his duty, and serve so honorably he got a Bronze Star and, apparently was wounded.
But he most assuredly is not serious. If he was serious he would not use our wounded Men and their suffering in hospitals as the motivation for immediate pullout. He would honor the achievements already made and demand further progress. Then to go on national TV and claim that the US will pull out in 2006, probably because of his sterling efforts to shine a spotlight on the only “possible way out of Iraq”, just proves the proverb:
It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
Thanks for listening.
Subsunk
[...] Neptunus Lex is masterful at explaining why, with regard to global strategy and overall violence. So is Ralph Peters. [...]
REP Murtha is pro-military. REP Murtha is pro- National Security.
However, REP Murtha is also a textbook dogmatic Cold War realist (poli sci sense) of the type who shaped Reagan’s Iraq policy. Moreover, it’s obvious REP Murtha’s heart is still in Vietnam.
The Bush admin has chosen a liberal (what many call neo-conservative) strategy in the WOT, a strategy fiercely opposed by traditional realists. I know: at Columbia University, our poli sci department is dominated by Cold War realists. The nation building of Iraq is a liberal mission and REP Murtha opposes liberal missions. To him, Iraq as imminent threat was the only justification for OIF. If Iraq is not an imminent threat, Murtha sees no reason to invest in it. He’d rather focus on a realist mission like aggressive posturing and plusing up the military to compete with a ‘near peer’ state-actor competitor like China.
“At this point, although it seems but small beer compared to the anguished cries of a million souls, gas is $5 per gallon and you are bicycling to work, if you still have a job.”
$5 a gallon gas will be the good old days.
Take a good hard look at Grandma and Grandpa, because they will freeze to death in the 1st winter.
100,000+ Seniors Citizens, unable to afford heating fuel, will die. (15,000 died in France because of lack of Air Conditioning in 2003), imagine what happens with no heat above the Mason-Dixon line.
The argument for doing nothing in the Middle East was always about the nightmare scenario of the whole region becoming unstable.
Interesting analysis Eric. I agree but there are some very minor discrepancies.
Brent Scowcroft would fall into this realist view also, right? One could probably say Murtha, Scowcoft, Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney were “realist” peers and had the same worldview, at one time (pre 9-11).
That GWOT is a neo-con and ‘liberal’ (I understand your use of the word here) policy that just reflects an alternative to the strictly realist camp, vice how I view it — a humane and truly western policy to ensure our own survival.
9-11 affected all of us in certain ways (it did this ol-dino) and I think even some old realists like Cheney and even Runsfeld decided to think outside the box and break some new ground. Of course they had to- they were actually in charge, not back-benching in Congress or writing memoirs….
I have never understood that all inclusive label, neo-con, for anybody that wanted to defeat global terrorism and plant democracy, but I sure wish they’d change it to neo-realist. If we did maybe more folks would keep their eye on the ball and finish the job right. Because we still have all the symmetrical threats like China to watch.
I’ll bet we both agree there’s a 3rd category the un-realists which rymes with ostrich (well, sort of)
VR/ B2
Freedom is worth the price.
ALL people should be able to enjoy the freedoms we have.
We have not yet abandoned South Korea.
We abandoned Vietnam.
We should not abandone Iraq or Afganstan.
Defeat is more painfully and costly than victory.
Our troops are supposed to stand in harms way — that is how they protect the innocent..
This country will not be able to sustain any prolonged conflict if the CIA and news media remain in power.
The CIA has taken upon itself the mission to undermine the President’s foreign policy. If they are allowed to pull it off, nameless, unaccountable people in the CIA will have a veto over anything the country decides to do.
The media have fought for the enemy from the moment this conflict began. They exaggerated every setback and hype every negative development. Remember the operational pause halfway to Baghdad? The MSM was already projecting months and months of continued combat and calling it Vietnam just two weeks into the war.
The NY Times accused our troops of firing on civilians on their front page and never printed a retraction when it turned out to be false. Most damning was the source; an Iraqi who had given them a false name and said he was a policeman. Why did he offer the false charges? It’s what they wanted to hear. He could perceive what the NY Times was there for.
The media think they won Vietnam and can’t picture themselves in any other role. They have steadfastly downplayed every accomplishment of our troops and given prominence to every accomplishment of our enemies. An average day in Iraq will see 2-3 American soldiers die and 40-50 enemy killed. Nine mornings out of ten the headline and lead paragraph will be the American deaths.
There have been 2,300 schools rebuilt. Have you seen one on TV? Any coverage for ceremonies where security for a major base or entire province is turned over to the Iraqi Security Forces? Have you heard anything about Gen. Patreus’ accomplishments building the Iraqi Security Forces or just one soundbite on three battalions vs. one that don’t need some kind of logicitcs help. Which matter more? 200,000 people that will fight if we transport them or 4,000 that operate on their own?
The Pentagon needs to create its own television coverage. Concise, informative, balanced and, most of all, truthful.
badbob,
Thanks. Regarding Murtha compared to other reformed realists, he does seem particularly inflexible, hence the qualifier as “dogmatic”.
As a liberal, I don’t ideologically agree with the realist school, but I agree with you: as individual thinkers, not all realists are as rigid as Murtha. I like the idea of a neo-realist school; I’ll just call it the liberal security model.
My point in bringing this up is that I think the focus on Dems vs GOP, doves vs hawks, and Left vs Right has been harmfully misleading when analysing Murtha and those like him. Our concepts are still stuck on the Vietnam War debate. Popular discourse in the WOT needs to be reshuffled to fit a different kind of war.
In the WOT, to include Iraq, we are following a liberal (or neo-realist) strategy. That strategy since Day one has been harshly attacked and undermined by dogmatic realists on the homefront. These people are not ‘hippies’ or ‘moonbats’; they’re established experts – Cold War hawks – in the national security field who were raised in the Cold War balance of power. Their dogmatic worldview is misapplied in the WOT, but just the same, they are still treated as The American Authority in the field of war and national security . . . even if they are dangerously obsolete.
Like I said, I know the type. They dominate the poli sci department at Columbia.
Dogmatic realists have been getting away with attacking OIF because our national debate about war is still stuck on Vietnam. We know enough to disparage ‘hippies’ and moonbats’, but we fail to recognize and respond to the ‘hawkish’ experts who ceaselessly attack the Bush admin’s WOT strategy. Until WOT supporters recognize that threat in our domestic debate and face it head-on, dogmatic realists will continue to erode domestic support for the WOT.
In my opinion, the unchecked opposition to the WOT by thse ‘expert’ right-wing dogmatic realists poses a FAR greater domestic threat to our ability to prosecute the WOT than radical leftist ‘moonbats’. Keep in mind, the American people who dismiss anti-war ‘hippies’ out-of-hand have been raised to deeply respect the views of the victorious realist Cold Warriors.
I do respect our dogmatic realists for winning the Cold War and their opinions are not without merit, but this War on Terror must be won by our liberal warriors.
I would like to issue a democratic ‘call to arms’ in the domestic debate so that we can focus on the dogmatic realist threat. To do so, we have to get over the red herrings of Vietnam War ‘anti-war’ stereotypes and recognize the enemy at home for what he is.
Glimpses of futures
Neptunus Lex follows up on the NewsBusters’ piece with his own incredibly insightful and terrifying post, envisioning what would come if this country were to cut and run.
Nice post Lex.
However, believing that ‘brown people’ do not deserve freedom is not a requiste for withdrawl.
Other than that stretch I really enjoyed reading this.
This country will not be able to sustain any prolonged conflict if the CIA and news media remain in power.
The CIA has taken upon itself the mission to undermine the President’s foreign policy. If they are allowed to pull it off, nameless, unaccountable people in the CIA will have a veto over anything the country decides to do.
The media have fought for the enemy from the moment this conflict began. They exaggerated every setback and hyped every negative development. Remember the operational pause halfway to Baghdad? The MSM was already projecting months and months of continued combat and calling it Vietnam just two weeks into the war.
The NY Times accused our troops of firing on civilians on their front page and never printed a retraction when it turned out to be false. Most damning was the source; an Iraqi who had given them a false name and said he was a policeman. Why did he offer the false charges? It’s what they wanted to hear. He could perceive what the NY Times was there for.
The media think they won Vietnam and can’t picture themselves in any other role. They have steadfastly downplayed every accomplishment of our troops and given prominence to every accomplishment of our enemies. An average day in Iraq will see 2-3 American soldiers die and 40-50 enemy killed. Nine mornings out of ten the headline and lead paragraph will be the American deaths.
There have been 2,300 schools rebuilt. Have you seen one on TV? Any coverage for ceremonies where security for a major base or entire province is turned over to the Iraqi Security Forces? Have you heard anything about Gen. Patreus’ accomplishments building the Iraqi Security Forces or just one soundbite on three battalions vs. one that don’t need some kind of logicitcs help. Which matter more? 200,000 people that will fight if we transport them or 4,000 that operate on their own?
The Pentagon needs to create its own television coverage. Concise, informative, balanced and, most of all, truthful.
Eric,
Don’t scare me off by labeling yourself a liberal. You’re young yet. Plus, you’ll see that conservative chicks are better “company” someday.
Regarding your further analysis, I think you make a point, but I have not heard Scowcroft, or any of the real “cream o’the old realist crowd” calling for cut n’run.. Rather, now that we are there and have so much invested, nearly all of them agree we need to finish the job. That they are predominately Republicans IS significant, IMO, because on the other side of the isle you have the Kerry’s, Kennedy’s, Clintons (as of last week), Murthas (as of last week), Michael Moore, Jimmy Carter, so on and so forth, ad naseum, even if you can distinguish between them and themoonbat crowd!
Outnumbered.
Most importantly, as a veteran yourself, you are in a unique position….IE- your fellow liberals, not necessarily the realist crowd will bilge (Navy term) your generations war record and GWOT legacy if they can to get back in power. Guarenteed they will attempt it. They did it once. They will do it again. IMO.
I can assure you us old farts, already burned once, will back you newbies 100% and work as hard as you to keep that from happening.
B2
Paul- TRUE.
re- “The Pentagon needs to create its own television coverage. Concise, informative, balanced and, most of all, truthful.”
Roger that. The website at DoD already carries the most accurate (honest) journalism on Iraq right now. They should create their own network for at least cable-sat-ota broadcast. Why not? The opposition has PBS.
B2
badbob,
I’m not comforted. I agree that Murtha is one of the 1st, if not the 1st, ‘hawkish’ realists to cross the threshold and call for “immediate withdrawal”. And it could be that partisan peer pressure may have pushed him over the line. But if we take a step back and study the popular case against OIF that has hammered away at the American will to fight the war and build the peace in Iraq over the last 2-plus years, it is full of realist-sourced arguments.
My personal experience has been sitting in poli sci classes at Columbia, taught by conservative right-wing realists, and seething as my profs actually *joked* about OIF in class, while badmouthing the Bush admin, as though it and they were the utmost in pie-in-the-sky neo-con buffoonery. One professor in particular would tell us, in smarmy I-told-you-so tones, about the letters and newspaper ads that he and other realist poli sci profs wrote before the war predicting disaster in Iraq.
Two examples of the realist threat:
Pat Buchanan: “Whose War? A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America?ɬ
badbob,
I’m not comforted. I agree that Murtha is one of the 1st, if not the 1st, ‘hawkish’ realists to cross the threshold and call for “immediate withdrawal”. And it could be that partisan peer pressure may have pushed him over the line. But if we take a step back and study the popular case against OIF that has hammered away at the American will to fight the war and build the peace in Iraq over the last 2-plus years, it is full of realist-sourced arguments.
My personal experience has been sitting in poli sci classes at Columbia, taught by conservative right-wing realists, and seething as my profs actually *joked* about OIF in class, while badmouthing the Bush admin, as though it and they were the utmost in pie-in-the-sky neo-con buffoonery. One professor in particular would tell us, in smarmy I-told-you-so tones, about the letters and newspaper ads that he and other realist poli sci profs wrote before the war predicting disaster in Iraq.
Two examples of the realist threat:
Pat Buchanan: “Whose War? A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interest.”
http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html
Brent Scowcroft: “Brent Scowcroft: Iraq elections may worsen conflict”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54680-2005Jan6.html
I like Brent Scowcroft, especially because last Spring, he spoke in favor of ROTC returning to Columbia. But I stand by that he and other respected socially elite realists have done more to damage the domestic will to sustain OIF – with their authoritative legitimizing Cold Warrior voices – than the entire anti-American anti-military radical crowd.
With respect, badbob, your hesitancy to target the realist domestic threat illustrates to me why their sabotage of OIF has been so pervasively effective in undermining public support. Dogmatic realists may not always be recognized as the messenger, but they certainly have done much to shape the pro-Defeat message and lend it weight.
My bad. I provided the wrong link for Brent Scowcroft. It’s the same WP story, but this link is more illustrative of the pro-Defeat – realist link.
Brent Scowcroft: “Brent Scowcroft: Iraq elections may worsen conflict”
http://www.clw.org/iraq/archives/2005/01/brent_scowcroft.html
I’ve read these Eric- real time. I won’t argue on your unique perspective re realist inpact on public opinion and the doubt these “realists” create in the minds of the American people. And of course, for the administration who approved the opord to go into Iraq and are charged with to win.
I may disagree with them but I value their opinions, because at one time, they were right. I will disparage their arguments when I hear them however, and I, as you, hate to hear their “I told you so” BS. But you have to admit, they are definetly “America firsters” vice the seemingly, Blame America crowd of liberals (not you of course) and victims rights advocates!
I do disagree with you about the proportionality of the realists measured arguments for disengagement, vice an entire political party and ant-war movement of moonbats, ably aided by the MSM, who cause direct harm through direct action. Most of us “neo-realist conservatives” (I like how that sounds- thanks) haven’t listened to Mr. Buchanan since the early 90′s when he bilged Bush I and, IMO, aided BC to win the presidency w/43% of the vote. In my book he is the crazy uncle of the conservative movement.
Not knowing Columbia very well (State univ here- BSME), and knowing the overwhelming liberal to conservative ratio in professorships I’ll bet that your “conservative right-wing realist” Poly Sci proffs would laugh if you called them conservatives…
Surely must be hard for you there, listening to opinions you know to be wrong and sometimes anachronistic but you’ll come out better for the ordeal. Sort of like your service in the ‘box.
Re- ROTC at Columbia and the rest of the Ivy’s- I had both peers and seniors who went there. Now every once in a while a grad from those universities will volunteer but they seemed to get few and far between starting in the 1980′s. They’re all sort of like little San Francisco’s, all to themselves! Good luck trying to get ROTC there though.
B2
badbob,
I don’t doubt their patriotism nor their intent, and I don’t disparage what they’ve done for this country. In fact, I think their deserved status has much to do why their input into the Iraq debate is so damaging. It’s damaging because people like Murtha have EARNED the right to speak authoritatively and have their ideas taken seriously by the American people. Even when they’re wrong.
All of that doesn’t mitigate the damage they’ve caused the mission. How do we defend AGAINST our beloved (Cold War) defenders and champions? We need to figure that out. They need to be robustly countered by mission supporters before it’s too late.
President Bush, 2004:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040602.html
“Some who call themselves “realists” question whether the spread of democracy in the Middle East should be any concern of ours. But the realists in this case have lost contact with a fundamental reality. America has always been less secure when freedom is in retreat. America is always more secure when freedom is on the march.”
We need a lot more of this, even if it means speaking against friends and loved ones.
Eric- I agree!
Interesting piece w/metrics I read this am:
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051124-121037-1013r.htm
Noteworthy IMO:
1- military and general public polls virtually same numbers
2- Listen to what that 21 intern had to say..that’s called American common sense
What makes the left (moonbats, elites (incl MSM) & opposition party) more dangerous than the realist crowd is the fact that, generally, the realist crowd does not disparage the military institution, while the left wants to tear it down like it has all the rest over the last 30 years.
If they are successful in doing that we’re all screwed. Consistently, from the mid-80′s on, in polls about most trusted institutions, the military always comes out on top. If they are able to reduce trust in the miltary to that of say- lawyers, we’re done for…..
One thing that shows the erosion is recruiting and application to mil academies. As far as I’m concerned this is the event to participate in for members of your generation like it was for the WWII generation. IMO those who miss it will be lacking something when they seek public office/service in the future. That is why preserving y’alls legacy in this war is so important to me. You’ll not be made into another group of victims…
B2
badbob,
I agree with you that the realists aren’t anti-military while the disgusting counter-recruiter types on the radical left are. In a comparison of groups, the radicals with the anti-American anti-military agendas are a problem. The problem is that the ‘usual suspects’ moonbat opposition has been combined with the realists’ opposition with a Trojan Horse effect. The realists give the moonbats credibility, legitimacy and arguments that tie into established Cold War perspectives. The realists have their own protest against the Vietnam War, and it’s been combined with the moonbat Vietnam War -based narrative for Iraq. It’s all about mission first. To protect the 9/11 generation’s legacy, you’ll need to defend us against the realists, too.
I just read this comment on blackfive’s website from a “Devil’s Advocate”. It’s a textbook pro-Defeat comment that combines realist and leftist arguments:
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2005/11/iraqis_ok_terro.html
“Shut up already, chickenhawk!
Bin Laden — remember, the guy behind the 3,000+ deaths on 09/11/2001 — is running around free as a bird, and probably plotting another grand – scale attack on our soil with his Al – Qaeda acolytes.
Meanwhile, your imbecile President and his evil and incompetent manipulators got us into a war in Iraq, a country that was no threat to us, instead of addressing the real problem: finish up the job in Afghanistan, get Bin Laden “dead or alive” (remember Dubbya’s bull – horn moment after 9/11?), and cripple Al – Qaeda into non-existence.
The next time we get attacked on our soil, we will know who to blame: the political hacks who pushed for a war in Iraq using 9/11 as a pretext (seventeen of the terrorists involved in the attacks were Saudis, the rest were Egyptians and Moroccans; not an Iraqi in sight) for their own political purposes; and the criminally stupid people who voted for that hapless little turd in 2004 and who continue to support him for ideologically insane reasons.
Re the hacks. That includes Cheney and the neo-cons who — like the arrogant morons they are — believed that you can export democracy just like Coca-Cola, and that democracy can spring in about five minutes; Karl Rove, who needed to sell an unpopular President put in place in 2000 by a right-wing Supreme Court — against the will of The People –; and finally, Junior himself — who has been struggling his entire miserable life through one failure after another, being bailed out by Daddy and Daddy’s friends — who wanted to best his father.
You chickenhawks have made a fine mess of this country. Thank you very much.
If we get attacked again, we will go after you, Kool – Aid heads, and it won’t be pretty.
Read the polls, and mind them. You are now in the minority.
You have been so happy about the dividing of the country that the Republicans have been pursuing. It is now going to bite you back in the ass. And, indeed, we are now divided. You, right – nutters are now the enemy. You will be treated as such. No pity for you. No excuses allowed.
Retribution is a bitch. Go whining to Mamma.
And by the way, chickenhawks, why are you sitting in your armchairs swilling beer, instead of enlisting? Afraid of losing a limb or two? How come your kids are not enlisting?
Posted by: Devil’s Advocate | Nov 23, 2005 9:44:00 PM”
The realists have provided folks like DA a far richer and damaging narrative than they would have had otherwise.
BTW, badbob, I appreciate the thought, but while I am seriously considering going back in after graduation, I’m not a combat vet. I used up my active duty in Korea. However, I can accept the compliment on behalf of my constituency. I’m the current VP of the U.S. Military Veterans of Columbia University (MilVets), and we have a growing population of OIF and OEF vets. The MilVets President, for example, earned it in Op Anaconda as a 2nd Bat Ranger.
Columbia MilVets website:
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/usmilvetscu/
Nice link. Thanks for sharing. I know someday soon I’ll be reading about all of you doing something important in your communities and for all of us.
Re- “C-H” diatribe. ho-hummm. Funny how B5 shoots the suckers in the face each and everytime one of them rants. Personally, I like to think it’s a 20 year old weasle-wart from Brown (could be Smith C.) University, majoring in Sexual Identity Studies, educated in the Marin County, CA public schools, who works part time as an unpaid gopher at moveon-org, rants at the deomcratic-undergound and get’s all their news from the dailyKos!
re- “If we get attacked again, we will go after you, Kool – Aid heads, and it won?ɬ
Nice link. Thanks for sharing. I know someday soon I’ll be reading about all of you doing something important in your communities and for all of us.
Re- “C-H” diatribe. ho-hummm. Funny how B5 shoots the suckers in the face each and everytime one of them rants. Personally, I like to think it’s a 20 year old weasle-wart from Brown (could be Smith C.) University, majoring in Sexual Identity Studies, educated in the Marin County, CA public schools, who works part time as an unpaid gopher at moveon-org, rants at the deomcratic-undergound and get’s all their news from the dailyKos!
re- “If we get attacked again, we will go after you, Kool – Aid heads, and it won’t be pretty.”
I say bring it on! Even over 50 I’ll whip their butt(s)! LOL
But we all know they won’t show because they’re just scared sheep and our job as sheepdogs is to protect even the scared sheep, eh!
Good luck & Happy Thanksgiving!
B2
Couldn’t quite make it through all the comments. One main Murtha point that I didn’t see commented on by Lex or others (till I quit) is that Iraq with US presence is akin to a military welfare state. That is – the Iraqi’s will never provide for their own common defense as long as we have are doing it for them overwhelmingly. Like the classic welfare dilemma – if uncle sam is paying the rent, why go to work? The dilemma is that even a US quick strike force will be used as a crutch. Taking my analog further (yikes), at what point do you wean the welfare unit off their subsidy? How do you instill a ‘work ethic’ or in this case a ‘defense ethic’? Through pressure from Republicans, Clinton signed in welfare to work program and time-boxed the gov subsidy. In general terms – isn’t this what Murtha is proposing?
what is a wart…
Thanks for offering such valuable info to your visitors. Your blog…