Posted on 11/19/2005 12:30:00 PM PST by new yorker 77
REP. JACK MURTHA has had a distinguished congressional career. But his outburst last Thursday was breathtakingly irresponsible. Nowhere in his angry and emotional call for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq did the Pennsylvania Democrat bother to ask, much less answer, the most serious questions his proposal raises. What would be the likely outcome in Iraq if the United States pulled out? Does Murtha actually believe the Iraqi people could fight the al Qaeda terrorists and Saddam Hussein loyalists by themselves once American forces left? He does not say. In fact, he knows perfectly well that the Iraqi people are not yet capable of defending themselves against the monsters in their midst and that, therefore, a U.S. withdrawal would likely lead to carnage on a scale that would dwarf what is now occurring in Iraq.
But that would be just the beginning. If U.S. troops were withdrawn and the Iraqi people were not able to defeat the terrorists and Saddam loyalists, what would happen? What if Zarqawi and his al Qaeda allies were able to make common cause with the Baathists to turn Iraq into a terrorist state or to provide a haven for terrorists, complete with an oil supply to finance their global activities? And what of Iraq's neighbors, which include Iran, Syria, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia? They would likely decide that they could not afford to let a vacuum develop in Iraq or allow their adversaries to establish a base there. All these nations would contemplate military intervention in Iraq, directly or indirectly through the arming of allies. The possibility of a regional conflict erupting among any or all of these powers could not be excluded. Is this is a tolerable outcome for the United States?
In fact, Murtha does seem to be aware of the disasters that are almost certain to follow the immediate withdrawal he demands. He calls for the creation of "a quick reaction force in the region." He calls for "an over-the-horizon presence of Marines." And he calls for the United States "to diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq." We have too much respect for Murtha to believe that he seriously imagines we would be able through diplomacy alone to bring "security and stability" to Iraq. But the question is, when the inevitable disaster unfolded as a result of his proposed withdrawal, what would be his plan for the "quick reaction force" and "over-the-horizon presence" of the Marines? It seems he would have us withdraw our forces, hand a monumental moral, political, and military victory to the terrorists in Iraq and all over the world--only to take us back into war when the inevitable disaster began to unfold.
Murtha, of course, claims that the U.S. occupation is the primary problem in Iraq and that "our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are united against U.S. forces, and we have become a catalyst for violence." This is nonsense. For many months now, the insurgents have been shifting their attacks away from U.S. and coalition forces and directing them at Iraqis instead. Iraqis now make up the overwhelming majority of casualties resulting from insurgent attacks. This shift is evidence not only of the effectiveness of our protective measures, but also of the growing vitality of the Iraqi political process, which the insurgents, according to their own statements, fear and hate more than the U.S. military presence. As for the rise in the number of "incidents" against U.S. forces to which Murtha points, those numbers do not distinguish between incidents initiated by insurgents and those initiated by Americans. Recent U.S. operations have generated a large number of incidents, indeed--almost all of them supporting the coalition's goals and harming the insurgents.
We do not pretend that all is well in Iraq, although things are starting to look a bit better. We agree with Murtha, and have written repeatedly, that the military is stretched thin and needs to be increased. The congressman, however, is in a position to do something about that. We, for one, would support any legislation he offered to increase the size of the Army and the military budget in this time of war.
In 1946, George Orwell remarked that "the quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."Victory is in fact possible, though it will require a longer war than anyone would like, but not so long a war as to be intolerable. What would be intolerable would be to lose to the terrorists in Iraq. Immediate withdrawal from Iraq is a prescription for catastrophe. Far from extricating ourselves from a crisis, we would have driven ourselves into an even deeper crisis. It is no favor to the members of the armed forces who have served or are serving in Iraq to declare now that all their efforts and sacrifices are in vain. The way to honor their sacrifices is by winning.
--Robert Kagan and William Kristol
Evidently so. That's why he voted against himself. LOL
He did it while the President was overseas. Unforgivable.
If you guys want other links to the GOP showdown and Murtha:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/1525149/posts?page=30
The best example yet for term limits. I hope the man's district takes note. Some seem to get really shakey after too much time in DC..
He understands 400-3.
I have never been more motivated to vote in a midterm election than I am to vote in 2006.
Conservatives outnumber liberals and we will crush them come next November.
If they want to use their power hungry selfishness to destroy our President and our Party and lead to the deaths of millions abroad, they have another thing coming.
I agree.
I just hope the military absentee ballots are counted this time, unlike the 2000 and 2004 elections where they were thrown out by the Left everywhere the left could do it.
There are no U.S. troops in Iraq... it's all a big lie.
Good one!
The entire Democrat party policy has become an extension and support arm of the Bathist strategy and objective. Unbelievable!
Democrat party, no wonder they're called the "RAT" party. Rats "Cut and run" when the light is shown on them.
I posted this on another thread. It's probably applicable here:
I wish the sheeple would realize the "There Was No WMD!" crowd is just nuts, and worse. Of COURSE there was WMD in Iraq, along with mass graves, torture houses, children's prisons, and a whole host of other atrocities. The incredible popularity President Bush enjoyed early in the war as Iraq was being liberated just simply drove the Left completely insane. So it was that they had to use something as innocuous as a line in a State of the Union address to have ANYTHING to hang onto.
And the mainstream media shamefully helped the screeching Left by amplifying that innocuous line into a full-blown "scandal." It was all they had, too, to attack this popular President with -- until they started manufacturing things out of whole cloth.
No reasonable person can doubt hat removing Saddam was the right thing to do. As a sponsor of terrorism ($25,000 to the families of homicide bombers, offering sanctuary to known terrorists), it was essential he be eliminated early as a factor in the War on Terror. Iraq also provided a chance to show the Mideast that the United States meant business in the wake of 9/11, and an opportunity to show how democracy can work in the region.
The war is, all things considered, a smashing success. Just imagine how it would be being applauded in the MSM if Bill Clinton was running it: we'd be seeing the opening of every new school, hospital and power plant on the nightly news, with Bill Himself cutting the ribbons. The Iraqi election and new constitution would have made Lindbergh-sized headlines, and Bill would probably have won the Nobel Peace Prize.
But the Dems and the MSM are just irrationally incapable of admitting the war conducted by President Bush is any sort of success, because the "Bush Bash" is the very last weapon left in their arsenal. They're nothing but con artists trying to prop up a failed and outmoded belief system, and it seems they will literally kill to do it.
As a great man once said, words that should be heeded now even more than then: the wheel has turned, and it is time for them to go.
The old blowhard has been brainwashed by Nasty Pelosi.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.