MURTHA URGED SOMALIA PULLOUT IN 1993

Newsmax ^ | 11-21-05 | Newsmax Staff

[freedom4me]

After terrorists attacked U.S. troops in Mogadishu, Somalia 12 years ago, anti-Iraq war Democrat, Rep. John Murtha urged then-President Clinton to begin a complete pullout of U.S. troops from the region.

Clinton took the advice and ordered the withdrawal - a decision that Osama bin Laden would later credit with emboldening his terrorist fighters and encouraging him to mount further attacks against the U.S.

"Our welcome has been worn out," Rep Murtha told NBC's "Today" show in Sept. 1993, after the Mogadishu battle cost the lives of 18 U.S. Rangers.

[freedom4me]

Murtha's been a "cut-and-run" guy for quite some time.

[freedom4me]

BTTT

[lormand]

Is Murtha a French name?

< /sarcasm >

[conservativecorner]

He really is a coward BUMP!

[TexasCajun]

I just have to wonder if John Kerry wrote Murtha's after-action reports?

[COBOL2Java]

Hmmm. So Murtha is an expert on the "Pullout Method". Has he given any speeches to Planned Parenthood?

[cynicom]

Must be some mistake, Murtha is a much decorated Marine hero. We have got to try and understand his intentions.

Is murtha French for white flag????

[scott7278]

Coward Bump.

[CitadelArmyJag]

Not that I am a Murtha fan, but we never should have been in Somolia or the Balkans in the first place.

F-ing clinton....

[Calusa]

You stole my non-Thunder. He is a nominal catholic.

[finnman69]

see this also

http://www.psupress.org/Justataste/samplechapters/justataste_murtha2.html

From Vietnam to 9/11 by John P. Murtha with John Plashal

Chapter 11: Reflecting on the Past/Looking to the Future

Chapter 11: Reflecting on the Past/Looking to the Future

Criteria for Deployment of U.S. Forces
The vast majority of Americans agree that the United States should maintain a strong international military presence and be willing to use its military power when appropriate. As Joseph S. Nye Jr. wrote: "Polls show that the American people are neither isolationist nor eager to serve as the world's police." It is distressing to contemplate the number of conflicts and atrocities around the world. As the undisputed world leader, the United States will increasingly be called upon to intervene militarily in a wide variety of situations. So we must be extremely cautious about when, where, and for what purpose we deploy our troops.

In the last two decades the most successful U.S. military interventions have been those in which a clear national security issue was involved and decisive force was used to attain our objectives. The classic example is the Persian Gulf War. A nation important to the United States and NATO had been invaded and stability in a key region of the world with vital economic resources was threatened. The United States and its allies reacted decisively. Congress authorized military action and the American people overwhelmingly supported it. So did the Kuwaitis. In the intervention in Panama, the key factors were the long historical ties between our two countries, the strategic importance of the Panama Canal, the stealing of the election by Noriega and his cronies, and the mistreatment of American citizens by Noriega's troops. Again the United States acted decisively. Ninety percent of the Panamanian people supported U.S. intervention. In Afghanistan our national security was clearly jeopardized by the Taliban's provision of a safe haven for bin Laden's al-Qaeda terrorist organization. A massive bombing campaign combined with effective ground attacks by our Afghan allies and American Special Forces rapidly defeated the major Taliban contingents. Once again, the vast majority of Afghans supported our efforts; they had had enough of the oppressive policies of the medieval-like Taliban regime.

Conversely, when U.S. military interventions have failed, the vital national security interests of the United States were not involved and we did not act decisively. In Lebanon our troops were in an untenable geographic position and our force was not large enough to carry out the mission effectively. In Somalia a well-meaning humanitarian intervention ended in failure because we interjected ourselves into a civil war. I am not arguing that we should have acted decisively with a larger military force in either case. As I have explained, I opposed the intervention in Somalia from the day the decision to intervene was made.

When the decision was made to deploy the United Nations troops in a peacemaking role in Bosnia, the initial insertion of those forces was tepid and they did not end the violence. After the Dayton Accords were signed, however, a large force was deployed, including a significant American contingent. Those troops made it clear that if they were fired upon, they would react massively and decisively; they would adhere to the doctrine of disproportionate response. Here again the Powell doctrine worked. Relative peace ensued.

In the air war in Serbia and Kosovo, the initial limited air attacks escalated steadily to massive and prolonged bombing. Once again a weak military response had to be intensified. In the end the NATO forces had to issue a credible threat of massive invasion by ground forces and the people had to revolt en masse before success was achieved.

Our military forces have frequently been deployed for short periods to deliver food and other supplies after a natural disaster. Such humanitarian missions are laudable, but they have to be chosen very carefully. Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution has written:

For a humanitarian intervention to be wise and ethical, it must be
attempted only if the odds are excellent that it will make a bad situation
better and not worse. Intervening to stop Russia from killing
tens of thousands of innocent Chechens, for instance, would have
risked a major-power war between nuclear-weapon states with the
potential to kill far more people than the intervention could have
saved. Invading North Korea to bring food to its starving people
would probably precipitate all-out war on the peninsula, quite possibly
killing as many civilians in Seoul (to say nothing of soldiers on
both sides of the war) as the food aid would save in North Korea.
Entering into the Angolan civil war would force us to choose sides
between our former anti-Communist associate Jonas Savimbi, a maniacal
killer who has violated two major peace accords, and the corrupt
dos Santos government.

David Fromkin provides a perspective on the intervention in Somalia that
applies far beyond that particular crisis:

One lesson of Somalia was that there is no such thing as a purely
humanitarian intervention. A military intervention in a foreign country,
unless undertaken at the request of its government, is political.
It occurs because the United States, believing that the other country
isn't being ruled properly, acts to overthrow the local leadership; but
of course that obliges America to take over the government itself. . . .
Somalia should have taught Americans that invading, occupying
and administering a foreign country may not be as easy as it looks at
first. Above all, the lesson of Somalia was that, even in the absence
of enemy great powers . . . , America is not completely free to make
the world do as Americans wish.

[eastsider]

This guy sounds like a present-day McClellan.

[nuconvert]

Someone call Andrea Mitchell. She says he speaks for the military.

[Rebelbase]

"So Murtha is an expert on the "Pullout Method"

The Clinton version of that is Cohibas Interuptus.

[Calusa]

F-ing clinton....

Rather an understatement.

[Alberta's Child]

I can't argue with his 1993 sentiments, since they were the same as mine. For that matter, those soldiers never should have been in Somalia in the first place.

How quickly we forget that these idiotic nation-building exercises in Third World sh!t-holes are as much a part of the GOP approach to foreign policy as the Democrat approach.

[Alberta's Child]

You beat me to it. Thanks.

[DoctorMichael]

Hmmmmmmm..............sounds like a pattern of cowardice to me.

[finnman69]

one of Murtha's House speech on Somalia

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r103:7:./temp/~r103cpDgH0:e123712:

REMOVAL OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES FROM SOMALIA (House of Representatives - November 09, 1993)

---

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, let me just make a couple of points.

I expressed my opposition to our deployment to Somalia when it began. When I went to the White House, I expressed my concern to President Bush.

I said, `This is a mistake, we shouldn't deploy under these circumstances, and it's going to deplete the resources of the Armed Forces,' and I asked him how we were going to get out and when we were going to get out.

Mr. Speaker, he said, `I'll have these troops out by Inauguration Day.'

Well, Mr. Speaker, the United Nations was slow in its deployment to basically take over the U.S. role. The United Nations came to depend heavily on the United States. That was a mistake, no question about it. The administration has learned substantially from this and it has listened to our voices and our advice.

When I went to Somalia the first time, Mr. Speaker, my reservations remained the same. I told the new administration, when it came in, `We should get out of Somalia as quickly as possible,' and in the middle of July I said, `Get our troops out because this could deteriorate into a very tragic situation.'

I made a second trip to Somalia in October. I know the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan] also went there. I talked to the Rangers about the October 3 incident. It was a bloody battle. The troops conducted themselves well. They fought valiantly in a congested urban environment.

The President has reassessed the situation. He called everybody in. He listened to what was suggested by the military commanders, and that was, `We need time, first of all, to put forces in place in order to protect our American forces.' They also stated that, because the United Nations has extremely limited logistics capability and poor communications and intelligence, time was needed for the United Nations to develop these functions which had been conducted almost exclusively by U.S. forces.

Now how are we to get out of there? General Bir, the U.N. commander, said, `It would be chaos, a debacle, a disaster if the United States pulled out too quickly. We have to have time,' and these are his words, `in order to replace the logistic support the United States has been providing.' Now how do we do that?

They have a plan. They are going to do that with a civilian operation. We have provided, in our conference report tomorrow, the authority to the Department of Defense to allow them to contract with a civilian authority to provide these administrative logistics type capabilities.

Not only that, but in the conference report we set aside a sense-of-Congress resolution that says: `In the future, before you get involved in these kinds of operations, have consultation with the Congress. Don't wait until there's a tragedy. Consult with the Congress beforehand.'

In working with the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], and the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade], and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], and all the other Members, we have tried to work out some kind of a reasonable process where Members of Congress are consulted, with all the experience in the House and in the Senate, before something like this happens.

But I have to say this:

One thing we have learned from Vietnam is that we cannot from the Halls of Congress dictate to the military the strategy for any kind of operation, but we have got to leave it up to the military to make the tactical onsite decisions.

On the ground, every military commander is saying, `I need until March 31.' The recommendation by General Hoar, who spent over 2 hours briefing me about what happened in that tragic event, was `I need until March 31, because I cannot attain our objectives any quicker. Even if he gets a protective buildup done within a month, it will take considerable time beyond that to phase our forces out in a reasonable manner and to establish adequate logistic administrative support to take care of the U.N. mission. Ambassador Oakley also told me he needed until March 31. I realize this is a nonbinding resolution, I realize the Congress wants to speak on this situation, and I think the administration has heard the objections. The administration came to a conclusion--March 31 is the earliest date we can complete our withdrawal.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge the Members to vote against the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] and give the President an opportunity to get the troops out in an orderly manner as quickly as prudently possible.

[i_dont_chat]

The impeached Clinton has been noticeably quiet, not opening his mouth IN THIS COUNTRY. About the vote.

I'm sure HE remembers Murtha.

[Danae]

What is up with this??? Is he one of the freaking old farts that left our soldiers hanging with their a$$ets out?? Now I am beginning to think less and less of him as a hero...

[rvoitier]

You beat me to it.

[clintonh8r]

Somalia was reported to be quite frustrated, but she was not available for comment....

[A Ruckus of Dogs]

I agree with the Somalia pullout. Somalia is a country of no importance. If we didn't pull out - we'd probably still be there, much like Clinton's "one-year" engagement in the Balkans.

[dfwgator]

Word to your Murtha.

[Danae]

You got that right brother! All of it!

[OldFriend]

Slick willie will be blaming Murtha for his ill fated Somalia decisions?

[rhombus]

Murtha's been a "cut-and-run" guy for quite some time.

Many people learned the wrong lesson from Vietnam and are forever damaged.

[King Koffee]

I wonder if Murtha's grandfather ordered a pullout of the Union from the Confederacy?

[OldFriend]

I heard Murtha say that he meets with many commanders and while they rightfully don't say anything against the military strategy, he KNOWS they are not happy.

Excuse me, so now Murtha is a mindreader too???

[Cicero]

To give him a little credit, what Murtha says about Somalia is pretty well correct:

In Somalia a well-meaning humanitarian intervention ended in failure because we interjected ourselves into a civil war. I am not arguing that we should have acted decisively with a larger military force in either case. As I have explained, I opposed the intervention in Somalia from the day the decision to intervene was made.

The first President Bush intervened in Somalia's civil war at the instigation of the bleeding hearts in the MSM and the DNC, who were painting him as a heartless villain. Poor African blacks were being killed by vicious warlords, and Bush was urged that it was our job to go in and feed and protect the victims. After resisting for a while, Bush gave in to pressure and sent in troops on a humanitarian mission.

Then when clinton was elected, he expanded the mission, after the MSM decided that one of the warlords was more vicious than the others, and therefore should be fought. But Clinton refused to supply the armor that commanders on the spot said was necessary for the new, expanded mission.

So the whole thing was a matter of foolish do-goodism compounded by mission creep, as a result of political pressure put on the politicians by the bleeding heart media, who were chiefly responsible for what happened.

So Murtha was right in saying that we had no business there in the first place, and had might as well leave. The unfortunate result, of course, was that bin Ladin was encouraged to think we are paper tigers. It was clinton's fault for confirming bin Ladin, when he refused to respond to a series of attacks bin Ladin mounted on us all through the clinton presidency.

Certainly it would have been better never to have gone into Somalia in the first place. The whole idea was misbegotten.

Still, it's a good catch that the MSM are now lying again, and pretending that Murtha has always been a hawk. Not true.

[A Ruckus of Dogs]

Then when clinton was elected, he expanded the mission, after the MSM decided that one of the warlords was more vicious than the others, and therefore should be fought

As I understand it, the warlord was no better nor nor worse than any of the others. He just didn't want to play cards with the UN.

[popdonnelly]

Was it not the Somalia pullout that gave bin Laden the impression that the U.S. wouldn't fight? Is Murtha trying to be two for two?

[SE Mom]

Agreed- Somalia was a disaster from inception. OTOH- IF we commit troops to an op, I DAMN WELL want to see they have what they need to COMPLETE THE MISSION.

That is my endless rant...from Nam to this day. We deploy with a P.S. "You must fight in a politically correct manner, meaning you can't really complete the mission we're asking you to..."

end rant.

[popdonnelly]

Murtha's formula for fighting terrorism has been proven unsuccessful.

[JustAnotherOkie]

That was a noble effort until C.S. Clinton got hold of it and tried to Liberalize Somalia.

[NutCrackerBoy]

We never should have been in Somolia or the Balkans in the first place.

It's a dilemma at best. Somalia was one in a string of problems that cemented conventional wisdom about use of the military. You begin with these nominally humanitarian-only missions, do some actions to try to improve success of that mission, and get burned. I think there was a wide consensus to just stay out of those situations. It amounted to straying from the more popular and proven strategy of either do nothing or go in with overwhelming force.

I think Osama's perception of this as a "congenital" cut-and-run tendency on our part was faulty. A lesson may be to try to avoid giving even the appearance of being weak. But it is too harsh to say, for example, 9/11 was OUR FAULT for showing weakness.

[Cicero]

All the warlords were equally a bunch of selfish scum. They fastened on him because they needed a goat, I think. And clinton was happy to cooperate because he wanted to look like the great white knight in shining armor.

[wardaddy]

This guy sounds like a present-day McClellan.

we liked that fella better known for his saddle quite well down here..lol

[Phsstpok]

We went to Somalia under Bush 41. He sent troops to stop a genocide by the Jihadis. Good mission.

When he was voted out of office his plan to turn the peacekeeping over to the UN was dropped by BJ Clinton. He then launched on a campaign of "nation building" which was mostly involved in trying to get cuts of any aid deals for his cronies.

Then a warlord rose up, sponsored by Osama. And Clinton sent in the Rangers to take him out. But he also refused to give them back up (shades of his hero JFK).

And that's how we got Black Hawk Down. And then Murtha and friends turned it into Vietnam. And now they're trying to do it again.

Tens, if not hundreds of thousands died following the Somalia debacle brought about by Clinton and Murtha.

Millions died after the dims abandoned the people of Southeast asia and millions more lost their freedom.

[CROSSHIGHWAYMAN]

MURTHA URGED SOMALIA PULLOUT IN 1993

Has the man any kids??

[dighton]

Was it not the Somalia pullout that gave bin Laden the impression that the U.S. wouldn't fight? Is Murtha trying to be two for two?

From the article:

In a 1998 interview with ABC’s John Miller, Osama bin Laden said that America’s withdrawal from Somalia had emboldened his burgeoning al Qaida force and encouraged him to plan new attacks.

“Our people realize[d] more than before that the American soldier is a paper tiger that run[s] in defeat after a few blows,” the terror chief recalled. “America forgot all about the hoopla and media propaganda and left dragging their corpses and their shameful defeat.”

[eastsider]

I'll bet you do : )

[Howlin]

Bump.

[ZULU]

True.

But we never should have gone into Somalia in the first place, and if we did, we should have done so with overwhelming force.

Somalia is a basketcase of anarchy and violence.

But then Bush I designed this and Clinton carried it out.

What do you expect? Two nebishes.

[dfwgator]

Somehow I don't think he's ever called for us to pullout of Kosovo. Gee, I wonder why?

[elbucko]

How quickly we forget that these idiotic nation-building exercises in Third World sh!t-holes are...

...compelled by cries from the Left for the US to use its military for "humanitarian" causes.

Those on the Left continuously demand that the US military save the Third World from itself when all that US intervention ever accomplishes is throwing gasoline upon the fires of a civil war or a war of thugs. In Somalia the US should have done nothing but watch closely until the fire burned itself out. As horrible as it was, these people were determined to kill each other and anything that got in their way.

[You Dirty Rats]

Still, it's a good catch that the MSM are now lying again, and pretending that Murtha has always been a hawk. Not true.

It's just as untrue to say that he's always been cut-and-run, as some others have. He was completely behind Gulf War I and Afghanistan. He isn't some deskbound time-server; the man does take the time to visit the areas and talk to the generals. He is as big a supporter of the military as anyone in Congress on either side of the aisle.

That doesn't mean he is correct on Iraq (IMHO he isn't), but he can and will be taken seriously because unlike most of the numbskulls on the 'Rat side of the aisle, the man does think for himself and is respected.

[elephant]

Is this clown up for re-election?

[edpc]

I told the new administration, when it came in, `We should get out of Somalia as quickly as possible,' and in the middle of July I said, `Get our troops out because this could deteriorate into a very tragic situation.'

Let's be clear, Mr. Murtha. Whatever misgivings you had about being in Somalia were made tragic by the inept leadership of Aspin and Clinton. Sending a task force in without armor or gunship support led to the Blackhawk Down tragedy.