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.
There's more:
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
"Our welcome has been worn out," Rep Murtha told NBC's "Today" show in Sept. 1993, a month after 4 U.S. Military Police had been killed in Somalia by a remote-detonated land mine. The Pennsylvania Democrat announced that President Clinton had been "listening to our suggestions. And I think you'll see him move those troops out very quickly."
[an error occurred while processing this directive] Two weeks later, after 18 U.S. Rangers were killed in the battle of Mogadishu, Murtha visited U.S. forces in Somalia. Upon his return he proclaimed to the world that the Mogadishu defeat had a devastating impact on the Rangers' morale."They're subdued compared to normal morale of elite forces," Murtha said. "Obviously, it was a very difficult battle. A lot of Somalis were killed, but it was a brutal battle."
What struck me when I saw Murtha's teary bathos on TV is how similar his schtick is to Cindy Sheehan's. They are both drama queens who patronize and infantalize the troops to manipulate public opinion. This is beyond appeasement. If you genuinely believe that fighting terrorism militarily, or fighting it at all, is fruitless, just say so. I disagree, but a case can be made and a debate can be had. But this overprotective mom routine is repulsive. Can you imagine being an Army Ranger in Somalia and having Murtha come visit and cry all over you? Yuck.
Murtha said the U.S. had to no choice but to pull out now, explaining, "There's no military solution. Some of them will tell you [that] to get [warlord Mohamed Farrah] Aidid is the solution. I don't agree with that."
Our widdle boys have been hurt, and we need to cuddle them and take them home. But don't listen to their childish fantasies of getting that nasty warlord because I'm daddy and I know best. And this guy was a Marine, with two Purple Hearts? Is this what PTSS does to people?
. . . Taking Murtha's advice back then, however, turned out to have deadly consequences for U.S. security. 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.
Maybe we should cuddle up poor widdle Osama in a nice pink blankie, and then he wouldn't be such a mean ole terrorist anymore.
RELATED: Murtha also supported reinstating the draft and selecting Dean as DNC Chair.
(cross-posted at Kesher Talk)
This rep. Murtha is more devastating than Zarqawi and a perfect complement to his tactics!
He almost reaches the level of European politicians.
Rag on Murtha while you can. You're a minority that's only getting smaller.
Especially since our friendly Iraqi government decided in Cairo that insurgents killing US forces is no big deal.
Fred Kaplan at Slate has a good piece on this What Murtha Meant
We're leaving Iraq anyway. At least he's got a plan.
Focusing on what Murtha said, instead of how he said it, there is an attitude of common-sense facing up to reality. Of course, the standard conservative response is to attack the messenger, but complaining because a two purple heart, bronze star, cross of gallantry Marine tears up when speaking of maimed and dead will not get any sympathy outside the echo chamber
From the article...
"Take a close look at Murtha's now-infamous statement of Nov. 17. You will not find the words "withdrawal," "pullout," or their myriad synonyms. Instead, he calls for a "redeployment" of U.S. troops—which may seem like a euphemism for withdrawal but in fact is very different. Toward the end of his statement, Murtha lays out the elements of what he calls his "plan":
To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.
To create a quick reaction force in the region.
To create an over-the-horizon presence of Marines.
To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq.
He doesn't elaborate on any of these ideas, but it's clear they don't add up to "cut and run." "Host Tim Russert never asked—nor did Murtha explain—what these forces will be doing offshore, or under what circumstances they might re-enter the conflict. But we can fill in the blanks by looking at a study, published last month by the Center for American Progress, titled Strategic Redeployment: A Progressive Plan for Iraq and the Struggle Against Violent Extremists, written by Lawrence Korb (an assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration) and Brian Katulis.
Korb and Katulis begin with the same premises that Murtha does: that the U.S. military presence in Iraq is inflaming the insurgency, uniting nationalists with Islamo-fundamentalists, and bolstering America's terrorist enemies worldwide; that the Iraqi government is using U.S. troops as a crutch; that maintaining 140,000 troops for another year will destroy the U.S. Army; and that, therefore, on several grounds, it is best for all that we get out.
They call for a phased, two-year plan, drawing the troops down to 80,000 by the end of next year and dispensing with most of the rest by the end of 2007. However, they don't call for a total withdrawal. By their plan, all 46,000 members of the Guard and Reserve will go home next year, but most of the active-duty soldiers and Marines will be "redeployed" to Kuwait or Afghanistan. Even after that, many American troops will remain to train, advise, help secure the borders, and provide logistical and air support to the Iraqi regime.
It may be no coincidence that their study reads like a fleshed-out version of Murtha's proposal."
...
"It almost doesn't matter whether withdrawing or redeploying the troops is a good idea; it's simply going to happen because there is no way for it not to happen (short of a major act of political will, such as reviving the draft or keeping troops on the battlefield beyond reasonable endurance). This is what Murtha meant when he told Russert, "We're going to be out of there, we're going to be out of there very quickly, and it's going to be close to the plan that I'm presenting right now." (There are political reasons for this near-inevitability, as well. When Murtha predicted we'd be mainly out of Iraq by 2006, Russert asked, "By Election Day 2006?" Murtha responded, "You—you have hit it on the head.")...
So, the pertinent question becomes: What is the best way for redeploying? In other words, by what timetable (whether one is explicitly announced or not), after what political and military actions? How many U.S. troops should be left behind, and what should they be doing? Where should the others be redeployed, and under what circumstances will they move back into Iraq? Do we have any realistic strategic goals left in this war (one big problem in this whole fiasco is that the Bush administration never had any from the outset), and how do we accomplish them?
There's a very serious debate to be conducted in this country—not only about the future of our involvement with Iraq, but also about the use of force, the response to threats, the war on terror, the shape of the Middle East. John Murtha's proposal leaves open a lot of questions, but—seen for what it really says, not for how it's been portrayed—it's a start."
Rag on Murtha while you can. You're a minority that's only getting smaller.
Though Murtha is personally popular in his "heavily Democratic" district, his position on pulling out of the war is not necessarily popular there. The next time someone (ahem, Chris Matthews) uses a Democratic Congressmen in a Democratic District that voted for John Kerry as a bellweather on the war, they should have their license to pundit taken away.
PD Shaw
Pretty anecdotal evidence there wouldn't you say?
And as to Matthews using Murtha as a "bellweather" on the war, I have to assume you don't understand the meaning of bellweather.
Tom Volckhausen, I agree those are worthy issues of consideration, but let's keep it real. Most of what you quoted is not Murtha, its either Fred Kaplan or a think tank study. It would be disingenous to call most of that his plan and unfair to examine whether his public proncouncements are consistent with a plan of say, redeploying troops to Afghanistan. What Murtha mainly performed was a handwringing exercise of concern for the troops and confidence in their inability to obtain victory.
Murtha's Quick Reaction Re-Deployment Force is the mark of a fool.
As a Marine, Murtha should be familiar with these names: Tarawa, Taipan, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa.
Running away and then having to hit the well defended, dug in beaches is a recipe for slaughter. Over 3,000 were KIA at Tarawa alone, against about 5,000 Japanese defenders with no air, arty, or much of anything but small arms.
Murtha is a fool. Either run away and wait to get hit again, or fight. Those are the choices. They both are horrid. Such is life.
If we can't beat Al Qaeda in Iraq we might as well surrender. No nation in the region will help us; Pakistan is likely to have a coup and turn over some nukes to binnie, Iran will be encouraged to nuke us as well, these are real threats.
Vietnam was a useless sideshow against NATO and Warsaw Pact forces staring down across the Iron Curtain backed by MAD Nuclear stalemate. Iraq is the centerpiece for the Jihadi struggle to DESTROY the US and the West, and usher in the new Caliphate. I'd love a realistic alternative but Murtha's is just that of a fool that will get far too many Marines killed.
"that the Iraqi government is using U.S. troops as a crutch"
I see no evidence of this whatsoever. Iraqi forces are being trained as fast as possible (maybe too fast?) and being deployed and used as soon as trained.
And if US forces are making the insurgency worse, how are they a crutch? Dont those two assertions contradict each other?
This seems like an attempt to see the worst possible in the Iraqis who fight by our side, while seeing the best possible in those who fight against us.
And the idea of having an over the horizon force in Kuwait makes no sense at all. What will we do the first time theres a mosque that gets bombed? Send in the Marines from Kuwait? Why keep them in Kuwait then - you can move them to a base IN Iraq, outside of a city, and do the same thing, and more easily. IF the troops actually doing things like killing and capturing AQ is not worth the "footprint". Which the commanders on the ground seem to think it is.
"...anti-Iraq war Democrat, Rep. John Murtha..."
This is as far as you really need to go to realize that you are reading a highly partisan political Newsmax article.
Is it really your intention to ignite a shouting match between Pro-and Anti-war readers about Murtha's comment and the ensuing political brouhaha? It only goes to reveal the utter foolishness of our politicians and system, since analysts and policy makers on all sides of the political spectrum believe a withdrawal plan should be put into place sooner than later.
It saddens, frustrates and angers me, all at the same time, that the political climate in this country has devolved to the point where we can't even hold substantive debates on contentious issues where there is reasonably some disagreement. World's greatest nation? We're becoming its greatest laughingstock.
davebo,
Its in the paper, it must be true!
As to bellweather, Matthews describes Murthas as the man who might just have pushed the country past the tipping point on the war. And he repeatedly calls Murthas "a hawk" which is clearly untrue. When Tony Blankley tried to correct him at the end of last nights program (transcript not yet available), Matthews shushed him. There are many Democrats that strongly support defense spending and benefits for our military men and women, which doesn't make them hawks unless you are prepared to define the Democratic party as a bunch of anti-solider hippies.
"help secure the borders"
How can they help secure the borders of Iraq if theyre in Kuwait?
Here is how we know Murtha is a performing pure political hackistry:
-Murtha is being disingenous when he says 'bring the boys home', he intends a large number to be set in Kuwait as a ready reaction force. A force for what purpose? To reinsert if an international terrorist sets up shop and starts exporting suicide bombers against US allies ? Oh...
-he is basically right in the specifics but the way he frames it can only hurt the US, and the only purpose is to score points against Bush. Of course we need to draw down our troops at some point in the not distant future. But why in god's name would we want to frame that as a retreat? Any Democrat that had the Nations best interest in mind would be calling for a pull out based on Iraq being able to take care of herself. Murtha is argueing that we are hurting Iraq by being there, hence leaving will help Iraq. If that is so than we have achieved our goal, correct? The only reason to suggest suffering the horrifying blow to our credibility by withdrawing admitting defeat as Murtha wants is so Bush cant claim credit. That is selfish partisan lunacy of the highest order.
If Murtha was a serious man he would simply demand a sped up time table based on Iraqi elections and IA units coming on line. That accomplishes what he suggests but frames Iraq in a good light and we can draw down without Al Qaeda claiming they chased us off. The true damage Murtha and his henchmen have caused is that now when we do start drawing down forces as planned and inevtiable, it will look like retreat instead of victory. Good news for the Dems, I suppose. Bad news for enemies of Al Qaeda unfortunately, and quite possibly deadly for free Iraq. Wars are about ideas, and if the insurgents believe we are running away they may just stick it out when they would otherwise strike a deal with the government. Bravo Representative. There is blood on your hands.
Let me add that diplomacy is a fool's errand as well.
Who are we going to negotiate with? Bin Laden (OK, several Dems in Think Tanks have already called for a negotiated surrender to Bin Laden, LA Times ran an op-ed advocating that) or Zarqawi?
As they say, "you submit or we slaughter."
Not much room for negotiation.
Murtha is a fool, because there is NO WAY we can avoid this fight. We did NOTHING in response to the Cole, and impotent missile strikes in response to the Embassy bombings in Africa. We still got 9/11.
I'll credit Murtha for bringing some portion of this to debate. I give him zero credit for the force of his arguments, the strongest being ridiculus and meaningless cliches and the weakest being non-facts and some not even rising to the level of being accurate (I'll refrain from calling them untrue here due to space/time constraints.)
I can't say he hasn't, but I've not seen Murtha debate/discuss his position with any other than his collegial buddies from Washington. The few times I've seen his sit and elaborate in front of a camera, he was given solo time. I suspect if Murtha was required to have serious debate where someone called him on the things he says and make him back up is assertions, he'd look ridiculus.
Lehrer News Hour had Lt Gen's Odom and Trainor on yesterday and, their views aside, it was a reasonable and serious discussion of the issues.
If all Murtha's got for a plan is what he has spouted in front of the camera's, his views are worthless for contemplating the issue of how we get "our boys home" without admitting we've surrendered.
Mark said: he intends a large number to be set in Kuwait as a ready reaction force
Does he? I think the force size tells us a lot about where Murtha is coming from. When asked what he meant by an over the horizon presence of marines, Murtha responded:
I think the Somalia reference is Operation United Shield where about 1,800 Marines were deployed for about 73 hours to hold open the exits to the country to allow the U.N. to flee. But you wouldn't even need that many Marines to take out a terrorist camp.
(The Korb and Katulis plan calls for 14,000 troops to be redeployed to Kuwait, leaving 60,000 troops in Iraq and suggests (ambiguously) that most of those will leave by the end of 2007. Despite Kaplan's salesmanship, this is not Murtha's plan -- particularly the part about redeploying 1,000 troops to the Horn of Africa next year)
Murtha's plan is also an evacuation plan and I suspect he believes (unlike Korb and Katulis) that the quicker Iraq stabalizes under a new dictator, the better.
"But you wouldn't even need that many Marines to take out a terrorist camp."
And what if that camp is named Al-Fallujah? Again, Murtha is either being disingenous or a flat out fool. We dont have to imagine a scenario to spur a reinsert forces, it already exists in the name of Abu Al-Zaqawi. I dont think any sane person is arguing 1300 marines are sufficient to deal with him, particularly if we hand him the run of Iraq. If he sets his throne up in a city like Ramadi or Fallujah 1300 marines are absolutley not going to be suffient. However, given year or so and those marines will have perhaps 100,000 veteran Iraqi soldiers fighting with them. That is why it is absolute folly to advocate a pullout before Iraq can field a force large enough to similtaneously hold the cities and towns while meeting the enemy in a scenario like Fallujah.
I've read no reason to believe Murtha has considered the potential for future urban-area military operations. As to whether he is a fool or disingenous, I have to say the latter. Murtha does not depict Iraq in a rosy light, so he's not being overly optimistic.
And he is certainly aware of proposals that would maintain sufficient troop presence in and around Iraq to deal with an urban terrorist enclave. Korb and Katulis first want to relocate troops to the Iraqi countryside, not out of the country. Over the course of the next year, they want to keep 14,000 troops in Kuwait to strike terrorist enclaves and defend against any major acts that risk destabalizing the region. And even after 2007, there would be a continuing presence of Marines, military advisors and a counterterrorism unit operating in Iraq.
No, I believe Murtha is well aware that his plan would not address urban terrorist enclaves, nor secure the borders, nor prevent a civil war, nor prevent the resumption of an Iraqi dictatorship. I suspect he thinks these things will happen anyway and under his plan, fewer Americans will die when the real bloodletting begins.
Americacentric thinking will hardly move the nation forward.
Fortunately there are Americans like Murtha capable of giving the citizenry the bad news it doesn't want to hear.
Tough.
The guy is a realist not hung up on the armchair fantasy of defeating guerillas bent on throwing occupying foreign troops out of Iraq.
What kind of idealogical fantasy world do you live in to believe that if US troops withdraw tommorow, school busses won't still be blown up and Iraqi politicians assassinated?
While we're talking about capitulating to terrorists, let's remember that one of OBL's demands was the removal of US troops from Saudi Arabia—and George Bush, your manly hero, has done exactly that!
So let's add cut-and-run Bush to cut-and-run Murtha. Oh, wait, IOKIYAR.
And OBL called for the end of the sanctions against Iraq and Bush obliged. It all becomes so clear now . . .