John Murtha's Over the Hill Posted by Suzanne Nossel

I see a lot of merit in Congressman John Murtha's statement today on Iraq.  I don't agree with all that he's said, but I think its essential that we come to grips with the absence of a strategy to win, and with the toll Iraq is taking on our military and our level of preparedness back home.  I've become convinced that the Administration's approach amounts to a quest for a "decent interval" aimed to avert humiliation at all costs, even if those costs are in American lives, as they will be.

But there's one aspect of Murtha's proposal that strikes me as flat out fallacious:  one of the four principles of his plan is to "To create an over- the- horizon presence of Marines."  Tonight on the Newshour Murtha explained what he meant:

Now, when I say redeploy our troops, I'm talking about to Kuwait, if they allow us to redeploy there, to Okinawa where we can be over the horizon, go back in, in case there's more terrorist activity.

I simply don't understand this.  Go back in if there's more terrorist activity?  Murtha believes, and may well be correct, that the US military presence is one factor fueling the insurgency.  But are we the only factor?  Will the bloodshed really cease once we go?  Will not the terrorist activity - - driven by political designs on the Iraqi state - continue?  How will we judge whether its "more" or "equal" to the level when we left? 

And, to Murtha's point, what if it is "more"?  Will we "go back in"?  In what kind of numbers?  And for what purpose?  To prevent Iraq from devolving into a failed state and a totally unregulated terrorist haven?   If that's our goal, are we really better off leaving now with the distinct possibility (tacitly acknowledged by Murtha) that Iraq will lurch toward even greater chaos than its in today and that - - per Murtha! -- if that happens our men would need to go back in?

All this confusion illustrates the cruel and disastrous dilemma Bush has imposed on us.   Murtha's speaking some important truths, but I don't think we've hit on a way out of this wilderness just yet.

Comments

[J A. Khoshnaw]

Murtha did seem a little "senile" when suggesting on the News Hour that US troops could be redeployed in Okinawa for "over the horizon" action against "terrorism" in Iraq. (I'm sure the Okinawans can't wait). Can't a single Democrat articulate something that makes sense on Iraq?

Which leads me to... What do people think about not so subtle hints by visiting Kurdish leaders that US bases would be welcomed in Kurdistan?

This seems like a "win-win" option for following reasons:

1) allow US to immediately withdraw a large number of troops yet redeploy a healthy (and stealthy) presence in "Iraq", where training, intel gathering (torture), alcohol consumption, etc., could continue. And, most importantly to Congress, it would reduce US casualties as the Kurdish militias have kept a handle on insurgents.

2) advance key US strategic objectives by projecting longterm US military presence on borders of Iran, Turkey, Syria, Krazysunnistan and Shiamullahstan. (a robust "f--- you", if you will, to all these potential and actual adversaries)

3)(this is a longshot) can promote Kurdish civil society and democracy, including economic growth and political reform.

4) can be used cynically to address Turkish concerns over PKK presence.

5) could (ironically) help stave off outright Kurdish independence, if in fact that is believed to be undesireable by the US/UN and/or the Kurdish warlords.

While undoubtedly on the cynical side and ignoring an admittedly remote possibility of larger regional warfare, why not pursue this option? (And if you think such a strategy could actually help BushPig Inc., then find some Dems with balls (brains would help too) to seize on it first.

[Cal]

If that's our goal, are we really better off leaving now with the distinct possibility (tacitly acknowledged by Murtha) that Iraq will lurch toward even greater chaos than its in today and that - - per Murtha! -- if that happens our men would need to go back in? -- Suzanne

In the first place, I think he means we'd go in if Iraq becomes a terrorist haven against the US, in which case we might send in troops to destroy training camps, kill terrorist leaders etc. Get in and out as fast as we can. This also may have been a political throw-away line to say that we're not beaten -- we're just redoploying.

More importantly, you're assuming that our troops are preventing civil war in Iraq, but, for over a year now, we have been going into Sunni cities with the Kurdish militia and fighting the locals. This is the absolute worst thing you could do if you wanted to prevent a civil war, and this alone would make our occupation counterproductive, even if we were doing everything else right.

In any case, what other choice do we have? We can't stay in Iraq without destroying our army, and Fallow's latest Atlantic Monthly article points out that we "are losing ground" when it comes to building up the Iraqi military. Our soldiers are dying for no purpose.

Good for Murtha for acknowledging the obvious. Senile or not, he's making a lot more sense than Bush or Hillary.

[praktike]

You have some strange views on Turkey, JA.

[Paul]

Murtha is clearly wrong on this issue. Andrew Jackson had it right. General Black Jack Pershing definitely had it right. Do whatever it takes to win, and finish the job. Murtha may be a war vet, and he has my respect for his past contribution, but he is another liberal willing to sell out future generations for blood now. And that’s the cost. It’s either blood now, or blood later, but the bill has to be paid in blood. We are at the doorstep, and if we hold, we can have a solid base in the Middle East, the first true democracy in an Islamic country and a foothold to be able to squash regional uprising as it begins. If we turn tail and run now, we might as well give the terrorists the keys to come into our homes and kill and rape us. I'm just surprised that such a seemingly smart man did not retain anything from his war experience.

After WWI we packed it up and sent the boys back home. Fifteen years later we had to start it up again for WW2 because we left a power vacuum which was filled by a wonderful man & dictator, Adolf Hitler. We STILL have bases in Europe left over from WW2. Can’t you boomers see this correlation, or are you too busy cashing out the equity in your homes to buy SUV’s? Your parents paid the price for freedom in blood and toughness. I'm embarrassed by the baby boomer generation, as their only contribution to society has been civil rights and a distrust of government. They think they are fixing the world with their sympathetic kiss & hug response, but in reality they are killing future generations buy not finishing the difficult job now. Very typical and shortsighted and very indicative of the current liberal thinking. Their ability to turn tail and not have resolve on a SINGLE difficult issue is an embarrassment to those of us in the U.S. that believe we should finish the spread of democracy in the middle east. YES, I’m horrified that my own mother would sell us out.

Thinking that we can cut and run means that the terrorists have won, and they know it. Murtha had it wrong and he should be scorned a generation from now for not holding the line. I hope he is held accountable along with Pelosi, Rockefeller, Kerry, Reid, Durban and the rest. These people are selling us out again. I’m embarrassed to be an American with these people around. Who elects them? What does it take to actually call Treason anymore? Obviously the fact that major media sympathizes with terrorists and then propagates this to the population means that the other side has won. Period.

I’ll expect more violence in the U.S. shortly after we bring the troops home. That is the message we are putting out in the world. That the US has no backbone. What we should do is actually stay the course and win the war. This is a war of ideology that has been around for centuries. If you think the war against Islamic extremism is new, then you need to go study your history. You can’t barter with terrorists and you can’t change the way they think. Kill them by the boatload and bury them in the sand face down covered in pig guts, demoralize the core into genuine reflective thought that maybe the U.S. means business. Bless Pershing, as even he knew half measures won’t work with this bunch.

Thank you to the liberals and cowards in the U.S. for not wanting to finish a war abroad, and don’t be shocked when those that want to harm us do so on our own soil. I guess then we’ll all hold hands in a circle and sing protests with Cindy Sheehan. That’ll solve the problem. Just remember – when its time to pay the butchers’ bill on our own soil, it’ll be the next generation that pays dearly.

[Judah]

Isn't this the same as what CAP proposed as a Kuwait-based rapid reaction force, or do you think that doesn't make sense either?

[Brian J. Phillips]

I didn't see the News Hour last night, but don't people realize there are thousands of Marines, sailors, and airmen stationed on Okinawa right now, for just such a purpose - quick response to anywhere in Asia? Is he simply suggesting more?

And I agree that simply labelling some of them "for terrorism" won't solve any of the issues of what necessitates troop deployment.

[Shayne Torgrimson]

Finally some democrat with common sense. I support him fully. Its about time a democrate stood up to these fucking republicans stealing our money and getting our troops killed. GET THE FUCK OUT OF IRAQ. or make it the 51st state and take all the oil.

Thanks
Shayne

[J Thomas]

"Do whatever it takes to win, and finish the job."

Paul, one of the things it takes is more troops, lots more.

So here's my proposal. Let's have a quick referendum, not secret ballot. We vote on whether to get out or not.

And everybody who votes to stay in, gets drafted for the duration, until we win or they die, whichever comes first.

Never mind about age or infirmities. The army can find a use for you, and every job that two old men can do will release a younger man to fight.

Doesn't it make sense that the guys who say we have to do whatever it takes to win, should be the ones who do whatever it takes?

[doc]

"Doesn't it make sense that the guys who say we have to do whatever it takes to win, should be the ones who do whatever it takes?"

- but...that would mean that we'd have to send most of Congress, along with both the Prez and the VP!

hell - couldn't hurt, could it? and we could start fresh, get some new faces in both Houses, some new ideas circulating through the country: I say got for it!

[Suzanne]

To Judah's question re whether Murtha's proposal is the same as CAP's, I don't think so. CAP's language on the point is as follows:

Phase two of the drawdown would begin in January 2007. By the end of 2007, the only US military forces in Iraq would be a small Marine contingent to protect the US embassy, a small group of military advisors to the Iraqi Government, and counterterrorist units that works closely with Iraqi security forces. This presence, along with the forces in Kuwait and at sea in the Persian Gulf area will be suffi cient to conduct strikes
coordinated with Iraqi forces against any terrorist camps and enclaves that may emerge and deal with any major external threats to Iraq.

I read this to mean that the US forces in proximity might conduct strikes against terrorist in Iraq, but not that they would "go back in." It's an important difference, in that if we are going to pull-out, we need to do so with the knowledge we won't be going back in, come what may for Iraq and the region.

[John]

An "over the horizon" presence would allow for raids to take place with little or no warning. It would resemble the Clinton Administration strategy of bombing select targets purely for their military value. If a terrorist camp is set up, we can use the Marine "vertical envelopment" tactic and send in soldiers who would be smarter than the smartest bomb. The main difference is that they would not remain there as targets.

It isn't a perfect tactic but it beats the one we're using now.

[Dan Kervick]

Suzanne,

I think you are making a bit too much over the alleged difference between CAP's "conducting strikes" and Murtha's "go back in". If you send in a strike force, then you are going back in. Murtha's language isn't as precise as that of the think-tankers, but the intent seems the same in both cases - to leave ground and air forces in the vicinity to respond rapidly in the case of some truly major development or threat, but to disengage US troops from their provocative daily contact with insurgents and leave most of the pacification of the country in the hands of the Iraqis.

No one can doubt that the process will be very ugly, and involve much civil violence. But the ugliness is already happening on a broad scale, and the US seems powerless to stop it. In addition, the presence in great numbers of US troops seems to be the major spur to a massive additional level of violence, which may abate somewhat when the US is out of the fighting.

By the way, you keep warning about the possibility of Iraq "becoming" a failed state. But if Iraq is not already a failed state, I don't know what a failed state is.

[Suzanne]

I remain convinced that, as bad as it is, Iraq could get a lot worse. I am not saying our presence will prevent it, but civil war would be worse.

You may be correct on CAP vs. Murtha. But I think we need to be honest and clear when we talk about maintaining a presence in theatre and what that will and won't allow us to accomplish. In other words, if we're pulling out, people should not have the illusion that we'll be able to go back in and prevent Iraq from becoming a terrorist enclave. I don't see how we'd do that.

[Dan Kervick]

I actually do agree that things could get worse in Iraq. But I think the two most important ways in which they could get worse would be if (i) the dirty and vile covert civil war that is already raging in Iraq erupts into widespread and more conventional conflict, and (ii) the power vaccuum and violent instability in the country sends the fighting outside the borders of Iraq, or draws foreign powers into the country. The most constructive thing the US can do at the present time, it seems to me, is to withdraw from direct engagement with Sunni insurgency and redeploy inside the country to focus its efforts on preventing (i) and (ii) from happening. The current deployment seems to be stoking the fires of conflict rather than dampening them.

I am not as concerned about the threat of Iraq becoming a terrorist enclave. The majority of Iraq's Sunnis have no intention of being ruled by a bunch of Salafist nutjobs. The most important factor contributing to the legitimacy of the latter inside Iraq is their role in resisting the US occupation. Once we are gone, more traditional and experienced leaders in the Sunni community will reassert some control and take care of business against the Salafists. Iraq's Sunnis strike me as hard and practical people; and have worldly experience with political power under Saddam. They are not a bunch of hapless, ignorant and fanatical naifs like the Taliban students, who can be tied around the fingers of a handful of dangerous terrorist rogues.

Somebody is eventually going to rule central Iraq, and its not going to be a coalition of Kurds and Shiites from outside the region. The Sunnis will never bow to that power, and will fight forever to resist it. So long as we deny the obvious, place our bets on the bastard government we have manufactured, and prevent political nature from taking its course, for just so long we will have a war on our hands in central Iraq.

Expecting the political process that is currently in place to lead to a solution to the war in Iraq strikes me as a bit like expecting the Yugoslav parliament in the 90's to have solved the problems of the war in the Balkans. The forces that comprise the Iraqi government are partisan combattants in the war, and thus the institutions of that government cannot serve as neutral spaces for negotiating a peace. The parties to this conflict need to enter into frank multilateral negotiations over the division of the country.

[AG]

Suzanne, what's with the utterly counterproductive and unnecessary title for this piece? Who's side are you on? Think about this for a sec...jeez

[Suzanne]

The reference to Over the Hill was a rif on his Over the Horizon proposal - did not mean it prejoratively

[HK_Vol]

Okinawa is 4,900 miles away from Baghdad. How would this afford our military a "rapid response" to terrorism in Iraq?

Why don't we redeploy in the order in which we entered? We should first dismantle our bases in Japan and Germany. Then our bases in Korea. Then our bases and troops in the Balkans. Then remove our troops from Afghanistan. Then we can worry about Iraq.

[Yvwcl]

Hezpqw daisy chain early menopause !!!
daisy chain early menopause
dirty daisy cumshots
gerber daisy bouquet mail order
crazy daisy sprinklers
gerbera daisy
daisy air rifles
daisy looms
harvesting daisy seeds
daisy license plate frame
knotty daisy rss feed
cathy quion davy daisy spam
daisy dukes

[aion gold]

There is a lot of aion online gold in the game,if you want to have them you can come to play the game. Ilike to earn the aion money,because if i have them i can go to buy equipment and i also can go to buy aion gold. if you want to play it, please cheap aion gold and join us. Please do not hesitate to play the game,i believe you will like it too.

[mabinogi gold]

I hope i can get mabinogi online gold in low price.

[Lord Of The Rings Gold]

I likeLOTRO Gold, I like the ending,Lord Of The Rings Gold will be better.

[knight online gold]

I hope i can get knight gold in low price,
Yesterday i bought knight noah for my friend.

[requiem money]

In fact, the
cheap requiem lant is expensive. I usually find
requiem online goldfrom the supplier.

[maple story mesos]

or you buy maplestory mesos. If you get maple story mesos, you can continue this game.

[Gucci handbag]

hope i can get knight gold in low price,
Yesterday i bought knight noah for my friend.

[luxury watches]

I am so with you,rolex watch
luxury watch

[molded rubber products]

Plastic parts made by injection molding
printing in China
construction scaffolding

[muhtar]

Thank you for your sharing.! seslichat seslisohbet

[cheap coach handbags]

Thank you for your sharing! I like i very much!

[nike air max]

0314
The Nike air max Shoe lives up to its name with plush cushioning and a sleek silhouette. It brings you just what you need to style it up wherever you go. you can look at the Air max 2009,air max 90,Air max 95,Air Max 2010
Features:
* Minimalistic construction of leathers and synthetics in the upper
* Nike Shox technology for optimal cushioning
* Rubber outsole for excellent grip

[rado watches]

If you have PANERAI Watches , I still have my idea to achieve.

[bvlgari watches]

I am so with you FRANCK MULLER Watch

[watches]

The sterile dial with its very legible hands and large numerals is fantastic to use,and a breeze to read in low light conditions.There is no chapter ring -- just a stainless steel space between the dial and domed sapphire crystal.The crystal features an internal anti-reflective coating that does successfully lessen the effects of glare.The domed shape of the crystal meets flush against the bezel and,while it is a small detail,the tight fit will prevent nicks in the edge of the crystal and lint or dust from taking up residence in the space.The Moray is powered by the excellent Miyota 8215 automatic movement seen in many Citizen automatics and it gives the Moray a 45 hour power reserve and handwind capability.On my wrist after a few weeks of wear,the Replica Pulsar Watches was running just about 5-7 seconds fast over a given day,spending its nights in a display case facing dial up.This is very close to COSC timing and is very similar to the Halios Holotype which uses the same movement.I wore the Moray exclusively for weeks and can attest that it is veryaccurate,sturdy,and fits easily under all of my sleeves (including Replica Locman Watches).The Moray does exhibit the same rotor noise found in almost allMiyota based Replica Haurex Watches (when you move your wrist fast enough,you willlikely hear the rotor spinning inside the case).The Benarus Moray is nearly sold out in all configurations; only the PVD with the British Racing Green (BRG) dial is Raymond Watches,and it is selling for $550 USD.It has been an big success for Benarus,and is well regarded on many collectors forums.The rare mix of vintage style,simplicity,500m water resistance,and a great price point made the Moray a fast seller.The Moray has quickly become one of my favorite Replica Hugo Boss Watches.Benarus customer service has been great and subjectively the styling is nearly perfect for my taste in Replica Invicta Watches.After about a month of ownership,I have no complaints or warnings with the Benarus Moray; it is a Replica Rotary Watches,very robust,and beautifully built.By James Stacey; For updates on content,follow Watch Report on Twitter.Replica Officina Del Tempo and Replica Mauboussin Watches.