by Charles
First off, Congressman John Murtha is a veteran who served his country honorably. I assume he loves the United States of America every bit as much as I do. So in this criticism–and it’s a rigorous criticism–I am not questioning his patriotism. What I am questioning is his judgment. More specifically, his political judgment. Not just what he said, but when he said it. Murtha is wrong. Dead wrong. Horrendously wrong. Calamitously wrong.
Murtha raised the white flag over eighteen months ago when he said this war was unwinnable. Instead of employing the sustained will necessary for victory, Murtha embodies the sustained wilt that leads to failure. The stakes could not be higher. A defeat in Iraq would be monumentally worse than our bust in Vietnam. We as a country cannot allow defeat to happen and I cannot allow Murtha’s words go without challenge. Why is he wrong? There are many reasons.
We have NOT done all we can. Murtha stated that "The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction." No we haven’t, and we should not change toward Murtha’s direction. We have thousands upon thousands of Iraqi troops to train, and our soldiers need to be there for that purpose. There are groups of Sunni paramilitary squads that need to be routed until the Iraqi troops are able to do it themselves. There is infrastructure that needs construction and reconstruction. Most importantly, the terrorist group Al Qaeda in Iraq is in Iraq, and irreconcilable terrorists need to either leave or die.
We would be fleeing from the WAMI. The largest and most central front in the War Against Militant Islamists is Iraq. Ayman Zawahiri, in his own words, wrote that very thing in his step-by-step plan for a global Caliphate:
The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq.
And so forth. The cornerstone of al Qaeda’s war against the United States is right where we are. Congressman Murtha is helping Zawahiri and the terrorists accomplish Zawahiri’s first stage. Our premature departure will be interpreted in the Muslim world (and perhaps the rest of the world) as a victory for al Qaeda, and al Qaeda will have stumbled upon a blueprint for success: Stick around and keep attacking until enough liberals say "uncle". Our early departure would mean that al Qaeda will have a base of operations in Iraq, and a growing one at that. Victory for al Qaeda will be a propaganda boon, helping them recruit more extremists to their evil cause. Al Jazeera is already spreading Murtha’s loser-defeatist message. Whenever we’ve stepped away from terrorist attacks, terrorists have become emboldened because, in the past, we have affirmed their perception that the United States is a paper tiger. More emboldened terrorists means we will be at more risk of facing terrorist attacks, not less risk as Murtha believes. In his own words: "We also need to make sure that Iraq does not resume Afghanistan’s former role as the host nation for terrorist training camps." Our immediate departure would do just that.
Tyrants across the world will wrongly believe that if they just gut it out a little longer, the Americans will fold and go away. This will make any future endeavors we undertake that much more difficult to execute. Our enemies need to know that when American soldiers show up, they will lose, so they might as well just give up now.
Murtha is betraying the American soldiers who have been there. By most accounts, the soldiers in-country have seen noticeable and significant progress. While it’s commendable that Murtha goes to Bethesda and Walter Reed hospitals "almost every week", he should spend more time in Iraq, talking to the soldiers on the ground, getting firsthand accounts of what’s taking place. Murtha’s problem is the mainstream media’s problem: They observe and report the truth they see, but what they see is a slice. In effect, Murtha is telling those soldiers with life-altering injuries that their efforts and sacrifices were a waste. The best way to honor all of our military men and women is to win.
Murtha is right about manpower, though. At existing troop levels, we have unnecessarily lengthened the rebuilding period, and in so doing, put too much stress and strain on our soldiers. What we really need is not troop withdrawals, but troop additions. I don’t know how many more we need, but if we seek a successful clear-and-hold strategy, the more boots on the ground the sooner the better.
Murtha is wrong that "our troops are the primary target of the insurgency". Far more Iraqi troops and civilians have died at the hands of "insurgents" and terrorists than Americans, by orders of magnitude. Our enemies aren’t just fighting the coalition troops, they’re fighting the Iraqi government and they’re fighting people who don’t share their view of Islam. By leaving before getting the job done, we are undermining the fledgling Iraqi government when it needs us most, and we are putting officials’ lives in more peril. This is a recipe for chaos.
Murtha is betraying the Iraqi people. After the 1991 Gulf War, we betrayed the Shiites in southern Iraq and Kurds in northern Iraq, not giving them enough support to protect them from Saddam’s vengeance. Departing before victory is achieved will be a second and inexcusable betrayal of the Iraqi people. Premature withdrawal will increase the chances of chaos and civil war. Without our involvement, there is the risk that the onetime oppressed will be the new oppressors. We should not and cannot turn our backs on these people.
Murtha is ignoring the political progress. Military and political progress are inextricably linked. Political progress cannot happen without adequate security. In the current situation, adequate security cannot happen without American troops. We have crossed several major political milestones and another one is scheduled for December 15th. Because we have provided a reasonably stable environment, two successful elections have occurred and the Sunnis are joining the political process. Abandoning Iraq now would be a clear signal to the Sunnis that they no longer need to join the political process.
Murtha has drunk the Daily Kos Kool Aid. He is a loser-defeatist whose own ideas must be defeated, decisively and mercilessly. Another military veteran has it right.
The Senate has responded to the millions who braved bombs and threats to vote, who put their faith and trust in America and their government, by suggesting that our No. 1 priority is to bring our people home.
We have told insurgents that their violence does grind us down, that their horrific acts might be successful. But these are precisely the wrong messages. Our exit strategy in Iraq is not the withdrawal of our troops, it is victory.
Americans may not have been of one mind when it came to the decision to topple Saddam Hussein. But, though some disagreed, I believe that nearly all now wish us to prevail.
Because the stakes there are so high — higher even than those in Vietnam — our friends and our enemies need to hear one message: America is committed to success, and we will win this war.
Another group also has it right: There is no end but victory.
Update: I’m not sure what happened, but I think I mistakenly forgot to hit the "New Post" button and typed over this post with the American Forces Should Withdraw in Six Months post. Anyway, my earlier updates are gone and I don’t know how to retrieve them. Going on memory:
- Several made comments that I didn’t link to Murtha’s entire "unwinnable" quote. I didn’t have the link at the time, but it was clear what Murtha was thinking 18 months ago if the administration did not move in his direction.
- I condemn the statements that Jean Schmidt made on the House floor. The real cowards on Friday was the House leadership for not putting Murtha’s verbatim resolution up for a vote.
- I can’t remember the third thing.
Sorry for the seven hours or so of confusion.
Update II: Yes, I changed the title to the post. In my view, Murtha’s proposal is a path toward loss and defeat. Does this make Murtha a loser-defeatist by dint of his policy? There’s really no need to go there, hence the change.
Giblets beat you there:
“That’s because John P. Murtha is a crybaby.”
All I can say is you cannot call someone a defeatist without questioning their patriotism.
We have NOT done all we can.
No, but then as I recall you supported Bush for President in 2004. When Bush won last November, the Iraq war became unwinnable – since by 2008, it will most likely be too late to recover. Well before November 2004, it was clear that the Bush administration had no will to win in Iraq, only – perhaps – the wish. So, you had your choice last November, and you chose defeat then. Why complain now?
Charles, you sound like you are having a hysterical fit over this. Get a grip and try to think a little bit about the total and complete irrevelance of Iraq to the American people. We don’t care about Iraq because it just doesn’t matter to our lives one way or the other what happens there.
Iraq, and the rest of the middle east has oil. If they are willing to sell the oil, we buy it from them. If they don’t sell it, they can choke on it. Either way, who really cares?
There is no end but victory.
what an utterly stupid thing to say. what are you, a Klingon?
Technically the guy doing the actual “losing” (Bush) is the actual “loser”. At best Murtha can be only a potential loser.
Okay, that was flip. So:
It’s easy to SAY “there’s no end but victory.” The sad fact is that right now we are LOSING, and we have no actual PLAN to actyually WIN. Teeth-grinding is not a plan. Fist-shaking is not a plan. Calling John Murtha a “loser-defeatist” is not a plan. I would point out that “hope is not a plan” but I don’t see any actual hope in this post – just bitterness and frustration at someone who has pointed out the obvious. If you’d had a plan for victory, Charles, I suspect you’d have suggested it by now (and if the president had one, he would have implemented it by now). “Will” won’t do it. “Hope” won’t do it. Positive thinking won’t do it. The Jordan bombing indicates that as far as the War on Terror goes (nice goalpost-shifting with WAMI, by the way), we’ve accomplished less than nothing in Iraq – we’ve hurt the cause we supposedly went to war for. Unless you’ve got a plan, calling Murtha names doesn’t do much good.
Charles,
There isn’t much difference, in my mind, from questioning someone’s patriotism and accusing them of betraying the troops.
Can’t you just tell us why he is wrong without attacking his character?
You go in one article from “I am not questioning his patriotism” to “Murtha is betraying the American soldiers who have been there.”
Since your allowed to judge the patriotism of others, I’ll judge yours.
Your obviously more concerned with making excuses for the Republican party than actually fixing the situation in Iraq. Your more concerned with the future of the Republican party than with the future of this country or the future of our soldiers.
In ten years you’ll be blaming your fellow American’s on the left for the lose of Iraq, claiming we didn’t have the willpower.
As if a will to victory or any other such nonsense could overcome disastrous planning and dealing in bad faith from day one.
You’ll never place the blame where it truly lies, on this Republican administration, and on those people like yourself that should have seen this coming in 2004.
Charles has alluded in the past to a “plan”: Clear and hold, and instituting a “CAP” programme. Am I right?
The former requires a lot of troops. The United States doesn’t have those troops at the moment. It will either require a buildup of American troops, or the use of large numbers of Iraqi troops. Neither currently exists.
CAP also requires the existence of credible Iraqi forces, particularily loyal Iraqi forces. Nothing would be more disasterous than to embed US soldiers into Iraqi units of uncertain allegiance.
Regardless, both require a commitment of many many years, and an unknown cost. A fiscally responsible government would cut spending elsewhere dramatically, or raise taxes. And oh, institute a draft. I don’t see these proposals.
Nor do I see spelled out what the acceptible outcome is. A democratic Iraq, sure. But define that, please.
Whenever we’ve stepped away from terrorist attacks, terrorists have become emboldened because, in the past, we have affirmed their perception that the United States is a paper tiger.
Surely this unsubstantiated claim can be retired after the last 28 months of experience in Iraq. The bad guys don’t attack because they think they can get away with it. They attack because they have specific strategic ends in mind. Ends that are being served by the Admin’s response.
I think it will not be long before Murtha’s position is that of the majority of republicans in Congress, and a great many people in the Admin too. They’ll phrase it better — and point to the progress made up to now as evidence that we can draw down.
And they’ll be right. Iraq stops being the central front in some war we are fighting when we stop fighting there.
hile it’s commendable that Murtha goes to Bethesda and Walter Reed hospitals “almost every week”, he should spend more time in Iraq, talking to the soldiers on the ground, getting firsthand accounts of what’s taking place.
Yes, he should, just like how Charles gets all of his information about Iraq.
The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq.
2. ?
3. Caliphate!
How many of these guys do you really think there are in the world, Charles? Honestly?
. . . al Qaeda will have stumbled upon a blueprint for success: Stick around and keep attacking until enough liberals say “uncle”.
It may have escaped your notice — I wouldn’t be surprised — but “liberals” do not control the US Armed Forces.
In fairness, CB and the NEBV folks have stated a plan: send more troops. This is where the “sustained will” part comes in. It’s on Bush and Cheney to convince the American people to send more men and women to Iraq and to accept more casualties. As Charles says, this is a tall order for the occassional communicator. Whether this state of public relations affairs for the president means that the war is “unwinnable” as a practical matter (i.e., because he will never be able to convince the people to sustain the committment of lives necessary to achieve a relatively safe and honorable ending point for the Iraq mission) is subject to a debate fraught with rhetorical side tracks and dead ends.
Travis, as far as that argument goes (i.e., “It’s on Bush and Cheney to convince the American people to send more men and women to Iraq and to accept more casualties”), a good chunk of Murtha’s whole point is that the volunteer army is on the verge of implosion precisely because of the demands of the war (i.e., recruiters can’t GET people to sign up for a prolonged military conflictfor which there is no necessary cause).
Now, if Charles is going to start advocating for a draft, then hey, let him start trying to sell a draft (to both the Republican Party and the rest of the country, because I’m willing to bet they like their political careers and their childrens’ lives more than they like this war, respectively). The fact that Charles isn’t heavily plugging a draft makes me suspect that he thinks this is a stupid idea, too.
Nor do I see spelled out what the acceptible outcome is. A democratic Iraq, sure. But define that, please.
I think we’ve been over this. There seems to be a rough consensus that “victory” in Iraq looks like a reasonably representative government with an indigenous army and civil police force capable of reasonably securing the territory against outside threats and preventing terrorist groups from being able to operate openly with impunity as in pre-invasion Afghanistan. In other words, an Iraq that is not a failed state, not engaged in civil war, and governed according to a constitution adopted by Iraqis and not imposed by Americans.
It also seems to be an unstated assumption if not a matter of rough consensus that, even with “victory” achieved, there will be an American military/intelligence presence of some sort in Iraq indefinitely.
“Ayman Zawahiri, in his own words,”
Who was that letter written to, again?
Lungfish, I assume that if Charles and Tacitus are expressly/implicitly calling for more troops in Iraq then they are also mindful and supportive of the necessarly logical implications of that position, which you point out. I’ll let Charles speak for himself on that point, although I acknowledge that it does seem to have become common on this board to impute bad faith/willful mendacity to Charles’s posts.
Congressman Democrat is helping Ho Chi Minh and the terrorists accomplish Giap’s stage. Our premature departure will be interpreted in the communist world (and perhaps the rest of the world) as a victory for revolution, and the communists will have stumbled upon a blueprint for success: Stick around and keep attacking until enough liberals say “uncle”.
And that’s why California is ruled by Vietman today.
I don’t post often because there are others here far more eloquent, but I can’t let this pass without comment:
We have NOT done all we can
I think you’re going to have to wait until 2008 or an impeachment before we see anything other than “we’re staying the course and if you disagree you’re un-American traitors” from this administration. Am I to infer that you consider continuing to NOT do all we can an acceptable state?
We would be fleeing from the WAMI
Ahhhh, and we’re back to the despicable flypaper theory: “The cornerstone of al Qaeda’s war against the United States is right where we are…we will be at more risk of facing terrorist attacks”. You’ll have to excuse my cynical nature for not allowing this bit of jingoism to move me. I also seriously doubt that Murtha believes our early departure will put us at less risk of terrorist attacks unless you have a direct quote from him.
Additionally, until enough “liberals” say uncle? Apparently you haven’t been reading the same newspapers as I. Unless Hagel switched sides when I wasn’t looking or you think the 60+% of the people opposed to the conduct of the war are all liberals…
Murtha is betraying the American soldiers who have been there
Because nothing honors the sacrifice of those killed like sending a few thousand more through the meat-grinder. Sorry, but the real betrayal was sending them in without a plan, without adequate troop numbers and under false pretenses. I don’t see the first two changing any time soon and the third is now history.
Regarding manpower, I have to ask again, how do you propose to increase it? Through ever increasing sign-up bonuses, and if so, at what point do the troops cease becoming patriotic Americans doing what they feel is their patriotic duty and start becoming mercenaries? Nearly 2/3 of the country now sees what a clusterf**k this is, so I doubt you’re going to find anywhere near the number of recruits actually needed to maintain (or is it restore?) order.
Murtha is betraying the Iraqi people
Once again, you need to look at the inept planning and execution of the war to see who really betrayed the Iraqi people. If things had been done “right” in the first place (or not at all), then there would be no talk of betrayal.
Murtha is ignoring the political progress
I doubt that he’s ignored the progress made. If you’re talking about future progress, I’m personally undecided whether our continued presence is more help or harm. Seems there’s plenty of reports that could be slanted to either point of view.
As a disclaimer, this is my first time posting a comment on this site, although I have been reading it for a long time. As a moderate, with definite liberal leanings, I like to obtain perspectives from both sides, which this site allows.
Additionally, my son is one of those boots on the ground in Iraq, so I admit to personal emotional biases in this situation. And to mention, he , due to his position there, has contact with many members of the military over there that serve in different functions. I will be repeating some things he has told me, although I can not attest to the overall accuracy of what he says.
Now to rebut a lot of what you are saying in this post.
First of all, it is necessary to look at Murtha himself. He is hardly a “liberal” and in fact is known as one of the more conservative Democrats in Congress. Additionally, he has significant contacts at the Pentagon and has been referred to in some circles as the Pentagon’s representative in Congress. And he has, I believe, a lot more knowledge of military matters than anybody posting here, and definitely more than anybody in this administration.
In terms of your specific points.
You state we have not done all we can. He does not argue that point, but he does say that we have done all we can militarily without further destroying our own military. In fact, he discussed specific ways in which the military would still be a meaningful option, but not in an occupational role. And he is talking from the perspective of what we could conceivably do militarily in the future under our current leadership, which may be the most incompetent in US history.
Next you talk about how we would be fleeing from the WAMI. Under that, you make several assumptions, but you make them as declarative statements. In effect you say that we would be giving the terrorists a country from which they could operate. Nobody knows if that is the case, although it is glibly stated time after time by the apologists for this adminsitration.
At the same time, I have read several commentaries by people who have as much knowledge of Iraq as our leaders, if not more so, who state that if we left Iraq, that would doom al-qaeda in Iraq. The assumption is that any cooperation between the terrorists and the native insurgents is a matter of convenience and fostered by our presence, and that if we left, the Iraqis would throw out the terrorist element.
I am not a seer, so I cannot say that would happen, but the likelihood is as great as your dire prediction. It is our presence that is serving as a recruiting tool. There are many reasons to believe that our departure would reduce recruitment world-wide.
You state we would be etraying our troops. This is an ols canard. My belief is that they have already been betrayed by an adminsitration that sent them there in inadequate numbers to do the job, underequipped, undertrained, with no plans on how to control the country. In so doing, this adminstration provided the insurgency with many fo the weapons and explosives being used against both our troops and the Iraqi civilians.
The betrayal would not be in bringing them home, but it was in sending them there to begin with.
You state we would be betraying the Iraqi people. When over 80%, in some polls, state they want us gone, how would our departure be a betrayal. There is a hidden assumption that the Iraqis want a vibrant democracy. My son questions that. Yes, Iraqis went to the polls, although not in sterling numbers, despite the adminstration’s spin. However, my son believes that they are using the process as a means to an end, the end being a powerr base from which they (particularly the Shiites) can gain revenge on the Sunnis.
In the long run, it is up to the Iraqis to create their own political structure, and our presence to some degree serves as an impediment to that.
A few side points, as this is getting very lengthy. Did you ever think that the terrorists don’t want us out of Iraq? They may talk about how our leaving would be a victory for them, but our presence helps them immensely.
Also, our leaving would put everything squarely on the shoulders of the Iraqis. Despite all the predictions of major civil war, we don’t know for a fact that that would happen. And even if it did, would that be the worst thing that could happen? May not our continued presence, with all the negatives attached to it be the worst thing?
I do not claim to have all the answers, but I am certainly not going to be as declarative as Charles is and state all my pronouncements as certainty. Up until recently, although I was against this war when it started, I felt that we needed to stay there until we finished the job. But nobody has defined what finishing the job is, and with our current leadership, I have grave doubts about how the job, whatever it is, could be finished.
“In his own words: ‘We also need to make sure that Iraq does not resume Afghanistan’s former role as the host nation for terrorist training camps.” Our immediate departure would do just that.'”
So your stance is that America is so weak and ineffective that the only way we can fight terrorism in a country is to conquer it, occupy it, and ruthlessly exterminate all who would fight?
Obviously, then, we’ll just have to keep going until we’ve occupied every land in which terrorists live and wiped out every one of them. Who says the Republicans don’t believe in full employment?
Well, if there is to be no draft, and given that ~60% of the country wants out of Iraq, I see no practical alternative other than big enlistments from under 40 Bush supporters, the guys that want to stay. This would also be a lot more effective than waiting for any draft.
There seems to be a rough consensus that “victory” in Iraq looks like a reasonably representative government with an indigenous army and civil police force capable of reasonably securing the territory
That’s all very hazy, though. According to the criteria you choose, that could exist, well, now.
For example, I think it was Jay Garner who recently said there are lot of capable Iraqi troops right now. Except they’re defined as militias. He recommended changing the definition.
Whenever we’ve stepped away from terrorist attacks, terrorists have become emboldened because, in the past, we have affirmed their perception that the United States is a paper tiger.
Surely this unsubstantiated claim can be retired…
To be fair, I don’t think it’s wingnuttery to say that propaganda-savvy terrorists like Al Qaeda would spin an American withdrawal as confirmation that the US is a paper tiger, since they have made that very claim in the past. Seriously, does anyone really think that Al-Qaedaist jihadist/salafist/terrorist/militant islamist/whatevers would NOT say that a withdrawal of American troops equals a victory for them?
“Tyrants across the world will wrongly believe that if they just gut it out a little longer, the Americans will fold and go away.”
So you’re saying that if America withdraws from Iraq, the Kings of Saudi Arabia and Jordan will worry less about our attempts to overthrow them?
I’m very confused. How can we oppose tyrants when many wouldn’t be in power, but would instead be overthrown, if not for support from us ranging from considerable to overwhelming, from Egypt to Pakistan?
“While it’s commendable that Murtha goes to Bethesda and Walter Reed hospitals ‘almost every week’, he should spend more time in Iraq, talking to the soldiers on the ground, getting firsthand accounts of what’s taking place.”
Let me get this straight.
You’re saying that people who haven’t gone to Iraq may have insufficient information about Iraq, and may make poor judgments and recommendations therefore?
Is that about it? Do I have it wrong?
Is it standard advice from you, Charles, that people should do as you say, not as you do? Or did I miss your report on your personal inspections in Iraq?
It’s very impressive that you could write with this level of self-awareness, though.
Charles:
You wrote in a previous post that “we are where we are”
I’d like to add that I am who I am and you are who you are and it is what it is.
However, just as you are NOT a Nazi or a baby killer or some other variety of posting rules violation, Murtha does not betray, liberals to not cry Uncle, nor are too many of anybody raising the white flag.
You can keep saying it and writing it and Hunter over at Redstate (among others) can keep using the word “sedition” to describe
the acts of his domestic enemies.
Or you could cut it out. Would you please?
I have thoughts occassionally, despite my liberal nature, that if we really want to win the War on Terror, we could go fully Truman on say, Falluja, and nuke the city. As an example. Have a second target lined up. Turn it into glass, as tough guys like to point out from the barcalounger.
I didn’t see the word “uncle” in that paragraph.
So whaddya say? Let’s cut the half measures and win this thing. Or at least show some really ruthless resolve.
“He is a loser-defeatist whose own ideas must be defeated, decisively and mercilessly.”
Why “and mercilessly,” exactly? Why did you choose those precise words? What do you mean by this?
Spartikus,
I don’t think that the “consensus” scenario I mentioned can be said to exist yet: they don’t have a constitution yet, and they don’t have a central representative (of some sort) government with unified authority over a national army and police force. Maybe they can get there over the next 6-18 months with sustained American political, diplomatic, and military support in some capacity; that’s the big question.
Regarding “deputizing” militias into the role of defacto national forces, that actually might be what happens in the near future. Since it’s supremely unlikely that we actually will increase the number of US troops in Iraq, for all the various reasons that have been pointed out here, I think it’s a safe bet that local and regional security duty will necessarily be devolved onto existing institutions. In Iraq, as a practical matter, that means SCIRI and the like. Still a big question of local/regional players will consent to be governed by a central national (hopefully meaningfully representative) authority. Lots of big questions up in the air right now.
This matter of turning day-to-day policing and counterinsurgency over to Iraqis, i.e. Iraqi militias (and let’s not forget the highly capable and motivated peshmerga) is the real-world manifestation of “you go to war [or nation-building or whatever] with the army you have.”
John Miller–
Tell your son in Iraq that he has the support and good wishes of all Americans. We all wish him a safe and successful tour. Tell him to take care of himself. And as a father myself I say to you: thanks.
Of course AQ is going to claim victory. So what? It claims victory today, and every day that its leadership is not in custody. It claims victory anytime somebody blows somebody up.
We can claim victory too. All our principal war aims have been met: Iraq is disamred, the tyrant is overthrown, etc, etc.
What I disagree with is the notion that an AQ declaration of victory has any value. people are not going to make a decision whether or not to attack San Francisco based on whether their side “won” in Iraq.
We could declare victory in Iraq, and then go win victory in Waziristan. (Or wherever). It’s a matter of getting off the idea that we should be at war with states, and onto the idea that we should be at war with bandits.
Tad:
Thank you. With luck he will be home in about 8 weeks. Although he fully anticipates needing to go back in the future.
For what it is worth, he sees little likelihood that either the Iraqi army or police will be able to stand alone for a long time.
Why “effing” bother with this sort of sensationalist tripe? I’m sorry I ever re-linked to this place, I won’t make the same mistake again with the current lineup.
Where I think Charles’ analyses have always failed is that he does not consider that the “winning” strategy may not be available. It is improbable in the extreme that more US boots will be put on the ground, and quite probable that the number of boots will be reduced no matter the underlying conditions in Iraq in the run-up to the midterm elections. It is only slighly more probable that the reconstruction will be refocused to provide jobs for the >25% of the Iraqis that are unemployed at the expense of the profits of the US corporations. And I find it more probable than not that many of the Iraqi power blocks are “going through the motions” of the elections and the constitution because so long as the US troops are present they must play along.
The comparison and debate should not be between what Murtha proposes and some ideal strategy, but between what Murtha proposes and the strategy that is likely to be delivered as an alternative. I admit that “cut and run” sticks in my craw. But it seems likely to me that we will see “cut and run” in some other guise before the 2006 elections any way.
Since there’s no state left in Iraq except for the nascent one we’re supposedly trying to build, I think we can say we’re off the idea we’re at war with states.
I think it’s a valid point that the bandits will use a withdrawal as an effective propaganda weapon against us and I don’t think a full-spectrum analysis of “war on terrorists” can responsibly ignore that factor. The question is how much weight to give it and how to deal with it.
Crikey. Every once in a while I pop back to one of these so-called “balanced” sites hoping to encounter the thoughtful hawks I’m told are out there, somewhere… and every time I find deluded, pseudothink guff like this.
At least Charles provides a quick ‘n dirty guide to the last dregs of the warflogger rhetorical arsenal, from “don’t dare betray our cosmetic elections process” through “the soldiers will despair if more of their brothers-in-arms aren’t sent into the woodchipper.” The “you’re not a traitor, just a loser-defeatist” line seems pretty new though — is that an Obsidian Wings original?
Well, never mind.
A commenter on Charles’s last post made a point which I think needs to be repeated by everybody: the real defeatist is President Bush because he is not willing to lay out a plan for how to pay for a long commitment and he is not willing to talk draft so that there will be troops for a lnog commitment. The proponents of will need to put up or shut on this point. Without the will to provide the funds and the troops the talk of will is just talk.
Well, obviously, because losers must be countered with decisiveness and defeatists must be countered with mercilessnessnessness.
When you call someone two names, you must have two methods of defeating them. It’s neater that way, like lining up your pencils in a row.
Geez.
It would be so much easier and save on the paperwork to call Murtha a c——— and come up with just one overarching method of destroying him.
Besides, why does Murtha get two labels and the rest of us, for the most part, get just one?
Also, how bout’ this deal, since we seem to be negotiating withdrawals: If Tad Brennan is back, and John Miller decides to comment more often, and Charles stops with the thumb-in-the-eye name-calling and sticks to analysis, thus making the world and Wings a better place, I’ll do my part and go away.
Again with the empty promises. (mine)
“I’m sorry I ever re-linked to this place, I won’t make the same mistake again with the current lineup.”
Because, after all, we don’t care how few people read Hilzoy and Katherine’s stuff; it’s much more important to try to not spread nonsense from Charles, because stuff like his can’t be read anywhere else, but Katherine’s and Hilzoy’s attention to injustice, and their level of writing, is just common everywhere.
Yes, that’s a sound sense of priorities, all right.
Have you been in Iraq? Unless you have, do not comment on what should or should not be done.
In effect, Murtha is telling those soldiers with life-altering injuries that their efforts and sacrifices were a waste.
Guess what? — when you screw up as badly and Bush and crew, you are wasting their efforts and lives. For some reason, Charles believes it most important that this truth not be spoken, and that policy be based around the illusion that this waste has not already occurred.
Saying its true is the most important lesson learned from Viet Nam — that was Murtha’s most important point. The prime cause of defeat in that war was sticking to a failed plan because not enough people in power would speak the truth.
Insisting that we continue a badly flawed war with no realistic plan to fix it, which is what Charles is advocating, is telling the troops that we will continue to waste their efforts and lives with callous indifference. Oh, Charles gives lip service to the fact that things have not gone well so far, and allegedly there are changes that can be made to compensate. However, there is zero chance that any of those changes are going to be made by current leadership. If you are an advocate for the continuation of this war by the US, you are unavoidably an advocate for more of the same awfulness, and cannot cover your tracks by pretending that you are advocating for something else, because it will never happen.
Put another way, it makes no sense to continue to advocate for a failed war to be led by failed leaders based on the fantasy that the errors will not continue and magic beans will cure past ills. Sorry — there is no convenient middle ground, or some less awful choice.
At some point, if you actually care about the troops instead of a cartoon version of what war is about, you realize that you morally cannot continue to advocate for their effort and possible death on behalf of a failed effort that will not get better. Murtha has crossed this bridge because he realizes the essential moral truth of this point — because he cares about the troops more than blind adherance to ideological loyalty. It is immoral to misuse troops in this manner, which is exactly what Bush has been doing and for which Charles is now an advocate.
As for the odious “loser-defeatist” title — first, the “loser-defeatist” is current leadership since they are 100% responsible for the current mess. Someone who points it out and insists that it stop is not the “loser-defeatist.” Also, equal time on the same level of name-calling would be to label Charles the “blood thirsty warmonger.” Why do you stoop to such a low level, Charles?
John Thullen: “If Tad Brennan is back, and John Miller decides to comment more often, and Charles stops with the thumb-in-the-eye name-calling and sticks to analysis, thus making the world and Wings a better place, I’ll do my part and go away.”
Well, since your comments are some of the more enjoyable ones, I guess I will have to avoid commenting.
Empty promise.
Charles, this is a deeply contemptible post. You really ought to be ashamed of yourself.
Michael Cain: But it seems likely to me that we will see “cut and run” in some other guise before the 2006 elections any way.
Which may provide some insight into why the White House and its tame turd-flingers are so busy pushing the “Democrats are traitors” garbage: to have any hope of surviving the 2006 elections, they need to both bring troops home and be able to blame the Democrats for the sorry state of Iraq.
I haven’t read through the thread yet. I’m posting to suggest people take a peek at my reframing of Charles’s post at Hating on Charles Bird. Charles, your attacks on Murtha poison the well of what needs to be a serious policy debate. I won’t be surprised if you take real flak here.
I’ll link to individual posts by the indispensable Katherine/Hilzoy, or good posts I steal from any other contributor here, but not the site itself.
Also, equal time on the same level of name-calling would be to label Charles the “blood thirsty warmonger.”
I was leaning towards “Self-defeatist”, myself.
Oops. stooped.
Jackmormon,
Thanks for your HOCB post. It frames the issues in a far better manner, and in a manner far more likely to lead to rational debate than Charles’ post. My main quibble is your line:
“Attacking Murtha as a loser-defeatist, Charles, is utterly beneath you.”
I truly wish it were true. Experience suggests otherwise.
DaveL is exactly right. The reason all this talk about “will” and “defeatists” is being blasted out is that Bush is going to cut and run and he wants someone to blame. it is a mistake to engage Charles or Tacticus or any other perveyor of this message on the merits of their message. Instead confront them with their own lack of will. If we pull out of Iraq it will not be because of Democrats. it will because Preside3nt Bush and people like Charles are not willing to bdeal with the political flack that will come from dealing realistically with the financial costs of the war and the draft necessary to provide troops. The lack of will is in the
Republican leadership. The Democrats are being honest in attempting to plan for the pullout which is inevitable given the lack of will to do what is required to stay.
I was leaning towards “Self-defeatist”, myself.
Or the old standby, “wanker”.
Charles,
If the US is facing disasterous consequences for its invasion of Iraq, I believe that you need look no further than a mirror in order to assign blame.
There were many people trying to explain the folly of invading Iraq before the invasion. You dismissed these criticisms, sometimes in the McCarthyite manner you’ve used in this post, questioning the patiotism, willpower, and common sense of those who disagreed with you.
And now, you find yourself on the cusp of facing the disaster that Iraq has become. You still (bizarrely) maintain that the magic of future events might vindicate your position with some sort of non-theocratic/ non-Iranian-client-state/ non-failed-state Iraq…
But we can see that even you are unsure now of the outcome. Or, rather, you can see that Iraq is going so badly that even after defining ‘victory’ down to some marginal, pathetic goal we will still likely fall short of the finish line… So you’ve begun to lay the groundwork for your eventual fallback position: you will blame other people.
You will blame the very people who told you that it was a bad idea. You will blame veterans and patriots and those who’ve given their lives to public service. You will blame bereaved mothers, and (doubtless) even soldiers who fought on that very battlefield, if they disagree with you.
You will by no means admit that your original position was flawed from it’s inception. You will not even admit the *possibility* that the Iraqi venture was doomed, because to admit that possibility would be to join the folks you label “losers”- folks who understand that the future is created by hard work *and* favorable preexisting conditions, not just some fanciful will-to-power, manifesting itself in heroic late-night blog-posting.
If you and yours only had the dignity to accept the responsibility for the decisions that you originally embraced, we could move forward as a nation to decide how to deal with this mistake, and how to avoid similar mistakes in the future.
But like your fearless leader, you cannot image a mistake you’ve made- and so we are stuck in a feedback loop between those who saw disaster coming years ago and those who wish to, at great cost in lives, wealth, and reputation, avoid personal responsibility for their mistakes.
Wu
Oh, just in case I was misunderstood: Charles, in saying that you’ve put denying your own mistake above the lives, honor, and wealth of other Americans & the reputation of this country, I am not questioning your patriotism. In fact, I find your desire to shed more American blood to cover your own mistake to be in the best tradition of American patriots. Was it not Patrick Henry who said “I regret that I have but one life to give for my dogma, and it belongs to that poor kid from Oklahoma City who joined up to get college money”?
Just when I think there is some level of mendacity and maliciousness to which even Charles will not stoop, he manages to prove me wrong.
Congratulations, Charles. Rove would be proud that you’ve managed to master the art of attacking someone’s strengths–indeed, it’s one of the first principles of Rovian character assassination.
“I’ll link to individual posts […] but not the site itself.”
Sure, because those wacko cooties are deadly contagious!
Ideological purity must be maintained! Preserve our precious bodily essences! Burn the evil! Burn it!
OK, Gary, we get your point.
AQ can claim victory every time the sun rises and Bin Laden is not dead or in custody.
Carleton Wu pretty well nails this one.
Charles, your president had as free a hand to pursue this war as any since…FDR, probably. Certainly more than Clinton, at least as much as Bush Sr., more than the Vietnam presidents for most or all of that war.
He’s delivered failure.
And nobody but him and his trusted advisors can fix it.
So go harsh on him for a while. For that matter, if you see it as so crucial, sign up and do your part, if you’re serious about it not being inevitable that we’ve lost yet. And get your friends to do the same. I don’t actually require that as a standard of moral honesty or anything, but I do require a reasonable consistency. Put the burden of doing something useful on those who say that it must succeed, not on the rest of us.
Precisely what difference does it make what a conservative Democrat thinks? Bush has explained that he doesn’t pay attention to polls, and won’t debate with himself on matters important to him. His advisors have an explicit policy of preferring not to cooperate on any terms other than toadying agreement from the other side. Murtha is, according to everything we know about how this administration works, absolutely irrelevant to real decision-making and order-giving. So what’s the beef?
The problem isn’t Murtha. The problem is Bush, and Cheney, and those around them. Those are the ones who can provide what you deem necessary for success. If it isn’t provided, it won’t be Murtha that stopped them, but their own choice.
I’m still clapping loudly!
Amen, Bruce. Their war. Their failure. But still our country, so it would be really, really nice if they’d start reaching out instead of striking out. And a pony.
hmmm, what to add?
1. For shame, CB. This post was beneath you. Calling Murtha a defeatist is pretty bad, but the loser appellation is just contemptible. Get out of high school. The losers here are the iraqi and american people, not a congressman who has served this country honorably and is continuing to do so to the best of his ability. Disagreement is one thing; name-calling another.
2. He is not, notably, calling for withdrawal prior to the Dec. 15 election. The administration has been silent on how its occupation strategy will change following the election. This is supposed to be a major milestone and it is appropriate to discuss what this milestone means. Withdrawing to bases outside of Iraq but in a position to provide major support to the iraqi “national” forces is a legitimate position.
3. Allowing our enemies to define our victory condition isn’t just wrong, it’s stupid. Beneath stupid. Moronic.
Once again, get out of high school. But if you are incapable of doing so, here’s the analogy: We’re the big kid who has to be smart enough to walk away from a fight even if some pipsqueak is calling us a name. Everyone else in school will decide on their own whether we’re weak or strong for walking away.
“OK, Gary, we get your point.”
My anonymous bet is that this “Gary” — and who is he, really? — demands the body of his offender placed before him, with that of all the offenders’ ancestors and descendents alike! And the bodies must be desecrated and danced around! And there must be mass abasement! Mercilessly!
Pedantry must be worshipped! Pedantry must also be distinguished from making an important distinction! Mercilessly!
All must admit that pseudonymity, which most commenters use, is entirely different than anonymity, which is when a comment comes from an unidentified commenter! All must hail Gary’s beauty, and despair! Mercilessly!
Then: more dancing! And macadamia nuts for everyone!
All who do not participate are loser-defeatists! You will BE PUNISHED! Mercilessly!
More Charles Bird posts for everyone! With enough will, we will prevail! Non-prevailance is non-optional! Pursue the prevailing mercilessly! With enough will, we can launch a combined mental bolt that will destroy the Eddori–, er, the liberals and their pedantic tools of weakitude!
At least, I bet that’s what that Gary guy would say.
I’m just guessing, though.
…oh. So was this whole thing just a set-up for some kabuki betwixt norbizness and M. Farber? Is Charles Bird real or just an imagined embodiment of all that I find noxious, poisonous, sanctimonious about the American right wing?
Is Charles Bird real or just an imagined embodiment of all that I find noxious, poisonous, sanctimonious about the American right wing?
Cue Victoria Principal getting startled in the shower.
CB: “Murtha has drunk the Daily Kos Kool Aid. He is a loser-defeatist whose own ideas must be defeated, decisively and mercilessly.”
Kaiser Wilhelm’s Proclamation to the Army, 10 October 1918:
“The hour is grave!
We are fighting for the future of the Fatherland and for the protection of the soil of the Homeland. To that end we need the united action of the intellectual, moral, and economic powers of Germany.
On the co-operation of those powers our invincibility rests. The will for defence must bind all separate views and separate wishes into one great unity of conception.”
Charles:
You link to a May 6 RollCall article that mentions Murtha as saying the war is “unwinnable”, but without any context. The full quote from Murtha appears to be:
I’m not sure I would characterize that statement as “raising the white flag”.
“…and preventing terrorist groups from being able to operate openly with impunity as in pre-invasion Afghanistan. In other words, an Iraq that is not a failed state, not engaged in civil war …”
in other words, ‘victory’ is largely a matter of somehow avoiding a disastrous outcome made highly probable by our incompetent, unjustified action in the first place. it’s a bit like saying: if I throw you off the roof, and then somehow contrive with the aid of dumb luck for you not to break your leg, I can claim to have heroically saved you from a broken leg.
What’s most disturbing about this entire debate is the astounding lack of good faith. We are ostensibly having a policy discussion- what would be best for America.
In such a discussion, we should assume until demonstrated otherwise that speakers like Murtha and Charles are advocating the positions they think are best for America.
For Charles to follow his initial position with the assumption that everyone who disagrees with him is therefore arguing for things that are bad for America is to short-circuit the debate. To suggest that they lack patriotism or are aiding the enemy intentionally (as was suggested above, despite the disclaimer) is to silence the debate completely.
And this debate is very important; I think we all agree that America’s actions in the next year or two are critical for determining the shape of the Middle East in the decades to come. But we cannot have a debate when dissent is called treason.
Charles, have you bothered to wonder why Murtha is advocating the positions he does? Does your thinking on the matter begin and end with the conclusion that he is a defeatist, unpatriotic loser? I can understand why you think we should stay in Iraq, even though I disagree with much of your assessment. If you truly haven’t bothered to understand the arguments against your position (and this seems to be the case), then you should take the time to consider them carefully. They are not unpatriotic or disloyal, even if they turn out to be mistaken.
CB – When you say, “Stick around and keep attacking until enough liberals say ‘uncle’.”, do you mean anything by liberal other than “person who thinks that both the USA and Iraq (not to mention many other countries) would be better off with a withdrawal sooner than I prefer”? Because otherwise it’s very unclear how you’re counting many of the people favoring withdrawal as liberals, and as a liberal I don’t really want all of them (namely the one’s who hold illiberal views) counted as such.
Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) told his Democratic colleagues Tuesday
that he feared the war in Iraq is unwinnable if the U.S. military does
not dramatically increase troop levels, provide more ground support and
seek significant international involvement.
And note that the U.S. did none of those things in the mean time. Kind of silly to say he was advocating surrender at that time.
“Silly” isn’t quite the word you’re looking for. “Flagrantly dishonest” would fit better.
Yeah, okay.
Ladies and Gentlemen — Charles here is the future. As more and more Americans come across to the obvious — we can’t win this war with the Army we have, and the American public is unwilling to support a draft, and thus we must withdraw — the franctic shrieking from the warhawks is only going to get more contemptable.
Remember, this was their chance to refight Vietnam. To prove how — if it weren’t for the damn hippies — we would have won Vietnam. It was a chance to prove liberals wrong after THIRTY years. The last, great chance for the right-wing boomers to prove themselves right.
And what happened? The exact same thing as last time. Oh, it’s not Vietnam — each war is unique — but we find ourselves in the exact same spot. Too powerful to outright lose, not powerful enough to win. So, to soothe the egos of the Charles and Vons of America, we send American troops to bleed and die because if we withdraw with anything less than total victory, they are wrong AGAIN..
This isn’t a matter of right and wrong. Or of pragmatism. Or even idealogy. It’s come down to pride. They won’t be wrong AGAIN, no matter how many American lives they have to sacrifice.
Jethro:
You have hit on a key point. I do not want to make this sound overly partisan, but of late, the Republicans as personified by this administration are making an art form of quoting out of context, as you point out that Charles did.
They are using, for example, Reid saying that “the President is doing the right thing” without including the part of his statement clarifying that he is talking about going to the United Nations prior to the war.
One must look at much of what the adminstration says when quoting their critics as if we are looking at ads for the movies where a reviewer’s “fantastically horrible” becomes “fantastic…”
Our premature departure will be interpreted in the Muslim world (and perhaps the rest of the world) as a victory for al Qaeda, and al Qaeda will have stumbled upon a blueprint for success: Stick around and keep attacking until enough liberals say “uncle”. Our early departure would mean that al Qaeda will have a base of operations in Iraq, and a growing one at that.
This looks like the rhetorical equivalent of a pincer movement. Al Qaeda seems to have stumbled upon the same rhetorical strategy that the President, Tacitus, and Charles Bird have adopted. Keep attacking and hope that the other backs off. As long as this structural alliance can be maintained, then the Democrats are either seeming to be defeated by the Republicans in the market of ideas or being defeated by AQ in the war of using ideas to shape world opinion and national will.
It’s a good rhetorical strategy, even if it can only be constructed out of a tissue of emotional appeals, revisionism, and the need to keep the public focused on The Great Oz and not the ineffective leadership behind the curtain.
The Democrats are not the ones playing politics or limiting the terms of debate. Every substantive Democratic effort to discuss metrics and strategy had been met with deflection and spin in order to delay the inevitable accountability that comes with having chosen to fight a war on the cheap with no forethought into what comes after.
Ron: Actually, I don’t think anything the US does or refrains from doing in the Middle East much this side of outright nuking (or impeachment and criminal trials for the Bush administration principals) will make any difference in the long run. The crucial years are the ones now past, during which it became clear that the US can and will make war ineffectively but with immoral brutality. Everyone knows now, we’re led by people who are vicious fools. And we’ve let them do it long enough to establish a new era of equally brutal but often smarter local leadership. Civil democracy’s chance has gone; the only question now is which of the various potential tyrants gets in.
The details do matter, but it’s the same broad picture whatever the US does or doesn’t do now.
Bruce,
Good point. That is, I think that there’s still much potential good &/or harm to be done vis a vis Iraq, but I don’t think our choices are the end-all-be-all deciding the fate of the ME.
But that shouldn’t affect Charles’ viewpoint- if he thinks Iraq is important enough to debate, then he should think that it’s important enough to debate without demonizing dissent.
Nice to know the Republicans have their priorities straight in all this…no playing politics with the war from that camp…no siree, bob…
er…uh…wait…
what’s this?
Shameful.
Edward_:
I have to disagree here unless I’m missing some subtle sarcasm.
I’m sick of the Dems being wishy-washy on the subject. I’m all for having the reps from both sides of the aisle put their cards on the table and let us know where they stand. I think the people of America want to know where our lawmakers stand on the issue. At least this person does.
I will say that it’s a bit hypocritical coming from Republicans though…
Yes, shameful that the Dems might have to take a public stand on something. Really!
I think the Democrats should propose a counter resolution. Perhaps they should request an explanation from the Administration of how the sustained commitment is to be paid for and how troops are going to be found.
Tacticus, how is this war going to be paid for, and where will the troops come from? Put up or shut up. If there is no will to provide the funding and no will to provide the troops, there is no will to sustain a long term commitment.
Over on The Christian Prophecy blog the Holy Spirit asks who are those who lived by the phrase “We shall overcome!” It seems that overcoming difficulties is everyone’s prerogative and separates the spiritually strong from the spiritually weak.
Triumph of the Will, real soon now
A disagreeable debate has flared up at the normally excellent Obsidian Wings. A contributor, Charles, sparked it off by blasting a Congressman who called for US withdrawal from Iraq, a ‘loser’ and a ‘defeatist’, and – essentially – blaming anyone
I actually agree with Tacitus and not Edward here. This is politics, absolutely, but no more or less shameful than invoking Rule 21 — which I thought wasn’t in the least shameful, but simply another working of the proper lawful rules.
Which is what this is. I don’t regard politics as inherently shameful, nor the use of parliamentry maneuvers and tactical votes as shameful, either.
There are shameful maneuvers, such as breaking the rules and denying you are doing so, or breaking all precedents in creating new exceptions to rules, such as holding open votes for as long as you want until you get the votes you need, and there are also maneuvers that are simply maneuvers, like calling for a vote that is uncomfortable for the other side.
I think the latter is a perfectly legitimate tactic for either side when in power, and I don’t at all see why it isn’t, or what is dishonorable or shameful about it. Can you explain, Edward?
Who has the rights of the issues and who doesn’t, is another matter, of course.
And I read somewhere that for some of those religous-let’s-depend-on-the-Holy-Spirit types planning and analysis about projected outcomes is actually a Bad Thing. If your trajectory needs a few miracles in it it just shows how much more faith you have in God, or some such thing.
Sheesh, why can’t these idiots just throw themselves off the Empire State Building and pray for God to save them on the way down? We could sanctify the ones that make it and bury the rest.
Triumph of the Will, real soon now
A disagreeable debate has flared up at the normally excellent Obsidian Wings. A contributor, Charles, sparked it off by blasting a Congressman who called for US withdrawal from Iraq, a ‘loser’ and a ‘defeatist’, and – essentially – blaming anyone
“And I read somewhere that for some of those religous-let’s-depend-on-the-Holy-Spirit types planning and analysis about projected outcomes is actually a Bad Thing.”
Interesting, but it seems rather a non-sequitur.
Yes, shameful that the Dems might have to take a public stand on something
yeah, that Murtha guy really pulled his punches.
Gary, do you agree with Tacitus that the Republicans shouldn’t be ashamed for pulling a political trick, or do you agree that it is shameful that the Dems don’t take a public stand? Because Tac’s contribution seems to only talk about the latter, not the former.
Col. Murtha, 37-year Marine vet, and awarded the Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts, of course, doesn’t speak for the Democratic Party, unless the Democratic Party authorizes him to in some fashion.
This post needs an update. As pointed out by jethro above, Murtha did not say the war was “unwinnable”.
“Gary, do you agree with Tacitus that the Republicans shouldn’t be ashamed for pulling a political trick, or do you agree that it is shameful that the Dems don’t take a public stand?”
I don’t know about Gary, but I can’t see that scheduling a vote that is uncomfortable for your opponents as a “trick.” It’s just legitimate politics.
I suppose there’s a fairly good case to be made that it’s shameful that the Democrats don’t really have their act together so as to have a coherent and generally-agreed-upon stance on what to do in Iraq, though I don’t feel moved to particularly argue that case just now. I don’t know what Gary thinks, though. I don’t know why it would matter to anyone, since posting anonymously is the same as posting pseudonymously. I assume you agree, unless you’re some kind of pedant.
It is “good politics”. But is a parliamentary maneuver good for the country when the matter is war and peace?
Pardon me, I’m new here and I seem to be lost. Is the same blog that did all those great posts on Habeas?
Anything worth saying on this post has been covered. I’m in the Wu, Bruce B camp but one point that seems to be missed. Murtha did just tour Anbar province recently and is well aware of the situation on the ground. Whether you think he’s right or wrong, he is obviously moved to action by his concern for the troops.
Come to think of it, let’s have immediate up or down votes on everything. With funding to either double for yes or be zeroed-out for no.
Medicare, yes or no?
Medicaid, yes or no?
Yellowstone Park yes or no.
The IRS yes or no.
Star Wars yes or no
Laura Bush using the taxpayer’s plumbing yes or no
Etc. All votes will be binding in perpetuity.
We should have the nation’s business cleared up by next Friday, shut down the media, including the Internet, and play some golf.
Libby: we’re a group blog who try, sometimes successfully and sometimes not, to include both liberals and conservatives. Edward and I (and Katherine, who came out of retirement briefly) are the liberals; von is a centrist Republican; Slartibartfast likewise (more or less); Sebastian and Charles are conservatives. Thus we never agree on anything.
Morat: “to soothe the egos of the Charles and Vons of America…” — I don’t think von belongs in that sentence, though he can of course speak for himself.
John Miller: please give your son my best, and all our thanks.
Attack now in the press. Decry the vote as a deliberate political distortion of Murtha’s position. Turn the ‘playing politics’ card back on the Republicans. They are playing 3 Card Monty to avoid what should be a substantive, bipartisan discussion of current strategy.
What’s so hard about this?
Kos has some blow-by-blow on the Murtha/withdrawal resolution shenanigans. I haven’t read through all of it, but I would think that if the Republicans want to have a vote on something they’re calling a “Democrat resolution,” they could at least vote on Murtha’s own text rather than their own rewrite.
Charles Bird and Josh Trevino hate it — hate it with a holy passion — when people point out that their bilge is objectively fascist. But it is.
To only blame internal enemies, to attack their patriotism and lack of love for the country, to call upon nebulosities like “willpower” for vaguely described “victory,” is the way fascists argued. The fascists followed their rhetoric with violence. Expect the same thing here.
Rep. Murtha is “betraying the troops?” That’s just the Dolchstosslegende, being carefully nurtured. The President and his party are in charge of two of the three branches of government and have set our policy in Iraq since day 1. Murtha isn’t the enemy. President Bush’s apologists are.
Echoing what DaveL said, that’s what Edward and I think is shameful.
And if you saw the debate this afternoon, it only got worse. Rep. Jean Schmidt, who beat Paul Hackett this summer to get her seat in Congress, read an email from one of her constituents, himself a Marine, which essentially said, “Cowards cut and run, Marines don’t”–the effect of which was for her to call Murtha a coward. The House went nuclear after that.
Personally, I’m from the school that thinks all’s fair in love and war, and war being another form of politics, I’m all for hardball there too. But being a vet myself, I freely admit that when I heard Mean Jean say what she said, part of me wanted to throttle her. She’s got no standing to call Murtha a coward, they’ve got no standing to call him a coward, and if that Marine wants to call him a coward, he can walk his happy tuchis down to DC and call Murtha a coward; I suspect that Schmidt’s constituent doesn’t have the gall.
As for Charles, I wasn’t aware that it was possible to jump the shark repeatedly as a blogger, but somehow he manages to do so. There’s nothing wrong with conservatives, per se; but there’s a world of difference between Seb Holsclaw and someone like Charles.
there’s a world of difference between Seb Holsclaw and someone like Charles
Yes. Come back, Sebastian, please. We promise to only hassle you a little bit. You too, Von.
Is there a crime for annoying usage of italics?
What was shameful about the vote in the House today was that the Republicans introduced their own resolution (not Murtha’s) and then demanded a vote on the “Democratic” resolution. Calling for the vote? — fine. Mislabeling it — typical sleaze from today’s Republicans.
_______
Its important to note that there are really only two choices here — supporting the Bush version of this war or forcefully advocating to shut down his abortion for a war. In the real world, there is no middle position because Bush, et al. will not permit it.
Charles, Tacitius, et al. support some make-believe war that does not exist and will never exist, and in reality are criticizing the anti-war crowd for being against this phony make-believe version of the war as opposed to what it really is.
Yeah — I would be for an imaginary war that made sense, but this war did not make sense from the beginning, and has gone straight south ever since.
Saying you are still for the war because there is some make-believe manner in which it can still be made to make sense… that is nutsy. Its either you are for the Bush version of the war, or you think it has to be brought to an end.
Saying you support a more rational manner in which this war can be fought, and therefore a continuation of the war, is consigning American’s brave to wasted deaths and maiming for the Bush war that will actually be fought.
John Murtha Nomination
I hereby nominate Representative John Murtha (Democrat – Pennsylvania) for the first Benedict Arnold Shameful Traitor And Repugnant Dimwit (BASTARD) award.
Seconds to this motion should be sent as trackbacks.
Related:
REP. JOHN MURTHA
Murtha is a Lo…
Thanks for explanation Hilzoy. I thought for a moment there I had suddenly lapsed into presenile dementia.
As for Charles, asking for an articulable plan and presenting a proposed solution is not defeatist, it’s realistic. And since we just met, let me ask you the same question I’ve asked every other war blogger I know. I’ve yet to receive a direct answer.
If you would be so kind as to tell me what exactly would constitute a total victory. Heck even a partial victory. How do we know when we’ve “won.” It only takes a handful of guys – one cell – to wreak terrible havoc. Do you believe we can kill every terrorist on the planet?
Because if we can’t do that, how then can we acheive total victory, which I take to mean complete safety from terrorism.
To John Miller: Let me add my thanks to your son for his service to our country. Although I clearly dispute the premise of the war, I appreciate his sacrifice and hope and pray for his safety.
To John Miller, my prayers (such as they are) and thanks to your son.
To the issue of the vote: strangely, I find myself in agreement with both sides here. On the one hand, Republican rewording and mislabelling is despicable — surely if they’re going to put forth a resolution based on Murtha’s text, they’ve got the balls to either put it up as is and call it a Democratic resolution, or modify it and call it their own? — and should be decried, especially by fellow Republicans and/or conservatives. On the other, the Democatic Party’s intransigence on the war issue — and I think it really is intransigence nowadays, admittedly born of political cowardice and calculation and a leadership that thinks it’s still 1995 — is getting tiresome. I think it’s definitely time for Congressional Democrats to make a stand and damn the consequences… in large part, I confess, because IMO the act of them taking a stand will make for better consequences. Plus, y’know, it’s the right thing to do.
Of course, that would imply some kind of Democratic Party unity, which is about as pie-in-the-sky an idea as the notion that all that’s lacking in the war effort is “will” or that somehow ceaseless attacking liberals will magically make Iraqis safer. So YMMV.
To the original post: “beneath you” doesn’t even begin to describe my feelings but, alas, will have to do. For shame, Charles. For shame.
Here is the video of Rep. Schmidt calling Rep. Murtha a coward on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. Another heroic Republican supports our troops.
Christ. I never thought one party would get so bad as to make me a de facto partisan for the other one. Ever.
I’m so pissed off I didn’t close my tag!
Charles – the NEBV view of how to proceed would gain much more traction if it wasn’t tied to attacks on liberals and silence on the Bush administration. It’s clear that you and Tacitus understand that the current policy is not going to lead to victory (regardless of how you define it). You’d both gain enormous credibility in my eyes and those of many war skeptics if you placed the blame for the current policy on the heads of the people who formulated it and who have failed to make the needed adjustments as the situation demands. Hint: It’s not MoveOn.org or DKos.
This may seem like just another partisan shot, but it’s not: No matter how many liberals come around to your point of view NOTHING will change until the policy is changed by those who actually control it. Letting them know that otherwise loyal supporters feel the administration needs to make drastic changes is vastly more likely to bring about the needed changes than any amount of criticism of liberals. What liberals think has minimal influence on the administration’s policies. What the base thinks is critically important to them.
Anarch–do you mean instransigence or indecisiveness? Or intransigent refusal to take a position.
OT: holy crap. Read the stuff about al-Libbi, especially.
I’m not surprised it happened. I’m surprised we found out, though.
The techniques are controversial among experienced intelligence agency and military interrogators. Many feel that a confession obtained this way is an unreliable tool . . . It is “bad interrogation. I mean you can get anyone to confess to anything if the torture’s bad enough,” said former CIA officer Bob Baer . . .
“This is the problem with using the waterboard. They get so desperate that they begin telling you what they think you want to hear,” one source said.
Well, no kidding. Wish somebody had thought of that.
Oh, wait — EVERYBODY WHO OPPOSES THIS STUFF FOR BETTER THAN THE REASON THAT IT’S POLITICALLY INCONVENIENT DID.
“Loser-Defeatist”?
How about “Pragmatic Realist”?
Face it, Charles; dmbeaster has nailed it, above: your post, impassioned as it is, is a cri de coeur about the wrong war: not the misconceived, misguided and probably actually “unwinnable” conflict presently raging in Iraq, but, as far as can be divined from your comments, some fantasy-based conflation of WWII, Vietnam and some FPS videogame. And bolstering your commentary with airy-fairy “triumph-of-the-will” folderol really adds little to whatever “case” you are trying to make.
FWIW, I highly disagree with Rep. Murtha’s call for an “immediate” withdrawal from Iraq: but the hysterical reaction to his comments (of which this post of yours is a typical example) makes me think that he just MAY have a point.
Your bile (in my freely offered opinion) might be better directed toward those personages directly responsible for embroiling the US in a mismanaged war/occupation without (apparently) any sort of “exit strategy” other than “whenever” -i.e. President Bush and his Administration; rather than a respected veteran Congressman, who, however offbase his suggested strategy might be, deserves more from a (presumably) intelligent and thoughtful blogposter than cheap insults and stale propagandaistic cliche.
“FWIW, I highly disagree with Rep. Murtha’s call for an “immediate” withdrawal from Iraq:”
In which “immediate” is defined as “in about six months” and to better fight terrorism with strike teams.
“Betrayal” or “coward” do not belong in the same sentence with “Murtha”.
I am not sure that the Dolchtossglende or whatever is being prepared. My impression from reading CB and Tacitus is that have no better idea of what is going on inside the sodden diminished syphilitic brain of the chimp than the rest of us. However, I see no strong evidence that withdrawal is planned. On the other hand, Bill Arkin tells me that troops and material are being quietly positioned in North Jordan.
I wish people would quit predicting the behavior and actions of this administration based on some meaning of “rational”. Or without looking at their previous activity as an indicator of their perspectives and plans. They lie. You, I, CB, Tacitus don’t even have a clue as to what they really want.
They lie.
Murtha has contacts. If the military is being destroyed as he believes, perhaps that is the intention. To so weaken and make vulnerable the nation that the next attack is easy yet devastating. They have not exactly been successful at stopping various nuclear programs; perhaps they don’t want to.
A nuclear weapon eliminating a major American city would allow the next step in the plan.
Bush is not going to withdraw from Iraq. Nor are he and his masters going to allow his successor to do so. So conditions will be created that will make a large military presence in Iraq irrevocable. The only way to save lives and the nation/world as we know it is to attack Bush from his right.
For you Dolchstosslegende fans, from an e-mail to Sullivan: “”Why do Democrats get a free pass?….If it takes losing the war and wasting all those who gave their lives in the cause of freedom, it is worth it for you. What do you care? You live a privilege life made possible by our military’s sacrifice. And you show your appreciation by stabbing us in the back.”
“And you show your appreciation by stabbing us in the back.”
It’s just like you liberals to claim that’s like a Dolchstosslegende! You’ll distort anything!
Col. Murtha… doesn’t speak for the Democratic Party, unless the Democratic Party authorizes him to in some fashion.
i didn’t realize Tacitus’ “Dems” meant the entire party. i didn’t realize he was being literal with that statement. cause, ya know, if he was being literal, there’s a pretty nice list of things the Dems have stood up for lately – knocking down Bush’s S.S. “reform”, torture, some budget things, Rule 21, etc.. and, Tacitus is a pretty smart guy, he knows all that. so he wouldn’t make a statement that could be stomped to bits by anyone who’s simply watched the news for the past few months.
so, i think it makes a lot more sense to take his statement as a rhetorical one – my reply to him too, for that matter.
Great post, well-reasoned and well-argued. I was on the fence about Iraq, but your post is pushing me to the hawk side. You are quite right to argue for troop additions, which is necessary to win this war. Had we enough troops in the beginning, this insurgency never would have reached the level it has.
[Murtha] should spend more time in Iraq, talking to the soldiers on the ground, getting firsthand accounts of what’s taking place.
Aside from the presumptuousness and hypocrisy of this criticism, ably pointed out by earlier commenters, there’s just the plain off-pointness of it. Murtha did just that in August — in Anbar province, not a Green Zone briefing room — and what he saw and heard played a big part in bringing him to the conclusion that we have done all we can militarily in Iraq.
I Was Pondering the Missing Ingredient at OSM Medi
And it’s Charles Bird. Obsidian Wings’ resident conservative (and we already have told you how much we love hilzoy), he’s a thinking man’s John Hinderaker…
Rereading the post title several times, I can’t wait until Charles’ exciting follow-up post, “And So’s His Mother!”
according to TPM, the Roll Call is saying that the Republicans have requested an ethics probe of Murtha. That will be worth a whole series of posts from Charles, I feel certain.
Ah, the stab in the back, now over at Sully’s site too.
Remember, people, the Dolcstoss wasn’t just designed to smear The Enemy Within, it was also designed to deflect blame from the architects of war. Ludendorff and Hindenburg and the whole rotten bunch of nutball nationalists didn’t want conservative militarists to get blamed for screwing up the war and getting 1.7 million German soldiers killed for nothing. Even though these were the people who carried out the war strategy.
No, far better to blame the “Left,” the media, the socialists, the unions, the democrats.
Ordinarily I tend to think that the pile-on-Charles effect can get a little harsh and undeserved. In this case, though, I think it’s all deserved.
How in the hell do you look at yourself in the mirror after writing something like this?
My hearfelt thanks to your son, john miller. My hopes are that Iraq will come out of this as a single country with the various factions working things out politically. The Kurds seem to have a functioning society locally, and yet not so many years ago they were known principally for guerilla fighters and/or terrorists.
-“Whenever we’ve stepped away from terrorist attacks, terrorists have become emboldened because, in the past, we have affirmed their perception that the United States is a paper tiger.”
Replace the word “terrorist” with the word “communist” and, looking east, think back about 40 years.
-“A defeat in Iraq would be monumentally worse than our bust in Vietnam. We as a country cannot allow defeat to happen and I cannot allow Murtha’s words go without challenge.”
And “I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, communist subversion, and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.”
Is it possible that America’s victory or failure in Iraq might not be up to us?
Is there any international conflict that the US could be part of that is not amenable to a military solution? For my money, this is the most important issue raised by Murtha.
Is there any international conflict that the US could be part of that is not amenable to a military solution?
As Kierkegaard and crionna noted at Tacitus, this could possibly be the last time a free country attempts to liberate people living under a dictatorship, because the political costs are simply too high. This is what bin Laden has been betting on as Charles pointed out.
This is what bin Laden has been betting on as Charles pointed out.
And if Osama says “Try the soup” we should order the salad.
“Whenever we’ve stepped away from terrorist attacks, terrorists have become emboldened because, in the past, we have affirmed their perception that the United States is a paper tiger.”
Replace the word “terrorist” with the word “communist” and, looking east, think back about 40 years.
The people I know from Poland and Hungary are happy that the US struggled against Communism. A Cuban buddy wishes the US would do more.
Remind me again when that U.S. invasions of Poland and Hungary took place. I don’t think we covered that in my school.
Or, less snarkily, one can be in favor of making serious efforts to improve the situation in the Arab world without being supporting whatever idiocies emerge from the Bush Administration.
a free country attempts to liberate people living under a dictatorship, because the political costs are simply too high
That’s an interesting point, but to argue the other side, what examples are you thinking that represent a free country liberating people? I don’t mean this in a snarky way, but I’m thinking that there are only a few very questionable cases where a free country attempted to liberate people. Later goals may have morphed into that (though were we liberating Germans and Japanese or were we punishing them?) Also, strictly speaking, we didn’t go to war to liberate Poland and Hungary, we adopted a strategy that stopped short of war. If you have a specific war or wars in mind, could you post them?
Remind me again when that U.S. invasions of Poland and Hungary took place. I don’t think we covered that in my school.
I think the Pershing missles in Europe were a pretty aggressive move by the US. True, it was not an invasion.
DaveC:
Kierkagaard’s posts are pretty interesting and provocative. But I note in his predictions for the year 2035 that he also said all social services will be for pay only AND, last but not least, sex will suck.
I would alter that prediction to read that if social services are for pay only, those (if they live long enough) who are required to pay, will sell their sexual services to the highest bidder in order to pay for the social services. So, sex may suck, but it will be plentiful and also for pay only.
Plus, the rest of get what we want: to screw the poor at both ends.
I wonder if Kierkagaard has a prediction for the Dow Jones Industrial Average — for December 31, 2005?
It’s true that the US goes to war specifically for its own self-interest, liberation is secondary. But the occupation afterwards, for instance in Korea, even though the immediate results were not so encouraging, ultimately led to more freedom there (after decades).
DaveC, that’s true. But the Cold War, viewed broadly, involved a lot of oscillations in U.S. policies as more hawkish or more dovish sorts found themselves politically ascendant. Eventually, it all worked out. Maybe it would have worked out better, sooner if we had picked a theory and stuck to it, but that really isn’t what countries like ours do, and in any case it’s somewhat remarkable that we got through it all with as little fighting as we did.
Today, U.S. policy toward Iraq is run pretty much exclusively by people who thought that the major problem with Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon was that they were far too dovish. And we’re told that our only acceptable choice as citizens is to give these people a blank check. We can say that they haven’t handled things perfectly, but to tell them they should change what they’re doing is treason (unless, of course, we tell them that what they should be doing is the same thing, only more so!). That’s contemptible.
(Actually, I think that “contemptible” is my new favorite word. You’re not contemptible, nor is Von or Sebastian or Slarti, but Charles and Josh are (or their rhetoric is; all I know of either of them is their posted rants), and the stunt the Rs pulled in the House today is so deeply, brazenly contemptible that I’m going to have to find a new favorite word, but it’s late on Friday and I’m too tired to do it immediately.)
DaveC, the “that’s true” was aimed at your previous point about the Pershings, not your last post. I’m typing (thinking?) too slowly.
So, sex may suck, but it will be plentiful and also for pay only.
I’ll save my pennies for the chance to have at some of the commenters here, and fortunately their expectations will be low.
Also, Phil:
I share your disgust for Schmidt’s comments.
I’m not a particularly politically correct liberal, so I was wondering if women’s rights have advanced far enough so that when a lady calls a guy a coward in public, is it permitted yet to invite them outside, holding the door for them, of course, and then knock them unconscious and perhaps kick them in the shortribs?
Or was J. D. Hayworth too busy washing his hair to carry out the tough talk himself?
And is Murtha a gentleman, too, along with his other horrific attributes?
Really, the hard-core of the (the usual exceptions granted) Republican Party will be ungovernable once they are turned out of office. There will be no loyal opposition.
Rabid dogs.
For this reason, the most draconian parts of the Patriot Act will become the only tools available to keep the United States of America as one.
I have the resolve for that. It’ll be fun.
Today, U.S. policy toward Iraq is run pretty much exclusively by people who thought that the major problem with Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon was that they were far too dovish.
Remember when the Chinese forced down the US fighter plane, and Pres Bush demanded that they return it, and they did – in boxes? Or when Putin so totally did a snow job on Bush. And everybody was saying the Bush admin were pushovers in foreign policy? That was July or August 2001. Things do change.
DaveC: Apparently, I have a problem with geography. I meant west, and was thinking of the rhetorical similarities between some of the things we are hearing toady and during Vietnam.
If allowing AQ to claim victory following a US withdrawal would lessen terrorist attacks or recruitment, would these tangible results be worth the loss of face?
In re the “paper tiger” argument: What might it say about US military power that after almost three years it does not control Baghdad and cannot even guarantee security within the Green Zone?
In re patriotism, being a loser, etc.: When considering the attacks on Murtha, it might be a good idea to note that the Bush admin, and especially the president himself, has violated one of the essential tenets of sound military leadership: personal responsibility. That point when, reflecting the readiness of an individual for such a position of leadership, a commander says, “I am ultimately responsible for the lives of the men under by command.” Eisenhower, for example, is famous for penning notes prior to launching an operation – to be issued should the operation not produce a victory – wherein he assumes full responsibility for its failure and the lives of the men he sent to die (many of these were lost but a prescient aide saved a few, the one written before D-Day the best known). Murtha strikes me as one of these types. I have yet to see any behavior on the part of Bush or his administration that even approaches this standard of conduct. Bush refuses to even attend funerals for fear of the possible PR/popular political will implications. This may say something about his abilities as a “war president.”
Thanks for the link, Jackmoron, and thanks for the comment DaveC.
For this reason, the most draconian parts of the Patriot Act will become the only tools available to keep the United States of America as one.
I’d like Charles to make a post simply titled “PCP”, so I can look at the sidebar and see “John Thullen on PCP” and silently nod my head.
Musicians are what have made this country weak.
(except for Billy Beck)
DaveC
South Koreans are, from what I understand not bowled over with gratitude towards the US. A 2002 survey suggested that 44% of South Koreans held unfavorable views of the US link This is not to say that they should or shouldn’t be grateful, but that if your view is based on the gratitude that is felt, South Korea is not a good exemplar
(more links here and here)
DaveL
abhorrent, abominable, base, degenerate, despicable, despisable, detestable, dirty, disgusting, fink, hateful, ignoble, ignominious, odious, pitiable, pitiful, poor, scummy, scurvy, shabby, shameful, sordid, sorry, swinish, unworthy, vile, worthless, or wretched
despicable is nice cause Daffy Duck always used it, though I like shabby because it relates the notion that the rhetoric is simply not up to snuff.
Yes, things do change. But who is this “everyone” who was saying the Bushies were pushovers? I recall a lot of commentary along the lines of “there aren’t very many good options,” and while it wasn’t very satisfying to let the Chinese get away with what they did in the EP-3 incident, there were not, in fact, very many good options.
What changed since then was that 9/11 both sent the lunatic fringe of the Republican foreign policy intelligentsia completely around the bend and gave them pretty much carte blanche to get on their favorite hobbyhorses and ride them until they collapse. They’ve been doing so ever since. That’s what needs to change, preferably yesterday.
And what’s so ugly about the R’s stunt in the House is that they took an opportunity for real focus, debate, and leadership and tried to make it yet another “you’re with us or with the terrists” kind of moment. It will be interesting to see how the politics play out. I’m guessing it will backfire–games that worked when your support was in the 45-55% range don’t work when you drop into the 30s–but that’s not really the point. The point is that if they’d taken Murtha’s resolution in good faith, held hearings, debated what to do, debated and voted on amendments, and finally voted on whatever emerged at the other end of something resembling a legitimate legislative process, they might have emerged with something good for the country. But for this crew, improving things in Iraq would be nice and all, but what’s really important is destroying the Democratic Party.
LJ, I like the list, but somehow none of those has quite the right zing. I think I’ll stick with “contemptible” for now. But maybe we need to take our inspiration from Charles’ “loser-defeatist” and embrace the hyphen. “Wanker-poopyhead” also lacks a certain je ne sais quoi, but perhaps if I sleep on it something will come to me.
I was wondering if women’s rights have advanced far enough so that when a lady calls a guy a coward in public, is it permitted yet to invite them outside, holding the door for them, of course, and then knock them unconscious and perhaps kick them in the shortribs?
Oh, for the good old days
Anarch–do you mean instransigence or indecisiveness? Or intransigent refusal to take a position.
The latter. This is one of those places where it’s dead perilous to talk about “Congressional Democrats” as a block because they really, really, really aren’t, but it bothers me that a number of Congressional Democrats seem to be dipping their toes in the waters of the anti-war movement, so to speak, without even a commitment to jump right in. This strikes me as a perfect time for them to take a principled stand, to rise up and say (variously) that they were i) deceived, ii) mistaken, iii) incorrect in their assessment of the Bush Administration’s competence — whichever happens to be the case — and that therefore the very rationale for the continuance of the war should be up for debate. In fact, I don’t even feel that the Democrats need to come out against the war in Iraq per se, only against the war as currently chartered: its nominal aims, its strategic valences, its place in the broader picture and, of course, the way it’s being conducted. And, of course, the blame for all the mistakes, ambiguities and mendacities lies squarely in the lap of the Bush Administration and their jingoistic Republican enablers.
I said above that I thought the Democratic leadership was living in 1995. That’s true to an extant, but what I should have said was that the Democratic Congressmen are living in 2002: they’re operating under the delusion that Bush is an immensely popular war-time president and that he is owed a priori deference due to his position. It’s not 2002, however, Bush isn’t a popular war-time president, he’s not owed one goddamn drop of deference due to his appalling (and, IMO, potentially criminal) incompetence and mendacity, and the Democrats need to make this known far and wide instead of carping and cavilling and generally not standing up for themselves.
Latest Update:
It appears that Rove is directing a push back against Murtha in which the House will start an ethics investigation against him.
Imagine that — the House Delay somehow chooses this moment to finally do an ethics investigation, and somehow Murtha is in the crosshairs.
Deja vu of Wilson — that sweet wiff of offal in the air. Will Murtha’s wife also be attacked?
Which leads to this question. Will Charles, that indepednent thinker, update his title from “Loser-Defeatist” to “Sleazy-Loser-Defeatist,” or will he eschew his love of repeating right wing talking points and rely on his own slime?
Powerful but empty rhetoric, Charles.
What does “win” mean?
What will “victory” look like?
What remains to be done and how do you imagine it will be accomplished?
Murtha is right: what we’re doing in Iraq is stupid, shameful and counter-productive and extremely destructive–not least to America.
He is–as he has always done–standing up for America and, as a fellow veteran, I salute him.
Oh look, Casey has submitted a withdrawal plan, for cutting and running starting next year:
CNN
I look forward to CB’s next imitation of McCarthy soon.
LJ — I have been thinking the best adjective for Charles’ post is, “scurrilous”.
O’ve always had a soft spot for “invidious”.
Not necessarily for this occasion, but I am partial to ‘ignoble’ and ‘shameful.’ — All these words are easy to abuse, but all of them also have this implication: that a grown-up aspires to nobility in conduct, and is susceptible to shame and contempt. That someone who acts shamefully is not ashamed just reveals that they are not only willing to do the wrong thing, but lack the whole set of concepts that go with self-respect.
And I’ve just figured out what it is that bugs me about this ‘loser-defeatist’ formulation (apart from its application in this case): it (and many current right-wing terms of abuse) sounds so much like one of those Communist epithets from the 30s and 40s (capitalist-roader, right deviationist, wrecker-saboteur, etc.) And the use — attaching epithets to people on the basis of some perceived deviation from orthodoxy, and using those epithets in place of argument — is also similar.
Careful, Hil – certain members of the right don’t appreciate it when meddlesome lib’ruls such as yourself compare GOP talking points to those of the godless communists.
What, are you angling for a position in Durbin’s staff, or an internship with AI?
(Or are you one of those terrorist appeasers currently swelling the ranks of the Democratic Party? I bet you’re wearing a hijab right now…)
C’mon all you freedom lovers – get out your pom-poms and (banned in TX) teeny-tiny skirt! It’s time to will ourselves to victory!!!1
If I may be serious for a moment, beyond vague fever dreams about ‘liberal’ democracy magically taking seed in Iraq, what exactly constitutes ‘victory’ in the eyes of CB, and, conversely, when is it apropos to admit defeat?
Oh wait, I forgot – even entertaining a single negative thought re: Iraq provides aid and comfort to the enemy (I <3 ye olde 'dissent=terrorist security blanket' meme. For some reason it always provokes a visual of Linus wearing a keffiyeh and cradling a Kalashnikov.)
Pardon me if I refrain from commenting further. I'll inevitibly make contentious reference to some inflammatory 'ism', thus cementing my loser-defeatist reputation.
Just sign me up for the goddamned pony already.
Gary and Tacitus (never thought I’d write a comment addressing you both),
What’s shameful is that the GOP would use the war as a wedge issue like this, with a decorated war hero the fall guy. Do you really think Murtha’s motivated by what’s good here for his political career? The man is sincere. Maybe he’s wrong, but at least his heart is in the right place.
Here’s the thing. If the GOP were calling for this vote and they had no idea how it would turn out, then I’d respect it. But that’s not the case…they’re much too calculated and cynical for that.
I’m sure Murtha can take care of himself, but this crosses the line. Rule 21 was about an investigation of officials, something that had been promised, but never delivered. It won’t have the impact of possibly extending the tour of duty of men and women with targets on their backs.
Why you can’t see a difference here is alarming to me.
“Or was J. D. Hayworth too busy washing his hair to carry out the tough talk himself?”
…Thullen on Schmidt
It was interesting that the politically “vulnerable” lady from Ohio was chosen to deliver the most scurrilous of slanders.
I remember the delays in results from the last precinct in her recent contest against Hackett, the delays that put her over the top. She was like the undertaker with the dishonored daughter in The Godfather:”Someday I will come and ask a favor.”
Of course there is also my theory of Bushco “complicity” politics. That Bush always involves his supporters in illegal activity, because no form of virtuous loyalty can be trusted when the indictments start coming or the bodies falling.
More to my point of why this is shameful…it was bound to lead to repulsive rhetoric by ignorant jerks, like this, by Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH):
“Yesterday I stood at Arlington National Cemetery attending the funeral of a young marine in my district. He believed in what we were doing is the right thing and had the courage to lay his life on the line to do it. A few minutes ago I received a call from Colonel Danny Bop, Ohio Representative from the 88th district in the House of Representatives. He asked me to send Congress a message: Stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message, that cowards cut and run, Marines never do. Danny and the rest of America and the world want the assurance from this body – that we will see this through.”
According to Marshall, Schmidt was forced to return the podium and ask that her comment be striken from the record, but for that plastic pampered freak to call into questions Murtha’s courage for even a nonsecond makes me want to vomit.
Oy vey — thanks Bob, both for correcting my spelling and for not bein a jerk about it.
I see I’m a bit behind most other folks here…just want to add this thought offered by Murtha in an interview with Matthews: “Victory is not a strategy.”
Murtha’s right…we need an exit strategy.
A brief profile of Colonel Bubp
“Here’s the thing. If the GOP were calling for this vote and they had no idea how it would turn out, then I’d respect it. But that’s not the case…they’re much too calculated and cynical for that.”
Oh, heaven forbid one should call a vote and have a good idea how it would turn out! How sinful!
Um, are you nuts? No offense intended, but what on earth is wrong with having a good idea how a vote will turn ou before you call it!?! That’s what you bloody do if you’re in politics. Only a crazy person would call a vote with no idea how it would turn out! On what bloody planet do they do that?!?!
Edward, I think that when the Republicans put up a bill and label it as a bill of a member of the opposing party, that that’s going rather over the line, although it’s still just rhetoric, and nothing approaching the simple utter corruption and wrongness of, for instance, threatening to have the President of the Senate, the Vice-President of the United States, blatantly lie in an official ruling on the Senate Rules — that is an example of a completely illegitimate act.
It’s illegitimate because it breaks the Senate Rules, and in the most possible serious manner, by both lying, and about a critical matter of how this nation has done legislative business for centuries.
I gave other examples of illegitimate tactics in my previous link: holding votes open in violation of the rules and tradition; adding provisions in conference committee that not in either house’s bill; significantly changing bills in secret in conference committee in ways beyond simply melding the two bills; there are a wide range of innovative ways the Republicans have invented in recent years to act in a completely unilateral manner that either violates Congressional rules, or tradition, or both.
But bloody scheduling votes to make your side look good (and the other side look bad) is the bloody basic tactic of a bleeding partisan democracy!
Simple tactical scheduling of a vote is a time-honored absolutely legitimate tradition that also goes back to almost the earliest days of the Congress. There are simply no grounds for objecting to that as somehow illegitimate, simply because it is inconvenient to us because we’re presently in the majority. It’s always inconvenient and painful to be in the minority!
That just doesn’t provide grounds to object to votes being scheduled because they make us look bad (assuming that’s the case).
I’m just sort of speechless at not fully knowing how to respond to that objection. It as if someone bitterly complained that the other party was saying bad things about us Yes, it’s annoying, but hardly illegitimate.
Did you object to this normal practice of choosing when and what to schedule votes on, sometimes to embarass the Republicans, when Democrats did it, as per the norm? I kinda think not. (If I’m wrong, though, feel free to mention a few times.)
I suspect you may not, perhaps — and I apologize if I am speculating in error! — possibly not be in the habit of reading histories of legislative back-and-forth in Congress over the past couple of centuries, and thus may possible be understandably a bit vague as to what’s normal practice for hundreds of years, and what’s an illegitimate invention of the past decade or so.
When we Democrats regain the House or Senate, we’ll certainly be scheduling votes that attempt to embarass Republicans. And we’ll say mean and unpleasant things about them, too. There’s nothing the faintest bit “shameful” about that. And I’ll jolly well defend our right to do this perfectly adonyne thing. I hope you’ll be there with us.
The details of whatever the bill is are besides the point.
Otherwise, you seem to have not answered my question, but seemed to have read some other question, and gone off and talked about it, and John Murtha, which has absolutely nothing whatever to do with anything I’ve said.
I’d say that starting an ethics investigation without legitimate cause is illegitimate and over the line, by the way.
And if you want to discuss how awful and outrageous Republican attacks on Murtha are, that’s fine. I couldn’t agree more that they’re disgusting. I simply don’t confuse my outrage over the slurring of a 37-year-long Marine vet with the notion that disgusting rhetoric is a violation of Congressional custom or rules (so long as it doesn’t violate the rules of the floor if delivered there, of course). I try not to blur the lines in my accusations, between, for instance, denouncing disgusting rhetoric, and the far more serious and very different matter of the flagrant violation of Congressional rules and practice.
Edward,
Thanks for the quote. Conflating strategy and victory seems to be in keeping with some of the comments made above re the ghosts of Vietnam and the “. . . but we won all the battles” crowd.
The admin’s lack of an exit strategy does not mean they don’t have a plan for Iraq: leaving was never part of what victory was suppossed to look like. Having an exit strategy only makes sense if one accepts the vanquish evil/spread freedom rationale for this war. Any consideration of regional power projection, hegemony, competition with China, control of resources and markets, the spoils of the Cold War/maintenance of post-CW unipolar status, etc. knock “exit strategy” out of the equation.
“More to my point of why this is shameful…it was bound to lead to repulsive rhetoric by ignorant jerks….”
I’m not clear what your “this” refers to. If it’s much of the Republican rhetoric, sure, I’m with you on that.
When we Democrats regain the House or Senate, we’ll certainly be scheduling votes that attempt to embarass Republicans. And we’ll say mean and unpleasant things about them, too.
You arent seriously saying that the Dems have been refraining from saying mean and unpleasant things?
If John Murtha had his way, we would all be eating falafel today.
Last comment on this for now:
Well, you know what? It was a stunt. Of course it was a “stunt.” And so was invoking Rule 21 to cause a big public show, and put political pressure on Frist and co. to Do Something about the buried Phase II investigation.
“Stunt” is defined, in this context, as “perfectly legitimate political tactic to get lots of public attention and front page news coverage to help sell our POV and embarass our opponents.”
That’s a normal part of politics, just like deal-making, and legitimate arm-twisting, and pork, and emotional rhetoric, and alliance-making, and horse-trading, and making promises, and trading favors, and other non-ideal, but legitimate and normal political practices.
(And unlike, say, vote-buying, bribing, using violence, blackmailing, rules-breaking, stealing, law-breaking, and other illegitimate practices.)
And decrying your opponents for their dreadful tactics, regardless of whether you are perfectly correct, or grossly exaggerating to confuse the issue, is part of the norm, too. As is then decrying that. And so the wheel goes round.
But it’s rather important not to confuse the public show with what’s really right and wrong, and not to confuse what’s really right and wrong with what’s poltically legitimate and illegitimate.
If John Murtha had his way, we would all be eating falafel today.
Have you no decency, sir? Leave Bill O’Reilly out of this.
All I can say is you cannot call someone a defeatist without questioning their patriotism.
I just did, sparticus. His policies are wrong in my opinion, not unpatriotic. If you disagree with Bush’s policies and believe that they will result in our defeat, does that mean you are calling Bush unpatriotic? Of course not.
we would all be eating falafel today
Well, I eat it now at a falafel bar down the street. It’s actually pretty good.
“You arent seriously saying that the Dems have been refraining from saying mean and unpleasant things?”
No. I merely meant that we shall continue to taunt you when we’re back in control of House or Senate or both. And Republicans will taunt Democrats.
There are important lines in how far taunting should go, and some room for reasonable debate as to where those lines are, of course.
The dumbest thing about all the unprecedented inventions the Republicans have come up with in the last decade for running legislative roughshod over the minority is the notion that, you know, what you invent won’t come back to bite you on the ass. Democrats didn’t make any of the rules since 1994, but we’ve watched how they’ve been played, and, hey, those are now the rules.
Fine.
Since your allowed to judge the patriotism of others, I’ll judge yours.
Except I didn’t judge his patriotism, BSR.
Your obviously more concerned with making excuses for the Republican party than actually fixing the situation in Iraq. Your more concerned with the future of the Republican party than with the future of this country or the future of our soldiers.
Nonsense and double nonsense. Exactly what excuses have I made? Be specific.
In ten years you’ll be blaming your fellow American’s on the left for the lose of Iraq, claiming we didn’t have the willpower.
That’s the ticket. Criticize me for something you think I’ll say a decade from now. A Karnak Award for you, post-dated ten years hence.
So let me get this straight DaveC (and I apologize if I’ve totally misinterpreted the quoted statement): John Murtha, a dedicated combat veteran with a conservative reputation, desires – no, is actively working towards – the takeover of America by swarthy Islamofascists (sic)?
Do you have anything other than conjecture and your own projected ideological prejudices to back up this borderline-slanderous charge?
And why must we bring Lebanese food into the discussion? Have you no decency??!!??
“If John Murtha had his way, we would all be eating falafel today.”
Incidentally, this seems extremely goofy. His radical idea, good idea or bad, is to fight the War On Terror more effectively by redeploying, not, you know, surrendering. I find it most useful to debate actual specifics, not engage in wacky and meaningless rhetoric, but that’s me.
I’d be happy to have a felafel sandwich, though, if it were in my budget. Yummy.
I had falafel for dinner last night at the Taste of Lebanon, and having read the above I am going to go out of my way to have it again today.
And then I’ll go across the street to the Middle Eastern Bakery and pick up some hummus and spinach pies, etc….
bonus question: what neighborhood do I live in?
Surely this unsubstantiated claim can be retired after the last 28 months of experience in Iraq.
Look at what al Qaeda did from 1993 to present, Charley. September 11th happened because bin Laden thought we were a paper tiger. They attack what they perceive as weakness. Why else are they sending suicide bombers to mosques?
I think it will not be long before Murtha’s position is that of the majority of republicans in Congress, and a great many people in the Admin too.
I doubt it. The essential point is that troop levels should be dictated by the goals achieved, and that withdrawing troops should not be prioritized over the mission.
ok, that’s too easy, what with Google.
The fact that Charles isn’t heavily plugging a draft makes me suspect that he thinks this is a stupid idea, too.
I’m not plugging a draft at present, Iron, because we haven’t fully explored all of the non-draft means of increasing troop levels for Iraq. I’m not sure I do support a draft anyway because of the political baggage left over from Vietnam.
I find it most useful to debate actual specifics, not engage in wacky and meaningless rhetoric, but that’s me.
Yeah, you would probably even agree with people who think that democracy doesn’t fix everything
Er, DaveC, I don’t see how you could have gleaned a contempt for democracy from Gary’s objection to your usage of inflammatory rhetoric.
Do you always utilize such dishonorable debate tactics?
“If you disagree with Bush’s policies and believe that they will result in our defeat…” that doesn’t make you a defeatist, you know.
Or maybe you don’t. Having an alternative strategy for defeating the threat of terrorism (or fighting it as effectively as possible so it becomes the least threat practical, which is probably a more realistic way to describe what the goal is) isn’t saying there’s no point in fighting terrorism, Charles.
That is, of course, the heart of the whole Iraq debate.
Unlike many here, I think there were some defensible reasons for arguing for overthrowing Saddam, before we did it. (And I think there were defensible reasons for arguing against it, as it was done just then; I’ve maintained this position that both sides had reasonable arguments, all along.)
And I think there have been defensible reasons to argue various POVs on what should be done in Iraq.
But whether invading Iraq was or was not a better way of fighting the terrorist threat, and otherwise making the world a better place, is the entire argument.
Maybe the pro-war side is/was correct.
But you can’t assume that it was as an argument to persuade people that it was.
And thus Murtha isn’t a defeatist, unless, of course, we accept that disagreement with your POV is not just wrong, but not legitimate.
And that’s why people are upset with you on this one. Not just because of knee-jerk Charles-Bird-Bashing (although that’s part of it, of course). But because you are calling Murtha a “defeatist,” wrongly, rather than simply disagreeing with him about strategy.
And thus you’re implicitly calling everyone who even vaguely agrees with him a practioner of an illegitimate point of view.
And that’s why people are upset.
“Except I didn’t judge his patriotism, BSR.”
Charles, digressing slightly, are you also saying you find being called a “loser-defeatist” unobjectionable? And regardless, here’s a suggestion: clarify your position, then, by calling Murtha a “patriotic loser-defeatist,” if you think that will help clarify, why don’t you? (If you think some might find that confusing, you might want to ponder that for a moment, though probably not.)
Bush will deliver us from evil.
And he will vanquish our mortal enemies.
All praise be to the warrior prophet.
And God, have mercy on those with little faith.
“I’m not sure I do support a draft anyway because of the political baggage left over from Vietnam.”
Digressing again, as is my usual wont, I’m puzzling over what this means. The draft as instituted during the Vietnam era was fine? (In which form?) Something happened to make it not fine? It was fine during the Korean War? What are you trying to say here?
Do you always utilize such dishonorable debate tactics?
Actually I was just throwing him a link to what I thought was an intersting post that echoed some of his other points. And the falafel remark was just teasing, by the way. I don’t want this to create a situation where all the conservatives will have to preface their remarks by saying how they like kibbeh.
DaveC, what’s your definition of “non-sequitur”?
Incidentally, are you disagreeing with Bjoern, agreeing, not understanding him, or what? (And if so, over which points.) (Bjoern’s a smart kid, by the way; I don’t recall our once linking to each other that wasn’t in hearty and approving agreement, going back to 2001.)
As usual, Bjoern has some interesting points. As usual, I can’t tell what the heck you are trying to say about them. (Sorry.)
“Murtha is betraying the American soldiers who have been there”
“Except I didn’t judge his patriotism, BSR.”
You seriously want to argue that by stating he is betraying American soldiers in the field you are not questioning his patriotism? Such Clintonian parsing. Such hypocritical garbage.
Appreciate the civil explanation for your remarks, DaveC. Consider my questioning of your ethics withdrawn.
Let the record also show that I’m willing to fight to the death in defense of middle-eastern cuisine. Slander Shawarmas and Babaghanoush at your own peril, ObWi massive.
😉
“Exactly what excuses have I made? Be specific.”
The fact that at every issue, you ignore reality and smear the messenger while ignoring anything this administration does.
From your ridiculas garbage about the UN oil for food scandal, which you dropped now that it’s apparent it was crap and some American companies were among the worst offenders. To your tarring of amnesty International with the smear brush. To your rediculas “race card” threads that ignore the Republican Southern stategy and obvious republican tactics that deny large amounts of minority voters the right to vote.
Twisting the intellignce over Iraq didn’t budge your support of this administration. Incompetence bordering on negligence in fighting the war didn’t. Complete abandonment of any conservative pricibles of limited government or fiscal responsiblity didn’t. Bringing shame to our country by making all of us part of a regime that tortures people to death didn’t.
At every turn of the above issues you demonized the critics and questioned their motives, earning your own pathetic, childish Karnac award many times over. It took the Miers nomination to make you criticise the administration in any meaningful way.
“Criticize me for something you think I’ll say a decade from now.”
That’s not really required as you already started doing it here in this thread and in previous threads, most notabily your will to victory thread. I’m not predicting the future so much as following the obvious trendline. Like any good German, you have started on your stab in the back propagandizing for all to see.
Although I’m sure I’ve missed some relevant posts of Charles, it seems to me that one of these three things is not like the others.
Am I to infer that you consider continuing to NOT do all we can an acceptable state?
It is not acceptable, bob, because there is always room for improvement. More importantly, our job isn’t done. There’s much more work to do.
Ahhhh, and we’re back to the despicable flypaper theory
The flypaper theory was not a Bush administration policy. However, al Qaeda has adopted it and they have picked Iraq as the central front.
I do not claim to have all the answers, but I am certainly not going to be as declarative as Charles is and state all my pronouncements as certainty.
Well, john, I probably wrote with a little certainty than how I actually felt. I pray your son stays safe.
You seriously want to argue that by stating he is betraying American soldiers in the field you are not questioning his patriotism?
So apparently you do believe that Bush is unpatriotic because he has done wrong things in Iraq, BSR. I don’t. Both Bush and Murtha are patriots, in my opinion.
So your stance is that America is so weak and ineffective that the only way we can fight terrorism in a country is to conquer it, occupy it, and ruthlessly exterminate all who would fight?
No, anon. Otherwise, we would have already invaded and Saudi Arabia and Syria.
Why “and mercilessly,” exactly?
Because I believe Murtha is so outrageously wrong, delenda, on one of the most important issues of the day. The Republicans were right to put Murtha’s resolution to a vote.
I agree with Bjorn about this:
but not necessarily this:
Especially, when the comments threaten to turn into a yet another Charles Bird pile-on, I think adding a little discord might be a good thing, which Gary does, but in a much more rational way than I do.
Have you been in Iraq? Unless you have, do not comment on what should or should not be done.
Using your logic, Dave, you should not discuss Abraham Lincoln because you’ve never met the man.
I just did, sparticus. His policies are wrong in my opinion, not unpatriotic. If you disagree with Bush’s policies and believe that they will result in our defeat, does that mean you are calling Bush unpatriotic?
No. Nor would I call him defeatist in that case. I suppose, using the dictionary’s definition of the word, it is technically possible to label someone defeatist – aka, accepting or resigned to defeat – without questioning the patriotism of that person. But it would require a very narrow set of circumstances for it to be possible.
Since Senator Murtha is neither accepting nor resigned to defeat, but is advocating a change in policy (in fact meant to avoid a greater defeat), you are misusing the word. In the dictionary definition sense of the word. Your use of the word, and your diary in toto, implies that Senator Murtha is not simply resigned to defeat, but by his actions actually working towards it. Which to me sounds like treason.
So I will give you a shiny pin that it is possible for someone to be a defeatist while remaining patriotic, but I will have to take it away because you have misused the word defeatist.
Charles: the Repubicans did not bring Murtha’s resolution (H.J.RES.73) to a vote. They brought an resolution (H.RES.571) that they called the Murtha resolution, despite its having been introduced by Duncan Hunter, to a vote. The Hunter amendment is, and was designed to be, stupid, and almost everyone voted against it, including, if memory serves, Murtha. Here it is (via Steve Clemons):
And here is Murtha’s quite different resolution. You might or might not agree with it, but unlike the Hunter resolution, it’s not completely idiotic:
These are not at all the same, and only the Hunter amendment was put to a vote.
Sorry: section 2 of the Murtha amendment should read: “A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines shall be deployed in the region.” (I was stripping superfluous numbers out of the text, and cut a line by mistake.)
I’m not plugging a draft at present, Iron, because we haven’t fully explored all of the non-draft means of increasing troop levels for Iraq.
Would you care to start exploring some of those “non-draft means of increasing troop levels for Iraq” in a post, rather than simply piling on people like Murtha? In other words, I’d like to see you explaining HOW we can the war, rather than berating those who think the war is no longer winnable.
What Iron lungfish said. We have already lowered our recruiting and disciplinary standards, keeping in people we would normally kick out for problems like substance abuse and major disciplinary problems; upped bonuses, and done all sorts of things. We have sent our elite training battalion to Iraq, leaving our troops to be trained by national guard people. What exactly, short of a draft, remains to be done?
Following up that question: you stated that Murtha’s ideas “must be defeated […] mercilessly.”
As I don’t follow your answer, I, yearning to help the Republican agenda, ask for your help!
What would be the practical, actual, difference between defeating his ideas mercifully, and defeating them mercilessly?
What are u, in fact, calling for people to actually do? What would we do to defeat his ideas mercifully? What must we do to avoid this, and do as we must, to defeat them mercilessly?! I am eager to help!!! Down with luser-defeatests!
Saying its true is the most important lesson learned from Viet Nam — that was Murtha’s most important point.
Murtha’s “truth” is not that we’re losing, dm, but that we’ve already lost. Sorry, I don’t accept that because it’s very much open to debate. Calling for an immediate withdrawal puts to action Murtha’s words that we’ve already lost and also adds nothing to the debate. By his own actions he has declared defeat. I’m just calling it how I see it.
Charles, your attacks on Murtha poison the well of what needs to be a serious policy debate.
And Murtha hasn’t, jack? He didn’t call for a debate, he called for direct and drastic action.
And now, you find yourself on the cusp of facing the disaster that Iraq has become.
I disagree with your premise, Carlton, that we are on the cusp of disaster. Seems to me that disaster is much more likely if the Murtha plan is followed.
But we can see that even you are unsure now of the outcome. Or, rather, you can see that Iraq is going so badly that even after defining ‘victory’ down to some marginal, pathetic goal we will still likely fall short of the finish line… So you’ve begun to lay the groundwork for your eventual fallback position: you will blame other people.
If we don’t root out al Qaeda and if we don’t quell the Sunni paramilitarists and if we don’t deliver a free, peaceful, non-theocratic representative republic, I will blame other people, and that blame will fall on Bush.
Charles, have you bothered to wonder why Murtha is advocating the positions he does? Does your thinking on the matter begin and end with the conclusion that he is a defeatist, unpatriotic loser?
First, Ron, Murtha has explained why himself. Second, don’t mischaracterize me. I said he was wrong, not unpatriotic.
Several have said that I took Murtha’s May 2005 quote out-of-context. I didn’t have the full Hill article at the time I wrote this, so I wrote an update.
There was a Daily Show segment a couple months ago on a Maine GOP state rep who introduced a gay marriage bill just so he could oppose it. Stupid then, stupid now.
Actually a little more than stupid, since it’s an active attempt to deceive the public.
The disconnect between this post and what life is like for soldiers in Iraq (or at least one former soldier) is striking.
Charles:
Murtha’s “truth” is not that we’re losing, dm, but that we’ve already lost.
It would be nice if you could write something half-way on point to what I said and half-way truthful concerning what Murtha said. This is not Murtha’s point, and others have taken you to task above for repeating this canard. Your own update shows you know you got it wrong — why pollute your own point with such garbage?
Murtha’s point is that continuation of the same policy — “stay the course” — is a loser strategy, and since Bush is not going to do anything different, it is time to start getting out. (and another GOP lie is to claim Murtha wants “immediate” pull-out instead of the actual timing he advocates — why does your party rely so much on deception to make its points?).
You agree with Murtha — you also think the current policy is flawed, and that something different needs to be done. For some unknown reason, you prefer to advocate for a war that is not actually being fought, and therefore stand behind a war that you agree is a failure in its current incarnation, but will magically morph into something better.
This remains a debate about the current failed leadership and the fact that the ongoing failures are not going to change. You remain hopeful, but based on what? Yours is the Tinker Bell strategy.
Taking that as a given (Bush will not change), what can be done with this mess? Murtha’s is the responsible position — since the only choice is between Bush’s ongoing failure or ending it, he has advocated ending it.
You advocate for a third position that is never going to happen, and is therefore irrelevant no matter how hard we all wish that there was a third alternative.
Murtha is the realist — time for you to become one.
There is a place to discuss the meaning and value of the two opposing strategies, call them Murtha and Bush, tho it is probably not here or Congress, and certainly not the MSM. Why does the administration want a large footprint, and not a rapid-response team?
Withdrawing(Murtha) would meant stopping almost all counter-insurgency measures, and intending to allow the Iraqis to fight it among themselves until they got tired enough to negotiate. The Americans would only step in when massive armies were about to clash, or to prevent ethnic cleansing, or external intervention.
But will the militias fight? There is no multi-faction Iraqi army, and small prospect of one in the near future. The militias provide local defense and order, with occasional aggressive excursions on their territorial borders. But would the Peshmurga or Badr Brigade roll out to the Syrian border to wipe out an insurgent stronghold? I think not.
So after a suicide bombing in Najaf, Badr Brigade will ask Americans to eliminate the source, or perhaps just wreak havoc in the closest Sunni neighborhood.
We have a problem.
Murtha got it exactly right. We’ve already lost this war, because we have no even remotely plausible plan to accomplish our goals of a free and democratic Iraq.
First, note that the people who won the election, are a coalition of the Kurds, who want to be left alone, and the Shiite parties including SCIRI, the Badr corps, and others, who are Islamo-fascists, if that term means *anything*. They’re thugs, and puppets of the government of Iran, and given their backers, I suspect their goal is the imposition of an Iranian-style theocracy in Iraq. When we talk about sticking around until they’re strong enough to impose their will on the rest of Iraq, well, that’s crazy, isn’t it? Iran, along with the Saudis, are the two biggest backers of militant Jihadism throughout the world (see Jessica Stern’s latest book as a reference).
And those are the folks we’re *backing*!
On the other side, the Sunnis are, from what I’ve read, 80-90% Baathists who want to rule over the whole country, and 10-20% foreign fighters, who I assume are Al Qaeda. The latter are also religious fanatics, while the former are relatively secular, and as we all know by now, they loathe each other. If they each had their way, they’d kill each other, as soon as we’re out of the way. If the Baathists weren’t fighting to get us out of the country, they’d probably be killing Al Qaeda’s forces.
Realistically, to change the outcome of the battles in Iraq today would probably require something like the originally estimated 500,000 troops, for something like 5-10 years. That would require a draft, which is never going to happen.
Just like other places in the Middle East, these folks will live in peace together on their own time frame, not ours. The Shiites and Sunnis will kill each other until they get tired of it, just like the Protestants and Catholics of Ireland did, until *they* got sick of it.
So, Murtha is 100% right to recognize that saying the course is simply a way to have more Americans die on the way to eventual failure.
That failure is a function of poor planning by the Bush administration. But the readers here are correct: the Bushies realize the war is lost. They’re looking for scapegoats now.
But the fact is that this war was fought on Bush’s terms, with complete Republican control over Congress. It was planned by the Republicans, lost by the Republicans, and now that it is obvious our goals are impossible to achieve, they’ll do *anything* they can to pin the blame on the Democrats.
So get ready for at least 12 more months of the big lie from all of the Republicans.
And that’s why people are upset with you on this one. Not just because of knee-jerk Charles-Bird-Bashing (although that’s part of it, of course). But because you are calling Murtha a “defeatist,” wrongly, rather than simply disagreeing with him about strategy.
Are there no policy options that are not defeatist, Gary? Murtha didn’t call for a debate about withdrawing troops, he called for an immediate unilateral withdrawal. He’s already made up his mind. I know my opinions came off pretty strongly, and I’m not surprised that many reacted equally strongly (or more), but it seems to me–for the reasons stated–that Murtha’s prescription will set us and Iraq horrifically backward.
I gave no opinion on the legitimacy of Murtha’s position. He’s an elected member of Congress, and I’ll leave to his constituents to make that decision.
Charles, digressing slightly, are you also saying you find being called a “loser-defeatist” unobjectionable?
No. Several here in this thread have called Bush a defeatist because of the shoddy way he’s conducted the war, and for the lousy way he’s communicated our strategy. Some may find that objectionable. I don’t, not that I agree with that assessment.
These are not at all the same, and only the Hunter amendment was put to a vote.
Thanks, Hil. I agree that Murtha’s exact language should have been introduced, and said so in the update.
“Murtha didn’t call for a debate about withdrawing troops, he called for an immediate unilateral withdrawal.”
I can’t tell whether you are misunderstanding the nature of what Murtha called for and what it entails, or whether you are intentionally, out of an unfortunate excess of concision, perhaps, characterizing the nature of what Murtha’s bill entails in a significantly erroneous way.
First, when you introduce a bill you are, ipso facto, calling for a debate on that bill before it is voted upon. That’s simply an inherent part of the process.
To to say that someone introducing a bill is “not calling for a debate” is only accurate in the sense that “not calling for a debate” means “calling for a debate.”
So I’d call that an unfortunate choice of words regarding Murtha’s calling for a debate.
“…he called for an immediate unilateral withdrawal.”
“Immediate” meaning “by within six months.” Is that the usual way you mean “immediate”?
This also seems unfortunately differently-accurate, shall we say, than the way most people use “immediate,” which tends to be, I don’t know for sure, but probably within at least a week or two. But do feel free to immediately check a dictionary and immediately get back to us on that, in six months, if you prefer.
“…unilateral withdrawal.”
I’d agree that his bill (which hasn’t been voted upon; why, the Republicans haven’t allowed an up or down vote on Murtha’s bill! — isn’t that unconstitutional, or something?) might be reasonably characterized as including a withdrawal.
So: “Are there no policy options that are not defeatist, Gary?”
Well, yes, Murtha’s. As I recall, Charles, we’re fighting the war in Iraq because it is the key part of fighting the War on Terror. It is, as I’m given to understand, non-optional.
Do I have that wrong?
Now, I’ve already pointed out that agreeing or disagreeing whether fighting in Iraq was The Key Part of the WOT, or merely an, at best, optional part of that War, is the essential debate the country is split over; everything else is commentary.
So, setting that aside, if we stipulate that there is a terrorist threat, and specifically an Islamic extremist terrorist threat, and related cultural/political/economic problems, then debating strategy in fighting that war is not, Charles, in the least defeatist. Is it?
It wasn’t “defeatist” of Churchill to oppose a cross-Channel invasion in ’42 and ’43. It wasn’t defeatist of the British Cabinet to oppose a variety of Churchill’s plans and desired attacks during both WWI and WWII. It wasn’t defeatist of Lloyd George and the Cabinet to over-ride Churchill and withdraw from the Dardanelles during WWI, Charles, was it?
Charles Murtha isn’t ventriloquising Cindy Sheehan, Charles. It’s hard to give credence to the idea that you don’t see that, so I’m going to close my eyes and pretend you didn’t. Is there anything here that makes any sense to you?
Lastly: “He’s already made up his mind.”
I’m not following the nature of your complaint. Are you saying that in some way your mind is less made up than his? Or that you’re both wrong to have an opinion? Or what?
Actually, I think Murtha has changed his mind from when he had it made up earlier regarding Iraq.
God forbid if we now live in world in which our leaders already have their minds made up.
However, it is a time-saving device.
I want to underscore Gary.
And the proof is before us, here in this thread and elsewhere. The Congressional Republicans, responding as they often do to a political debate, chose to use their control of the process to obfuscate it and attack the messenger.
This type of behavior is not exclusive property of Republicans, of course, but lately it does seem to characterize them.
“…even remotely plausible plan to accomplish our goals of a free and democratic Iraq.”
I suspect we have a larger set of goals than those, but limited to those two, we are very far from “already lost the war.”
I can’t speak to the Bush plan, whatever it might be…but a Murtha plan of rapid response does not seem to include any time frame to achieve a free and democratic Iraq, nor any set limits on the number of self-inflicted Iraqi casualties required to achieve it. Our only role would be to prevent anything else, (theocracy, dictatorship, vassal status to an external power) from possibly arising. We could do that with air power, and very few American casualties.
It would probably be a “free and democratic Iraq” that didn’t like us very much, but frankly Hakim and Sadr and Barzhani would mainly be angry at us for not killing off the other two.
Meet some more loser-defeatists:
Gen. Zinni May, 2004
Gen. Oddom Dec. 2003
Gen. Zinni Oct. 2002 (watch 30 second ad for day pass)
Iraq is the most mismanaged military engagement in American history. There may have been a brief six month window when a reasonably defined “victory”, i.e. political stability, may have been possible. Bush and the neo-cons blew it big time.
As George Will has said, above all other things the hallmark of a conservative should be competence. Bush is an incompetent loser. Bush has always been an incompetent loser. As Kevin Phillips commented, “Every time George Bush drilled a dry well, his daddy’s friends came along and filled it up with money.”
Americans will tolerate a lot of things in a President. They will not tolerate a President who is a loser. Bush’s presidency is finished. Bush’s Iraq war and the neocons’ neverending Middle East war against Islam is finished.
The only question that remains is who will be the last man to die for Bush’s mistake.
. . . Instant response is what you do in a modern election campaign . . . Discrediting a critic’s argument isn’t enough, because it takes too much time in an environment when time is everything. Campaign politics are the primary frame of reference for politicians in Washington today. Republicans of late have practiced this trade more aggressively . . . Karl Rove’s influence on GOP political operatives may be even more profound, and GOP political operatives have vast influence in Republican politics.
Finally and very frankly, Democratic politicians tend to be wimps. . . . This encourages Republican political operatives to use rough tactics.
I don’t think this is a matter of ideology. In fact I don’t know what it is. I just know if I were a Republican politician there wouldn’t be many Democratic politicians I would be afraid of. . .
From:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007068.php
Charles wrote: “We also need to make sure that Iraq does not resume Afghanistan’s former role as the host nation for terrorist training camps.” Our immediate departure would do just that”
Charles,
What was your position on this significant risk, PRIOR to the war?
Did you give it any credence? Did you wave it away as moonbat fearmongering? Did you assume Bush had the competence to prevent this from being a problem?
bob writes: “I can’t speak to the Bush plan, whatever it might be…but a Murtha plan of rapid response does not seem to include any time frame to achieve a free and democratic Iraq, nor any set limits on the number of self-inflicted Iraqi casualties required to achieve it. ”
Clearly, the Murtha plan is only intended to anticipate the unavoidable Bush failure, and get it done ASAP so that it costs as few American lives as possible.
Failure is inevitable with Bush at the helm. The question is, how many Americans are going to get killed in the meantime?
Staying only makes sense if the White House and Pentagon undergo a gut remodeling. Replace them with competent GOP people, but the Bush cronies have to GO. They Cannot Win. They lost the war in 2002.
Charles writes: “We have NOT done all we can. ”
Correct.
Three guesses as to who is responsible for that.
Hilzoy writes: “We have already lowered our recruiting and disciplinary standards, keeping in people we would normally kick out for problems like substance abuse and major disciplinary problems; upped bonuses, and done all sorts of things. ”
And those bonuses aren’t going work much longer, since we’re yanking them away from soldiers who were quickly injured and sent home.
That’s not an enlistment bonus, it’s a falsely-advertised survival bonus for soldiers who make it long enough without being injured.
Charles:
That mindset, as at 2004, appears to me to be that of a pragmatic realist: “Commit more troops or we will lose this war”. For that you label him a “defeatist”.
And yet, in 2005, you also argue that:
It seems to me that Murtha asked the same question as you about 18 months ago (when the problem was already known), saw no significant attempt by the Administration to address the manpower problem, and concluded that (absent the “triumph of the will” necessary to commit adequate resources to win) the war effort is not going to produce the desired results.
I’m kinda bewildered that you hurl the “defeatist” epithet at someone who shares (at least in part) your requirements for winning, asks for a commitment to those requirements, and finds those in charge unwilling to provide it. I think your invective is better directed at those actually in charge that are failing to deliver, rather than those on the sidelines who understand what is required but get no support.
“Failure is inevitable with Bush at the helm.’
But if so, then surely if we withdraw within six months, then Bush will also screw that up, yes?
I note that the update only appears here. Perhaps Jean Schmidt is only condemnable (which seem to mean that one can condemn it without having Chas question your patriotism, which is mighty big of him, I guess) at ObWi and at other venues, this would be too much of a crawldown. Failure of the will, even.
Gary, I would have said a few years ago that there are some things even Bush couldn’t screw up very well. I’ve lost that confidence. I’m still willing to say that a fumbling incompetent corrupt effort at withdrawal to a stable position like the one Murtha calls for is likely to be less damaging than more of the same – even though I now feel pretty sure that it’d include its own disasters and sins.
And now I see this, by Hoagland today:
Is the President a defeatist, too?
Has anyone else noted that Charles and others cannot “define” victory, even in a silly way, without using passive terminology. That seems to me the most telling admittance that they have no idea what victory entails themselves. Victory is not something that you can accomplish, its something that happens TO YOU, like alien abductions.
That seems to me the most telling admittance that they have no idea what victory entails themselves.
It seems more to me a telling admittance that their exhortations for victory in Iraq have very little to do with….actually achieving victory in Iraq.
It’s a cudgel to wack at their “domestic enemies” in the runup to the 2006 elections.
“But if so, then surely if we withdraw within six months, then Bush will also screw that up, yes?”
Entirely possible. And it will almost certainly entail vast money transfers to cronies.
Actually, I think the reason Bush is building the world’s biggest embassy in Iraq is so that he can fit more people and helicopters on top when we flee.
(Note: actually, in the famous picture from Vietnam, the helicopter is picking people up off of a hotel, not the embassy itself.)
*blinks*
I was away from the Internet for 36 hours or so, and you know how lack of Internet access rots the brain, but didn’t this post use to say something completely different?
“So apparently you do believe that Bush is unpatriotic because he has done wrong things in Iraq, BSR. I don’t. Both Bush and Murtha are patriots, in my opinion.”
More dishonest nonsense and twisting of other’s words. Can I award you one of your stupid, childish Karnak awards for theorizing on what I believe?
I don’t believe Bush is unpatriotic for making mistakes in Iraq, I believe he is simply incompetent. I don’t question the man’s patriotism or that he has the best in mind for the country, I just feel he is very incompetent and mistaken in how we get there.
Betrayal implies by it’s very definition that harm is done on purpose. Nobody is accusing Bush of doing anything on purpose, quite the opposite. That doesn;t stop you from bringup up Bush as a eflection instead of addressing the issue.
You attack your opponent’s patriotism by using such loaded works as “betrayal”. You paint your fellow citizen as the enemy, as someone you must attack “mercilessly”. You do these things over and over on purpose, and then you claim that you aren’t.
WTF? Renamed, rejobbed posts? The url has murtha_is_a_los.html which suggests that Chas has redone this post, but it remains on tacitus and on redstate. Perhaps I caught you in mid change, but the fact that the other two venues doesn’t have your update suggests that you are playing at an attempt to rewrite your history. Unbelievably pathetic.
I am totally tripping here kids- Chaz messed up his new post. It’s the link on the old one, that doesn’t exist?
So I am right: this used to be the “Murtha is a loser” post, and Charles rewrote it, re-titled it (all but the URL), and didn’t include any note to say something on the lines of “I no longer agree with what I sad here so I’ve removed it”?
PP,
maybe you are right, I don’t know how complicated the blog software is. But even if it is, it is typical CB bs, where he tries to set up people up into skipping over what he says. “oh, I said in Fallujah, not out of Iraq. A Karnak for those who blah blah blah.” I repeat, unbelievably pathetic. Your trackback is absolutely right, if Chas would go over to Open Sore Media, he’d raise IQ level here and there.
lj, I e-mailed the kitty at more length than I feel able to do so here. Suggest you do the same.
Err… WTF is going on here?
Possibly Charles made an error? Editing an old post instead of adding a new one?
I can see why the new post might make you want to rethink the old one Charles. But you might want to just add an update to this one explaining your change of heart, as well as moving your new post up top.
Frank: Possibly Charles made an error? Editing an old post instead of adding a new one?
Previous comments were pre-caffeine: I’m now post-caffeine, and I think this is actually more likely than my previous imaginings. The old post still exists at Tacticus/Redstate, and I’m sure Charles will fix the error as soon as it’s brought to his attention.
Charles, I apologize for my earlier comment implying you’d done it on purpose, and for my intemperate e-mail to the kitty.
Jes- I don’t blame you for your assumption of bad faith on Charles part. I kind of envy you for it actually. After all this time I still have to look carefully at his argument before I conclude he is full of it. Your method is faster and usually just as accurate if not moreso.
Chas- If the above offends, I just have to say your new post would look a lot better if you titled it: “Charles Bird enjoys a heaping helping of crow and endorses the Murtha plan.” If you don’t feel thats a classier title I’m sorry, if you do my congratulations.
It’s the new talking points. Charles just got his copy. The Pentagon is preparing draw-down plans; SCIRI is promising Iraqis a timetable for withdrawal. After the elections, they ask us nicely to leave, we say OK, we begin a significant draw-down right before elections, Bush is hailed as a peacemaker and can start preparing the next war.
“It’s the new talking points. Charles just got his copy”
And moreover, the President says Murtha is not unpatriotic for his statements. For example, here
I, too, am completely baffled. First I was thinking: how did Charles post on this, and I completely miss it? How did it get 216 comments, or whatever, without my so much as noticing? Now that I have figured it out, I’m just baffled in a different way.
“Now that I have it figured out, I’m just baffled in a different way.”
When it is convenient, could those who have it figured out explain it to those who don’t.
Or did you mean you have figured out that something has gone wrong but have not figured out what it is?
John: the latter. I have gotten as far as: oh, the post has been changed. I did not just completely miss a whole post, plus over 200 comments, in the last few days. I have not gone completely mad.
As to the reasons, I don’t know anything more than you.
And…. we’re back. Good times, people. Good times.
I’m not sure what happened, but I think I mistakenly forgot to hit the “New Post” button and typed over this post with the American Forces Should Withdraw in Six Months post.
Sounds probable. Again, I apologize for thinking you’d done it on purpose.
The next guy that makes up wacky acronyms is gonna get a visit from Mr. Smashy.
Charles- So you decided to go with ignoring your 180 change in position. Ok its all good.
CB: Love the updated title.
So (he said, about to ‘go there’),
does this mean you retract the statement “Murtha has drunk the Daily Kos Kool Aid. He is a loser-defeatist”?