New Strategy?

[SuperScout]

At last, it's becoming increasingly clear what the Democrat's strategy is regarding the war in Iraq: pull out to some offshore staging area, and then reinsert the forces when they're needed. According to John Murtha, (D-PA), this retreat as called for must be the lamest excuse for planning military operations that the Democrats can come up with. He needs to be asked the question: when was the last war won by retreating? And here's a few more some enterprising reporter might ask him: where are you going to deploy these retreating forces? How will you reinsert them into the hotspots? Using helicopters? Have you ever heard of a a quiet heliborne operation? Are you even remotely aware of the fact that one of the principles of war is "surprise"? How is surprise going to be achieved? Are you even remotely aware of the fact that another principle of war is "offense"? How can you embrace this principle when all you're doing is reacting to threats? And finally, are you even remotely aware of how damaging your comments are to the morale of our fighting forces?

[catman]

This kind of thinking is extremely troubleling to me. Echos.

Trav

[SuperScout]

Another thing that Murtha said is that be withdrawing, America will be safer. How does a country become safer by retreating? For too long, the Democrats hae been denying that they are the party of "cut and run," but now it's becoming clear what they really stand for: retreat.

[Gimpy]

Originally posted by SuperScout Another thing that Murtha said is that be withdrawing, America will be safer. How does a country become safer by retreating? For too long, the Democrats hae been denying that they are the party of "cut and run," but now it's becoming clear what they really stand for: retreat .

That's absolute BULLSHIT and you KNOW IT!..........

How the hell can you stand to look at yourself in the mirror every morning KNOWING that you are guilty of portraying ALL the Democrats in such a ridiculous way that you do?

Hell, even I don't accuse ALL the republicans of being as outrageously arrogant, stupid and guilty of betraying the trust of the majority of Americans as do the 'new breed' of radical right-wing zealots now in charge of the Republican party.

Why don't you put up at LEAST the truth once in a while???

I'm not absolutely sure I agree in full with Congressman Murtha's overall plan. But, I DO think we should at least consider what he has offered before condemning him (or accusing ALL the Democrats of being what Super has suggested).

Rod Dreher, just one of many conservative newspaper columnists who are taking Murtha seriously, quickly posted this at NRO Online, the National Review site:


?If tough, non-effete guys like Murtha are willing to go this far, and can make the case in ways that Red America can relate to -- and listening to him talk was like listening to my dad, who's about the same age, and his hunting buddies -- then the president is in big trouble. I'm sure there's going to be an anti-Murtha pile-on in the conservative blogosphere, but from where I sit, conservatives would be fools not to take this man seriously .?


This man that you have chosen for ridicule and scorn served in the Marines in the early 1950's, re-enlisted in 1966 and served in Vietnam, earning a Bronze Star, two Purple Hearts and the Vietnamese Cross for Gallantry and rising to the rank of Colonel.

In a not-so-veiled response to Vice President Cheney's recent attacks on the patriotism of antiwar critics, Murtha said this: "I like guys who got five deferments and (have) never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done."

And on President Bush: "You know, the president said it's tough to win a war. You know, it's tough to WAGE a war. That's where the fallacy's been. To WAGE this war is where the problem's been."


Here is Murtha's statement (and a link to the transcript of the press conference is at the end). It puts the issue squarely and fairly to editorial and opinion writers and to the general public as well. This man has more than enough background experience in the military AND Congress (and has been considerd "hawkish" in his approach to our military and military spending in the past) and has been accused of being a 'conservative" in democratics 'clothing'. He at least deserves that we as a nation consider his 'expertise' and obviously passionate and honest opinion on the subject.

************


Rep. John Murtha, Nov. 17, 2005


The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region.


General Casey said in a September 2005 hearing, "the perception of occupation in Iraq is a major driving force behind the insurgency." General Abizaid said on the same date, "Reducing the size and visibility of the coalition forces in Iraq is part of our counterinsurgency strategy."


I have been visiting our wounded troops at Bethesda and Walter Reed hospitals almost every week since the beginning of the War. And what demoralizes them is going to war with not enough troops and equipment to make the transition to peace; the devastation caused by IEDs; being deployed to Iraq when their homes have been ravaged by hurricanes; being on their second or third deployment and leaving their families behind without a network of support.


The threat posed by terrorism is real, but we have other threats that cannot be ignored. We must be prepared to face all threats. The future of our military is at risk. Our military and their families are stretched thin. Many say that the Army is broken. Some of our troops are on their third deployment. Recruitment is down, even as our military has lowered its standards. Defense budgets are being cut. Personnel costs are skyrocketing, particularly in health care.


Choices will have to be made. We cannot allow promises we have made to our military families in terms of service benefits, in terms of their health care, to be negotiated away. Procurement programs that ensure our military dominance cannot be negotiated away. We must be prepared. The war in Iraq has caused huge shortfalls at our bases in the U.S.


Much of our ground transportation is worn out and in need of either serious overhaul or replacement. George Washington said, "To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace." We must rebuild our Army. Our deficit is growing out of control. The Director of the Congressional Budget Office recently admitted to being "terrified" about the budget deficit in the coming decades. This is the first prolonged war we have fought with three years of tax cuts, without full mobilization of American industry and without a draft. The burden of this war has not been shared equally; the military and their families are shouldering this burden.

Our military has been fighting a war in Iraq for over two and a half years. Our military has accomplished its mission and done its duty. Our military captured Saddam Hussein, and captured or killed his closest associates. But the war continues to intensify. Deaths and injuries are growing, with over 2,079 confirmed American deaths. Over 15,500 have been seriously injured and it is estimated that over 50,000 will suffer from battle fatigue. There have been reports of at least 30,000 Iraqi civilian deaths.


I just recently visited Anbar Province Iraq in order to assess the condition on the ground. I am disturbed by the findings in key indicator areas. Oil production and energy production are below pre-war levels. Our reconstruction efforts have been crippled by the security situation. Only $9 billion of the $18 billion appropriated for reconstruction has been spent. Unemployment remains at about 60 percent. Clean water is scarce. Only $500 million of the $2.2 billion appropriated for water projects have been spent.


And most importantly, insurgent incidents have increased from about 150 per week to over 700 in the last year. Instead of attacks going down over time and with the addition of more troops, attacks have grown dramatically. Since the revelations at Abu Ghraib, American causalities have doubled. An annual State Department report in 2004 indicated a sharp increase in global terrorism.


I said over a year ago, and now the military and the Administration agrees, Iraq can not be won "militarily." I said two years ago, the key to progress in Iraq is to Iraqitize, Internationalize and Energize. I believe the same today. But I have concluded that the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is impeding this progress.


Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are united against U.S. forces and we have become a catalyst for violence. U.S. troops are the common enemy of the Sunnis, Saddamists and foreign jihadists. I believe with a U.S. troop redeployment, the Iraq security forces will be incentivized to take control. A poll recently conducted shows that over 80% of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition troops, about 45% of the Iraqi population believe attacks against American troops are justified. I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis.


I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy. All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free -- free from United States occupation. I believe this will send a signal to the Sunnis to join the political process for the good of a "free" Iraq.


My plan:


-- To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.
-- To create a quick reaction force in the region.
-- To create an over-the-horizon presence of Marines.
-- To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq.


This war needs to be personalized. As I said before, I have visited with the severely wounded of this war. They are suffering. Because we in Congress are charged with sending our sons and daughters into battle, it is our responsibility, our obligation, to speak out for them. That's why I am speaking out.


Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home.

***************


The complete text of Rep. Murtha's press conference on Thursday can be found here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/17/po...xt-murtha.html

****************

The man deserves the respect and consideration of everyone in this nation. Even IF we may not be in total agreement with his 'plan' as outlined. He at LEAST should have HIS 'plan' put along side the so-called 'plans' of this administration for nothing more than comparison purposes.

[SuperScout]

Ok, if not the party of cut and run, how about the party of yes now no later? I'll wager that there are a bunch more Democrats advocating the same thing. Let's just see how many Democrats fall in behind him.

And I don't give a big fig what his past military record is - good for him for serving when he did, but that doesn't make him an expert on counter-terrorism today. I'm not ridiculing or scorning him, just asking some tough questions; if he wants to present himself as some type of expert, he automatically subjects himself to being questioned about his bona fides. If you want to trot out his awards and decorations as credentials, kindly be advised that I have more credentials than he has. And I'll wager that I've spent more time studying successful counter-terrorism tactics and strategies while sitting on the crapper than Murtha has even heard about. We wont even get into the consulting work.

1. Over the horizon forces are suitable for one-time missions, not the fireman on the block response that will be needed for some time.

2. How does he plan to deploy this 'quick-reaction' force if not by helicopter? How can you land a force of sufficient strength to overwhelm the enemy (another principle of war apparently lost on Murtha) when called upon? How is he going to secure the landing zone, or is he just going to have the helicopters land as if there's no waiting party? Does he need to see "Blackhawk Down" one more time?

3. How does one pursue diplomatic goals of security and stability when the enemy wants to cut off the diplomat's head? Does Murtha have any clue about the nature of the enemy, or do we need to have view the beheadings a couple more time as a reminder? Is he completely unaware of how many diplomatic missions have been reestablished in Baghdad since the new government took charge?

4. If US/coalition forces are the problem, why are Muslims mosques, Muslim marketplaces, and Muslim coffeehouses the target of choice for the car bombers?

[sfc_darrel]

Where is he going to put this force, in that region, where they are safe?

[reconeil]

Re. "How the hell can you........of portraying ALL Democrats in such a ridiculous way that you"?

It's easy Gimpy, and hope SuperScout doesn't mind my answering your quite lame and shallow question?

Regardless, I said: "Easy" because MOST ALL DEMOCRATS seen daily on TV,...just like yourself come-off ridiculous on any matters of importance, and especially about warfare. Trivia,...eh, so-so.

Granted most fanatically staunch and/or greatly duped Dem Followers gobble-up the standardly canned and quite echoed Democrat BULLSHIT you and like perpetually shovel out.
But, differently wise and intelligent people DO NOT.

It's quite unfortunate that only a minority of Americans vote.
If all Americans voted,...there probably wouldn't even be a viable Democrat Party.

Neil

[sfc_darrel]

An exchange with Margaret Warner on last night's "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," though, suggests that Murtha has simply taken leave of reality:

Warner: But may I ask you, sir, if you believe--[the president] says--for whatever reason, Iraq has become the center of terrorism - that if the U.S. appears to retreat in the face of that, that it will be a blow to the American fight against radical Islamic terrorism? What do you say to that?

Murtha: Well, I say that the fight against Americans began with Abu Ghraib. It began with the invasion of Iraq. That's when terrorism started. It didn't start when there was criticism of this administration. This administration doesn't want to listen to any ideas.

[SuperScout]

Somebody needs to clue in this clueless Democrat (pardon the redundancy), but it didn't start with Abo Ghraib. Murtha needs a history lesson very badly, with somebody re-widning the tape all the way back to Beirut and the bombing ofour embassy there.

If your idea is the best you have, Murtha, little wonder why nobody with any common sense doesn't listen to you.

[Seascamp]

Depending on perspective, it can be good or bad that the Rep. is so very ill informed. Jeezzz, they must get their intel from old 1950?s Shredded Wheat ?Straight Arrow? woods craft cards.

Big point, Islamic Revolutionary terrorism has been institutional policy for a quarter of a century this time around. Of the two varieties of Islamic Revolutionaries, the Shiite; Iran, have been the most active the longest and specialize in butchering their own, the Jews, Lebanese, Palestinians and any Sunni Moslem that gets in their way, or is perceived too. The Sunni Islamic Revolutionaries; more popularly recognized as Al Qaeda, Abu Sayeff, etc., are more equal opportunity and butcher everyone anywhere in the world but currently specialize in butchering Iraqi Shiite Moslems by the scores of scores.

In the last quarter century these two Islamic Revolutionary organizations have shed enough Moslem blood to float an Aircraft Carrier. But with our current ?etch-a-sketch? form of history, what happens the day after tomorrow will be beamed down from the mothership tomorrow morning, and the current beaming reads something like ?terrorism will be invented tomorrow, stand by for details?.

Scamp