Withdraw the Troops - NOT
Friday, November 18, 2005 at 09:57PM Democrat Congressman John Murtha of PA yesterday made a speech urging the immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. Republican Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert of IL responded, "We want to make sure that we support our troops that are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. We will not retreat." Some of Murtha’s comments: 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 can not continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interest of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region. The main reason for going to war has been discredited. 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. 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 Iraqi 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, and about 45% of the Iraqi population believe attacks against American troops are justified. I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis. My plan calls: 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 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 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.
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
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.
Yes, let's throw Iraq into civil war and truly make every soldier's sacrifice in vain.
The main reason for going to war has been discredited? Who has discredited it but partisan Democrats and Oil for Food vendors?
WMD was not the main reason for liberating Iraq. It was a reason, not the reason. Saddam was a terrorist. Saddam was dangerous. Saddam violated 12 years worth of U.N. resolutions and the U.N. refused to make Iraq comply. Saddam fired at our US airplanes in an act of aggression as we patroled the No Fly Zone over Iraq for YEARS. Saddam tried to have George Bush Sr. assassinated in 1997 when Bush returned to Kuwait for a visit after Clinton had become Pres. Based on that failed assassination attempt alone we have the right to take down Saddam.
U.S. presence in Iraq is impeding this progress? Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency? The distinguished Congressman is not informed; it is Iraqis (usually worshipping ones)
The Army is not broken, Congressman, and military families have support groups within the military. Recruitment is down?
Is 2 and 1/2 years in Iraq a failure? The Declaration of Independence in the United States was adopted on July 4, 1776. It wasn't until almost 5 years later on March 1, 1781 that the Articles of Confederation were ratified, giving America a provisional Constitution. Finally on June 21, 1788, the Constitution was ratified. It took America almost 12 years to propose and ratify our Constitution. Since then, the Constitution has been amended numerous times. In fact, the last Constitutional amendment took place on May 7, 1992 (Amendment 27). The official transfer of sovereignty was handed back to the Iraqi people on June 28, 2004 after only a year.
The Congressman said, "All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free. Free from United States occupation." This is what occupation looks like. This is liberation. This is the Iraqi equivalent of Democrats.
What of the "no 9/11 connection?" Saddam did offer Osama asylum in Iraq in 1999. Marines conjectured Saddam supported Osama's 9/11 attack.
It would be interesting to give the Democrats their wish and pull out of Iraq just to see the Democrats humiliated as Iraq falls into disarray and disaster IF so much weren’t at stake in Iraq. Saddam could be put back on the throne and Iraq be tossed into a state even worse than before.
Terrorists want the US out of Iraq. Al-Qaeda wants the US out of Iraq. Peaceniks want the US out of Iraq. Iraqis, the Iraqi leadership and US soldiers want to finish the job. You do the math. ;)
-------------------------------------------------------
The House of Representatives defeated 403-3 the resolution to withdraw troops from Iraq, as Congressman Murth demanded.
Rep. Jean Schmidt (R - OH) “Cowards Cut and Run, Marines Never Do.”
Trackback URL for this entry:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/307164
HomoCon - "Revise and Conquer" (great article!)
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (47)
Yeah, I just watched C-Span for tha last three hours...interesting stuff. Murtha made some good points, but I think those visits to Walter Reed and Bethesda are getting to him.
You did notice the vote tally, right? The Dems, when they saw that the votes were going on record, OVERWHELMINGLY voted "No" to the resolution for immediate withdrawal. In fact, it got CREAMED!!!
Murtha made ZERO good points.
NONE.
He's talking out of his @$$ for pure political reasons.
Just by the statistics, since we "invaded" Iraq, an Iraqi is 4 times more likely to survive (4x as many Iraqis were killed annually by Saddam's regime) than under Saddam's regime. Troops are OVERWHELMINGLY behind the president and the mission. Reenlistment is SKYHIGH. Troops are NOT asking for the wimpy, feminine "SOS" that democrats like Pulosi and Boxer are calling for. In fact, Boxer, Pulosi and Reid are universally despised by troops. They are considerd apostles of anti-american sentimant with the BBC and NPR.
Murtha's bill is stupid, unpatriotic, and dangerous to American security. A pull out now would signal VICTORY to Al Zarqawi and the terrorists. Only an absolute wimp would cave in to these terrorists on the eve of CERTAIN victory.
You vipers claoming to speak for Soldiers are reprehensible carpet baggers making hay from political expediency; history will judge you you harshly and justly.
America First!
Whoa now...we really are on the same side of this. I may not have gone this time (retired the year before), but was there last time and other little events over 20 years.
I try very hard to give credit where it is due, and Murtha deserves an awful lot. He has been a very good friend to the military...and that has earned him some major points.
Was the man off base in this one? HELL YEAH! But your claim that he was "talking out of his @$$ for pure political reasons" doesn't ring true to me, having watched him very closely. I thought it was a debate that we needed to have, in front of the world, and the result was EXACTLY what we needed to hear.
I think there is even a chance that THAT was Murtha's intent all along.
- Distinguished Service Medal of the United States Marine Corps, upon his retirement from the Marine Corps Reserves for 37 years of distinguished service to his country, 1990.
- Distinguished Service Medal, Pennsylvania's highest honor, 1977.
- Meritorious Service Medal, Pennsylvania's second-highest honor, 1976.
- Bronze Star with Combat V, 1966.
- Purple Heart, 1966.
- Purple Heart, second award, 1966.
- Vietnamese Cross of Galantry, 1966.
- American Spirit Honor Medal of the Marine Corps Recruit Department, 1952.
Democrat Rep. John Murtha has been labelled a coward by Republican Rep. Jean Schmidt. Oh, sorry, it wasn’t her own words but those of a ventriloquist Marine colonel.
So here we have another Iraq War’s collateral damage.
Keep counting.
Murtha's comments were full of inaccuracies (I prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt and not call him a liar). I outlined some in my entry. Also, according to the overwhelming vote of yesterday, he is clearly in the minority. Not that most Democrats don't agree with him, but the logic is so flawed they wouldn't dare go on record as voting for an immediate withdraw.
I don't know what you're referring to about "collateral damage", but really, do some research on past wars and you'll see that Operation Iraqi Freedom is going quite well, as far as wars go. The really good news is that far less people are dying under the current circumstances in Iraq than previously when Saddam was in power. I would think that'd make anyone happy. No?
I apologized above. I was typing last night while Amy had CSPAN on in the background. I didn't mean it to be personal.
Yes, Murtha was trying to make political hay IMO. His gratuitous condemnation of VP Cheney as having "attacked the democrats on Veterans Day" was shameless political theatre. Cheney DEFENDED the administration from "irresponsible" democratic accusations that are OUTRAGEOUS. Then Murtha again gratutiuously cites Arlington Nat'l Cemetary as having no party affiliation stamped on the grave markers - a total non sequitir - in an attempt to invoke veterans as the reason he is for immediate withdrawal. Its all shameless huckstering IMO, and it emboldens Al Qaeda and the insurgents in Iraq. Its all well and good to viciously demigogue against the Soldiers efforts to secure Iraq, but when the democrats had to VOTE ON THE RECORD - they all (but 3) VOTED TO NOT WITHDRAW.
I don't believe Rep. Schmidt labelled Murtha a coward - she was saying that position of immediate withdrawal -ie, "cutting and running" was cowardly.
I know Johnny seemed abrupt, but again I agree that Murtha's bill was stupid and unpatriotic. It was purely political. As a military wife, I viewed it as very disappointed by the overt political posturing at the EXPENSE of the US soldier and the Iraqi citizen. I found it insulting.
Murtha could believe what he's saying, but as a Congressman I would find it hard to believe that he would be that uninformed. "Terrorists are mainly targeting US Soldiers?" First of all, if that were true, would that be foreign for a war to involve fighting? Secondly, even if he watched the BBC he would know terrorists attack mostly Iraqis. And the Army is broken? What the frig is he talking about? And Iraq must know that it is free from American occupation? What an incredible insult. Then he suggested the US diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq. What? Like the U.N. did for 12 years? And how would he suggest the US "diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq" with terrorists and insurgents? The problem in Iraq is terrorism... you cannot deal with it diplomatically. As a Vietnam vet, he should know this.
He saw the result of cutting and running in Vietnam so I'm appalled he would use that same stragedy in Iraq. Thankfully his premise and proposal is so weak that it failed miserably. Murtha's failure is America's success.
Amy, great coverage of the topic. I do not think we should just arbitrarily pull out of Iraq but I admit I am frustrated by the slow progress in the training of Iraqi forces. I'm curious to know how you and other bloggers would define success in Iraq and when would be the right time to leave?
I have to admit I'm frustrated with all the doubt. What is 'slow progress'? Again, I think if you gage Iraqi success against other wars and battles you'll see this is one of the best fought wars in history. Murtha said only 9 BNs were trained and ready in Iraq. He either lied or is ignorant. Pres. Bush said days earlier that 90 Iraqi BNs are up and running. The lack understanding of what it takes to get a country's military up and running is what gives Murtha any credibility, which is of course no credibility at all.
I would ask this: What do you call "slow progress" in Iraq? Here is something I posted in previous commentary about casualty rates and rate of progression:
WARS: US Killed In Actions War Year(s) Casualities
Revolutionary War 1775-1783 25,324
Civil War, North 1861-1865 363,020
Civil War, South 1861-1865 199,110
Spanish American War 1898 2,893
World War I 1917-1918 116,708
World War II 1941-1945 408,306
Korean War 1950-1953 54,246
Vietnam War 1957-1975 58,219
Gulf War 1990-1991 363
SHORT BATTLES & TERRORIST ATTACKS: Battle/Attack Date(s) Deaths (approx.)
Pearl Harbor, Hawaii Dec. 7, 1941 2,388
D-Day June 6, 1944 2,000-2500
Battle of the Bulge 12/1944-1/45 81,000
Iwo Jima Feb.19,1945-March 25 '45 6,503
World Trade Center Feb. 26, 1993 6
Oklahoma City Bombing 1995 168
USS Cole, Yemen 2000 17
September 11 2001 3,000
I'd say we're doing pretty darned well, as would history. Consider this as well:
One could consider the United States "unstable" during the Civil War of 1861-1865, which was a longer (so far) and far bloodier war than Operation Iraqi Freedom, yet we were able to see our way through and work through our deeply intense problems, successfully carrying on as one country. It was a process of reuniting the north and south which took a century.... Is 2.5 years too long for Iraq? All one needs is a sense of optimism and hope resulting from seeing millions of Iraqis risk their safety in January 2005 to invest in their own country, yet many wish to handicap the progress in Iraq by withdrawing "now", or at least soon. It almost appears that anti-war activists and politicians hopping aboard the "leave Iraq" train have something against Arabs. While it can be argued that Islam is a very difficult religion which makes tolerance and peace an obstacle, it can also be argued that the same spirit that wanted slavery to remain a way of life in America was equally as intolerant. Should opportunity be granted only to countries that can help themselves, or should it be extended to those who may also need assistance? It would appear quasi-racist to suggest the former.
Declaration of Independence in the United States was adopted on July 4, 1776. It wasn't until almost 5 years later on March 1, 1781 that the Articles of Confederation were ratified, giving America a provisional Constitution. Finally on June 21, 1788, the Constitution was ratified. It took America almost 12 years to propose and ratify our Constitution. Since then, the Constitution has been amended numerous times. In fact, the last Constitutional amendment took place on May 7, 1992 (Amendment 27).
The official transfer of sovereignty was handed back to the Iraqi people on June 28, 2004. Iraq has only been working on its own Constitution for 1 year. Using HISTORY the determination for success in Iraq, this is one of the best fought wars.
First, keep up the good work of posting the truth about Iraq and everything going on over there. You're doing a great service to the men and women (and their families) who have sacrificed so much for such a great cause.
Second, your blog is looking awesome. Love the clock on top. I also like how the trackbacks are listed right above the comment section. Very cool.
Go ahead..censor this comment as it speaks truth to ignorance. Wake up and leave the simplistic propoganda in the toilet where it belongs.
Silke does make us think beacuse she is currently spending her second holiday season alone with small children while her husband is in Iraq. Listen to some of her provocative questions as she is a West Point grad and was an officer in the Army as well. She has a unique way of analyzing the war and she fits perfectly into this discussion.
Amy - where is your ecosystem rating? Also you need to jump in to Pajamas media for your journalistic goals!
Thanks for the brain candy today!
Depose Saddam: done
Dismantle Baath Party: done
Hold elections: done
Train Iraqi security forces: being done
Defeat insurgency: being done, but must be done ultimately by Iraqi security forces
Normalize relations with the rest of the world: done
Restore Iraq's oil industry: being done
Restore Iraq's schools, hospitals, clinics and Mosques: done
Ratify a Constitution: done
I'm sure I'm leaving a couple bullets out, but the main point is that the Iraqis must be avble to fight and win against the terrorists in their own country. That does not mean just raising up 90 battalions, although that's a great start. The facilities and senior leaders need to be there to recruit, train and equip those forces. That is taking time, as it should if it is done right. As Amy has pointed out so clearly, by the yardstick of history, this is lightning fast progress.
The whining about early [immediate] withdrawal based on the alleged poor morale of the Soldiers is absolute fabrication. Retention is at an all time high. Soldier's don't want pity; they want our elected officials to back the mission and see it through to completion.
The greatest thing we could have done to fight terrorism is to establish a free democratic state in the heart of the middle east in a nation where teror reigned before. Not only have we done that, we have done it TWICE (Afghanistan) and the US has not been attacked once since the war on terror began.
http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/news/akoindex.php
Iraqi Army grabs terrorists in Sadr City as renovations continue
SADR CITY, Iraq (Army News Service, Nov. 18, 2005.) -- Iraqi Army Soldiers raided the residences of suspected terrorists in Sadr City and detained 19 men Nov. 14.
101st Soldiers find weapons cache west of Baghdad
BAGHDAD (Army News Service, Nov. 18, 2005.) -- After receiving a tip from a local resident, Soldiers from 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division uncovered what turned out to be a large weapons cache west of Baghdad.
Iraqi citizens thwart car bomb attack
BAGHDAD (Army News Service, Nov. 17, 2005) -- Alert Iraqi neighborhood watch members in east Baghdad stopped a potential car bomb attack Nov. 15.
Operation sweeping Baghdad prior to elections
BAGHDAD (Army News Service, Nov. 17, 2005) -- Iraqi and U.S. forces detained dozens of terror suspects during searches in south Baghdad as Operation Clean Sweep continued to clear neighborhoods of terrorist activity.
Hardly the disaster the democrats want you to think it is...
Why would I "censor" your comment? No profanity, although you're good at condescending, and "bushsucks.com" is not a valid URL unless it is your domain, and of course, no e-mail.... I could "censor" you for posting anonymously. Of course, you're not anonymous... your "lame" comment and attribution to me of ignorance, as well as your challenge to "censor", reveals you. You offered absolutely nothing helpful or informative in any of your comments. So let me ask you, on what source to you stand to challenge that there is no exit strategy or leadership in Iraq? Pres. Bush lets the commanders on the ground to the advising.... you should be saying "themilitarysucks.com" instead of "bushsucks.com". Great patriot.
Hmmm, are you equating femininity with cowardice?
I haven't done ecosystem yet. I know I should know this, so don't slap me, but what is Pajamas media? I respect Silke and her husband, and Murtha for his service (I do not respect his current agenda, though, which is totally deplorable.. not even Democrats would vote with him). I don't think that deployments and time spent apart are a good reason to end the war against terrorism. I've been there, done that as well. In fact, when Johnny was at war, we not only missed 6 birthdays, Christmas, Thanksgiving, Easter, an anniversary and so on, but I had not the comfort the circumstances now allow people to benefit. We got no big stipend (except foreign pay and hazardous duty pay), no communication for months while the war was on going (talk about stressful!), when communication was established it was hit or miss, and the units were without showers/bathrooms and chow halls as they have now. Yet I would do it again, as would my husband if need be, for the sake of helping liberate a key Arab country that can help bring some stability to the Middle East. As long as Islam is in the world, there will not be true stability, but even Muslims recognize their religion in free countries is better than their religion in oppressed countries. This is why our Muslim population is growing.
Greta, I also am not a kool-aide drinker. Far from it. But I refuse to hop on the pessimistic bandwagon just because democrats are and I'm taken aback by some non-liberals who are growing skeptical. I'm not sure what the skepticism is based on. The President cannot lay out a comprehensive plan "of success" for Iraq to the public, nor should he, because wars evolve and change for, therefore, so must the plans. There must be a level of flexibility or the war will be a failure. That's why there can be no exit date... I'd be interested to hear what specific policies of the President's regarding Iraq you're having a problem with.
Silke, on what do you base your assumption that progress is slow in Iraq? The opposite is true from the evidence I gather. Particularly if you look back at previous wars and engagements throughout history, this is going very well. Now, I'm not granting success solely to Pres. Bush. I think the military is highly proficient and professional and capable. I primarily grant "success" to the Iraqi people. This is a people well acquainted with hardship and death and their endurance under Saddam has made them able to take advantage of opportunity with him now gone (almost gone... they really need to hang him and get it over with, especially with people suggesting we cut and run). This is one of the reasons I'm indignant when people criticize the "lack of progress" or "failure in Iraq" and other such falsehoods. It is a slap in the face of Iraqis who have stepped up to the plate and are doing so much to steer their country in the right direction. I am more so incensed at liberal politicians, who stand there and lie about Iraq and if they had their way would prefer Saddam have remained in power (say what they will, their wish to undo the war would result in that). They try to sway US and world opinion negatively light against our President, military and mission while they retire to their cocktail parties and lifestyles of the rich and famous. Democratic politicians are far richer than Republicans. How dare they try to undermine the chance for freedom in Iraq that they are afforded and exploit for their personal comfort! They are discipline and frankly it boarders on evil. It is moral Darwinism.... "I have what I have and won't apologize but won't help others in need because that's just their lot in life."
Success in Iraq/right time to leave: success in Iraq would be the day Iraq is self-sufficient and the insurgency/terrorists activity subsided and under control (in brief). And when the Iraqi President wants us gone.
Did you guys click on my links? I have some interesting articles and photos that I think speak for themselves.
http://www.army.mil/soldiers/sep2003/Sept03.pdf
I think it's great that not only the White House but all Republicans (like what we saw in the house this weekend) are shooting down the stupidity from liberals. Finally a challenge and not acquiscence.
You said, "I prefer to leave a war and the strategies up to those trained to make decisions on those matters." Amen. The commanders on the ground are the ones telling the President what needs to happen next, which is why the President would be ill-advised, in my opinion, to lay out publicly a comprehensive blue print in this evolving war.
Again,I would be interested to hear from anyone how the President "may have been ill-advised on some matters and that is coming back to haunt him." Greta, you're not the only one who feels this way, but I fear that is isn't a matter of fact but a matter of hearsay, a result of the relentless Democratic attack on the President and this war. I think it has infultrated the psyche of some conservatives.
What do I consider slow progress?
1. An insurgency that has intensified with attacks of increasing lethality
2. An Iraqi security force structure constantly changing in response to the growing insurgency
3. No system to measure readiness and capability of Iraqi forces until two years into the war
4. Insurgent infiltration of Iraqi security forces
5. The growing influence of militias outside the control of the Iraqi government
This list is not meant to imply blame or place fault on our troops. Indeed our soldiers have done a tremendous job and have accomplished a great deal in a very difficult environment. Yes, our casualties have been relatively low when compared to past conflicts (though I cringe to characterize any loss in those terms), but I would argue that should never be a measure of success. We both agree that the withdrawal of our troops should be contingent on the ability of the Iraqis to provide for their own security. But that is such a subjective goal and unless we can understand and define it we will never achieve it. What Iâm asking for is more clarity and accountability from our political leadership. This open-ended commitment implies a prolonged engagement, which only serves to fuel the insurgency even further.
You brought up a very good point when you stated that it took our own government many years to establish a viable democracy. By that logic, though, Iraq could take considerably longer since it is also dealing with an active insurgency and a sectarian conflict between Shiites and Sunnis that could result in civil war? Under these circumstances we could be in Iraq for a very long time.
With an administration whoâs projections about the war in Iraq have been overly optimistic and often wrong (though I do not believe they lied), I would like them to define some clear benchmarks that would outline how our troops can successfully accomplish the mission in Iraq.
I take issue with a few of your comments:
âWhile it can be argued that Islam is a very difficult religion which makes tolerance and peace an obstacle,â¦â (19 November comment)
I donât believe that can be argued at all.
âI donât think that deployments and time spent apart are a good reason to end the war against terrorism.â (20 November comment)
When have I every said we should end the war against terrorism? My issues are specifically with some (not all) of this administrationâs policies in Iraq. Also, I have never used my husbandâs deployment status as a justification for any of my arguments. I may have mentioned that he was deployed but to suggest I want to end this war so he can come home is blatantly wrong and would be a betrayal of everything we stand for as a military family. I think I have supported my arguments with facts and sound reasoning.
âAs long as Islam is in the world, there will not be true stabilityâ¦â (20 November comment)
Thatâs a very provocative statement and I couldnât disagree with you more.
Amy, thanks for giving me a voice on your blog. I have enjoyed this and despite our very clear differences on some issues I respect your opinions. Believe it or not I hope youâre right.
One day people will realize that foriegn wars only succeed at creating debt at home. This is no just cause, it is a sad miscarriage of strenght (might does not make right). However, it seems that the die-hard would rather rationalize than have a debate. I am open to the fact that good things will come out of the war. I am just sick of people discounting the wrongs to satisfy a self-serving world view.
Yeah, it was truly a waste of taxpayer dollars to end the first world war. And man, what a travesty to waste yankee bucks on liberating Europe a second time in WWII! And don't get me going on making the pacific safe for democracy - a total waste of money. And why the heck have we spent all thst money standing up a powerful first world economy that was once a Japanese labor colony (South Korea)? Another debt maker!!!
And if only we could get all that dough back that we squandered on winning the cold war! Yikes! What a foolish expenditure of our money! The Soviets were benevolent, freedom loving people, weren't they?
And oh my! Think of the gold squandered on liberating Kuwait, feeding the Somalis, rescuing Muslims in the Baltics, liberating Haiti, and this last boon doggle - bringing democracy to 50 million people in former terrorist states. ALL NOTHING BUT A HUGE DEBT MAKER!!!!!!
Somebody steer brother Walbash to an American history book and show him the 'popularity' of the American Revolutionary War and the War Between the States. Oh, now THOSE wars were popular!!!!
Paycheck? You are so transparent. Most people with a GED make more money than Soldiers. Ever heard of patriotism? Love of Country? How many times since September 11th 2001 has the USA been attacked? Right. ZERO.
I respect very much your and your husband’s service to America and Iraq. Please don’t doubt that.
You said this is slow progress in Iraq:
“1. An insurgency that has intensified with attacks of increasing lethality
2. An Iraqi security force structure constantly changing in response to the growing insurgency
3. No system to measure readiness and capability of Iraqi forces until two years into the war
4. Insurgent infiltration of Iraqi security forces
5. The growing influence of militias outside the control of the Iraqi government”
On what basis do you come to those conclusions?
1) Insurgencies can last for a decade or longer, and this one is not what it used to be. Earlier this year, Time magazine (March 21, 2005) reported in this article (no long available unless you pay $1.99, but here’s the link: http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1037669,00.html) that an intercepted e-mail to al-Zarqawi, from a top al-Qaeda aide said he complained that he was having trouble finding “willing martyrs” for his Jihad.
Here also is an intercepted mail (you can find it located in several places on line, I choose the Adobe format) from Abu Mohammad to al-Zarqawi in which Mohammad says, “So we must think for a long time about our next steps and how we want to attain it, and it is my humble opinion that the Jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals: The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq.”
Then Mohammad writes, “The matter of preparing for the aftermath of the exit of the Americans: The Americans will exit soon, God willing, and the establishment of a governing authority-as soon as the country is freed from the Americans-does not depend on force alone.”
Sounds like he’s been talking to any number of Democrats I could name in discussing America’s exit strategy.
In Feb. 2005, Hillary Rohdam said the insurgency in Iraq is failing:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=515943
Al-Zarqawi, head of the Iraqi al-Qaeda who is in cahoots with Bin Laden, has been unsuccessful in thwarting the troops so he has turned to killing other Muslims, and not just from within Iraq. Because of the bombings in Amman, Jordan, al-Zarqawi’s family has disowned him publicly:
http://washingtontimes.com/upi/20051120-051609-8486r.htm
Thousands protested in the streets of Jordan, al-Zarqawi’s country of origin, standing against not only Zarqawi himself, but terrorism and this so called “intensified insurgency.”. Even in many Islamic and Arabic countries, the tide is turning against al-Qaeda and the insurgency in Iraq.
2) “An Iraqi security force structure constantly changing in response to the growing insurgency”: Again, I’m not sure what exactly you’re referring to or if what you’re saying is true, I’m not sure why it would be wrong for an Iraqi security force to change in an embryonic and evolving stage.
3) “No system to measure readiness and capability of Iraqi forces until two years into the war”: If even Democrats are saying “xx” amount of Iraqi battalions are up and running independently, wouldn’t that suggest that there is a system to measure their readiness? Remember that the Baath Party was totally gutted and the military and police forces virtually restarted from scratch. While the US military is countering terrorists and running offenses in Iraq, they are also training Iraqi forces, to include recruitment and payment of services. Imagine the size of this task, and then imagine that terrorists are targeting Iraqi police, security and military. I think they’re coming along pretty damn well all things considered.
http://www4.army.mil/news/article.php?story=8231 :Iraqi Army grabs terrorists in Sadr City as renovations continue
http://www.centcom.mil/CENTCOMNews/News_Release.asp?NewsRelease=20051196.txt : FOB DANGER TO BE TURNED OVER TO IRAQI GOVERNMENT
http://www.centcom.mil/CENTCOMNews/News_Release.asp?NewsRelease=20051190.txt : IRAQI, U.S. FORCES DISRUPT TERRORIST OPERATIONS
How about the fact that during the last election, it was Iraqi forces that were totally in charge of security? The US was backup and from all accounts I’ve seen, the US had a pretty boring day in Iraq when the Constitution was voted upon. That’s a huge success for Iraqi forces.
4) “Insurgent infiltration of Iraqi security forces”: The figure I have has Ayad Allawi saying 5% infiltration rate, and many of those are coerced into it. Terrorists have been known to threaten, rape and kill family members if the man, usually, does not comply. Have you heard reports of car bombing remains having handcuffs attached to the steering wheel of the vehicle...with hands still in them? The insurgency is not as successful as you may think. Iraq is a large country and for all the good going on in Iraq, what we hear/see is the 1 suicide bombing a day, give or take.
http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=7828
5) “The growing influence of militias outside the control of the Iraqi government”: again, I’m unsure where you’re getting your information or what specifically you’re referring to.
This is something to keep in mind:
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Nov2005/20051118_3383.html : Brigade Commander: As Iraq Progresses, Now No Time for U.S. to Leave
I fully believe that you appreciate and respect the troops and are well aware of their competency. My dismay is when it appears that some otherwise conservative folks who support the troops and usually the President are not willing to stamp out as evil the type of double political talk which literally threatens our soldiers. The terrorists, as I quoted above, bank on America pulling out. THIS CANNOT BE OUR MESSAGE or even our discussion at this point. How we can improve upon the foundation already established in Iraq seems to me a much better, safer discussion to have. According to the top terrorists, including Bin Laden and al-Zarqawi, they believe the US will run in defeat if enough soldiers are killed. The anti-war crowd and disgusting sentiments of Murtha are fueling the hopes and ambitions of the terrorists. I cannot legitimize their sentiments.
We could be in Iraq for a very long time, I agree. How long have we had military bases in Europe, on the DMZ in Korea, etc, etc.? The US STAYS UNTIL THE JOB IS DONE, even if it takes 100 years. So be it.
In the meantime, “Military fears critics will hurt morale”
http://washtimes.com/national/20051121-122534-5301r.htm/Militaryfearscriticswillhurtmorale
I will address some other issues, such as Islam and security issues, next time.
Also, I'm planning on writing an article on the President's approval rating and how other war time Presidents, including Abraham Lincoln, fared under such circumstances. Eye opening..... ;)
"Might does not make right" - well, OK, in theory I'd agree, it doesn't always make right, but in this case, put Saddam up against Bush, and I'll tell you who I'D rather have as ruler of my country! Simple as that. (The really sad thing is, some UK readers would probably think I meant Saddam, what with the utter rubbish the likes of The Guardian spews out).
If I were a political advisor to the WhiteHouse, I would be saying "it is so, so important that the USA pays no attention to the Cindy Sheehan's of the world at this time, but that it should continue to confront terrorism on every front". "Exit strategy"? - bunkum. I hope the coalition stays in Iraq until it is time to leave.
1. I don't think for a moment that this line was intended to mean that Murtha was a coward. My impression is that we have one Marine [in the field?] expressing a line to another Marine (Murtha) in a fashion that is intended to remind Murtha that Marines get the job done. A line - and a line of thought - that should ring home for Murtha.
2. In the video coverage, it says that "Words Taken Down is a house rule used to discipline a Member for using inappropriate words for debate."
"Inappropriate words?" Gimme a break. With as much poo that left wing liberals are already spewing forth being allowed, I can't see how a single honest-spoken line can be considered "inappropriate."
"Inappropriate" my eyebone.
RLR
That's very cynical. Greta's right, it's not about the money. It's about committing to something larger than yourself. Mark Twain once defined a cynic as "a man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing..."
You (and Johnny) argued your position well and it has definitely compelled me to look at my own position a little closer. However, I still cannot share your complete optimism. In July 2005 General Myers, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, publicly stated, “our assessments indicate that the lethality of the attacks is on average increasing.” When General Casey testified in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee in September 2005 (the one where the number of fully capable Iraqi army battalions had dropped from three to one) he stated that, “the current levels of violence are above norms.” (exceeding 500 attacks a week).
I agree that events on the ground should dictate American actions in Iraq, but after more than two years the threat has grown. If our own highly trained, well equipped forces have difficulty getting a handle on the insurgency what makes you think the Iraqi forces can do any better? The reality is that this insurgency will probably outlive our presence in Iraq. I think all of us can agree, though, that now is not the time for a withdrawal.
I am glad that the debate about how and when to withdraw our troops has begun. It is an essential step toward a successful completion of the mission.
Thanks again for keeping this discussion lively and civil.
Thanks to you, too for the civil discourse.
Perhaps that was the situation in July, but did you hear GEN Myer's replacement GEN Pace today? He said the progress was dramatic, sustained and he sees no reason it will not continue. I am paraphrasing, but hopefully you'll tune in on FOX and here the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. His comments were VERY positive about continuing to prosecute the war by the President's agenda. The Arab League's meeting today also revealed a similar confidence in the President's plan as well (no time table, but earliest feasible withdrawal).
Your pessimism about supposed threat growth is unwarranted. The methods have changed: From small arms/RPGs to IEDs and now suicide bombers - more lethal means -NOT more enemy fighters. The foreign fighters are despised by Iraqis and the Sunnis are now joining the political process - all signs of formidable progress. The increase in lethality is also the sign of a last gasp. Suicide bombers in WWI (Japanese Kamikazee) were a sign of desperation as the defeat of Japan was imminent. Anybidy who thinks there are only 3 Iraqi battalions trained is misinformed - there are dozens, maybe hundreds. The need is for leaders, and leaders cannot be grown overnight. The war is working, the tide of Iraqi people is staedfastly behind democracy, and the entire region is alive with the anticipation of democratic reforms, including Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabi, even Iran. Afghanistan is a free republic. Patience.
"We've turned over something like 17 bases to the Iraqis recently. The Iraqis are in charge of one entire province. They're in charge of a big chunk of Baghdad currently," he added.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,176156,00.html
Historically speaking, wartime Presidents have always struggled with their "approval ratings" and have been unpopular.
Silke, what I think would be an unfathomable shame would be if the US left Iraq early, not even immediately, due to political pressure that is far from sincere and unbias, and the Iraqis weren't fully ready to counter all their unique problems. If the country fell into disarray, it truly would have been a waste. We just cannot do that to the Iraqis or our soldiers. We have to get over this drive through, microwave mentality that tells us wars are fought and won in a year. It's just not reality.
second, "how many times has america been attacked since 9-11?" I cannot believe you are serious. How many times has the a ship as large as the titanic with as few lifeboats sunk since 1912?
I would love to see some sympathetic debate on this blog, interestingly statements like "doesn't know history" tend to mask uncertainty in one's own knowledge base.
BAGHDAD, Iraq — A homicide car bomber targeting U.S. troops handing out toys to children at a hospital in central Iraq killed 30 people Thursday, including four police guards, three women and two children, officials said.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,176641,00.html
It is now two years and a trillion dollars later and the price of oil is 3.29 a gallon and the dollar is tanking to new lows. We still have not pacified a country no larger then one of our States. Pakistan is on the verge of revolt and Turkey is threating the Kurds in the north. Neo conservative nation building wars and exporting democracy at gunpoint are ideas that have now been discredited. The Republicans lost the Senate and the House in the midterm elections and now stand on the threshhold of spending years in the political wastelands with Democrats far ahead in all Presidential polls. Iraq has become a tarbaby. What a poorly managed war. I went to Iraq and all I got was this lousey t-shirt that says "Patriot Act" on the back of it.