John Murtha’s sad descent from honored Viet Nam war veteran to anti-war shill for the ideological left is now complete. For many of his 32 years in Congress, Murtha was a reliable Democratic vote for vital funding of the military as well as an advocate for veterans rights and benefits. He resisted the trend in the Democratic party toward defeatism and spineless hand wringing, oftentimes breaking with his caucus to support President Reagan’s military buildup in the 1980’s.
But Murtha, a decorated Marine Colonel, was also horribly scarred by his Viet Nam experience (as were many high ranking officers from that war). For many of his generation, the prospect of sending young men into battle without an “exit strategy” became an anathema. One can certainly admire his obvious concern for the troops. But when “exit strategy” is substituted for victory, one has to call into question Mr. Murtha’s judgment.
I will not descend to the level of some of my friends on the right and accuse Murtha of cowardice or anti-Americanism. I think the Congressman has proved on the battlefield as well as in most of his many years of service in the House that this is not the case. Rather, it is entirely appropriate to question his judgement on matters of national security as well as allowing the hard left of his party to hijack his persona and reputation for their own electoral ends.
Certainly with statements like this one, we can question the Congressman’s grasp of military knowledge. In response to a criticism by Presidential adviser Karl Rove regarding Murtha’s “Over the Horizon” plan to withdraw American troops, host Tim Russert wondered just where those troops would be positioned in order to take advantage of the kind of intelligence that led to the Zarqawi raid:
REP. MURTHA: There’s many countries understand the importance of stability in the Middle East. This is an international problem. We, we use 20 million barrels of oil a day. China’s the second largest user. All these countries understand you need stability for the energy supply that’s available in the Middle East. So there’s many, many countries.(HT: Michelle Malkin)MR. RUSSERT: Who?
REP. MURTHA: Kuwait’s one that will take us. Qatar, we already have bases in Qatar. So Bahrain. All those countries are willing to take the United States. Now, Saudi Arabia won’t because they wanted us out of there in the first place. So—and we don’t have to be right there. We can go to Okinawa. We, we don’t have—we can redeploy there almost instantly. So that’s not—that’s, that’s a fallacy. That, that’s just a statement to rial up people to support a failed policy wrapped in illusion.
The Milblogs jumped on this instantly:
The straight yellow line extending across the middle of China and Iran is the distance from Okinawa to Baghdad as the crow flies which is approximately 4200 nautical miles. Obviously, the Chinese and the Iranians wouldn’t be cool with that, but let’s just roll with it. The max combat range for the F-16 with external fuel tanks and 2000 lbs of ordnance is 740 nautical miles so that’s like a minimum of SIX midair refuelings in EACH direction.This little display is hardly worth putting together, but I did it to demonstrate that this man is dangerously deluded and not at all serious about an issue of critical national security significance. He is out there in the MSM just winging it and not being called to account whatsoever for statements that are so outlandish and absurd that they defy all attempts at comprehension.
The New York Times and liberal blogs failed to note that fantastical misstatement. Oliver Willis – in this jaw dropping piece of idiocy – actually praised Murtha for articulating a “coherent” policy:
The right again demonstrates their capacity for selective hearing. The current target of their ire is Rep. John Murtha, about the only Democrat around who’s been able to articulate a coherent assessment and policy for Iraq.
Willis then cites conservative criticisms of Clinton for withdrawing from Somalia, a strategy supported by Murtha and a move that the 9/11 Commission said contributed directly to the attacks on 9/11. He also curiously notes Vice President Cheney’s criticism of Reagan’s withdrawal from Lebanon following the bombing of the Marine barracks in 1983 and the wonders why conservatives aren’t criticizing Reagan (?) for getting out of Beirut!
No mention, of course, of the Okinawa redeployment suggested by Murtha. In fact, most lefty blogs concentrated on Murtha’s description of Karl Rove on the same program:
MURTHA: He’s in New Hampshire. He’s making a political speech. He’s sitting in his air-conditioned office on his big, fat backside, saying stay the course. That’s not a plan. … We’ve got to change direction. You can’t sit there in the air-conditioned office and tell troops carrying 70 pounds on their backs, inside these armored vessels hit with IEDs every day, seeing their friends blown up, their buddies blown up — and he says stay the course? Easy to say that from Washington, DC.
Since we can assume Rove is speaking on behalf of the Commander in Chief, I fail to see Murtha’s point except as an attempt at partisan sniping. And given the Congressman’s statement regarding Okinawa, perhaps it best that he keep his mouth shut about any alternative to “staying the course” since his prescriptions have made him a laughingstock to all except the left wingers in the Democratic party who are desperately trying to hide the fact that they support a cut and run strategy in Iraq. Why the Democrats insist on obscuring their defeatist strategy given the level of dissatisfaction with the President’s handling of Iraq in the electorate is beyond me. Why not just come out and say that the war is lost and we should pull the troops out?
This is the crux of Murtha, Kerry, and the Congressional Democrat’s critique of the war. If they honestly believe that keeping troops in Iraq is a futile exercise, why not run on that idea in November and see if the American people agree with it? What are they afraid of? They constantly tell us that the American people agree with them in the polls. Well, let’s put that idea to the test and have them run on their belief that every American who dies in Iraq is a waste and that the troops should hightail it out of there.
They won’t do it, of course. Already, Senator’s Feinstien and Kerry are crafting a resolution that would put Democrats on record calling for “phased withdrawals” over a set period of time. This would be fine except why draw out the agony? If we’re not going to stay as long as it takes to achieve victory, it smacks of immorality to me to keep our troops there one minute longer. Why not admit defeat and bring the boys and girls home now?
Murtha’s “coherent” Iraq policy is a crock. As is the Democrat’s plan for “phased withdrawal.” This is electoral gamesmanship played at with the lives of our troops. Unwilliing to stand on principle (as I pointed out here) and run on their defeatist policy in fear that the American people, tired and dispirited as they are of the war, would reject their fancy strategy of cut and run and opt for achieving our goals in Iraq of sheparding the nascent Iraqi government through its infancy until it is able to defend itself and create a democratic government in the heart of the Middle East. This is victory, any which way you cut it. The “plan” of the Democrats means defeat.
Let’s give the American people a clear cut decision to make in November.
9:32 am
I would consider a “re-deployment” if one would present such a plan that made sense. The idea of a reployment within the country in order to allow the Iraqi security forces to take the lead in major areas of the country would make sense. And then a measured withdrawal depending upon events on the ground. But aren’t we already doing that?
In his book “From VietNam to 9/11”, Mr. Murtha states, “An ultimely exit could repidly devolve into a civil war, which would leave Amnerica’s foreign policy in disarray as countries question not only America’s judgement but its perseverence.”
I put John Murtha in the same class as John Kerry. Both are politicol opportunists who do not care what he said in the past, what occurred in the past, but only care about whichever way the wind is blowing in order to capitalize on the events of today. And as a result, both of them should be viewed as embarassments to the politicol process in this country.
The scary part of this is not what either of these clown say. The real scary part of all of this is that people pay attantion and give credence to what they say.
9:38 am
Rick,
Murtha was not a high ranking officer in the Viet Nam War. I believe he was a Captain in Military Intelligence. He rose to Colonel during a long time in the reserves, but was never what you’d call a regular army senior line or staff officer.
I bring this up for two reasons. First, his military experience is not particularly relevant to competence in policy or strategy matters. Second, he has clearly demonstrated this with his recent inconsistent and sometimes incoherent remarks.
Thank you, COL Murtha USAR for your long service in the reserves and especially for your service in that frightening war long ago. But no thanks to you for your shameless emulation of Cindy Sheehan as you destroy any credibility you once had on military issues.
10:21 am
“Phased Withdrawal” = do what we’re doing now, but we’ll take the credit.
My plan for the future: I call for the sun to rise in the East and set in the West. We’ll phase it in over a period of time, so the days will progressively get longer. After half a year or so, my advanced planning calls for reducing the number of hours in each day for the next 6 months.
When it happens, and it will, remember to thank me.
10:21 am
[...] I thought that the Meet The Press statements were bad enough. Take the time to read MURTHA: OLD SOLDIERS SHOULD JUST FADE AWAY by Rick Moran. [...]
11:31 am
Has Rep Murtha Ever Looked at a Map?
Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) had yet another appearance on the Sunday morning talk shows and boy was it a doozy.
11:40 am
I do not know what actions Murtha performed to gain the reputation he once had, but I know what he is doing to gain the reputation he now has. Since when did American leaders decide we could fail with our military, against a vastly inferior foe? Once committed, and Iraq was authorized by congress, our military must succeed. The cost of failure is too high.
3:03 pm
Murtha’s plan makes sense if you believe that things are going downhill in Iraq and will only get worse. Unfortunately, the facts don’t support that contention.
Many people in the military, including me, used to have a lot of respect for Murtha for the reasons you cite. Haditha has destroyed that and now many despise him, especially his fellow Marines. He really blundered by opening his mouth about Haditha and convicting the Marines involved in front of the world before the investigations were complete. It was an ultimate betrayal and he lost the support of most in the military because of that. You see, by coming out and saying publicly that the Marines were guilty, he’s prejudiced not only the jury pool, but public sentiment. If it turns out he is wrong and the investigations show the Marine’s used appropriate force, then people around the world will scream coverup because Murtha already convicted them. The damage is done now, and even if those Marines are innocent, they will have a life-long taint of guilt on them because of Murtha’s premature comments. If they are guilty as Murtha says, then I hope they burn for it, but Murtha will have made finding a military jury much tougher for both the defense and prosecution.
4:57 pm
Mon. Night Links
Become illegal and cash in: P/T PunditThe history of the inheritance tax. View from 1776I am Pasquale Orsini. Shape of Days – nice piece of writing.What is Murtha really thinking? And how can he get so much press if he doesn’t make sense? Rick Moran
6:03 pm
Saying Murtha was a former marine is the same as saying Lee Harvey Oswald was a former marine. (stolen from Linbaugh) Most current and former marines (once a marine, always a marine) are truly loyal Americans, but some fall by the wayside. Murtha fell when he adopted the left wing dim-wit, anti-american position, the same just not as fatal as Oswald. Brain dead or senile? I didn’t know, but felt that Murtha was not a combat ‘leader’ type marine, just a pencil pusher. Still upholding his position of pencil pusher.
8:46 pm
Perhaps this is a kind of Freudian slip. Okinawa would make s a good over the horizon fallback position durring the Vietnam war. Maybe Murtha has lost his marbles and REALLY thinks Iraq IS Vietnam.
8:59 pm
What would make military sense would be a benchmark-driven withdrawal. For example, Iraqi military killing 2 times as many insurgents as non-Iraqi coalition forces for 3 months in a row would merit a 40K troop withdrawal, etc. (numbers completely made up). I don’t know how many democrats have suggested something like this, and if they have, whether it’s been dishonestly paraphrased as advocation of phased withdrawal.
As it stands, with no publically-known benchmarks for determining when the US can withdraw troops, withdrawals anywhere near (and prior to) election time in 2006/08 will be perceived by many as politically motivated, and it will be hard to argue the point with them.
10:31 pm
You do not like old soldiers? Why not? Murtha has the same plan the Republicans have. You just cannot admit it.
You prefer guys with like five deferments…I forgot.
11:47 pm
Murtha’s plan to redeploy combat troops “over the horizon” in Okinawa may have something to recommend it. Let’s test it out by redeploying FEMA personnel and Nat’l Guard units to, let’s say, Denmark and see how quickly they can respond to a major hurricane in the Gulf and southeastern US coasts.
It could work!
12:01 am
[...] Rick Moran , in a post titled Old Soldiers Should Just Fade Away, picks up this theme and runs with it: This is the crux of Murtha, Kerry, and the Congressional Democrat’s critique of the war. If they honestly believe that keeping troops in Iraq is a futile exercise, why not run on that idea in November and see if the American people agree with it? What are they afraid of? They constantly tell us that the American people agree with them in the polls. Well, let’s put that idea to the test and have them run on their belief that every American who dies in Iraq is a waste and that the troops should hightail it out of there. [...]
5:25 pm
I don’t agree with your conclusions but I just wanted to leave a quick note giving you props for your tone. It was refreshing to read legitimate criticism of Murtha’s views without challenging his patriotism, ect. I hope more bloggers follow your lead.
8:15 am
Murtha has the same plan the Republicans have. You just cannot admit it.
And apparently, neither can he.