Reply
Sat 19 Nov, 2005 11:19 am
Why John Murtha Is Right!
By Larry Johnson
Booman Tribune
Friday 18 November 2005
John Murtha's courageous call for American troops to leave Iraq is the right policy at the right time. The Bush chickenhawks already are impugning Murtha's patriotism, but when you have a purple heart and a silver star compared to a President with a spotty attendance record with the National Guard and a Vice President with five deferments, that dog don't hunt.
The situation in Iraq is clear. The United States does not have enough troops on the ground to contain and destroy the insurgency. The Iraqi insurgency consists of at least 26 different groups and draws upon as many as 250,000 supporters. These groups represent a spectrum of beliefs ranging from secular nationalists to hard core jihadists. The only thing they agree on is that they hate the invader; which is us.
To defeat the insurgency we will need at least 400,000 troops on the ground. At the present time, the United States does not have sufficient troop strength to ramp up to that level. Our choice is simple - either we come up with the additional forces and commit ourselves to an effort that will stretch on for at least five years with 400,000 plus soldiers and marines in theatre or we withdraw.
How do we get 400,000 troops on the ground? That will require a draft or a commitment by NATO forces and other countries to provide forces. Even if we start a draft tomorrow, we will not be able to field combat capable divisions for at least two years. Basic training requires 10 weeks. Advance infantry training adds an additional six months. Once the troops are trained they need to train as units. The unit training, starting with companies and working up to division level exercises, will require at least 18 months (and that is an optimistic scenario).
In the interim we would need to call upon NATO forces to deploy to Iraq and conduct a coordinated counter insurgency effort. This effort, over the next two years, will likely produce at least 10,000 fatalities and 80,000 wounded. Are we willing as a country to pay that price? I don't think so.
Meanwhile, our efforts on the ground are succeeding in killing and capturing a large number of suspected insurgents. But our kill capture effort is producing a blowback - Iraqis who are incarcerated and the surviving relatives of those killed respond to our effort by joining the insurgents. Instead of reducing the insurgency our efforts are providing a catalyst that recruits new insurgents faster than we can kill them.
There also is no doubt that our efforts are providing a recruiting poster for jihadists. Last year, for example, the number of terrorist attacks that resulted in people being killed and wounded was the highest number ever recorded since the CIA started keeping statistics in 1968. The Al Qaeda groups have reduced the planning time required for mass casualty attacks. Prior to 9-11, Al Qaeda carried out such attacks every 18 months. Now, they are able to mount operations in only three or four months. The trend line is going in the wrong direction
I see no political will on the part of the American public to accept a draft and to accept 90,000 casualties during the next four years. The elections in December will not produce a political outcome that will persuade the various insurgents to lay down their weapons and focus their energies on political debate in a legislature and in newspapers.
Our best alternative is to withdraw from Iraq and establish covert relations with the secular insurgents. Over the long run our interest as a nation is to prevent the religious jihadists from consolidating their control over Iraq and forging a closer relationship with Iran. The question is not, will there be a civil war? A civil war is already underway. Rather, the proper question is what can we do as a nation to protect our longterm interests?
We have two key long term strategic interests. First, we want to promote a secular society. The current Iraqi constitution enshrines the Quran as the law of the land and encourages sectarian strife. Second, we must enlist the support of Russia, China, Europe, and the Muslim nations in rooting out and destroying the jihadists. Most of that effort can be handled with intelligence and law enforcement work rather than military operations. The Beatles had it right - we can get by with some help from our friends.
Given these facts, John Murtha is right. We must withdraw, sooner rather than later, from Iraq. Otherwise, we will find ourselves in a quagmire reminiscent of Vietnam. Only this time, the jihadists who are carrying out urban combat operations will be equipped and trained through their experience to carry out future attacks against our interests around the world. John Murtha and Chuck Hagel are patriots who understand this dilemma. We have lit a fuse on the next generation of jihadist terrorism. We must douse the fuse with water, and put it out sooner rather than later.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry C. Johnson is CEO and co-founder of BERG Associates, LLC, an international business-consulting firm that helps corporations and governments manage threats posed by terrorism and money laundering. Mr. Johnson, who worked previously with the Central Intelligence Agency and US State Department's Office of Counter Terrorism (as a Deputy Director), is a recognized expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, crisis and risk management. Mr. Johnson has analyzed terrorist incidents for a variety of media including the Jim Lehrer News Hour, National Public Radio, ABC's Nightline, NBC's Today Show, the New York Times, CNN, Fox News, and the BBC. Mr. Johnson has authored several articles for publications, including Security Management Magazine, the New York Times, and The Los Angeles Times. He has lectured on terrorism and aviation security around the world.
I suppose it depends on what his goals are. We got WWII by pulling out immediately after WWI. Seems irresponsible to fail to learn from that mistake. I suspect his rhetoric is more about getting some national attention rather than because he truly wants an immediate withdrawal. The things that politicians say don't have a lot of basis in reality.
Bush will go down in history as the moronic, arrogant, trigger-happy president who took a bad situation and made it worse for the entire world. Operation Iraqi Liberation (O.I.L.) is an abysmal failure for everyone except the war profiteers.
Bush will go down in history as quite possibly the worst chief executive that this country has ever suffered under. (Until now, that dubious honor could, arguably, have been claimed by his father.) The sad thing is that it will take a generation to fix all the damage he has done to the economy and to the US image abroad. As for Murtha, I think it took a great deal of courage for him to say what he did. It carries all the more weight because he cannot be accused of being a 'peacenik' or 'left-wing liberal dove.' The man is a decorated combat veteran of two wars -- Korea and Vietnam. This gives his opinions all the more credence. AliceInWonderland has suggested that his motives may have been less than pure. That, too, is possible. But I wonder whether it is relevant in this instance.
MerryAndrew says that:
"Bush will go down in History as quite possibly the worst chief executive that this country has ever suffered under( Until now, that dubious honor could, arguably have been claimed by his father")
MerryAndrew is, of course, entitled to his opinion, but I am very much afraid, that he is egregiously mistaken.
l. It takes quite a poor chief executive to match a man who was only the second chief executive to have been impeached.
2. It would appear that if party survival and augmentation is an important aspect of a chief executive's tenure, then President Bush is miles ahead of Bill Clinton since Clinton lost the House and Senate which the Democrats had held on to for years. They have not regained it and Bush has won two presidencies while remarkably adding to the Republican numbers in the House and Senate.
3. I am not aware of MerryAndrew's area of expertise but unless he is a presidential historian, his comment about President Bush's father is not borne out by the findings of Presidential Historians in the CSPAN survey.
In that survey, DONE BY EXPERTS, George Herbert Walker Bush was ranked twentieth and William Jefferson Clinton twenty-first.
MerryAndrew's opinion about George Herbert Walker Bush is not borne out by experts.
AliceInWonderland wrote:I suppose it depends on what his goals are. We got WWII by pulling out immediately after WWI. Seems irresponsible to fail to learn from that mistake. I suspect his rhetoric is more about getting some national attention rather than because he truly wants an immediate withdrawal. The things that politicians say don't have a lot of basis in reality.
I don't think so. A lot of the blame for WWII are laid at the feet of the Treaty of Versailles, not merely "pulling out immediately after WWI". It wasn't so much the timing of the the Armistice as the negotiated outcome.
It made the Germans bitter as the Versailles Treaty saddled them with the cost of the war, war reparations, and were forbidden to make armor and armament which they of course secretly did with the Soviets like developing tanks.
Morkat
Morkat, apparently you didn't get the Memo. Anyone citing Clinton in a kneejerk reaction to comments about Bush is banned from A2K for one day for the first offense. Second offense, one week. Third offense, one month. Fourth offense, for life.
Given your apparent compulsion, I think you should read the Memo.
BBB :wink:
Murtha Meets Russert, Predicts U.S. Forces Will Be Out of Iraq Next Year
By E&P Staff
Published: November 20, 2005
NEW YORK
Appearing with Tim Russert on NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday morning, Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), who has caused a firestorm in recent days with a call for a speedy withdrawal in Iraq, predicted that, despite the mixed reaction to the proposal, U.S. forces would essentially be out of that country by the end of 2006.
Asked pointedly by Russert if they would be gone by Election Day 2006, Murtha replied, "Tim, you have hit the nail on the head there."
He said his proposal had "only been out there for a couple days" and could gain wide support since it is, he said, not a partisan plan.
"Iraqi's will let us do the fighting as long as we're there," he said. He said he regretted his vote backing the war three years ago.
He also said "people should be fired" for mishandling the war but, pressed by Russert, would not specifically say that Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld should be one of them, although he remains highly critical of him. He called Vice President Cheney "a friend" but "he is wrong."
Murtha also refused to say that the administration had deliberately "mislead" the country into war, choosing instead the words "exagerated intelligence."
He said that he had never received such an outpouring of support for anything he has done in his 32 years in Congress. The public, he said, was "thirsting for a solution" to the war.
Referring to Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio) calling him a coward on the floor of Congress, he pointed out that she is a new member of the House and maybe someone simply gave her something to read.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E&P Staff (
[email protected])
Find this article at:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001525271
Is Morkat the NYZinger in Abuzz?
Nahh, Mortkat is far more polite than NYZinger ever was.
I will cite Clinton when I wish to cite him, Bumblebeeboogie. I took History courses at the University of Chicago. My professor, Dr. Mann, who was probably five times a better scholar than anyone you ever had the fortune to hear, repeatedly taught us that there is no wall between one adminstration and the next one and that the events that took place in the previous administration inexorably affect the next one.
If you don't know that, I feel sorry for you.
I am sure that you do not think that Clinton's statements before he ordered a missle strike on Iraq did not affect the strategy and planning of the Bush Administration.
You forget that Clinton said( 12/16/1998)
"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world"
And you are so naive as to think that the statement was not taken into account????
Those who follow the news know that President Bush said that John Murtha has a PERFECT RIGHT TO EXPRESS HIS OPINION. The President does not agree with that opinion, however. We shall see whether the American people agree with President Bush or John Murtha in November 2006. In the meantime, as the President has announced, the commanders in the field will make the decisions about movement of troops if any.
I hope all know that there are 160,000 in the field now and that there were 135,000 before the Constitution Election. There may indeed be some brigades(2,000 in each brigade) rotated out as has been announced.
But the bulk will remain for a long time. After 2008, President Hillary may withdraw the troops.
We shall see.
Oh please- Ny ZInger- Mortkat- whoever- respond to the substance of the posts- rebut them if you can with evidence or find another thread.
After hearing Murtha's speech, I was prepared to believe that the Republicans had mischaracterized his proposal...In fact, I was OK by his proposal which states that US troops will be "redeployed at the earliest practical date". Of course the exit criteria needs to be well defined.
But then I go to Murtha's website where he says:
Murtha wrote: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.
This seems to ignore any measured evaluation of exit criteria and instead urges immediate withdraw before mid-December. That is a position I cannot support.
Give it up, Mortkat. Your hatred of Bill (what's the definition of "is") Clinton is every bit as silly and tiresome as some other A2Kers irrational hatred of George ("they did so have a nucular capability") Bush. Your grasp of history is second-rate and your understanding of logic in debate non-existent. You actually bring up Clinton's pecadillos as excuses for Bush's megalomania. If that's the best you can do, again, give it up.
My so called "hatred" of Bill Clinton does not even begin to match the "hatred" of George W. Bush expressed by the left wing loonies
If you think that my grasp of History is lacking and my logic is insufficient, REBUT MY POSTS ONE POINT AT A TIME. If you can't, dry up!!!
Mortkat wrote:I will cite Clinton when I wish to cite him, Bumblebeeboogie. I took History courses at the University of Chicago. My professor, Dr. Mann, who was probably five times a better scholar than anyone you ever had the fortune to hear, repeatedly taught us that there is no wall between one adminstration and the next one and that the events that took place in the previous administration inexorably affect the next one.
If you don't know that, I feel sorry for you.
I am sure that you do not think that Clinton's statements before he ordered a missle strike on Iraq did not affect the strategy and planning of the Bush Administration.
You forget that Clinton said( 12/16/1998)
"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world"
And you are so naive as to think that the statement was not taken into account????
The fact that Reagan helped arm Saddam must also be considered if you want to look at the complete history. And the fact that GHWBush left Saddam in power must also be considered. For a pretty good reason in fact. But you are selective in your history Mortkat. You seem to only select the portions that support your theory. The same problem that this administration had. You aren't George Bush by some chance are you?
Mortkat ,
Clinton's statement and the bombing was in response to Saddam no longer allowing inspectors access.
Bush's invasion was after inspector access had been granted.
Clinton's response along with Congress in 1998 was to provide funding for anti Saddam groups in Iraq. Bush's response was for the US to invade and do the job ourselves. Clinton's was more practical from an historical sense. There have been lots of countries that have overthrown their dictators and installed a different govt. At no time has an outside force come in and forced democracy on a country at the point of a gun.