Drudge reports opposition to the war in Iraq by Congressman John Murtha, Democrat of Pennsylvania.
"We cannot prevail in this war as it is going today," Murtha said yesterday at a news conference with House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi. Murtha said the incidents of prisoner abuse in Iraq were a symptom of a problem in which U.S. troops in Iraq are undermanned, inadequately equipped and poorly trained.
"We either have to mobilize or we have to get out," Murtha said, adding that he supported increasing U.S. troop strength rather than pulling out.
But that was in May of 2004. Now Congressman Murtha would like us to pull out of Iraq altogether. An immediate withdrawal would suit him, because he apparently believes we can't win it. This is Murtha now.
"It is time for a change in direction," said Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., one of Congress' most hawkish Democrats. "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 in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf region."
...Vice President Dick Cheney jumped into the fray Wednesday by assailing Democrats who contend the Bush administration manipulated intelligence on Iraq, calling their criticism "one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city."
Murtha, a Marine intelligence officer in Vietnam, angrily shot back at Cheney: "I like guys who've never been there that criticize us who've been there. I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done."
Referring to Bush, Murtha added: "I resent the fact, on Veterans Day, he criticized Democrats for criticizing them."
OK, so let's go ask somebody who didn't take a deferment. Greyhawk at Mudville Gazette has this to say about Congressman Murtha's charges.
The Honorable John P Murtha, D Pa, is concerned for me:
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.
Okay, he's concerned for all the troops, and because of that I'm willing to help him out.
In his speech demanding our immediate surrender in Iraq he cited this statistic on casualties over there: "Over 15,500 have been seriously injured".
He's been visiting them in the hospitals, and that's awesome. But he may have gotten that bit of numerical intel from British sources - specifically the UK's Telegraph, who recently claimed
While much was made of the US death toll recently reaching 2,000, little has been said of the 15,000 who have returned home mutilated.
You see, that's not quite right.
There have indeed been over 15,500 wounded. But of those, 8375 returned to duty within 72 hours - so although those wounds weren't funny perhaps those wounds weren't quite serious either. Still, 7347 troops have been wounded severely enough to require over 72 hours recuperation. Furthermore, 2,791 Soldiers were wounded seriously enough to require evacuation to Stateside Army Medical facilities. And 280 amputees have been treated in Army facilities as a result of the war. A lot of unscrupulous types who just want to pretend to "support the troops" ignore these facts in favor of the less correct (and more impressive) claim that 15,500 troops have been seriously wounded, or maimed, or mutilated. The real numbers are big enough - I just can't understand why some feel the need to pad them.
As Greyhawk points out, in "demanding our immediate surrender" Congressman Murtha is off the mark on the extent of our casualties. For whatever reason Congressman Murtha overstates. Is there any reason to suspect he might be off the mark on other points, I wonder. Aside from the obvious, I mean.
Let's put aside three elections, a constitution, an army and police force that are doing more and more of the heavy lifting in the fight. From today's Strategy Page comes this assessment of the problems facing the terrorist leadership.
...the last two years has been a time of constant defeat. Now, with American and Iraqi troops moving through the Sunni Arab heartland at will, and aggressively seeking terrorists, many more Sunni Arabs have given up. In other words, recruiting for terrorist groups is getting more difficult with each passing month. Some of the terrorist leaders have tried to establish themselves as warlords, demanding cash, and other support, from the local Sunni Arabs that he “protects.” But everyone knows that the protection is a sham, and that if American or, or even Iraqi, troops roll into the area, the newly minted warlord either has to get out of town, or die in place.
The Baath Party big shots who are still in Iraq, have to burn through a lot of cash to keep the attacks going, and themselves protected. Between the cash rewards, and all those cell phones (that Iraqis use to turn in terrorists), it’s getting harder for terrorist leaders to stay out of jail. But these fellows have an excellent incentive to stay free. If they are captured, they are likely to face execution, or life in an unpleasant prison. They can maintain the loyalty of some of their troops by letting it be known that, if the boss goes down, he has the goods on lots of his troops, who will be prosecuted as well for killing Iraqis with bombs and bullets. The terrorists are turning on their own.
How much longer the Sunni Arabs will be able to use cash, coercion and revenge to keep their people killing, remains to be seen. But they can’t keep it up forever, and the trends are moving against the terrorist groups.
Greyhawk obviously takes a dim view of Murtha's position. I would take a dim view of it myself, but I'm just an an Air Force veteran, and I didn't go to Vietnam, so in Congressman Murtha's view it's not for me to say.
Comments