Jump to content

Memo to Murtha . . . Whats your plan after surrendering?


KirtFalcon

Recommended Posts

By Clifford D. May

Scripps Howard News Service

November 24, 2005

 

Memo to Murtha Before I say anything else, Congressman Murtha, let me thank you -- for your long public service in Washington and, before that, in Vietnam.

 

And let me commend you, too, for sparking an honest debate. Until now, what has passed for debate on Iraq has been mostly slander – for example, calling President Bush a liar and questioning his patriotism. Yes, questioning his patriotism: because anyone who would lie to get America into a war for reasons unrelated to national security would not be a patriot. He'd be a traitor.

 

I ask you, sir: Has such a vicious charge ever before been leveled at an American president in a time of war – or even a time of peace?

 

But you have not taken this low road. Instead, you have said you believe the war in Iraq “cannot be won” and that “it's time to bring the troops home.” This is a discussion worth having.

 

You also say that “80 per cent of Iraqis want us out.” I'm not sure where you got that figure but it's probably low. I'd guess that close to 100 percent of Iraqis – as well as 100% of Americans – would love to see U.S. troops heading home for the holidays. But some of us think it matters whether we leave Iraq after we've defeated our enemies – or whether we leave Iraq after having surrendered to our enemies.

 

When you suggest that planning for the war in Iraq was flawed, I think you have a point. American leaders, in the Pentagon and elsewhere, crafted an effective strategy for toppling Saddam Hussein. Once that mission was accomplished, however, they had only a vague idea about how to transform Iraq into a free, independent and self-reliant nation within a short period of time. Maybe that's because no one had ever attempted such a feat before.

 

Clearly, we should not fail again to plan adequately. So I would ask you about your plans for the aftermath of the defeat you say we must now accept.

 

For example, it's obvious that if the U.S. military can't stand up to al-Qaeda in Iraq, the fledgling post-liberation Iraqi military won't have a prayer. That means we must plan for the possibility that al-Qaeda will come to power in part or all of Iraq. What, if anything would you propose to do in response to that?

 

Even if al-Qaeda only manages to shore up its positions in the Sunni areas of western Iraq, we must expect it will use that base to continue attacking Jordan and other countries in the region. Maybe we'd send advisors to help the Jordanian king? But help him do what exactly? Decide when the fight has become hopeless?

 

Also possible: The “Party of Return,” Baathists loyal to Saddam Hussein, could take over (maybe in some kind of de-facto coalition with al-Qaeda). They might even release Saddam from the jail where he has been awaiting trial (odd, isn't it, how trials, like wars, aren't as speedy as they used to be?) and restore him to power. What would we do in that case – ask the U.N. to re-start sanctions and the Oil-for-Food program?

 

The Shia of Iraq would turn to Iran's mullahs for protection against both al-Qaeda and the Baathists. To whom else could they turn? If what followed was an Iranian anschluss – annexation – of southern Iraq, will you have a plan to deal with that contingency?

 

Iraqis who “collaborated” with us would undoubtedly face execution – perhaps tens of thousands of would be killed for revenge or just to send a message. I guess Congress could offer a resolution condemning such behavior.

 

Thousands, perhaps millions of Iraqis would no doubt flee the country. Should the U.S. accept them as refugees? Or turn them away?

 

In many other countries where al-Qaeda has been applying pressure -- Bangladesh, Indonesia and Thailand to name just a few – three things would now be clear: (1) It is dangerous to be allied with the U.S.; (2) it is futile to resist al-Qaeda; and (3) bin Laden and Saddam were correct in predicting that if you bloody Americans, they will always turn tail and run.

 

As evidence they'd cite not only Iraq but Mogadishu and Beirut and, of course, Vietnam, where you served honorably. In truth, after that defeat – while millions of Southeast Asians suffered and died – Americans got on with their lives and we even went on to win the Cold War.

 

Is that the idea, Congressman? To cross our fingers and hope that our defeat in Iraq will follow the Vietnam pattern? Because if so, I have to say candidly, sir, that isn't much of a plan.

 

Clifford D. May, a former New York Times foreign correspondent, is the president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies a policy institute focusing on terrorism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Sideliner

Only in America can a women stand up and call a thirty seven year member of the military a coward. What a country we live in. Isn't it great?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Sideliner

Only in America can a women stand up and call a thirty seven year member of the military a coward. What a country we live in. Isn't it great?

Yeah, the GOP attacks the democrats who hate war ... then they attack the democrats who are war hawks.

 

Double standars are fun!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Sideliner

Only in America can a women stand up and call a thirty seven year member of the military a coward. What a country we live in. Isn't it great?

 

The truth hurts. His recent actions are cowardly and she was calling him on it. I would have done the same thing were I in Congress. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Colmesneilfan1

 

The truth hurts. His recent actions are cowardly and she was calling him on it. I would have done the same thing were I in Congress. ;)

His recent actions called for an exit strategy ... something we don't have.

 

It's a shame wanting to get young men/women out of a country and harm's way is deemed "cowardly." It's a sad, sad day when people beleive that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His recent actions called for us to cut and run leaving unfinished business like cowardly liberals do all the time. The young men and women IN COUNTRY want to finish the job before returning home. Lisen to THEM for a change instead of Howard Dean. Your intelligence level may just rise a little. :tongue:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Colmesneilfan1

His recent actions called for us to cut and run leaving unfinished business like cowardly liberals do all the time.

No they didn't.

 

Whereas Congress and the American People have not been shown clear, measurable progress toward establishment of stable and improving security in Iraq or of a stable and improving economy in Iraq, both of which are essential to "promote the emergence of a democratic government";

 

Whereas additional stabilization in Iraq by U, S. military forces cannot be achieved without the deployment of hundreds of thousands of additional U S. troops, which in turn cannot be achieved without a military draft;

 

Whereas more than $277 billion has been appropriated by the United States Congress to prosecute U.S. military action in Iraq and Afghanistan;

 

Whereas, as of the drafting of this resolution, 2,079 U.S. troops have been killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom;

 

Whereas U.S. forces have become the target of the insurgency,

 

Whereas, according to recent polls, over 80% of the Iraqi people want U.S. forces out of Iraq;

 

Whereas polls also indicate that 45% of the Iraqi people feel that the attacks on U.S. forces are justified;

 

Whereas, due to the foregoing, Congress finds it evident that continuing U.S. military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the people of Iraq, or the Persian Gulf Region, which were cited in Public Law 107-243 as justification for undertaking such action;

 

Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That:

 

Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.

 

Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines shall be deployed in the region.

 

Section 3 The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.

 

Sounds like a good idea - hand the reigns over to the Iraqi people (who've had two years of U.S. training) and come home.

 

He presented nothing but facts (minus a poll, which was taken but subject to scrutiny as always) ... sounds like a GREAT plan to me. Much better than the one way have in place ... which is, uh, dang I can't remember the White House's plan. The administration had to change the war reasoning too often to construct one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How soon the liberal left seems to forget 9-11. People those radical islams want to kill us and everything we stand for. If we leave before the job is finished it will be a breeding ground for this worthless scum. I know we are taking some losses but I'm sure glad some boys back in the 1940's didn't want to cut and run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saturday, November 26, 2005

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hypocrisy on steroids

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted: November 26, 2005

1:00 a.m. Eastern

 

 

 

By Henry Lamb

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

 

Remember the Democrats' criticism after the World Trade Centers attack: "Bush knew they were coming!" The anti-Bush crowd insisted that the president had intelligence reports that revealed the imminent attacks, and he failed to prevent them.

 

Subsequent investigations revealed there was, indeed, chatter in the intelligence community that suggested there were people in this country who were associated with al-Qaida, and that airplanes might be used in some kind of future attack. As with all intelligence fragments gathered from a variety of sources, the best heads in the U.S. intelligence community, most of whom were holdovers from the Clinton era, concluded there was not enough information available to take any specific action.

 

 

Prior to the Iraq invasion, there was a mountain of intelligence that indicated biological, chemical and nuclear weapons potential in the hands of Saddam Hussein. There were also analysts who suggested that some of the evidence was not conclusive. The best heads in the U.S. intelligence community concluded that there was enough information available to take specific action. This conclusion was shared by the best heads in the international intelligence community, as well.

 

What would the Democrats be saying now, had the president not taken action in the face of the available intelligence information, and if Saddam had unleashed a dirty bomb, or one with chemical or biological materials? And how much worse might the consequences be?

 

As severely as the president was criticized for not taking action – based on very flimsy information – to prevent the WTC attack, how much more would they be criticizing him for not taking action based on the preponderance of information about the probability of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons?

 

Democrats are going to criticize this Republican president, regardless of what he does. Their criticism has little to do with the merits of any issue, and everything to do with public perception. The current criticism of the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the security of the United States, and everything to do with tarnishing the president sufficiently to gain some political advantage.

 

From the outset, the president has pledged to stay in Iraq until "the job is done." He has consistently defined this to be the point at which the Iraqi people have an elected, representative government in place, and a security force of sufficient strength to defend the new government. He has consistently said that as the Iraqi force "stands up," the United States and coalition forces will "stand down."

 

Despite the determined attacks by al-Qaida in Iraq, the people have elected an interim government, which produced a constitution that the people voted to approve, and are only weeks away from electing their first constitutional government. This is a remarkable achievement. Especially when it has occurred in the face of daily bomb blasts and murders by the terrorists.

 

The Iraqi security force now exceeds 200,000, and they are growing more competent by the day. Iraqis are taking ever increasing responsibility for their own security, just exactly as was planned.

 

After the election in December, and when the new government is established, U.S. troops will begin to reduce their presence, as the Iraqi forces assume control.

 

Don't expect the Democrats to applaud this achievement. They are now positioning themselves to take credit for the return of American troops. Expect Democrats to say it was their criticism of the war that forced the president to withdraw American soldiers, and that the president is bringing them home in hopes of regaining favor for Republicans before the mid-term elections.

 

Democrats – and the media – never miss an opportunity to point to the 2,000 American soldiers who have died in Iraq since 2003. Neither has shed the first tear over the 14,000 Americans who died needlessly in 2004 alone ... as the result of drunk drivers. Their criticism is not about the loss of American lives – it is about political advantage.

 

Soldiers bravely gave their lives to help the Iraqis create a new representative government in the Middle East that will not breed terrorists, but will create opportunities and alternatives for Iraqis to enjoy the prosperity that freedom makes possible. It is the president's hope that such a government will inspire other Middle East countries to follow the Iraqi example, and begin to suppress religious extremism in favor of individual freedom.

 

 

This goal will not be achieved before President Bush leaves office. It would not even be possible, however, had he not heeded the warnings laid before him by the best heads in the intelligence community, and taken the bold action the previous administration said was necessary, but failed to undertake.

 

Saddam Hussein is gone. A new representative government is rising in Iraq despite all the hypocritical criticism the Democrats can muster. Because of these two events, the world is a better place, and the prospects for eventually containing the terrorists are much brighter.

 

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Henry Lamb is the executive vice president of the Environmental Conservation Organization and chairman of Sovereignty International.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amen colmesneil, don't even get me started on the donkies, Jesse Jackson, Howard Dean aka "the screamer", Louis Farrakan or however you spell that snake oil preacher who said Bush blew up the levees in New Orleans.The donkies have really got some leaders there I could go on and on and on.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's one thing to be stupid, but another to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by imyahuckleberryman

Amen colmesneil, don't even get me started on the donkies, Jesse Jackson, Howard Dean aka "the screamer", Louis Farrakan or however you spell that snake oil preacher who said Bush blew up the levees in New Orleans.The donkies have really got some leaders there I could go on and on and on.

 

Which is EXACTLY the reason that they will never regain power in Congress. Eventually, those folks in the red states with dimocratic representatives will vote those guys out of office and we won't have to worry about fillibusters and other anti-democratic tactics by the left. :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by burrows

We can stay one year or twenty years. The minute we leave it will fall apart..

 

 

I have to disagree with this. When the Iraqi armed forces get to full strength, they will be able to keep the peace. Most Iraqi leaders believe this will happen within the next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by imyahuckleberryman

How soon the liberal left seems to forget 9-11. People those radical islams want to kill us and everything we stand for. If we leave before the job is finished it will be a breeding ground for this worthless scum. I know we are taking some losses but I'm sure glad some boys back in the 1940's didn't want to cut and run.

No, we remember 9/11 and everyone has been on board with the Afghan mission since its inception.

 

Because, Osama bin Laden attacked us - not Saddam Hussein.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by sppunk

No, we remember 9/11 and everyone has been on board with the Afghan mission since its inception.

 

Because, Osama bin Laden attacked us - not Saddam Hussein.

 

Yeah I remember Bush's speech the day after 9/11 that all Democrats stood behind. They just seem to forget all of the speech. Selective memory I guess! He said that we would go after countries that harbor terrorist. I know! I know!.......But Strawberry, we arent going after the Saudi's or North Korea!:cry:.....Now how stupid would it be for us to go after all of them at once. Quit your whinning and complaining about something you have no control over. And as far as an exit strategy.........Arent we still in Germany?:tongue:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...