Rep. Murtha is a Commie Coward
OK, not really. I just didn't want to miss out on the heightened rhetoric and namecalling (which I should note Murtha himself has engaged in, to some degree, although to his credit, he backed down from his initial emotional reactions).
Anyway.
I think the characterization of Rep. Jack Murtha's plan to withdraw doesn't well-represent his actual plan. People are talking about it like he would bring all the troops home now. But that's not the case.
First, he's saying it should be a phased withdrawal on a tight timeline to begin now, and extend over the course of six months. Second, he would not bring them all home, but keep many of them in the region (a quick-reaction force, plus a Marine presence), just not actually in Iraq.
I don't agree with Murtha's plan, but only because of the merits, not the characterization. And I do think there's some good ideas there, especially in making the Iraqis step up their takeover of their own security by forcing the issue.
From the beginning, my desire has been to stabilize Iraq enough that we could leave. I don't know if we're at that point, but it's worth considering that we could speed up Iraq's progress toward self-sufficiency by a gradual removal of our troops, especially since our troops are often the target.
Another good idea is keeping significant forces in the region so they can aid the Iraqis if necessary. It's a middle position between staying in Iraq, and "abandoning" it entirely.
However, I don't think it should be done immediately: I think we should wait until the current political process is played out (remember, elections are coming up on December 15). Maybe at that time, it would make sense to begin pulling out, though I wouldn't think it should be done as quickly as Murtha suggests.
But really, isn't this what the military itself has been talking about, beginning a pullout next year, after the December elections? Murtha's plan is not all that different, except it calls for a return now, regardless of the stability on the ground, and over a shorter period of time.
I think the outrage here has been way overblown. There's some obvious differences between Murtha and the administration and the military on this, but his plan is not all that outrageous, that I can see.
Anyway.
I think the characterization of Rep. Jack Murtha's plan to withdraw doesn't well-represent his actual plan. People are talking about it like he would bring all the troops home now. But that's not the case.
First, he's saying it should be a phased withdrawal on a tight timeline to begin now, and extend over the course of six months. Second, he would not bring them all home, but keep many of them in the region (a quick-reaction force, plus a Marine presence), just not actually in Iraq.
I don't agree with Murtha's plan, but only because of the merits, not the characterization. And I do think there's some good ideas there, especially in making the Iraqis step up their takeover of their own security by forcing the issue.
From the beginning, my desire has been to stabilize Iraq enough that we could leave. I don't know if we're at that point, but it's worth considering that we could speed up Iraq's progress toward self-sufficiency by a gradual removal of our troops, especially since our troops are often the target.
Another good idea is keeping significant forces in the region so they can aid the Iraqis if necessary. It's a middle position between staying in Iraq, and "abandoning" it entirely.
However, I don't think it should be done immediately: I think we should wait until the current political process is played out (remember, elections are coming up on December 15). Maybe at that time, it would make sense to begin pulling out, though I wouldn't think it should be done as quickly as Murtha suggests.
But really, isn't this what the military itself has been talking about, beginning a pullout next year, after the December elections? Murtha's plan is not all that different, except it calls for a return now, regardless of the stability on the ground, and over a shorter period of time.
I think the outrage here has been way overblown. There's some obvious differences between Murtha and the administration and the military on this, but his plan is not all that outrageous, that I can see.
"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
Leave a comment