It's Your War Now: Part III

By: Greg Mitchell For months, media watchers have wondered if we would any time soon witness another ?Cronkite moment? -- some sort of dramatic statement by a mainstream media figure that would turn hearts and minds against an ill-advised war, for good. It hasn't happened. But perhaps a not-very-famous, 73-year-old gentleman named John Murtha will be the new Cronkite.

Last weekend, when I started this three-part column (see links on this page) about editorial page timidity on the subject of a phased U.S. pullout from Iraq, I could not have imagined what has happened this week, and I'm not talking about Bob Woodward starring in Deep Throat II. I'm referring to the possible seismic shift in the so-called debate over withdrawal. A few days ago, newspaper editorial pages were merely trailing their readers on this issue. Now they are even behind Congress.

Earlier this week, even pro-war Democrats in Congress, such as senators Biden and Clinton, asked Bush if he could, please, at least come up with some kind of long-term timetable. It wasn't much and it didn't pass, but that's still more than we have seen from all but a few editorial pages. The New York Times, for example, once again Thursday morning came out against any withdrawal or a timetable for exiting.

Now, how will newspapers respond to the angry, moving statement by conservative Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) today? The crusty, hawkish former Marine called for an Iraq pullout, starting not in, say, 2007, but ASAP, and introduced a bill to this effect. ?Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily,? Murtha said. ?It is time to bring them home.?

Wisely, he called it a ?redeployment,? not a pullout, and he said it was not exactly "immediate," but could be largely accomplished by the middle of next year. Asked at a press conference if this did not amount to "cutting-and running," Murtha replied that the war had been handled haplessly from the start, and new polls show that even 80% of the Iraqis want us out.

In response, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said, "it is baffling that he is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore."

But Rod Dreher, the conservative newspaper columnist, quickly posted this at NRO Online, the National Review site:

?If tough, non-effete guys like Murtha are willing to go this far, and can make the case in ways that Red America can relate to -- and listening to him talk was like listening to my dad, who's about the same age, and his hunting buddies -- then the president is in big trouble. I'm sure there's going to be an anti-Murtha pile-on in the conservative blogosphere, but from where I sit, conservatives would be fools not to take this man seriously.?

This man: After serving in the Marines in the early 1950's, he re-enlisted in 1966 and served in Vietnam, earning a Bronze Star, two Purple Hearts and the Vietnamese Cross for Gallantry. Today, in a not-so-veiled response to Vice President Cheney's recent attacks on the patriotism of antiwar critics, Murtha said: "I like guys who got five deferments and (have) never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done."

And on President Bush: "You know, the president said it's tough to win a war. You know, it's tough to WAGE a war. That's where the fallacy's been. To WAGE this war is where the problem's been."

Here is Murtha's statement (a link to the transcript of the press conference is at the end). It puts the issue squarely and fairly to editorial and opinion writers. Rise to the challenge. Don't just sit on the fence.

*
Rep. John Murtha, Nov. 17, 2005

The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction. 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 is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region.

General Casey said in a September 2005 hearing, "the perception of occupation in Iraq is a major driving force behind the insurgency." General Abizaid said on the same date, "Reducing the size and visibility of the coalition forces in Iraq is part of our counterinsurgency strategy."

I have been visiting our wounded troops at Bethesda and Walter Reed hospitals almost every week since the beginning of the War. And what demoralizes them is going to war with not enough troops and equipment to make the transition to peace; the devastation caused by IEDs; being deployed to Iraq when their homes have been ravaged by hurricanes; being on their second or third deployment and leaving their families behind without a network of support.

The threat posed by terrorism is real, but we have other threats that cannot be ignored. We must be prepared to face all threats. The future of our military is at risk. Our military and their families are stretched thin. Many say that the Army is broken. Some of our troops are on their third deployment. Recruitment is down, even as our military has lowered its standards. Defense budgets are being cut. Personnel costs are skyrocketing, particularly in health care.

Choices will have to be made. We cannot allow promises we have made to our military families in terms of service benefits, in terms of their health care, to be negotiated away. Procurement programs that ensure our military dominance cannot be negotiated away. We must be prepared. The war in Iraq has caused huge shortfalls at our bases in the U.S.

Much of our ground transportation is worn out and in need of either serious overhaul or replacement. George Washington said, "To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace." We must rebuild our Army. Our deficit is growing out of control. The Director of the Congressional Budget Office recently admitted to being "terrified" about the budget deficit in the coming decades. This is the first prolonged war we have fought with three years of tax cuts, without full mobilization of American industry and without a draft. The burden of this war has not been shared equally; the military and their families are shouldering this burden.

Our military has been fighting a war in Iraq for over two and a half years. Our military has accomplished its mission and done its duty. Our military captured Saddam Hussein, and captured or killed his closest associates. But the war continues to intensify. Deaths and injuries are growing, with over 2,079 confirmed American deaths. Over 15,500 have been seriously injured and it is estimated that over 50,000 will suffer from battle fatigue. There have been reports of at least 30,000 Iraqi civilian deaths.

I just recently visited Anbar Province Iraq in order to assess the condition on the ground. I am disturbed by the findings in key indicator areas. Oil production and energy production are below pre-war levels. Our reconstruction efforts have been crippled by the security situation. Only $9 billion of the $18 billion appropriated for reconstruction has been spent. Unemployment remains at about 60 percent. Clean water is scarce. Only $500 million of the $2.2 billion appropriated for water projects have been spent.

And most importantly, insurgent incidents have increased from about 150 per week to over 700 in the last year. Instead of attacks going down over time and with the addition of more troops, attacks have grown dramatically. Since the revelations at Abu Ghraib, American causalities have doubled. An annual State Department report in 2004 indicated a sharp increase in global terrorism.

I said over a year ago, and now the military and the Administration agrees, Iraq can not be won "militarily." I said two years ago, the key to progress in Iraq is to Iraqitize, Internationalize and Energize. I believe the same today. But I have concluded that the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is impeding this progress.

Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are united against U.S. forces and we have become a catalyst for violence. U.S. troops are the common enemy of the Sunnis, Saddamists and foreign jihadists. I believe with a U.S. troop redeployment, the Iraq security forces will be incentivized to take control. A poll recently conducted shows that over 80% of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition troops, about 45% of the Iraqi population believe attacks against American troops are justified. I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis.

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. All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free -- free from United States occupation. I believe this will send a signal to the Sunnis to join the political process for the good of a "free" Iraq.

My plan:

-- To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.
-- To create a quick reaction force in the region.
-- To create an over-the-horizon presence of Marines.
-- To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq.

This war needs to be personalized. As I said before, I have visited with the severely wounded of this war. They are suffering. 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.

Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home.
***

The complete text of Rep. Murtha's press conference on Thursday can be found here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/17/politics/17text-murtha.html