The immediate withdrawal flap

Pennsylvania Congressman John Murtha has upped the ante in the wrangling about the conduct of the war in Iraq:

WASHINGTON (AP) – Raising the temperature in Congress over U.S. policy in Iraq, a pro-military Democrat who once voted to back the war now says it is time to bring the troops home.

“Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency,” Rep. John Murtha said Thursday. “They are united against U.S. forces and we have become a catalyst for violence. The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion.”

As a Vietnam veteran and top Democrat on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee with close ties to many military officers, the 30-year Pennsylvania lawmaker carries more credibility with his colleagues on the issue than a number of other Democrats who have opposed the war from the start.

“Our military has accomplished its mission and done its duty,” Murtha told reporters at news conference with a half-dozen American flags arrayed behind him.

“It’s time to bring them home,” he said.

I happen to think that Mr. Murtha is factually wrong on this: the Iraqis are the primary targets of the insurgency (to the extent that the U. S. forces are the preferred target I’d say they always have been—this represents no change since the first day of the invasion), we are accomplishing good things in Iraq, and there’s still more to be done—namely, creating an environment in which the nascent Iraqi government can survive.

I honestly don’t have a great deal to add on this story. I’m sure Mr. Murtha is sincere and that his heart is in the right place. But his heart has overwhelmed his head. Daveed Gartenstein-Ross of The Counterterrorism Blog pretty much says it all for me (and, to a great extent, from my own point-of-view):

As a policy matter, Rep. Murtha’s view is ludicrous. What we should do now in Iraq is a completely separate question from whether we should have invaded the country in the first place, and even critics of the Iraq war (I count myself among this number) should understand how disastrous Rep. Murtha’s proposal would be if implemented. Immediate withdrawal from Iraq would cause the country to descend into chaos that would provide an ideal base of operations for al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda’s prestige throughout the Muslim world would skyrocket while the U.S.’s reputation would decline. Al-Qaeda would be able to claim credit for beating the U.S. in Iraq — in the same way that Osama bin Laden claims to have beaten the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and thus precipitated the Soviet empire’s demise.

Joe Gandelman of The Moderate Voice has an excellent post and link round-up which I won’t attempt to replicate here. I agree completely with Joe’s conclusion:

The White House stategy of not addressing the CONCERNS but going after its critics could backfire and future polls may basically show support mainly from listeners of the Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity shows and the decreasing number of Republicans who will follow the Bush administration lock-step no matter what.

My own preferences are that Congressional Democrats should alter their current trajectory from withdrawal to establishing a lasting peace in Iraq, the White House (and Congressional Republicans) should alter their stance from counter-confrontation to fixing whatever is wrong and speeding the pace of strengthening the Iraqi government’s position (even if doing that has political cost), and that bloggers would start confronting each others’ arguments rather than each other. Tain’t gonna happen.

17 comments… add one
  • Argent Link

    Murtha has been loudly and publicly anti-war for over a year now. What kind of a journalistic fool would try to make this frontpage news? The media–every bit as stupid as you always thought.

  • I can’t imagine what Murtha is thinking if he says that he wants to go back in if there is more terrorism. There’s going to be more terrorism the next day after we pull out. What does a 24 hour withdrawal get us?

    I think that Murtha really should be asked about what he meant by that particular thought. If a car bombing will pull us back in, does the Murtha plan actually mean getting out of Iraq? Or is it only when we have another 9/11 that we go back in?

  • That may well be right, TM, but, if so, I have a problem with it. That would appear to be taking the position that it’s only terrorism if it takes place here. By invading Iraq we assumed legal and moral obligations. Perhaps we should not have done so (that’s my position), but that’s a different discussion.

    Honestly, I’ve got another problem with Murtha’s position as well. His position seems to hinge on the notion that the U. S. military shouldn’t take casualties under any circumstances. That’s simply wrong. U. S. military casualties have to be considered in the context of the other issues at hand.

  • LaurenceB Link

    Why is nobody discussing seriously the concept of milestones and schedules and whether they are appropriate? I assume there are many others like me who don’t like the idea of immediate withdrawal, but also dislike being fed silly platitudes like “as long as it takes” and “stay the course”. We all agree that the U.S. should eventually withdraw, right? So, why is it so difficult to rationally discuss the best way to do it.

    For example, I think setting a schedule has a number of advantages. Here’s just one:

    The terrorists are killing people to make us leave, right? But if we were to announce we are going to leave on Jan. 1, 2007 (for example) wouldn’t that pretty much take the wind out of their sails? What would be the point of blowing everything up if they knew we were leaving anyway? Wouldn’t it be a good thing if people (and our soldiers) stopped dying?

    You may disagree with me. I may be wrong. Heck, I’m not even offering up a compelte solution – I’m just thinking out loud. I’m just asking that we discuss it sensibly.

  • I’m all for milestones, LaurenceB. I’ve posted that several times. I think that publishing milestones would build confidence both in us and in the Iraqi people that there were, in fact, specific objectives.

    I think that publishing a schedule on the other hand is a poor one. I don’t agree that it would “take the wind out of their sails”. Why would it? If we fail to meet the schedule we’re liars; if we meet the schedule without accomplishing the tasks that need to be accomplished we’re fools.

    As to why the idea of milestones isn’t being discussed I think there are two reasons. The first reason is that communication has not been the strongest suit of the Bush Administration. The second is that people tend to conflate milestones (which make sense) with a schedule (which doesn’t).

  • LaurenceB Link

    Dave,

    Thanks for your reply.

    Re:Schedules vs. Milestones
    I don’t have a strong preference for schedules over milestones. In my mind, they serve the same general purpose – they show that we’re serious about eventually withdrawing. My personal preference is for schedules only because that’s the way the real world works – Consider for a moment: When your boss assigns you a task he wants a timetable for when it will be finished, not a set of subtasks that will be done at undetermined intervals. Right? Of course, you are correct that if a schedule is missed that’s a serious problem – but isn’t that also true of the tasks your boss assigns to you? I think that’s as it should be.

    A schedule (or a set of milestones) drives the Iraqis to work harder to defend themselves. It demonstrates to the Iraqi people that our designs are not imperialistic. It signals to the American people that there is a light at the end of the tunnel. And it puts the insurgents in a position where they can’t plausibly claim to be fighting for Iraqi independence, since Iraqi independence will have been already guaranteed. I see a lot of upside to this thing.

    Anyway, thanks for the thought-provoking conversation.

  • Constance Link

    LaurenceB, I don’t see how a schedule is detrimental either. The point is, we DO intend to leave, don’t we? If the argument is that a timetable will just have al-Zarqawi and his merry band waiting us out, what makes anyone think that NOT having a timetable will result in anything different? Do we think they won’t notice when we’re gone — whenever that is? Do we think that their only means of finding out our plans is thru the media? And if we are to take Bush & Co. at their word that things are progressing so much in Iraq, why are they afraid to even think about leaving? At least feign that they are? I believe it’s a specious argument anyway since Generals Abizaid & Casey are hopng to draw down substantial troops by mid-2006. The neocons want out before the 2006 elections. Then there’s 2 years left for God to talk George into some other freedom march. Some people are just destined to repeat history.

  • It’s my opinion that Bush has no intention of withdrawing from Iraq. Not that there will be 130,000 soldiers indefinitely, but I’m willing to bet that on January 20, 2009 there will be US soldiers garrisoned in Iraq, al a the German example.

    I don’t think that the arument is that not having a schedule would discourage Zarqawi but that leaving or announcing a withdrawal date before he and his exploding comrades are captured or killed is “irresponsible.” In essence, we would be telling Zarqawi that he has won, just not yet.

    That doesn’t mean that the Iraqis shouldn’t be required to perform. However, perhaps the greates blunder in the prosecution of the Iraqi campaign was dismantling the army and more or less creating a stronger enemy than would have been present.

    In this aspect, Colin Powell was exactly correct: we broke it, we own it. At least, if ever, it’s fixed.

  • LaurenceB:

    I am the boss. And every day I need to explain to clients why the unrealistic schedules which they established without my input can’t be met. I’ve never lost a client or had a project cancelled because a project was late. I believe I would lose clients or have projects cancelled if I underdelivered. My objective is that the clients be completely satisfied and, since people aren’t billiard balls, that isn’t completely under my control.

    No one would be satisfied with a realistic timetable. To the extent that it would have any effect whatsoever it would encourage more terrorist attacks.

    History tells us that it takes roughly 9 years to put down an insurgency. I don’t think thats a coincidence—I think it’s demographics. How wouild a withdrawal date of 2012 help?

    I further think that one of the milestones involved in U. S. withdrawal from Iraq is that the Iraqi government asks us to leave. That could be in 25 years or 50 years or never. It could be tomorrow although the Iraqi government is emphatically not asking us to leave now.

    Bush has repeatedly promised this and I believe him. The United States has removed more military bases because the local governments asked us to than any country in the history of the world. It’s one of the reasons that I’m confident that there no “American empire” in the offing. History is clear enough on this subject that I believe that anyone who advances this claim has ulterior motives.

    Dan:

    I don’t think that disbanding the Iraqi army was a mistake since it had already disbanded itself before the announcement has made. A blanket disqualification of former officers from serving was a mistake and it looks like it’s being rectified.

    I do think that encouraging the Iraqis (civilian and military) to “perform”, as you put it, is one of the greatest challenges we have in front of us. Initiative is one of the signal strengths of the United States, particularly in the American way of war, and I think it will take time for the Iraqis to be confident in exercising it. Every fiber of their being must be telling them not to—that’s pretty much the common experience of people who’ve never known anything but an authoritarian or totalitarian or bureaucratic regime. We can’t induce the Europeans to take initiative even in their own backyards.

    I suspect that’s because we don’t feel we can allow them to fail. Bad parents coddle their kids and allow them to become spoiled and dependent. Good parents allow their children to fail. But are ready to provide support when it’s genuinely needed and pick up the pices if it’s really necessary.

  • Dave:

    Fair enough, and you are correct that the army was in shambles.I should have been more precise.

    However, the emphasis on “de-Baathification,” I believe, drove many officers and troops into the arms of Zarqawi. I know that that is being addressed, but the mistake shouldn’t have been made in the first place.

    And you actually made the point I meant to make in your response to LaurenceB: that we will not withdraw because we will not be asked any time soon.

  • Ron Link

    Genuine de-Baathification is being carried out in secret by Kurdish and Shiite shadow militias, death squads. That is real de-Baathification. Any high level Baathists allowed into the new security forces would only subvert the new democracy. None of the mid or lower level Baathists were kept from joining. Repeating a myth will not make it true.

  • I suspect the reason this has come up just now is, Murtha has ticked off one Democrat too many. The Democrats have a longish history of breaking out the investigations against their own, even those they;ve been preiously protecting, when they get embarrassed by the political stand of one of their own. Does the name James Traficant ring any bells? The Democrats protected him for years, until they’d reached their limit with how often he’d opened his yap. I suspect and suppose the same has happened to Murtha.

  • “This” being the ethics investigatyion aganst Murtha.

    Your search string in Google is KSA consulting.

  • Dave, my dear fellow, first you’re posing a false question with respect to “the” insurgency (or insurgencies) – prime target versus collateral damage are two different questions.

    The second item, of course, is the reality of a civil war following, as I long ago pointed out, a Lebanese logic with respect to communitarian warlords and fragmented politico-clan factionalism.

    That logic has its own drivers and the presence of US and UK soldiers is a mere detial, a delay. As the fine bigot Ron says, the ‘de Baathifiction’ – meaning purges in the Stalinist sense combined with clan based score settling has a critical mass all of its own. The Americans in their charming naivete lost the game a year ago, you simply haven’t realised it yet.

  • Thanks, Collounsbury. I’ve made the same point about the diverse and factious insurgency myself from time to time and you’re right: there is no single objective. And I’ve speculated that the attacks on U. S. forces on the one hand and the attacks on Iraqi civilians on the other reflected the insurgency against American occupation and the ongoing civil war there, respectively. From time to time I’ve also mentioned my speculation that part of what we’re seeing in Iraq is the resumption of a civil war in progress that Saddam Hussein’s government suspended temporarily (with an enormous amount of repression).

    I’ve disagreed with almost every aspect of the war in Iraq. I opposed the invasion; I thought that the Bush Administration’s guaranteeing the territorial integrity of Iraq was poor diplomacy, premature, and probably unrealistic; I thought the Administration did not enlist enough support domestically to prosecute the war in the fashion that would have been required to achieve an outright victory (I don’t believe that it could have); I think that the failure to secure Iraq’s border early on was an enormous error (cf. the previous point); and so on.

    I’m still not convinced that either the United States or the Iraqi people would be better off at this point if we simply withdrew and let them fire away at each other (which I believe is the almost inevitable likelihood).

  • Ron Link

    In Mosul, Zarqawi may be among the dead in a raid of a safe house by US and Iraqi troops, acting in concert, tipped off by local Sunnis.

    Local Sunnis are slowly realizing that they have to join the political process if they are to have any future at all.

    Loonsberry style twits stay drunk most of the time. Life passes.

Leave a Comment