Posted by: McQ on Saturday, February 17, 2007 I have to say I was a bit surprised when I read this: REP. JOHN MURTHA (D-Pa.) has a message for anyone who spent the week following the House of Representatives' marathon debate on Iraq: You've been distracted by a sideshow. "We have to be careful that people don't think this is the vote," the 74-year-old congressman said of the House's 246-182 decision in favor of a resolution disapproving of President Bush's troop surge. "The real vote will come on the legislation we're putting together." That would be Mr. Murtha's plan to "stop the surge" and "force a redeployment" of U.S. forces from Iraq while ducking the responsibility that should come with such a radical step.It's all about maintaining political viability and refusing to take responsibility for actually doing their job, if they are as adamant as they claim about stopping the war. The Post goes on to say the vote in the House yesterday should increase the pressure on the President to ensure that both economic and political progress accompany any military progress. I agree. Any of those, without a full court press with the other two dooms the new strategy to failure. And I also agree with the Post when they say this: And both chambers should aggressively conduct oversight hearings aimed at holding the administration to its promise to link continued U.S. troop deployments to Iraqi performance.Exactly. We all know what the key to victory there is, and it doesn't lie with the US. So by all means, hold the administration's feet to the fire on this point. But that which I most agree with the Post on (and it's a rare day I find more than a single point of agreement, so mark this day down) is what they say about Murtha and the Democratic leadership: Mr. Murtha has a different idea. He would stop the surge by crudely hamstringing the ability of military commanders to deploy troops. In an interview carried Thursday by the Web site MoveCongress.org, Mr. Murtha said he would attach language to a war funding bill that would prohibit the redeployment of units that have been at home for less than a year, stop the extension of tours beyond 12 months, and prohibit units from shipping out if they do not train with all of their equipment. His aim, he made clear, is not to improve readiness but to "stop the surge." So why not straightforwardly strip the money out of the appropriations bill — an action Congress is clearly empowered to take — rather than try to micromanage the Army in a way that may be unconstitutional? Because, Mr. Murtha said, it will deflect accusations that he is trying to do what he is trying to do. "What we are saying will be very hard to find fault with," he said.Murtha's way is the moral coward's way as far as I'm concerned. I know I remarked about this earlier today. But this sort of cowardice infuriates me. Here we see a strategy in which political viability becomes a greater priority than doing what you should do and is actually in your power to do - that is if you really believe it to be important and in the best interest of the country. Murtha and others are opting, instead, to be moral cowards by choosing a strategy which hamstrings and hobbles the military to the point they can't function and are bound to fail in Iraq but allows Democrats to duck responsibility for that failure. It is the ultimate in immoral political calculation. All done in a stunningly cynical and calculating way so as to not hurt him or others politically. What happens on the other end, to those left in Iraq to fight with too little equipment, too few troops and no support, is absolutely irrelevant in this sort of calculation. Mr. Murtha's cynicism is matched by an alarming ignorance about conditions in Iraq. He continues to insist that Iraq "would be more stable with us out of there," in spite of the consensus of U.S. intelligence agencies that early withdrawal would produce "massive civilian casualties." He says he wants to force the administration to "bulldoze" the Abu Ghraib prison, even though it was emptied of prisoners and turned over to the Iraqi government last year. He wants to "get our troops out of the Green Zone" because "they are living in Saddam Hussein's palace"; could he be unaware that the zone's primary occupants are the Iraqi government and the U.S. Embassy?These people rate nothing but scorn. They should be ashamed of themselves. But it appears they have no shame and aren't above such shennanigans if they believe they'll gain a political advantage without paying a political price. However, in this case, and if passed into law, cynicism, ignorance and politics combine into a lethal mix. The ramifications, as I've mentioned, could mean dead Soldiers and Marines in Iraq as a direct result of this cowardly strategy. If that happens not only will this strategy backfire on the Democrats, as the Post notes, but they will most assuredly lose power and be exiled to the political wilderness for decades. And such a consequence would be something which they would have earned through this act of moral cowardice and richly deserve. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| TrackBacks | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Return to Main Blog Page | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Comments For This Post | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Previous Comments to this Post |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Add Your Comment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
| Vicious Capitalism |
Buy Dale's Book!
|
