Murtha redux

9 Responses to Murtha redux

1. Brian says:

   January 16, 2006 at 7:33 pm

   Sorry but that’s not defeatism. It’s his prediction given the mid term elections this year. His point was the Republican party really faces a problem in Iraq, as the war hasn’t gone as promised (remember 6 months and out?). I suggest actually reading the articles you link to.
2. Gaius Arbo says:

   January 16, 2006 at 8:57 pm

   he publicly called for US withdrawal from Iraq in six months, insisting the war was grounded in “a flawed policy wrapped in illusion.”

   “Iraq is not where the center of terrorism is,” the congressman insisted. “We’re inciting terrorism there … We’re destabilizing the area by being over there because we’re the targets.”

   Maybe you should read it.
3. Brian says:

   January 16, 2006 at 11:16 pm

   I did read it. His assessment that US soldiers are helping to fuel the insurgency is correct. This is fairly standard in counter-insurgency doctrine. He’s not saying anything surprising there. That’s why the having Iraqi forces standing up is important.

   Here’s a hint – the war was a flawed policy wrapped in the idea we would be out in six months.

   As result we have placed a fundamentalist regime into power that will be closely allied with Iran. That certainly isn’t a success in my book.

   I suggest you take a very close look at the people that won the election there. I am glad they had elections it’s just bad news that Shia fundamentalists did so well.
4. Gaius Arbo says:

   January 17, 2006 at 7:39 am

   Is this the new meme then. We were only supposed to be there 6 months? No responsible person ever said that. I remember it as we will stay as long as it takes.

   Fairly standard counter-insurgency doctine? According to who? Take that particular meme and put it where the sun don’t shine as well.

   I have taken a look at the election results. While not overjoyed with the results, I see signs that there is a lot of political horse-trading going on over there that will limit the effects.

   I can state autoratatively (because I actually know people) that Murtha is disliked intensly and considered an (explitive deleted) by a pretty large number of members of the armed forces. (Go look up his little town hall performance to see only two examples) So he can be your little darling, but he won’t be on my Christmas card list.

   Stating lies, half-truths and/or suppositions as bald facts doesn’t win any points with me. It also shows your fundamental misunderstanding of how to actually win an argument by reason and real facts. I dislike memes intensely, so try your spin and talking points somewhere else.
5. Gaius Arbo says:

   January 17, 2006 at 9:21 am

   A couple of rather more authoritative resources on counter-insurgency.
   http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fmi3-07-22.pdf
   Which would appear to be the current manual for US Army CI operations.
   http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/04spring/tomes.pdf
   Which appears to be a fairly good assessment.
   Neither of these bear out Brian’s “fairly standard doctrine” meme. Rather the opposite, that US forces have an important role in suppressing the insurgency while HN (host nation) forces are developed. Mind you, I have only skimmed these so far, since they are both rather large.
   Took about two seconds to find on Google. Damned pesky facts.
6. Brian says:

   January 17, 2006 at 7:16 pm

   Sorry for the delay Gaius. I was in Santa Fe. A couple of things – I was hoping to keep this civil. If I have spoken a “half-truth” please point it out. Now on to your points.

   “Is this the new meme then. We were only supposed to be there 6 months? No responsible person ever said that. I remember it as we will stay as long as it takes.”

   I am glad you think that Donald Rumsfield isn’t a responsible person. He’s the one who stated we could draw down our forces to 30,00 by Fall 2003. As a reminder the war began on March 20, 2003. March 20, 2003 + six months is Sept 20, 2003. So according to Rummy we could draw down our forces from 143,000 for invasion to 30,000 for security operations.

   References on his quote are below. Please note that Cato is hardly a liberal source.
   http://www.time.com/time/world/printout/0,8816,461462,00.html
   http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb109/hb_109-55.pdf
   http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=17745&prog=zgp&proj=zusr

   “Fairly standard counter-insurgency doctine? According to who? Take that particular meme and put it where the sun don’t shine as well.”

   It’s a simple fact that being distant from a the population can fuel an insurgency. As Tomes points out in the very PDF (Relearning
   Counterinsurgency Warfare) you linked to, “Similarly, if the troops live in housing that differs from the locals’ housing, they will appear to be outsiders and thus make it more difficult for the people to accept them. This is currently a problem for Coalition forces in Iraq. As insurgents succeeded in attacks, Coalition forces moved into more isolated, secure billeting. Although this is prudent in the short term, in the long run it reinforces the perception of US forces as an occupying power. . . Insurgency causes, their mobilization resource, are not static. The
   movement will manipulate, even create, causes as the war progresses; initial
   causes often decline in importance as the struggle escalates. Counterinsurgencies must engage in reform, adaptation, or innovation activities to counter the political appeal of evolving causes. Counter-mobilization is a critical, strategic process in the campaign. In Iraq, we are now seeing the shifting of insurgent mobilization appeals from supporting the old regime to defending against foreign occupation to appealing to local tribal elements seeking preservation of paternal social norms. Counterinsurgency efforts must respond accordingly.”

   This is what Murtha pointing to and has suggested repositioning troops to Kuwait in order to continue support Iraqi forces while minimizing our psychological footprint in Iraq. So you very source points out the problem that Murtha did – the occupation helps fuel the insurgency.

   “I dislike memes intensely, so try your spin and talking points somewhere else.”

   What talking points? The fact that Rumsfield said we could draw down to 30,000 troops? I mean what talking points am I parroting?

   I would like to keep it friendly. We both know that Bush is going to draw down some troops this year. It’s the mid-terms and Bush wants to keep the house. The war is pretty unpopular right now because the administration didn’t properly set the expectations for the war in the beginning. To tell the truth I expect the draw down to be about 40,000 troops so that we are at about 115,000. If it doesn’t happen I will paypal you $10 (just to keep it friendly)
7. Gaius Arbo says:

   January 17, 2006 at 7:58 pm

   I have never seen the quote you refer to. I cannot pull up any direct quotes, only secondary references to something Rumsfeld “opined”. I did find this quote:

   Friday’s announcement marks the first time Rumsfeld has said troop levels will dip below that baseline.

   Rumsfeld has said repeatedly that troop reductions depend on political progress in Iraq and improvements in Iraq’s own security forces. Later, the defense secretary flew to Amman to visit a military training center outside the Jordanian capital where a small number of Iraqis are trained in commando skills.

   source:

   http://apnews.myway.com/article/20051223/D8ELVT1O0.html

   I am not a CI expert, nor do I particulary want to parse the 138 page document to refute the argument you raise. I do not believe we should be there one day longer than needed, but I dread the effect of pulling out too soon without achieving stabilty first. I do not want my son going back yet again into an even worse situation.

   There are many indications that the native fighters are becoming increasingly upset with the foriegn fighters. Would it not be reasonable to state that the imported terrorists are suffering from exactly the same problems that US forces are? Logic and evidence points to that.

   As far a spin – let’s leave that one alone, then. You have a viewpoint, I have another. I expect there will be some reductions this year, but the reports I am hearing is that the reductions are possible because it simply is not as bleak over there as the press would have you believe. I hear these things from direct sources with on the ground observations.

   But Murtha is a piece of work. He should know better than to make statements that will be used as propaganda. He uses his military past to get elected, but then endangers troops. That is not a good thing, sir. Not good at all.
8. Brian says:

   January 17, 2006 at 8:35 pm

   Gaius – Rummy said it. It’s not false – I cannot seem to find the original either though. I seem to recall it was a press briefing of some sort. For another reference
   http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/02/AR2005120201444.html?nav=rss_opinion/column

   Christopher Hitchens pointed out that the foreign fighters are no longer welcome in Iraq.

   http://www.slate.com/id/2134378/

   Favorite quote from the piece –

   “For months, coalition soldiers in Iraq had been telling anyone who would care to listen that they had noticed a new phenomenon: heavy fire that they didn’t have to duck. On analysis, this turned out to be shooting or shelling apparently “incoming” from one “insurgent position” but actually directed at another one.”

   So this is a VERY good thing. Iraqis are fiercely proud people (it’s the whole cradle of civilization etc) They really don’t like a bunch of Saudis coming in a fucking with their country. In many ways this is very helpful as it gives Iraqis someone else to focus on. The coalition forces do no randomly bomb crowded markets. Terrorists do.

   I don’t have believe the media reports either. My brother just got back from a year long deployment in Iraq. My initial point is that the draw downs are going to occur because domestic reasons (which is what Murtha said in addition to his other crap.)

   Keep in mind I thought this was good war to fight – I am hardly a liberal. I also think the Bush Doctrine (We will no longer tolerate tyrants because it suits our political or economic aims. Democracies are preferred) is the biggest thing coming out this adminstration. That’s a really big deal and a total about face of recent years.

   Murtha has gotten attacked over his plan which I suspect will look very similar to the administration’s own . Keep in mind the 2006 mid term elections. Murtha has done good work for veterans and has been a good friend to the common soldier. The attacks we now see ala Swift Boat style are atrocious. He can have his opinion about the war. No WMDs, therefore the “flawed policy wrapped in illusion.”

   I mean Rummy said, “We know exactly where the WMDs are.” Well no we didn’t. It turns out we relied on intel from the source Curveball (deemed a nut by the CIA but ignored by the administration) and from the Pentagon’s OSP (Office of Special Plans) run by Doug Feith.

   WMDs weren’t the only reason for going to war in Iraq – they just were the reason sold to the American people.

   I agree with Rummy approach for re-adjusting our force structure after the Cold War. It’s also apparent he has no idea how to run an occupation.
9. Gaius Arbo says:

   January 17, 2006 at 11:27 pm

   I don’t think anyone has any good ideas how to run an occupation. I think our troops are (as they have to) making it up as they go.

   If Rumsfeld actually did say that, I would bet it was couched in terms of “if everything goes perfectly” terms. Nothing ever does.

   Still, I think there are some good signs, some troubling ones. In other words, life as usual.

   I think attacking Murtha for his service in Viet Nam – or questioning it – is bullshit and irrelevant. I am not doing that.

   I do think he is an ass for making public statements that are bound to get heavy airplay among our enemies.

   I have no idea what your background is, so I have no idea how many soldiers you know. If you know any, you know the kind of leader they have respect for. Those that they love are ones who take care of their soldiers first. A good Commander makes sure the soldiers are fed and taken care of before the officers and non-coms are. That is their measure.

   Murtha could care less about the safety of those troops so long as he gets his face on TV and his bullshit into the media. Do you think they don’t see it that way? I have listened to them. I know what they think of him. It ain’t pretty. I doubt even one soldier from his district would vote for him.