Way back during World War One, before Americans finished their huge breakfasts and decided to join in, there was a British general named Haig. Haig was noted for his cavalier disregard for for his soldiers - during the Battle of the Somme, some 500,000 of his troops became casualties for a few scant kilometers of ground.
The thing is, even military hawks (if they have any sense), have to recognise eventually that sustaining casualties for gains that are tiny or nonexistant is not an effective strategy- and those that do not deserve to live in the pages of historical infamy. Haig went down in the books as "The Butcher of The Somme". One wonders where in the pages of infamy they will find a space for George Bush, Dick Cheney and their sycophants? One wonders, too, how many of them even know about Haig or would be able to apply the lesson even if they did.
Which brings me, by not too much of a narrative leap, to the ongoing tale of Rep. John Murtha and his various detractors or supporters.
Unless you've been dead, you've probably heard by now that Rep. Murtha has proposed a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq within the next six months, while retaining a regional presence capable of intervention against (presumably external) threats. I can only apologise for not writing about this before - real life pressures on my time and all that stuff.
Now Rep.Murtha has historically been a fairly hawkish chap and has worked well in his district to bring defense contracts and work into the area. Indeed, a quick look at his campaign contributors will show that he is a favourite of the military-industrial establishment, with all the usual suspects giving him campaign money. He is also a 37 year Marine veteran, having been awarded the Bronze Star, two Purple Hearts and a Distinguised Service Medal and retiring as a Colonel. Indeed, he was the first Vietnam combat vet to be elected to Congress and is an influential thinker on defense matters, being ranking member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. One can only imagine that someone like Murtha, having supported the war in Iraq back in 2002 and 2003, has become increasingly disillusioned as time has worn by and the Bush administration has pursued it's course with Haig-like singlemindedness and ineptitude.
So John Murtha did what his patriotism and his expertise said he should - he spoke out. In so doing, he has become a singular case of "comes the time, comes the man". Fox News and liberal pundits alike agree that he has stirred the debate of policy in the war against terror and it's sickly twin the War in Iraq at a cusp moment. Even The Corner on National Review recognises that this is no limp-wristed efete intellectual. This is a crusty old warrior saying what he feels he must:
CNN didn't air the entire thing, but as I listened to it, I could feel the ground shift. Murtha, as you know, is not a Pelosi-style Chardonnay Democrat; he's a crusty retired career Marine who reminds me of the kinds of beer-slugging Democrats we used to have before the cultural left took over the party. Murtha, a conservative Dem who voted for the war, talked in detail about the sacrifices being borne by our soldiers and their families, and about his visits out to Walter Reed to look after the maimed, and how we've had enough, it's time to come home. He was hell on the president too.
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.
Which puts the sycophants in the unenviable position of having to say things like this:
Cutting and running is surrender, no matter who proposes it. I don't care if Murtha has a chest full of medals -- telling the national media that American troops can't handle Islamofascist terrorists and must be withdrawn from their range of action is cowardice.
And be left trying (or not trying at all, as the case may be) to explain why a decorated hero would suddenly become a coward when it isn't his own ass on the line at all. To say it can happen to others isn't enough. They have to explain their charge specifically about Murtha with reference to his own history or be left exposed as intellectual cowards themselves. Their other charge is that just being a veteran does not make one into Von Clauswitz - sure, but neither does being Commander in Chief ensure that you won't be as stupid and unheeding as Field Marshall Haig.
Still and all, Murtha's proposal has stirred up the debate. Regular readers will have already recalled that just a couple of days ago I posted about proposals for an Iraqi exit strategy by William Lind, the noted rightwing expert on counter-insurgency warfare. Larry Johnson, another who makes his living from his counter-terrorism expertise, agrees with Murtha too. Lind and Murtha dovetail nicely together, as my colleague Fester has already noted - and one must give credence to the accord in opinions of two such noted experts from both Left and Right whether that prospect is palatable or not, whether it accords with one's own prejudices or not. They cannot be easily dismissed.
Which is why the actions of Congressional Republicans are so distasteful. As my colleague Shamanic notes at Simianbrain, they have met a sensible and impassioned argument with more of their same old - "Treason, abandonment, 9/11, terrorists will win, blah blah." She admits that such empty rhetoric leaves her flat even although she is a supporter of "stay-the-course (but do it right)" policies.
Even worse, however, they have no made a mockery of the debate by forwarding a parody of Murtha's proposal. Their proposal calls for an immediate withdrawal, no plan and no provisions for the future.
GOP leaders decided to act little more than 24 hours after Murtha, a hawkish Democrat with close ties to the military, said the time had come to pull out the troops. By forcing the issue to a vote, Republicans tried to place many Democrats in a politically unappealing position — whether to side with Murtha and expose themselves to criticism, or oppose him and risk angering the voters that polls show want an end to the conflict. But Democrats claimed the effort had backfired because their party members planned to vote against withdrawal — and the GOP version of Murtha's resolution.
To an extent, the GOP will succeed even with this Democrat show of solidarity. Too many of the Democrat leaders have endorsed variants of "stay the course" - it would take immense acts of courage on their parts to now stand up and support Rep. Murtha. The sad truth is that the Democratic leaders have, by and large, wanted to have their cake and eat it too - opposing the war without actually opposing it and trying hard to sit on the fence whenever possible. It's understandable because making a choice meant standing up to be shown wrong (which would count against them at the polls) but then again, voters like people with some gumption and after Bush the voters are going to want someone they know can admit to a mistake.
Maybe that's why one of the most interesting thoughts to come out of this debate is not about Iraq but about politics at home. The Democrats have long been looking for a down-home, centrist but populist, blue collar, charismatic figure - a latter day Bill Clinton - to put in front of the electorate in 2008. Perhaps that figure has been in plain sight the whole time. It will be interesting to see whether John Murtha's profile stays high because if so, then I wouldn't bet against him as a write-in.
No comments:
Post a Comment