Murtha has it right...

Up until Murtha disagreed with the administration no one had a problem with him. According to everyone, he had pretty much been on the right side of the military--something that amazed Republicans and bloggers around the country because he was a Democrat.

That all changed when he, who was respected by all and trusted by the military, used his experience and what his military sources were telling him to the forefront of the debate on Iraq.

And I just want to ask, what the heck is the problem here?

Michelle Malkin has the story of two veterans speaking their minds to Rep. Murtha and Rep. Moran on the topic of Iraq and Murtha's comments here and here. (Murtha's comments via The Political Teen. (She has video. Mudville Gazette has the transcripts.)

For the record, if there had been a town hall meeting where a Republican spoke and was confronted by veterans, the blog world would be screaming conspiracy and that they were plants. Then, there would be the questions about the veterans and if they really served and then--finally--there would be the discussion about in what capacity they served...if they ever saw combat. There would be a disgusting display of muddying the waters for political gain...

The Republicans have a history of doing this to veterans who disagree with them and we know that members of the current administration don't have the wherewith-all to deal with different idea, if they did, there would be no need for loyalty oaths or forcing those who support other candidates to leave public events.

But it was Democrats holding town meetings and so everyone was allowed in and allowed to talk. The response of the blog world? A vile, hateful spewing forth of name calling. A game of distraction played so you won't notice that much of what Rep. Murtha says is true.

Here is one calling him a terrorist. This one calls him a fool and a media hound. Surrendercrat, coward, and this one calls him Micheal Moorertha. (Remember when people who thought they were witty and funny had to work for an audience? The Internet isn't always a good thing...)

What is Murtha's crime? He said the military was worn out and broken. He said he wouldn't join today and that young people looking at the military today were justified in saying that they didn't want to serve.

The equipment the military is using is being used way more than anticipated. Much of it needs to be replaced or repaired. These things have not been done. There are plenty of examples of soldiers not having things they need to do the job we sent them to do. Remember the unit that refused to deliver the jet fuel to another unit calling it a "suicide mission?" How about the Marines that didn't have enough "weapons, communications gear, or properly outfitted vehicles?"

Recently, we discovered that the Marines don't have enough body armor. Wait! Before you tell me the guys don't want to wear it, I get that some argue that that is the case but the Marines have decided they want it and they can't manage to get it...procurement problems, money problems--problems.

How can you argue that the military isn't broken when the Marines say they need body armor and can't get it? At the very least, the military equipment is broken.

Now, on to the military.

Much has been made about the fact that Rep. Murtha said he wouldn't join now and that he thought young people were justified in not choosing to join the military. Well, as so often is pointed out to me, we have an all volunteer service so young people are always justified in not choosing to join the military.

As for Murtha, he left college and went to fight in Korea. He served in Vietnam and was wounded and won medals. These are not signs of someone who is a coward. So, why would he not want to join the military today? How about the leadership? I think that is it.

We constantly hear how all the troops requested were sent to Iraq. Except when we hear differently. Except when we hear different:

"In an unusual closed-door meeting on Capitol Hill last week, Virginia's John Warner...sat across the table from 10 military officers chosen for their experience on the battlefield rather than in the political arena.  Warner rounded up the battalion commanders to get at what the military calls `ground truth'-the unvarnished story of what's going on in Iraq.  ...  According to two sources with knowledge of the meeting, the Army and Marine officers were blunt.  In contrast to the Pentagon's stock answer that there are enough troops on the ground in Iraq, the commanders said that they not only needed more manpower but had also repeatedly asked for it.  Indeed, military sources told TIME that as recently as August 2005"--a few months ago--"a senior military official requested more troops but got turned down flat."  (link here) Emphasis Mine...

The stock answer to this has been that "we need to listen to the Generals."

Well, the Generals are political. Rumsfeld and his theory of warfare equals leaner numbers of troops assuming more risk. He has made it clear that he does not want to send more troops. So, why would a General, concerned with his career request more troops? They wouldn't. But the commanders who are given things to do, tasks and objectives to accomplish know that they need more to do those things. They ask and the political Generals tell them no.

This is a sign of broken leadership.

Fallujah is a sign of broken leadership. The place we have cleaned out three times is the place where two Marines were killed yesterday. This is a direct result of not having enough troops to keep a place we have already cleaned up safe. There aren't enough of our guys and we dismissed the Iraqi Army and police so there isn't anyone to keep the bad guys out--again. This is a direct result of broken leadership. And it is a sign of broken leadership right up to the very top--to the President--who gave the guy who dismissed the Iraqi Army and the Iraqi police the Medal of Freedom.

The leadership of the military is broken.

It is funny, a few months back when I said the military wasn't making it's recruitment goals and that this was directly related to how things were going in Iraq a bunch of people laughed at me. They told me that this was not the reason. They told me that the economy was good. That jobs were plentiful and so naturally recruitment was down.

Now, suddenly, General Pace says it's Murtha's fault.

"That's damaging to recruiting, it's damaging to morale of the troops who are deployed, and it's damaging to the morale of their families who believe in what they're doing to serve this country. We have almost 300 million Americans who are being protected by 2.4 (million) volunteer active, Guard and Reserve members. We must recruit to that force. When a respected leader like Mr. Murtha, who has spent 37 extremely honorable years as a Marine, fought in two wars, has served the country extremely well in the Congress of the United States, when a respected individual like that says what he said, and 18- and 19-year-olds look to their leadership to determine how they are expected to act, they can get the wrong message." (Link here)

Sure, we are sending guys back for fourth tours, their equipment is old and busted and not getting repaired, we are using stop-loss, we don't pay these guys shit, they are getting blown up and killed every day, we can't train them because the equipment is old and busted and in Iraq and Rep. Murtha is the reason why recruiting is in a bit of a slump. Yeah, OK!

Lt. Col. Chris Cleaver, spokesman for the Pennsylvania National Guard at Fort Indiantown Gap, said "there are some deployment concerns."

Cleaver said some guard units had to leave equipment in Iraq when they returned to the United States, which could cause training problems here.

But Cleaver also said most of the 2,100 Guard troops now deployed with the 2nd Brigade Combat Team can't be sent back to Iraq for a second tour of duty anyway, because of regulations that limit redeployment.

The attacking of Murtha by Republicans and the blog world is a distraction. It is politics. It is slight-of-hand, bait-and-switch--it is wrong. Even if you think Murtha is wrong, it doesn't make him a traitor or a coward but they keep yelling that in the hopes that it will seep into the cacophony of background noise that is the blogosphere and 24 hour news and by sheer repetitiveness become defacto truth.

It won't. It won't because it isn't true. It won't because Rep. Murtha isn't the reason the will of the American people isn't waning because of people like Murtha it is waning because the administration didn't listen, didn't plan, didn't execute this war correctly. They didn't set expectations correctly. They manipulated the truth.

If support at home isn't all it is cracked up to be, don't look at people like Murtha, look at the President and his administration.

Chris

Comments

[HC]

Chris it is the facts on the ground that are driving Public Opinion. We were told by many at this blog that we won the Iraqi War so many times my head is spinning. Americans are still dying at an alarming rate even after the last Election. bush needs to find a path to victory or admit his War of Choice is a Failure and get us out.

[Matt Hurley]

I honestly don't even know where to begin to correct you...there are just too many spots that my head spins just trying to decide where to start...

[JFH]

Heh, I had the same thoughts, Matt... Lisa, you really need to read more milblogs and less Murtha talking points.

[Chris]

JFH I am hurt--Lisa is the one vomiting--I wrote this--the other one--and I have to say, I didn't read any Murtha talking points--like it or not these are all my own thoughts...

and Matt, that is why I wrote it--to see your head spin...

[Bombtruck]

Hopefully Chris you're not shocked General Pace said what he said. Remember, folks like me get told we have zero right to question Murtha because he's been there/done that and we haven't. Well, now here's General Pace. His credibility is no less than Murtha's, and let's face it, he's deal with THIS war directly. Murtha is dealing with it from his Vietnam experience and with NoPlan Nan hanging over his shoulder.

And just so we're clear, since you keep saying 'Republican Attack on Murtha', if he's gonna stick his neck out there with his comments in a country where the first amendment right of free speech is held above all, just why is it I can't question Murtha's statements or his motives for making them just as you question Gen. Pace's or the Administration's? Because I'm not a decorated soldier? Let's think about that. Murtha's going public to tell US that the war is unwinnable and our troops on the ground are the real problem. Why can't I question that again, ESPECIALLY when I can go to blogs like Michael Yon's, who is there with a combat unit on patrol, and get an on-the-ground assessment that doesn't match up with what the almighty Murtha(or HC)the ever ill-informed HC) says?

[Chris]

I never said you couldn't question him..of course you can..what I said was that it was unfair to label him a coward or a traitor and that it was in everyone's interest to listen to those who have had experience...that there was a way to do it--questioning Murtha isn't like questioning me, Bombtruck...all I said was that he should be afforded the respect he deserves...

And Pace can argue with whom he likes, thats all fine.

But why is it, when someone disagrees with a Republican they are a traitor and a coward? Why can't there be more than one opinion on an issue? Why can't it be that most of us are patriots and want what is best for our country wnd merely disagree on the means to get there?

As for Pace, it was in this same interview he said he expected the Saddam loyalists and insurgents to disappear of the next year--BANG! 28 American soldiers dead and over 130 Iraqis in the three days following his statement...

Oh and the war is unwinable from a strictly military perspective--this is an insurgency bordering on a civil war where religion and oil are major sources of contention--you can't win that type of conflict with mere military might--you have to bring all of the tools of the American way of life to bear and we have not done that.

You realize that we have authorized no more money for reconstruction efforts in Iraq and that the money that was supposed to be spent on that has been directed to security efforts instead, right? In a conflict like this the job of the military is to stabalize the situation while we build and reconstruct things and make the water run and teach them to govern--instead we didn't stabilize the security situation, we haven't built anythin, we haven't made the water and sewers work and we have allowed them to put a theocratic form of government in...

We are not doing this right...

[USMC Steve]

I beg to differ with you as regards the "built nothing and done nothing" bit Chris. A Missouri Engineer unit just returned from Iraq, and among their list of accomplishment was the building and or repair of at least 10 bridges in that country. A Kansas Guard Engineer unit which recently returned spent the year rebuilding the water system and sewer system in (I believe) Anbar province, but I am not certain of the province name right now.

As for their government, we have not interfered with any of their elections or who they could nominate or vote for. We have maintained security from a distance over the polling places while the Iraqi military and police forces did close in security, and nationwide, there were almost NO instances of anyone trying to disrupt those elections. Over 60 percent of the population voted, including all the religious groups, and that is progress any way a rational person looks at it. Could there be more, yes. Remember that any project with humans involved in it will have its moments of inefficiency. The more hands on it, the more likely that it will get somewhat screwed up. Just like in this country or any other.

What is up with Lisa and the puking by the way?

[USMC Steve]

I forgot part of my other posting. I don't regard Murtha as a traitor, but he is a political opportunist and a two faced bum. Why did he demand an immediate pull out (a la Vietnam) and then right after that turn around and vote for a resolution to stay the course in Iraq? Even the most liberal out there should see the inconsistincies displayed in these two actions. It is called hypocrisy. Odd how he was a total hawk when it suited his political needs and now he is doing a 180 in order to get publicity. When does he face reelection by the way? Could it be 2006? That he saw the elephant, I will not argue, and he did his time in uniform, which I have no problem with. What I have a problem with is his continued statements on whether he would enlist today, which have no merit, since he couldn't if he wanted to, and if he was a 20 year old today, what makes him think he would be qualified? Standards now are much higher than they were when he went in the service. And if I want to know if the Army is broken and living hand to mouth, I would ask those IN THE ARMY now. They would be able to better assess the state of their services, because all that would trickle down to them.

I question his integrity, character and intelligence, not his patriotism. And whether or not any of you have served or are war heroes, you are entitled to have an opinion, but I expect it to be an informed one. Trouble is, that requires effort, and too many Americans won't put it forth.

[Chris]

Hey USMC Steve--don't know what is with the puking but I asked her to take pictures for the blog so you can judge for yourself...:0)

I consider myself informed but, to quote Matt, your mileage may vary...I love that phrase...

And why do you continue to put forth that Murtha called for an immediate withdrawal? He did not...he said as soon as practicable which is not the same as immediate--not at all--I believe he even used 6 months--

I disagree with pulling out in 6 months but you can't argue that the military guys have always talked to him and that he has been an advocate for the military so maybe where you see hypocrisy others see that the guys who have always talked to him are telling him different things...

As for the elections, it serves to purpose to go to Iraq and get rid of Saddam and then allow a government to be put in place that is in bed with or more accurately a part of the Iranian government...we could have brokered a better deal with the tribes and the different religious groups--we have moved Iran into the middle of Iraq and that is good for no one...

Chris: "Why can't there be more than one opinion on an issue?"

ME: Well, I see only one "right" answer to this question - Is it victory or cut-and-run? Hint: The answer is victory...

I don't think Murtha is a traitor or a coward. I think he's wrong. And I have no problem facing myself in the mirror knowing that he and many others like him put on the uniform and defneded my right to say he's wrong.

The problem with the "Republicans call Murtha a coward/traitor" line is that not all Republicans do so...there isn't a position paper sponsored by the GOP on this subject. HALLIBURTON! hasn't sent me my check, so I stopped reading their emails...

[Matt Hurley]

The above treatise is mine...

[Matt Hurley]

Chris: "Why can't it be that most of us are patriots and want what is best for our country wnd merely disagree on the means to get there?"

ME: Because some of your kind aren't patriots and they aren't interested in what is best for the country despite the means of getting there.

Look, I really don't like questioning anybody's patriotism, but really, you have to wonder what some of these people are thinking...

[Matt Hurley]

Chris: "As for Pace, it was in this same interview he said he expected the Saddam loyalists and insurgents to disappear of the next year--BANG! 28 American soldiers dead and over 130 Iraqis in the three days following his statement..."

ME: It ain't next year already is it? Where did 2006 go???

[Matt Hurley]

Chris: "Oh and the war is unwinable from a strictly military perspective--this is an insurgency bordering on a civil war where religion and oil are major sources of contention--you can't win that type of conflict with mere military might--you have to bring all of the tools of the American way of life to bear and we have not done that."

ME: That would really be imperialism of the cultural variety...I thought your kind was against that...

I think you are seeing the smartest strategy possible being played out in Iraq. There is more to the plan than just the military/security front. There is a political track and an economic track. And if you don't think there is progress being made on these fornts, you really need to get better information...I'd recommend getting on CENTCOM's mailing list for one...

[Matt Hurley]

Chris: "we haven't built anythin, we haven't made the water and sewers work and we have allowed them to put a theocratic form of government in..."

ME: WHAT!?!?!? Seriously, you need to go visit CENTCOM...

http://www.centcom.mil/CENTCOMNews/release_list.asp

And don't just take what they have posted for their last five entries...check out the archive.

[Matt Hurley]

Chris: "I consider myself informed but, to quote Matt, your mileage may vary...I love that phrase..."

ME: Flattery will get you...somewhere... :)

[Matt Hurley]

Chris: "As for the elections, it serves to purpose to go to Iraq and get rid of Saddam and then allow a government to be put in place that is in bed with or more accurately a part of the Iranian government...we could have brokered a better deal with the tribes and the different religious groups--we have moved Iran into the middle of Iraq and that is good for no one..."

ME: I'm just not seeing evidence of this. Can you show me some proof of this claim? I've heard of Shiites stopping this sort of thing, not encouraging it...

[USMC Steve]

I did misstate that. I should have said that he demanded the withdrawals BEGIN immediately, and that we could not possibly win in Iraq. That ought to have really made the guys on the sharp end feel better about their efforts.

And my point about the Army being broken is just that - that he has NOT been talking to people about it, he made that decision for himself. Enlistments are up, funding will be if the budget ever gets passed, morale among the troops is really great, as is demonstrated by the massive number of troops trying to go back for additional tours, both active, reserve, and guardsmen.

And when pressed for details he offers none at all. He expects us to just take his word for it.

What do you base your statement on the government of Iraq being sympathetic to Iran? I would like to do some digging on that one, because they have been enemies for generations. This intrigues me.

[Chris]

again we can not win this war militarily--the problems in Iraq are not only security and military problems...what he said was redeploy to surrounding areas and make the Iraqis stand on their own--now you can twist it anyway you want but these sentiments have nothing to do with the competency of our men and women...

as to enlistmentsd being up--link please because Pete Pace just said recruitment was an issue--oh and it was Murtha's fault--and those TRYING to go back for additional tours link please again--

the broken down equipment see the link above--and if you read the thing it will tell you that we can't fix this in five years time--that we are that far behind and that the equipment is that broken--

and I will find you the links on the connection between Iran and the government--but I am going to eat dinner first...

[Matt Hurley]

Chris: "what he said was redeploy to surrounding areas and make the Iraqis stand on their own"

ME: If this is really Murtha's plan, I sure hope he wasn't in charge of planning any wars when he was in the service...this is a really stupid plan...

The whole point is to get the Iraqis to stand up (as they stand up, we'll stand down - sound familiar?) So, obviously, the Iraqis aren't fully ready to do that...so Murtha's plan is to guarentee civil war rather than just have the remote possibility of one...

[Matt Hurley]

Chris: "as to enlistmentsd being up--link please because Pete Pace just said recruitment was an issue--oh and it was Murtha's fault"

ME: Pace never said that. Any of it. Show me where he said that enlistment was down...

[Chris]

Matt--can we have this argument in one place? :0)

[Matt Hurley]

Chris: "can we have this argument in one place?"

ME: Not really my style now is it? :)

[Chris]

Floats like a butterfly --stings like a bee

[HC]

Righties

Stop calling Premature Victory and win the Damn War. You and the Administration declared Premature Victory so many times that the majority of the American People do not believe you anymore.

Stop the Prematuring and Just Win it and Prove us Lefties wrong. I will be the first say I was wrong. I want to be wrong on this War so rub my face in it by winning it.

Do we have a deal?