Monday, February 19, 2007

Losing my religion over Murtha

My sense of civility .... I hate to call people names or to presume bad faith on the part of people who disagree with me. I really try to avoid the "m-bat" word and I do not believe that people who oppose the war in Iraq are unpatriotic or dishonoring the troops.

But, for the life of me, I can't understand how Jack Murtha's "slow bleed" strategy can be called anything but despicable. We have placed young men and women in danger. Whether or not that was a good idea, it is where they are. Trying to end the war by hampering the ability of the military to fight it is a number of things. It is almost surely an unconstitutional usurpation of the President's authority as commander-in-chief. It reflects an irresponsible disregard of the consequences for Iraq and the Middle East of an abrupt American departure.

But, worst of all, by hampering the ability of the military to fight the war as they believe it ought to be fought, it increases the danger for the troops that are there. That does dishonor the troops. That is unpatriotic.

And what drives it is political cowardice. Murtha and those who support him don't want to accept the consequences of a vote to end the war by defunding it. When Iraq falls apart and the blood really starts to run, they don't want people pointing at them. I think Russ Feingold is wrong on the war, but at least he has the courage of his convictions.

Maybe someone should invite Murtha to a hotel room and offer him a bribe.


Anonymous said...

If you take him at his word (a stretch, I admit), he believes that our presence in Iraq is causing the violence there. His policies make sense, given that belief.

Rick Esenberg said...

No. What would make sense then is to vote to defund the war by a date certain. "Slowly bleeding" the troops so the administration has to fold seems likely to trade lives for political expendiency.

Anonymous said...

That's a really unfortunate name given to his policy. Most people will hear "slow bleed" and that will translate into soldiers being strung out and left incredible vulnerable. It won't be slow bleeding the policy, it'll be slow bleeding the men and women there.

Anonymous said...

Murtha is a traitor. There is no other name for a vet that would leave his brothers-in-arms in danger.

Calling him unpatriotic is doing the bastard a favor.

Jay Bullock said...

If I read Murtha's proposal right--and since I'm looking at his words, I think I am--he's asking that any troops to be redeployed "must have the equipment and the training and they must be certified by the Chiefs of the various services before they can go back."

What's wrong with that? After four years of this administration's overextending our military, Murtha gets called a traitor because he wants our troops to be adequately trained and equipped? I don't get it, Rick.

Rick Esenberg said...

As I understand it, he wants them to train with the equipment that they will have in Iraq and that's not possible because they don't take that stuff out of theater. He's requiring a level of readiness-perfection that the military itself does not require in the real world. This isn't about readiness - as Murtha concedes.