The blogosphere was abuzz last week following the comments of Pennsylvania Rep. John Murtha. Murtha is a hawkish Democrat who originally backed the Iraq invasion but recently called for called for the quick withdrawal of US troops (not an 'immediate' one as some critics and even some journalists have wrongly attributed to him).
“We’re the targets,” Murtha said in a speech in the Capitol. “We’re uniting the enemy against us. And there’s terrorism all over the world that there wasn’t before we went into Iraq.
“This is a policy wrapped in an illusion.”
This could be more a reflection with the hawk's disillusionment with the way the occupation has been bungled since the start. Though I suppose such a frustration could only occur if you thought it ever had a chance of succeeding in the first place.
I've never been a fan of Murtha and one incident isn't going to magically change my mind (unlike some hypocrites who attack him with cheap shots like 'Hero to zero').
But some reaction has been telling. Dennis, over at the Moderate Republican blog, offered this comment.
You don't have to agree with an immediate withdrawl from Iraq-I don't. But you have to respect his words because he knows of what he speaks. Murtha is a Marine and knows war. If this guy who isn't a Michael Moore/MoveOn lefty, says that we should consider getting out of Iraq, maybe the Bushies should listen. Anyway, if the Bushies were paying attention, they would see Murtha wasn't saying we should totally cut and run... he was calling for withdrawal at 'the earliest practicable date.'
I want to focus on this one particular phrase:
If this guy who isn't a Michael Moore/MoveOn lefty, says that we should consider getting out of Iraq...
I'll qualify my comments by stating that I am not a big fan of Michael Moore or of MoveOn. I find them both extremely shrill and obnoxious. I think they're fairly good at preaching to the choir but I doubt they've convinced any of the undecided.
That said, I find the whole credibility thing curious.
Rep. Murtha voted to authorize President Bush to invade Iraq; like many other Democrats, he was complicit in the launching of this aggression. Now, he changes his mind about the wisdom of that excursion. What was so unexpected about what's happened that caused him to change his mind? And more cogently, WHY was it unexpected to him?
How is it that a guy who was complicit in launching the war has more credibility when he says 'withdraw' than a person or a group who opposed the war from day one? How is it that the judgement of a guy who says 'My bad' is revered but a man and a group who were right all along are blithely dismissed as loony 'lefties'? This is a sentiment I've seen quite a bit since Murtha's comments and it baffles me.
I do not criticize Murtha for changing his mind. Sure, maybe if he'd thought as carefully about it before.... well never mind. But I respect him for admitting his mistake, the refusal of which has been the only consistent principle of the Bush administration. At least Murtha's finally seen this debacle for what it is. Better late than never, right?
Maybe. Maybe not. I'm not quite so sure. There are no mulligans, no 'take backs' when it comes to war. That's why they should be launched only as an absolute last resort. Not because you think there might possibly be some undefined conceivable danger in 10 or 20 or 50 years time.
I'm glad Murtha changed his mind and realized what a mess he helped get us into. I'll give Murtha a smidge of credit for admitting his error. Just not the nearly as much as everyone else seems to think he deserves.
I suppose I should be happy every time a pro-war person sees the light. But I can't help but thinking that if the pro-war position hadn't had such overwhelming support in 2003, President Bush might not have dared launch the aggression in the first place. I know it's a little arrogant of me; I'm not right all the time so I shouldn't hold it against others. It's just frustrating when some people take so long to see what's seemed blindingly obvious for years. I know it comes across as smug, but I can't help it.
Murtha's ambivalence seems to mirror that of the American public. Right before the invasion, some 70 percent of Americans thought the war was a great idea. Now, only 35 percent polled thought that US troops should be kept in large numbers until a democracy is established (a prospect which only 32 percent were confident of). While most Americans were eager to rush into this unnecessary war on a wave of bravado, machismo and 'patriotism' (ie: the replacement for critical thinking), support has dropped once the realized what was really involved in a war and occupation. As they say, no one wants to know how sausage is made.
The response to Murtha did, however, demonstrate even more conservative hypocrisy. While the right normally advocates the propaganda slogan of 'Support our troops and veterans and their families' as a means to silence dissent, they're eager to make exceptions for those who refuse to cease dissent. The Swift Boat smears against veteran John Kerry (hardly a revoultionary firebrand). The 'media whore' charges against mom of a soldier Cindy Sheehan. This was no different.
Before his comments, the hawkish Murtha was a 'war hero' and a 'decorated veteran,' someone to be admired even though he was a Democrat. He reportedly even used to advise Dick Cheney on military matters. Now, some conservatives attack him with cheap shots like 'Hero to zero.'
A pathetic Congresswoman from Ohio read a letter on the floor of the House calling Murtha a "coward." Even more pathetically, she later claimed that she "[n]ever wished to attack Congressman Murtha."
But no, "disagreement, argument and debate" were welcome, according to Vice-President Dick Cheney.
Except from 'lefites,' 'cowards,' 'media whores' and those who have 'dishonored their country.'
Update: In a Nov. 30 interview with the BBC World Service's Newshour program, journalist Seymour Hersch theorizes that the rabidly pro-military Murtha may have been echoing the views of the military hierarchy who feels that their views are being ignored or otherwise not heard by the White House.
2nd update: This piece in Alternet echoes some of my comments.
2 comments:
Hey Brian, dunno if I can figure out how to leave a comment, since I've consistently failed before. You say war should be an absolute last resort, and I respect your position. But isn't one result of that position the reluctance of Western powers to intervene in places like Darfur where they could save many lives? I know you have posted often about this, but I seem to detect a certain obfuscation. Doesn't it come down to whether some government is willing to send troops to kill and be killed to stop worse violence? i.e. to go to war. But if you wait for 'last resort,' the result, as people of Darfur have experienced, is that they wait indefinitely. Cheers - RC
Bob,
It looks like you've figured out how to leave comments so give yourself a little credit.
Your question is a good one. I've consistently maintained that I consider military intervention to stop genocide to be legitimate. I've explicitly said before (though perhaps not recently) that I consider genocide to be, by definition, a last resort.
The reason I generally oppose war as anything other than a last resort is because of the law of unintended consequences, because of the havoc and devastation war inevitably brings. However, genocide pretty much IS the worst case scenario. War kills lots of people but so does genocide.
The problem in Darfur isn't the lack of appetite for military intervention, be it by Americans, Europeans or even othe Africans. Witness the US in Iraq, France in Ivory Coast and Uganda and Rwanda in the DR Congo. The difference is that the US, France, Uganda and Rwanda have economic incentives to intervene in those places but there is no economic incentive to intervene in Darfur.
The only country with a possible incentive is Chad, because all of the Darfurian refugees who are spilling over into its territory. But the Chadian military is weak and disunited.
Post a Comment