Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

War on Iraq

Will Murtha's Bold Call on Iraq Make Washington Flinch?

By David Sirota, WorkingForChange.com. Posted January 4, 2007.


It will be interesting to watch D.C.'s chickenhawk pundit class lecture a Marine veteran and Vietnam war hero about why we should not prevent a military escalation that troops on the ground say they don't want.
Advertisement

A little while back, I flagged a Walter Pincus piece from the Washington Post about how Democrats could begin exerting real legislative oversight of the Iraq conundrum, without cutting off funding for troops already in the field. The Washington Serious People who either got us into this war or who didn't try to stop us from getting into this war are working hard to make sure Congress doesn't actually do anything other than pass non-binding resolutions when it comes to Iraq. They want us to believe that Congress should not use its one real power -- the power of the purse -- to get things under control, and that to exert such power automatically means we would be leaving our soldiers naked and unarmed in a Baghdad shooting gallery.

But as Pincus showed, there are many ways to use the power of the purse without putting our troops in more danger. And now, Rep. Jack Murtha is taking up the call. Arianna Huffington has the exclusive:

When we asked about the likelihood of the president sending additional troops to Iraq, Murtha was adamant. "The only way you can have a troop surge," he told us, "is to extend the tours of people whose tours have already been extended, or to send back people who have just gotten back home." He explained at length how our military forces are already stretched to the breaking point, with our strategic reserve so depleted we are unprepared to face any additional threats to the country. So does that mean there will be no surge? Murtha offered us a "with Bush anything is possible" look, then said: "Money is the only way we can stop it for sure." To this end, Murtha, the incoming Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, is planning to hold wide-ranging hearings, starting January 17th, that will focus on the depleted state of our military readiness, as well as contractor corruption in Iraq and Afghanistan. The goal is to turn the spotlight on how drained the military has become, and on how any talk of a troop surge is utterly irresponsible (as well as strategically misguided). "The public," he said repeatedly, "is already ahead of us on all this. He says he wants to "fence the funding," denying the president the resources to escalate the war, instead using the money to take care of the soldiers as we bring them home from Iraq "as soon as we can." (Emphasis added).

I'm looking forward to watching D.C.'s chickenhawk pundit class lecture a Marine veteran and Vietnam war hero about why we should not prevent a military escalation that troops on the ground say they don't want and instead better fund health care for soldiers wounded in battle.

The internal politics of this are going to be really interesting. I'm guessing (with no firsthand knowledge) that House Appropriations Chairman Dave Obey (D-WI) -- one of the earliest critics of the war -- is going to be supportive of Murtha's efforts. And I'm also guessing that Senate Appropriations Chairman Robert Byrd (D-WV), one of the most famous critics of the war, is also going to be supportive, meaning this kind of funding restriction is going to have a very real chance of passing over the expected White House congressional Republican opposition. The X-factor will be the Steny Hoyer/Joe Lieberman faction who think being "tough" on national security means sending more troops needlessly to die in a quagmire that the military experts admit has no military solution.

As a sidenote, I'm still sorry to see that Murtha didn't win the election over Hoyer for Majority Leader, but knowing the way the House works, I've always thought that he could be just as powerful -- if not more powerful -- from his current position on the Appropriations Committee, especially if he was willing to use that position aggressively.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: murtha, appropriation

David Sirota is the author of Hostile Takeover: How Big Money and Corruption Conquered Our Government--and How We Take It Back (Crown, 2006).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from War on Iraq! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Don't know what to say
Posted by: cordas on Jan 4, 2007 2:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Part of me wants Bushco to be given enough rope to well and truely hang themselves and their party for at least half a generation. That said I don't want to see anymore casualties coming back from Iraq, or Afganistan or Darwin forbid Iran or Syria.

I must also admit that part of me really wants to see the whole Middle East go to peices followed by the 1st world, as its engines run out of gas.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Sorry! No cigar. Posted by: jurgen
AIPAC blows hole in Dem lobbying reform bill
Posted by: rwa on Jan 4, 2007 5:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
House Democrats boast that their proposed ethics legislation will ban travel provided by lobbying organizations to lawmakers. Don't believe it.

Maneuvering by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and others has opened a gaping loophole in the bill. Lobbies such as AIPAC and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have their own nonprofit foundations, which will still be allowed to underwrite congressional junkets under the new rules.

Watch for more lobbying groups to set up their own "non-lobbying" foundation affiliates as a result.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/art icle/2007/01/01/AR2007010100682.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WE CAN'T ASK ANY MORE OF OUR MILITARY
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jan 4, 2007 5:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is no longer a matter of choice. Granted contracts are signed and must be honored. But there are limits to the amount of time they must serve and it's spelled out for all to read and understand. The army must break that contract in order to extend time spent in Iraq for many of our troops. Is this next on the 'decider's' agenda? I believe this is a military decision. Somebody check me out on this. We can't allow our people to be abused. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sacrifice Translates into More Dead People
Posted by: rwa on Jan 4, 2007 5:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Kurt Nimmo, Another Day in the Empire


Is John "Keating Five" McCain sincerely clueless? Or is he simply a politician playing a cynical numbers game with Iraq and thus eventually condemning to certain death more troops that should be here at home, protecting our borders?

McCain told General John Abizaid he didn’t understand why the United States cannot "control" al-Anbar province and was flummoxed the general would suggest the "mission" is to train Iraqis to fight the "insurgency," actually a popular resistance against both occupation by foreign troops and their hand-picked Iraqi proxy.

McCain expressed frustration that said "insurgents" have taken back al-Anbar, thus demonstrating you can’t teach an old dog new tricks, or at least teach him a bit of history and the inevitability of defeat for those who invade and attempt to occupy, as the French lost Vietnam at Diem Bien Phu and the British lost Afghanistan at the Gandamak pass. In Iraq, the Brits were unable to contain continual uprisings against occupation, even though they used mustard gas, a weapon favored Winston Churchill for the likes of "uncivilized" tribes. John McCain, the Manchurian candidate for president in 2008, does not even seem vaguely aware of such historical realities:

But forget al-Anar, the Pentagon can’t even "secure" Baghdad, and will be unlikely to do so even if they send another 20,000, 30,000, or even 100,000 troops into the neocon constructed meat grinder.

Next, we are told, Bush will announce a smaller number than McCain has in mind—15,000 troops, not 20,000. "Instead of a surge, it is a bump," an anonymous person in Condi’s State Department told McClatchy Newspapers, thus reducing, to a niggling degree, the severity of "sacrifice" (when neocons and one-world types start in talking about sacrifice, it is time to head for the hills).

As usual, Keith Olbermann, one of the only sane voices left in the corporate media, the other being Lou Dobbs, had a few choice words about this:

Olbermann, however, trumpets the "liberal" line, namely Bush (read: the neocons) has no idea what he is doing in Iraq.

Admittedly, Bush may not know what he is doing from one moment to the next, as he is a former drunk and drug abuser, and thus a mental graveyard, but his coterie of neocons most certainly know what they are doing—coming up with excuses to send more troops into Iraq, not to win that which cannot be won, as another basket case, McCain, would have us believe, but rather to see through "mission accomplished," the destruction and balkanization of Iraq. It’s a work in progress, with horrifying results. For instance, last weekend, a series of car bombings killed more than 70 people in Shia neighborhoods in the hours after Saddam Hussein was lynched by a gaggle of puppets installed by the neocons.

"Americans are a patient lot and likely will give Bush the time and backing he needs to take another shot at getting a U.S. policy in Iraq that works," a scribbler over at the Associated Press avers. "And the new Democratically led Congress, which convenes on Jan. 4, probably won't block the commander in chief if he decides to briefly increase troop levels."

In other words, the American people can be expected to do nothing, or nothing effective, to put an end to the carnage, never mind the increasing flights of flag-draped coffins off-loaded at Dover Air Force Base. Of course, most Americans, many unable to find Iraq on a map, don’t know a thing about the 650,000 plus Iraqis slaughtered, and even if they did a whole lot of them wouldn’t care.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sacrifice Translates into More Dead People #2
Posted by: rwa on Jan 4, 2007 5:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"I think there was a time when the death of Saddam Hussein would have given Bush the kind of political capital he needs to call for an increase in troops and an expansion of the military effort there, but I think we're past that time," said Julian Zelizer, a political historian at Boston University.

Such idiocy obviously makes Boston University a less than satisfactory place to send the kids for an education.

"The American people want to know whether we're going to win this war, and they're going to listen very carefully to whatever the president says," said the blowhard neocon Frederick Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute, where Bush scrapes up his "minds."

In fact, the American people, on average, don’t give a wooden nickel about what their demented unitary decider says, although they should.

As for the American people wanting to "know whether we're going to win this war," most of them already know it is lost, or at least lost in a traditional sense. For as we know, the neocons, Kagan included, are all for the "surge" option, that is to say they are hot to pour meat into the grinder in an effort to realize their creative destruction game plan, no matter how many more Americans and Iraqis are sacrificed, as Bush demands.

Offing Saddam on the first day of the holy Eid holiday should have rung a bell with Americans, allowing them to realize the neocons, their leadership rife with Arab-hating Israel Firsters, will stop at nothing to turn up the heat of sectarian violence in Iraq.

"What the Shiite Arabs have to remember is that while the Sunni Arabs are a minority in Iraq, they in fact are a majority in the Arab world. They have the backing of the Sunni masses which form the basis of Arab nationalism," writes Ilnur Cevik for the New Anatolian. "What they are attracting is more Arab Sunni enmity which will be very dangerous for the future of Iraq. Iran, which acts like the mentor of the Arab Shiites in Iraq, should also take this into account. The way Saddam was humiliated and mishandled in his final minutes by his Arab Shiite executioners will be deeply entrenched in the minds of many Sunni Arabs, and not only those who had sympathies for Saddam."

If you think otherwise, I have an ice sculpture to sell you in the Mojave.

Of course, we can’t expect Democrats—now taking up their places in the Great Corporate and Special Interest Whorehouse on the Potomac—to consider such nuances, as some of them, for instance Silvestre Reyes, the incoming chairman of the House of Representatives’ Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, can’t be bothered to tell crucial differences between the Sunni and Shia.

Neocons, naturally, know the difference, and that’s why they do the things they do.

Get ready to sacrifice, indeed.

Next up, Iran.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Politics sucks
Posted by: Conservasaurus on Jan 4, 2007 6:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"It will be interesting to watch D.C.'s chickenhawk pundit class lecture a Marine veteran and Vietnam war hero about why we should not prevent a military escalation that troops on the ground say they don't want." ---

well Abscam aside.. Murtha does have a good military record.. not sure what this does for his strategic skills but anyone who is pro NRA has to have his/her head on straight re protecting the nation.. so I'd listen to his positions , as I would McCain..another with clearly superior military background. We know Mutrtha is a wheeler dealer and always wonder what he is trading for a vote..

But should he cut the purse strings, which I do not think he would or could get the votes to do, .. Bush should say ok boys..you're coming home..it's the dems call.. we get another attack on our soil.. Pelosi will be the speaker for 2 short years!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Politics sucks Posted by: CatDad
» RE: Politics sucks Posted by: xbj
» RE: Politics sucks Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Politics sucks Posted by: xbj
» RE: Politics sucks Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Politics sucks Posted by: xbj
Losing it
Posted by: famouspipeliner on Jan 4, 2007 7:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
President Bush is on the verge of a complete nervous breakdown. At this point that the man is most dangerous. He cannot be reasoned with and is acting with the madness, paranoia and self delusion of other 'total' deciders. If there is no real political oppositon to his plan for 'the long war' America will not only be weakened militarily but bankrupted as well.
A 'surge' won't help and neither will 're-deployment.' Every military commander knows there is a time for a strategic retreat...except the current commander in chief. Mr. Bush needs to be removed from office but whether the democratic party or the American people have the guts to do it remains to be seen.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Losing it Posted by: Dboy
» RE: Losing it Posted by: oldguy
Want to know how the GOP machine will deal with Murtha?
Posted by: xbj on Jan 5, 2007 6:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our good friend Conservasaurus just let the cat out of the bag, and it's the same old tired way they've always dealt with reality...

FEAR. To paraphrase my friend, "The Dems pull us out of Iraq and then we [will] get attacked here, and it's all over for the Dems in 2008."

Only one problem. The Warpig perpetrators of 9-11 wouldn't ever dare to try it again. Already at least 4 repeat 9-11 attempts have been completely stopped by info posted on the internet beforehand. The perps are dealing with a military in revolt, intelligence agency ops TRULY interested in protecting America in revolt, and many of their own ops and accomplices jumping ship.

No, they don't need to pull another 9-11 on US soil to get the American People on board to nuke Iran; all that will take is an Israeli attack on one of our ships (or even more likely, a Canadian one), and make it look like Iran did it, and even that false flag plan has been on the internet for more than a year now.

But it's harder to scrutinize the truth in the middle of the Gulf, and they're counting on that.

So the GOP will tar and feather Murtha with the usual Fear tactic: Omigod, if we don't keep fighting them THERE, they will be coming here to attack my children!!!

AS IF.

The only way you make an ally out of an enemy IS TO QUIT FRICKING KILLING THEM FIRST.

Morons.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Let's all be friends.. Posted by: Conservasaurus
HANGING SADDAM - JUST LIKE OLD TIMES
Posted by: TheStranger on Jan 5, 2007 8:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You have to marvel at those Iraqis investigating who took the video of Saddam’s last dangle. I mean, with bodies turning up every day in Iraqi streets, many of them with drill holes in the skulls, this huge concern over a case of reality-cell-phoning sure looks like a misguided priority.

The hanging was a nostalgic one for Prince George, who hadn’t executed anyone since he governed Texas, where he did a fine job of killing the retarded, the mentally ill, and people sentenced to death while their senile, court-appointed attorneys snored in the corner.
[See the rest of this post at http://ivangoldman.blogspot.com/]

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CONGRESS MUST RESCIND THE AUTHORIZATION TO USE FORCE!!
Posted by: xbj on Jan 8, 2007 6:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Any constitutional law experts out there? Can't Congress rescind the authorization to use force? Get a team of lawyers to determine that CONGRESS WAS LIED TO in the first place and that THE ORIGINAL AUTHORIZATION WAS OBTAINED UNDER FALSE PRETENSES.

Therby making it NULL AND VOID. LEGALLY.

This would effectively KILL not only THE SURGE, but ALSO KILL ANY NUKING OF IRAN WITHOUT CONGRESS GIVING FUTURE APPROVAL.

IF THIS CAN BE DONE, IT MUST BE DONE A.S.A.P.

Bush could NO LONGER sneak attack Iran (in a phony retaliation against a flase flag attack against American or Canadian interests carried out by Israel) IF THIS IS CARRIED OUT.

Not only that, it would stop the surge DEAD IN ITS TRACKS WITHOUT withdrawing funding or support for current troops.

It could also be seen as a first step toward impeachment and forcing the White House War Pigs to BRING HOME THE TROOPS.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]