House Democrat Wants Immediate Iraq Pullout

An influential House Democrat who voted for the Iraq war called Thursday for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, another sign of growing unease in Congress about the conflict.

"This is the immediate redeployment of American forces because they have become the target," said Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., one of Congress' most hawkish Democrats. At times during his remarks to reporters, the decorated Vietnam War veteran was choking back tears.

"It is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering, the future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf region," Murtha said.

Murtha, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, has earned bipartisan respect for his grasp of military issues over three decades in Congress.

He said announcing a U.S. withdrawal would provide the Iraqi government with an added incentive to have their own security forces take control of the conflict.

Murtha is a close adviser to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D- Calif. For months, Pelosi has pushed for the Bush administration to outline an exit strategy, although she has stopped short of calling for an immediate troop pullout.

Murtha's comments came just two days after the Senate voted to approve a statement that 2006 "should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty" to create the conditions for the phased withdrawal of U.S. forces.

Murtha voted to give the president authority to use force against Saddam Hussein in 2002. In recent months, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee defense panel has grown increasingly troubled with the direction of the war and with the Bush administration's handling of it, particularly following reports of secret CIA prisons in Eastern Europe.

"The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion," Murtha said.

>>>>The War was being lost in what way? Certainly not militarily. It was the media and the Dems that created the false image that we were losing the war.

Why do you think LBJ didn't run for a second term? In historical terms, we kept winning the battles, but we were losing the war. There was no clear objective or strategy to win the war. The only objective was to inflict pain on the North Vietnamese in the hopes it would get them to bargain in earnest. That made the Vietnam War, a war of attrition. LBJ would escalate the war in response to North Vietnamese actions. That led to the incremental increases in US troop strength. And the Vietnam War went on and on and on and on, with no end in sight.

I'm not saying that the media didn't undercut the war effort, they did. But it was LBJ and the Democrat Congress who controlled the agenda. That agenda didn't give the military opportunities to win the war in a reasonable timeframe. And don't forget, there was never a formal declaration of war made against Vietnam.

>>>>You can rationalize all you want. The war ended for the US in 1973.

Rationalize? Come on. Those military members who died in Vietnam after 1973 would disagree with you. The fact remains, we didn't leave Vietnam under the banner of "peace with honor". LBJ let us down and sadly, so did Nixon.

>>>>We lost the war because we lost public support for the war.

Exactly! Public support began to erode in 1968. LBJ's job approval ratings and handling of the war went down significantly. More Americans saw Vietnam as a mistake. A war without an end.

>>>>It was handled wrong because the politicians micromanaged its conduct rather than letting the military run it.

Exactly! Okay. We agree.

>>>>The US attempted to achieve something less than victory.

Exactly! Alright, we agree again.

Bottom line. Iraq is not Vietnam. Bush&Company have always had an exit plan. The timeframe question has always been an open issue and for good reason. The US has been rebuilding the Iraqi infrastructure. We made a serious effort to get a government and constitution in place in Iraq. Once we train the Iraqi's to defend themselves, the US military can step back. The military will no longer be the center of attention and will be able to reevaluate the overall strategy.

I understand all of that. I was there and served over 20 months in the combat zone. LBJ's run for a second term lasted as long as the NH primary. The war was unpopular at home. The draft and the civil rights struggle contributed to the anti-authority attitudes. The media portrayed TET as a major defeat for the US and the failure of our policy and military claims of success.

In the beginning, it was JFK who started sending in advisors and LBJ expanded our participation using the Gulf of Tonkin incident. The rationale was that we were stopping the spread of communism per the containment policy first articulated by Truman and Kennan. We were concerned that all of SE Asia would come under communism, i.e., the domino theory. The war was fought to maintain the status quo and not to defeat North Vietnam. As I mentioned, there was some restraints placed on the military to avoid a possible direct confrontation with the Soviets and Chinese.

There was no declaration of war in Vietnam or Korea. If you recall, there was a major disagreement within the US as to whether the VC represented just internal oppostion within the South or an extension of North Vietnam. In fact, some claimed that the North was not sending troops southward into South Vietnam to take up the struggle. We learned differently with the Ia Drang valley and elsewhere when major contact was made with the NVA.

It has nothing to do those who died in Vietnam after 1973. After the Paris Peace agreements, we were no longer at war with the NV or VC. The only military we had there after March 29, 1973 were MSG's and military attaches assigned to our embassy and consulates in South Vietnam. Do you know how many American military personnel died in Vietnam from hostile fire after January 27, 1973?

I don't fault Nixon at all. He bombed Cambodia and Haiphong and Hanoi. It was the Dem controlled Congress and the Case-Church Amendment, which prevented us from assisting the South Vietnamese to defend themselves. I firmly believe they could have along with some air support from us. The Vietnamese are the ones who were really let down and paid the biggest price and still are.

Exactly! Public support began to erode in 1968. LBJ's job approval ratings and handling of the war went down significantly. More Americans saw Vietnam as a mistake. A war without an end.

That shouldn't be such a big revelation to you. And why did people feel that way? The media created the images and the perception, that's why. We could have had at least a Korean solution if we had stayed the course.

Now we are seeing the same thing with Iraq. The American militrary personnel are portrayed as hapless victims, not heroic in their actions or successful in achieving their objectives. The relatively light casualties, 1634 as of today from hostile fire over a 31 month period, are being depicted as a huge loss of life. The MSM sends an endless stream of pictures of car bombs, and dead and wounded civiilians. Ted Koppel reads out a list of the US dead and the WP periodically places their pictures in the newspaper with capsule summaries of their lives and families. Almost everyday the WP is covering a funeral of an American military person killed in Iraq replete with pictures of the grave and grieving family.

Is it any wonder that more and more Americans now see Iraq as a mistake and a war without end? They are being conditioned to believe that manufactured reality. We now have a Republican controlled Congress passing resolutions requiring quarterly reports from DOD and the WH to forestall the Dems demands for a timetable to leave. Murtha represents the opening salvo of increased pressure from Congress as we enter the mid-terms. As I have said previously, the Dems are using the Vietnam playbook. We are fortunate that the Reps still control Congress after a fashion and that we have an all-volunteer force.

I understand the difference, but do the American people and Congress? We had an exit plan for Vietnam. It was called Vietnamization. The plan for Iraq is similar, i.e., we stand down when they stand up. We built up the Vietnamese infrastructure including roads, airfields, ports, etc. We are doing the same thing in Iraq. We are doing a better job in Iraq of building democratic institutions and processes. That is the big difference maker.

The question is how long can Bush stay the course in the face of mounting political assaults, MSM attacks and distortion, and nervous GOP congressmen worried about their reelection. The enemy recognizes the growing public dissatisfaction with the war. If they can pull off the equivalent of a TET in Iraq or another 9/11 in the US, Bush will be under tremendous pressure to change course. Then, the comparisons with Vietnam will become more strident.

Bush could have done a better job of educating the public and defending his policies. He has been reactive instead of proactive. But that is water over the dam. He needs to stress that Iraq is part of the WOT and that we are fighting the same folks who carried out 9/11. If we leave Iraq, AQ will remain regardless. And Iran will continue with its plans for a nuclear weapon. Surrender is not an option.

>>>>I understand all of that.

Then why did you ask me, "The War was being lost in what way? Certainly not militarily".

Once again, the US military was winning the battles, but was losing the war because there was no clear objective or strategy to win the war. This wasn't the fault of the media either. The fault for the wars failure resides with two presidents, LBJ and Nixon. The longer the conflict lasted, the more the opposition gained ground. By 1968 the American public had turned against the war. From that point on it was an uphill battle and Nixon wasn't up to the task.

>>>>It has nothing to do those who died in Vietnam after 1973.

In the context of my original remarks, it has everything to do with who died after January 27, 1973. Nixon promised "peace with honor" in 1968. Americans were still dying in Vietnam beyond the April 30, 1975 date, when the US Embassy ceased operations. How many died after the war officially ended? My guess would be the numbers are in the hundreds.

>>>>That shouldn't be such a big revelation to you.

It isn't. I was responding to your remark, "We lost the war because we lost public support for the war". That's what I've been saying all along. Glad to see were in agreement on this point. It gets back to my original remark at RE:#48, "... VietNam was a lost cause back in 1968". In 1968, public opinion turned against the war. Its hard to fight a war when you lose public support.

>>>>Now we are seeing the same thing with Iraq.

Today we have 24-7-365 cable coverage. That gives the media a greater opportunity to spin the news in a way that undermines the war effort through negative reporting. Thank God for Fox News, conservative talkradio and a GOP contriolled Congress. Three aspects of media coverage that didn't exist during Vietnam. In the Vietnam era, the big three pounded home the antiwar viewpoint for 30 minutes each and every night. With over 9-million service personnel having served in Vietnam, a majority of Americans were touched in some manner by the events over there.

>>>>I understand the difference, but do the American people and Congress?

So far the Congress is still with Bush. While a majority of Americans believe getting involved in Iraq was a mistake, a majority also believes we need to finish what we started. How long that will last is anyones guess. This is where the Bully Pulpit comes into play. The President and his entire administration has done a lousy job of explaining and defending the war effort. Bush is not getting his message out. Bush has to realize, he's not only at war in Iraq, he's got to fight the antiwar forces at home. A more pro-active role is required if Bush wants to see Iraq be a success.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.