Posted on 11/19/2005 12:11:07 PM PST by smoothsailing
Chicken-hawk talk is unAmerican -- Murtha's astonishing lack of knowledge
Warner Todd Huston
November 19, 2005
On November 17th, Representative John Murtha (D, PA) called for the USA to prove that Osama bin Laden is right with his contention that Americans are cowards. He proposed that the US immediately pull its troops from Iraq.
Shocking as it may seem, Murtha was not only in the US military himself, but he served during the Vietnam War. Earning a Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts in Vietnam, you'd think he would know better than to propose that we turn tail and run from battle today. Especially when, after having done so in 1975 at the end of our involvement in Vietnam, so many millions of the Vietnamese people were slaughtered with even more imprisoned by the Communists we left unopposed. And it happened just as anti-Communists here then warned, just as Conservatives warn that a pull out of Iraq would doom many to unnecessary death today. It is one of the few true parallels between Vietnam and Iraq.
Apparently, however, Murtha is not very well informed about history, even that through which he lived.
But, certainly there is room for a discussion of policy or for debate on our direction in war. We can all agree on that. We can also all agree that President Bush has made mistakes in his prosecution of the war. Every president has made his share of mistakes in war. From Washington, to Lincoln, to Bush the elder, not every decision made was the perfect one to be sure.
Much ink has been spilled about Murtha's ill-advised ideas. The House of Representatives is this week debating his proposal (a pull out was defeated in the House on the 18th by a 403 to 3 vote), and the Blogs are a buzz with excoriation and praise of this man from Pennsylvania. He is certainly getting his "15 minutes."
Others will take on the efficacy of his idea and Murtha's proposal will get all the attention due it. But there are a few questions that need raising about the man himself and one of the avenues of attack he employed to advocate for his proposal.
Firstly, why is he even doing this?
If Murtha were a younger man, I'd wonder if he had presidential ambitions as a McGovernesque representative of the extreme left. But for a man in his 70s he is far to old for such ideas. And he certainly can't imagine he could possibly be a "leader" of his Party by the same token. If you actually heard his nearly incoherent, rambling replies to an interviewer after his proposal for cutting and running from Iraq was unveiled, one could easily be excused for imagining that he is a bit past his prime.
No, we have to assume he is not just cynically attempting to claim the limelight but that he truly believes this hogwash. We can doubt his good sense, his knowledge of history, and his sanity, but we cannot doubt his veracity.
So, we have to hand it to him. His standing on his principle is admirable. But we don't have to admire either the idea nor are we obligated to award him unquestioning authority because of the fact that he served in the military, even in a time of war.
And this brings me to that previously mentioned ridiculous avenue of attack he used during his moment in the sun. And it is something that rears its ugly head so often when politicians are talking things military that it is truly tiresome.
Here was Murtha's reply to a question posed to him about Vice-President Cheney's attacks against the Democrats' dangerous demagoguery of why Bush brought us to war:
"I like guys who've never been there that criticize us who've been there. I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done."
This begs the question for Representative Murtha, though, of his own service. He did not serve "there" in Iraq, so should he be discussing it? Should he have anything at all to say about Iraq? By Murtha's own "logic" he is qualified to speak of Vietnam because he was "there," after all. But, how is he qualified to speak of Iraq using his own criteria?
But, the whole claim that one should never discuss matters military unless they have served in the military themselves is the worst red-herring, most spurious straw-man argument in all of American politics. Not only that, but it is truly an anti-American argument to make. One that goes so against everything we have ever stood for, everything that our Founders held dear, that it boggles the mind.
One of the most terrifying fears for the Founders was that a military dictatorship would befall a post revolutionary America. It had happened so many times in the past after revolutions in other countries that our Forefathers took great pains to try and prevent it from happening here.
This is why the country does not have a military man "in" the government by design. It's why we are strictly governed by civilian authorities. It is why the President is the commander in chief and is responsible for the big decisions on military policy. It is also why only Congress can formally declare war. It is why we must separately present the budget for the military apart from other appropriations and budgets to be approved annually and why it is not necessarily just an automatic part of our financial appropriations.
All these provisions that distance the exercise of power away from military hands were provisions that the Founders insisted upon to keep the military from becoming a danger to Constitutional government, to keep the US army from being used to overtake power in coups like so many banana republics.
In case Representative Murtha was not aware, we also have a democracy and a free and open society. That means any citizen may not only discuss and advocate for their point of view (forming Hamilton and Madison's dreaded "factions"), but may become a leader and personally guide public policy from Congress despite their service, or lack thereof, in the country's armed forces.
In fact, the Founders had INSISTED that civilians be in a position to guide public policy despite their lack of service in the armed forces. They did not want a junta ruling the country from the ranks of the US military.
They feared military strongman politics and they designed a system to stop it.
In addition, Murtha should have it brought to his attention that past service does not assure unassailable knowledge of policy nor does it somehow bestow good sense. Benedict Arnold served the USA in the Revolutionary army as a general, but after that whole betraying our country to the British incident no one would imagine he would be a good one to ask about war policy thereafter. God forbid a man as vain and self-promoting as General George A. Custer would have become president in 1776 as he planned to do. And as good a soldier as he was, few would want as profane and unpredictable a man as General George Patton leading in Congress, either. And we shouldn't have to mention the relief many feel that John Kerry is not now sitting in Bush's place.
And who can forget that some of our greatest leaders never served a day in the military? Even in the age of Revolutionaries, many of our Founders did not don a uniform in the struggle.
Representative Murtha should be told that military service does not equate to sound leadership in all things, nor should military leadership be viewed as a sole qualification for policy creation, either.
The next time you hear a politician use the fact that they served to attack someone who hasn't, no matter what side he is on, please remember how truly un-American that person is acting.
© Copyright 2005 by Warner Todd Huston
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/huston/051119
That or photos of him with a young boy.
As an aside, the dims don't care about Murtha's previous military service.They secretly loathe him for it.To them, he's just a useful tool.
The media and dims talk about how the R's are "besmirching" a war hero.What nonsense.Have you heard them even mention the fact that Duncan Hunter is a Vietnam combat veteran?
Last month was the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar when Horatio Nelson used the unorthodox tactic of breaking the enemy's line of battle instead of following the entrenched "line ahead" tactics that the Royal Navy had used religiously for over a century but was by then outmoded and which had contributed greatly to the British defeat at Chesapeake Bay.
Nelson was not the first to use that new tactic. It was first used in the British victory at the Battle of the Saints in 1782 by Admiral Rodney.
Rodney, however, did not invent the tactic. The tactic was first proposed to British naval circles in January, 1780 by a certain John Clerk of Eldin, Scotland, a civilian who had never heard a shot fired in anger, had never even been to sea and who had worked out his naval tactical theories based solely on his readings, sailing a small boat in protected waters and working out his naval tactics with tabletop ship models.
The Murtha principle...imagine if it were applied elsewhere?
>>>Peaceniks would keep their mouths shut about war.
>>>Ted Kennedy and Murtha would keep their mouths shut about private enterprise, since each has spent their entire life on a public teat.
>>>If you've never been on welfare, you don't have an opinion about it.
>>>If you've never been gay, you have no opinion about gay marriage.
Dick Cheney is much more qualified, as a result of his public servive, to talk about the military than Murtha. His past aside, he's talking out his @SS and should shut up soon.
Thanks for posting this. It put into words the discomfort I have been feeling whenever anyone suggests that only those who have actually been to war should make war policy.
susie
Somebody please photoshop Murtha's head on this.No, better yet, have both heads on it!
Is this a-hole up for reelection in '06???
That, in turn, gains him the respect of our forces.He's my kind of CIC.
I believe they may loathe Murtha's military service.....but without a doubt they despise the military and they prove it with every demeaning comment, demoralizing story and defeatist tactic they can find to hurt our troops.
I have read that Murtha was against the Bosnia mission.
Yeah, he does it as one should. Let those with the knowledge and training do the job. You know Congress however, they all think they're God's right hand man.
That's a lot of "right hands."
It has always irritated me.For Murtha to even imply that a combat veteran is more qualified than any other American to talk of war is the height of arrogance.
By Murtha's standard I am qualified but you are not.What a pompous perogative.It is a direct affront to the First Amendment.
Why do we fight? Why did I fight? Among other reasons, we fight to protect our rights as a free people.
So all Americans can openly express themselves without fear.
Murtha,sadly,has forgotten what it means to be a Marine.
In any case GWB was simply not in the loop for active duty unless he would have somehow gotten into the Airforce and retrained in most probably an F4 Phantom.
That perhaps is a bit more verbose then what you asked for conformation, but that is my take on it.
Murtha is either senile, or Pelosi and the Dem leadership made some big promises to get him to speak out like this. Either way, his conduct is despicable and reprehensible and a stain on his previous service.
He's a Congressman, so yes. Has to run every two years. Senators serve for six years.
I think I'm getting that "sometimers" disease.Sometimes I remember, and sometimes I don't! LOL.
First, thank you for your service. MY FIL was a marine pilot. My Dad was Air Force. I've never heard either of them say only people like them are qualified to make policy. God Bless all of our vets and current military personel who have made it possible for ME to express my opinion, especially in the voting booth!
:)
susie
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.