In Somalia a well-meaning humanitarian intervention ended in failure because we interjected ourselves into a civil war. I am not arguing that we should have acted decisively with a larger military force in either case. As I have explained, I opposed the intervention in Somalia from the day the decision to intervene was made.
The first President Bush intervened in Somalia's civil war at the instigation of the bleeding hearts in the MSM and the DNC, who were painting him as a heartless villain. Poor African blacks were being killed by vicious warlords, and Bush was urged that it was our job to go in and feed and protect the victims. After resisting for a while, Bush gave in to pressure and sent in troops on a humanitarian mission.
Then when clinton was elected, he expanded the mission, after the MSM decided that one of the warlords was more vicious than the others, and therefore should be fought. But Clinton refused to supply the armor that commanders on the spot said was necessary for the new, expanded mission.
So the whole thing was a matter of foolish do-goodism compounded by mission creep, as a result of political pressure put on the politicians by the bleeding heart media, who were chiefly responsible for what happened.
So Murtha was right in saying that we had no business there in the first place, and had might as well leave. The unfortunate result, of course, was that bin Ladin was encouraged to think we are paper tigers. It was clinton's fault for confirming bin Ladin, when he refused to respond to a series of attacks bin Ladin mounted on us all through the clinton presidency.
Certainly it would have been better never to have gone into Somalia in the first place. The whole idea was misbegotten.
Still, it's a good catch that the MSM are now lying again, and pretending that Murtha has always been a hawk. Not true.
As I understand it, the warlord was no better nor nor worse than any of the others. He just didn't want to play cards with the UN.
It's just as untrue to say that he's always been cut-and-run, as some others have. He was completely behind Gulf War I and Afghanistan. He isn't some deskbound time-server; the man does take the time to visit the areas and talk to the generals. He is as big a supporter of the military as anyone in Congress on either side of the aisle.
That doesn't mean he is correct on Iraq (IMHO he isn't), but he can and will be taken seriously because unlike most of the numbskulls on the 'Rat side of the aisle, the man does think for himself and is respected.