Rep. John P. Murtha is attempting to exert control over America's military efforts in Iraq using beauracracy and guidelines to avoid looking like he is against the war. Pity he is too stupid to not let his guileful plan become obvious.
Mr. Murtha has a different idea. He would stop the surge by crudely hamstringing the ability of military commanders to deploy troops. In an interview carried Thursday by the Web site MoveCongress.org, Mr. Murtha said he would attach language to a war funding bill that would prohibit the redeployment of units that have been at home for less than a year, stop the extension of tours beyond 12 months, and prohibit units from shipping out if they do not train with all of their equipment. His aim, he made clear, is not to improve readiness but to "stop the surge." So why not straightforwardly strip the money out of the appropriations bill -- an action Congress is clearly empowered to take -- rather than try to micromanage the Army in a way that may be unconstitutional? Because, Mr. Murtha said, it will deflect accusations that he is trying to do what he is trying to do. "What we are saying will be very hard to find fault with," he said.Tactical genius eh...Just the sort of guy you want in charge of a war.
The article continues though, with something that I have recently been thinking about.
Mr. Murtha's cynicism is matched by an alarming ignorance about conditions in Iraq. He continues to insist that Iraq "would be more stable with us out of there," in spite of the consensus of U.S. intelligence agencies that early withdrawal would produce "massive civilian casualties."The violence and car bombs in Iraq continue to target civilians more than soldiers. The media reporting is focusing more and more on these civilian attacks. It seems fairly obvious that the power vacuum left by the US leaving suddenly would create an all out civil war. Put these things together, and it seems that the anti-war parts of the media and population are trying to use civilian casualties as the basis for pulling the west out of Iraq, which would lead to even more civilian casualties.
If that doesn't make sense to you, you are not alone. The focus of these 'moralists' seems to not be to help, but merely to not be involved in a costly or risky exercise. They would prefer to have heaps of blood split, than to have themselves feel responsible for a smaller amount of blood.