"The war in Iraq is not going as advertised," Democrat John Murtha said Thursday. "Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. IT IS TIME TO BRING THEM HOME." This was not Henry Waxman speaking. Murtha voted against abortions at military facilities, against an International Criminal Court, in favor of repealing the District of Columbia's gun prohibition, and in favor of the Iraq war authorization. Murtha served in the Marine Corps for 37 years, rising to the rank of colonel. He's a Vietnam vet. He represents blue-collar America in Western Pennsylvania.

Rod Dreher noted on NRO's Corner that while listening to Murtha's emotional speech, "I could feel the ground shift." "If tough, non-effete guys like Murtha are willing to go this far, and can make the case in ways that Red America can relate to--and listening to him talk was like listening to my dad, who's about the same age, and his hunting buddies--then the president is in big trouble," Dreher opined. "I'm sure there's going to be an anti-Murtha pile-on in the conservative blogosphere, but from where I sit, conservatives would be fools not to take this man seriously." Some fools have already started. A site called Chapomatic rails about Murtha's "lack of spine." Michael Fitch labels Murtha "some pansy politician." If only Murtha were a war hero like the president and vice president, then Bush camp followers wouldn't be so quick to characterize him as a spineless "pansy."

Having seen a lot of war movies and played quite a few WW2 themed video games (on the hard difficulty level), I have to say that it would be a huge mistake to leave Iraq now. What if Mel Gibson gave up fighting the King half way through Braveheart? The terrorists can take our lives, but they can never take our freedom! AMERICA!!!

Armchair General have you been taking unfunny pills. Dork.

I've read the congressman's press release. I would ask the congressman to consider the following:

For 3 years, following the Bolshevik coup d'etat of October 1917, the US blockaded Russia and committed military forces, on the side of the Bolsheviks' opponents, in that country's civil war. Other Western powers intervened as well (the UK for sure, maybe even France). Yet our contribution proved indecisive: the Red Army held on and the Soviet Union became an all-too-human reality. Call this hindsight, armchair generaling, or learning from history, but I ask: If the US, UK, and other Western powers had a fighting chance of defeating Bolshevism in 1917-20, how much blood & treasure would have been justified in that cause?

How many of the hijackers were Iraqis?

The first gulf war never ended.
We're just now getting around to
finishing it.Deal with it.

If you want us to lose the war, just keep
repeating the "Bush lied!" mantra.
That type of grandstanding was highly effective
in making sure that we lost the Vietnam War.

The multitudes of innocents who were slaughtered
after we left Vietnam are a stark reminder that
"peace at any price" is not a bargain.

Put down your puny politics,
and let our team finish the job-whether you like
the administration or not.
We are at war, and war is hell, but please-
lead, follow or get out of the way.

zero. So what? Iraq/Saddam had nothing to to with 9/11. So what? Those were never the justifications for the war.

The justification that you are refering to is that Iraq had ties to Al Queda. The 9/11 Commission confirmed contact between the two, but asserted that they didn't develop into an operational relationship. Here is a list of contacts...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda#Senate_Report_of_Pre-war_Intelligence_on_Iraq

The costs and benefits of the Iraq War as I see them (NOTE: Yes, I have posted this before.)

Costs:

-A large number of US troops deployed to Iraq cannot be deployed elsewhere, this is an obvious opportunity cost, and a large one considering the volatile political situation in the world today.
-Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent in Iraq, I cannot remember the exact number, but we have paid quite a large monetary cost.
-Over 2,000 US soldiers have been killed in Iraq. This poses no real threat to our ability to operate efficiently, but the emotional ramifications of it on the American people are a cost of their own.
-The displeasure of some US allies (I find this one questionable. The pro-American ministers of Japan, Australia, and Britain all remained in power. The pro-American candidate just became Chancellor of Germany, the pro-Russian, anti-American candidate was soundly defeated in the Ukrainian elections, the pro-American candidates won the Prime Ministership and the Presidency of Poland, and the pro-American minister of the interior is likely to be the next President of France.)

Benefits:
-The dismantling of Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist government, a large supporter of Middle Eastern terrorism and regional unrest, and a longtime thorn in the America's proverbial side.
-Making an example out of Saddam Hussein to other leaders in the region.
-The encircling of Iran on all sides with US military forces
-The military and political isolation of Ba'athist Syria
-A large offensively orientated US military presence in the heart of the Middle East that grants the US much more leverage when dealing with other states in the region, as exemplified by Libya's turning over of it's WMD program, Syria pulling out of Lebanon, and tentative steps towards democracy in Egypt and (to a lesser extent) Saudi Arabia
-Long term combat experiance by the US Army and US Marines in dealing with fighting the terrorist enemy, the kind of experiance they could not recieve in the Afghan theatre, where most of the fighting was done by the Northern Alliance, supported by US Special Forces.
-Denying Iraq's oil wealth to Saddam Hussen, a man who did just about anything he could to hinder us at every turn.

That said,I agreed that the time is fast approaching to leave Iraq. Our military has completed all of our objectives in that nation, and staying there only opens the opportunity for mission creep. Once the december elections have gone through, the US must begin preparing to leave Iraq.

Ben T: yes, you've posted that before. As I recall, last time you also left off the 30K or so Iraqi dead, and then someone corrected you. Why this omission?

Oh, did they? I honestly missed it.

Anyways, I was referring to costs to America. When the Flynn Filers are the crowd I'm arguing to, my general first thought isn't to tug on the ol' heart strings.

Ben T: Costs to America. Yes. To me, it seems dishonerable if America can't count as a cost of the war the enemy and the civilian dead. Heartstrings? What? One need not be terribly sentimental to care how many civilians we kill. One would need to lack a conscience to not care.

Besides: You were proposing to do a cost-benefit review of the war to determine whether it was a good move; if you leave the foreign dead off the list of costs, then you imply that no amount of foreign deaths could effect the worthwhileness of the war. I for one am not willing to say that.

Okay, so let's include it.

Let's also include the fact that Saddam had both WMDs:
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/quarterly_reports/s-2004-435.pdf

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/quarterly_reports/s-2005-351.pdf

And ties to Osama Bin Laden. Not just various international terror agencies. BIN LADEN.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1051125568653&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&DPL=JvsODSH7Aw0u%2bwoQO%2bYJDSbkFxAj%2bwoUO%2bYNDSbgFxMn%2bwkVO%2bUODSXhFxMv%2bwkYO%2bQKDSTkFxUn%2bw8QO%2bMIDSPjFxUi%2bw8XO%2bMMDSPvFxUu%2bw4RO%2bIIDSLhOw%3d%3d&tacodalogin=yes

Thanks.

I think.

Followup posts that explain what I'm talking about are available, for example here.

And it's not so much me being a "cyber groupie" as me being active duty military and rather invested in the current military operations.

Wow. I inspired you to name your post after something I said. I feel all misty eyed. I'm just brimming with pride. Wait until I tell Mom.

I grow weary of the argument over Iraq. Anyone with a map and a little common sense can figure out that Iraq was always a key figure in the War on Terror.

We now occupy 2 countries bordering Iran, in addition to the fact that Saddam was in violation of the Gulf War cease fire agreement. We had just cause to invade.

We now have growing democracies in the Middle East, and as the seed of Democracy grows and prospers, other countries in the region will start to apply pressure for reform against their own tyrranie that they live under. They will have Iraq and Afghanistan as allies, if they need the help, and will will have a geographically strategic base of operations if we need it.

If that's not enough reasoning for you, then you are clearly too partisian to ever see things from my perspective, and I will not continue to waste my time here.

I'm disappointed, Ben T., that you can't just admit that 30K Iraqis have been killed and deserve to be counted as costs of the war, without throwing out a red herring. We weren't arguing about whether or not Saddam was in collusion with bin Laden to threaten the US with WMD, But that's what you'd rather change the subject to, rather than just admitting that it is rotten not to count Iraqi dead as a cost.

(BTW I don't think Saddam was in collusion with bin Laden to threaten the US with WMD).

FIAR: How can I be "too partisan" when I am criticizing my own party on Iraq? You bring up a number of points about Iraq that are worth debating, but have very little to do with the issue here: the issue is that you called a war hero "a pansy." In addition to that, a U.S. Congressman, too cowardly to say it herself, quoted a constituent who intimated that Murtha was a "coward" and the White House's spin operation used Murtha's name in the same sentence as Michael Moore, among other disgusting reactions. Instead of changing the subject, why not defend your calling a Vietnam vet and 37-year member of the Marine Corps a "pansy"? Or, better yet, why don't you apologize and admit that you got carried away?

He advocated snatching surrender from the jaws of victory. In my book I was being kind by calling him a pansy. They are very hearty flowers, you know. Why should I apologize for voicing my opinion on a surrender-monkey's statement?

FIAR: Murtha is anything but a "pansy." He's a war hero, who happens to advocate policies you disagree with. You calling him a "pansy" says more about you than it does about him.

Right. It says that I think surrendering is pathetic. Apparently Murtha doesn't. I don't care if he invented war heroes. That's all you got. Screw the message. It's the messenger that matters right. He's a war hero, so his word is almighty, huh? Is that how it works? Whatever. He was wrong. He advocated surrender. I hate surrender monkeys. What a loser. That's what I think of him. Loser. Short-sighted, defeatist, cut and run Loser. So I guess I'm a fascist now because HE was wrong, but that doesn't matter because he's a war hero.

Screw it. I'm finished with this stupid go-nowhere debate. Let's win, not retreat.

"Right," "huh," "stupid," "Screw it," Whatever." Those are some mighty persuasive words, but to get to the original point: John Murtha is not a "pansy." He's a war hero. It's fine if you disagree with his call to withdraw American troops from the nation-building project in Iraq. But to say that a two-time Purple Heart recipient is a "pansy" discredits you, not Murtha. Why not admit that your passion got ahead of your brain in making that gross characterization?

I wouldn't detract from Murtha's miliatry service which was then as compared to his political career which may be characterized as a spineless pansy. I find your characterization of attacks on Murtha's positions at best disingenuous. Would attacks on war-hero Benedict Arnold's later positions be out of line because of his prior military service?

If murtha's idea was so great,
why didn't our congress pass the
subsequent resolution that was put forth by the republicans?

I think it failed by a 403-3 margin.

It doesn't appear the democrats are serious
about this "cut and run" nonsense.
(Well, maybe three of them.)

The phrase "put up or shut up" comes to mind.

Ross: your statement makes absolutely no sense. You write: "If murtha's idea was so great, why didn't our congress pass the subsequent resolution that was put forth by the republicans?" Maybe because it wasn't Murtha's idea (Murtha didn't even vote for it, which should tell you something). A more apt question is: If Murtha's idea is so terrible, why didn't Republicans allow a vote on his idea instead of putting forward a strawman resolution?