RE: "If you watched the proceedings of the house on live TV, you would not have made this comment:
"Congress doesn't want to pull out of Iraq as soon as possible, they want to finish the job. Murtha can be wrong, that is in the realm of possibility, don't you know."
Since Murtha plainly believes there's nothing left we can accomplish in Iraq, and plainly most disagree with him, I really don't see where I've gone wrong. I'd rewrite my statement for clarity, however, just to add a tad, i.e. "Congress doesn't want to pull out of Iraq as soon as possible willy nilly, it wants to finish the job as soon as possible, first."
Re: "The Duncan Hunter resolution that the House voted on, I think, said nothing about pulling out of Iraq after doing the job. It only said "pull out of Iraq immediately.""
I effectively acknowledged this point earlier. I don't believe anyone would believe, however, that the Hunter resolution, as sparse as it was, would demand anything less safe for the troops than Murtha's "...forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date."
While I've said that the Hunter resolution doesn't resemble the Murtha resolution, it certainly is similar, particularly when seeing the reasonableness of the preceding comment, since Murtha's resolution says "The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated..." This of course was followed by the "earliest practicable date" caveat, as previously mentioned. The language of Murtha plainly would begin an effectively "immediate" official redeployment of troops consistent with his belief that we can reasonable do no more for Iraq. As noted, I don't see that anyone could believe the republican resolution would somehow require anything quicker than Murtha's "hereby redeployed," i.e. NOW, i.e immediately.
Again, it is plain that the republican resolution if passed, would not lock congress in to any withdrawal process less satisfactory than Murtha's "earliest practicable date."
Quantifying things like "how many batallions of the armed forces of Iraq are we going to train, and how many police batallions are we going to train and by what date, etc. etc.," after which we would start to reduce our forces, as you say, is simply not what Murtha's resolution asks for. You can read it over and over, and it says "hereby redeployed," i.e when passed, i.e. right then.
Re: "After they are trained, Murtha has said then we need to start start to reduce our forces."
Murtha's resolution simply does not say that. He may have stated such elsewhere as a reasonable man, but it isn't in his resolution. Were it done this way, then Murtha's "as soon as practicable" would become open ended, potentially changing nothing about our future course in Iraq. Furthermore, this would involve setting quantity goals, and a timetable, and so was effectively voted down in the Congress last week for being potentially counter productive. What you've written above, even if said by Murtha himself, is NOT consistent with his belief that we can do no more in Iraq, nor with what he's also said elsewhere, namely, that we should phase our withdrawal over the next six months.
So again, to be clear, what you've stated from Murtha above, is is essentially exactly what the administration has been saying, i.e. train Iraqi troops, then withdraw.
Yes, Murtha believes we would need as many as 400,000 troops per his statements, and that it is not feasible. Yes, Murtha can be wrong, i.e. the job is getting done with less (and given his statement of the impracticality of deploying that many without a draft coupled with his thought that we can do no more coupled with his 6 months and gone notion and his "hereby redeployed", he would contradict himself to say we ought wait to train Iraqis before leaving). As Iraqi troops gain experience and equipment over time, we will perhaps approach that overall number of troops before we begin pulling out, anyway.
Frankly Syria, if it continues to be uncooperative, ought to be moved upon as quickly as possible.
Dan B.
|
