"Look at all the people that have been displaced, all the [lost] oil production, unemployment, all those type of things," said Rep. John P. Murtha, chairman of Appropriations defense subcommittee. "We can't win militarily." - Washington Times
Let's take a look at each of his points above:
- "Lost oil production" - This complaint is odd. Think about it. All of the detractors have claimed that Bush invaded Iraq for the oil. What Congressman Murtha seems to suggest was that we were better off getting our oil from Saddam. In other words, to get the oil, it would have been better not to invade Iraq, but just let Saddam pump it for us. Speaking of oil production, isn't it the Democrats in Congress who continue to ban oil exploration in almost all domestic offshore oil production. (See map below. On the bright side, by slowing production, we probably pushed back the 'Peak Oil' point, if you happen to believe in such a thing.)
- "Unemployment" - Then I guess Congressman Murtha would have been in favor of ending sanctions against Saddam as it was sanctions that created this problem in the first place: "It noted that the breakdown of the Iraqi economy due to the sanctions has resulted in widespread unemployment, a huge increase in poverty and the collapse of the educational system." Sanctions, of course, were Saddam's fault. By the way, unemployment statistics in Iraq are highly unreliable as many people work in black market trades.
- "All the people that have been displaced" - This one is easy. I covered this in my post "Iraq, Zimbabwe and Mexico" where I note that the displacement problem in Iraq is not as bad as it is in Zimbabwe and Mexico, two countries not undergoing a war. Also, people are returning home in Iraq. (1,000 a day according to this BBC story published today.) Can't really say that for the other two countries, especially Mexico, where their citizens are fleeing to Canada instead of returning home.
- "We can't win militarily" - Congressman Murtha can't prove this one either. We can look back at Vietnam where the current thinking is now shifting common belief from: 'We lost the Vietnam war and therefore pulled out' to the more accurate: 'We lost the Vietnam War because we pulled out.'
Lawmakers are partly to blame for their ignorance. Congress was entitled to view the 92-page NIE about Iraq before the October 2002 vote. But, as The Washington Post reported last year, no more than six senators and a handful of House members read beyond the five-page executive summary. - Seattle Times
The thought that the US might be 'losing' in Iraq as idiotic. After all, we have taken and held Iraq for over four years. The only way that those who continue to fight against us can win is if we pull out of the country, leaving it mostly undefended in our wake. The attacks against the US, the Iraqi Government and the people of Iraq take no possession of any land. There is no government that is fighting against the US in Iraq. (Except maybe Iran) Most of the attacks no longer even target the US. Instead, terrorists are simply killing for no reason, other than to instill fear in the local population and provide useful idiots, like Senator Reid, with the ammunition they need to further their own agenda. In exchange, these terrorists expect to be rewarded with a withdrawal of American troops.
This is what Congressman Murtha appears to be promising them.
His latest rant this week is in response to the Pentagon's current plans to layoff over 100,000 people working for the Pentagon, employees and contractors who are not essential to the fights in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is in order to stretch out their available funds as the Democrats in Congress are refusing to approve any more money unless it includes a timeline for withdrawal. This is a very sensible more for the Pentagon. After all, you are not going to need the 'pencil pushers' in the rear if you lose the game at the front. Murtha, who is 'in the rear with the gear' thinks otherwise, demanding instead that the troops at the front be withdrawn.
That Murtha is speaking out about this funding issue is actually amusing considering that this Congressman is the #1 abuser of taxpayer money through the use of earmarks. Maybe he should tighten his belt and let the troop have some of the money he has been earmarking for friends and political contributors.
Also, remember that Congressman Murtha voted in favor of going to War against Iraq. He even spoke out against withdrawal in 2005:
A premature withdrawal of our troops based on a political timetable could rapidly devolve into a civil war which would leave America’s foreign policy in disarray as countries question not only America’s judgment but also its perseverance - Murtha, WikipediaCongressman Murtha has been wrong on a number of issues about Iraq. (Including his snap judgment of US Marines accused of killing civilians in Iraq, who were later exonerated. He has since refused to apologize.) Sure, you can change you mind about Iraq. But that does not change the fact that we are already there and already have commitments to finish the fight and win it.
Let’s stop kidding ourselves. This man is simply driven by Pork projects and Politics. He is a perfect example of what is wrong with our Government. Not only that, it does not say much good about the people who continue to vote him into office. They should all get their heads examined.
Area in Blue off limits to oil production:
Murtha in My Pocket - 14 Aug 07
Senator Harry Reid's Treasonous Statement - 22 Apr 07
Congress Wants more info but doesn't bother to read what they got already! - 18 Nov 05
$20 billion in pork = $66 Each = AMT Fix - 18 Nov 07