I have to disagree with you on Murtha. He lied to the Marines he visited in western Iraq, and he advocated withdrawal from Somalia. He make look like a standup guy, but he runs for cover at the first sign of trouble and he doesn't back the troops.

The Marines are really pissed at him.

I suspect Murtha is wrong about at least one factual point in his argument -- that American troops are the principal target of the insurgency. The casualty count among both Iraqi security forces and Iraqi civilians suggests otherwise. This is not a trivial point, because much of Murtha's argument for swift American withdrawal rests on the proposition that the American presence is inciting the insurgency. The insugency's current goal appears to be to kill the new Iraqi government in its cradle and persuade the Iraqi population that government -- which is democratically elected -- can't protect it, not to target Americans. Getting the Americans out of Iraq is not the end goal of the insugency -- regaining power is. If this is the case, an American withdrawal would not remove the principle cause of the insurgency, a Congressman Murtha implies, but would encourage it's continuation. At the very least Murtha needs to demonstrate this point with facts and figures. He also needs to state explicitly if he is prepared to support an American withdrawal if it leads to civil war -- and to accept the moral responsibility that implies.

Antimedia,

Forgive me for being uninformed, but what did he lie to the troops in Western Iraq about? This is a part of the story I haven't heard.

Your new site looks good, btw.

Paul,

Agree.

I blogged about it. You can read the story here - http://camelspider.typepad.com/howdy/2005/11/fight_fight.html

"Holy Crap Bat Man I could write a whole Blog entry on Sen Murtha. He came here in Iraq a couple months ago. Praising us for what a great job we did. He visited places out west like Haditha and told the Marines there “we are going to let you finish what you started” as I listened. He probed about requirements and gear and moral and was somewhat disappointed that we had what we needed and kept asking well what do you really need trying to find a problem. HE defiantly just pissed off a majority of the military now and has gone 180 degree from what he was saying and preaching about “Finishing the job” when he was face to face with us. He has been to Iraq ONCE for 3 days. Everything he is saying now is exactly the opposite of what he was saying when he was with us. He makes sound like he is a front line troop as he speaks. He is two faced and I have seen it first hand standing in front of him as he spoke to us. This is a very sad ploy by the democrats and will do nothing but hurt our troops."

heard all the talking points before. Ok, if you want to advocate an idea of placing US troops outside the major cities to be held in reserve, then do so. Don't spout all the DEM talking points sans "Bush lied".

I lost respect for him. The reason McCain has respect is because he loses the talking points.

Chester,

The arguments in Congress are indeed not lost on the Far East. Here is an article about the Japanese and it mentions how they may now feel we don't have the stomach to face China. That they will need to find another way to keep her in check. Notice how the 2000 deaths and we're outta here crowd plays abroad.

Subsunk

East Asia allies doubt U.S. could win war with China

The overwhelming assessment by Asian officials, diplomats and analysts is that the U.S. military simply cannot defeat China. It has been an assessment relayed to U.S. government officials over the past few months by countries such as Australia, Japan and South Korea. This comes as President Bush wraps up a visit to Asia, in which he sought to strengthen U.S. ties with key allies in the region.

Most Asian officials have expressed their views privately. Tokyo Governor Shintaro Ishihara has gone public, warning that the United States would lose any war with China.

"In any case, if tension between the United States and China heightens, if each side pulls the trigger, though it may not be stretched to nuclear weapons, and the wider hostilities expand, I believe America cannot win as it has a civic society that must adhere to the value of respecting lives," Mr. Ishihara said in an address to the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Mr. Ishihara said U.S. ground forces, with the exception of the Marines, are "extremely incompetent" and would be unable to stem a Chinese conventional attack. Indeed, he asserted that China would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons against Asian and American cities—even at the risk of a massive U.S. retaliation.

The governor said the U.S. military could not counter a wave of millions of Chinese soldiers prepared to die in any onslaught against U.S. forces. After 2,000 casualties, he said, the U.S. military would be forced to withdraw.

"Therefore, we need to consider other means to counter China," he said. "The step we should be taking against China, I believe, is economic containment."

Officials acknowledge that Mr. Ishihara's views reflect the widespread skepticism of U.S. military capabilities in such countries as Australia, India, Japan, Singapore and South Korea. They said the U.S.-led war in Iraq has pointed to the American weakness in low-tech warfare.

"When we can't even control parts of Anbar, they get the message loud and clear," an official said, referring to the flashpoint province in western Iraq.

As a result, Asian allies of the United States are quietly preparing to bolster their militaries independent of Washington. So far, the Bush administration has been strongly opposed to an indigenous Japanese defense capability, fearing it would lead to the expulsion of the U.S. military presence from that country.

On Nov. 16, Mr. Bush met with Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi. The two leaders discussed the realignment of the U.S. military presence in Japan and Tokyo's troop deployment in Iraq.

During his visit to Washington in early November, Mr. Ishihara met senior U.S. defense officials. They included talks with U.S. Defense Deputy Undersecretary for Asian and Pacific Affairs Richard Lawless to discuss the realignment of the U.S. military presence in Japan.

For his part, Mr. Ishihara does not see China as evolving into a stable democracy with free elections.

"I believe such predictions are totally wrong," Mr. Ishihara said.

Copyright © 2005 News World Communications

http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/slasheastasia_1.htm

Subsunk,

An excellent article. I think we can most certainly defeat China, depending on how we want to attack them. If we want to invade, topple the regime, and reconstruct the nation, we'll lose. But we don't need to do that.

If on the other hand, we want to repel an amphibious landing against Taiwan, we can do it. If we have to retake Taiwan because the PRC has surprised us, it'll be bloody, but we can do it.

Those are more limited objectives, but the Taiwan issue is the most likely scenario.

As far as defeating the state, and changing the regime, we can do that too, we just can't occupy the country. But that's ok. If we ever have to do such a thing -- God forbid -- we'll just let our strategy match our capabilities. We can return China's middle-class to the peasantry from which it has sprung with relative ease. That is a pretty powerful motivator. I don't mean through the use of nuclear weapons. We can merely destroy their industrial base -- and they most certainly have one that can be destroyed. We can do this with a massive cruise missile launch, along with aerially-delivered PGMs, and possibly along the coasts, naval gunfire (though, Subsunk, you'd be more qualified to speak to this point than me!)

Can we invade China, occupy it, and reconstruct it? No. Absolutely not.

Can we defeat China's armed services, destroy its economy, and circumscribe its influence to the coastal areas of Asia alone, and possibly not even throughout its current land mass? Absolutely.

I think those who look at Iraq and try to relate it to a conflict with China make a mistake in analogy.

Another point: the article says, "In any case, if tension between the United States and China heightens, if each side pulls the trigger, though it may not be stretched to nuclear weapons, and the wider hostilities expand, I believe America cannot win as it has a civic society that must adhere to the value of respecting lives." I think the implication of that sentiment are wrong: Victor Hanson has done extensive research into the value of the West's morality in warfare, and part of that is our inability to sacrifice our assets, people included, needlessly. China might have a deeper bench of footsoldiers, but the vast majority are under-trained conscripts. Human wave attacks anyone? Rather easy to repel those, as the Jihadi have discovered.

As far as economic impact in the US of a war with China -- it would be substantial, but short term -- say 2-3 years of bad times, either no growth or slow growth. After that, the global economy would have adjusted to a China at the same stage of development as it was 20 years ago.

Having said all that, I don't think a full-scale war with China is that likely, though Chinese nationalism is not to be underestimated. Instead, I see the Taiwan scenario as extremely likely. How the US handles that will determine the likelihood of a larger-scale war down the road.

Also, having said all that, I completely agree with your larger point. Murtha's comments undercut US objectives in places other than just the Middle East. Much of life is about expectations and perceptions and he and those like him have a direct impact on the expectations and perceptions of our allies, or would-be allies.

My charitable take on Murtha is that he is suffering from battle fatigue. He seems to be rattled by his own false premise that the US forces have become the primary target for the terrorist. In reallity they are way down the list in Iraq, becuase their response is so deadly. Fully a quarter of all enemy attacks are defensive responses to US initiated operations according to Multi-National Forces-Iraq stats. Most of the other attacks are directed toward non combatants who cannot shoot back. In the last year I can recall no more than three enemy initiated attacks on defended positions held by US forces and in each case the enemy was decesivily defeated. His other "attacks" are passive booby traps usually aimed at US forces in transit.

It is surprising that the media has not challenged this false premise, however, they appear to share his ignorance on this issue.

I read that the plan to withdraw forces after the december elections has been in place for some time. I think all the crap from the dems is to make it look like they influenced that decision...making it appear as though they cajoled the Bush admin into action. At the same time, they paint Bush as indecisive, dishonest, and arrogant. And of course they have the major media on their side.Bush reinforces all of this by being the worst extemporaneous speaker in world history.

Kirk,

I was thinking this too. There was an AP story a few days before Murtha had his big speech. The story laid out the withdrawal plans that are in the works and being planned by Gens. Casey and Abizaid. Part of the plan involves A large US recation force living in Kuwait for a while, in case something goes wrong. It will be a gradual draw-down and will leave 100,000 or so US forces in Iraq by the end of 2006.

I thinkyou are right. THe Dems know this and could be trying to set the stage so that they can claim credit for influencing the plan in 2006.

I think that's a reasonable premise but I'd hate to believe that Murtha is in on it. I prefer Merv's opinion that he suffers from combat fatigue.

Murtha is a coward, plain and simple. He once was not, but that was a while ago. He may find his courage in the future, who knows?
The definiation of coward is one who runs from a fight. It makes no difference why they run or what the fight is.
Coward and it's negative connotation stems from the Feudal period. Then fighting was done along the shield wall and anyone who ran from the battle put himself and his mates atrisk, since maintaining the integrity of the shield wall was the key to success in battle.
It baffled the Franks when they first fought the Moslems that the Arabs felt no shame about fleeing a battle. The Eastern Roman Empire didn't attach the stigma to cowardice that Franks did. Feigned retreats were a staple of both Byzantine and Moslem tactics. Thruout the middle ages the Western Franks were famous for fighting to that last man in a hopeless position.
That is why there is a stigma attached today to the word Coward.
Murtha is a coward, but that's not the question. The question is "Is running the smart thing to do?"
I don't think it is and I challenge anyone to prove that running from Iraq will acomplish anything advantageous for America. It won't, which is why there are no serious Democratic contenders for the White House advocating it.

Chester:

Murtha may have been a Marine but he is a politician now...on the other hand, he no doubt had a very bad experience with Viet Nam. The irony for him is that he is now on the same side as people who probably would have spit on him 30 years ago.

Great website and interesting comments