Murtha's plan is very different than Kerry's or Pelosi's position

[Tom Joad]

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/11/18/MNG10FQFMV1.DTL&hw=pelosi&sn=004&sc=525

Murtha's speech leaves Democrats divided in Congress. Only a minority have called for immediate withdrawal; others, such as the party's 2004 presidential nominee, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, want a phased pullout and warn against leaving chaos behind in Iraq.

As far as Pelosi is concerned, this would directly contridict her previous stands... because she has always failed to support any timetable set by Congress for withdraw of troops.

Pelosi, who voted against the war and has since criticized Bush's Iraq policy, declined to follow Murtha's lead and call for withdrawal Thursday.

"This is his day,'' she told reporters, apparently happy to have a member from a working-class Pennsylvania district take the lead on an issue more closely associated with Bay Area liberals. "I will take it under consideration. ... My views are well known. I've said from the start the war was a grotesque mistake.''

The "grotesque mistake" is a nice line, but it does not put Congress in position of removing the troops or even asking for that. For Pelosi, she has left that to Bush, she has repeatedly called on him to present an exit plan.

In Contrast, Murtha has himself created an exit plan. Will other Democrats support him? If they support the bill Murtha has put forth, there will be immediate redeployment (I believe this would mean troops would no longer go on offensive campaigns, such as the infamous Fallajah campaign, or the more recent ones where many civilians have been killed). The position Murtha has taken is very different than a plan to phase withdraw over a years time. It is more than a 6 month difference, because there is no dependency on what the Iraqis do. Under Kerry’s plan, will US troops leave even if the US-installed government is unable to stand? Do we want US troops to remain to defend that government?

Murtha’s call is the kind of leadership, and break from “stay the course” line that we need. Phased withdrawal, based on preconditions (unlikely to be met), will mean thousands of Iraqis killed by US troops, it will mean many more casualties for the US troops themselves. Murtha has been visiting the wounded troops, and listening to their woes. He knows what this means.

Let us hope Pelosi, after she “considers” it, that she finally takes action to support unequivocally Murtha’s statement. Let’s hope Kerry does the same. I have seen no statement from them saying such yet. This could mean the end of the war. This is the right thing to do. This could also raise people’s respect for the Democratic party, who, they see, have lacked a real plan for themselves.

[catmother]

1. there was a time when i would have said "slow withdrawal"

but i think we're wasting lives, time and money. no matter how long we stay i think the whole place will fall apart once we leave. there's too much dissent within the various groups there. democracy does not work for everyone.

you can flame me if you want. just this morning i heard there was another attack (don't remember where), but it was somewhere where news people stay.

[AValdoux]

2. They make it sound like...

...Murtha wants to load everyone on a plane tomorrow and bring them home. When he took questions from the press, he clarified it could happen in six months. So his stand is not that different from Pelosi's or Kerry's. Kerry has said his plan would get the troops out by the end of 2006. So we are talking months here.

[Tom Joad]

3. I think the difference is more than counting months.

As i said, I think Kerry's plan is conditional, Murtha's is not.

Kerry wants us to wait for the US to train Iraqi military to support the US-installed govt.

Nixon's plan was for the US to Vietnamese forces to support the US-installed govt.

When will they ever learn?

[blm]

14. Murtha's is conditional, too. Attached to safety of the troops which means

whatever is happening in those 6months will determine if it's safe for them to even leave in that frame of time.

[MissMarple]

4. I agree, bringing the troops home is the uniting idea for Dems.

Durbin said last week we should tell the Iraqi's we will not be in Iraq indefinitely. The Republicans don't want to leave, that's why they use the term "cut and run" in response to that.

How we leave the Iraqis to their own devices makes all the difference in the long run. I would rather leave that to the competent people who are not tied to a political or religious ideology or compromised by the acquisition of personal wealth at the direct expense of the American people. Oh, gee, John Kerry and Wesley Clark come most immediately to mind.

[sybylla]

5. I find it interesting that this is getting talked about as if no one has

said it before.

In June 10th, Sen. Russ Feingold introduced a resolution calling on the chimp to define the remaining mission in Iraq and to set a timetable for withdrawl.
http://ppf.c.topica.com/maadDkIabhQvqbPNpy9e/

On August 18th, Sen. Russ Feingold "proposed a target timeframe for the completion of the military mission in Iraq and suggested December 31, 2006 as the target date for the completion of the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq."
http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=8nondkbab.0.9b7mdkbab.tiniiyn6.5454&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tompaine.com%2Farticles%2F20050616%2Fnot_your_fathers_antiwar_movement.php

This was before Kerry even got out there about withdrawing from Iraq.

What makes Murtha's proposition so much more important than the others and so much more worthy of our time on DU? Paint me a picture 'cuz I ain't seein' it.

[Tom Joad]

6. Is this timetable without preconditions?

Preconditions changes everything. If you leave those in, we could be there for years, killing more Iraqis.

[blm]

8. Difference is that Feingold said it with no details on doing it.

Kerry's strength is in the details and I believe Feingold is supportive of Kerry's plan.

Kerry Introduces Strategy for Success in Iraq Act in United States Senate

Plan Would Bring Home 20,000 Troops After Iraq Elections, Demands Benchmarks for Success

Washington, D.C. -- This afternoon, Senator John Kerry introduced in the Senate his plan to succeed in Iraq and bring the vast majority of our combat troops home in a reasonable timeframe tied to specific, responsible benchmarks to transfer responsibility to Iraqis – beginning with the draw down of 20,000 U.S. troops after successful Iraqi elections in December. These additional troops are in Iraq only for the purpose of providing security for the upcoming elections. If they remain in Iraq after that benchmark is achieved, it only exacerbates the sense of American occupation.

"We are entering a make-or-break six month period in Iraq. We need to be taking action now if we are ever going to bring our troops home within a reasonable timeframe from an Iraq that's not permanently torn by irrepressible conflict," Kerry said. “We cannot pull out precipitously or merely promise to stay ‘as long as it takes. There is a way forward that gives us the best chance both to salvage a difficult situation in Iraq, and to save American and Iraqi lives.”

Kerry's legislation, the Strategy for Success in Iraq Act, lays out a comprehensive new strategy to complete the mission in Iraq and bring our troops home. Its goal is to undermine the insurgency by simultaneously pursing both a political settlement and the draw down of American forces linked to specific, responsible benchmarks. If followed, the process will be completed in 12-15 months.

Kerry’s plan calls for:

• The U.S. to begin a phased draw down of American troops as a series of military and political benchmarks is met, starting with a reduction of 20,000 troops over the holidays as the first benchmark –the successful completion of the December elections – is met.

• The U.S. to immediately make clear that we do not want permanent military bases in Iraq, or a large combat force on Iraqi soil indefinitely.

• The Administration to immediately give Congress and the American people a detailed plan for the transfer of military and police responsibilities on a sector by sector basis to Iraqis so the majority of our combat forces can be withdrawn -- ideally by the end of next year.

• The Bush administration to prod the new Iraqi government to ask for a multinational force to help protect Iraq’s borders until a capable national army is formed. Such a force, if sanctioned by the United Nations, could attract participation by Iraq's neighbors and countries like India and would be a critical step in stemming the tide of insurgents and money into Iraq, especially from Syria.

• The Pentagon to alter the deployment of American troops, keeping Special Operations forces pursuing specific intelligence leads and putting the vast majority of U.S. troops in rear guard, garrisoned status for security backup. We do not need to send young Americans on search and destroy missions that invite alienation and deepen the risks they face.

• The President to put the training of Iraqi security forces on a six month wartime footing and ensure that the Iraqi government has the budget to deploy them.

• The Bush administration to accept long standing offers by Egypt, Jordan, France and Germany to do more training.

• The administration to immediately call a conference of Iraq’s neighbors, Britain, Turkey and other key NATO allies, and Russia to implement a strategy to bring the parties in Iraq to a sustainable political compromise that includes mutual security guarantees among Iraqis.

• Iraq’s Sunni neighbors to set up a reconstruction fund specifically for the majority Sunni areas to show them the benefits of participating in the political process. • The President to appoint a special envoy to bolster America’s diplomatic efforts.

• The U.S. to commit to a new regional security structure that includes improved security assistance programs and joint exercises.

• The U.S. to jumpstart our lagging reconstruction efforts by providing the necessary civilian personnel to do the job, standing up civil-military reconstruction teams throughout the country, streamlining the disbursement of funds to the provinces, expanding job creation programs for Iraqis, and strengthening the capacity of government ministries.

“We must send this critical signal to the Iraqi people - that we do not desire permanent occupation - and that Iraqis themselves must fight for Iraq. History shows that guns alone do not end an insurgency,” Kerry added.

Senior American commanders and officials have said the large U.S. military presence in Iraq feeds the insurgency. General George Casey, the top American military commander in Iraq, recently told Congress that our large military presence “feeds the notion of occupation” and “extends the amount of time that it will take for Iraqi security forces to become self-reliant.” Richard Nixon’s Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird, breaking a thirty year silence, recently wrote, ''Our presence is what feeds the insurgency, and our gradual withdrawal would feed the confidence and the ability of average Iraqis to stand up to the insurgency."

# # #

[blm]

7. And what would our troops redeployed NEAR Iraq do when chaos erupts in

Iraq after that 6mo draw down? Are they positioned close by to go back in? Yes.

Why not take a bit more time to make the going steadier? A quicker withdrawal may put you right back in.

This reporter is also not factoring in Kerry and Murtha's history of working together.

Looks to me like Murtha offered a vague 6mo plan specifically to bait Republicans into moving towards the detailed 13-18 mo plan in the senate.

[Tom Joad]

9. Chaos? WTF is happening now?

This is really about opposing neo-colonialism. This idea that we have a White Man's burden to help these helpless people-- when the real reason is always to control the wealth, to create facts on the ground.

So this should be clear, Iraqis can do fine on their own. It is US intervention that has been the cause of many of their problems in the past (from supporting Saddam to then war against Iraq...sanctions, then war again).

Things will not be perfect when US troops leave, things will probably get worse, at least in the short-run, but we can state with almost near-certainty that it is worse in the long run if US stays.

We should be saying that even 6 months is too long.

[blm]

10. Well, that's where it takes constant reassurance we are not occupiers

and real steps must be made to do that HONESTLY and SINCERELY.

And what's so great about redeploying the troops OUTSIDE Iraq so they can be close by when chaos inevitably erupts?

That's why making it a Kerry plan vs. Murtha plan issue is absurd. No one is reading Murtha's plan because it is DELIBERATELY VAGUE. Kerry and Murtha are working to BAIT the Republicans and the WH into this debate.



Kerry Introduces Strategy for Success in Iraq Act in United States Senate

Plan Would Bring Home 20,000 Troops After Iraq Elections, Demands Benchmarks for Success

Washington, D.C. -- This afternoon, Senator John Kerry introduced in the Senate his plan to succeed in Iraq and bring the vast majority of our combat troops home in a reasonable timeframe tied to specific, responsible benchmarks to transfer responsibility to Iraqis – beginning with the draw down of 20,000 U.S. troops after successful Iraqi elections in December. These additional troops are in Iraq only for the purpose of providing security for the upcoming elections. If they remain in Iraq after that benchmark is achieved, it only exacerbates the sense of American occupation.

"We are entering a make-or-break six month period in Iraq. We need to be taking action now if we are ever going to bring our troops home within a reasonable timeframe from an Iraq that's not permanently torn by irrepressible conflict," Kerry said. “We cannot pull out precipitously or merely promise to stay ‘as long as it takes. There is a way forward that gives us the best chance both to salvage a difficult situation in Iraq, and to save American and Iraqi lives.”

Kerry's legislation, the Strategy for Success in Iraq Act, lays out a comprehensive new strategy to complete the mission in Iraq and bring our troops home. Its goal is to undermine the insurgency by simultaneously pursing both a political settlement and the draw down of American forces linked to specific, responsible benchmarks. If followed, the process will be completed in 12-15 months.

Kerry’s plan calls for:

• The U.S. to begin a phased draw down of American troops as a series of military and political benchmarks is met, starting with a reduction of 20,000 troops over the holidays as the first benchmark –the successful completion of the December elections – is met.

• The U.S. to immediately make clear that we do not want permanent military bases in Iraq, or a large combat force on Iraqi soil indefinitely.

• The Administration to immediately give Congress and the American people a detailed plan for the transfer of military and police responsibilities on a sector by sector basis to Iraqis so the majority of our combat forces can be withdrawn -- ideally by the end of next year.

• The Bush administration to prod the new Iraqi government to ask for a multinational force to help protect Iraq’s borders until a capable national army is formed. Such a force, if sanctioned by the United Nations, could attract participation by Iraq's neighbors and countries like India and would be a critical step in stemming the tide of insurgents and money into Iraq, especially from Syria.

• The Pentagon to alter the deployment of American troops, keeping Special Operations forces pursuing specific intelligence leads and putting the vast majority of U.S. troops in rear guard, garrisoned status for security backup. We do not need to send young Americans on search and destroy missions that invite alienation and deepen the risks they face.

• The President to put the training of Iraqi security forces on a six month wartime footing and ensure that the Iraqi government has the budget to deploy them.

• The Bush administration to accept long standing offers by Egypt, Jordan, France and Germany to do more training.

• The administration to immediately call a conference of Iraq’s neighbors, Britain, Turkey and other key NATO allies, and Russia to implement a strategy to bring the parties in Iraq to a sustainable political compromise that includes mutual security guarantees among Iraqis.

• Iraq’s Sunni neighbors to set up a reconstruction fund specifically for the majority Sunni areas to show them the benefits of participating in the political process. • The President to appoint a special envoy to bolster America’s diplomatic efforts.

• The U.S. to commit to a new regional security structure that includes improved security assistance programs and joint exercises.

• The U.S. to jumpstart our lagging reconstruction efforts by providing the necessary civilian personnel to do the job, standing up civil-military reconstruction teams throughout the country, streamlining the disbursement of funds to the provinces, expanding job creation programs for Iraqis, and strengthening the capacity of government ministries.

“We must send this critical signal to the Iraqi people - that we do not desire permanent occupation - and that Iraqis themselves must fight for Iraq. History shows that guns alone do not end an insurgency,” Kerry added.

Senior American commanders and officials have said the large U.S. military presence in Iraq feeds the insurgency. General George Casey, the top American military commander in Iraq, recently told Congress that our large military presence “feeds the notion of occupation” and “extends the amount of time that it will take for Iraqi security forces to become self-reliant.” Richard Nixon’s Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird, breaking a thirty year silence, recently wrote, ''Our presence is what feeds the insurgency, and our gradual withdrawal would feed the confidence and the ability of average Iraqis to stand up to the insurgency."

# # #

[countryjake]

11. Kerry may have taken criticism to heart, at least.

We all blasted him last night, after he was bold enough to do his own little "swift-boating" during an interview yesterday on CNN with Wolf Blitzer in the Situation Room. He even made Wolfie's jaw drop!

Sen. Kerry:
"I respectfully disagree with John Murtha. And I laid out a plan which is, I think, a good plan, a solid plan. It builds consistently on everything I said throughout the campaign last year of what you need to do to be successful. And I believe my plan supports the troops in the right way."


Anyway, I agree that their "plans" differ, mainly that Rep. Murtha says the Iraqis need to be told immediately, before those elections in December, that US redeployment is going to begin. Put on notice, he said!

His concern lies with getting our service men and women out of harm's way...as he said yesterday, they are the primary target of the insurgency and our soldiers are THE catalyst of violence in Iraq.

He also made no bones about stating that 80% of the Iraqis are against the presence of our Coalition forces in their country and want us out of there, now! We are the common enemy in Iraq.

Ain't it a shame that our elected officials haggle the future of a sovereign nation full of people this way? Bet Iraqis would all love to have a VOTE on the matter, eh?

[Tom Joad]

12. Good Point Country. Why does anyone want US troops to remain

for any length of time, when 80% of Iraqis want them out?

My concern also, besides US troops to be removed from harm's way, is to get Iraqis out of harm's way from the US military

[blm]

15. What's jawdropping about Respectfully disagree, here's my withdrawal plan?

Kerry Introduces Strategy for Success in Iraq Act in United States Senate

Plan Would Bring Home 20,000 Troops After Iraq Elections, Demands Benchmarks for Success

Washington, D.C. -- This afternoon, Senator John Kerry introduced in the Senate his plan to succeed in Iraq and bring the vast majority of our combat troops home in a reasonable timeframe tied to specific, responsible benchmarks to transfer responsibility to Iraqis – beginning with the draw down of 20,000 U.S. troops after successful Iraqi elections in December. These additional troops are in Iraq only for the purpose of providing security for the upcoming elections. If they remain in Iraq after that benchmark is achieved, it only exacerbates the sense of American occupation.

"We are entering a make-or-break six month period in Iraq. We need to be taking action now if we are ever going to bring our troops home within a reasonable timeframe from an Iraq that's not permanently torn by irrepressible conflict," Kerry said. “We cannot pull out precipitously or merely promise to stay ‘as long as it takes. There is a way forward that gives us the best chance both to salvage a difficult situation in Iraq, and to save American and Iraqi lives.”

Kerry's legislation, the Strategy for Success in Iraq Act, lays out a comprehensive new strategy to complete the mission in Iraq and bring our troops home. Its goal is to undermine the insurgency by simultaneously pursing both a political settlement and the draw down of American forces linked to specific, responsible benchmarks. If followed, the process will be completed in 12-15 months.

Kerry’s plan calls for:

• The U.S. to begin a phased draw down of American troops as a series of military and political benchmarks is met, starting with a reduction of 20,000 troops over the holidays as the first benchmark –the successful completion of the December elections – is met.

• The U.S. to immediately make clear that we do not want permanent military bases in Iraq, or a large combat force on Iraqi soil indefinitely.

• The Administration to immediately give Congress and the American people a detailed plan for the transfer of military and police responsibilities on a sector by sector basis to Iraqis so the majority of our combat forces can be withdrawn -- ideally by the end of next year.

• The Bush administration to prod the new Iraqi government to ask for a multinational force to help protect Iraq’s borders until a capable national army is formed. Such a force, if sanctioned by the United Nations, could attract participation by Iraq's neighbors and countries like India and would be a critical step in stemming the tide of insurgents and money into Iraq, especially from Syria.

• The Pentagon to alter the deployment of American troops, keeping Special Operations forces pursuing specific intelligence leads and putting the vast majority of U.S. troops in rear guard, garrisoned status for security backup. We do not need to send young Americans on search and destroy missions that invite alienation and deepen the risks they face.

• The President to put the training of Iraqi security forces on a six month wartime footing and ensure that the Iraqi government has the budget to deploy them.

• The Bush administration to accept long standing offers by Egypt, Jordan, France and Germany to do more training.

• The administration to immediately call a conference of Iraq’s neighbors, Britain, Turkey and other key NATO allies, and Russia to implement a strategy to bring the parties in Iraq to a sustainable political compromise that includes mutual security guarantees among Iraqis.

• Iraq’s Sunni neighbors to set up a reconstruction fund specifically for the majority Sunni areas to show them the benefits of participating in the political process. • The President to appoint a special envoy to bolster America’s diplomatic efforts.

• The U.S. to commit to a new regional security structure that includes improved security assistance programs and joint exercises.

• The U.S. to jumpstart our lagging reconstruction efforts by providing the necessary civilian personnel to do the job, standing up civil-military reconstruction teams throughout the country, streamlining the disbursement of funds to the provinces, expanding job creation programs for Iraqis, and strengthening the capacity of government ministries.

“We must send this critical signal to the Iraqi people - that we do not desire permanent occupation - and that Iraqis themselves must fight for Iraq. History shows that guns alone do not end an insurgency,” Kerry added.

Senior American commanders and officials have said the large U.S. military presence in Iraq feeds the insurgency. General George Casey, the top American military commander in Iraq, recently told Congress that our large military presence “feeds the notion of occupation” and “extends the amount of time that it will take for Iraqi security forces to become self-reliant.” Richard Nixon’s Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird, breaking a thirty year silence, recently wrote, ''Our presence is what feeds the insurgency, and our gradual withdrawal would feed the confidence and the ability of average Iraqis to stand up to the insurgency."

# # #

[LonelyLRLiberal]

13. Get them out ASAP w/out conditions is what we want - Question -

Logistically, how can we get the troops out safely? I know it is impossible to prevent casualties, but we cannot get them all out at one time. As the number of US troops (and any civilian contractors supporting them) is reduced by withdrawals, how do we protect the ones left? Maybe some of you with military experience could enlighten me on this. I have been wondering how it would be done.

[Ksec]

16. I like Murthas plan

He is from my general area (W PA and Im E OH)and hes got real balls to do what he did. He is just doing what his constituents told him to do. Has nothing to do with politics like smirk is ignorantly, cowardly, implying. Murthas the man. He'd make a good Pres.