1115.org

“I like guys who got five deferments and (have) never been there and send people to war, and then don’t like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done.” – Representative John Murtha (D-PA) 11/17/05

So it ended up being all Iraq war this week. Funny, that. As all the excuses fall by the wayside and the supposed benefits fail to materialize, the administration decided to apply their normal strategy of setting up a firebreak in the hopes of limiting damage. Blame the Democrats and lie about their access to intelligence information, and the public debate takes place over the events of the past rather than the events of the present. The sad thing is that it will work to a certain extent, but in a way, the Dems who voted for the war deserve the extra work they need to do to explain themselves. They failed in 2002 to run an effective opposition, and paid the price when the President decided to time the Iraq war resolution vote for maximum impact on that year’s mid-term elections. We’ve often written about the disservice politicians do to their constituents when they prioritize their career prospects over their responsibilities, and 29 Senate Democrats did just that. It didn’t work out the way they planned, and the political result was loss of control in the Senate.

But this was by definition an elective war that was aggressively “marketed” to the American people on television and talk radio. By the time the vote rolled around, the average American all but believed that Saddam Hussein bankrolled 9/11 and parachuted off of Flight 11 just before it crashed into the north tower of the World Trade Center, only to regroup back in his lair, hand on the joystick of the airborne drone that would carry a nuclear device across the Atlantic to detonate over Washington D.C. That none of it was true made little difference; fear trumps rationality every time. The lies that went into selling the war have all been exposed, and the current debate centers on access to intelligence. Significant proof exists that most of those who voted to give the President authorization did not see the full picture, and the only contrary argument comes from the President, backed up by nothing but his word.

This strategy worked better when he enjoyed a 50% approval rating than it does now with a 35%, but it still has the effect of muddying the waters a bit. Yet the key question remains: Why would a President who constantly boasts of his moral clarity and insulation from polls care how many people supported invasion or how many support the war now? Why did he need to rely on public relations and proven lies from Iraqi nationals to get us into the war, and why is he doing the same now? Isn’t his total control over the situation enough? Or does his fragile ego need fluffing?

The debate over access is simply a distraction from the real issue: the fact that we have very little hope of winning the war in Iraq. And rather than sit back and live in the past, Representative John Murtha (D-PA) decided to accept reality and call for an end to the war he had vigorously supported:

The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We can not continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interest of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region.
[...]
…insurgent incidents have increased from about 150 per week to over 700 in the last year. Instead of attacks going down over time and with the addition of more troops, attacks have grown dramatically. Since the revelations at Abu Ghraib, American casualties have doubled. An annual State Department report in 2004 indicated a sharp increase in global terrorism.

I said over a year ago, and now the military and the Administration agrees, Iraq can not be won “militarily.” I said two years ago, the key to progress in Iraq is to Iraqitize, Internationalize and Energize. I believe the same today. But I have concluded that the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is impeding this progress.

This isn’t Nancy Pelosi speaking, it is a highly decorated combat veteran of wars in both Korea and Vietnam. A conservative. A hawk. He now accepts what war critics have known for two years; our military has done everything asked of them, but they were betrayed from the very beginning by shoddy planning, belligerent diplomacy, distorted intelligence, and handcuffed by centuries of sectarian rivalry. The “war on the cheap” doctrine of the President and Donald Rumsfeld has been discredited, yet the soldiers they so recklessly sent to Iraq are still targets of an enemy who possesses an endless supply of fighters motivated by forces most of us can’t even begin to understand.

The President’s pride is the only thing sustaining this war. Having already determined that 10 dead and 100 wounded soldiers each week won’t cause rioting on the streets of D.C., he sees only downside in ending his folly. For the President, there is no higher sin than to change one’s mind. For his supporters, haunted by the knowledge that all the hippie protesters who filled the streets in early 2003 were right, they grasp at phantoms to hold the status quo. The President and his advisors rolled the dice and lost. But unlike your average gambler in Vegas, they are refusing to get up from the table, continuing to go double-or-nothing looking to break back even. The problem is, they aren’t playing with clay chips or even cash, but the lives of our soldiers, the future of our military, and the security of this country.