Murtha on Hardball: Generals tell him 25 years to train troops in Iraq

[adigal]

(Cross-posted at dailykos)

Last night I watched Rep. Murtha on Hardball; the man's sincerity and real concern, not politically correct concern, for the troops just shines through. He is a great American. What he said has not received any play in the "lib'rul media" so I thought I would post here too.

I think he told Matthews some things that he did not want to hear. One of the issues they discussed was what Bush meant when he said we would stay "until the job is done." Murtha, almost in horror, said that that was not a plan, and that according to generals he has spoken to in closed meetings that preparing the Iraqi troops for a stable Iraq may take twenty five years.

Twenty five years. Think about it. My youngest child will be 36 years old, technically old enough to have one of her children drafted. My God. What has Bush done?

Here is what he said:

MURTHA: So we've got a position where if we won't redeploy, as I'm suggesting, and let the Iraqis change their own destiny, let them handle their own destiny, we're going to be there for 100 years. I remember one time in the closed hearing, one of the top generals said, "we'll be there for 25 years." I said you saying 25 years? A lot of people think it would take that long.

Please go read this if you missed the show; it is a very worthwhile read:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10281920/

Another quote showing that he thinks the casualties we have suffered thus far may be just the tip of the iceberg:

MATTHEWS: What are the military folks you get access to saying about how long it will take if we continue on the president's course, to have an Iraqi army that can defend that government?

MURTHA: I've heard estimates up to 25 years. Now we've already spent $277 billion in Iraq and Afghanistan. Let me give you a figure from Vietnam. Secretary McNamara said in 1963 that it would take us two years to win the war in Vietnam, two years.

In 1965, we had lost 2,100 people in Vietnam. From 1965 until 1972, we lost 55,000 Americans. What I'm saying is, we've lost 2,100 people now and we have become the enemy. Our troops are the targets for the insurgents. (end of section of transcript)

Murtha is speaking truthfully and powerfully; I am going to send his office a fax thanking him when I get home. His various phone numbers and fax numbers are here:

http://www.vote-smart.org/...

Murtha repeatedly said that this is not a war of words, this is a real war. Of course, Matthews would need to be reminded of this, as he never got his hands dirty during a war. Matthews later asked Murtha if what Bush claimed today was true: that all that the generals have to do to get more troops is to ask for them. He asked Murtha, do you believe what the president said today?

[Broken_Hero]

1. very interesting....

Nominated, of course. I never thought it would take that long, but to stablize a whole country, in retrospect it would take a long time, without having the burden of training "others" to do the job...damn sad, what we need to do is start bringing the troops back home, and supporting the "good" iraqis from a distance....or something like that, i'm sure their are better solutions than my half assed one...

[EVDebs]

18. "10, 20 years" was part of the PNAC plan and R's bought into it

without thinking. See Bob Herbert's quote of Sen McCain, a so-called 'moderate' R in

Heads in the sand
http://spectrumz.com/z/fair_use/2004/09_04.html

"When asked this week on CNN how long the U.S. military is likely to remain in Iraq, Senator John McCain replied "probably" 10 or 20 years. "That's not so bad," he said..."

They all should be held accountable in the '06 and '08 elections. We need the House back (with, what, around 29 seats ?) and the Senate would take fewer.

The truth be told, Murtha is correct on the military being abused by the neocons on Iraq. A draft is necessary SOON before the damage becomes permanent.

Military Analysts warn of Draft within the next year
http://www.seriouslythough.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1319

...by mid-2006, according to Lawrence Korb:

"" Several military analysts agree that if the United States does not pull out of Iraq within the next year then the country will face a military draft for the first time in a generation. Lawrence Korb, Assistant Defense Secretary in the Reagan White House, claims that due to a significant dip in recruitment since the War On Iraq coupled with a decline in reenlistment, the "breaking-point" for the United States military will be in mid-2006. Army Secretary Francis Harvey denies that the military is considering a draft stating, "The 'D-word' is the farthest thing from my thoughts." Phillip Carter, a former Army captain, a conscription advocate and Slate.com military affairs writer counters, "America has a choice," wrote Carter. "It can be the world's superpower or it can maintain the current all-voluntary military. But it probably can't do both."

Seriously Though, if we aren't out of Iraq by mid-2006 I urge the American public to take out their frustrations on the Republican party during the mid-term elections. If we aren't going to have leaders who stand up and fight for us then, simply put, we need new leaders.""

The media isn't putting this information OUT THERE for the people to read, therefore Republican spinners are having a field-day poking fun at Dems who still haven't recieved word of this and are wavering with the Bush "stay the course" lemmings. The neocon pied-pipers have had their day, DUers. Dems MUST stand up and

SPEAK TRUTH TO POWER, NOW !

The damage to the Republic also extends to our security at home since the R's policies are destroying the economy-- see the two articles mentioned at this posting on DU

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2285905&mesg_id=2285905

Thank God that DU is around to let this info get to the people. Skinner take a bow !

[GreenPartyVoter]

24. I have 5 and 7 year old boys. I am NOT giving them to the war for Oil!

[EVDebs]

26. Why I joined Green Party also, spineless Dem votes

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5501371

And in today's paper I see the Democratic Leadership Cmte has hired a 'former' Republican political strategist who is telling Dems the worst thing they could do is support Murtha (as Nancy Pelosi just did), calling it playing into Rove's hands. Luckily the article also quoted David Sirota who spoke up against spinelessness.

Pelosi showed balls...something more Dems need to acquire. And get the hell out of the 'beltway' lobbying/'strategist' B.S. Think for what's in the best interests of your constitutents (and not just the corporate ones !).

[GreenPartyVoter]

30. I wash my hands of the DLC. Give me a McKinney or a Kucinich instead

[chicagiana]

42. Mush Mouth Kerry ...

As I recall, Kerry was HAMMERED for his mush-mouth position on Iraq. It's time for more decisive leaders with clearly annunciated positions.

[thefool_wa]

29. Draft this..

I am as patriotic as anyone out there but I have to say, for the safety of my children, if they EVER re-instate the draft for any reason other than the DIRECT defense of this country (i.e. beachheads on our shores) I will emigrate somewhere else and take my family with me.

Did we learn nothing from Vietnam? The drafting of americas youth to die in a foreign country that is no threat to our safety or well-being as a nation does nothing but cause dissent among our people. No foriegn war is worth forcing an entire generation of Americans into an early grave.

If they (the government, and I mean all of them) want a revolution on their hands all they have to do is start conscripting. This time it will not be burning draft cards and moving to Canada, it will not be riots and protests, it will be open season on those who put the dollar above the people they were elected to represent.

I pray it never comes to that.

[EVDebs]

32. The Joint Resolution was unconstitutional but no Dems are challenging it

See my post and read the resolution yourself

""SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq....""

No WMD threat...what threat ? "As he (Bush) determines..." Were the Dems in Congress temporarily insane to give away their perogatives ? Appears so.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2287030&mesg_id=2287030

Congress gave Bush, delegated THEIR war powers, to his 'determinations' ! The foolish idiots ! The founding fathers are doing cartwheels in their graves ! The foreign press should be having a field day with this...but even they won't point out that the emperor has no clothes....

Plus what Iraq had to do as a direct threat to US national security is now as a direct threat to our budget/financial national security. At what, $5 billion per day ? for '10, 20 years' ? Are Republicans NUTS ? The question was begging to be asked...

[thefool_wa]

36. We The People can challenge it

Short of bringing suit against the US Government, we are granted the right to petition them for redress of grievances.

Now, it has been a LONG time since my government classes in high school, but it seems that, since we are given this right, we (the citizenry of the US) should be able to petition the Supreme Court to overturn the IWR as unconstitutional and FORCE the immediate withdrawal of american troops from Iraq.

Anyone know where I can start one of these petitions (or if one already exists)?

(later)

I was informed by one of my colleagues that, in fact, this has already been done (in November 2002). See the article linked below from American Free Press for details

http://www.americanfreepress.net/We_the_People_Insert.pdf

So, I guess this leaves us with only two options. One is directly addressed in this article, and the other is implied by its absence.

Either way, *WE* are left with responsibility of bringing our government to justice for their illegal actions. Both are riddled with risks, but "staying the course" bears the greatest risk of all.

[zann725]

39. Don't "recall" elections move much quicker?

Didn't petitions start the Gray Davis debacle? And finished it in months.

[chicagiana]

43. Good luck with that ...

Good luck with getting that through the high court with the likes of John Roberts and (SC)Alito.

[chicagiana]

41. No draft before the election ...

The Pukes aren't stupid. They will delay any draft till after the '06 election. Otherwise, they would be tossed out of office.

I would stick by the common assessment that a "terrorist act" would have to pre-date a draft. Just like a "terrorist attack" predecessed the ouster of the Taliban who wouldn't sign off on the pipeline project and Saddam Hussein who had LOTS of oil to steal.

The alternative is to "pull the goalie" before the '06 election in order to get up a nationalistic fervor (that helped Bush last time) and get public support for a draft and a full mobilization with invasions of Syria and Iran. Remember, the American (as a body) has never really blamed blamed Bush for inadequetly protecting the nation before 9/11. And or mush-mouth Democratic congressional delgation never made the accusation (with the exception of Cynthia McKinney). Is it reasonable to think they could get away with "pulling the goalie" again???

[disndat]

48. Bring the troops home Now

Let an International organization take over, paid by Iraqi oil and supervised by the U.N., Iraqis, and others. The plan of the Bush gang is obviously imperialistic, not to bring democracy to the Iraqi people.

[senseandsensibility]

2. kicked

and nominated

[Fiendish Thingy]

3. A lot of times you hear "so and so for president", but I'll say here & now

Murtha For Vice-President in 2008!

[wordpix]

15. why not Murtha for president? I'm impressed with this guy

[EVDebs]

33. Howzabout Feingold/Murtha in '08 ? not bad, eh ?

[PegDAC]

35. How about

Clark/Murtha?

:patriot: :patriot:

[Vickers]

4. There are American soldiers dying over there with less than 2 years

in the military.

[adigal]

6. And Murtha made the point that in Vietnam

in the first two years, we had lost approximately 2000 soldiers. It escalated after that.

[gulfcoastliberal]

5. K-n-R!!!

Awesome post! Thanks!

[beyurslf]

7. If Bush has his way, we will have troops there the rest of my life

[Spinzonner]

8. It's absurd that it would take 25 years to train them

The real issue is that it will take - if it ever happens - a generation for the populace and hence it's army to see themselves as a country with a loyalty to that concept and their like-minded citizens that exceeds their sectarian loyalties and could, when necessary, lead them to support each other and oppose their sectarian brothers when necessary.

[emald]

11. hasn't happened in the last two thousand years

why should that happen now? These "clans", blood relationships, are rooted in thousands of years of tradition. it will not change.

[ngGale]

9. IMO, Murtha is spot on...

the truth is hard to take for some people. About as long as Vietnam lasted, just as bloody.

Yay, for Murtha...:patriot:

[Mass]

10. This is absolute BS and Murtha knows it - This is exactly the same reason

McCain uses to justify staying in Iraq and increasing the size of the Army.

The only reason why it will take 25 years is because the Bush team and the neocons WANT it to be like that.

There is a reason for it that Murtha absolutely refuses to acknowledge (he clearly does not want to question Bush and there may be an argument, though I disagree with it, that he is right): THEY WANT PERMANENT BASES IN THE MIDDLE EAST, and the best way to do that is to make sure the Iraqis do not get a reasonable army soon.

Of course, it may take 25 years to develop an army that has the standards of the best American military, but you can develop an army that is sufficient for the needs a lot faster (it takes 6 month to form an American military).

This does not mean that his assessment concerning leaving Iraq ASAP is wrong. We have to leave ASAP because we are creating more wrong than right.

[EVDebs]

20. "14 `enduring bases' set in Iraq..."

14 `enduring bases' set in Iraq
Long-term military presence planned
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040323-enduring-bases.htm

Chicago Tribune March 23, 2004
by Christine Spolar

Good article, shows the contradictions. Begs the questions the MSM doesn't dare ask. Blood for OIL.

[chicagiana]

44. If they brought these guys to the US ...

If they brought these guys to the US and PROTECTED their families, we would have a LOT more Iraqis ready to fight.

Randi Rhodes was going on and on about Bill O'Reilly having a seizure of reason on the Today show about the 10 week turnaround to train US troops. Why were we training these guys in Eastern Europe???

Two answers I can think of.
1) Keep Iraqis off US soil. You can't have REAL Iraqis telling their story to Americans in US military towns in the Carolinas.
2) Enrich the defense contractors by replacing sound US Military training with some half-ass thrown together outfit that Americans can't inspect in Eastern Europe (just like any other charter school)


We should have tens of thousands of guys trained by now. And of course, if they hadn't fired the Iraqi Army (as opposed to just de-capitating it and promoting new officers) we would have hundreds of thousands of troops (instead of manufacturing tens of thousands of insurgents).

The US lost Vietnam, but defense contractors WON. They won in a HUGE way with lots of new planes, new tanks, guns and munitions. This time the profits are even greater with "services" instead of just equipment. Dick Cheney has created an army of mercenaries and they want to get their payday. You need a war for that!!!!

And now we see a broken congressman pleading guilty to bribes from defense contractors in California. Is this the exception or the tip of the iceberg. The US is the Titanic and we're steering right at it. And my bet is that we'll all need lifeboats.

[PurpleChez]

12. My God. What has * done?

That says so much for six words. I disliked the man from day one, for reasons too innumerable to list here (and y'all know them all anyway). But in the past year my dislike has turned to abject disgust when I see the evil that he has visited upon the world. The man is a sociopath.

[EVDebs]

21. Congress abdicated ITS responsibility in declaring wars

The Joint Resoultion Authorizing Force in Iraq is unconstitutional since it allows Bush to determine when and where to use force without fully debating the appropriateness of his actions.

This is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, but since R's control the SCOTUS, the Congress, and the Executive branches of government, only 'treasonous' dissenters willing to risk the concentration camps as disaparacidos dare speak up. (Which is why I'm counting on DU's anonymity factor and people in the military and NSA whose heads are still right to protect me).

Keep Hope Alive !

[stubtoe]

25. What has * done?

He broke it. We bought it. We will be paying for at least a generation.

[omega minimo]

13. Well-- it's taken 25 years to train the US public to buy this bullshit

:patriot:

[BadgerKid]

14. Sounds like setting up a sweet retirement fund n/t

.

[newyawker99]

27. Hi BadgerKid!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[wordpix]

16. we are already bankrupt with $333 billion deficit under BushCo and

lso, national debt is somewhere around $8 trillion, I believe.

[Dulcinea]

17. We still have troops in Korea 50 years after the fact.

Congressman Murtha is absolutely correct in thinking we'll be in Iraq at least that long.

Are they still thinking of moving U.S. forces out of Europe? We're still there, too, 60 years after WW2.

[EVDebs]

19. Uh, you forgot ... Europe and Korea don't have insurgencies going on....nt

[Gman]

22. So a lot of the Iraqi "troops" will be in their 50's

...what the hell is he talking about? Did anyone ask the good general that said 25 years this question?

[welshTerrier2]

23. so, if we have a phased withdrawal based on "benchmarks" ...

hmmmm ... yeah, that sounds like a pretty good withdrawal plan ...

we could have 50% of our troops out of there in just 12.5 years ... now why would anyone object to that??

[chicagiana]

45. They would need a draft ...

There is no problem getting guys to signup to do stints in Germany or Korea. No one is firing at them (well just occasionally in Korea).

As casulaties CONTINUE to increase, they will NOT be able to replace lost numbers and the military will come apart.

In order to "complete" the mission we will have to stay in Iraq. In order to stay, we would need a draft.

[Hissyspit]

28. Read: "un-trainable." It shouldn't take 25 years to train an army, so

what he is really saying/is really being told is that some factor or factors are missing which would allow these people to coalesce into a 'professional' military structure. So we should not try, but, of course, we have to keep trying in order to justify the permanent bases.

[sendero]

31. I heard Murtha on NPR yesterday..

... and I have to tell y'all - he's the kind of person I'd respect even if I did not agree with him. Of course, I do agree with him - but the point is I just hear NO POLITICAL POSTURING, just a man who sees a serious problem and is trying to do something about it.

[ClintonTyree]

34. The Cons don't want to leave until every drop of oil has been drained

from under Iraqi soil. They're doing a very good job of pillaging Iraq's resources so far. Production is "supposedly" down from pre-war levels, but I'm betting a LOT of oil is making it to market without the knowledge of the Iraqis. Who really knows how much the multi-national oil companies are stealing from the country? Well, you can bet the bush team knows right along with the multi-nationals. The only ones kept in the dark are the Iraqis and any other country interested in knowing. The bush cabal is so secretive there's no chance of knowing, unless....
There seems to be a cornucopia of "whistle blowers" lately. Let's hope somebody blows the top off this scandal.

[ContraBass Black]

37. At this rate, my grandchildren might occupy Iraq.

I'm 20.

[zann725]

38. Only one answer: PULL OUT NOW!

We will NEVER be out of there. Our mega bases will need staffed, and our contractors running them paid at LARGE SALARIES (at taxpayer expense).

PULL OUT NOW!!!

[chicagiana]

40. They screwed EVERYTHING up!!!!

OK, so they went and that was wrong. But they tried to do it "on the cheap" in order to convince the US people that this would be a cakewalk.

Instead of trying to squash out any insurgency in it's infancy with "overwhelming force" as the Powell doctorine would suggest, they half-assed it over the objections of top military brass. The guys who were IN Vietnam knew that going in initially with too few people was a big mistake.

So now Murtha is trying to lay it all on the table. We have two choices.

1) Complete mobilization - Murtha is FOR a draft and FULL mobilization ala WWII in order to impose US will, root out the insurgents and install a democratic regime.

2) Complete withdrawal ASAP - After the election we bug out and allow the Kurds and Shiites to "settle up" with the Sunnis.


I think we lost the conflict about 2 months in when there was no post-war planning. But for Bush, he has to be put in a position where he has to admit that the Iraq effort wasn't correctly staffed.

What is amazing to me is that conservative hacks can claim that "insurgents are pooring over the borders" and that "there are the right amount of troops in Iraq." Well, if you can't protect the borders, obviously they don't have enough guys.


Now the Bush administration is currently planning a "slow withdrawal" by which we will steadily abandon areas of Iraq and presumably allow the "Iraqi forces" to fight insurgents there. And the problem is that the guys who are already there will have less guys to cover their rears ... AND ... the Air Force will be compelled to do airstrikes based on targeting from men they do not know and frankly do not trust (rightfully so).

Iraq is FUBAR. The ONLY option now is get an extra rotation in there BEFORE the election, than bug out shortly AFTER the election. Identify the moderates and arm them to the teeth. Whatever happens, happens.

[BigYawn]

46. Why are US troops still in Germany and Korea after 60 years and 50 years

the wars ended? And we have still have troops in Kosovo!

I can never understand why US troops stay so long after
the hostilities have ended.

[Faryn Balyncd]

47. endless war

"Unlike past wars, however, victory in Iraq will not come in the form of an enemy's surrender, or be signaled by a single particular event -- there will be no Battleship Missouri, no Appomattox."


"National Strategy for Victory in Iraq" p.3

[Trevelyan]

49. I will vote Murtha for President, strange to see someone who actually does

care for the troops and his duty to the American people.

Where are the Democrats? Name names, which ones are refusing to support Rep. Murtha's and Gen. Casey's plan for withdrawal besides Hilary, the Yoko Ono of the Democrats?

Nominated

[Sgent]

50. 25 years sounds about right

It will take that long to get quality officers and senior enlisted men.

Not a happy thought -- but probably closer to 25 years than to *'s argument.