Anti-war Democrat Murtha Says the Surge is Working

U.S. Representative Murtha (Dem - PA) a military veteran and outspoken critic of the Iraq war now says the "surge" is working according to an article printed in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

Article

WASHINGTON - U.S. Rep. John Murtha today said he saw signs of military progress during a brief trip to Iraq last week, but he warned that Iraqis need to play a larger role in providing their own security and the Bush administration still must develop an exit strategy.

"I think the 'surge' is working," the Democrat said in a videoconference from his Johnstown office, describing the president's decision to commit more than 20,000 additional combat troops this year. But the Iraqis "have got to take care of themselves."

And Murtha is not the only democrat recently coming around to this point of view. Notice the sudden lack of Iraq war criticism by democrats and their candidates for office? Violence in Iraq is down sharply and Democrats now see the war being taken from them as a campaign issue by the apparent success of the Bush administration's latest military tactics.

That the surge is working to quell the violence in Iraq is good news for the Iraqi people and the U.S. soldiers stationed there, but bad news for Democrats and others against the war that were hoping to make the war a huge campaign issue for the coming elections.

[edit on 11/30/2007 by centurion1211]

i must agree, there does seem to be changes taking place within iraq. i am sure it partly has to do wit the increased military presence, but i also fear it has to do with places in bagdad and around the country having been "ethnically cleansed" over the last few years. now that neighborhoods, towns, districts, etc have spent so much time killing off the opposing religious factions the iraqis have no need to continue killing.

still the iraq war will be a huge thorn in the side to the republican party, there is simply no avoiding it. regardless of the violence issue there are so many other attendant issues that will drag the party down. for example, close to 1 trillion dollars in debt to China to pay for the war (china is now in the habit of treating us poorly as can be seen in their refusal to, twice) let our navy dock in their country). Also china has been caught infiltrating our military / intelligence computer networks...Just the debt alone is damming and then add in that it is owed to a hostile nation...

Then there is the fact that iraq just cant seem to "form" a government that works.

there is the issue of how long we have had troops on tours of duty.

the fact that there were never any weapons of mass destruction found or evidence that they ever existed making this war more than highly dubious.

and finally (for the purpose of this thread) the fact that they want to keep large amounts of troups there indefinably will not go over well.

these are just the iraq related issues, the republicans are going to get wiped in the next election.

why do you think the 18th house republican decided to announce their retirement on monday?

i am a progressive, liberal, tree hugging, dream pooping democrat. i must say that i am happy to know that the republicans are going to loose out this time around because i think some things that have been changed should be fixed. i must clarify that although i despise the current form of the republicans in power, i have much respect for the party in its more pure form. the winning is not about us vrs them but one for all, all for one. the two party system (although lacking in depth and scope) is important so that we can continually balance each other out. anyway i digress. salutations, Animal

Originally posted by Animal
i am a progressive, liberal, tree hugging, dream pooping democrat. i must say that i am happy to know that the republicans are going to loose out this time around because i think some things that have been changed should be fixed. i must clarify that although i despise the current form of the republicans in power, i have much respect for the party in its more pure form. the winning is not about us vrs them but one for all, all for one. the two party system (although lacking in depth and scope) is important so that we can continually balance each other out. anyway i digress. salutations, Animal

Well, your leaders seem to now feel otherwise regarding the war and its effect on the election. Guess their new found viewpoints will take some time to filter down to you and their other minions.

i disagree. the one line you posted from murtha is slightly out of context because it was only PART of what he was talking about...

"I think the surge is working but that's only one element. It's working because of the increase in troops," he said, "but the thing that has to happen is that the Iraqis have to do this themselves..."

"The impression I got was that the central government was pretty close to dysfunctional"

"I keep stressing we can no longer afford to spend 14 billion a month on the war and let our readiness slip in other parts of the country."

your point is flawed. sure there is less violence, dont believe for a second that democrats are not happy about that, but quelling the insurgency is only PART of the job that the US took on when we invaded and toppled the Iraqi regime.

The country still needs to be rebuilt, 2 hours of electric a day is a great example of how bad things are there. the iraqi infrastructure is in shambles. they have not developed efficient policing for themselves, nor have they created an army. just because the killing is over, which i sadly doubt, there is still so much to be done, so much that will require further commitment from the US.

all i can say to you mate is: dare to dream...


ps.. to hell with the shift key...



[edit on 30-11-2007 by Animal]

Originally posted by Animal
i disagree. the one line you posted from murtha is slightly out of context because it was only PART of what he was talking about...

"I think the surge is working but that's only one element. It's working because of the increase in troops," he said, "but the thing that has to happen is that the Iraqis have to do this themselves..."

"The impression I got was that the central government was pretty close to dysfunctional"

[edit on 30-11-2007 by Animal]

Let's stay on point here. All agree that the Iraqi government does need to step up, too. But we're talking about the surge. The point of the surge was to quell the insurgency and cut down on the violence, not fix the Iraqi government. Democrat after democrat - Murtha, Kennedy, Reid, Feinstein, Clinton, Biden, etc., have all made previous comments to the effect that the surge was a failure, the war was lost, etc. Turns out that this is not the case.

I do have to give Murtha credit for having the cojones (sorry Hillary, or maybe no apology is necessary ) to admit that in public. Maybe there's still a little of the old warrior left in him after all.

[edit on 11/30/2007 by centurion1211]

Imagine if this administration had listened to it's Generals before the war started and put enough troops in there originally. It makes you wonder how many of our soldiers would still be alive.

A day late and a dollar short.

Peace

[edit on 30-11-2007 by Dr Love]

Centurion:

"Democrat after democrat - Murtha, Kennedy, Reid, Feinstein, Clinton, Biden, etc., have all made previous comments to the effect that the surge was a failure, the war was lost, etc. Turns out that this is not the case."

I am on point because you are talking about a WAR. War is not confined to the field of combat. War is much more than that, and regardless of how violence free we make Iraq, we have not won the war until we establish a fully functional (eh, mostly functional) system of representation and governance.

I have already agreed that there is less violence due to the surge and other factors, but I do not agree we have "succeeded" and I wont until I see progress. So your assertion that the "surge is working" is true only on the simplest of levels.

$750 Billion dollars and counting. No clear end in sight. A military stretched to the "breaking point". A once highly respected nation now seen as a lumbering behemoth of ignorance and destruction. Tell me mate, how did "win" this war.

reply to post by Animal


No you are not on point, because even the title of my post uses the word "surge".

You only want to shift focus to the war in general because you have no idea what to do or say about your democrat leaders abandoning a position you hold dearly.

reply to post by centurion1211


But if you talk just about the surge, its success still doesn't mean anything. In order for the surge to mean anything, the rest of the war has to be succeeding as well.

So in effect, Animal just proved he knows more about warfare than you.

Before you persecute me for being a liberal Democrat, understand I'm a paleoconservative registered Republican. And many who fit in the same category know the war has been lost.

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
reply to post by centurion1211

 

But if you talk just about the surge, its success still doesn't mean anything. In order for the surge to mean anything, the rest of the war has to be succeeding as well.

So in effect, Animal just proved he knows more about warfare than you.

Before you persecute me for being a liberal Democrat, understand I'm a paleoconservative registered Republican. And many who fit in the same category know the war has been lost.

"Animal" proves nothing, and I suspect knows about the same.

Everyone knows that one of the goals of the surge was to cut down on the violence. It is just one out of many steps being taken. It has done that, as even democrats are admitting. That said, it should also help stabilize the Iraqi govermment because it will not have to operate as if it were constantly under siege.

Reports are now coming out of Anbar province, once the most violent, that the population has changed sides and is now helping root out the al-qaeda insurgents. Events such as this sould also help stabilize the government as other Iraqis see this and decide to do the same.

When these reports start coming over the news more and more, will you then find yourself one of the last people still chanting "the war is lost"? I'm afraid that would also prove what you know.

[edit on 11/30/2007 by centurion1211]

And let me add this article which includes more democrats opinions.

Article

Congressional Democrats are reporting a striking change in districts across the country: Voters are shifting their attention away from the Iraq war.

Rep. Jim Cooper, a moderate Democrat from Tennessee, said not a single constituent has asked about the war during his nearly two-week long Thanksgiving recess. Rep. Michael E. Capuano, an anti-war Democrat from Massachusetts, said only three of 64 callers on a town hall teleconference asked about Iraq, a reflection that the war may be losing power as a hot-button issue in his strongly Democratic district.

Sorry, dems, you're going to have to run on your records now and hope that republicans aren't able to turn the tables on you by using your previously stated anti-war views against you in the next elections.

Not such a sure thing any more is it?

[edit on 11/30/2007 by centurion1211]

Originally posted by centurion1211
U.S. Representative Murtha (Dem - PA) a military veteran and outspoken critic of the Iraq war now says the "surge" is working according to an article printed in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

Violence in Iraq is down sharply and Democrats now see the war being taken from them as a campaign issue by the apparent success of the Bush administration's latest military tactics.

That the surge is working to quell the violence in Iraq is good news for the Iraqi people and the U.S. soldiers stationed there, but bad news for Democrats and others against the war that were hoping to make the war a huge campaign issue for the coming elections.

[edit on 11/30/2007 by centurion1211]

"war, war, war"...
sounds to me like you were talking about the surge in the larger context of the WAR.

Go ahead over simplify the issue, pull out bits of what ever suits your opinion and just spew it aggressively enough that you feel all big and tough like the guy who won the argument.

fact is mate, the war is not won. anything is possible but the way it looks today it was a mistake and has done nothing but harm our country.

you will see republicans take a beating for the war, regardless of how well you think its going, in fact take a look at dr. paul, why do you think he has become so popular in the republican world?

a trillion dollars in debt, drastically diminished respect and friendship from and with other nations, millions of iraqi refuges, 100,000s killed...and for what? please man, give me a break.

stooping to insulting my intelligence just because my opinion is different from yours is just poor form.

edit: spelling

[edit on 1-12-2007 by Animal]

reply to post by gs001


I find that post pretty disgusting. No matter, won't be seeing any more of your posts.

***IGNORED***

reply to post by centurion1211


Face it
or your guys will never know the cost of dominating the world.

then why do the reporters that are actually in iraq contradict him?

sure, it may SEEM like the surge is working, but there hasn't been any hard evidence that it is.

reply to post by Dr Love


Way to be a monday morning quarterback. You'll find a way to see the negatives in anything, rather than appreciate the positives.

reply to post by BlueRaja


it's hard to appreciate the positives when the negatives far outweigh them...

hundreds of thousands of iraqis slaughtered
nearly a million left the country...
thousands of dead americans..
thousands more committing suicide when they get back...
iraq's nutrition levels have gone down
their government is no longer secular
people are still getting tortured....

i could keep going.

Or you could look at it as 25+ million Iraqis no longer under Saddam's oppressive regime, with a chance at democracy. If successful, other Mid East nations may end up going that route too(which is why Syria, and Iran are afraid). The American Revolution didn't happen over night neither, but in the long run was worthwhile.
There's a lot of good that never gets reported over there because it's only newsworthy when things explode. There's far more positive stories than negative, and that was always frustrating to us when we were over there, and watching the news focusing on the ugliness.

reply to post by BlueRaja


"Monday morning quarterback" refers to decisions that were made in the heat of battle. The Generals said this was necessary before the war ever started, huge difference.

Peace