Not Even The New York Times Thinks The Murtha Plan Supports The Troops
To be sure, the Times supports his goal of leaving Iraq as soon as possible (as do we all, we just differ on the meaning of ‘possible’), but they prefer it to be up front, rather than ‘disguised’ surrender:
Congress needs to do what Mr. Bush is refusing to do: link further financing for the war to the performance of Iraq’s Shiite-led government, which is making no serious effort to rescue its country from civil war.
Congress needs to impose clear benchmarks and rigorous timetables, insisting that the Iraqi government stop equivocating and start disarming sectarian militias, adopt a formula to share oil revenues equitably and end employment discrimination against Sunni Arabs. Congress must be prepared to cut off financing if the Iraqis refuse.
We fear that clever maneuvers like the one proposed by Representative John Murtha, reportedly with the backing of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, to dress up a reduction in troop strength as a “support the troops” measure won’t help contain the war or make American troops safer. Mr. Murtha would link this year’s war financing to the Pentagon’s adoption of new deployment rules, including longer stretches from the battlefield for returning troops, more specialized training and better defensive equipment. That would let representatives cast a politically safe vote for financing the war, while forcing the Pentagon to gradually reduce the number of active duty troops available to serve in Iraq.
This page has advocated many of the same reforms — but not as a back-door way of forcing lower troop numbers in Iraq. Congress’s overriding goal must be to find the most responsible way to extricate American troops from what is becoming an increasingly unwinnable war, while trying to contain the suffering and minimizing the damage to American interests in the region.
Instead of camouflaged troop squeezes, Congress needs to grasp the problem straight on and do what the administration won’t do. It must impose tough requirements and deadlines on the Iraqi government, and link the future of all American troops in Iraq to the timely achievement of these goals.
When even as strong an anti-war advocate as the Times‘ editorial board is calling your tactics irresponsible, then I think I’m more than justified in continuing to call the Murtha Plan the “SBPTD” (in case you missed it the first time, that’s the “Slow Bleed Path To Defeat”)…
[...] Rep. John Murtha’s ‘plan’ for Iraq (known affectionately as the SBPTD, or “Slow Bleed Path To Defeat”) has been eviscerated by first, the New York Times, and now the Washington Post: [Murtha] would stop the surge by crudely hamstringing the ability of military commanders to deploy troops. In an interview carried Thursday by the Web site MoveCongress.org, Mr. Murtha said he would attach language to a war funding bill that would prohibit the redeployment of units that have been at home for less than a year, stop the extension of tours beyond 12 months, and prohibit units from shipping out if they do not train with all of their equipment. His aim, he made clear, is not to improve readiness but to “stop the surge.” So why not straightforwardly strip the money out of the appropriations bill — an action Congress is clearly empowered to take — rather than try to micromanage the Army in a way that may be unconstitutional? Because, Mr. Murtha said, it will deflect accusations that he is trying to do what he is trying to do. “What we are saying will be very hard to find fault with,” he said. Mr. Murtha’s cynicism is matched by an alarming ignorance about conditions in Iraq. He continues to insist that Iraq “would be more stable with us out of there,” in spite of the consensus of U.S. intelligence agencies that early withdrawal would produce “massive civilian casualties.” He says he wants to force the administration to “bulldoze” the Abu Ghraib prison, even though it was emptied of prisoners and turned over to the Iraqi government last year. He wants to “get our troops out of the Green Zone” because “they are living in Saddam Hussein’s palace”; could he be unaware that the zone’s primary occupants are the Iraqi government and the U.S. Embassy? [...]