Congress Votes On Resolution...

[CCJ]

AUGH! I was just watching the debate on C-SPAN about the resolution that would provide for immediate cessation of troop deployment to Iraq. Why am I angry? Because this resolution was proposed by the Republican Party leadership. As you probably know, a major conservative Democrat came out against the war yesterday. He had outlined a redeployment plan from Iraq. The Republican Party leadership instead got together and wrote a characature of what the Democrat had proposed. In other words, the Republicans are trying (and will probably succeed) to make the Democrats look like idiots.

I was listening to some of the callers while the vote was being tallied, and some of the Republican callers...well, they just made me think that one must be absolutely stupid and/or ignorant to vote Republican. They don't get that this is NOT about supporting or not supporting George W. Bush, nor do they get that opposing the War in Iraq has no relation at ALL to the "morale" of the troops in Iraq. I have recently come to believe that the Republican Party must be nothing more than an experiment in how much bullshit it is possible to shove down people's throats.

I hate the Democrats: they have no backbone. I hate the Republicans: they have no moral fiber.

[Severian]

Immediate withdrawal is a caricature? No, it's the only genuinely antiwar and anti-occupation position. The resolution said simply, "''It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately."

The vote was 403-3 against the resolution, that is against withdrawing from Iraq.

Just in case somebody thought that any section of the U.S. ruling class was against the war and occupation.

news article (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/11/19/house_rejects_troop_pullout_calls/)

[CCJ]

No. It's a charicature of what the prominent war-hawk Democrat who recently came out against the war wanted.

[Severian]

Here's what Rep. Murtha wanted. (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/washington/stories/111805dnintmurthares.6f6c90c.html) That link has the text of a statement and his resolution.

Highlights:

The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq....It is evident that continued military action is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region.

If Murtha really believes that, then why does he oppose immediately getting out of Iraq? Why should soldiers stay one day longer, if they've "done all they can" and "continued military action" is not in anyone's "best interests"?

As the young John Kerry said about proposals for a timetable for gradual, eventual withdrawal from Vietnam: "how do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" I'd like to see the Kerry of today answer that question.


The threat posed by terrorism is real, but we have other threats that cannot be ignored. We must be prepared to face all threats. The future of our military is at risk. Our military and their families are stretched thin. Many say that the Army is broken. Some of our troops are on their third deployment. Recruitment is down, even as our military has lowered its standards. Defense budgets are being cut. Personnel costs are skyrocketing, particularly in health care. Choices will have to be made. We cannot allow promises we have made to our military families in terms of service benefits, in terms of their health care, to be negotiated away. Procurement programs that ensure our military dominance cannot be negotiated away. We must be prepared. The war in Iraq has caused huge shortfalls at our bases in the U.S.

“Much of our ground transportation is worn out and in need of either serous overhaul or replacement. George Washington said, “To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace.” We must rebuild out Army.

In other words, Murtha is concerned that the Iraq occupation is corroding Washington's "preparedness" to launch new wars of aggression. Also that the costs of the war, and Rumsfeld's reorganization of the military, are causing cuts in military "procurement programs" benefiting companies in his district or that give him campaign contributions.


This is the first prolonged war we have fought with three years of tax cuts, without full mobilization of American industry and without a draft. The burden of this war has not been shared equally; the military and their families are shouldering this burden.

Pro-draft rhetoric in the name of "equality of sacrifice". Which is always a fraud under capitalism; the children of the rich will always have a way out of risking their lives in the front line.


Our military has accomplished its mission and done its duty.

Again, if the mission is accomplished, why should they stay one day longer? Does Murtha believe his own rhetoric?


I said two years ago, the key to progress in Iraq is to Iraqitize, Internationalize and Energize.

Nixon said the same about Vietnam with less management-speak.


Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that:

Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.

"Earliest practicable date" could mean anything. It could turn out not to be "practicable" for decades if the administration or wants to interpret it that way.


Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines shall be deployed in the region.

More "preparedness"! In other words, the U.S. should be ready to instantly re-invade Iraq at any time!


Section 3. The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.

In other words, continue aiding the client regime in Baghdad.

[CCJ]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 03:07 AM
If Murtha really believes that, then why does he oppose immediately getting out of Iraq? Why should soldiers stay one day longer, if they've "done all they can" and "continued military action" is not in anyone's "best interests"?
Because, evidently, the US cannot pull out "immediately" without first making preparations.


In other words, Murtha is concerned that the Iraq occupation is corroding Washington's "preparedness" to launch new wars of aggression. Also that the costs of the war, and Rumsfeld's reorganization of the military, are causing cuts in military "procurement programs" benefiting companies in his district or that give him campaign contributions.

Exactly. Perhaps you did not read my original post:
I hate the Democrats: they have no backbone. I hate the Republicans: they have no moral fiber.

Murtha is no more a Democrat than Tom DeLay. I support an immediate withdrawl of troops, though by "immediate" it would be six months, the soonest. The US military needs to make preparations to pull out, or the people of Iraq will be no better off now than immediately after we bombed the living daylights out of them.


Pro-draft rhetoric in the name of "equality of sacrifice". Which is always a fraud under capitalism; the children of the rich will always have a way out of risking their lives in the front line.

I completely agree.

I have to go now. Cheers.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 09:21 PM
I support an immediate withdrawl of troops, though by "immediate" it would be six months, the soonest. The US military needs to make preparations to pull out, or the people of Iraq will be no better off now than immediately after we bombed the living daylights out of them.
So "continued military action" - for six months anyway - is in their "best interests?"

[CCJ]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 06:13 AM
So "continued military action" - for six months anyway - is in their "best interests?"
I said nothing about "continued military action". I said a continued presence. The American troops would still be there, but they wouldn't be out patrolling the streets and what have you. They would, instead, be focusing their full attention on training Iraqi police and military forces. I know that it is supporting a capitalist state, but, personally, I'd take a capitalist democracy over Islamic fundamentalist theocracy any day.

In any case, I am no expert on military policy, strategems, tactics, or anything of the like.