« They even have the same initials | Main | Ah, the objective press »

November 20, 2005

Dear Rep. Murtha

Dear Representative Murtha,

The headline on the Associated Press article reads, "Insurgent ambush in Iraq leaves 24 dead." Ever notice that when you see a headline like this, it turns out that the vast majority of the dead are themselves Iraqis? This particular case is no exception; only one of the fatalities was in fact a United States soldier. 15 were innocent Iraqi civilians, and, as it turns out, the remaining 8 were terrorists... or, to use your and the Associated Press's terminology, "insurgents." It's truly a unique way of reporting a battle. If the current staff of the AP were around half a century ago, they'd probably have reported "Battle of Iwo Jima leaves 30,000 dead." One doesn't usually lump enemy casualties in with friendly and innocent casualties, which leads one to wonder whether the AP even considers the terrorists to be the enemy at all.

But never mind that. It kind of gives the lie to your claim that "our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency", doesn't it? In fact, calling the terrorists the "insurgency" begs the question. Insurgents fight against established authority, while these bastards slaughter their own people. Given that they've been killing Iraqis over Americans by a factor of several dozen to one, what is the basis for your claim that Americans are their "primary target?"

The primary strategic objective of the so-called "insurgents" is to gain control over Iraq. United States forces are quite rightly seen as a major obstacle to this goal, so their intermediate objective is to get America out of the country so they have a freer hand. Obviously the only way American troops will leave Iraq is if their civilian leadership chooses to withdraw them, so they are attempting to compel just such a political decision.

And in this, sir, your party is their ally.

In war, casualties happen. This is a blindingly obvious fact which somehow you and yours have overlooked. And the terrorists know that they can count on you to beat the Administration over the head with each and every American casualty. They know that the Democrats will expertly use every dead body to advance their shared political goals. They know that their allies in the media will exert great effort to assist. They know that the casualty ratio they suffer every time they go after American forces is completely unsustainable, but they also know that they need not suffer it for very long -- they can lose fifty to our one and it's a victory for them, because every dead American advances their goal and yours and is worth any price they pay.

So to whatever extent our troops are the target of the "insurgency", it's because you have made them so. You have taught the terrorists that it's worth their while to allow their foot soldiers to be mowed down like wheat for the chance to take out an American or two. By your words and your actions, you have put American soldiers in greater danger.

Thanks.

P.S. I congratulate you on your creative use of the euphemism "redeployment" instead of the much more descriptive "retreat."

November 20, 2005 in Current Affairs | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834559cb569e200d83474fa6253ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Dear Rep. Murtha:

Comments

Welcome back!

OK, For the sake of argument I'll accept your premise that Democrats are encouraging insurgents to attack American troops by criticizing the president. How responsible is Bush then for telling the insurgents to 'bring it on?' I would think that specifically goading attacks on Americans would be pretty offensive to you as well.

Posted by: Hobospider | Nov 20, 2005 12:16:38 PM

Hobospider:

Are you really that dense?

Posted by: Sharpshooter | Nov 20, 2005 1:49:32 PM

Sharpshooter: Try to keep it civil, please.

Hobo: There's a world of difference between taunting the enemy and making it strategically advantageous for him to kill your troops at any cost. The former might goad a rash enemy into an ill-considered attack, while the latter will persuade a rational, intelligent enemy commander to expend enormous resources in the pursuit of American casualties. It's like comparing apples to toasters.

So the answer to your question is "not very." Unless you believe that there are many enemy commanders out there who were thinking, "Gee, I wasn't really planning on attacking Americans, but President Bush said 'bring it on', so I guess I'd better."

And by the way, "Democrats are encouraging insurgents to attack American troops by criticizing the president" is not my premise. It's not criticism of the President that encourages the "insurgents" to attack, it's leading them to believe that bringing about a relative handful of American casualties will achieve their strategic objectives.

Posted by: Voice of Reason | Nov 20, 2005 5:30:05 PM

HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

Posted by: dong | Nov 22, 2005 3:52:53 PM

hey VOR you don't come around #D&D anymore, you should come hang some time. I have some questions about Xbox for you. Or look me up on aim shirtlessjtkirk

-FaaQ

Posted by: FaaQ | Nov 23, 2005 8:43:07 AM

BS

Posted by: Fred | Dec 3, 2005 7:59:45 PM

Ah, the kind of thoughtful rebuttal I've come to expect from the left.

Posted by: Voice of Reason | Dec 3, 2005 9:28:42 PM

"And in this, sir, your party is their ally."

In this you need to listen to your Commander in Chief:

"Our debate at home must also be fair-minded. One of the hallmarks of a free society and what makes our country strong is that our political leaders can discuss their differences openly, even in times of war."

So we are back to what you've said being BS. It's o.k., we all have opinions, and we all make mistakes.

Posted by: Fred | Dec 5, 2005 4:30:24 PM

Fred:
In this you need to listen to your Commander in Chief:
I believe the good Commander said, "fair-minded." Therefore clearly your idea of "fair-minded" rebuttal and open discussion is "BS."

Which brings us back around to:
Ah, the kind of thoughtful rebuttal I've come to expect from the left.

Posted by: odietamo | Dec 5, 2005 10:45:23 PM

I call em like I see em. It's o.k. for a Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter to do the same, yet with even harsher laugage, so I figure I would be moderate about the whole thing and take the middle path calling BS-BS.

Posted by: Fred | Dec 6, 2005 1:29:34 AM

Uh... did I attempt to muzzle Rep. Murtha? Did I call for armed goons to stifle his free speech? I did not. He's welcome to say what he wants. And I'm welcome to say that by his actions, he harms America. I'm welcome to say that both he and the terrorists share the strategic goal of forcing American withdrawal from Iraq, and are de facto allies. That's not BS, it's a fact. And those who are on the side of Murtha (and, by extension, the terrorists) always attempt to claim the other side is trying to silence their free speech rather than addressing this fact.

You call the claim BS. Exactly what are you disputing?

Posted by: Voice of Reason | Dec 6, 2005 9:41:50 AM

I'm welcome to say that both he and the terrorists share the strategic goal of forcing American withdrawal from Iraq, and are de facto allies.

I dispute that. Most inside the intel community agree that Bin Laden's orginization was on it's last legs untill we foolishly invaded Iraq, which has been used to rally people to the jihadist's cause. History shows us what happens in these situations, The French in Algiers and the British in Iraq, etc, etc... It takes 9 years minimum to suppress an insurgancy. That's at a 10 to 1 ratio of occupation forces to rebels. If you win at all.

...but anyways, who claimed here in this forum that someone was trying to silence someone else? I don't see it. All I see is an honest back and forth.

Posted by: Fred | Dec 6, 2005 1:31:31 PM

I dispute that.

Well, then, go ahead, dispute.

Most inside the intel community agree that Bin Laden's orginization was on it's last legs untill we foolishly invaded Iraq, which has been used to rally people to the jihadist's cause.

Pardon, but what the heck does this have to do with whether or not Murtha and his ilk are actively endangering American soldiers by increasing their strategic value to the enemy?

History shows us what happens in these situations

Never before in history has there been a fighting force with the training, equipment, or esprit de corps of the United States military. Never before in history has an invading power spent blood and treasure to depose a dictator and rebuild a nation, with the expressly stated goal of leaving as soon as practicable. The current situation is unprecedented, and attempting to lean on precedent will lead you astray.

The French in Algiers and the British in Iraq, etc, etc...

Let's not forget the Americans in Afghanistan, right? Boy, that was a real bloodbath, a real quagmire. Just like it was for the Soviets, Afghanistan would be our graveyard... after all, that's what history shows. Take that, Chomsky.

...but anyways, who claimed here in this forum that someone was trying to silence someone else?

You said that my post was (and I quote) "BS", and when invited to elaborate, you quoted the President reminding us of everybody's right to free speech. The only way this isn't a total non sequitur is if you're accusing me of attempting to stifle someone else's speech. If you were not making such an accusation, if you were merely stating a completely extraneous and irrelevant fact, then I do apologize for jumping to conclusions.

Posted by: Voice of Reason | Dec 7, 2005 10:18:48 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.