Jack Mouths Off

It's funny, in a way, what's "newsworthy" at one time is hardly mentioned at others:

For Murtha, his aversion to increased troops levels relates to his ongoing battle with Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates regarding the overall way forward for the armed forces.

Gates and Murtha stand on opposite sides of a growing divide in the defense community over how to deal with a military facing budgets that are leveling off after years of huge increases. For Murtha, every dollar spent on personnel is a dollar taken away from the procurement programs he works to protect.

Murtha has resisted several of the major changes Gates announced this year for large Pentagon procurement programs such as the F-22 fighter, the alternative engine for the F-35, the VH-71 presidential helicopter, and many more.

I remember when you never saw a story about Murtha that didn't mention his chest full of medals - now he's a war profiteer. (Hey - perhaps he always has been?)

He ain't the only one - it's an odd world indeed when the "anti-war" crowd and the members of the evil military industrial complex are aligned. Some great potential funding opportunities are developing for the really sharp "peace group" folks.

By the way, the authors of the linked story chose to ignore that pesky "c" word when explaining other Democratic leaders' positions on Afghanistan, so maybe Murtha used it, too. Who knows?

Last word from Jack:

"At the same time, the American people are supporting this and the Europeans aren't supporting this," Murtha said, "The Europeans aren't doing a damn thing."

Gosh - why would he want to insult our allies? Wouldn't that be counter-productive to our goals? Or maybe he thinks that somehow appeals to the bible thumping racists - as he calls his base.

Whatever the case may be, you stay classy, Jack

Update: While it has nothing to do with the Murtha story, this seems an appropriate place to append something I stated elsewhere - in fact, in response to a comment from someone writing from one of those NATO countries on the receiving end of that cheap shot from Jack Murtha.

That comment (prior to and unrelated to Murtha's jab):

I have still to see a consequence-analysis put forward by the opponents of COIN as to what would happen if NATO pulls out rapidly at this point. You are right that I dont know the US Army like most of you folks do, but Im not sure it would be exactly good for morale if the order came to cut and run tomorrow. You speak of a hollow army post Vietnam, how would it look if you have to evac Kandahar as the natives close in? I know some would see it as an act of treason to all the locals that "we" have promised our protection. And I still fail to see how letting Taleban conquer Kandahar will weaken the memetic idea that AQ is turning into. Or how the ensuing refugee-stream back into the camps in Pakistan will help that country.

That wasn't directed at me, but it was one of those things worth some thought; here's the result of mine:

I'm not an opponent of COIN, but you've certainly got me thinking. In broad terms I believe certain things could be anticipated. Among them, "peace" and "a region engulfed in flames" - both of which have their proponents who I find unconvincing. In fact, I don't anticipate precipitous withdrawal in the first place, but as a thought exercise I offer the following:

One - no more reports of Afghan suffering caused by NATO action (as in the Guardian piece).

Two - reports of Afghan suffering caused by our invasion and subsequent withdrawal (and demands to "do something").

Three - a new "battlefield" opening somewhere else. My impression of certain elements within certain communities is that they desire to fight us. As to what form(s) that campaign may take were we to absent ourselves from any of the current conflict zones, your guess is as good as mine. The real central front of what we used to call the war on terror is - we now know - everywhere from the halls of government and financial institutions to deep within the heart of every citizen of Earth. We must remain vigilant and prepared for swift and appropriate response.

Three sub-a - should that new battlefield prove to be one wherein large numbers of conventional troops are required, it will take a hella good motivational speech (one that translates well into the various remaining NATO languages) to rouse the boys just back from A'stan. Henry V had a good one, perhaps "once more into the breach" will suffice.

Three sub-b - if that doesn't happen, we can certainly devote a larger portion of our military budgets to areas many feel are being neglected under current circumstances. I would specify, but it's easier to gain support for the "anything but this" argument; everyone gets to imagine their own personal neglected item.

I could be wrong on all counts. For instance, regarding item two a news "blackout" seems equally likely, reports of rainbows and butterflies less so - with other outcomes along the scale suggested thereby.

But the truly bloodthirsty (regardless of religion, national origin, skin color, etc) could derive many gains from a withdrawal from Afghanistan, all of which I see as more likely than any outcome desired by those of more pure motive calling for the same.

- via email, facebook, twitter, etc.