Murtha Tells Russert: End the Occupation
    By Sari Gelzer
    t r u t h o u t | Report

    Wednesday 22 March 2006

We lost the hearts and minds of the people - 80 percent of the Iraqis want us out of there, 47 percent say it's OK to kill Americans. When it comes to that stage, it's time for us to give them the incentive to take over their own country.
-- Representative John Murtha (D-Penn.) on "Meet the Press" Sunday, 0aMarch 19

    Representative John Murtha (D-Penn.) appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday, marking the end of the third year since the American-led invasion of Iraq. In an interview with Tim Russert, Murtha discussed why he backs an immediate exit strategy from Iraq and gave specifics on how he would go forward.

    Throughout the interview, Russert challenged Murtha's anti-war stance with questions that incorporated recent Republican talking points. The interview began with a question referring to Donald Rumsfeld's Washington Post Article, "What We've Gained in Three Years in Iraq." Russert asked Murtha, "What do you, John Murtha, believe we have gained after three years in Iraq?"

    Murtha sees no progress in Iraq. His response was drawn from a trip to Iraq during which he witnessed not enough electricity or water, and inadequate oil production, with a 60% unemployment rate nationwide. "They have mishandled it, mischaracterized it," said Murtha, responding to Rumsfeld's article and other recent comments from the Bush administration that purport progress in Iraq.

    Murtha went on to elaborate what he sees as the misrepresentation of progress in Iraq. "For instance, we're caught in a civil war," said Murtha, "and recent statements from the current administration say that Iraq is not in Civil War."

    The Associated Press has reported that President Bush does not believe Iraq is in the midst of civil war. In Washington, Vice President Dick Cheney also appeared on television to play down ideas of civil war. He told the CBS program "Face the Nation" that the surge in attacks simply reflects the insurgents' "state of desperation," according to the Guardian in Britain.

    But Murtha said otherwise: "It is a civil war. Twenty-five thousand insurgents are fighting with each other inside the country for supremacy. That's the definition of a civil war."

    Former interim prime minister Iyad Allawi also told the BBC on Sunday that Iraq is in a state of civil war. "If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is," said Allawi, referring to the sharp hike in violence that has increased over recent months due to the outbreak of civil war. Figures compiled by the Brookings Institution in Washington say that attacks in Iraq have increased to 75 attacks per day last month, compared with 54 on average a year earlier, the Guardian reports.

    Russert asked Murtha about his transition in thinking about the war. Murtha voted for the war and wrote a book two years ago that included a statement denouncing immediate withdrawal because of the possibility of civil war.

    A veteran of the Korean and Vietnam Wars, Murtha admitted that his vote for the war was a mistake. In order to go to war, he said, first "You've got to have a national threat to our security." "Second," Murtha said, "you've got to have overwhelming force, which we didn't have." Third, Murtha said, "you've got to have an exit strategy."

    Not only were all of those principles violated, said Murtha, but the war has reached a point where exiting Iraq is in the best interest of Iraqis and Americans. Murtha elaborated: "We lost the hearts and minds of the people - 80 percent of the Iraqis want us out of there, 47 percent say it's OK to kill Americans. When it comes to that stage, it's time for us to give them the incentive to take over their own country."

    Not only do Iraqis not want Americans in their country, said Murtha, "the troops themselves don't understand what their mission is," and they are currently "caught in a civil war."

    Russert mentioned Professor Victor Davis Hanson, who recently criticized those whose "advocacy helped us get in when there were dubious reasons to go, and their vehement criticism may well get us out when there are now better reasons to stay until Iraq is secure."

    Murtha responded to Hanson's inference that security is gained by remaining in Iraq, stating that, in fact, less security is a result:

    "The only people who want us to stay in Iraq," said Murtha, "are Iran, China, and al-Qaida. Why? Because of our human resources that are being hurt so badly, and our financial resources.... So we have diverted ourself away from terrorism by getting involved in a civil war."

    Murtha said he is disappointed not only with the way the way the war is being run, but he is disappointed with the rhetoric.

    "They keep saying, we're going to have victory, we're going to stay for the end. It's, it's open-ended. They can't be open-ended. We have to give the Iraqis the incentive," said Murtha.

    Russert asked Murtha what his response would be if the president called and asked, "Tell me specifically, Mr. Murtha, what should I do today?"

    "First of all, you should fire all the people who are responsible for that [the Iraq war], which gives you international credibility," Murtha said. He continued with a suggestion for Vice President Cheney's resignation, most likely due to his knowledge of faulty intelligence. "Second, there needs to be a plan to remove troops from the region," said Murtha. "You redeploy to the periphery so that we, if we have to, we can go back in."

    In a nutshell, Murtha said he would tell the president: "Let's go back to fighting the war on terrorism. Let's reduce our presence in Iraq; let's start to rebuild the Army."

    Russert brought up a speech made last week by Ken Mehlman, the chairman of the Republican Party, for Murtha to respond to: "And do these Democrat leaders really think we would be safer by cutting and running in Iraq?... They say one thing come election time, but their records show that they mean - and will do - another. They were for the Iraq war before they were against it."

    "The majority of Democrats voted against the Iraq war," was Murtha's first response to the statement, with Russert making sure to clarify that his statement was true about the House, and not the Senate.

    "When I voted for the war," said Murtha, "the majority of the public was for it." Murtha further responded to this political attack against Democrats by saying that you can't win the war with rhetoric.

    "The Republican chairman has no impact on me or anybody else as far as I'm concerned. This should not be political. When I go by the graveyard over there at Arlington, it doesn't say Democrat or Republican, it says American. That's what we're looking at. We're looking at the mission for America, trying to get our troops redeployed so that they can live a normal life," said Murtha.

    Russert brought up the midterm elections, and Murtha said that the biggest issue will be the war, next to Katrina and health care, because, Murtha said, "the rhetoric has not matched the outcome of the war."