Commenting on President Bush’s recent speech, Rep. John Murtha murdered history, but in a very revealing way:
“If they’d have kept the French here after 1776 . . . we’d have thrown them out,” he said. “And that’s what I say about what’s happening in Iraq right now. The Iraqis are not against democracy. They’re against our occupation.”
Really? First, the French didn’t get here until the summer of 1780, when a force of 5000 commanded by Comte de Rochambeau arrived at Newport, Rhode Island. Moreover, they played a crucially important role in Gen. Washington’s successful effort to force the surrender of the British under Cornwallis at Yorktown, thus ending the war and establishing American independence.
Realizing the situation was hopeless, Cornwallis sent forth a British drummer on October 17 [1781], followed by a British officer with a white flag and note indicating a request for a cease fire. A number of notes passed between Cornwallis and Washington that day as they set the framework for the surrender. The next day, October 18, four officers–one American, one French and two British–met at the Moore House, one mile outside Yorktown, to settle surrender terms.
On October 19, in a spectacle incredible to all who witnessed it, most of Cornwallis’ army marched out of Yorktown between two lines of allied soldiers– Americans on one side and French on the other–that stretched for more than one mile. The British marched to a field where they laid down their arms, and returned to Yorktown.
If there had been no French here after 1776, or if they had come and then left precipitously, as Murtha recommends for us in Iraq, we’d probably still be British subjects.
Its funny that he’s off by a few years. I wonder how ‘off’ we are in occupying iraq.
So what if the French had stayed to say, oh, 1789, or longer? You just prove Murtha’s point. The French weren’t here for years and years after “Mission Accomplished.”
Sure they were, Louisiana. 300 years later we can finally make it American.
And what they couldn’t do directly they meddled in like the Civil War, angling for the South to win to split the country. Why else was there a naval battle off the coast of frogistan?
Weasels, weasels, weasels. And worse.
Plus, they were late!
Hey – I get that guff from the Brits about WWI and II, why shouldn’t it go around?
–“If they’d have kept the French here after 1776 . . . we’d have thrown them out,” he said.–
Mebbe, mebbe not, there was a lot of discussion whether or not.
“Congress had ‘prostituted’ its own honor by surrendering its sovereignty to the French Foreign Minister.”
John Adams, David McCullough, pg. 283
actus
Its funny that he’s off by a few years…
He was off by a few years PLUS his interpretation/conclusion. See below.
Fred:
So what if the French had stayed to say, oh, 1789, or longer? You just prove Murtha’s point. The French weren’t here for years and years after “Mission Accomplished.”
You score a rhetorical hit against GWB’s “Mission Accomplished” speech but strike out against cut-and-run retreat “Redeployment” Murtha/Dean/Pelosi, since the mission will not be accomplished until a democratic Iraq can stand on its own. And just as the French did not send troop to help us defeat the British in order to “occupy” the new nation they helped bring into being, so we are not in Iraq to occupy it. Interesting that the Iraqis realize that, as evidenced by a spate of recent polls (they want us to stay until they can fend for themselves, by large margins), but domestic Dems don’t.
John writes:
>>>”You score a rhetorical hit against GWB’s “Mission Accomplished” speech but strike out against cut-and-run retreat “Redeployment” Murtha/Dean/Pelosi, since the mission will not be accomplished until a democratic Iraq can stand on its own.”
Again, we have the foregone conclusion that American troops remaining and dying en masse in Iraq at a cost of $6 billion a month is going to result in a “democratic Iraq” that can stand on its own.
But, hey, that’s the real goal of the Project of the New American Century anyway…Perpetual War and permanent US military bases in Iraq as such an outrageous cost, that the poverty lifejackets of the New Deal and Great Society will eventually have to be cast off, while the families of those non-investor class folks hardest hit by this bait-and-switch are also the same families primarily supplying the troops bearing the CASUALTIES.
If they didn’t actually write all this stuff down for the past twenty years you could actually accuse me of making all this up..
And you’re mad at Murtha for being off by three years?
–Cobra
John –
Your post fails to mention the importance that the French Navy played far earlier than 1780 in engaging the British fleet, in providing supplies, and in maintaining a hands off policy with respect to American privateers. While casualty figures from that war are not the most reliable, there are sources that say the French lost as many as 10,000 men during the American Revolution, 75% of those at sea.
The Marines, who pride themselves on their grounding in military history, must be embarassed that a retired officer could be so publicly ignorant of American history. More likely they are embarassed that an officer who knows better is eager to sacrifice the truth for political ends.
cobra:
And you’re mad at Murtha for being off by three years?
No. Four years. Plus what ts said. Plus regarding Americans in Iraq as an occupying force when substantial majorities of the Iraqis don’t. Plus trying to dress up retreat as “redeployment.”
But hey, I’m delighted to see critics of our policy describe it in worn out Marxist terms like “perpetual war” whose purpose is to undermine the wonderful welfare state, etc. The more the Murthas prattle about “redeployment” — with an assist every now and then from Kerry attacking our troops as molesters of kids and children and … and … and, you know, women — the more support completing our mission will have.
John,
>>>”But hey, I’m delighted to see critics of our policy describe it in worn out Marxist terms like “perpetual war” whose purpose is to undermine the wonderful welfare state, etc.”
Do you deny that the Great Depression happened? Are you arguing that the GI Bill, FHA Loans, Social Security and Aid For Financially Dependent Children were mistakes and didn’t actually create a middle class in America? Is anybody who sees the reality of sky high deficits coupled with tax cuts for corporations and the ultra-rich a “Marxist?”
What is your REAL animus against Murtha, a decorated Marine and Vietnam War veteran who shed blood for this nation? Why are you putting your faith in fundamentalist Islamic clerics to run Iraq, when fundamentalist Islamic clerics are principle agents for fomenting fundamentalist Islamic terror? (Not all of them, but I don’t hear you calling for an invasion and regime change in Saudi Arabia, where the madrasses that teach wahabist terror lurk.)
Surely your point isn’t as simple as that, right?
–Cobra
“Sure they were, Louisiana. 300 years later we can finally make it American.”
uh. That wasn’t quite the ‘here’ that was america then.
“the mission will not be accomplished until a democratic Iraq can stand on its own.”
Looks like we’re off by a few years on that one.
“The Marines, who pride themselves on their grounding in military history, must be embarassed that a retired officer could be so publicly ignorant of American history.”
dude, the commander in chief said we had been friends with japan for a century. Spare us the ‘ignorant about history’ line.
If the US left now, the Shiites would massacre the Sunnis.
I have a solution for the defeat and retreat crowd. Circulate the following resolution in the House and Senate and get everyone on record:
“It is the sense of the House of Representatives and the Senate that (1) the Iraqi government under the regime of Saddam Hussein did not possess WMD and (2) the United States was mistaken and unjustified in taking military action against the Iraqi regime and therefore, the deployment of United States forces in Iraq should be terminated and the regime of Saddam Hussein reinstated to power as soon as practical.”
If (1) and (2) are true, then we removed an innocent dictator from power and we ought to put him back in. That is the inevitable conclusion. If we add as number (3) that 80% of Iraqis want the U.S. to leave Iraq, as claimed by the “defeat and retreat” crowd, this resolution makes even more sense.
I wonder how many YEA votes such a resolution would get in the House and Senate? Pelosi/Murtha/Kerry would support this, right?
“(2) the United States was mistaken and unjustified in taking military action against the Iraqi regime and therefore, the deployment of United States forces in Iraq should be terminated and the regime of Saddam Hussein reinstated to power as soon as practical.””
Why does making one mistake mean we have to make another?
Why would reinstating Saddam be a “mistake,” actus? Are you insinuating that maybe his rule is better gone? Surely if we had no right to remove him, and he’s still there and alive and in good health, the obvious course of action is to restore the status quo ante as best we can. It will mean some considerable rebuilding of commemorative statuary, though. I never did hear what happened to that lovely triumphal arch made of melted-down Iranian war materiel and shaped in the form of Saddam’s own arms, accurate down to the last mole, bearing crossed scimitars. I suppose it’s been melted down again. Pity to lose such a deeply symbolic work of art, but perhaps we can repay the injury we have done to Saddam by building it anew. I’m sure the plans are still around somewhere.
Actus–
If removing Saddam was a mistake, then reinstating him cannot also be a mistake. After all, if we had not removed him, he and the Baathist would still be in power. Why would reinstating the condition that would have existed but for our “mistake” be mistake?
Elblogero writes:
>>>”After all, if we had not removed him, he and the Baathist would still be in power.”
Our actions in REMOVING the Baathists from power, and our continued war against the Baathists (who do you think comprises the majority of insurgents? Of course, Bush uses the euphemistic “rejectionists” and “Saddamists”..) has put ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALIST SHIITES in power in Iraq. You rember those guys right? The creators of Hezbollah? The guys who held our citizens hostage for over 400 days in Iran? The folks who blew up 241 Marines in Lebanon, forcing Reagan to cut and run? Folks like the current leader of Iran who says the Holocaust didn’t happen and Israel should be relocated to Europe.
Oh yeah, Elblogero, We’re FAR better off having Islamic fundamentalist running Iraq.
But don’t let facts get in the way of this neo-con fairy tale.
–Cobra
“If removing Saddam was a mistake, then reinstating him cannot also be a mistake.”
Of course it can be. It can be a mistake to divert efforts from the war on terror to iraq, and it can be a mistake to throw away any gains in iraq. The claim that the invasion is a mistake or is not worth it doesn’t mean it has no benefits. It means its not worth the costs.
Putting saddam back wastes all the costs and all the gains, even if they are small. Another mistake.
What kind of an idiot would think otherwise?
“Why would reinstating the condition that would have existed but for our “mistake” be mistake?”
Because it would waste what we have spent.
So some people will just have it both ways then: removing = mistake. Saddam out of power = benefit. Keeping Saddam in power = mistake. Radical fundamentalists in power (because Cobra has counted the votes and knows what the ruling coalition will do BEFORE anyone else does, never mind the Iraqi constitution or the lack of such a constitution in Iran) = bad thing. Minority Baathist in power and oppressing minorities = bad. Shiite majority in power = bad. People choosing their own government = what? good or bad? Wait, I think I know this one (bad if it benefits Bush; good otherwise). Actually, I can only imaging the posts if the U.S. had dictated what kind of government Iraqis would have to adopt for it to be acceptable to the U.S. The word “imperialism” would get an even bigger workout from the left than it already does.
The bottom line is this: To govern is to choose. To be on the Angry Left means to do neither but to carp at all outcomes.
There are lots of risks and downsides to the actions taken by this Administration, but there are also risks and downsides to inaction. Has the Angry Left ever admitted that there are any risks or downsides to the actions, or mostly inactions, that they propose (from “do nothing” to “wait for imminent threat” to appeasement to, in the actual words of Rep. Murtha, “immediate withdrawal”)? If they have, I have missed it.
“The bottom line is this: To govern is to choose. To be on the Angry Left means to do neither but to carp at all outcomes.”
The better outcome was to contain saddam and fight the war on terror. Having failed to do that, we go on with the second best thing. It doesn’t mean we have to waste all of our effort so far.
But it is funny that all of our effort seems geared to getting the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq close to being elected into power.
Actus–
Any risks or downside to your “keep Saddam in power” gambit?
“Any risks or downside to your “keep Saddam in power” gambit?”
We’d have to actually deal with the war on terror rather than face the pet project of the PNAC’ers in the administration.
Elblogero writes:
>>>”Radical fundamentalists in power (because Cobra has counted the votes and knows what the ruling coalition will do BEFORE anyone else does, never mind the Iraqi constitution or the lack of such a constitution in Iran) = bad thing.”
Is there a Shia majority in the population of Iraq? Yes or No? Did the first elections in Iraq result in a power shift to the Shia majority? Yes or No?
Now, you won’t get this type of insight from conservative news sources, because it doesn’t reflect well on their interests, but here’s some good food for thought from an American Prospect article:
>>>”The U.S. media coverage concentrated on the magical moment in which Iraqis braved mortar shells and car bombs to vote. But few Americans realized that, in fact, the Bush administration had tried hard to avoid having anything like one-person, one-vote elections in Iraq. It had tried handing the country over to expatriate politicians with little local support, installing an American administrator to rule by fiat, and persuading Iraqis to allow U.S.
Now I understand perfectly that there are no real risks or downside to “wait and see,” appeasement or “surrender and defeat.” I also now understand that status quo ante was bad, so is any outcome other than the statusu quo ante.
I hope the Dem Party publicly embraces the Cobra and Actus positions word-for-word as soon as possible, although, in all fairness, they are getting closer and closer every day. Perhaps they should also change the party symbol from the donkey to the carp.
In all seriousness, these are indeed tough decisions to make and tough consequences to consider with each, but I would still rather see the U.S. government on offense taking action and accepting consequences instead of waiting for action to be taken against it and then responding. Reasonable people can disagree as to the right action (and I think that actus tends to be mostly reasonable on these issues), but pretending, with the benefit of 20/20 hindgisght, that one knows all of the potential bad outcomes of action or knows exactly what the future be fine if nothing is done is not governing or choosing. I think the Dems realize this, but it is easier to say that one is for or against something depending on outcome. After all, the only consistent position the Dems and their Angry Left sub-party have taken, other than being against any position taken by the Bush administration, is being for anything when the outcome is popular and against anything when the outcome is not popular.