MotherJones.com | MoJoBlog - Social Issues and Political Commentary: John Murtha's "Slow Bleed" Plan to End the Iraq War Explained

« Tonight: A Documentary on Melvin Van Peebles | Blog Index | Philip Perry--Making Sure Our Chemical Faciliities Have No Security »

John Murtha's "Slow Bleed" Plan to End the Iraq War Explained

Details are creeping out about Congressman John Murtha's plan to put the clamps on the Iraq War (featured today on the Mother Jones News and Politics page), but I think many people lack a clear understanding of how the plan works.

The idea is to pass a series of small measures that curtail the president's ability to make war, while at the same time showing support the troops. This is seen as more likely to get through the House and Senate than a proposal to cut off funding for the war and is more politically advantageous for the Democrats.

Here's specifically what Murtha's plan would do:

(1) It would not allow American troops to deploy to Iraq unless they meet certain (very high) standards of manpower, equipment, and training. Murtha believes few of the units Bush intends to use for the surge would be able to meet his requirements.

(2) It will limit the length and number of deployments by soldiers in the American armed forces, thereby making it more difficult for the Pentagon to replace troops it rotates out of war zones.

(3) It will mandate that troops get a year off in between stints at the front lines.

(4) It would end the construction of enduring bases in Iraq.

(5) It would raze Abu Ghraib.

When taken together, the plan would limit the number of troops Bush has to work with, while blunting conservative criticism that the Democrats are anti-military or anti-troops.

The plan will be attached to an upcoming $93 billion supplemental spending bill that is needed to pay for Iraq and Afghanistan. Murtha controls the progress of that bill as chairman of the House defense appropriations subcommittee. In effect, if you aren't willing to support Murtha's plan, you are forced to vote against funding the troops. Not a good position for a Republican lawmaker to be in.

This should all come to a head in late February or early ~~April~~ March when the spending bill needs to be voted on, after which point it would head to the Senate. Anti-war groups with deep pockets are preparing to roll out ad campaigns in favor of the plan, and will specifically target Republican Senators vulnerable in the 2008 elections.

Comments

What a sleezeball Murtha is! Supports the troops..right.
He is showing the real Democrat agenda....USA are loosers.
Never on President Bush's watch!!!Fight on and WIN!!USMC
Semper Fi

Posted by: MGySgt on 02/16/07 at 10:01 PM

Thedemocrats are stabbing our troops in the back!!!

Posted by: A REAL AMERICAN on 02/16/07 at 11:34 PM

James 2:14-18 says: "What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, `Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,' and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself. But someone may well say, `You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.'"

Substitute the word "support" for "faith" in the above and you have an excellent example of the duplicity of the Damnocrats supposed "support" for out troops and our war effort. Sun Tzu wrote over 3,000 years ago that once the ruler (Congress) had declared war it was the duty of the general (Commander-in-Chief) to prosecute that war and the ruler (Congress) had no further say in how that was done. The behavior of today's Congress demonstrates the wisdom of those words.

Posted by: brolin_1911a1 on 02/18/07 at 6:48 PM

The Republicans, based on lies and hypocrisy, send the troops into an unnecessary war without the equipment and armor they need to properly defend themselves. They fail to plan beyond the fall of Baghdad, and make mistakes at every opportunity that place the troops in greater danger. They refuse to listen to the warnings of people knowledgable in the Middle East. Republican's 'support for the troops' means 3000+ killed and tens of thousands mutilated. Republican's 'support for the troops' means more dead and mutilated for no good reason (Exon-Mobil's and Haliburton's record profits not withstanding). The Democrats want to bring the troops out of danger, and *they* are the ones guilty of not supporting the troops.

That quote from the book of James applies just as well to the Republicans who loudly proclaim their 'support' for the troops, but send them into danger without any plan, and with inadequate equipment. Sun Tzu's quote does not apply since our commander-in-chief ins *not* a general, and has no military training that enables him to prosecute a successful war. He is nothing more than a little boy playing general. His is a polital war, and he has steadily rejected any advise that doesn't fit into his scheme, even when that advise has come from experienced generals.

Posted by: DaveD on 02/19/07 at 5:36 AM

Many years ago president Kenney was about to have a war. I was being call up to be on the first wave in as it was said we were to go and find Fidel and do away with him. President Kenney seen the future was brighter by leaving him alone. Today I agree with the president even back then I was Gun-HO enough to do it. Today i'm happy it never happen and sure President Fidel Castro is too. I wish mr Castro the best of health and hope he lives to see a 100+. We need leaders that understand just what war is, not someone who think it just a game.

Posted by: Shenanigan on 02/21/07 at 8:42 PM