« An Interesting Point | Main | Yikes »
June 01, 2006
Why Murtha Angers Conservatives
Commenter DGF asks a good question, one I've seen from many who don't support the war. I thought it merited a longer response than was possible in the comments section:
Can someone explain to me briefly (or at length)why so many seem to be so het up about Murtha's statements following the Time article ? I do not understand why Murtha has engendered so much hostility on this....To me, for example, the fact that Murtha had been told (by high-level officers in the Corps) that a massacre had in fact occurred on the basis of the military's own investigation covers the most important potentially objectionable point - that is not speaking falsely, and speaking from a position of knowledge about a matter which has become a public one.
There are a number of things that tend to disturb those who support what we're trying to do in Iraq (or simply those who support the military) about Rep. Murtha's remarks. This post will attempt to explore the most common objections:
1. Murtha is jumping the gun by announcing that the Marines are guilty before the investigation is complete. A common source of arguments between the right and left is that conservatives are generally process-oriented by nature, therefore we suspect the credibility of anyone who quotes unnamed, "high-ranking military officials" who know they are violating the terms of their employment by talking about an ongoing investigation. We have to wonder at the motivation of anyone who "leaks" the conclusions of an unfinished report to a Congressman known to make inflammatory statements, especially when military personnel know quite well such leaks are against the rules.
The fact is that when the report is released, all of the information will be on the public record. What useful purpose, then, is served by "leaking" what are purported to be its conclusions in advance, without any of the supporting facts?
A secondary consideration is that the reports will be part of the total package of evidence introduced during any eventual trial. Murtha has not seen the totality of the evidence, both for and against the defendants. Why, then, is he in such a hurry to announce their guilt to the world?
Grim states, better than anyone else I've seen, the salient objection to Murtha's rush to judgment:
If there prove to be good reasons for what happened there, these Marines deserve a fair trial and a presumption of innocence -- they deserve it far more than many who get those things every day in our criminal courts. If the worst is true -- which is very far from proven -- men who would do such things do not deserve to have the "out" of claiming that they couldn't get a fair trial, because certain Congressmen (who vote on military appropriations) and other political figures felt they needed to talk a lot about the issue before the trial. Too much talk among such officials could easily open an appeal that would allow the guilty -- if there are guilty -- to escape what would then be a righteous punishment.
2. Murtha is, in effect, substituting the word of "unnamed officials" for the final conclusions of an unreleased report. Why is he in such a hurry? Who are these people? How are we to judge whether we can trust them (or even know whether they have access to the actual report) when we don't know who they are? Far more press is being devoted to Murtha's "unnamed high-ranking sources" than to the two very high-ranking Marines who you can bet know far more about this than anyone else: the Commandant and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Pace. I find it fascinating that the media prefer to quote secondhand information from unnamed sources to firsthand quotes from more highly-placed military officials who are willing to identify themselves.
One of the most difficult tasks the military faces on a day to day basis is rumor control. People discuss all sorts of things they aren't supposed to and misinformation spreads like wildfire. It then takes considerable time and effort to correct the record with actual facts. Any military officer knows this. That makes it doubly upsetting that Murtha claims officers have told him what an unfinished investigation will conclude before it's even done yet, and furthermore that he would pass unsubstantiated information like this on as though it were fact. If military officers are doing this, they know it is against the rules and they know it is wrong. And Murtha, as a former Marine officer, knows better than to help them do something he knows is against the rules.
3. His comments are needlessly inflammatory: Let's examine some of his recent statements:
"It breaks my heart to think that Marines would do this," Murtha said. "Hopefully, this is an isolated incident. But we're supposed to be selling ideas of America, ideals of America, and we're losing that war. The reason we've lost the hearts and minds [is] these troops are under tremendous stress. Day after day these roadside bombs go off. They don't know who the enemy is. Then they kill innocent people."
Wow. This is precisely the kind of broad-brush condemnation of the military we don't need from our leaders in Congress. Rep. Murtha has just slyly slipped in the accusation that "day after day" our troops are "killing innocent people" because they "don't know who the enemy is". Does anyone else feel a sense of deja vu?
"war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.”The country doesn't know it yet, but it has created a monster, a monster in the form of millions of men who have been taught to deal and to trade in violence.
4. Murtha has a history of exaggerating or misstating information to suit his own ends. A prime example is his oft-repeated statement that 80% of Iraqis want us out of there. No one can quite figure out where he is getting this figure, because he conveniently fails to quote his source. The most likely one is a two year old USA Today poll that could only get 80% by excluding the Kurds. Update: I should read my own links more thoroughly:
MoveOn also cites another "poll" in support of its ad. According to the press release the ads are based on a report by the London Sunday Telegraph on Oct. 23. The Telegraph reported a "secret" poll commissioned by the British Ministry of Defence and conducted by an Iraqi university research team. The Telegraph said that they had "seen" it – but full results were not published.The Telegraph said the poll showed 82 per cent of Iraqis "strongly" oppose the presence of coalition forces – a much higher figure than any of the other Iraqi polls published to date. The 82 per cent figure has been cited uncritically by Democrats including Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania and party chairman Howard Dean.
But that "poll" is dubious at best. The British government won't confirm or deny whether such a poll actually exists, or comment on the accuracy of the figures the newspaper reported. The Telegraph gave no information on how large the sample was, or what the statistical margin of error might be, or even exactly what questions were asked. Without such information there's no basis on which to judge how reliable such a poll might be. The margin of error in the ABC/BBC poll, for example, is plus or minus 2.5 percentage points, and the sample size was 1,711. The exact wording of each question is reported.
In an email to FactCheck.org, MoveOn also cites a Zogby Poll from January 2005 and an Oxford Research Poll from June 2004. Both show majorities of Iraqis opposing the presence of US forces in their country, though the polls are by no means "recent."
So again, we have an outdated source no one's seen, that no one can independently verify, which also happens to contradict other information on the record, being repeatedly cited by Mr. Murtha. More recent polls have shown that with the exception of the minority Sunnis (who, let's remember, controlled Iraq under Saddam and therefore are more likely to take a dim view of his overthrow) only 35% of Iraqis (83% of Sunnis, but only 13% of Kurds and 22% of Shia) favor immediate "redeployment" of US troops.
And as this item points out, though most Iraqis want us to leave, the majority don't want us to leave until Iraq is fairly secure:
The poll asked "How long do you think the US and other coalition forces should remain in Iraq?" The results:26 per cent said "leave now."
19 per cent said "remain until the Iraqi government elected in December is in place."
16 per cent said "remain until the Iraqi security forces can operate independently."
31 per cent said "remain until security is restored."
3 per cent said "remain longer but leave eventually."
1 per cent said "never leave."
4 per cent expressed no opinion.
Rep. Murtha is presenting a misleading picture of Iraqi public opinion, even if you give him the broadest possible latitude and consider a two-year old poll that had to exclude part of the Iraqi populace to make the numbers come out. The same phenomenon is at work with his oft-quoted "60% inflation" stat, one that came from a Brookings report from 2003 - immediately after the invasion. More recent data place Iraqi unemployment between 25-47%.
Many of Murtha's comments don't even make sense. Here's one instance:
It's much worse than reported in Time magazine. There was no fire fight. There was no IED that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood. And that's what the report is going to tell.
Let's examine that statement for just a minute. On the one hand, Murtha says our troops "overreacted because of the pressure on them". Overreaction is not a cold, deliberate response. It is usually the product of emotion so strong that it overcomes reason. Yet these same troops who "overreacted" apparently killed innocent civilians "in cold blood". Well, which was it? Did they react in the heat of passion? Or did they coldly and deliberately murder innocent civilians?
As Greyhawk comments, people from all walks of life commit crimes, but somehow when a military member is involved, the fact that they are in the military becomes a political football. Being in the military does not excuse criminal behavior. Period. And scapegoating the military (or conditions in the military) for the acts of those who choose to break the law is just plain irresponsible:
I do mean to point out that from a legal perspective, guilt or innocence is yet to be determined. This can only be done in an actual trial. This may come as a shock to those who've been following some very high profile statements made on this case - which is why no one with any concern for the rule of law has made any such statements....Anyone who's been in service as long as I have has some experience with military justice. The military is society in microcosm, and if you work in an organization of several hundred people, chances are some are criminals. Some break laws unique to the military, others violate the established laws of society. Some go AWOL. Some beat their spouses. Some break speed limits. Some drive drunk. Some disobey orders. Some are thieves who bring government pens home from the office. Some commit murder. Some listen to pirated music or record football games without the express written consent of the National Football League. Some may even try to provide 'cover' for the crimes of others.
If this were true only of the military we'd have quite a story. But it isn't. Other than AWOL and orders that's pretty much like your neighborhood, believe it or not. But when military members commit violent crimes, the fact that they are military has a prominent place in the story.
And Murtha's comments play to this kind of prejudice. If these few Marines did what they are accused of doing, their behavior is inexcusable. Murtha openly declares they are "overreacting" because they're "under pressure". Nonsense. If that were the case, there would be Hadithas in the news every day. The vast majority of Marines who don't commit these types of acts do not deserve to be branded as criminals because of the yet-unproven acts of a few. A VC commenter passed along the reaction of his two sons, both of whom have been deployed to Iraq:
My youngest son, veteran of two trips to Iraq (including the first fight for Fallujah) calls from the road while searching for a job and says "You been keeping up with Haditha".I reply..."Well, yup. What're you thinking?"
No hesitation, He says, "They knew the rules. We all do. If they did it, they should pay. We held our fire when we getting heavy incoming from 360 degrees. Marines know the drill. They literally pound it into you all the time in the sandbox...rules of engagement haven't changed since I hit Um Qasr, Nasiriyah, Fallujah. No excuse, dad."
My older son, just back from his second tour said "That's f*****D-up, Dad. Those dudes knew the drill. If they did it they let us all down."
Note what these young men said: "If they did it they let us all down." That opinion is shared by virtually every military person and family member I have talked to. Murtha could have said the same thing, and he would not have received half the criticism he did. He could even have said, "Early indications don't look good, but these Marines deserve a fair trial. And if they are found guilty they should be punished."
But instead he chose to tell the world - including a large number of foreign news agencies which may choose to quote only his words - that the accused Marines were guilty.
5. As a Congressman, Murtha should know better than to pass on leaked information. This is merely a personal observation, but am I the only person who finds it extremely ironic that Congressional Democrats are outraged... outraged I tell you that more of Congress wasn't briefed about the classified NSA monitoring program? They argue that the administration should be more "trusting" of Congress.
So after receiving a closed-door briefing on an as-yet unreleased report, Rep. Murtha does what?
He runs to the papers to pass on what he was told, and just for good measure throws in the comments of "unnamed, high-ranking military officials" who apparently have been talking out of school.
Just one question: how many other Congressional representatives went running to the media right after the briefing and haven't stopped talking since?
Well, there was Rep. Kline, who unlike Rep. Murtha didn't feel the need to pass sentence on the accused Marines in advance of the trial.
My irony meter is now officially pegged.
Posted by Cassandra at June 1, 2006 06:46 AM
Comments
It's not entirely rational, but the main reason I'm disgusted with Murtha is that he's one of the few former Marines that I know of.
He's worse than abandoned the USMC-- he's bad-mouthed the Corps, and defamed the Marines that are risking their lives right now. Oh, and he probably got MORE of them killed by inciting hatred against them.
GG, ex-Marine.*
*insult, because, generally: "Once a Marine, Always a Marine." Thing is, part of being a Marine is holding up the honor part-- to receive the honor, you must bear honor.
Posted by: Sailorette at June 1, 2006 11:02 AM
That is a good point, as well as one reason many people are also disgusted with his remarks.
But I intentionally omitted it because Marines do have a tendency to be harder on each other than other people are on them.
Personally I think Murtha ought to want to give his fellow Marines (as he would any citizen) the benefit of the doubt and the presumption of innocence (which does not require him to defend them, but absolutely prohibits him from condemning them before they are tried in a court of law). He implies they did this because they're under some sort of unbearable stress, yet then he condemns them before the investigation is complete or they've had a chance to present their side at trial. I find that deeply troubling.
Posted by: Cassandra at June 1, 2006 11:08 AM
P.J. O'Rourke wrote an essay about the democracy revolution in the Philipines that took place ~ 25 years ago, when the Marcos(es) were ousted and Corazon Aquino became president. Two prominent politicians who were present witnessing the elections were featured in his essay: John Kerry and John Murtha.
About Kerry, he (O'Rourke) intimated that he postured like some kinda prima dona (hmmm, can't be the same guy, can it?).
O'Rourke was much more impressed with (Big John) Murtha, because he was 'outraged' at the goings on of the Filipino government (and rightly so, I guess).
But I think this is a pattern with Murtha; he goes through 'outrages' when he is not pleased with what's going on. He has frequently (according to him, and I don't doubt it) visited the wounded men at Walter Reed Hospital, and genuinely cares about them, and then he gets 'outraged' at the Iraq War because of his feelings toward the wounded he visited at Walter Reed.
The problem is, as he gets older, it's hard to tell the difference between some genuine outrage, and just the dodderings of a grumpy old man.
Posted by: Don Brouhaha at June 1, 2006 12:55 PM
In my experience, outrage is not a sound basis for decision-making.
I have no doubt that Murtha is doing what he thinks is right. But what he is doing runs counter to the entire Marine Corps ethos (don't game the system and above all don't quit with a battle half-won).
History is replete with impossible battles that "couldn't be won", but were only because the winning side refused to give up. We are the world's most powerful nation, yet Murtha would have us believe we are HELPLESS to win in Iraq against a bunch of insurgents who don't even have a formal Army.
If this is true, we should disband the military immediately because we are wasting our time. We were winning VietNam too when we ran out on the South Vietnamese and let them get slaughtered by the Communists, launching a wave of Boat People that continued for years afterwards. Why in the hell do folks like John Kerry think those people threw everything they had in a boat and fled VietNam? Clue: it ain't because "they can't tell the difference between Communism and Democracy".
Just a thought.
Posted by: Cassandra at June 1, 2006 03:04 PM
Cass, I think that's a plan!
Let's disband the professional military (think of the savings!) and start a volunteer Corps (Like the Rough Riders!) of American terrorists! And then, we too, can wage 'asymetrical' warfare against anyone we don't like that week, and then shrug our shoulders and say "it wasn't the government doing this, just some radical freaks (wink, wink)". And also we could then ignore those pesky Geneva Protocals on warfare that we are supposed to honor, even with outlaw gangs (say, like Al Qaeda or Hezbollah) that aren't even nation states, don't wear uniforms, or anything; and by their very nature abrogate all the accepted Rules of War (protecting civilians from combatants, from having their heads sawn off, and such). Works for the Arabs/Muslims, doesn't it?
Where's the outrage?
For all you net-surfers in from Salon and such, that was dark sarcasm, and a glance into the dark pit of human nature that seems prevalent in the minds of those that seem to enjoy the endless series of reprisal killings that are going on in Iraq and those parts.
And to think that these people are 'subhuman' or such, the situation on the Missouri-Kansas border was similar before, during and after the American Civil War. And you can look it up.
Where's the outrage?
Posted by: Don Brouhaha at June 1, 2006 05:07 PM
I think what should anger anyone with a respect for the law and due process, whatever the outcome, is the populist desire to "get out in front" on this issue, and thus look virtuous in the eyes of the crowd if there is guilt to be determined and adjudicated. Mr. Murtha (and like-minded fellows) want to "get after the Devil", and to Hell with the hindmost.
Which reminded me of this exchange between Sir Thomas More and his future son-in-law, William Roper, from "A Man for All Seasons":
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
Last word (promise!): The moral to Mr. Murtha; be careful of what you wish for, because you may just get it.
Posted by: Don Brouhaha at June 1, 2006 05:23 PM
I love that movie - it's on the shelf in my spare bedroom. Haven't watched it in a while. I should get it out.
Posted by: Cassandra at June 1, 2006 05:34 PM
> My irony meter is now officially pegged.
Irony meter? My Bogon Flux Capacitor just overloaded and blew out the entire circuit. The meter's dead, Cass...
Posted by: OhBloodyHell at June 2, 2006 05:11 AM