Kerry's plan vs Murtha's plan.

[Mass]

I have thought a lot to the different plans offered by different people during these last few days and have been wondering how Murtha's (an hawk) has been ending on the side of the quick military withdrawal while Kerry has been ending on the side of a "less quick" military withdrawal.

First, they share the same idea that there is NO MILITARY SOLUTION IN IRAQ. So both want the troops out of harmway: on the periphery for Murtha, in garnisons for Kerry. Both think that the troops in Iraq are part of the problem, not the solution. So how do we proceed?

Both come to the problem with their very different backgrounds:


- Murtha's background is first and foremost military. He has been a Marine for 30+ years. He is a VietNam War who still does not understand how somebody like Kerry could protest VietNam (he has made comments to this effect during the campaign). He has connections in the military. His solution is by essence military (US military). Withdraw the troops. Get the troops close so that they intervene. Diplomacy is the least important part of his plan and it is not by chance. He does not believe that much in the power of diplomacy. His criticisms are valid, but his approach is too militaristic for me.


- Kerry, even if he has been in the military, is first and foremost a foreign affairs specialist. His plan is first and foremost a diplomatic plan. Get people around a table so that they negotiate. Let's talk to each others. The military is only a backup force. This is also why Kerry calls to renounce to permanent bases while Murtha makes no such claims. It is also why Murtha would go with a fixed planning (military, military), while Kerry would go with a fixed timetable. Sometimes, it is easier to negotiate if you are a little bit flexible.


So no intelligent person should be surprised that they arrive at different solutions for the same analysis. I am more and more convinced that they probably have the solution between them. But as always, somebody else will jump on board and propose his solution,

[karynnj]

1. Brilliant, thoughtful analysis

Thank you for this (and earlier posts looking at other aspects of the plans).

Did he criticize Kerry during the campaign or just say he didn't understand how the Kerry he knew protested?

[Mass]

2. He supported Kerry very strongly, but I read somewhere that

during the SBVT, he said he did not agree with Kerry on his protests. I dont remember it to have been a nasty comment, though.

[jenndar]

9. I read this, too.

He objected to the medal-tossing, but that was about it.

[TayTay]

3. Very god analysis.

I agree with you, in a perfect world, the Dems would unite these views and build a consistent plan for withdrawal based on the concerns of a Murtha and a Kerry.

Murtha has all those contacts within the Pentagon. He is speaking to old friends who have been buddies of his for years inside the command structure. If he is coming out against this war, then he is coming at it from a military point of view and that view is extremely pessimistic. The commanders in the field and the commanders back at the Pentagon are telling him, off the record, the we are not be able to win this war. Murtha is a company guy, if he is saying this, then it is coming from his sources. That is unbelievable. The military has lost faith in this war, not just Jack Murtha.

The Democratic Party should take this time, during the Holiday break, to unite these two not-quite factions. Kerry is still left-of-center and he is coming at this as both a military problem and from the higher up angle of a foreign policy quagmire. The Dems should hold a conference and put all these views together, as they straighten the argument. Murtha adds punch for the element of the Dem Party that is pro-military. He is, if you will, adding street-cred from his sources within the Pentagon that what the Admin is saying is not so and the military knows it and has shared it with Murtha.

Kerry adds that amazing knowledge of foreign affairs and can give that birds' eye view of what is going on because of our failure to bring the parties in Iraq together and how it affects the broader pic of the Middle East. These guys need each other and should not be pitted against each other. These are the baby steps of a coherent and cohesive Dem answer to Bush's 'stay the course,' that packs real experience and real knowledge of military affairs. No wonder the Bushies want to take out Murtha. If he does get together with the 'doves' and comes up with this strong strategy, the Rethugs are undone and don't have a leg to stand on.

[karynnj]

5. I agree with you and it really fits in with all of Kerry's

calls for the need for dialog on this. It would be great if they could work together. It would be great if they do work together. Kerry spoke of talking to the military and it seemed to imply that he had at least some support - but having Murtha as a key proponent makes it much harder to get away with the "you're not patriotic" nonsense. If the face was Kerry, it would be 1971 all over. If Feingold or another anti-war person - they would be exposed to the same harrassment that Kerry was. It's harder to do it to Murtha, but they're trying.

I think both Kerry and Murtha have the troops' needs at heart.

[ray of light]

4. really well thought out analysis!

all of the comments in this thread too.

[ginnyinWI]

6. JK is very much the anti-war activist lately

Even at the RFK tribute his mini-speech was about being in the Navy and wishing and hoping RFK could do something to stop the war. That was great--it was a great tribute, but also gave people another insight into JK himself and where he stood back then and how he's still the same. All of his thoughts about the past resonate with today's war situation. And eloquent? Wow.

[karynnj]

7. i didn't remember the beautiful RFK lines that he

read that said of the young soldiers dying, things of the form, "one may have writtern a poem ...one may have built a bridge ...

It was so powerful - especially read by Kerry, who first heard it when he could have been one - fortunately he survived.

He was eloquent - I'm hoping they put it up on the C-SPAN site.

[ProSense]

8. Excellent!

I especially like your use of the word "flexible." Bush can offer no solution to Iraq because it would require flexibility, and that goes against the lies and ulterior motives driving his war.