Yet another commentary on the Murtha proposal
I saw an interesting comment from Joanne Landy, director of the Campaign for Peace and Democracy, about what Murtha proposed. It was forwarded in an email list that I am on. Here is what she said:
As far as I can tell, the main "nuance" in Murtha is that while he wants immediate withdrawal from Iraq, he wants to redeploy U.S. troops somewhere next door to Iraq. In his Nov 17 speech he said that his plan wants:Murtha's speech is dynamite because it shakes up the status quo by sharply raising the issue of withdrawal from Iraq -- a position that is rejected by mainstream Democrats as well as Republicans because it would represent a defeat for U.S. empire. BUT in calling for a continuing strong U.S. military presence in the Middle East, Murtha retains an imperial approach. This needs to be pointed out. As far as I could tell from their incoherent ramblings during the debate, many of the Democrats in Congress were furious because the Republicans had stripped out the imperial elements from Murtha's position when they introduced an immediate-withdrawal-from-Iraq resolution for a forced vote without including the imperial codicils.
- To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.
- To create a quick reaction force in the region.
- To create an over- the- horizon presence of Marines.
- To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq
Post a Comment