I watched Rep. Murtha on Meet the Press last night, and read his piece reprinted in the paper. While I don't agree 100% with him, I do feel he's sincere and acting in good-faith and with great personal-honesty. Which is more than I can say for the leaders of EITHER PARTY at the moment.
And if the Iraqi elections go well and their army has another 6-months of training is it so unreasonable to say that in 12-months we could seriously reduce the troop-levels in Iraq? I think overall we should assume that the bulk of the troops will becoming-home in the next 12-24 months anyway. But also recognizing that perhaps 15,000 might be stationed there permanently atleast for the next 10-20 years as part of a regional strategy. On bases and airfields providing "regional security", not patrolling the streets or engaging in counter-terrorism or border interdiction on a day-to-day basis.
To assume that we would withdraw ALL our troops is naive. We still have troops in Germany and Japan, and in Cuba. The truth lies somewhere in-between Rep. Mutha's position and Mr. Rumsfeld's. It is an unfortunate fact that partisan politics and gingoism have replaced the possibility of calm discussion on foreign policy and military goals in the Washington, DC of today both within the White House and the Halls of Congress. And the performance of the Pentagon, Foggy Bottom and Langley haven't been free of these tensions either.
Updated: "Politics must end at the water's edge" is how Sen. Arthur Vandenberg (Mi) is usually quoted. But the full-text is much more illuminating, and much thanks to Sen. Lieberman (Ct) for recently reminding the Senate of this...
..."To me 'bipartisan foreign policy' means a mutual effort, under our indispensable two-party system, to unite our official voice at the water's edge so that America speaks with maximum authority against those who would divide and conquer us and the free world."
