A PROGRESSIVE DEFENSE
As expected–or feared, depending
on your point of view–Pennsylvania Congressmember John Murtha is rapidly becoming
one of the Democratic Party’s de facto spokespersons on defense policy. That may
be a good thing for centrist Democrats who don’t want to get beat by our Republican
friends with the “soft on defense” stick in another election. But where does it leave
progressives?
Mr. Murtha, you may remember, was the Congressmember who introduced a resolution
last November calling for immediate U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq, labeling the
war "a flawed policy wrapped in illusion" and declaring that “the U.S.
can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. IT IS TIME TO BRING THEM
HOME." Coming from a decorated Marine combat veteran of the Korea and Vietnam
era and a representative who has consistently supported the military, those words
jolted the Bush Administration, and vaulted the respected–but obscure–Congressmember
into national leadership.
It’s not far-fetched to see him moving over from the House Appropriations Committee
to a leading role–maybe the leading role–on the House Armed Services Committee
should the Democrats retake control of Congress or wielding considerable influence
on defense matters should a Democrat win the White House in 2008.
And so, on the off chance that his proposals may one day end up being policy, we
ought to look beyond Mr. Murtha’s call for immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq–which
won him well-deserved standing ovations on the left–and see just where he wants to
redeploy those troops, and what he wants to do with them when they get there.
In a letter written earlier this month to President Bush, Mr. Murtha called for a
“strategy for victory against global terrorism,” suggesting that in conjunction with
an troop withdrawal from Iraq, the President should consider “stationing a mobile
force outside of the country.” Where such a “mobile force” would be stationed, and
what would be its purpose, is left unclear. But in a letter written to Congressional
colleagues last November explaining his troop withdrawal proposal Mr. Murtha gave
some hints, stating that the military front of the War on Terror [his capital letters]
“should be focused on where the leadership and main strength of Al Qaeda and related
organizations exist. To me [Mr. Murtha continues], that is clearly in the area of
Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia…”
Does that mean rather than invasion-and-occupation scenarios, we would be launching
cross-border military raids from bases in, say, Turkey, into Afghanistan, Pakistan,
and Saudi Arabia or, in the alternative, continuing the Bush policy of launching
missiles in villages whenever we suspect an Al Qaeda presence? I don’t know, partly
because I could not find anything more specific in Mr. Murtha’s proposals.
In any event, in the “second and perhaps most important ‘front’ in the War on Terror”
as he describes it, Mr. Murtha advocates a “long-term battle for the hearts and minds
of the Muslim world. … It is a battle we should be able to win resoundingly because
we share so many values with common Muslims and stand for the principles of freedom
and equality.” Aside from the disturbing echo of Lyndon Johnson’s “winning the hearts
and minds” policy in Vietnam (remember how hard we had to fight against that
one), this proposal also remains vague. To which values does Mr. Murtha refer, and
how would he suggest go about demonstrating to our Muslim friends that we share them?
The devil is in the details.
But at least the Pennsylvania Congressmember is suggesting a strategy.
While progressives–myself included–have taken great delight in pointing out the fumbles
of the Bush Administration during the so-called “war on terror” from Tikrit to internet
wiretapping, we have been mostly silent on what we, ourselves, would do in defense
of this country if we had national power in our own hands.
This has mostly to do with the natural breeding grounds for progressive thought in
America, which is most definitely not in the average defense think tank. Most progressives
cut their eye teeth on environmental activism or women’s or minority rights issues,
and can talk for days on how we would improve the education system. Progressive knowledge
on military matters, however, leans heavily toward the question of how to keep Marine
recruiters off campus.
This leads to a couple of results, both of them bad.
First, it strengthens the hands of those in this country–the Rumsfelds and the Cheneys
and the Wolfowitz’s–who were all too eager to unleash the dogs of war in the sands
of Iraq, if only to demonstrate that America can’t be kicked around any more, and
to wash what they believe is the stench of the Vietnam withdrawal from the national
body.
Second, because defense-challenged progressives are such an integral part of the
Democratic Party, progressive failure to craft and articulate a defense policy of
our own creates an opening for our Republican friends to say that Democrats can’t
be trusted on defense and national security issues. This causes centrist Democrats
to scramble around to prove that they are not soft on defense–the Kerrys and the
Hillary Clintons come immediately to mind–thus strengthening the hand of those in
this country who are eager…well, just refer back to bad result No. 1.
What’s the solution to this dilemma for progressives?
First and foremost, while the political battle to end the war in Iraq is still going
on, progressives need to answer the question: how would we defend the country if
we were in charge? Specifics are in order. What would we do, for example, to prevent
another terrorist attack on American soil along the line of, say, the 9/11 attacks.?
What would our response be if such an attack took place, and we could identify the
base location of the attackers? Would we launch an invasion of the suspected country,
as the Bush Administration did in Afghanistan? What would we do if faced with the
impending nuclearization of a country such as Iran? What would we do about nuclear
weapons already existing in countries around the world? North Korea? China? Pakistan?
Israel? France and England? The United States? Ask everyone to throw them in the
ocean? Or let everyone keep them in place in the old mutually-assured deterrence
scheme? And the larger question: what is the best balance between America’s economic
and military policy in order to keep us relatively prosperous and relatively
safe? Can we do that while bringing the rest of the world up with us? Is that the
best defense policy and, if so, how do we suggest it would be managed in the
real world, while keeping at bay those people who are still pissed with us about
how we managed the world in the old days?
We often hear it said, these days, that U.S. military forces are being stretched
thin by the war in Iraq. Mr. Murtha uses the term “overstretched” in a column which
included his recent letter to President Bush. But when Mr. Murtha uses such a term,
he has specific numbers in mind, which is why people listen to him when he gives
opinions. How many divisions the country must keep on hand in order to fight a two-front
war, for example. How long would it take to redeploy troops stationed in the European
theater to an African or Asian or Middle Eastern battleground, and how many carriers
would it take to redeploy them. How long should the average soldier/sailor’s term
be in combat conditions before they are cycled out for rest and refitting. How long
should they stay out before being sent back in to battle. How many times should they
go into battle. Before you can even enter that discussion, you have to start with
simpler questions. How many carriers are in a battle group? How many soldiers are
in a division? A company? A squad? I don’t have any idea. And I suspect, neither
do most of my progressive friends.
Until more of us do, progressives are going to be mostly on the sidelines during
the coming debates over United States defense policy, forcing the issue, certainly,
but never being able to define it. The real redeployment needed here is for progressives
to get into the study of national defense. And quickly.