Sunday, February 18, 2007
Carney Man Pitch
"U.S. Rep. Chris Carney delivered a national radio address Saturday on behalf of his party just days after the House approved a ceremonial disapproval of President Bush’s plans for troop escalations in Iraq.
Carney, an active a lieutenant commander in the Navy Reserves and former senior intelligence advisor at the Pentagon, disapproves of the plan to extend the deployment and to redeploy nearly 22,000 additional troops.
In the address, carried by several nationally syndicated radio networks including ABC, CBS Radio, NPR and Voice of America Radio, Carney, D-Dimock, talked up his own military experience and said sending more troops to Iraq will do nothing to curtail the violence there.
“As an intelligence and counterterrorism advisor in the U.S. Navy Reserves, I was proud to serve at the Pentagon after the September 11th attacks, but my experience there has taught me that our troops deserve a better plan,” he said."
Mr. Carney became Rep Carney because a great many residents of his district voted against former Rep Sherwood and his very public personal and legal problems. Many of us were persuaded that Mr. Carney meant his campaign statements about supporting the troops and protecting our country from its enemies. Clearly, we were wrong.
I am glad to see that LCdr Carney, a "senior intelligence advisor", has had extensive military experience enabling him to see that the troops need a better plan than the one supported by General Petraeus, who was confirmed by the Senate to lead the US Forces in Iraq.
Just as an aside, does anyone really understand how the term "senior advisor" is used here ? For context, in the military, there are 10 Officer Grades from O-1 for Ensigns to O-10 for full Generals and Admirals ( like General Petraeus); at the O-4 level, a LCdr is quite a bit "junior" to a General. Oh, and Gen Petraeus also has considerable "real senior" combat leadership in Iraq as a Division Commander; and has spent the last year leading a complete rewrite of the Army and Joint Services "Book" on CounterInsurgency Warfare.
I wouldn't make so much of this if Rep Carney hadn't cited his military "experience" so explicitly to give authority to his opinions. Of course, it doesn't really provide much authority or expertise as a simple contrast to Gen Petraeus's experience shows. But something esle is clearly shown by both Rep Carney's words and his selection as Party Spokesman on this issue. He is doing what he was recruited and nominated to do - provide a "military cover" to the Party Platform, which in the case of Iraq is to exit quickly and blame Bush.
I accept political party game-playing; and credit the Democrats with playing this game very well in 2006. But I do not abide the disregard for the nation's vital interests demonstrated by these symbolic attacks on the president and on the troops. It is hypocrisy to say both "we support you" and "we seek to undermine you". Whether that undermining is in words that demoralize as Rep Carney has done or in legal constrains on effective prosecution of the war as Rep Murtha has proposed. These actions are for the Party's gain at the Nation's peril.
So what is the Democratic party plan and Rep Murtha's proposal? Well, try this summary by Mark Steyn :: Why the Iraq war is turning into America's defeat: "So 'the Murtha plan' is to deny the president the possibility of victory while making sure Democrats don't have to share the blame for the defeat. But of course he's a great American! He's a patriot! He supports the troops! He doesn't support them in the mission, but he'd like them to continue failing at it for a couple more years. As John Kerry wondered during Vietnam, how do you ask a soldier to be the last man to die for a mistake? By nominally 'fully funding' a war you don't believe in but 'limiting his ability to use the money.' Or as the endearingly honest anti-war group MoveCongress.org put it, in an e-mail preview of an exclusive interview with the wise old Murtha:
'Chairman Murtha will describe his strategy for not only limiting the deployment of troops to Iraq but undermining other aspects of the president's foreign and national security policy.'
'Undermining'? Why not? To the Slow-Bleed Democrats, it's the Republicans' war. To an increasing number of what my radio pal Hugh Hewitt calls the White-Flag Republicans, it's Bush's war. To everyone else on the planet, it's America's war. And it will be America's defeat."
So who's buying the Carney Man Pitch to avoid a "Surge" in Iraq? Well, for starters, the Iranian sponsored Moqtada al-Sadr and his terrorist militia leadership have decided to run to Tehran rather than stay around for those surging US soldiers to get serious with them. That says a lot.
UPDATE - For those who would like to read exactly what Rep Carney said during the House Hearings on this bill, follow this link to page H1717 of the Congressional Record at THOMAS (Library of Congress) . After Rep Carney's brief speech, Rep Bonner, of Alabama, spoke. The contrast between these two talks is quite stark and frames well the context for the debate between the advocates of US defeat and the advocates of US Victory.
