The anti-war movement and John Murtha
Published Dec 4, 2005 11:05 PM
Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) has pushed the public
debate in the media and in Congress about bringing U.S. troops out of Iraq,
stating that they should be brought home “immediately,” adding,
“within the framework of practicality.” His time frame for
“redeployment” is six months.
Various politicians, friend and
foe alike, speak of Murtha with the greatest respect because of his personal
military record and his closeness to the military brass. While Democratic Party
politicians basked in the anti-war glow created by Murtha’s position, they
also decisively rejected it as being too precipitous. They are all afraid Bush
and the Republicans will tag them with the “cut and run” label.
The double talking of the Democratic Party leadership on the war flows
from the fact that they are completely tied to imperialism. It shows how
dangerous it is for the movement to become passive and look to any of them for
leadership. Instead, the movement should concentrate on the possibility of
taking advantage of the present split, represented by war-hawk Murtha’s
new-found position, to escalate the anti-war struggle.
stand has made him a hero among the defeatist elements of the ruling class. But
sections of the anti-war movement are also erroneously elevating him to the
position of spokesperson and leader.
While he did take a strong stand
within the imperialist political establishment, an anti-imperialist analysis of
Murtha’s role is needed.
What made Murtha’s presentation
appealing was that he castigated Vice President Dick Cheney for not listening to
veterans “who have been there”—and, by implication, President
George W. Bush for his flimsy National Guard service, which enabled him to
escape combat during the Vietnam War. Murtha himself was a decorated combat
veteran in Vietnam.
Privileged selfishness among war-hawks who dodged
service while the workers and the oppressed were dying on the front lines is
reprehensible. But consider the reactionary character of the war in which Murtha
Another brutal imperialist war
medals won in a brutal colonial, imperialist war against the Vietnamese people,
who struggled for national liberation for over a century. In this war the
Vietnamese were bombed with napalm and white phosphorus. Their villages, towns
and cities were carpet-bombed by B-52s and strafed by fighter planes. More bombs
were dropped on Vietnam than on all the targets in World War I and World War II
The Vietnamese were machine-gunned from helicopters and tortured
in “tiger cages.” Villagers were rounded up into
barbed-wire-surrounded concentration camps called “strategic
hamlets.” Whole villages were slaughtered, including defenseless children.
The most notorious was the My Lai massacre.
Thousands of political cadre
were assassinated in the CIA’s “Operation Phoenix.” To remove
cover for Vietnamese fighters, the Pentagon destroyed hundreds of thousands of
square miles of foliage, spraying the poisonous, genetically damaging herbicide
Agent Orange from the air. Millions of Vietnamese were killed and wounded. Even
U.S. troops who had to handle this toxic substance came down with many illnesses
and apparent genetic damage.
Murtha parlayed his military record in
Vietnam, one of the most brutal colonial wars in history, into gaining a
position in Congress. There, as a member of the Defense Appropriations
Subcommittee, he got even closer to the generals. Murtha was fighting for
imperialism and considers this service a point of pride.
Vietnamese point of view, or the viewpoint of anti-imperialist solidarity and
support, pride-in-service in this near genocidal adventure is hardly
qualification to be an “anti-war leader.”
Murtha also was
speaking on behalf of rank-and-file U.S. soldiers who have been wounded in Iraq
and their families. Indeed, he spoke with deep emotion and apparent sympathy for
the troops he visits frequently in Walter Reed Hospital.
The wounds U.S. soldiers suffer in Iraq are
terrible and evoke sympathy on an individual basis. But U.S. soldiers who are
victims of the war are really victims of the war criminals in the White House
and the Pentagon who sent them to Iraq on a mission of colonial conquest. For an
anti-imperialist, any expression of sympathy must be connected with condemning
the invading high command and the Bush administration. Otherwise such
unqualified sympathy only reinforces patriotism to the capitalist
Murtha, who is a lieutenant colonel in the Marine Reserves,
complained that the army is broken. But by that he meant that the military is so
stretched that the mission of conquering the Iraqis can no longer be carried out
as he and others in the Pentagon originally conceived of it. His fear is that
the U.S. military will run out of soldiers because recruitment has dried up and
the pressure on the present force could result in widespread troop resistance.
Murtha wants to act before that resistance materializes on a wide scale.
But the anti-war movement must have the opposite view: one of encouraging and
assisting the resistance of the soldiers against being forced to kill and be
killed to promote the fortunes of U.S. imperialism.
The soldiers have
every right to resist brutalizing the Iraqi people. They have the right to
resist being sent on a mission to conquer Iraq for the oil companies, the
Pentagon and the multinational corporations. It is the right of every soldier to
resist an illegal and unjust mission.
Some U.S. soldiers who were in Iraq
have returned to testify about the crimes they saw the U.S. military commit
against the Iraqis, including the murder of civilians, including Iraqi children,
the use of illegal weapons like white phosphorus, and the torture of captured
Iraqis. A few, like U.S. Army Sgt. Camilo Mejia, have then refused to return to
Iraq, and have become an active part of the anti-war movement. These soldiers,
and not the militarists like Murtha, are the heroes whose example thousands of
U.S. troops now in Iraq should begin to follow.
Murtha has issued no
statements about the mothers and children in Iraq who died or were wounded or
who lost loved ones at the hands of the U.S. occupation forces. He has not shed
a tear for the Iraqi dead and wounded, for the millions of people whose lives
were shattered by the U.S. invasion and occupation.
Murtha’s demand is to have “Iraqis fight for Iraq.” In simple
terms, this means let the puppet forces take over the responsibility of securing
Iraq for U.S. imperialism. To bring the troops home, as Murtha demanded, while
putting in their place a domestic force to fight against the resistance, backed
up by U.S. air support and U.S. troops “over the horizon” to defend
the puppet government, is completely at odds with genuine anti-war,
This is the “Iraqization” of the
war, just as Richard Nixon was forced to “Viet nam ize” the Vietnam
War. That started in 1969, when U.S. casualties were mounting, the military
budget was becoming unbearable and the anti-war movement in the U.S. was growing
broader, deeper and more militant.
While there are vast differences
between the Vietnam War and the Iraq War, there is one parallel that is
instructive. In a work entitled “The Long Resistance (1858-1975),”
written by Nguen Khac Vien and published in Hanoi in 1975 after the U.S. was
driven out, a section on “Nixon’s’ War” reads as
“Unable to reinforce the U.S. expedi tion ary corps,
[Nixon] was compelled to start bringing the ‘boys’ home. American
losses had reached unacceptable proportions. ...
“To carry on and
win the war while cutting down American casualties and spending to levels
acceptable by American opinion and still seeking to impose American terms upon
the Vietnamese people—Nixon wanted to solve this thorny problem through
the ‘Vietnamization’ of the war.
“—To provide the puppet army with enough men and material
to make it the main force that would liquidate the Vietnamese resistance and
constitute the essential prop of the Saigon government fully devoted to
“—To gradually withdraw U.S.
Murtha is proposing a “Vietnamization”
solution to the problems of the U.S. military in Iraq. He was echoing the
generals when he said, “We have become the primary target of the
insurgency” and “Some say the army is broken. Some of our troops are
on their third deployment.”
The overall anti-imperialist goal of the
Iraqis and of the anti-war movement is not just to get U.S. troops out of the
country. It is to free Iraq from the stranglehold of the U.S. government,
military and corporations. But behind Murtha’s scheme of
“redeployment” in the immediate future is the goal of salvaging the
situation for Washington by setting up a proxy regime of intermediaries with the
title of “Iraqi government.” This regime would give the oil rights
to the monopolies. It would collaborate with the Pentagon, privatize the
country, destroy all social benefits and open it up for foreign
Finally, it must be said that Murtha puts his criticism of the
Iraq occupation on the strategic basis that it threatens “procurement
programs that ensure our military dominance.” It is in this sense that he
also speaks for the military high command, which is being consumed by the Iraq
War and fears that it has lost ground in its goal of building up the military
machine for world domination.
Murtha’s remarks should be seen, not
as a signal to get behind him, but to escalate the struggle against the war, now
that the military leadership and the political establishment of the U.S. ruling
class are breaking up into factions and are beset with defeatism.
probability is that, no matter what the talk-shop Congress does, the Bush group
is going to go full steam ahead with its plans to “win” in Iraq.
Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are ready to fight to the last drop of blood of the
U.S. troops and the Iraqi people. They will continue the war—the way the
administrations of Nixon and Lyndon Johnson before him did—until they are
The anti-war movement here should expect nothing else and
should take an independent position to get all U.S. troops out immediately,
unconditionally and totally. We must say “down with the puppet
government,” whoever is elected, and “no” to the training of
Iraqi mercenary forces.
There are two fundamental sides in this
struggle—the side of U.S. imperialism and the side of the Iraqis fighting
to end occupation. Murtha is on the side of U.S. imperialism. If his defeatist
position helps to weaken the U.S. military in Iraq, so much the better. But
don’t thank Murtha for this. Thank the Iraqi resistance who are fighting
for the independence of their country and have brought about the demoralization
of sections of the U.S. military and the political establishment.
Articles copyright 1995-2012 Workers World.
Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: [email protected]
Subscribe [email protected]
Support independent news DONATE