Can anyone explain the differences in Kerry and Murtha's withdrawal plans?

[blm]

Before either one gets bashed due to incorrect reporting or lack of comprehension.

[Warren Stupidity]

1. I'm under the impression that Murtha is talking about 6 months

where Kerry is far less ambitious and has no end date.

Six months was the benchmark I set long ago for what I would find acceptable.

[blm]

2. No details? I heard Kerry's was 13 - 18 months

And I also heard that Murtha says 6 months and then redeploy the troops NEAR Iraq.

But, I'm still playing catch up on this story.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. Kerry's plan is linked to preconditions.

Iraq has to magically get all good for our troops to get out. I don't like Murtha's nearby deployment, but I think it won't happen anyhow, and after some reflection it will disappear. What is important is the unconditional short timetable to vamoose. Yeah! Pack up and go. Good plan. All for it.

[fedupinBushcountry]

32. BLM

I have never heard 13-18. I have only heard Kerry say 12-15, with the firstb 20,000 home for the holidays. That is a reasonable benchmark. The quicker the Iraqis take over the sooner all the troops can come home.

[blm]

33. 12 - 15 is much better. I was giving it the higher number from his earlier

talks about it...but I guess a couple months have already gone by since he first mentioned the need to plan withdrawal last Sept.

[fedupinBushcountry]

34. In fact

during the campaign last year, he stated that he was hoping to start withdrawals as early as August of this year.

Bush has made this such a mess. I'm so glad Kerry and Murtha have both came out with plans. The Dems just need to sit down together and put it all on the table and put it out there. I really think Kerry and Murtha are tired of "stay the course mentality" and tired of hearing Dems don't have a plan.

Kerry laid his plan on the table of the Senate Foreign Relations committee,he did that right on the Senate floor, he has taken that step. That should make a very interesting debate, but I doubt it will be even scheduled until early next year. Which is sad. The debate needs to happen now. IMO what we saw on the Senate floor and the House floor was a beginning, but nothing will come of it, the Repubs will see to that. The stonewalling will continue.

I salute Murtha and Kerry for being true patriots and standing up for truth and a real plan.

[swhisper1]

4. Both could work

But Bush/PNAC and Carlisle want to stay in those 14 US bases they have built with our money

[blm]

5. So Murtha's 6 mo plan, Kerry's 13-18mo plan, and Bush's 2 decade plan, but

some people here are calling Kerry's plan the Republican plan?

Sometimes DU can be an odd place.

[goodhue]

20. Difference is that Murtha acknowledged that troop presence is the problem

Whereas Kerry implies that troop presence is making things better.

[blm]

24. Kerry specifically states that presence is a problem.

.

[LSK]

6. Kerry is in favor of timetables, Murtha said get out now

Kerry's plan would have us out in a year. Both agree that we have to send the message that we are leaving so that the Iraqis will "get with the program" in regards to training themselves.

[blm]

7. Coincidence that both out talking plans the same day? Could Murtha be

submitting the 6mo plan to FORCE Republicans to compromise towards the 13-18mo plan submitted in the senate?

Coincidence? Or are Kerry and Murtha working together AGAIN?

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0918-21.htm

Kerry Says President Plans Huge Call-Up
by Patrick Healy

ALBUQUERQUE -- Senator John F. Kerry accused the Bush administration yesterday of secretly planning to call up a substantial number of military reservists and National Guard units after Election Day to go to Iraq, opening a new front in the Democrat's ongoing attack that the president is concealing postwar instability in Iraq from American voters.

"He won't tell us what congressional leaders are now saying -- that this administration is planning yet another substantial call-up of reservists and Guard units immediately after the election," Kerry told 300 people at a community center here.

"Hide it from people through the election, then make the move -- that's not the way we do business in the United States of America, my friends. We deserve a president who tells the American people the truth, and when it comes to Iraq, George W. Bush simply won't own up to the truth. He hasn't all along. In fact, he'll do anything he can to cover up the truth."

The allegations came after the Kerry campaign this week asked Representative John Murtha of Pennsylvania, a congressional ally and Pentagon specialist, to provide evidence of the reservist plan in order for Kerry to escalate his questioning of Bush's handling of Iraq, aides to Murtha said yesterday. The aides said a relatively small number of new reservists would be involved, probably 2,000 to 2,500, but the idea that such a plan would be kept quiet until after the election spurred Kerry to focus on Bush's honesty as commander in chief.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

14. Kerry on Hardball yesterday..... excerpt from transcript

This does not sound to me like they are working together.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10097588/

MATTHEWS:  Are you surprised that Jack Murtha, the Congressman from Pennsylvania, he‘s such a pro-military guy, another combat veteran from Vietnam, coming out so emotionally today, saying we basically have to get the troops out.  This is not where we should be. 

KERRY:  I have so much respect for Jack Murtha.  He is one of the best in the Congress.  His love of the military, his respect for those in uniform is second to nobody in the Congress.  Everybody knows that. 

So that‘s a very important statement that he made.  I don‘t happen to agree and I‘ve laid out a way that I think we can get out over the course of time, in a way that doesn‘t require such precipitous transition. 

But, I understand—I understand where he‘s coming from.

[blm]

15. Yet there is Kerry attacking WH on senate floor for their attack on Murtha

Looks to me like Murtha and Kerry ARE working together.

Murtha throws out a vague 6mo withdrawal plan on the very day that Kerry is scheduled to discuss his detailed 13-18 mo plan.

And you did see the article about Kerry and Murtha being allies before and working together?

I think Murtha baited the Republicans to pull them TOWARDS the compromise on withdrawal that they probably all want.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

16. His attacking the WH for attacking Murtha just shows that he's fighting

the liars, and not that he and Murtha have some secret pact. I am tired of hearing about Kerry working behind the scenes. First with the fact that people were hoping beyond hope on DU that he was going to challenge Ohio and now with this.

I want the troops out now. Murtha is 100% right in his position.

[blm]

17. That's not Murtha's position - he said based on SAFETY conditions.

Murtha was being deliberately vague.

Kerry and Murtha go back as allies. Long before most DUers ever even heard his name.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

22. Murtha's Transcript

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/pa12_murtha/pr051117iraq.html

My plan calls:

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

[blm]

23. redeploy consistent with safety of troops is not easily measurable.

And his saying it's possible it can be done in 6 months with troops stationed nearby to go back in if needed shows he knows perfectly well there is every likelihood they'll be stuck going back in, so what is gained by rushing it?

I firmly believe he wanted to help change the debate to withdrawal - period. He's advancing the cause with his submission.

Now, where does he differ so greatly from Kerry's plan posted above?

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

28. Do you have a link where he says 6 months? From what I heard live

from him on the Congressional Floor, and as you read in the transcript, he asked for Immediate Withdrawal.

[blm]

29. When he was asked what immediate meant he said it was conceivable

that it could be done in 6 mo. I think it was on CNN yesterday. The real time thread should still be available from yesterday.

That's why I say he's being deliberately vague because there really is no measure for safety conditions. They are what they are at that time.

And I reiterate, Kerry and Murtha want withdrawal to BE the debate and will push it any way they can get it.

Murtha offers a 6mo withdrawal plan on the morning Kerry is finally getting airtime for his 13-18 mo withdrawal plan submitted 3 weeks ago.

Couldn't it be that Murtha offered it as bait to PULL Republicans into compromise towards the 13-18mo senate plan?

A way to FOCUS the debate on withdrawal?


http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0918-21.htm

Kerry Says President Plans Huge Call-Up
by Patrick Healy

ALBUQUERQUE -- Senator John F. Kerry accused the Bush administration yesterday of secretly planning to call up a substantial number of military reservists and National Guard units after Election Day to go to Iraq, opening a new front in the Democrat's ongoing attack that the president is concealing postwar instability in Iraq from American voters.

"He won't tell us what congressional leaders are now saying -- that this administration is planning yet another substantial call-up of reservists and Guard units immediately after the election," Kerry told 300 people at a community center here.

"Hide it from people through the election, then make the move -- that's not the way we do business in the United States of America, my friends. We deserve a president who tells the American people the truth, and when it comes to Iraq, George W. Bush simply won't own up to the truth. He hasn't all along. In fact, he'll do anything he can to cover up the truth."

The allegations came after the Kerry campaign this week asked Representative John Murtha of Pennsylvania, a congressional ally and Pentagon specialist, to provide evidence of the reservist plan in order for Kerry to escalate his questioning of Bush's handling of Iraq, aides to Murtha said yesterday. The aides said a relatively small number of new reservists would be involved, probably 2,000 to 2,500, but the idea that such a plan would be kept quiet until after the election spurred Kerry to focus on Bush's honesty as commander in chief.

[sandnsea]

8. December Drawdown

That's all I know for sure. They both want to start bringing troops home in December. That's a good first step and would send a clear message to the Iraqis that we are going to leave.

[blm]

9. But there are scores of posts attacking Kerry's plan and lauding Murtha's,

yet none of those folks want to explain either of the plans and point out what part of the plans they are attacking or lauding?

[Toots]

10. I think Kerry wants examples of Progress before withdrawal

City by city. No timetable like the Republicans are howling about but establishing goals and once the goals are met withdrawal city by city. Bush* and Republicans have no goals other that stay the course. Kerry says when Iraqi police show they can police their city without US forces we leave that city. Plain and simple. Murtha wants us to do a Vietnam. Pull out americans and give them our word we will aid them from a near by site if the need arises. We told the vietnamese the same thing but once we were out we were out and the US once again went back on it's word to help a distressed people in their time of need. I like Kerry's solution much better than Murtha's but will settle for either over status quo.

[sandnsea]

11. Kerry wants to turn over sectors

Just turn them over and leave. They can't secure their own areas until we're out of them. Then as more Iraqis are trained, turn another one over. And so on. So it doesn't require a city to be perfectly secure before we leave because part of the insecurity is because we're there. Neither is calling for consequences be damned withdrawal, Murtha wants to leave troops in the region for "quick action". Maybe some combination of the two would be best, but either plan is better than permanent occupation and war with no end in sight.

[leftchick]

12. Kerry said he does not agree with Murtha's plan

Kerry wants "benchmarks achieved" before the withdrawl process starts.

[blm]

13. Starting this Dec. Benchmarks like elections, training and troop placement

and the such?

Like turning over the permanent bases to the Iraqis? Like stopping contracts for American businesses and turn over construction to Iraqi businesses?

You don't see that those things would be good?

Kerry Introduces Strategy for Success in Iraq Act in United States Senate

Plan Would Bring Home 20,000 Troops After Iraq Elections, Demands Benchmarks for Success

Washington, D.C. -- This afternoon, Senator John Kerry introduced in the Senate his plan to succeed in Iraq and bring the vast majority of our combat troops home in a reasonable timeframe tied to specific, responsible benchmarks to transfer responsibility to Iraqis – beginning with the draw down of 20,000 U.S. troops after successful Iraqi elections in December. These additional troops are in Iraq only for the purpose of providing security for the upcoming elections. If they remain in Iraq after that benchmark is achieved, it only exacerbates the sense of American occupation.

"We are entering a make-or-break six month period in Iraq. We need to be taking action now if we are ever going to bring our troops home within a reasonable timeframe from an Iraq that's not permanently torn by irrepressible conflict," Kerry said. “We cannot pull out precipitously or merely promise to stay ‘as long as it takes. There is a way forward that gives us the best chance both to salvage a difficult situation in Iraq, and to save American and Iraqi lives.”

Kerry's legislation, the Strategy for Success in Iraq Act, lays out a comprehensive new strategy to complete the mission in Iraq and bring our troops home. Its goal is to undermine the insurgency by simultaneously pursing both a political settlement and the draw down of American forces linked to specific, responsible benchmarks. If followed, the process will be completed in 12-15 months.

Kerry’s plan calls for:

• The U.S. to begin a phased draw down of American troops as a series of military and political benchmarks is met, starting with a reduction of 20,000 troops over the holidays as the first benchmark –the successful completion of the December elections – is met.

• The U.S. to immediately make clear that we do not want permanent military bases in Iraq, or a large combat force on Iraqi soil indefinitely.

• The Administration to immediately give Congress and the American people a detailed plan for the transfer of military and police responsibilities on a sector by sector basis to Iraqis so the majority of our combat forces can be withdrawn -- ideally by the end of next year.

• The Bush administration to prod the new Iraqi government to ask for a multinational force to help protect Iraq’s borders until a capable national army is formed. Such a force, if sanctioned by the United Nations, could attract participation by Iraq's neighbors and countries like India and would be a critical step in stemming the tide of insurgents and money into Iraq, especially from Syria.

• The Pentagon to alter the deployment of American troops, keeping Special Operations forces pursuing specific intelligence leads and putting the vast majority of U.S. troops in rear guard, garrisoned status for security backup. We do not need to send young Americans on search and destroy missions that invite alienation and deepen the risks they face.

• The President to put the training of Iraqi security forces on a six month wartime footing and ensure that the Iraqi government has the budget to deploy them.

• The Bush administration to accept long standing offers by Egypt, Jordan, France and Germany to do more training.

• The administration to immediately call a conference of Iraq’s neighbors, Britain, Turkey and other key NATO allies, and Russia to implement a strategy to bring the parties in Iraq to a sustainable political compromise that includes mutual security guarantees among Iraqis.

• Iraq’s Sunni neighbors to set up a reconstruction fund specifically for the majority Sunni areas to show them the benefits of participating in the political process. • The President to appoint a special envoy to bolster America’s diplomatic efforts.

• The U.S. to commit to a new regional security structure that includes improved security assistance programs and joint exercises.

• The U.S. to jumpstart our lagging reconstruction efforts by providing the necessary civilian personnel to do the job, standing up civil-military reconstruction teams throughout the country, streamlining the disbursement of funds to the provinces, expanding job creation programs for Iraqis, and strengthening the capacity of government ministries.

“We must send this critical signal to the Iraqi people - that we do not desire permanent occupation - and that Iraqis themselves must fight for Iraq. History shows that guns alone do not end an insurgency,” Kerry added.

Senior American commanders and officials have said the large U.S. military presence in Iraq feeds the insurgency. General George Casey, the top American military commander in Iraq, recently told Congress that our large military presence “feeds the notion of occupation” and “extends the amount of time that it will take for Iraqi security forces to become self-reliant.” Richard Nixon’s Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird, breaking a thirty year silence, recently wrote, ''Our presence is what feeds the insurgency, and our gradual withdrawal would feed the confidence and the ability of average Iraqis to stand up to the insurgency."

# # #

[MrDale]

18. i support kerry's plan

it's more of a plan than murtha's to begin. it also covers the dems rears. if we pull out in 6 months, just drop everything and leave and iraq crumbles by some slim chance, it would be xmas for the republicans for a long time. kerry's plan ensures that we take steps and do what we can to give iraq back to the iraqi's with our support. once the full control is in their hands, the iraqi's are now resposible and anything that goes wrong can be blamed on the repubs for their occupation in the first place.

alot of politics involved, the dems must make sure they think about the republicans attacks and how their plan not only is a win for us and dems but nothing but a loss for the repukes.

[goodhue]

19. Murtha calls for redeployment to be complete within 6 months.

So that would mean US troops out before Memorial day. I'm not familiar with Kerry's plan, but I don't think it is this speedy.

[goodhue]

21. Murtha acknowledges troop presence is part of the problem

Whereas Kerry appears to believe there is value in continued presence.

[blm]

25. So does Kerry. I think you need to read the details.

Kerry Introduces Strategy for Success in Iraq Act in United States Senate

Plan Would Bring Home 20,000 Troops After Iraq Elections, Demands Benchmarks for Success

Washington, D.C. -- This afternoon, Senator John Kerry introduced in the Senate his plan to succeed in Iraq and bring the vast majority of our combat troops home in a reasonable timeframe tied to specific, responsible benchmarks to transfer responsibility to Iraqis – beginning with the draw down of 20,000 U.S. troops after successful Iraqi elections in December. These additional troops are in Iraq only for the purpose of providing security for the upcoming elections. If they remain in Iraq after that benchmark is achieved, it only exacerbates the sense of American occupation.

"We are entering a make-or-break six month period in Iraq. We need to be taking action now if we are ever going to bring our troops home within a reasonable timeframe from an Iraq that's not permanently torn by irrepressible conflict," Kerry said. “We cannot pull out precipitously or merely promise to stay ‘as long as it takes. There is a way forward that gives us the best chance both to salvage a difficult situation in Iraq, and to save American and Iraqi lives.”

Kerry's legislation, the Strategy for Success in Iraq Act, lays out a comprehensive new strategy to complete the mission in Iraq and bring our troops home. Its goal is to undermine the insurgency by simultaneously pursing both a political settlement and the draw down of American forces linked to specific, responsible benchmarks. If followed, the process will be completed in 12-15 months.

Kerry’s plan calls for:

• The U.S. to begin a phased draw down of American troops as a series of military and political benchmarks is met, starting with a reduction of 20,000 troops over the holidays as the first benchmark –the successful completion of the December elections – is met.

• The U.S. to immediately make clear that we do not want permanent military bases in Iraq, or a large combat force on Iraqi soil indefinitely.

• The Administration to immediately give Congress and the American people a detailed plan for the transfer of military and police responsibilities on a sector by sector basis to Iraqis so the majority of our combat forces can be withdrawn -- ideally by the end of next year.

• The Bush administration to prod the new Iraqi government to ask for a multinational force to help protect Iraq’s borders until a capable national army is formed. Such a force, if sanctioned by the United Nations, could attract participation by Iraq's neighbors and countries like India and would be a critical step in stemming the tide of insurgents and money into Iraq, especially from Syria.

• The Pentagon to alter the deployment of American troops, keeping Special Operations forces pursuing specific intelligence leads and putting the vast majority of U.S. troops in rear guard, garrisoned status for security backup. We do not need to send young Americans on search and destroy missions that invite alienation and deepen the risks they face.

• The President to put the training of Iraqi security forces on a six month wartime footing and ensure that the Iraqi government has the budget to deploy them.

• The Bush administration to accept long standing offers by Egypt, Jordan, France and Germany to do more training.

• The administration to immediately call a conference of Iraq’s neighbors, Britain, Turkey and other key NATO allies, and Russia to implement a strategy to bring the parties in Iraq to a sustainable political compromise that includes mutual security guarantees among Iraqis.

• Iraq’s Sunni neighbors to set up a reconstruction fund specifically for the majority Sunni areas to show them the benefits of participating in the political process. • The President to appoint a special envoy to bolster America’s diplomatic efforts.

• The U.S. to commit to a new regional security structure that includes improved security assistance programs and joint exercises.

• The U.S. to jumpstart our lagging reconstruction efforts by providing the necessary civilian personnel to do the job, standing up civil-military reconstruction teams throughout the country, streamlining the disbursement of funds to the provinces, expanding job creation programs for Iraqis, and strengthening the capacity of government ministries.

“We must send this critical signal to the Iraqi people - that we do not desire permanent occupation - and that Iraqis themselves must fight for Iraq. History shows that guns alone do not end an insurgency,” Kerry added.

Senior American commanders and officials have said the large U.S. military presence in Iraq feeds the insurgency. General George Casey, the top American military commander in Iraq, recently told Congress that our large military presence “feeds the notion of occupation” and “extends the amount of time that it will take for Iraqi security forces to become self-reliant.” Richard Nixon’s Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird, breaking a thirty year silence, recently wrote, ''Our presence is what feeds the insurgency, and our gradual withdrawal would feed the confidence and the ability of average Iraqis to stand up to the insurgency."

# # #

[goodhue]

26. Thanks

By and large I like the plan. I'm a little unclear on how "benchmarks" relate to withdrawal. The first benchmark is December election, after which 20K troops get to come home. What is the second benchmark, and how many troops get to come home then? How many more benchmarks? Murtha's plan is simpler and cleaner from my perspective in that it does not make withdrawal contingent on benchmarks which have yet to be achieved.

[blm]

27. His is actually vague on that, and based on safety conditions....

I believe he was being deliberately vague because he was throwing this out as bait to pull Republicans at least into debating earlier withdrawal.

[welshTerrier2]

30. wow, someone's talking about the actual details ...

this is great ... this is exactly the kinds of discussions we should be having on DU ... thanks for raising this issue ...

i want to provide two different answers ... the first is what i see as the essential difference between the two plans (don't forget there's also the McGovern plan co-sponsored by a good sized group in the House) ... and the second is what i see as a path to reconciliation ...

the key difference, and i see it as a HUGE difference, between the two plans is that Murtha has called for IMMEDIATE REDPLOYMENT ... some have said he means completed withdrawal within 6 months but starting now ... no conditions, no variables, no nothing ...

and Kerry's plan, which i see as a non-plan btw (i'll explain why in a minute), is CONTINGENT ON EVENTS ...

to me, that's a huge difference ... one says "it's over" and the other says "let's try to finish it in 12 - 15 months" ... the problem with the 12 - 15 months is that it could end up being 12 - 15 years ... there's no "end zone" ... i'm not suggesting Kerry would condone 12 - 15 years but rather that his "plan" does NOT hold bush accountable if he fails to meet any of the benchmarks ... it's not adequate to provide bush with an open-ended blank check ... that's what i see this as being ... i understand what Kerry wants to happen and of course i support any call for withdrawal of troops over bush's bullshit ... but, and here's why i referred to Kerry's plan as a non-plan, my understanding is that Kerry has called on bush to define the benchmarks and then report on whether they are being met ... while Kerry offered some specifics about troop pullback and assurance about permanent bases, the actual benchmarks that could lead to withdrawal are left completely up to bush (with the exception of the initial 20000 redeployment) ...

so i see the two plans a very, very different at their core regardless of whatever similarities you might cite ...

now, as for reconciling the differences, and it's something i think is critical, i think the discussion should be divided into two phases ... we get so energized debating the conclusions we've reached that we aren't able to get passed the steps we used to arrive at those conclusions ...

i'm not familiar with every thing either Murtha or Kerry has ever said ... if they've spoken out on some of the following issues, i'd like to know more ...

Murtha based his conclusion on a whole bunch of "facts" and assessments he made ... instead of focussing on the result, i'd rather have a discussion on the process he used ... same with Kerry's ideas ...

so, without itemizing all of Murtha's reasons, he stated that 80% of the Iraqi people want the US out NOW ... he said incidents have gone up from 150 a week to 700 a week over the last year ... he said this is putting a dangerous strain on our military and our domestic bases are understaffed ... he said that bush refuses to accept any input whatsoever ... he said the rate of US deaths has doubled since Abu Ghraib; we're losing an average of 2 Americans every single day since we first invaded ...

i'd like to hear Democrats speaking out strongly on all of these points ... every Democrat regardless of what policy you advocate ... i think many in the anti-war movement would appreciate knowing that their arguments, if not their conclusions, are being given a voice by their representatives and by their Party ...

and i would like those supporting anything longer than immediate withdrawal to explain, if they agree with the data, how they can justify ignoring the wishes of 80% of the Iraqi people that we remain to achieve any objectives ... who should have the right to make that choice, the Iraqi people or the American government? the question deserves an answer ...

as for some of Kerry's recent statements, Kerry acknowledged that he sees bush as incompetent and duplicitous ... i would like to understand how anyone can call for anything beyond immediate withdrawal with that type of assessment of the CIC running the war? it seems to me Kerry, with his characterization of bush, makes a great case to get the troops out of there ...

thanks again for this thread ... i wish more DU'ers participated ...

[blm]

31. I'm not sure, but I think that Kerry was working w/Gen. Casey's input,

and he is the general IN Iraq who just sent a withdrawal plan to the Pentagon and got attacked by WH for it.

I remember Kerry mentioning Casey in his earlier speech on Iraq.

Personally, wt, I don't think having the troops redeployed nearby so they can be ready to go back in is better than drawing down significantly over the course of next year. Training troops takes time, especially with the weapons they will be left with - and stepping up the training is crucial to getting out of there.