Since U.S. Rep. John Murtha started his demands last November for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, I’ve waited for him to describe in detail his force “redeployment” plan in the context of regional tensions and of the global war on terror.

It has been nearly eight months since he started the controversy and he still has not provided any substantive, concrete details justifying a policy change to that effect.

None appear to be forthcoming.

Murtha has failed to heed the Somalia lesson. In 1993, he urged President Clinton to withdraw troops from Somalia, using arguments very similar to those he uses today to justify our withdrawal from Iraq.

In September of that year, Murtha stated during a television interview, “Our welcome has been worn out,” that Clinton had been “listening to our suggestions” and “I think you’ll see him move those troops out very quickly.”

Sound familiar?

Our hasty withdrawal from Somalia emboldened terrorists to attack the U.S. homeland. Osama bin Laden cited the withdrawal from Somalia as a victory for Islamist forces and an example for militants to follow when he “declared war” against the United States in 1996. Bin Laden said:

“But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia … However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu, you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge, but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. …”

Still, Murtha continues to laud Clinton’s “change in direction” in Somalia as a good example of wartime leadership.

Had Clinton stood fast in Somalia, he might have averted 9/11. He might have deterred terrorists from attacking the United States.

Murtha seems to ignore the connection.

When the Johnstown Democrat criticized the Bush administration’s National Strategy for Victory in Iraq, I thought that he would at last share his concrete counterproposals.

The administration’s plan is pretty detailed and comprehensive and I expected an intelligent retort. But I heard nothing new from Murtha besides his “we must redeploy” refrain.

Murtha’s argument for withdrawal is emotional, based wholly on the deaths and sufferings of American troops in Iraq and of their families back home.

It is an easy argument for him to make because no explanation, no matter how noble, will ever soothe this pain. Yet, Murtha must not be allowed to hide behind that pain without explaining how he would protect our long-term national security.

Otherwise, the sacrifices incurred by our men and women in uniform in Iraq would have been in vain.

Setting an arbitrary date for withdrawing from Iraq would be a mistake. As the Somalia experience proves, a hasty withdrawal would re-embolden the terrorists to act against the United States; may lead to the radicalization of Iraq; and would unleash Iran to impose its will upon the region and the world.

Iran’s ongoing effort to build a nuclear capability underscores this intent.

A hasty withdrawal would void the sacrifices made by our men and women in Iraq and would place future generations of Americans at risk of terrorist attacks and nuclear blackmail.

If the United States withdraws from Iraq as we did from Somalia, our enemies will know that all they have to do is wait us out and bleed us before we fold and they prevail.

Murtha should explain to us in detail his solutions to these dilemmas. He should tell us his plans to deal with the regional and global consequences of a unilateral withdrawal from Iraq.

Murtha should tell us how he will apply to the current conflict the lessons we learned from our withdrawal from Somalia because, so far, he has told us nothing besides his “we must redeploy” mantra.

In the absence of concrete details, I respectfully question Murtha’s leadership on the issue of the war in Iraq and his understanding of the consequences that such a retreat would have upon our national security.

The best solution is to stay the course. This policy might not be popular, but good policy seldom is.



Pedro O. Vega lives and works in Johnstown. His column appears on the second Sunday of each month.