when i heard Murtha first speak about "immediate redeployment" of US forces in Iraq to an
"over the horizon" position, i didn't like the idea ... it seemed to me that this meant we would maintain a huge troop presence in the Middle East and would jump right back into Iraq the second civil war broke out ...
but in re-reading Murtha's statement (see below) on the issue, I think he's been misunderstood ... Pelosi, who has now endorsed Murtha's resolution and has stated that a majority of House Democrats do as well, said yesterday that "some of the troops would be kept offshore but most would come home" ...
Murtha is not calling for a large, invasion-sized force to be permanently stationed in the region (i.e. over the horizon) ... nor does he believe we should return to Iraq if a civil war broke out after we withdrew ... Murtha is talking about a small, strategic force of Marines that could react, if necessary, to "a terrorist camp" inside Iraq ...
source:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/17/AR2005111700982.htmlQUESTION: My other question:
What do you mean exactly by a quick reaction force in the region?MURTHA: Well, the Marines in Okinawa -- remember in Somalia, we came back from Somalia and then we went back in.
It only took us a couple days to take care of the Iraqi army, and now we're not talking about an army.
What I'm talking about is a terrorist camp that may affect our national security or the security in the region, we can go back in. But not a civil war or something like that. That's up to the Iraqis to settle that. 
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
