When John McCain wants to find out how things are going over in Iraq, he flies over in a military aircraft on the taxpayers' dime, walks around the Green Zone with a maximum of US military protection, also on the taxpayers' dime, and talks to soldiers and marines hand-picked by the chain of command to answer his questions. One wonders what he expects to hear, and whether it isn't something like what he wants to hear, but I guess it's hard to fault him for not knowing any real GIs up close and personal.
Democratic congressman Patrick Murphy, on the other hand, can talk to the very real soldiers he served with in Iraq, some of whom are still there. According to an op/ed by Francis Clines in last Sunday's New York Times, one of those soldiers is Sergeant Juan Santiago of the 82nd Airborne. Hooah SGT Santiago.
SGT Santiago was a PFC back in 2003 when he was then-Captain Murphy's gunner in the same outfit. But things haven't changed much. He's on his third tour in four years, with a wife and two kids back home at Ft Bragg. Murphy reports of his recent trip in-country:
Sure, I met with General Petraeus, but I had lunch with Santiago and checked with the other guys who could give me the straight story on what they’re seeing out there... The guys said it’s like Groundhog Day all over, four years later.
Apparently Murphy didn't confine himself to just the soldier he knew and a circle of their close buddies. He also "cites a tearful female sergeant who sought him out to deliver a three-page plea to 'speak truth to power' in Washington." How close do you think she could have gotten to John McCain if she had tried?
One thing there's no doubt about is that Congressman Murphy is carrying out the young sergeant's charge. Cline continues:
It was his honor to be a junior House whip — a point man, in Army lingo — in the Democrats’ recent passage of a war budget that included timelines for an exit from Iraq. But that’s hardly enough in the lawmaker’s speaking to power.
It's worth interjecting here that the funding proposal, as passed by the House and endorsed by General Wes Clark and other military experts, does a lot more than set "timelines for an exit." It also requires the administration to provide units with the equipment, training and down-time they need before they deploy, and to individuals the medical care they've been promised after they return. If that's what Republicans mean when they say Congress wants to "micromanage the war," then that's precisely what Congress must do. Because micromanagement is better than no management at all.
I prefer to call it making President Bush do the job he should have been doing all along.
In a word, oversight.
In several, supporting the troops.
More from Cline:
"President Bush and Vice President Cheney have called me and my colleagues unpatriotic for that vote," Mr. Murphy said, admitting this still had his Irish up. "With all due respect to Mr. Cheney who had — what was it? — ‘better things to do’ during Vietnam and got four deferments, I don’t think he’s in a position to question my patriotism."
But questioning his patriotism and even his service were indeed part of the campaign against Murphy last year when the Republican incumbent dragged out a couple of Iraq veterans, both conveniently ignorant of what Murphy's duties actually were. They called him a REMF (if you don't know what that means, you'll have to google it) who had no clue what real "front-line fighters" think or feel. One was an Air Force major who flew F-16s out of Kuwait from January to May 2006 (but now works as a Philly GOP party operative). Now, I don't mean to disparage anyone's service -- everyone in uniform plays their part and takes the risks that come with it -- but where does a fast-mover flyboy in a war where the enemy has neither airplanes nor tripple-A come off accusing ANY Army officer of being a REMF?
Yes, I know, I digress. But few things anger me more than these right-wing veterans who can't seem to grasp the concept that a swiftboat attack against one veteran is an attack against every veteran. Max Cleland's missing limbs, John Kerry's combat medals, Wes Clark's 38 years of troop command and leadership, credentials as simple and straight-forward as the very rank earned by the eight flag officers who called for Rumsfeld's ouster... these are all matters of public record, and they are all things I've heard challenged by Republicans who would have us believe they "support the troops." Anyone, of any party or no party at all, has a right to criticize and disagree with these men, even a duty to do so if it's what they believe. But NO ONE can question the public record without casting doubt on every war wound, every medal, every achievement or promotion earned by every soldier, sailor, airman or marine in every war past, present or in years to come.
Not much support in that.
So thank you, Patrick Murphy, for standing up to the GOP. Both when they attacked your record during your campaign, and now in speaking truth to power as the young sergeant asked you to do. There is so much you can be proud of in this speech:
(Tip of the hat to Nicole Belle at Crooks & Liars)
Just as you make proud those of us who heeded General Clark's endorsement to help put you in Congress and will be there to fight for your re-election in 2008, just as you're fighting for us today.
Patrick has seen up close the dedication and bravery of our men and women in uniform and he has seen the human cost of bad civilian leadership and flawed strategy in war. His perspective as a solider, teacher and family man is much needed today in government.
