I have to take issue with the statement that Murtha is "finding new and innovative ways to win the war."

What Murtha is attempting to highlight, I think, is the fact that we are very seriously running out of resources to conduct this fight. The "surge" is a joke. What we're seeing is not a massive addition of fresh resources, but a trickle of worn-out and tired forces who have already had their boots in country at least once--and usually more than once.

The fact is, the force is wearing down. I am an eleven-year veteran of the US Army and I fully support Murtha's proposal because it is the only proposal I've seen that will actually hold the administration's feet to the fire. If the administration is serious about fighting this war, we need the resources to prosecute it properly. If that means politically suicidal measures like the draft, or rolling back tax cuts to pay for new training and equipment, than do it already. Even without the war in Iraq we are in desperate need of new soldiers, new training, and new equipment to handle the various contingencies that can rise up around the world.

And if not--guess what, we're already losing. Either get real or get out.

Mother Jones - Comments for "What&#039;s Wrong with &quot;Slow Bleed&quot;?"

Mother Jones - Comments for "What's Wrong with "Slow Bleed"?"