What Are The Alternatives?

November 23, 2005
R. D. Kushner

John Murtha’s proposed American troop withdrawal has set off a rancorous debate over the Bush administration’s handling of the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath. Over the past few days, his patriotism and his sanity have been questioned by his detractors, and he has been publicly berated and abused for offering a clearly defined alternative to the Bush administration’s perpetually vague, and irresponsibly open-ended “war on terror.”

The first official White House reaction to Congressman Murtha’s comments was made by Scott McClellan who declared that, Mr. Murtha was, “endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party.” Although the mainstream media is reporting that the White House has backed away from this vitriolic admonition, Vice President Dick Cheney continues to fire enraged invectives in all directions while claiming to be a champion of Democracy. In Mr. Cheney’s view, such disagreements are a healthy sign of Democracy as long as he is always right. As Mr. Cheney continues to advocate a policy that will give the CIA the legal option to torture detainees in the “war on terror,” Americans would be wise to question whether Mr. Cheney is more interested in fascism or Democracy.

John Murtha is fed up with President Bush’s argument [reiterated again on November 10] that the war will continue, “until the war on terror is won.” John Murtha is fed up because the “mission” is almost completely undefined, and therefore progress cannot be measured. This ambiguity conveniently allows the Bush administration to avoid accountability for its failures; if no measurable goals have been set, then there can be no failure to meet those goals. Without accountability, the Bush administration is free to claim that America is “winning” the war in Iraq, without considering the magnitude of their failures.

By attacking their critics with doomsday scenarios about troop withdrawal, the Republican administration is avoiding the necessity to provide the American public with concrete plans to bring American soldiers safely home. The Bush administration’s claim that America is “winning” the battle in Iraq reflects nothing more than their hope that there is some salvation at the end of the long [and growing] list of their terrible miscalculations and inept decisions.

No more proof is required to illustrate the vagaries and delusions surrounding the so-called “war on terror,” than the vote in the Senate last week, which unanimously endorsed a bill calling on the administration to explain its Iraq policy. As if awoken from a severe coma, Republicans and Democrats are finally asking the kinds of questions that they should have been asking before the war began. These so-called “representatives” in the Senate waited three years and watched over 2,000 American soldiers die before they endorsed a bill which demands accountability from the White House. On what evidence have Americans been supporting the Bush administration, if even their Senators don’t know what’s going on in Iraq? If President Bush’s poll numbers are any indication, this is a question many Americans are now asking themselves.

At the same time, the question Americans are being asked is, “What are the alternatives?”

This catechism is perhaps the most commonly asked question by supporters of the administration’s conservative policies: “What are the alternatives?” The problem with this seemingly sincere inquiry from the radical right, is that it is a sham. It masquerades as a genuine request for alternative opinions, to be weighed according to the circumstances and the contemporary evidence; but it is nothing more than an attempt to ignore other points of view.

The question, “What are the alternatives?” is completely insincere. At best, it is a dare to offer an alternative solution; at worst, it is a preface for spiteful disregard for any other opinions. John Murtha’s Congressional resolution offered a clear example of what happens when this question is answered: “What are the alternatives?”

John Murtha’s alternative was to remove troops from Iraq, and continue to help mold the new Iraqi state through a process of diplomacy. The Republican leadership replied with their typical attack-as-response tactic; wherein instead of responding to the issue on rational grounds, they attack their opponents with sound-bytes and platitudes that deflect the real issues. On the occasion of John Murtha’s suggestion, Republican leaders have issued the invectives “cut and run,” and “surrender to terrorists,” as a blanket statements against any recommendation that considers removal of American troops in the wake of the Bush Administration’s failed policy in Iraq. As they disparage their critics and change the subject, the Bush administration conveniently sidesteps the real issues. These kinds of grade-school antics are a favorite staple of the Bush White House, which relies of fear-based bullying tactics to implement their policies from Washington to Baghdad and everywhere in between.

Asking a question requires listening to, and considering the answer. Instead of asking “What are the alternatives?” and then attacking their critics, supporters of the Bush administration should sincerely ask themselves “What is going wrong?” and “How are we responsible?” These are the questions that more than half of America is now asking; and the answer is worth considering. Calling someone a traitor, an unpatriotic American, or a supporter of Michael Moore doesn’t solve any problems. Every day that Republican leaders continue to avoid accountability, sidestep the issues, and support their failed policy in Iraq, American soldiers are dying. John Murtha was courageous enough to offer an alternative.