10 Questions for John Murtha

His call for U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq made the Vietnam veteran a political star last year. But now that John Murtha is back in his old role as chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, his plan to block President George W. Bush's troop increase has divided Democrats, who fear political fallout. The ex-Marine, 74, spoke with TIME's Massimo Calabresi about the military's limits, earmarking and why some defense contractors are big music fans.

Does the U.S. have enough combat-ready troops for the President's latest Iraq plan?

We can't sustain this surge. You can deploy the people, but you can't sustain it. They're going to have to send people back that have not had a year [off] in the U.S. to retrain. And they're going to extend people [already in Iraq]. I'm going to look into the post-traumatic stress, and ask, "How many people are you sending back that haven't been counseled?"

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has asked you to testify on Jan. 24 about your plan for Iraq.

I'm going to lay out what I think can be done and what can't be done for the war. I'm going to look back at some of the mistakes they made and then build a case on readiness. I think it's just like everything else: you have to build a case for what you want to do. We can take some dramatic steps--close Guantánamo, get our troops out of Baghdad. And then we need to put money into increasing the readiness of the U.S.

Will you use congressional authority to cut off funds for the war?

I'm not sure that once troops are in the field, you can do that.

It brings up a comparison with the Vietnam War. What did you think back then about pulling out, and has your feeling about it changed in the light of history?

It's changed. I supported staying. I thought we could win militarily. I have learned since then that there's a limitation of what the military can do. Iraq is a perfect example. We kick the doors in, we use bombers coming in at a high level, and even though they're laser [equipped], you kill people inadvertently. We have to use overwhelming force in order to protect American lives, but that creates enemies because of the way we have to operate. It's not even the excesses--it's just the way you have to operate. So you can't win.

But all this is about bringing U.S. involvement in the war to an end?

Yes. I will prove through hearings that [keeping U.S. troops there] is counterproductive. The number of troops over there has not decreased the violence. It hasn't increased stability. One of the things that worries me about these guys that criticize the war effort, they come right down to the end, but then they say, "But we have to stay because of the chaos." Just because the Administration says there's going to be chaos doesn't mean there's going to be chaos.

Are you glad you didn't win in your effort to be the House majority leader?

[Defense appropriations] is where all my experience has been, all the studying I've done, all the books that I've read. This is where I should be.

Will you follow the G.O.P. practice of dividing your committee's funds for projects in members' districts--so-called earmark money--60%-40% between the two parties, or will you give each member the same amount?