Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
On Point Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Bush's Vietnam - NOT!
Austin Bay    2/8/2005 11:47:36 PM

The week before the Jan. 30 Iraqi election, Sen. Ted Kennedy branded Iraq a hopeless quagmire. "Bush's Vietnam," Kennedy bellowed.

"Quagmire." "Vietnam." "Bush." Indeed, the Massachusetts senator's dire sermon invoked his fundamentalist faith's demons old and demons au courant. Sen. Barbara Boxer joined the snake dance, adding her own poisonous sanctimony.

The Iraqi people, braving car bombs and waving ink-stained fingers, demonstrated that Ted is more than a bit "tetched," to use the colloquial term. Iraqis weren't going to miss the chance to damn Saddam's legacy of theft, murder, thuggery and war.

Beltway political experts explain Kennedy's action as a tactical political gamble. See, Bay, ole Ted was simply staking out political territory. If the Iraqi elections failed --as the conventional media wisdom said they would -- he was positioned to "take the moral high ground" from the Bush administration. "Moral high ground," accompanied by appropriate friendly media magnification, would translate into the political power to dominate the Bush administration.

It's tactical, Bay, tactical.

No, it's sad. It's blind. It's also bitterly small. That's why I pity Mr. Kennedy.

Jan. 30 was crunch time for the people of Iraq. The War on Terror is crunch time for the 21st century. We are living in a moment that really matters, when blood, sweat, toil and tears fueled by hope and courage can lay the political foundation for a more just and prosperous century.

With the exception of Joe Lieberman, the Democratic Party's senior leaders have either vacillated in their support or been dead wrong about Iraq. This doesn't bode well for the United States. Last July, I met Lieberman at a reception in Baghdad. I told him I wished he were the Democratic nominee for president. He smiled wryly and said he wished he was, too.

Lieberman gets it. He understands the stakes and appreciates the risks, but he also understands the opportunities. He's an armed liberal in the tradition of Harry Truman and Franklin Delano Roosevelt -- and, for that matter, John Kennedy.

America needs the Democratic Party of Truman and FDR -- and that's a party willing to drop A-bombs and "bear any price" for freedom on the planet. Instead, the Democratic National Committee infects itself with Mad How disease, the political bacillus spread by Park Avenue's Typhoid Mary of ulcerous anger, "Mad How"-ard Dean.

This is a serious strategic illness. Symptoms include lack of spine, especially when sustaining international action to defeat tyranny and terror. There are some humorous side-effects: As the disease progresses leftward, particularly among bi-coastal and academic elites, a desire to recast America as France emerges.

The more extreme manifestations include activist nostalgia for 1960s narco-politics, where gray-haired profs with ponytails rant about -- you guessed it -- "quagmires" and "Vietnam."

"Left-wing denial" has become a redundant phrase, just like "left-wing defeatism." Remember, Afghanistan was supposed to be a quagmire. Millions would die in the harsh Himalayan winter. Instead, U.S. forces and Afghan allies quickly drove the Taliban from power and Al Qaeda's claim to "divine sanction" for its war against America went poof. The October 2004 Afghan election ratified the victory.

The Vietnam War -- so costly and destructive -- was strategic defense, a Cold War attempt to buy time while avoiding nuclear conflict until the Soviet Union "mellowed," to use George Kennan's phrase.

Iraq, like Afghanistan, is part of a strategic political and military offensive directed at the dictators and genocidal ideologues whose design for the 21st century is 12th century autocracy imposed by death squads, men in turbans and nukes.

China's Mao Tse-Tung wrote that guerrillas are fish swimming in the sea of the people. Translation: It takes popular support to sustain a genuine guerrilla conflict. The Saddmist thugs and Al Qaeda zealots who kill Iraqi civilians and coalition troops are reactionaries with scant political appeal. They are murderers, not soldiers in a wider people's war.

Check the ink-stained fingers -- the Iraqi elections demonstrated just how politically marginal these fascists are.

Ted Kennedy and Howard Dean can't hear that, can't see that. Saddled with defeatism and blinded by cynicism, they're old-time '60s political religion is now the quagmire.

 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest

CJH    RE:Bush's Vietnam - NOT!   4/22/2005 2:35:33 PM
"See, Bay, ole Ted was simply staking out political territory. If the Iraqi elections failed --as the conventional media wisdom said they would -- he was positioned to "take the moral high ground" from the Bush administration." I have a hard time with this traditional analysis of liberals. My analysis of liberalism is that it is fundamentally misanthropic and therefore fundamentally anti-freedom. This is especially true based on my observation of liberalism's anti-gun politics over the years. This group is hostile to our right to keep and bear arms. It is hostile to any inititiative which would allow people to spend more of their own money. This group used to never be able to see any bad in the old Soviet Union. It insists on restricting free speech on college campuses and is constantly seeking every opportunity to grow government at the expense of the people. For this group to also oppose our overthrowing Saddam is entirely in character for it. I'm sure liberals would rate Saddam higher than they would rate George Bush and that's because Saddam is politically one of their own and is Bush is not. Ted Kennedy did not make his "Bush's Vietnam" declaration in a vacuum. He knew the insurgents in Iraq would hear him also and would take his cue that more coalition deaths were the route to success, not just for the Democratic Party of the USA, but also for themselves. Because Kennedy had no reason not to believe his statement would be carried in Iraq it is entirely reasonable to believe he knew his statement would encourage insurgents to greater efforts to kill American soldiers. His kind encouraged the Communists in Vietnam the same way. Rush is right. What's good for America is bad for the (liberals) Democrats and what's good for (liberals) Democrats is bad for America. Your old Democrat party still exists. They have called themselves Republicans since 1968 - 1972. Think of it, if it weren't for this bunch, Reagan would have been a Democrat president instead of a Republican one.
 
Quote    Reply

HappyTrails    RE:Bush's Vietnam - NOT!   2/9/2006 7:56:30 PM
There has been much loose talk comparing the War on Terror, and specifically the War in Iraq to Vietnam. In reality there are far more differences than similarities. There is however one aspect between Iraq and Vietnam that is nearly identical. The Terrorists, insurgents, or Islamic Fundamentalists however you want to refer to them, clearly learned the central lesson from our withdrawal from Vietnam. That lesson was that America can be defeated, not on the battlefield, but in the realm of propaganda. In essence the terrorist?s goals are to so demoralize the American public that they demand the War on Terror be abandoned. Car bombs and suicide attacks will never achieve a tactical victory in any military engagement; they can however affect the morale of the American public and of the liberated Iraqis. These tactics are propaganda tactics, not to win converts to their cause, but to convince America that the effort is futile. The Media intentionally or not, is assisting those who would like to see us fail in Iraq. Suicide attacks, Car Bombs, and daily casualty reports get front page headlines and continuous air time in the broadcast media. What these reports do is obscure the real evidence of progress throughout Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the rest of the Middle East. I am not saying that these reports should be censored, but these attacks are only part of the story. For a full understanding of Iraq and the War on Terror the full story must be reported. When was the last time reports of our reconstruction efforts been reported, let alone at the same magnitude as the efforts of terrorists? In other words the Media consistently reports on the ?successes? of the insurgents against us, but fail in reporting on our success against the insurgents. All of this lends support to those Americans who imagine that we can safely pull out our troops and walk away from Iraq. There is no taking it back. We don?t get a do-over. Done is done. There were serious and principled, patriotic even, arguments to be made against the war back in the long summer, fall and winter of 2002. Once the decision was made and the boys stepped over the line of departure though, all of those arguments became moot. From that point on the only choices on the table was victory or defeat. From that point on, you either hoped we won, or hoped we lost. Pulling out now would have ramifications far beyond Iraq. If America leaves Iraq before our mission there is complete whether you agree with that mission or not, we will have handed the Islamists a far more significant victory than even the bloody attack of September 11th. It would validate their most powerful recruiting tool; that weak Americans will inevitably be defeated by Jihad, and the future belongs to a despotism based on Islamic Tyranny and radicalized Islam. The effects on our Allies would be even worse especially those who are themselves under threat from Islamic Fundamentalists. How many would conclude that appeasing the terrorists would be their best hope of survival? We can still lose this war on Terror. We won?t loose it on the Battlefield however. Should we lose it will be on the editorial pages of our newspapers, and in the speeches given by our elected representatives who place the short term political gains of their party ahead our national security on their priority list.
 
Quote    Reply



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy