Leaping Sharks With A Single Bound
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in War — Comments (2) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I am not fond of Vietnam analogies since I think that Vietnam analogies are the most overused analogies in our political and national security vocabulary. But if you are going to argue against the use of a Vietnam analogy, you have to do better than this. Hoagland never takes on Bush's historical arguments--directly or indirectly. He just asserts that they are flawed and then later on in the editorial, he changes his argument to "Iraq is not like Vietnam except in the ways that I say it is and certainly not in the ways that President Bush says it is." It's cheap and the argument is pressed without much engagement--if any--with the President's actual speech.
Additionally, making historical analogies is most certainly not like saying "I am not a crook" or denying various extracurricular White House dalliances. Nor does the President's record in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam conflict matter one iota for the purposes of discussing American policy regarding Iraq; I really thought that Jim Hoagland was a serious enough columnist to avoid rhetorical cheap shots and I highly doubt that he wrote anything about Bill Clinton's draft record when the nation-building effort in Somalia went to the infernal regions in a handbasket. I realize that Hoagland doesn't think much of the President and he certainly doesn't think much of the President's Iraq policy. That's his business. But he could make his arguments without dressing them up as some kind of substantive dispute with the President' Vietnam analogy, especially given the fact that Hoagland, at best, skirts a discussion of Vietnam and spends most of his time using Vietnam as a Trojan Horse subject with which to attack the President's position on Iraq.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | Warner vs. the NIE — Comments (14) »
Leaping Sharks With A Single Bound 2 Comments (0 topical, 2 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I should also say that your liberal posters must be having a flex day.
I wrote the following to the Post:
Dear Mr. Hoagland:
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you are critical of President Bush's reference to the Vietnam War. I would suggest your vitriolic article is an attempt to mislead your readers.
The similarities between Iraq and Vietnam are plain to see. The left has been screeching defeat for a long time, the Democrats would cut off funding if they thought they could get away with it. As when we left Vietnam, there will be a blood bath in the region if we leave Iraq.
Before I elaborate, I will just comment on those posters who attack you for supporting the effort to remove Sadaam Hussein. I would suggest that the reason you and your fellow journalists supported the effort to remove Sadaam Hussein was not because you were in bed with the Administration but because the evidence of Hussein's transgressions were plain for all the world to see. Most of the world's intellingence services agreed with the US assessments. The only differences were in what action to take to bring him to heel. It has now been revealed that a number of the most vociferous opponents of the invasion appeared to be the recipients of bribes from Sadaam.
As with Vietnam, but even more so, there has been a drumbeat of criticsm from the left and Democratic politicians. I would recomend to your readers the writings of Pacepa who has amply displayed the connection between the Soviet disinformation campaign and the rantings of the peace movement and the Kerry testimony to Congress in the 70s. The same players are work today.
The simple facts, as they are now known, are that the North was on its knees when the Nixon Peace Accords (note a Republican did what the Dems could never do)went through. The North, in breach of the accords, attacked the South twice more. The first time they were beaten back. The second time they were not. Why? because Congress enacted the Case-Church amendment which withdrew all logistical support to the south. So at a time when the Soviets and Chinese had increased their support to the North fourfold we shut the door on the South. I recall reading the memoirs of a marine general who wrote that there were 74 thousand tons of supplies sitting in a southern harbor at the time of the attack and we refused to release them.
There was an element of purity cleansing when the North completed its conquest of the South followed by reeducation camps.
An estimated 1 million Sout Vietnamnes were resettled (over 800,000 to the US) after fleeing the South by boat. I have no information on how many of those who left by boat were drowned, raped or brutalised and killed by pirates.
The Cambodian Genocide program at Yale University states that between 1975 and 1979 approximately 21 percent of the population or 1.7 million people lost their lives. Some say this is a direct result of the US leaving Vietnam.
Now you can prattle on all you like about we do not know what will happen if the US leave Iraq but you can look at what has happened in areas where the protaganists have ruled.
The fundamentalists, whether Suuni or Shia enforce strict Sharia law. Both sides kill civilians at the drop of a hat. The surrounding countries are no friends of Iraq and could not reasonable be looked upon to provide stability.
As with when Congress deserted Vietnam, the US will be seen as weak partner, not to be trusted. I would suggest to you that there will be a dominoe effect (another term from the past) in the Middle-East with a number of countries unable to withstand the pressure to accept Democracy and vote in fundamentalist governments (One vote one time).