The reason I'm posting this is the discussion around the analogies to Vietnam, in the Learning lessons from Vietnam section.
- David Brooks is an op-ed columnist for The New York Times who frequently writes about politics and modern American culture.
- Mark Shields, a nationally known columnist and moderator of CNN's "Capital Gang," has provided weekly political analysis on The NewsHour since 1988.
"National Intelligence Estimate Released, Sectarian Violence Continues" News Hour Political Wrap
JIM LEHRER: What do you think?
MARK SHIELDS: To return to one of the president's favorite analogies of the week, Vietnam, I mean, we went through a succession. Every administration from Johnson on in Vietnam said, "Well" -- Kennedy, actually, it began with Kennedy -- "Well, what we really need is a better administration in Saigon."
And we were part and party to coups. We encouraged coups. We withdrew support elsewhere, and it didn't change the outcome at all. We dropped more bombs on Vietnam than we did in all of World War II on Germany and Japan. We had half-a-million troops in a country just over half the size of Iraq. We could not affect the outcome and, sadly, I think that's the reality of Iraq.
JIM LEHRER: In general, what did you think of the president's use -- he not only mentioned Vietnam, he mentioned other wars, as well, in his statement today, in comparing them with what's happening in Iraq. What did you think of that?
MARK SHIELDS: Well, I return to my basic premise. I mean, in 1968, the Democratic Party was the party that led the opposition, the anti-war opposition in the country. The country was turning against the war. The Democrats were then blamed -- very effectively, politically -- by Richard Nixon and others on the Republican side for having lost that war.
And it's no accident that the Democrats have only held the White House 12 years since 1968. I mean, that's a theme that has worked effectively in the past.
I mean, the president on Japan, Jim, yes, we've had troops in Japan for half a century. In that half a century, not a single American troop has been assassinated by any militant dissident in Japan. And, secondly, not a single contract was awarded in the entire reconstruction in Japan to any American company. That's where the analogy really starts to limit.
RICH LOWRY: Well, the speech played as a Vietnam speech, but it was really an Asia speech. And my understanding is the president has been eager to make this Asia analogy for a long time, because if you look -- his argument is, as you look at the broad sweep of history and Asia in the 20th century, you know, 50 or 60 years ago you had two democracies, and now you have lots of them. And he wanted to talk about how regions change, obviously analogizing to the Middle East.
Now, no historical analogy is perfect, and obviously you can't give an Asia speech without mentioning Vietnam, and as soon as you mention Vietnam, everyone blows up. But I think if you look at the speech, the claims about Vietnam were fairly modest. He was saying, look, I'm not going to re-litigate this long argument, national argument we've had about Vietnam. But there was a consequence, a terrible and horrific consequence to defeat, and there will be one if we just give up and lose in Iraq, as well.
MARK SHIELDS: Let me just say in response: I think the terrible consequences and the human tragedy is just sad, tragic. But I will say this, Jim: I think it was a consequence of the United States staying there too long, rather than too short. The president makes and suggests that 10 years was not long enough, that we should have stayed...
There is much more to read, view, or listen in the full article.
There is a bigger reason why our experience with Vietnam is both applicable and different.
As oft said by the Administration, we are in a War Against Terrorism. Problem, terrorism in this case does not reside in Iraq. It is world-wide. Unlike Vietnam, WWI, or WWII, there is no one country we can bomb into surrender. This includes not only Iraq but also Iran; bombing these countries, or no matter how many troops or how long they stay, will win a War Against Terrorism. There are just too many countries where the kill-the-infidels-and-go-to-paradise terrorists live and work.
The only thing Bush's Iraq War had accomplished is to make Iraq a rallying-cry to every terrorist in the world. It has made Al Qaida stronger.
Pulling out of Iraq will have consequences, and they will not be pleasant. From our point of view, the question is (like Vietnam) how many American lives, as well as Iraqi, do we sacrifice before we admit enough-is-enough. How much of American dollars and prestige do we sacrifice before we admit enough-is-enough.
I for one, say enough!
No comments:
Post a Comment