The Bait Has Been Taken, Now Hook Him and Gut Him

From Jim Hoagland this morning in WAPO:

"Bush's appeal to Americans to turn away from "the allure of retreat" centered on the indisputably horrific consequences for the people of Vietnam and Cambodia of defeat in 1975. But his analogy also summons the historical reality that U.S. involvement in Indochina became untenable when that engagement itself became a threat to America's social fabric and national cohesion -- and then to the very institutions that had responsibility for the war, the U.S. military and intelligence services, as well as the presidency and Congress."

The msm and others that oppose our actions in Iraq, have nearly from day one referred to Iraq as Vietnam. Now that the President has mentioned that war and made an analogy the msm (critics) have pounced now that the bait has been taken.

I'm curious if anyone, like say a Hoagland could ever bring themselves to attempt a defense of the presidents analogy, would find that it is just as easy to do as attacking. Hoagland sees a mistake in the president speaking on the subject because now it's all fair game. Now the articles can come out that only continue to make negative comparisons to Vietnam. Now the one piece of Vietnam that has always nagged at the Democrats and media can sanctimoniously be acknowledged and we can get on with the business of inextricably tying the two as one.

If only defeat can take place in Iraq, all the revisionist history following Vietnam can rest more comfortably in the knowledge that the U.S. has yet another war it has lost that it should not have gotten into. A war that has spilled the blood of our military for no good reason.

Wake Up America brought the latest Michael Hirsh "piece" from Newsweek to our attention yesterday, with his "Why America's Pullout From Vietnam Worked, The truth behind Bush's mangling of Cold War history." Hoagland has his rewrite or perhaps more appropriately does his part with regard to the msm/Liberal agenda. They are all fighting back harder and less honestly following the slight bump apparently due to troublesome positives in Iraq and the O'Hanlon and Pollack "defection."

The time is now, trumpet the negative comparisons, ignore any positives, paint any analogies as "mangling" history bring it home for the victory they have all fought so hard for; Iraq/Vietnam Never Again! We have been right all along, see? Now listen to us because we know.

Some defenses of analogies the msm doesn't like, "Returning to Cambodia;" "Revisiting Kasserine Pass;" "Maroons Rush In;" and even "Bush Finally Sees Iraq as Being Like Vietnam."

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/1223289585293733735

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Rosemary's Thoughts, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Adam's Blog, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Webloggin, The Bullwinkle Blog, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Bush Finally Sees Iraq as being like Vietnam

Of President Bush’s recent remarks on Iraq, his words in a speech to the VFW on Tuesday have sparked some interesting and revealing reactions. In an analogy to our departure from Vietnam the President said:

“Three decades later, there is a legitimate debate about how we got into the Vietnam War and how we left. There's no debate in my mind that the veterans from Vietnam deserve the high praise of the United States of America. (Applause.) Whatever your position is on that debate, one unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like "boat people," "re-education camps," and "killing fields."

There was another price to our withdrawal from Vietnam, and we can hear it in the words of the enemy we face in today's struggle — those who came to our soil and killed thousands of citizens on September the 11th, 2001. In an interview with a Pakistani newspaper after the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden declared that "the American people had risen against their government's war in Vietnam. And they must do the same today."

His number two man, Zawahiri, has also invoked Vietnam. In a letter to al Qaeda's chief of operations in Iraq, Zawahiri pointed to "the aftermath of the collapse of the American power in Vietnam and how they ran and left their agents."

Zawahiri later returned to this theme, declaring that the Americans "know better than others that there is no hope in victory. The Vietnam specter is closing every outlet." Here at home, some can argue our withdrawal from Vietnam carried no price to American credibility — but the terrorists see it differently.”

This has brought the usual suspects out to condemn his remarks, one of which was John Kerry who called the statements “ignorant;” this according to scrappleface has brought a suit by Kerry:

“The lawsuit claims that Sen. Kerry, a professional Vietnam veteran, “holds exclusive rights among modern politicians to the use of Vietnam imagery, metaphor and analogy to present-day circumstances.” Essentially, the suit argues that President Bush infringed on Mr. Kerry’s copyright by even mentioning Vietnam in a political context”

This “lawsuit” is about as realistic as the comments of those that condemn the presidents remarks and as Mackubin Thomas Owens notes:

“Reporters interviewed several historians who were happy to agree with Kerry. Robert Dalleck called the comparison “a distortion”:

What is Bush suggesting? That we didn’t fight hard enough, stay long enough? That’s nonsense. It’s a distortion...We’ve been in Iraq longer than we fought in World War II. It’s a disaster, and this is a political attempt to lay the blame for the disaster on his opponents. But the disaster is the consequence of going in, not getting out.

USA Today asked Stanley Karnow: “Vietnam was not a bunch of sectarian groups fighting each other, as in Iraq. In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge toppled a U.S.-backed government. Does he think we should have stayed in Vietnam?”

Of their comments Owens says:

“Of course in criticizing Bush’s reference to Vietnam, they are comparing apples and oranges. If they don’t see this, they are fools. If they do — which is more likely — they are dishonest. Take your pick.”

Opponents of the Iraq Theater have had a field day with comparisons of Iraq to Vietnam, which at one point prompted this post on histories lessons. In their rush to condemn his words, they ignore many facets of the debate, which leaves the lessons incomplete.

One thing they appear to mislead themselves on is the view of their position during that era as the good guy role leading the bad guy U.S. out of a region; in a war they didn’t believe we belonged in; with zero recognition that EVERY action, including their own, has consequences. This forces the knee-jerk responses, as they do not wish to review the entire episode in our nation’s history as “cherry picking” is their MO and as the satirical lawsuit portrays how ludicrous their statements are.

This morning I had the pleasure of reading a post with a WWII analogy, which I commented on somewhat haphazardly due to all sorts of things going on around me. “Revisiting Kasserine Pass,” at Political Grind offered so many opportunities for arguing against from the Left, not because the post is wrong, but because the arguments against Roger’s analogy would be cherry picked to suit what might appear to further the debate, but rather turns it to the dishonest as these “historians” in reaction to the president have done.

Owens quotes Robert Dallek as saying of Bush’s “ignorant” remarks, “It’s a distortion...We’ve been in Iraq longer than we fought in World War II;” which interestingly enough was what I thought some might throw back at Roger’s analogy between Vietnam and WWII. Where does one go in a debate when a statement like this is made? This from what one would think is an educated/learned historian; I guess he would prefer we leave history to his distortion interpretation.

One thing I do find surprising, is the fact that no one went down the “Bush finally sees Iraq as being like Vietnam,” route, although I sure someone falling off the Leftward edge did, I didn’t read it. Vietnam is the chosen weapon of many of those opposed to our activities in Iraq, unless of course someone from the other side wields it back.

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Pirate's Cove, Perri Nelson's Website, Leaning Straight Up, Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, Conservative Thoughts, and The World According to Carl, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Believing the Worst Requires Too Little Imagination

If it bleeds it leads is one reason we are all too well aware of as to why the news has more good then bad; even when more good than bad may have happened. Watch any local newscast and the coverage is wall to wall crime, accidents and anything that might bring in the viewers hoping for some action and car chases.

In Iraq, from Abu Ghraib, Fallujah to Haditha, the truth isn’t nearly as important as the story; much like the Duke Lacrosse players in their travails and tribulation facing prison time for a rape they did not commit nor even happened.

All this is unfortunate for us in that it leads to an acceptance of what isn’t as those it is, which brings us to all the horror stories of our soldiers in Vietnam as baby killers and presently our heartless “killers” in Iraq. Perhaps if the media wasn’t so starved or easily self-mislead toward the worst in us in a war they disagree with we might have a true picture of what exactly is going on.

Mackubin Thomas Owens, contributing editor at NRO had a great column yesterday that I had hoped to bring attention to, however failed on that task. From John Kerry and the “Winter Soldier Investigation” from Vietnam, to Stephen Glass of National Review fame, Owens reveals a reason that we should all take what we hear of atrocity with a grain of salt before we go on the rampage beating ourselves, our military and our nation down as though it is not worthy of spitting on.

Owens does not deny the reality that horrible things happen and anyone that does is obviously a fool probably cannot speak beyond the monosyllabic. That said however, it is a fool that in knee jerk order accepts that which paints what our military does as everything but honorable as though each member in its ranks cheered on the anomaly, not “new management” at Abu Gharaib.

A personal anecdote shared by Owens during his time in Vietnam goes:

“I heard of an atrocity just after I joined the unit. A Marine who was scheduled to rotate soon recounted an incident that he claimed had occurred shortly after he had arrived in the unit about a year earlier. According to his story, members of a sister company had killed some North Vietnamese soldiers after they had surrendered.

Some months later, I happened to overhear another Marine who had joined my platoon after I took it over relate exactly the same story to some newly arrived men, only now it involved me and my platoon. I had a little chat with him and he cleared things up with the new men. But that episode has always made me wonder how many of the stories have been recycled and how many accounts of atrocities are based on what veterans heard as opposed to committed or witnessed.”

Instances of atrocity are undeniable in Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere; they happen in Iran, Palestine, and Lebanon and we’re not there. As a matter of fact horrible acts are committed daily all over the world. This is not to justify the action of those that commit them, but to allow ourselves the calm that should come knowing that it is not in our military’s first instinct to commit them.

We should doubt that which we read or see in the news until we know more. All the claims of support of our troops is nothing if you expect the worse of them.

From Wednesday’s NRO, Mackubin Thomas Owens, “Stephen Glass Meets the Winter Soldiers.”

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/1278506351624998969

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, The Random Yak, Jeanette's Celebrity Corner, Right Truth, Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, The Pet Haven, Conservative Thoughts, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Azamatteroprinciple - A new blog dedicated to fighting pork barrel spending, Right Voices, and Public Eye, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Where Less Is More? Iraq is not Vietnam is not Afghanistan

Previously posted regarding lessons of history: "Shades of Vietnam...Which Lessons?"

According to Rory Stewart at The NY Times:

“AMERICA and its allies are in danger of repeating the mistakes of Iraq in Afghanistan. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and even some Republicans are insisting on withdrawing from Iraq and sending more troops and resources to southern Afghanistan. The Bush administration’s gloomy National Intelligence Estimate last week on the fight against Al Qaeda will only lead others to make such calls.

But they should think again. The intervention in Afghanistan has gone far better than that in Iraq largely because the American-led coalition has limited its ambitions and kept a light footprint, leaving the Afghans to run their own affairs.”

This speaks to those that are calling for an increase in troops in Afghanistan or as some would have it “the real war on terror.” The Democrat candidates that Stewart lists are making their stances for largely political and not national security reasons. Iraq to many who prefer is a lost cause and those many don’t want to support what they feel is a losing horse. Clinton, Obama and the others have been calling for a “redeployment” from Iraq believing either that they don’t want the problem when they hope to enter the Oval Office (wishful no matter whether we are there or not); they need to be seen as correct/prescient on Iraq; they don’t have the stomach for a difficult yet winnable fight; or they just want to see Bush lose, which in their minds would be a victory for them.

In a somewhat unwieldy aside, note that according to an article regarding the “quagmire analogy,” “President Bush was first asked whether he could avoid a quagmire in Afghanistan four days after the start of the war there,” and “the quagmire metaphor also hanged over early coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom (search). Eight days into the war, The New York Times and The Washington Post compared Iraqi fighters to the resilient North Vietnamese.”

The analogy speaks more to the power of a metaphor than they do a real “quagmire.” If detractors had been heeded at those early dates what would the situation on the ground be now? We have no idea obviously, but I’m sure a number of “experts” would have something to say and more likely than not it would speak to the wisdom of not being in Iraq with the “surge” right now; based at the least in the media line today.

I cite the “quagmire” analogy, as the inaccuracy of making that statement so early is as inaccurate as comparing Afghanistan, or Iraq to Vietnam as it is to compare Iraq to Afghanistan as though both these theaters are exactly alike and should and can be addressed in the same manner.

“Those who do not learn the lessons of history are condemned to repeats its mistakes,” is oft quoted as reason not to be in first Afghanistan and now Iraq. Yet history can never repeat itself exactly, so it is necessary to learn the lessons, but which ones are the real lessons to be applied is the bigger question.

George Bernard Shaw has been quoted as saying: “If history repeats itself, and the unexpected always happens, how incapable must Man be of learning from experience;” then how are we to apply any lessons? Certain lessons are easy for most to learn and apply, for instance; stick your finger in a light socket and the majority will avoid doing such a thing again. Unfortunately, neither Afghanistan nor Iraq are enough alike, let alone like Vietnam that all lessons can be applied or if applied will even have the same effect.

Certainly we would not want to enter into any scenario oblivious of lessons learned, but just because something worked in one place does not mean it will work exactly as it did elsewhere. The lessons learned in Vietnam needed to be applied directly in Vietnam, although certainly it stands to reason that some of the lessons of that war should be applied elsewhere; as I’m sure they were and are.

Afghanistan was a nation under the regime of the Taliban, which was in power there for roughly five years and geographically it is different than Iraq are we to treat Mesopotamia as though it were no different? My simplistic approach to this question is really no different than the approach Stewart wants to apply in Iraq; that which has worked or is working in Afghanistan.

I certainly do agree the candidates should listen and not go nuts in Afghanistan just because it appears a surer bet, especially since it is most likely only because they don't want to appear soft; numbers of soldiers needed my ebb and flow, but applying the lessons of Afghanistan beyond Afghanistan and into Iraq isn’t going to do anyone any favors. Unless of course the lesson learned is to bug-out; then I think you know who the winners in Iraq would be.

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/8001135959657341981

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Perri Nelson's Website, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Committees of Correspondence, DragonLady's World, The Bullwinkle Blog, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Pursuing Holiness, third world county, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, Nuke's news and views, High Desert Wanderer, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.