Forgive the harsh language, but chauvinism and ideology tend to dull the mind and blind the eye. It astounds me that some can still speak of "losing" Vietnam --and by implication Iraq-- due to a lack of political "will". (See Rich Lowry's latest column, or this one on Democratic "defeatism".)
The parallels between Vietnam and Iraq, while not perfect, are clear. What Bush has been saying about troop levels in Iraq --"when they (the Iraqis) stand up, we'll stand down"-- is precisely what Nixon said about Vietnam in 1969:
"The day the South Vietnamese can take over their own defense is in sight. Our goal is a total American withdrawal from Vietnam. We can and we will reach that goal through our program of Vietnamization if necessary."
It took five more years to achieve the goal of "total American withdrawal" from Vietnam.
Our "defeat" in Vietnam, I've argued, turned out to be a good thing. Our defeat in Iraq --a fait accompli, regardless of what you read in the right wing press and what you'll hear tonight from George W. Bush -- could also turn out to be fortuitous, if only to finally convince saber rattlers that war as an instrument of foreign policy has its limits, and should never supplant diplomacy to further whatever geopolitical interests America sees as important.
The Bush doctrine of preemptive war should be buried along with the hundreds of thousands of dead in Iraq.
Henry Kissinger, as evidenced by this memo, viewed troop withdrawal as "salted peanuts" for the American people. He may be giving the same advice to Bush, in effect urging him to learn the lesson of Vietnam --the wrong lesson, unfortunately.
In a speech yesterday, Sen. Ted Kennedy, argued that
"We campaigned as Democrats in 2006. And we must govern as Democrats in 2007."
He also directly linked Iraq to Vietnam:
"There was no military solution to that war. But we kept trying to find one anyway. In the end, 58,000 Americans died in the search for it.
"Echoes of that disaster are all around us today. Iraq is George Bush’s Vietnam.
"As with Vietnam, the only rational solution to the crisis is political, not military. Injecting more troops into a civil war is not the answer. Our men and women in uniform cannot force the Iraqi people to reconcile their differences."
To those who accuse Kennedy --or me-- of isolationism, I say that diplomatic engagement is quite the opposite. It is the only "rational" solution to our problems in the Middle East.
Neville Chamberlain would agree.
Well, at least he would have before Hitler invaded Poland. After that he was willing to acknowledge what had become plainly, tragically obvious: that diplomacy has its limits.
Diplomacy sure has worked well in stopping the North Korean and Iranian nuclear programs hasn't it! I'm not saying that a military course is the answer either, I'm just pointing out that diplomacy not only has its limits, but can be used as a ruse by one's adversary. Just ask Jimmy "the Russians lied to me!" Carter.
Posted by: Idler | January 10, 2007 at 01:15 PM