IRAQ: THE LEFT’S CRITICISMS VI
IRAQ: THE LEFT’S CRITICISMS—VI
by
Ken Eliasberg
Moving right along with our evaluation of the left-wing’s attack on the war in Iraq (which, as previously noted, is no more than a thinly veiled attack on Geroge Bush; God help us if these guys are ever placed back in charge of National Security), let’s take a look at a couple more of these nonsensical arguments. I love #6—by referring to 9/11, Bush is politicizing the war. Helloooo—we are at war! How could the President of the U.S.A.—our commander-in-chief—not make reference to 9/11 (the event, after all, which initiated the conflagration). In dealing with foreign policy, does the left expect him to merely leapfrog over this calamity and jump right into something like trade balances? Or, better yet, when dealing with the current problem with Iran, should he do so in a vacuum, or is he at liberty to at least allude to our most recent problem in the Middle East and its genesis. Would anyone have the temerity to even suggest such stupidity during WWII if FDR referred to Pearl Harbor (which he did on more than an occasional basis)? Of course, to even raise this argument is to expose its utter and complete disingenuousness. What the left is really upset about is that they know that noone takes them seriously when it comes to national security, and they resent a Republican calling attention to the obvious—that they are the only party to which our national security can properly be entrusted. Let’s get real here—WE ARE AT WAR!! The event which triggered this war was 9/11. Now, whether or not you believe that the dots between 9/11 and Iraq can be connected does not in any way alter the reality of the situation—we are at war. If you object to this reality, you are certainly free to do so—one of the great aspects of this country is that we are all given an opportunity to express an opinion (no matter how unintelligible it may be; in this regard I recommend a Milford Walker letter for an example of a mindless abuse of this privilege). However, in order to have some credence, it might help if you have a constructive argument to advance. We are in Iraq, and we are going to stay the course. Cutting and running—which seems to be the left’s foreign policy—is just not a viable option.
Number 7 is another one of my favorites—this is Vietnam all over again. Let’s take a look at Vietnam and the lessons it has for us today. At the outset it is important to make a couple of observations. One, the most important lessons of Vietnam may be the question raised by the war and its resolution—can the U.S. win another major war, or will the left-wing useful idiots on the home front make such impossible? The question is apt because we did not lose Vietnam on the ground in Southeast Asia; we lost it initially on the streets of New York, Chicago, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. And, finally, we lost it in Washngton D.C. when a Democratic Congress refused to honor the Paris Accords and abandoned Southvietnam (and all of southeast asia for that matter) to the Communists. We are all familiar with the slaughter that ensued. To be fair to the Dems (inspired by that shipwreck of a man, Ted Kennedy—who’s never gotten anything right in his life), they were aided by an executive who had been neutered by Watergate. It is important to bear this fact in mind; we did not lose the Vietnam debacle in Southeast asia—the North never launched a major offensive after Tet, and Tet, contrary to the public ballyhoo, was an American victory (a costly victory, but a victory, nonetheless).
Now one may argue the wisdom of that war (as they are now doing with this one)—i.e. the domino theory may not be everyone’s cup of tea—but, regardless of the differing views as to the war’s merit, it cannot be won when the country is so close to being completely paralyzed by an irresponsible opposition. This type of polarization calls to mind Lincoln’s sentiments on a house divided being unable to stand. I am not suggesting that all of us have a kumbiya moment and come together under the banner of my country, right or wrong. But I am suggesting that criticism should be both cogent and genuine, and not political in nature. In all fairness to the left—which I don’t believe is capable of protecting our shores—in the case of Vietnam, they brought down their own President, LBJ. They were wrong then; they are wrong now—one must, however, credit them with consistency.
Let’s look at the factors which distinguish Vietnam from Iraq. In Vietnam, our personal well-being was never threatened; what was involved was an effort to stem the flow of communism, the fear being that if South Vietnam fell, the rest of southeast asia might fall with it, i.e. “the domino theory.” But the shores of the U.S. were never in jeopardy. Furthermore, Northvietnam had never attacked the U.S. or its overseas interests. This in sharp contrast to the situation in Iraq, where the head of state—Saddam—was linked to an assassination plot against a former U.S. president. In addition, Iraq was fomenting trouble in the region (e.g. paying off the families of Palestinian suicide bombers), slaughtering its own people (when it wasn’t torturing them), and causing unrest in the area (e.g. Saudi Arabia). Also, our interest in Southeast Asia was political; our interest in the Middle East is far more pressing, i.e. we rely heavily on oil from that region. There are any number of differences, all of which, to my mind, make our presence in Iraq far more compelling. Perhaps the most fundamental difference is that in South Vietnam we were trying to prop up a somewhat dictatorial ally; in Iraq we are endeavoring to liberate an oppressed people (which, admittedly, could turn out to be a fool’s errand—but one, nonetheless, that, in my opinion, needed to be undertaken).
There is one area where Iraq and Vietnam are on a parallel track; the behavior of the left—insidious and subversive—remains the same. It is subversive because it undermines our ability to wage war effectively and, as a consequence, possibly successfully. General Giap, the commander of the North Vietnamese army noted this effect of the useful-idiot left in this country on the war in Vietnam. He pointed out that it was their behavior that inspired the North to continue the fight, despite incredibly heavy losses. It was a signal that America’s will to continue the fight was waning, and, in the end, would give out (which it did). Thus, the left’s behavior was the incentive the North Vietnamese needed to continue the fight—a fight that resulted in the death of many more American boys than should have had to die. Consequently, the left’s behavior—in the person of people like Jane Fonda and John Kerry—was aid and comfort to the enemy. Is that not treason? Of course it is! However, we don’t have treason any more in any real sense, a fact that is rationalized on the basis that in Vietnam, as in the current situation in Iraq, there was no formal declaration of war. This is more than regrettable—it is tragic. Every time someone like DNC Chairman Howard Dean says that the war is unwinnable, or that a Congressman like John Murtha says we must cut and run (and that’s what he really said, no matter how he tries to rationalize it in retrospect) that goes out over Al Jazeera, and it’s like putting 2 more battalions of terrorists in the field; it is the inspiration that the terrorists need to continue the struggle and thus kill many more American boys and girls. It is treason pure and simple, and these miserable partisans, who place politics above principles, should be turned over to the terrorists (after all, they’re really on their side).
With respect to Iraq, the question now is not whether the move into Iraq was to your liking; rather it is, given the fact that we are there, what is the most appropriate strategy to see this through. And cutting and running, a strategy initially endorsed by Congressman Murtha and Nancy Pelosi, is one that neither makes sense nor plays well with the American people. That is why they abandoned the strategy when polls showed it was not a popular alternative. The cry in Vietnam was declare victory and come home. The Murtha/Pelosi slogan apparently was declare defeat and come home.
Also, remember what happened when we abandoned Southvietnam—over 2,000,000 people were slaughtered in Vietnam and Cambodia. If we were to leave Iraq before a local government is firmly in place, the ensuing bloodbath would dwarf the horrors of Vietnam. Furthermore, no one would ever trust us again, and they’d be right not to.