The Vietnam Syndrome, again

[TitanTiger 21,241]

The Vietnam Syndrome, Again

The mistake Democrats make when they compare Iraq to Vietnam.

By Christopher Hitchens

Posted  Monday, Feb. 16, 2004, at 2:23 PM PT

One of the stupidest of the many pseudointellectual observations made by Henry Kissinger was his attempted coinage of "the Vietnam syndrome." This supposedly lamentable condition did not do what it was supposed to do: create flashbacks and panic attacks at the very thought of a land war in Asia as the successor power to French colonialism (Kissinger's great cause and the launch of his ugly, unelected career). Instead, it was allegedly responsible for critical "failures of will" when it came to destabilizing Angola or Chile...

...A war fought with weapons of indiscriminate slaughter, and accompanied by racist rhetoric, with a conscript Army deployed against a highly evolved revolutionary movement is as different as could possibly be from a campaign of precision-guided munitions, with an all-volunteer Army, directed at the overthrow of a hideous and dangerous tyranny, and then taking the form of a drive for free elections and a constitution. If people say that it's "reminiscent" of Vietnam, it means they don't remember Vietnam...

...But now, those like Terence McAuliffe who defended every piece of Clintonian mendacity have decided to pin the label of "deserter" on George Bush Jr. This is sordid from at least three points of view. First, in respect of the facts it was self-evidently untrue even before the release of the president's records (and before some of his original accusers began to change their minds, or, in one case, to admit that he was losing same because of early onset Alzheimer's disease). Bush evidently did the gentlemanly minimum, which was itself a good deal more than the average for his college generation. The term "AWOL" is a studied insult and a conscious lie. Second, it's been admitted by the president well before now that the pattern of his youth was not entirely creditable. We've already covered all that, from the boozing to the driving. We don't have to take his word for it that he was "saved," but it's plain enough that he has reformed, thanks largely to his wife, and so it's mean and despicable to revisit that period in such a Pharisaic manner. Third, some Democrats really seem to want to act hawkier than thou. Are they so sure that this is a bright idea?

...It would be easier for Kerry to find his voice on this, perhaps, if he could remove the cluster of frogs that lurk in his throat whenever he is questioned about his position on Iraq. On Sunday night in Milwaukee, asked whether his vote on the war resolution made him feel responsible for American casualties, he didn't even rise to the level of waffle. Sen. John Edwards, I thought, distinguished himself again by saying that Kerry's was "the longest answer I have ever heard to a yes-or-no question." Edwards went on to volunteer that he did accept responsibility. That's a bit more like it. Did Kerry think that he wasn't ever going to be asked? Does he think he isn't going to be challenged about Vietnam as well? He's had plenty of time to think about it, so the evasiveness and butt-covering is double-trouble, and multiplying.

There's something creepy about the Democratic decision to hail the heroes of Vietnam, from Kerry to Clark, and to denigrate the extraordinary effort being made to salvage Iraq and to pursue and kill people who really are, unlike the Viet Cong, the common enemies of humanity. It's trying too hard, and it's inauthentic and hypocritical as well as point-missing. It would be as if the Republicans suddenly started talking, as that great veteran Robert Dole once did, about all the conflicts in American history as "Democrat wars." That didn't fly, if you recall, though it would have been a fair description of Vietnam.

Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair and a regular contributor to Slate. His most recent book is A Long Short War: The Postponed Liberation of Iraq.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2095578/

I'm glad someone else pointed out the Kerry/Edwards exchange in the debate last Sunday. I was watching it and walked into the kitchen to tell my wife how impressed I was with Edwards stepping up to the plate on that question and how badly Kerry handled it (he basically rambled on and on without giving an actual answer, even after being asked it a second time). I'm not necessarily an Edwards fan, but you gotta give props where they are deserved and he scored some big time debate points with that answer.

[Tigermike 3,715]

,,,,,and how badly Kerry handled it (he basically rambled on and on without giving an actual answer, even after being asked it a second time).

From what I have seen and heard, that is not unusual for Mr. Kerry.

[CarolinaTiger 0]

i don't like the "are you responsible" question anyway....

i think it is somewhat in poor taste.

IMO, we're all responsible, if we're Americans. to say otherwise, is to say, 'you men & women are over there on your own. good luck'... i wasn't around, but wasn't that basically what happened in vietnam?

OR, if you don't buy that line of thinking, i could also say that no one is responsible except the president. i would hope he would take the question head on, although that's evidently a natural inclination of his.

note i'm not dissing the decision at all... yet for some, we must assign responsibility for the loss of life in the war i guess. if so, then so be it.

it's not the first war we've fought, and unfortunately it won't be the last one either probably.

ct

[TitanTiger 21,241]

Here is the actual exchange. It wasn't a "are you responsible" question. It was "do you feel any degree of responsibility for the costs of the war and it's casualties?"

GILBERT:  Governor Dean, you said in a recent debate about U.S. casualties in Iraq that those soldiers were sent there by the votes, in this case, of Senator Lieberman, Senator Edwards and Senator Kerry. Do you believe that because of the way they voted to authorize force in Iraq that they share some degree of responsibility for the war and its costs and casualties?

DEAN:  Sure.  I think any of us who support -- I supported the first Gulf War.  I supported the war in Afghanistan and the interventions in Kosovo and Bosnia.  I think if you support a war, whether the chief executive obviously makes the decision, but anybody who votes to support that or, in my case, supported it verbally since I wasn't in Congress, I think we do all bear responsibility for the votes that we cast, and that includes sending people to war.

I think the most difficult job of any president of the United States is the decision to send people to war, because you know that you are almost certain to lose somebody, to deprive families of somebody they love. 

And even if you don't lose somebody, just the incredible hardship of sending National Guard and Reserves people over there, who I happen to think have no business being over there for 12 month periods at a time -- even the hardship of doing that deprives those folks and their spouses of the kind of living they were making before they went. 

So I think anybody who votes to send somebody to war, or in my case, supports -- not in this case, I vigorously opposed the Iraq war, and I differ from Senator Edwards and Senator Kerry in that area.  But I think any of us who support sending troops have a responsibility for what happens to those troops.

GILBERT:  Let me turn to you, Senator Kerry, because you said your vote wasn't a vote for what the president ultimately did.  But you did vote to give him the authority, so do you feel any degree, any degree of responsibility for the war and its costs and casualties?

KERRY:  This is one of the reasons why I am so intent on beating George Bush and why I believe I will beat George Bush, because one of the lessons that I learned -- when I was an instrument of American foreign policy, I was that cutting-edge instrument.  I carried that M- 16. 

I know what it's like to try to choose between friend and foe in a foreign country when you're carrying out the policy of your nation.

And I know what it's like when you lose the consent and the legitimacy of that war.  And that is why I said specifically on the floor of the Senate that what I was voting for was the process the president promised. 

There was a right way to do this and there was a wrong way to do it.  And the president chose the wrong way because he turned his back on his own pledge to build a legitimate international coalition, to exhaust the remedies of the United Nations in the inspections and to go to war as a matter of last resort. 

Last resort means something to me.  Obviously, it doesn't mean something to this president.  I think it means something to the American people. 

And the great burden of the commander in chief is to be able to look into the eyes of any parent or loved one and say to them, "I did everything in my power to prevent the loss of your son and daughter, but we had to do what we had to do because of the imminency of the threat and the nature of our security." 

I don't think the president passes that test.

GILBERT:  But what about you?  I mean, let me repeat the question.  Do you have any degree of responsibility having voted to give him the authority to go to war? 

KERRY:  The president had the authority to do what he was going to do without the vote of the United States Congress.  President Clinton went to Kosovo without the Congress.  President Clinton went to Haiti without the Congress. 

That's why we have a War Powers Act.  What we did was vote with one voice of the United States Congress for a process.  And remember, until the Congress asserted itself, this president wasn't intending to go to the United Nations.  In fact, it was Jim Baker and Brent Scowcroft and others and the Congress who got him to agree to a specific process.  The process was to build a legitimate international coalition, go through the inspections process and go to war as a last resort. 

He didn't do it.  My regret is not the vote.  It was appropriate to stand up to Saddam Hussein.  There was a right way to do it, a wrong way to do it. 

My regret is this president chose the wrong way, rushed to war, is now spending billions of American taxpayers' dollars that we didn't need to spend this way had he built a legitimate coalition, and has put our troops at greater risk.

GILBERT:  You cast the same vote, Senator Edwards, is that the way you see it?

EDWARDS:  That's the longest answer I ever heard to a yes or no question.  The answer to your question is of course. 

We all accept responsibility for what we did.  I did what I believed was right.  I took it very, very seriously. 

I also said at the same time that it was critical when we got to this stage that America not be doing this alone.  The president is doing it alone.  And the result is what we see happening to our young men and women right now.  We need to take a dramatic course.  We will take a dramatic course. 

And by the way, Senator Kerry just said he will beat George Bush; not so fast, John Kerry.  We're going to have an election here in Wisconsin this Tuesday.  And we've got a whole group of primaries coming up.  And I, for one, intend to fight with everything I've got for every one of those votes.

And back to your question.  What we will do, when I'm president of the United States, is we will change this course.  We will bring in the rest of the world; we will internationalize this effort.  We will bring NATO in to provide security.

For example, we could put NATO today in charge of the Saudi Arabian border, the Iranian border, allow us to concentrate on the Sunni Triangle, where so much of the violence has been occurring.

We do need to change course.  And ultimately, we have to get on a real timetable for the Iraqis to govern themselves and provide for their own security.

[Tiger Al 0]

Both of those guys are going to make a great Democratic ticket and an even better President/Vice President team.

[DKW 86 7,899]

Anything by Hitchens is cool with me. A true liberal that isn't sssooo open minded that his brain and all his character have fell out.